re: Flyby during National Anthem

quote:

---

Yes it was T-38 trainers

---

Most definitely NOT T-38 trainers. Not even close.

quote:

---

Best fly overs are Bombers. I forget what game it was, bama 06 or something a B-52 flew way too low and rocked the stadium, it was awesome..

---

this.

loved it

As I stated in the other flyover thread (that you were unsuccessful finding) they were indeed T-45 Goshawk Navy advanced jet trainers flown by instructors and student pilots from Training Air Wing 1 at NAS Meridian, Miss. One of the instructors is an LSU graduate and fraternity brother of mine.

I flew F-18's, and with the exception of top speed, I'll put it up against anything else we've fielded so far. Never got the chance to dogfight with a F-22, but that's not their forte. The F-14D was a pretty nice piece of gear, but by the time we finally retired the last one, they were tired and a PITA to keep in the air. Sexy looking though!

Didn't bother to look at all the links, but within the last 5 years numerous Naval Aviators have been reprimanded and literally had their wings taken away for trying to look shite hot doing stadium fly-bys.

Who pays for it? You do! Your tax dollars at work. That's why it is easier to justify doing it with T-45s/T-38s, etc. We're getting training sorties on both of the students in the airplane at the same time. Fleet guys have a harder time working generic formation flying into their training matrix.

As we used to say, the low altitude flying record is one that you can only tie, and the ground generally has a Pk(probabality of kill) of 1.0

The way obama likes to use airforce one for personal use why not give him a call, be a nice satuday afternoon vacation ride for him

quote:

---

As I stated in the other flyover thread (that you were unsuccessful finding) they were indeed T-45 Goshawk

---

Yes, I knew they were T-45s, I was just pointing out that they WEREN'T T-38s. My brother was a T-38 instructor as well as a B-52 pilot. I was also in the USAF and know a tad bit about aircraft. I agree with you on the F-18s. They are some badass jets. The Blue Angels wouldn't fly them if they weren't. I think the T-38s would make a better "flyby" showing though. Much sexier than the 45s.

quote:

---

Gosh, please don't insult the F-4 Phantom, a Mach 2.5 plus interceptor by comparing it with a British trainer.

---

I'll admit it was a stretch, but it was an effort to describe the "profile" view - a stubby F-4 and maybe it is closer to a "stubby" nosed F-5 or F-16 (and the T-38 is effectively a trainer F-5).

Clearly the F-4 has a much fuller fuselage, robust engines and was a highly adaptable, rugged, multi-role combat aircraft, all of which distinguish it from the T-45.

They looked like A-4 Skyhawk planes used by the Marine Corps.

@ ACE

quote:

---

I don't think there is a single airworthy specimen in the US

---

RE F86 There is one for sure, right out where I'm at. Chino Planes of Fame air museum runs an F-86E, and a Mig 15 they run through dog fights occasionally. Very cool, very distinct sound, and thick exhaust. Good lookin'

Thank you Officer for your contribution and for your service.

Now, you are too young to know the F-5, a twin engine aircraft that served the U.S. best as a trainer. Here is a photo. LINK

Man I have loved military aricraft for decades, so I am old compared to you.

I was not trying to say the newest F-18 is a lesser aircraft than the F-14, which was developed in the 60's and entered service in 1972/1974 and got bigger engines later. The F-14 was a custom-designed, high-performance, long-distance naval aircraft from the ground up, unlike the F-4, F-16, and the F-18, which were Air Force aircraft.

The F-18 clearly lost to the F-16, so the Air Force bought it. The F-16 started as an EXPERIMENTAL ONLY low-cost dogfighter. Its performance so exceeded expectations that our sometimes-wise Pentagon bought it for the Air Force. Well the Navy (justifiably) would have nothing of yet another Air Force aircraft that might never live up to a carrier battle group's power. The Navy requires very long distance--therefore large, expensive aircraft--because of the extreme threat posed by land-based aircraft air superiority fighters and high-speed attack aircraft. The Navy needs additional specialized ground-attack aircraft and other specialized aircraft instead of a pipe-dream do-all aircraft.

Instead of holding out (maybe they knew it was a losing battle), they bought the inferior F-18, which has had many upgrades, but you would know better than me. The F-18 did not enter service until 1983 and did not wholly replace the 1972/74 F-14 frame until the 21st century.

[Edit: I hope no one believes the modern F-18 is inferior to the F-14, and I hope everyone realizes the officer is barred from debating me by disclosing just how modern and sophisticated the F-18 is, as much as I would love to hear it. We will have to resort to magazines, which of course don't know it all.]

The F-5 is a fine twin-engine supersonic, short-range (for the U.S.) fighter that served us best as a trainer. But it has no relationship to the British T-45.

Now the only plausible thing said so far about the T-45 is that it looks a hell of a lot like the Navy's 1950's A-4 attack aircraft, that would have blown the UK out of the water during the 1982 Faulklands War but for (thankfully) the failure of 100 U.S. iron bombs to detonate after hitting the UK's ships. They were WWII-era bombs we had pawned off on the hapless Argentinians along with our retired A-4s. (Of course the Argentinians should have known not to unleash the dogs of war unecessarily unless you have a 95% probability of success.)

The Argentinian pilots were courageous by flying low and relatively slow (the A-4's mission) with an old 1954/56 aircraft, no air-to-ship rockets, and against a 1980's air defense system.

To put it into perspective, a retired Navy Admiral commented at the time that if a U.S. carrier battle group would have been deployed, there would have been no slow "diplomatic speed" by the U.S., and the war would have been over in an afternoon.