Forum: F-22A Raptor

Just wondering if anyone knew if the Thunderbirds ever plan on using the
F-22 in their air shows.

F-16.net Sponsor

I seriously doubt they'll take 6-8 F-22s offline for the Thunderbirds. Maybe the F-35 when they're operational.

ArrowHawk wrote:

I seriously doubt they'll take 6-8 F-22s offline for the Thunderbirds. Maybe the F-35 when they're operational.

EXACTLY

That's a shame. I would think that the F-22 would make a fine aerobatics plane.
I would think that the great PR from the public seeing it out-performing anything
they've ever seen before. Good PR could save the program. Maybe the USAF is
worried about the bad PR if something terrible happened in front of spectators.
Seems like the Thunderbirds switched to the F-16's 5? years after F-16A went into
production. If so, it would be timely for for them to switch to F-22's. been about 8
years now it's been in production. Thunderbirds is a great operational test. Having

to meet the demanding schedule, keeping them flying.

machi wrote:

That's a shame. I would think that the F-22 would make a fine aerobatics plane.
I would think that the great PR from the public seeing it out-performing anything
they've ever seen before. Good PR could save the program. Maybe the USAF is
worried about the bad PR if something terrible happened in front of spectators.
Seems like the Thunderbirds switched to the F-16's 5? years after F-16A went into
production. If so, it would be timely for for them to switch to F-22's. been about 8
years now it's been in production. Thunderbirds is a great operational test. Having

to meet the demanding schedule, keeping them flying.

The USAF never had any attention of operating F-22's with the Thunder Birds. As it learned along time ago that such types are way to expensive to operate and support on the road. Not to mention the fact that the USAF doesn't have any F-22's to spare in the first place.

As a matter of fact both the USAF (Thunder Birds) and USN (Blue Angels). Have not operated big twin engine types in either acrobatic team since the F-4 Phantom II's. Instead they switched to smaller more fuel efficient models. (i.e. USAF T-38's then F-16's, and USN A-4's and F/A-18's)

Good bet is both services will switch to F-35's. When they become available?

You don't think that the Thunderbirds chose the F-16 in 1982 because it was the best performing aircraft in low altitude aerobatics? I wasn't there, but I'm willing to bet that they chose the F-16 because of it's performance, not cost per hour.

The T-38's were kinda a fluke. Fuel crisis.

The first Thunderbird plane, the F-84 was undoubtable the fastest low altitude fighter of it's time.
F-100's first supersonic large scale production fighter? Big upgrade from the F-86's
F-105's first mach 2 fighter? They didn't use them long, because of a crash.
F-4's of course were an amazing performer. Best fighter of their time.

So other than the T-38's, the Thunderbirds always chose the best fighter. Maybe you think they should have chosen the F-15, but I think most would agree that the F-16 outperforms it in low altitude aerobatics.

machi wrote:

You don't think that the Thunderbirds chose the F-16 in 1982 because it was the best performing aircraft in low altitude aerobatics? I wasn't there, but I'm willing to bet that they chose the F-16 because of it's performance, not cost per hour.

The T-38's were kinda a fluke. Fuel crisis.

The first Thunderbird plane, the F-84 was undoubtable the fastest low altitude fighter of it's time.
F-100's first supersonic large scale production fighter? Big upgrade from the F-86's
F-105's first mach 2 fighter? They didn't use them long, because of a crash.
F-4's of course were an amazing performer. Best fighter of their time.

So other than the T-38's, the Thunderbirds always chose the best fighter. Maybe you think they should have chosen the F-15, but I think most would agree that the F-16 outperforms it in low altitude aerobatics.

Clearly, the F-16 was chosen for a number of reasons. Which, included it outstanding performance and the fact that it was much cheaper to operate than say a F-15. Wink

I'm not sure what your angle is in not thinking the Thunderbirds should be using our best fighter. I can see there may be debate on whether to use the F-22 or F-35. I'm pretty sure the F-22 outperforms the F-35 in low altitude aerobats. Maybe not though. As for not having enough of them, to my knowledge they aren't being currently used overseas fighting wars. Flying the airshow circuits would be a great test of their operability and reliability, and one of the best ways to get the public to see and support what they've spent billions on.

And we all want to see one painted up all purty. Very Happy

Last edited by Corsair1963 on Oct 18, 2009 - 06:03 AM; edited 1 time in total

machi wrote:

I'm not sure what your angle is in not thinking the Thunderbirds should be using our best fighter. I can see there may be debate on whether to use the F-22 or F-35. I'm pretty sure the F-22 outperforms the F-35 in low altitude aerobats. Maybe not though. As for not having enough of them, to my knowledge they aren't being currently used overseas fighting wars. Flying the airshow circuits would be a great test of their operability and reliability, and one of the best ways to get the public to see and support what they've spent billions on.

And we all want to see one painted up all purty. Very Happy

Like I said the F-22 is not available because of the limited numbers being produced. Then its expensive to maintain and operate. That combined with the fact the F-35 can perform 95% of the F-22's Aerobatics at half the cost and its a no brainer.

Which, is why the the USAF selected the current F-16 over the F-15 for the Thunder Birds and the USN selected the F/A-18 over the F-14 for the Blue Angels.

As a matter of fact some in Congress have complained as of late. That we can't afford either of the Demo Teams. Especially, in the current economic climate. Now you want to use 200 Plus Million Dollar F-22's???

SORRY NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

Oh you just being silly. But I see your angle now. You a F-35 fan. If I had said why not use F-35's for the Thunderbirds, you would have gotten excited.

Makes 0 difference in money if the Thunderbirds fly them in airshows or if other units fly them same number of hours. Money not an issue. And IMHO the F-16 is a better aerobat than the F-15 and the F/A 18 is a better aerobat than the F-14. Both no brainers they would pick those aircraft. Nothing to do with money. All politics.

Let the Angels demo the F-35C once it gets into production, and the Marines demo the F-35B if and when it gets into production.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

No, there just aren't enough Raptor airframes to justify taking them out of active duty for a demo team. The next Thunderbirds ride after the F-16 will be F-35As, bank on it.

machi wrote:

Oh you just being silly. But I see your angle now. You a F-35 fan. If I had said why not use F-35's for the Thunderbirds, you would have gotten excited.

Makes 0 difference in money if the Thunderbirds fly them in airshows or if other units fly them same number of hours. Money not an issue. And IMHO the F-16 is a better aerobat than the F-15 and the F/A 18 is a better aerobat than the F-14. Both no brainers they would pick those aircraft. Nothing to do with money. All politics.

Me being or not being a fan of the F-35 has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Personally, if you believe the cost of operating the much more expensive F-22 isn't a factor. Then you are naive at best............. Confused

Sorry, it has everything to do with 'MONEY". Bang Head

I agree that their next ride will be the F-35. But it won't be because the F-35 is a better aerobat or because of money. It's just politics.

They may be currently on "active" duty, but they are not being used in combat duty atm. I know of no plans to send them into combat in the near future unless something drastically changes.

As far as money goes, it just doesn't matter if they are being flown as "demos" or flown in "active" duty for the same number of hours flight time. The only difference in cost is the Thunderbirds have to bring any special tools and spare parts with them rather than have them on base. The fuel cost difference is pretty small compared to the overall budget. Big difference in cost could be the extra C-130 trips that may be needed for spare parts/tools to service the F-22's, extra maintainance personel, and probably more security personel.

Overall, I wouldn't expect the difference in costs to be more than a few percent IF those F-22's are flying the same number of hours with the Thunderbirds or with another active unit. Now if those 6-8 F-22's are not actually actively flying, then it would be considerably more expensive to fly them demo to the public. But then your point about not having enough of them because they are on active duty would be moot.

Now if you said that the F-22 is a multi-billion dollar junk pile and anyone that has seen the Thunderbirds fly
F-16's is going to be sadly disappointed by their performance, could be a valid point if that is true.
If you said that the F-22 is a multi-billion dollar unreliable junk pile that could never maintain an airshow schedule because of maintainance problems, could be a valid point if true.
If the F-22 is a multi-billion dollar death trap likely to kill pilot and spectators... would be a good point if true.

But until a Thunderbird pilot tells me he'd rather be flying an F-16 or an F-35 than an F-22, I'm going to stick to my theory that's it's just politics.

Screw putting F-35s and F-22s in the Thunderbirds or Blueangels. Hornets and Vipers are good enough. I want the Raptors and Lightnings protecting my freedom instead of doing the dog and pony bit. It would be cool to see them at airshows, but not practical.