Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
82Whitey51

Blue Angels F/A-18E/Fs

94 posts in this topic

Yeah, but they'll have to remove all the vertical maneuvers from their routine. And the show will last twice as long. They'll need slower music to set their routine to as well. Patsy Cline's good.

I'm fine with that so long as securing that song doesn't cut into the complimentary lotion and kleenex budget that will be needed by the audience once the mighty red white and blue A-10s take to The sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

No.

Older. And in fewer numbers. As long as the F-16 is in service, it'll be the aircraft for the Thunderbirds. After that? F-35? T-X? RQ-9? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Clearly the thunderbirds would be best served by the Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BlueAngel1_zps3014a613.jpg

ThunderBirds1_zps60261929.jpg

That's always an option, although due to budgetary reasons, they'd have to go with:

TopFront_zps882ef823.jpg

TopTop_zps4b5b5544.jpg

Bottom_zpsf42caf3b.jpg

Blue Angels flying left to right, Thunderbirds flying right to left. One big happy squadron!

:)/>

Alvis 3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with that so long as securing that song doesn't cut into the complimentary lotion and kleenex budget that will be needed by the audience once the mighty red white and blue A-10s take to The sky.

0360.jpg

ERMAHGERD!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom_zpsf42caf3b.jpg

One big happy squadron!

:)/>/>/>

Alvis 3.1

One big happy squadron operating a single aircraft due to budgetary pressures. Maybe issue a couple more as spares in the event that they still haven't sorted out all the JSF's issues.

The Bluebirds. Coming to an airshow near you in 15 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally like thunder angels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is more of a matter of necessity, than show-casing the newest jet in the fleet.

The Legacy Hornets are falling apart. And if the Blue's maintenance cant keep parts from falling off...

-Jeff

I really must bite my lip....so...hard...don't...say it....

If they can't WE can! And have been doing so for long and still can make it an effective weapons platform used in theatre today ANNNNDDD use it for an airshow bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really must bite my lip....so...hard...don't...say it....

If they can't WE can! And have been doing so for long and still can make it an effective weapons platform used in theatre today ANNNNDDD use it for an airshow bird.

Interesting point. I wonder what the annual flight hours are for a USN F/A-18 legacy hornet assigned to a fleet squadron vrs a Canadian jet? From the bits I've seen out there, it sounds like the USN hours are significantly higher.

Might it also have something to do with the toll that sustained carrier ops takes on an airframe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might it also have something to do with the toll that sustained carrier ops takes on an airframe?

I don't do Navy Speak very well, but from what I have heard, the number of take off and landing cycles on a carrier is a much more limiting factor wearing out a particular airframe than total flight hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do Navy Speak very well, but from what I have heard, the number of take off and landing cycles on a carrier is a much more limiting factor wearing out a particular airframe than total flight hours.

Correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thunder Angels, or Blue Birds? <_</>

Depends on which side is facing the audience when making knife edge passes!

Alvis 3.1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I wonder what the annual flight hours are for a USN F/A-18 legacy hornet assigned to a fleet squadron vrs a Canadian jet? From the bits I've seen out there, it sounds like the USN hours are significantly higher.

Might it also have something to do with the toll that sustained carrier ops takes on an airframe?

Canadian a/c are lead the world in terms of airframe hours for legacy a/c Hornets. That was established in the early nineties IIRC. The cycle of hours of Cdn a/c vs USN a/c cannot be generally measured against each other. As each country tracks hours a little differently ( hours are not just calculated as per the flying hours, it's much more complicated than that). Since Canada knows the airframe is req'd to last many many years, we do not have the luxury to replace them at the same rate as our US friends do; therefore the maint on Cdn Hornets are meticulous. As I was talking to a Maint Crew Chief of a USN Sqn, he envied our ability to keep the jets in such great shape. He mistakenly thought they were lot 9 or 10 jets (he had lot 13 - and looked beat up due to a heavy cruise - again the maint on a carrier is much more diff) and was shocked to hear they were in fact lot 4,5,6. We discussed certain aspects of maint between the two countries and it was very different (circumstances and roles). So even at the maint level it is handled differently between the two countries. So measuring them in terms of how they fly them and how others fly them (including maint) would be fruitless and just plain silly to come to a definitive conclusive end. For those who think they know vs for those who actually work on them and see the long term maint and eng perspective would be an eye opener for most; it would take hours to explain. Land based user of the legacy Hornet would be a better comparison than comparing Carrier based vs land based. Apples and oranges. I don't confess to be the expert on the Hornet but, my experiences tells me, you cannot compare in general terms.

So in my opinion, the reason to replace the Legacy Blue Angels is based on a number of reason we will never be privy. No matter what is said in the media, the real reasons may , I said may, never be revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian a/c are lead the world in terms of airframe hours for legacy a/c Hornets. That was established in the early nineties IIRC. The cycle of hours of Cdn a/c vs USN a/c cannot be generally measured against each other. As each country tracks hours a little differently ( hours are not just calculated as per the flying hours, it's much more complicated than that). Since Canada knows the airframe is req'd to last many many years, we do not have the luxury to replace them at the same rate as our US friends do; therefore the maint on Cdn Hornets are meticulous. As I was talking to a Maint Crew Chief of a USN Sqn, he envied our ability to keep the jets in such great shape. He mistakenly thought they were lot 9 or 10 jets (he had lot 13 - and looked beat up due to a heavy cruise - again the maint on a carrier is much more diff) and was shocked to hear they were in fact lot 4,5,6. We discussed certain aspects of maint between the two countries and it was very different (circumstances and roles). So even at the maint level it is handled differently between the two countries. So measuring them in terms of how they fly them and how others fly them (including maint) would be fruitless and just plain silly to come to a definitive conclusive end. For those who think they know vs for those who actually work on them and see the long term maint and eng perspective would be an eye opener for most; it would take hours to explain. Land based user of the legacy Hornet would be a better comparison than comparing Carrier based vs land based. Apples and oranges. I don't confess to be the expert on the Hornet but, my experiences tells me, you cannot compare in general terms.

So in my opinion, the reason to replace the Legacy Blue Angels is based on a number of reason we will never be privy. No matter what is said in the media, the real reasons may , I said may, never be revealed.

The real reason is, the USN is phasing out the "legacy" Hornet. Plain and simple. Off hand, I can't even name a "legacy" Hornet squadron without firing up the "Google-izer". I think we're down to USN Reserve squadrons??? I dunno, been away from TAC-AIR for a long a$$ time.

Edited by 82Whitey51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VFA-15*, -34, -37, -83, -106 & -131 ...

*To be dis-established in 2017 ...

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems odd to switch during the season, I would expect them to learn a new routine over the winter, and debut the new aircraft in 2018. Those planes already look huge, its going to be awkward seeing the diamond together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I wonder what the annual flight hours are for a USN F/A-18 legacy hornet assigned to a fleet squadron vrs a Canadian jet? From the bits I've seen out there, it sounds like the USN hours are significantly higher.

Might it also have something to do with the toll that sustained carrier ops takes on an airframe?

As Alien pointed out our Hornet's (Canada) are lead the fleet aircraft, pushing 4,500-5,000 plus hours. The Hornet was only originally intended for 2,500.

When I was on TD in San Diego I saw two Marine Hornets being prepped for the Blue Angels. They had 2,200-2,500 hours. One notable thing I have seen on BA Hornets, is they often fly with delaminated or damage gear doors. Something we don't allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Alien pointed out our Hornet's (Canada) are lead the fleet aircraft, pushing 4,500-5,000 plus hours. The Hornet was only originally intended for 2,500.

When I was on TD in San Diego I saw two Marine Hornets being prepped for the Blue Angels. They had 2,200-2,500 hours. One notable thing I have seen on BA Hornets, is they often fly with delaminated or damage gear doors. Something we don't allow.

Again though, Canadian jets have zero cats and traps, which is a very significant factor in determining airframe life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the navy should be retiring some P-3's soon... just saying! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the navy should be retiring some P-3's soon... just saying! :rolleyes:/>

...you suggest a BA P-3? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you suggest a BA P-3? :D

Actually make for an interesting "what if" :thumbsup:.

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually make for an interesting "what if" :thumbsup:/>.

:cheers:

While we're at it, how about a C-5 in Thunderbird colors? :woot.gif:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0