F-16.net

The picture shows four Hornets flying from the USS Kitty Hawk beautifully painted as squadron and wing commander jets. These are of course fully operation, deployed jets. All the carrier air wings do this, as far as I know.

The most the USAF seems to do is modestly decorate the Wing CC's jet. Is there any reason this type of flying art can't be done?

Just wondering.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

They'd rather spend money buying 1970s PT uniforms, new ABUs or redesigning the Blues...

Should we add how much they spend on the "Fit to Fight" program?

I agree, the aircraft should be works of art and inspire. You'll appeal to more of the general public with a cool looking jet than some WW1 Billy Mitchell style dress uniform.

Elite 2K Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2612 Status: Offline

All aircraft art, e.g. "Nose Art" has to be approved by the SecAF. Under certain conditions, special art is approved from time to time, such as the Viper in the picture above, from Ellington.

With the high ops tempo of the AF, it would make sense that the AF would like to keep their aircraft "low viz". BTW, in the Navy, only Squadron/CC and CAG jets are authorized the "high viz" paint schemes as seen above.

TC wrote:

All aircraft art, e.g. "Nose Art" has to be approved by the SecAF. Under certain conditions, special art is approved from time to time, such as the Viper in the picture above, from Ellington.

With the high ops tempo of the AF, it would make sense that the AF would like to keep their aircraft "low viz". BTW, in the Navy, only Squadron/CC and CAG jets are authorized the "high viz" paint schemes as seen above.

I am aware that only the squadron commander and wing (CAG) commander jets are so painted. I guess my original post didn't make that clear enough.

I would say the ops tempo of deployed carrier air wings is equal to USAF wings, and they manage to do it. These jets would fly into combat painted as they are in the picture, unless I'm completely mistaken.

I've always thought it a little funny that fighters in purely visible combat days were often brightly marked (sometimes even when otherwise camo'd) while fighters wearing low viz markings are thought to be required now that BVR combat is more likely. Confused

Enthusiast Joined: Apr 11, 2006 Posts: 34 Status: Offline

The only thing missing from the pic of the guy in the "new" blues uniform is the word tool across his forehead.

Here is a good one from El Captian @ Dude Where's the Beach?

Too funny! LMAO

Maybe we should start a new topic called "Why DOES the USAF do this!?"

Elite 2K Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2612 Status: Offline

Those uniforms were a private test only. They were shot down in flames many moons ago.

Newbie Joined: Apr 05, 2008 Posts: 1 Status: Offline

Hey dudes, long-time lurker on the forums here, I thought it was finally time to join! I just wanted to bring another viewpoint on this subject to the table... these jets are war machines, not canvases for an artist to paint on. I personally have never been a fan of the "rainbow" color schemes found on the Navy CAG jets and the few Air Force jets you see adorned in similar ways. To me, it defeats the purpose.. these jets are SUPPOSED to be hard to see, and besides, you will never see a jet in the AOR painted up like that. The low-viz schemes are much more in line with the jet's real sole reason for existing... to be a sharp instrument in our ability to wage war with the enemy. End of story. Not an airshow machine, not a tribute aircraft...

I know some guys are going to get mad at me for saying all this, but I just find jets painted up so colorfully to be ridiculous looking.

By the way, those pictures of the proposed dress uniforms are hilarious! Unbelievable!

Great forum here guys, keep up the good work...

Cheers!

One cool looking special paint job

TIGER, TIGER, TIGER

Enthusiast Joined: Feb 07, 2008 Posts: 99 Status: Offline

Here's a theory,

since the Viper has a blended wing and fuselage a high viz paint scheme wouldn't look right without a place to end the paint, if you get what i'm saying.

Let me put it this way, the very top center portion aft of the cockpit isn't blended with the wing which gives the painters a good place to end the scheme line. as for the viper they would have to paint the whole thing to make it look right (that or just the tail)

just my 2-cents

While I do agree combat A/C should be low viz, I personally don't see anything wrong with every sqdn having there own distinctive markings or tails kinda like some of the Guard units do, e.g. NY ANG or Cali ANG. The 36th at Osan has a Checkertail marking on all its tails but I know they could have done it a lil better plus its a PITA to see the tail #s until your right up on it.

Now, if only the Air Force would paint the F-22 in Thunderbird livery... Drool

Elite 2K Joined: Jan 14, 2004 Posts: 2612 Status: Offline

That Viper looks like someone let their 8 year old paint it. I'm normally not big on special paint schemes anyway. Yeah, the CAG's bird looks cool on Navy ships, but other than that, I could generally care less...unless it is done, in a more "professional" manner, i.e., Luke's Reserve unit painting the red tail on the Viper in honor of the Tuskeegee Airmen. I thought that was pretty cool. Then, of course, the Heritage QF-4s.

As far as the Thunderbirds getting Raptors? They just received Blk. 50 Vipers, so it doesn't look like they'll be getting out of the F-16 for at least another decade. It would make sense that their next acquisition would be the F-35 (another single engine, mass produced, multi-role, Lockheed Martin fighter, in worldwide use)...but that's already been debated heavily in a couple of other threads.

F-16.net

Forum: Air Force Life

Why doesn't the USAF do this?