Blue Angels are in town!!!

[Buckethead]

Personally, I think the best part of any Blue Angel show is Fat Albert.

Fat Albert, C-130 Hercules

Blue Angels "Fat Albert" C-130 Team with JATO Takeoff!

[herm]

seen to many C130 come down without wings...

[CraigD426]

Little known fact about "Fat Albert" is that it is a Marine Corps plane and crew, when I lived in Okinawa with my dad, one of the KC-130s in his squadron was previously a Blue Angels Fat Albert, and they proudly had the pics to prove it. Some of his pilots flew Fat Albert with the Angels and they had some wild stories of life on the road!

[somegirl]

I used to work in a lab on the 12th floor in San Francisco, the Blue Angels would buzz us every year.

[red baron]

what a blessing it is living near MCAS Miramar

[Triple J]

f-35 is more likely...

Why do you say that? The F-35 is the likely replacement for the Blue Angel F-18s.

The F-22 is the Air Force's flagship fighter, regardless of recent cuts...it's a shoe-in for the Thunderbirds. Plus, with thrust vectoring it can do some pretty amazing things.

[derby]

Why do you say that? The F-35 is the likely replacement for the Blue Angel F-18s.

the f-35 is set to replace the f-16, a-10, and f-18s... there's no reason that it couldn't replace the thunderbird f-16s, too.

The F-22 is the Air Force's flagship fighter, regardless of recent cuts...it's a shoe-in for the Thunderbirds. Plus, with thrust vectoring it can do some pretty amazing things.

the f-35 also does thrust vectoring. edit: only for vtol...

honestly, the 35 is a much more affordable, slightly less capable 22.

[Triple J]

the f-35 is set to replace the f-16, a-10, and f-18s... there's no reason that it couldn't replace the thunderbird f-16s, too.

the f-35 also does thrust vectoring.

honestly, the 35 is a much more affordable, slightly less capable 22.

The F-35 uses a form of thrust vectoring to primarily allow vertical take-off/landing. The F-22 uses it for higher maneuverability, which gives it a greater capability in that department and would be great for aerobatics. The F-22 can also cruise at supersonic speed without afterburner...something no other plane can do. I get what you're saying, but they're quite different planes.

Anyway, the F-22 is the flagship air force fighter...so it makes sense they would use that aircraft for their aerobatics...the Navy can't as it doesn't have carrier landing capability. The Navy would use the F-35 for aerobatics. I seriously doubt they both would use the same plane.

Who knows though...we'll see within the next decade.

[derby]

Anyway, the F-22 is the flagship air force fighter...so it makes sense they would use that aircraft for their aerobatics...the Navy can't as it doesn't have carrier landing capability. The Navy would use the F-35 for aerobatics. I seriously doubt they both would use the same plane.

from a sheer performance aspect, i agree... however, taking the 22's (much) higher cost and (significantly) lower production numbers, i think it'd be unlikely to assign a handful of them to an aerobatic squad.

Who knows though...we'll see within the next decade.

yup. 

[herm]

as a tax payer i am already pissed that the miracle fighter is too fragile to use in "sandy" environments. i would be even more pissed if they became expensive air show toys.

i think it would be a real stretch to see the f22 used as a crowd pleaser, given costs, program cancelation, etc....unless of course they were determined to be obsolete for current combat conditions.

wouldnt that be something....

[Triple J]

from a sheer performance aspect, i agree... however, taking the 22's (much) higher cost and (significantly) lower production numbers, i think it'd be unlikely to assign a handful of them to an aerobatic squad.

That could doom them for sure. It's a real shame the cost of them went so high. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be really weird to see the Angels and T-Birds flying the same plane.

as a tax payer i am already pissed that the miracle fighter is too fragile to use in "sandy" environments. i would be even more pissed if they became expensive air show toys.

Why? They don't change the plane, other than a fancy paint job. I believe they can be made combat ready in 24 or 48 hours...something like that.

I knew it had problems, but damn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019

[spolic]

ah hell...one of my favorite T-birds was the T-38. (took the place of the gas hogging F-4)

Back to my comment about the Angels giving a bad show, they didn't even do the JATO with Fat Albert.   

[Monster Dave]

ah hell...one of my favorite T-birds was the T-38. (took the place of the gas hogging F-4)

As cumbersome of a plane as the F4 was, it's amazing that they used them. Don't get me wrong personally I like the F4's , but it's a serious reflection of how much training goes on to do what they did with them.

Fat Albert....awesome - arguably the most "unique" part of the show!!! 

[herm]

That could doom them for sure. It's a real shame the cost of them went so high. It'll be interesting to see what happens. It would be really weird to see the Angels and T-Birds flying the same plane.

Why? They don't change the plane, other than a fancy paint job. I believe they can be made combat ready in 24 or 48 hours...something like that.

I knew it had problems, but damn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?sid=ST2009071001019

i am thinking about unnecessary wear and tear on the airplane. i am also assuming that between shows and flight/training hours that the thunderbirds log more stick time than most other planes.

if you google the f22 there is a bunch of info about how expensive they are to maintain (something like 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight time!!!)  edit: i see you already did......shoulda read the link you posted.

[Airborne]

F 35C carrier variant is coming soon for the navy. Its in my job description to carrier qualify it during its test phase.