unfortunately seems to be the status quo weather here! would love to be back in California right now, London isn't feeling like summer!

I know. I was so happy to see it!

very happy

Met him. Callsign is Sheldon! Awesome dude!

@@flightlines6337me too

Considering the last Rhino demo pilot, Stalin, became Blue Angel #3 (now#4), Sheldon could be next.

@@YurrickLamhfhada Wrong coast and not how the blues work.

@@YurrickLamhfhada Yeah not at all how that works bud.

@@donkoh5738 Legacy Hornets definitely know how to dazzle but the Super Hornet was an upgrade in range and payload and incorporates features to reduce its RCS while also taking over the electronic warfare job from Prowlers. The Legacy Hornets could have been sold to countries with smaller defense budgets but with the Gripen, Lightning II, Rafale and Eurofighter, it would have struggled with international sales. The Raptor was the jet that had its production line cut way too soon. And now look at the pickle we're in. 😑

@@fivesevenfive2035 -- follow-up... I love topics of discussion like this one ! Regarding Gripen? It most likely has a massive discounted operational Life cost and sustainment cost, vs twin-engine fast jets such as Typhoon EF and even Rafale. Yes, I'm biased as being pro-Gripen C+ & E for a number of strategic and tactical reasons, but I think it's a good debate. Lightning II ?? I'm more in the critical camp. Unless you're just buying in now perhaps, in the block IV CTOL?? But lol, I actually got banned over a decade ago in F16net, for advocating fast-tracked enhanced F-16 Viper C+ development and procurement as a hedge against the sketchy block III F-35 at the time. That and advocating back in 2011-2012 for fast-tracking development of a practical USAF F-15E+ model based off the SA/Q export mods (forget Silent Eagle), as a prudent way to hedge the Tacair gap coming from the F-22 line shut-down. F-22 just being unsustainable, not feasible and impractical in it's original design to continue cost-effectively. I was a big supporter of the FB-22 development though, as part of the next-gen modernization and recap mix. Man... I was deserving that ban over there so much, as the site mods were repeatedly telling me and warning over and over, to knock off all the advanced F-16 block (soon to become known as the 'V') development path hype and the ridiculous F-15E+ stopgap cheerleading... and I was just relentless : D ✌

@@donkoh5738 My pleasure. Thanks for your thoughtful replies, as well. Interesting take on it. I think the cost of the F-22 and upcoming costs of the F-35 killed that R&D phase. The amount of money to modernize and try to keep an open architecture for future survivability was probably shot down before the first blueprints were made. It truly appears that they probably thought of that and then asked themselves "Is this a new plane we're making?" Thus the Super Hornet was born. lol Technically a new plane with similar design traits. I agree, though, that the Legacy Hornets should have been kept in service and the production line kept open with some block upgrades that keep it relevant in the fight but not so cutting edge that it prices out export sales. I think it probably would have found its niche as an interceptor and represent a challenger to other light attack aircraft like the FA-50, with the D model being an advanced trainer...we could have had that instead of the new Red Hawk (a baby Hornet) which would have saved them money on that R&D so they could have held onto more money to fund R&D on more exotic airframes. It was a good thing the Super Hornet came along, though. The F-35 was way behind schedule and it was good that the Navy got some fresh airframes on the decks instead of risking abusing the airframes of the Legacy Hornets beyond their limits. But hey, whether Legacy or Super, Hornets are awesome. =o)

@@fivesevenfive2035 Thanks for this intelligent reply. I'll just respond critically by arguing that much of US DoD procurement strategy / Armed services / Congress & Defense Industry goofed up and overshot, especially from around '97-'98 onward (if you were in the camp that F-14 should have been upgraded and continued, then go as far back as around '93)... Honestly, I feel the F-22 / ATF program (and JSF / F-35 program) were well-intentioned, but yes, initiated before their time - perhaps by various interests that be. Simply too much USAF TACAIR procurement budgets alone were sucked out of more seamless, vital stopgap modernization and upgraded next-gen recapitalization from around '99-2010 period that would have been more prudent and strategic, especially given geopolitical uncertainties following 9-11. That said, yes, I agree that USN's strategic recapitalization policy decision in FY15 to restart emergency procurement of stopgap F-18E/F units was shocking, as I didn't believe such prudent decision makers could be possible. I was in the camp that E/F mod procurement should never have been stopped at all a couple years earlier (in part to help boost F-35C R&D) . But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the would-have-been more strategic and prudent plan by USN/USMC to have just kept a more assertive and robust legacy C++ modernization and block upgrade R&D and procurement path open... the R&D over 10 years of seamless evolutionary modifications would have been affordable and cost-effective. I'm a big fan of the light FA-50 actually (USAF should have bought these variants as it's advanced trainer + reserve Air Sovereignty mission aircraft, imho) , but a modernized evolutionary Legacy Hornet (w/ 35k lbs tot thrust) would enable an entirely different level of TACAIR capacity especially in standoff load carrying.

@fivesevenfive2035 Thanks for this intelligent reply ^^. I had to login from a different acct from my other device. Please forgive the critical assessments here, but I'd argue that much of US procurement strategy / Armed services / Congress & Defense Industry goofed up and overshot, especially from around '97-'98 onward (if you were in the camp that F-14 should have been upgraded and continued, then go as far back as around '93)... Honestly, I feel the F-22 / ATF program (and JSF / F-35 program) were well-intentioned, but yes, initiated before their time - perhaps by various interests that be. Simply too much USAF TACAIR procurement budgets alone were sucked out of more seamless, vital stopgap modernization and upgraded next-gen recapitalization from around '99-2010 period that would have been more prudent and strategic, especially given geopolitical uncertainties following nine eleven. That said, yes, I agree that USN's strategic recapitalization policy decision in FY15 to restart emergency procurement of stopgap F-18E/F units was shocking, as I didn't believe such prudent decision makers could be possible. I was in the camp that E/F mod procurement should never have been stopped at all a couple years earlier (in part to help boost F-35C R&D) . But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the would-have-been more strategic and prudent plan by USN/USMC to have just kept a more assertive and robust legacy C++ modernization and block upgrade R&D and procurement path open... the R&D over 10 years of seamless evolutionary modifications would have been affordable and cost-effective. I'm a big fan of the light FA-50 actually (USAF should have bought these variants as it's advanced trainer + reserve Air Sovereignty mission aircraft, imho) , but a modernized evolutionary Legacy Hornet (w/ 35k lbs tot thrust) would enable an entirely different level of TACAIR capacity especially in standoff load carrying.

messed up everything possible in that comment. he pulled ab 7G into a vertical tailslide to tailstand, then into a NEGATIVE G pushover. holy hell how did u get everything wrong💀💀💀

@@flightlines6337 😅🤣😂🤣😅 My bad, it sounded cool when I said it. I guess I'll just stick to my Eagle & Viper Maintainers corner.

@@flightlines6337 You didn't get it right either...tail slide means going backwards (didn't happen) and there's no maneuver called a "tail stand".

@@jimbob100-d3l Tailstand is a real thing. That’s what the real team even calls it. I talked to them

@@flightlines6337 They made it up then

The Blues were jealous : ) Honestly, the current Blues demo routine, flying the SHornet, is mediocre at best. The Super was never designed as a high-performance agile tactical fighter. The legacy Hornet was a top notch demo flying capable machine. The Super of course being an entirely different airframe and system within. That said, the Super doesn't fly so badly to not even show off... so it's all good : D

Yes, but a little more aggressive than normal.

The Super Hornet is an entirely different airframe design than the legacy Hornet. Thus, it can't fly as aggressively even if it wanted. The Super doesn't fly horrendously, but it was never designed to be a high performance tactical airshow demo flyer.

@@peaceshallovercome1043 you make moot points.

@spencerhughes2255 The Canadian CF-18 demo team in the 90s used to perform the high alpha pitch attitude about 40° nose high at very slow speed. The Blues do the same in tandem. But here's the kicker. The Canadian flew the bug on its tail in a 360° level turn. I've seen it done twice once at Stockton Air Show mid 90s. That's was the most aggressive "stunt" I've seen the bug perform. I wish I had video of it.

@@pkelly3463 - on which points did you seem to have a problem with? I respect your personal opinions, so thanks to your contribution to this discussion.