USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Blue Angels vs Thunderbirds
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Originally Posted by john_pifer
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
You've been hearing it for years, with apparent willful ignorance of what it means.
The boat IS what differentiates pilots. It IS the test.
Lots of pilots can't hack it. In the USN, lots of students fail out of training at the boat.
Some USAF pilots on exchange with the Navy do fine, but many USAF exchange pilots get sent back to the USAF early because landing on the boat is a skill they can't master. Their lack of precision is a hazard to themselves, the people on the flight deck, and their airplane.
Yet, no USN exchange pilots get sent back to the USN because they can't master landing on a stationary runway that is several thousand of feet long. Because Navy pilots do that all the time. Everybody can do that.
Landing on a runway is easy. Landing on a carrier, like flying a foot apart, takes a level of focus and precision that many will never have.
To catch a 3-wire on a Nimitz-class carrier, you have to be within one knot of airspeed, dead on centerline, and 15 inches of glideslope. There is always crosswind, by the way, and the runway is always moving, and there is always moderate windshear (burble - turbulence from the island itself) on final.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Astro14
You've been hearing it for yours, with apparent willful ignorance of what it means.
The boat IS what differentiates pilots.
Lots of pilots can't hack it. In the USN, lots of students fail out of training at the boat.
USAF exchange pilots get sent back to the USAF early because landing on the boat is a skill they can't master.
Yet, no USN exchange pilots get sent back to the USN because they can't master landing on a stationary runway that is several thousand of feet long.
Landing on a runway is easy. Landing on a carrier, like flying a foot apart, takes a level of focus and precision that many will never have.
You're trying to change the subject. Your original post had this as its thesis:
The Thunderbirds are better.
But they're not.
They put on a great show. They inspired me to fly. But to real pilots, precision matters more than pretty, zooming maneuvers.
And if boat landings aren't the mission, then lookin' pretty in front of crowds isn't the mission, either. But boat landings ARE the mission enabler. You have to get on/off the boat to fly the mission. So, they're lot more relevant than the airshow maneuvers with which you're so impressed.
Yes, boat landings distinguish Naval Aviators from all others. It's a matter of precision. Precision that no other pilots in the world have to demonstrate.
That's why the Blues fly closer together than the Thunderbirds. That's why actual pilots are more impressed by the Blues. Greater precision. It's an inextricable part of Naval Aviation. The inverted and high AOA flight are equally impressive, and the F-16 simply cannot match the high AOA maneuvers of the F/A-18. Again, only pilots really appreciate those maneuvers, and the precision with which they're done.
Precision impresses professionals.
Now that you're trying to change the subject, fine, I guess. If you concede the point of greater precision required by the boat, and demonstrated by the Blues, let's talk about your new topic.
The USAF does a great job defending our skies. I've never argued to the contrary. The F-22 is the World's greatest fighter aircraft. I've posted that here on BITOG. It puts on the best single airplane demo I've ever seen.
A USAF squadron, based in the US, can generate far more sorties on a more cost effective basis, than a carrier based squadron. Runways are cheaper to build and require less manning and maintenance than a nuclear warship. Runway landings are easier on equipment, and nearly anyone can handle the landing.
But the USAF cannot fly, particularly fighter sorties, anywhere in the world, unless nations are willing to provide bases from which they can operate, and allow the USAF to fly through their airspace. USAF combat power depends on diplomatic negotiation and then on a long, airlifted supply chain. Both take lots of time. And they're not always successful. Look at Eldorado Canyon. The French refused to let the F-111s from Lakenheath overfly their country, so they had to fly the long way around.
This is why the Nation needs Naval Aviation.
The USAF relies on other people's infrastructure as well as diplomacy and permission for its missions. Sometimes that's OK. Many times, it's not. Italy, for example will not allow fighter sorties to be flown from its soil. Tankers and AWACS, yes, but dropping bombs, no.
The Navy has no such need.
90% of the worlds population lives within 300 miles of the sea. Move a carrier as close as we choose and fly from there. No diplomatic permission, no bases, no support needed.
Often the mere presence of those 90 warplanes off the coast is enough to influence a nation's behaviors. If not, we launch the fighters. In international waters. When and where we choose.
Most of the close air support sorties in Afghanistan, for example, came from carriers, which do not depend on the forebearance of other nations to launch fighter sorties. Many Gulf nations would allow tankers, and AWACS, but no offensive operations.
Time and time again in crisis, the carriers provide the fighter and attack sorties necessary to prosecute our enemies.
Even during Desert Shield and Storm, in which we had full Saudi support, including airfields, and unlimited jet fuel, it took over a month before the USAF fighter wings had both the ordnance and spare parts delivered by C-5s in order to mount a credible defense.
The day after President Bush announced we would defend Kuwait, two carrier battle groups, USS Eisenhower and USS Independence, were on station in the Gulf with full complements of weapons, spare parts, and repair facilities. 24 hour response time with full combat capability.
The Navy was there first, without the need of host nation support, and ready to go on day one.
It's long been said, and it's still true, that in a moment of crisis, the President's first question is, "Where are the carriers?"
Last edited:
I didn't change the subject. I said the Thunderbirds put on a better show. That is not fact, it's opinion. Just like anyone who says the Blue Angels put on a better show. That's their opinion, it's not fact. My claim is Air Force pilots are every bit as good COMBAT pilots as Navy pilots are. Landing on ships means Naval pilots are better at making difficult landings. That's it. It doesn't mean they are better combat pilots. As far as the close formation flying goes, the only reason the TBs don't fly as close the BAs do is because they aren't allowed to. Their pilots and planes are certainly capable of doing it. The rest of the stuff in your post is all about military logistics and all I will say to that is that all branches of our military's air power are necessary and play a critical role in our air defenses. I stand by my assertion that our Air Force is the best in the world, and it's air power is unrivaled by our Navy, or any other country's air power...
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by john_pifer
Originally Posted by grampi
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
USAF pilot would probably [censored]
in their flight suit if they got a back seat ride in an F-18 and the pilot landed on the carrier at night with choppy waters...
Originally Posted by grampi
I've been reading posts from you and others claiming how Navy pilots are the best in the world because their Blue Angels fly tighter formations than the Thunderbirds do, or because they land on carriers...the only reason the TBs don't fly as tight of a formation as the BAs is because someone up the chain of command won't allow them to. It certainly isn't because the pilots, or their planes don't have the ability to do it. And landing on a carriers only means that Naval pilots have more difficult landings. It doesn't mean they are better pilots. Aerial combat is what determines how good the aircraft and their pilots are, and in that realm, the U.S. Air Force is the best in the world, and that's a fact.
Last edited:
To quote "Hoser" - "there's no kill like a guns kill!".
Shooting a missile at long range is lethal, but to win the maneuvering fight, to counter move with move, exploiting those corners of the flight envelope that you rarely use to gain tactical advantage and to get such a large advantage that you can get behind another airplane to employ the gun as the killing weapon is so deeply satisfying that it's hard to describe.
I've got lots of gun kill footage of F-15s.
My favorite was going 1V2 (that's one of me against two of them) vs. F-15E's out of Aviano when we were deployed to the Adriatic. My ancient, underpowered F-14A, with its TF-30 engines, vs two of the USAF's finest brand new fighters. They had all the advantages, they outnumbered me, better engines, better radars, better everything...they should have won.
Easily.
Except, well, they didn't know how to use the vertical in maneuvering, and their predictable tactics made them easy kills. I gunned them both on each engagement before they ran low on gas and had to go home.
July 22, 1995. I remember it perfectly because it was my birthday.
Killing Eagles, over and over, with the gun, because their drivers made mistakes.
Best birthday present ever.
Originally Posted by Astro14
To quote "Hoser" - "there's no kill like a guns kill!".
Shooting a missile at long range is lethal, but to win the maneuvering fight, to counter move with move, exploiting those corners of the flight envelope that you rarely use to gain tactical advantage and to get such a large advantage that you can get behind another airplane to employ the gun as the killing weapon is so deeply satisfying that it's hard to describe.
I've got lots of gun kill footage of F-15s.
My favorite was going 1V2 (that's one of me against two of them) vs. F-15E's out of Aviano when we were deployed to the Adriatic. My ancient, underpowered F-14A, with its TF-30 engines, vs two of the USAF's finest brand new fighters. They had all the advantages, they outnumbered me, better engines, better radars, better everything...they should have won.
Easily.
Except, well, they didn't know how to use the vertical in maneuvering, and their predictable tactics made them easy kills. I gunned them both on each engagement before they ran low on gas and had to go home.
July 22, 1995. I remember it perfectly because it was my birthday.
Killing Eagles, over and over, with the gun, because their drivers made mistakes.
Best birthday present ever.
Originally Posted by Astro14
As I have said before, seeing the Thunderbirds inspired me to become a pilot.
The C-17 Globemaster III is more impressive than both the T-Birds or the B-Angels, especially when the ANG is demonstrating them 
Originally Posted by funflyer
The C-17 Globemaster III is more impressive than both the T-Birds or the B-Angels, especially when the ANG is demonstrating them
I'm sorry. That's just hard to watch.
High AOA maneuvering in big airplanes low to the ground has risks.
This crash and the B-52 crash a few years ago are painful to watch.
Pilot error.
Plain and simple.
A needless loss of life. Not something to be joked about.
Originally Posted by Astro14
I'm sorry. That's just hard to watch.
Pilot error.
Plain and simple.
A needless loss of life. Not something to be joked about.
- Status
