Posted on 07/29/2016 6:20:24 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing scored a $12 million dollar contract to transition the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron to newer jets. The Blue Angels, who have been flying the F/A-18 Hornet since 1986, are moving up to the bigger F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
The Blue Angels currently fly a mixed bag of older Hornet fighters. They've got three of the oldest F/A-18A model, 10 of the newer -C models, and three two-seater models. The -A and -C models are all 20 to 30 years old. The Angels typically fly Hornets that are very much still functional, but too old to keep operating from aircraft carriers. The Blues' own website says their jets arrive from the fleet "at the end of their carrier arrest functionality".
According to AirShow News, the conversion to the Super Hornet should be complete by September 2017. It takes a bit because Jets bound for the Blue Angels have their 20-millimeter nose cannons removed and replaced with a smoke-fluid system for laying smoke trails during an air show. The planes also have a fuel pump inverted, a stop watch and adjustable constant-tension stick spring installed, and entire aircraft painted in the iconic blue and gold paint job.
The Blues have stated in the past they would rather stick with the older planes. The website used to state: "While the Super Hornet has more recent technology, the Hornet is more suitable to the needs of the current team due to its light weight and slick maneuverability." But older Hornets are getting tricky to maintain in the field. A combination of aging airframes that need more TLC, difficulty finding parts that are no longer manufactured, and budget cuts have left Navy and Marine Corps Hornet squadrons struggling. For example, as of April, only 87 of the Mariner Corps' fleet of 276 Hornets were in flyable condition.
In addition, the carrier version of the F-35 is nearly three years from entering active service. As a result, the Navy may feel it have no choice but to migrate to the newer planes.
While the Blue Angels may have preferred the Hornet over the Super Hornet, they'll adapt to the new platform. The team has flown jets with less power, like the A-4 Skyhawk, as well as planes that are bigger and less maneuverable, like the F-4 Phantom. Moving from an older to a newer Hornet is easier than moving to a totally new aircraft, and spare parts will be easier to source, too.
The team's September 2017 schedule is just a little bit light compared to other months, with June being another light month. Could October see an all-new fleet of planes gracing air shows nationwide?
Via AirShow News
Looks like they changed the name of by beloved Corps after I retired...
Any lower and he’s gonna have to put his gear down.
IMO, it’s not a Navy Hornet unless it’s sporting that deployed tail hook......... :0)
They have the hook. The RAAF Hornets have the hook. I've never seen a hookless Hornet. Same with the F-4, BTW. Everybody's Phantoms had tailhooks.
But they gotta flyby with it draggin on the closeup! Crowd pleaser....
I assume everything is political about the military under this administration, especially with other units woefully under-supported, and per another post here, much fewer combat-ready aircraft.
Seek and ye shall find:
NAVAIR Rocks!
Great picks and the first is what I was talking about, but the middle one I’d have to see a video of it to believe it.
That percentage seems a bit high to me. I might have difficulty believing 1 percent.
During its history, 27 Blue Angels pilots have been killed in air show or training accidents.[42] Through the 2006 season there have been 262 pilots in the squadron’s history,[43] giving the job a 10% fatality rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels
Pretty costly, in men and materiel.
I would be delighted if this same approach were used for every agency you meant. That does not mean the Blue Angels entertainment team should get a pass.
So it sounds as if you are arguing that the mission of the Navy is entertainment and revenue generation for communities?
It is a very worth while goal and have recruited many top pilots because they saw the Blue Angels perform at an airshow.
Then it should easily be demonstrated that: 1) this is a cost-effective method of recruitment and 2) it out-produces less expensive methods.
This seems like a fiscally conservative and accountable approach. I'm amazed conservatives oppose either of those.
Take your bean-counting to the welfare office, first. Clean up that mess ... THEN you’ll have some moral authority to bitch and moan about the Navy.
Yeah. Same old song about not goring someone's cherished government program.
"Cut the other one instead!"
Conservatives cut both. That is the source of fiscal authority.
Oh, yes. There's a Constitutional mandate to build and maintain a Navy. And the value to that Navy of morale and civilian good will cannot be measured in dollars. This is something no bean-counter will ever comprehend.
Meanwhile, there's no Constitutional authority whatsoever for the welfare office to even exist. Demolish the whole disgusting edifice!
Fine. Begone with you. I have no interest whatsoever in anything you have to say.
I'll take it that you have no argument left. No surprise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.