2 hours ago, Smokin said:

I'd say the T-7 is a last call 'what the hell, why not?' level sexy; certainly not on the same level as the Viper. Can it do a double Immelmann? Can the opposing solo do a sub 100 knot slow flight and then shortly afterwards turn around for a 555 knot low pass? Loops with enough of excess thrust that wingman can easily maintain position? How about a fast, high-g, min radius turn over show center? I don't know the answers (because I honestly couldn't care less about the T-7), but I suspect the answers are no. Also, for better or worse, the F-16 is going to be part of the AF for a long time to come.

Again with the applicant pool. Is there a shortage of applicants? Along the personnel line of thought, T-Birds fit solidly into the fighter category of debriefs. I know multiple previous T-Birds and, as I understand it, they conduct long and excruciatingly detailed debriefs where every tiny mistake is discussed in a cold heartless fighter pilot style. I am sure that there are some other communities that are similar (prob Gunships and similar), but I've sat in on enough debriefs of other platforms to know that many pilots that were raised in other communities would have little tolerance for a gloves off fighter pilot style debrief. Pilots are molded by their communities and it would be difficult to remold someone with 6-9 years of experience.

In the end, it seems like you are seeking a more diverse pilot group for the Thunderbirds. That's been tried and didn't go well.

Don’t have an EM diagram on the T-7 but googled it and thrust to weight is 1.41 and 0.91 burner and mil respectively with +8 g, that’s not the whole picture obviously but it would do fine, particularly in configurations for shows, demos. Clean wings, half fuel, maybe ballast in the right places, etc…

I get your points and will take you at good faith, would the class of pilots be more diverse in career backgrounds yes but there would be no DEI, Affirmative Action, etc… to make the team you would have to be first a great pilot generally, a great T-7 pilot and a pilot who can make the grade thru training.

Other competitive and selective career opportunities take or have taken pilots from all AF backgrounds: U-2, B-2, 89th, exchange programs, etc… this is not as risky / infeasible as might seem, just different than our current prdigm.

The current mission statement (I would call it that) from their website

https://www.airforce.com/thunderbirds/overview#:~:text=The%20Thunderbirds%20perform%20for%20people,aim%20to%20excite%20and%20inspire.

The Thunderbirds perform for people all around the world to display the pride, precision and professionalism the U.S. Air Force represents. Through air shows and flyovers, they aim to excite and inspire. In addition to showcasing the elite skills all pilots must possess, the Thunderbirds demonstrate the incredible capabilities of the Air Force’s premier multi-role fighter jet, the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

That’s cool but what I would propose is that in this total team, total force world to deliver air, space and cyber power, having a team pulled from all flying missions of the Air Force would be representative of the paradigm of the total force, coming together to accomplish the mission.

Proposed new mission statement

The Thunderbirds perform for people all around the world to display the pride, precision and professionalism the U.S. Air Force represents. Through air shows and flyovers, they aim to excite and inspire. Thunderbirds display the elite skills, dedication to perfection and unwavering teamwork all Air Force pilots are trained in and honed to the highest standards demonstrated in their performances. Thunderbirds demonstrate the incredible capabilities of the Air Force’s high performance training jet, the T-7 Red Hawk, which all Air Force pilots receive training in and the team is composed of members from all the flying backgrounds showing the total teamwork of the United States Air Force.

If the show changes but is still impressive so be it. If pilots from fighter backgrounds are usually the opposing solos and skilled heavy drivers are better at other positions so be it. Just because it has always been some way doesn’t mean it should always be that way.

Edited May 28May 28 by Clark Griswold

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

If the show changes but is still impressive so be it.

That sounds like an acceptance that standards be lowered to allow non-fighter types the opportunity to make the team. This isn't the hopes and dreams force.

Edited May 28May 28 by Boomer6

5 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

That sounds like an acceptance that standards be lowered to allow non-fighter types the opportunity to make the team. This isn't the hopes and dreams force.

It’s not, it would not be a 1 G pass at 250 KTS at 1000’ AGL over and over again.

On 5/25/2026 at 7:10 AM, Vito said:

As another poster said, there are a lot of F-16’s that are easily maintainable, fast, loud, and SEXY.

Nobody wants to see the T-7…….Its disproportionate, ungainly, and no F-16.

I flew -38’s , as all of my heavy driving classmates, it wasn’t a thought to fly in the T-Birds, even when they were flying -38’s. It’s not a horrible idea, Just don’t see it happening.

Now, what I always wondered was how come there was never a Tweet /T-6 II and -38 solo Airshow demo flight. Just to show the capabilities of these trainers.

There actually was a short-lived T-6 demo team around the 05-07 timeframe. Some of the older dudes more familiar with the airshow circuit like Huggy would know more. It would behoove big blue (and more importantly Boeing) to put a T-7 demo together atleast for the gram

8 hours ago, sketch2 said:

There actually was a short-lived T-6 demo team around the 05-07 timeframe. Some of the older dudes more familiar with the airshow circuit like Huggy would know more. It would behoove big blue (and more importantly Boeing) to put a T-7 demo together atleast for the gram

Didn't Patty Wagstaff fly one our T-6s in some airshows way back when?

30 minutes ago, polcat said:

Didn't Patty Wagstaff fly one our T-6s in some airshows way back when?

True