The Worlds BEST Military Airshow Teams

Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Messages
11,977
Location
Cajun Country, La.
Has anyone here ever been to an airshow? When I lived in Tampa, FL. my son and I would go to the Mac Dill Air Force Base airshow. It was so cool! They wold let you tour the cockpits of most of the planes. Some of the military planes were off limits.
 
The Blue Angles are by far the best none of the other teams can come close. Naval aviators.
 
Never been to one, although I've seen dress rehearsals from a distance. Number of planes, types of planes and use of smoke vary, but all of 'em looked pretty good to me. I'm sure even Switzerland can find skilled pilots to do this.

Question-- Always heard the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds. Why? Why are they better than some of the others? They look like they may be in tighter formation but the other countries are jacking around with twice as many planes. Enlighten me.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by csandste
Never been to one, although I've seen dress rehearsals from a distance. Number of planes, types of planes and use of smoke vary, but all of 'em looked pretty good to me. I'm sure even Switzerland can find skilled pilots to do this.

Question-- Always heard the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds. Why? Why are they better than some of the others? They look like they may be in tighter formation but the other countries are jacking around with twice as many planes. Enlighten me.

I think member Astro 14 might be able to answer this question.
 
We went to the DIA airshow before the airport opened and it was huge. A lot of aircraft on display along with the airshow itself that went for two days. The memory is a little fuzzy but I recall the USAF Thunderbirds, RAF Red Arrows, and the Canadian team (Snowbirds?) doing demonstrations. There was something in the air almost all weekend including biplane wing walkers and a slow speed pass by a fighter jet that were memorable. I seem to remember it being a twin engine so maybe an F15 that did the slow speed pass and it was incredibly loud as he went by slowly tipped up at a steep angle. Of course all the high speed passes are cool as well!!

My daughter and her family live out East of Denver somewhat close to Buckley and we see the aircraft that fly out of there frequently. I love to see and hear them when we're out there. The sound of freedom!!

The 140th wing of the CO ANG are going to do a tour of the state tomorrow to salute Colorado heroes similar to what the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels did out here a couple weeks ago. Love it!!

Thanks to everyone who serves and served in any and all branches.
 
I'm sure a naval aviator like ASTRO would provide an objective evaluation of the subject matter.
lol.gif


In truth, the question is like the question of "How many angels (no pun intended) can dance on the head of a pin?" Close formation flying and flight demonstration skills have little to do with the bread and butter of a fighter pilot - combat employment. Good luck in getting an answer to who does that best, but I'd venture to say the Navy does Navy missions best and the Air Force does Air Force missions best. Both are good enough now that the biggest threats to both in most combat environments are US Army air defense units with poor discipline and inadequate rules of engagement.

Landing on a flight deck is an entirely different question. Every naval fighter pilot can land on both a carrier and a runway. Not every Air Force fighter pilot can be trained to land on a carrier. One of the best Air Force pilots I ever flew with had a joint tour with the Navy (his 3rd deployment to Vietnam). He had nothing but respect for his Navy counterparts, and indicated never would be too soon for him to have to do night traps again.
 
On a DVD I have documentary footage of the Thunderbirds flying F-100 Super Sabers so low over a Latin American audience people were instinctively ducking. It was fantastic, an experience way before safety rules. After they were done the crowd rushed the planes to greet the pilots as if they were rock stars. I looked for it on YouTube but came up empty
 
USAF, F-4C, F-4C WW, F-4D, F-4E, F-4G and F-16B. Weapons System Operator and Electronic Warfare Operator, all in the backseat of 2 place fighters.
 
Originally Posted by IMSA_Racing_Fan
Well more than one commercial jet has been shot down by the USN so ease up on the Army.


Well, that was a commercial jet flown by a hostile power, in a hostile area, that refused to follow instructions issued by a very capable Navy warship, so I think, in spite of the bad press, you have to cut the Navy some slack. Army Air Defense Artillery's (ADA) motto is "If it flys, it dies." Air Force, Navy, Allied Air Forces, they don't care.

I have had the opportunity to work with both and consider the Navy to be much more professional in this area. They have top notch controllers on ships, and their anti air weapons are under tight control. The Army puts their not so top people in ADA (after all, when was the last time we didn't dominate the skys?), then automates their systems. I would take a ship captain's decision over an inflexible computer any day.

My opinion only, based on experience that is dated.
 
Originally Posted by IMSA_Racing_Fan
Did you hear about this F4? Thoughts?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/1980s-israel-developed-heavy-hammer-f-4-super-phantom-what-happened-44702]


Interesting article, and I loved the F-4, but the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are a generation more advanced. As the article mentioned, cost of the upgrade was on par with a new F-18. When you look at life cycle cost, and the maintenance involved with the older airframe, it didn't make sense to do the mod.

When we would do a surge operation with the F-4 (generate and fly as many sorties as you can in a day) you would run out of flyable airframes by the end of the flying day. Crews would be waiting around and sorties would cancel. With the F-16, you would still have airframes but would have to cancel sorties because you would run out of pilots still able to fly. The reliability difference was that great.
 
Originally Posted by IMSA_Racing_Fan
Got it. Army vet here. Our working conditions are a bit more crude. No offense meant.


No offense taken. I've had the opportunity to work with top notch people in the Army. SF, Rangers and the like. I hold them in the highest regard. I suspect the competition to get into ADA would be a lot more serious if we didn't dominate the skys like we have for the last 75 years, although with the advent of theater ballistic missiles I suspect its taken more seriously now than when I was in.
 
My dad was a huge F-15 advocate, He was a USAF crypto Intel officer, retired LTC and then worked as a manager on the McDonnell Douglas F-15 and DC-10 projects. He would have been a fighter pilot but a canopy decompression accident blew out his eardrums while flying out of Laredo in the early 1960's.
 
Originally Posted by CT8
The Blue Angles are by far the best none of the other teams can come close. Naval aviators.

01.gif
 
Originally Posted by csandste
Never been to one, although I've seen dress rehearsals from a distance. Number of planes, types of planes and use of smoke vary, but all of 'em looked pretty good to me. I'm sure even Switzerland can find skilled pilots to do this.

Question-- Always heard the Blue Angels are better than the Thunderbirds. Why? Why are they better than some of the others? They look like they may be in tighter formation but the other countries are jacking around with twice as many planes. Enlighten me.


Simply: the Blue Angels show is more demanding of flying skill.

So, to a fighter pilot watching, the Blues are more impressive because the show is harder to fly. Tighter formation, higher AOA, inverted flight in close formation. All more difficult. They've always been that way. They were flying that way in F6F Hellcats before there was a USAF or the Thunderbirds.

The T-Birds fly a great show that exploits the energy of the F-16. Their show zooms to the sky with lots of energy and speed.

It's impressive, to a layman. It was inspiring enough when I first saw them (Pease AFB, in the summer of 1984) that right then and there, I decided that I wanted to fly fighters.

That's right, the Thunderbirds inspired me to become a fighter pilot.

But the Blue Angels show is simply harder to fly - more impressive with the more difficult maneuvers.

The carrier landing analogy is a good one. To land on a runway, you need to have the airplane within about 25 feet of where it needs to be. The runway is long and stationary. It's easy. I do it for a living now.

To land on a carrier, and catch the 3 wire, you need to be within 15 inches. 15 inches. In relationship to a ship that is moving forward through the wind and moving in pitch, roll, yaw and heave. With severe turbulence on final every time. There is always crosswind. And through all that, chasing a moving target, put the airplane within 15 inches of glideslope, perfect line-up, and two knots of airspeed.

So, the carrier landing requires a far higher degree of precision, it's far more demanding, than a runway landing.

And so it is with the flight demonstration teams. The Blues fly a more precise, more demanding, show than anyone.

But I think it takes a fighter pilot, someone who has flown high performance airplanes in formation, to see and appreciate that.
 
Back
Top