Snowbird replacement aircraft

[Inverted2]

I bet Trudy announces something soon. Every day he comes out at 11:00 am like a coo coo clock he spends another billion on something. He can just print more money and buy the new jets and everything will be just fine.

[rigpiggy]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

[Old fella]

I would respectfully suggest if a poll was taken from the general public, replacement ac for Snowbirds wouldn’t rate very high, probably wouldn’t even register. At this conjecture it would be who cares, way more pressing issues. Having said that I always enjoyed Snowbirds aerial demonstrations, starting in the ‘70s and beyond. The CFB Shearwater airshow was always a fun time, remembering many happy hours there with wife and kids few yrs back, especially the kids as they really got a charge out of the big airplanes.

[schnitzel2k3]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

Is 775M anywhere near enough to buy 12-13 replacement jets plus parts for a demo team?

I'm honestly not sure, just used to seeing much larger numbers when procuring new military hardware.

What did the jets from down under cost Trudeau?

[rigpiggy]

775/63% is 448m based upon the 24m/aircraft of the USAF order 20 aircraft should be easily done, especially if they did a larger order to replace the Hawks. Figure 2Bn 50 aircraft order including sims.... and lease out to NFTP, after all they are getting F35s overseas, why would they pay to run Hawks?

[L39Guy]

There are a few things to consider about any replacement aircraft for the Snowbirds.

First, is cost and the ability to fund it. With lots of deferred equipment acquisitions on the horizon (CF18 replacement) a lot of $ will be tied up. And that is to say nothing of the $250 billion that the COVID response is going to pile onto the national debt. IMHO, there is no money available to buy replacement aircraft.

Second, the Tutors, in the big picture, cost almost next to nothing to operate. The aircraft are long since bought and paid for, there are tons of spare aircraft and parts sitting in Mountain View, and that the biggest cost is the maintainers that are doing the maintenance in Moose Jaw. Fuel burn is a fraction of any replacement aircraft.

Third, while Sunday's accident was an enourmous tragedy one cannot let that event interfere with rational thought. As an example, let's say the Snowbirds get a Hawk replacement - another single engine aircraft - and it has a similar engine failure just after take-off. There is no guarantee that the same scenario would not have unfolded. If avoiding an accident involving an engine failure is to replace one single engine aircraft with another at great cost, you have accomplished nothing. And, as I have pointed out on another thread, while the airframe is nominally almost 60 years old the engines are relatively new and are still in production to satisfy the 500+ T38's the USAF still flies that use the same, basic engine. It is of note that none of the Tutor accidents are a result of the 60 year old airframe failing; they all seem to be engine related.

A better ejection seat? The new models are quite large and likely would not fit into the Tutor cockpit. And even if they did, an engineering program to support a 12 operational aircraft fleet is tough to justify.

Finally, I would submit that if there was not a fatality in this accident (and the margin between being a successful and unsuccessful ejection in this case being in the order of seconds), this accident like the one in October would not be as big an issue nor the replacement of the Tutor be such an issue.

[schnitzel2k3]

775/63% is 448m based upon the 24m/aircraft of the USAF order 20 aircraft should be easily done, especially if they did a larger order to replace the Hawks. Figure 2Bn 50 aircraft order including sims.... and lease out to NFTP, after all they are getting F35s overseas, why would they pay to run Hawks?

What would you recommend for airframes, if our opinions actually mattered, for the Snowbirds?

I think a smaller team of 6 CF-118 trainers would be ideal, plus spares. Transition them from active duty over to the team.

Use that 775M for newer airframes to replace our current selection of Hornets. I'd like to see the E Grippen or Growler in our fleet within the next 10 years. Sorry, not trying to start a 5th vs 4th gen thread drift guys.

[RippleRock]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

[schnitzel2k3]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

We could very well be involved in the next Cold War with China regarding COVID19.

Might not be a bad idea to continue to support our Forces, particularly in very economically and politically unstable times.

[L39Guy]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

Just because the "Cold War" is over it doesn't eliminate the need for an armed services; the armed services exist for more than the defense of Europe. There is not enough room or my time to explain what they do but I urge to look them on on the government website to see for yourself.

And since the military does exist there is a need to continually recruit, just like any other "business" and the Snowbirds is one of the best vehicles to do that. Pretty difficult to recruit with ships and amoured vehicles but aircraft are extremely mobile and can reach hundreds of thousands in a single go (an airshow).

In addition to the recruiting aspect, the Snowbirds are one of the few remaining national symbols in this country that helps differentiates us from the Yanks. And, as Operation Inspiration clearly demonstrated, the Snowbirds are a unifying force across our great country; some of the comments on Facebook of people bursting into tears when they did their fly-over is proof of this.

As far as your assessment of manned fighters, you are even more out-to-lunch on that account. But rather than me explaining the role of manned aircraft and specifically fighters, if your thesis is correct what do countries continue to buy them at great cost? Surely if there was no need for them the militaries around the world would be cancelling programs and parking the jets they do have. Drones and satellites definitely have their role but so far at least they cannot replace the human element, much like the notion of pilotless passenger aircraft.

[RippleRock]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

Just because the "Cold War" is over it doesn't eliminate the need for an armed services; the armed services exist for more than the defense of Europe. There is not enough room or my time to explain what they do but I urge to look them on on the government website to see for yourself.

And since the military does exist there is a need to continually recruit, just like any other "business" and the Snowbirds is one of the best vehicles to do that. Pretty difficult to recruit with ships and amoured vehicles but aircraft are extremely mobile and can reach hundreds of thousands in a single go (an airshow).

In addition to the recruiting aspect, the Snowbirds are one of the few remaining national symbols in this country that helps differentiates us from the Yanks. And, as Operation Inspiration clearly demonstrated, the Snowbirds are a unifying force across our great country; some of the comments on Facebook of people bursting into tears when they did their fly-over is proof of this.

As far as your assessment of manned fighters, you are even more out-to-lunch on that account. But rather than me explaining the role of manned aircraft and specifically fighters, if your thesis is correct what do countries continue to buy them at great cost? Surely if there was no need for them the militaries around the world would be cancelling programs and parking the jets they do have. Drones and satellites definitely have their role but so far at least they cannot replace the human element, much like the notion of pilotless passenger aircraft.

They don't make "pilotless" passenger aircraft, they aren't even on the drawing board yet. Let's stick to a apples vs. apples comparison.

A drone does in fact have a "person" on scene....the operator, which is likely overseen by an immediate superior. A pilot in a fast fighter will likely see less than the sophisticated cameras onboard a Predator anyway. Plus, what the pilot sees is usually an image on radar or other imaging device......no advantage over a drone operator. A huge plus in a combat scenario is that the "pilot" isn't onboard, so the "adrenalin/fear induced" error factor would likely be less.

I've never heard a kid say to their parents, "I want to fly a subsonic aircraft designed in the mid-1950's." The Tutor is ancient and slow ( but it is cute ). How can it "inspire"? I've been to a few US airshows where the Snowbirds have attended. Every time I've heard comments around me like..." what type of aircraft is that?...ummmm...I donno….. I think its one of those Cessna Dragonflys that we gave to the Vietnamese in the early 60's" or...."any average pilot could fly one of those, they're so slow, look at the straight wing and tubby cockpit"

You'll likely tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but this is what I've heard firsthand. Maybe they inspire some Canadians, but to me they are a 60 year old symbol of our inability to move forward with proper equipment for our forces. Constant recycling and upgrading inferior products. The men and women of our armed forces certainly deserve better.

[EI-EIO]

According to this NatPost (no friend to the present government) an estimate of $775m was made in 2012 but not proceeded with by the then (Conservative) government. That’s not quite the same as a cancellation as I read it. Whether the decision to extend the current fleet was ill advised will be a matter best held over until after the investigation findings.

https://nationalpost.com/news/aircraft- ... until-2030

The piece itself claims voices within CF do not see Snowbirds as adding to combat effort. A full replacement of Hawk and Tutor with T-7s with a common airframe economy of scale between the two, and a further economy of scale with the F404 powerplant could change that. Even more so if a CF-5-esque variation was made available. Question would be how to get the Canadian content numbers into the politically viable zone.

As for the claims above that the Snowbirds are enthusiastically received and are material to recruitment... this might at the very least be a matter which splits differently in urban and rural Canada, but what I saw here in Toronto in respect of GovCan requesting this mission was a mix of either indifference with the odd picture popping up on a blog or a twitter account, or eye rolling that we were following the Americans on this, with that Administration more likely looking for a distraction from their failures than inspiration for their front line workers. We are all stuck in our house, losing track of time, can’t congregate in optimal viewing areas; how many people actually saw these displays as a % of the populations overflown?

[snowcrest]

I bet Trudy announces something soon. Every day he comes out at 11:00 am like a coo coo clock he spends another billion on something. He can just print more money and buy the new jets and everything will be just fine.

How about you try putting on some big boy pants and stop whining like a child?
Borderline pathetic.

[jakeandelwood]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

And that Snowbird aircraft could have easily been a 172 doing circuits, had an engine failure, and killed your fictional 7 year old on bike. Should we shut down recreational flying so we are not risking innocent 7 year olds lives?

[jakeandelwood]

Quote "I've never heard a kid say to their parents, "I want to fly a subsonic aircraft designed in the mid-1950's." unquote.

Ripplerock, you've probably never heard a kid say that because they probably don't care, they are just enjoying the Snowbirds show.

[Inverted2]

I bet Trudy announces something soon. Every day he comes out at 11:00 am like a coo coo clock he spends another billion on something. He can just print more money and buy the new jets and everything will be just fine.

How about you try putting on some big boy pants and stop whining like a child?
Borderline pathetic.

We’ll all be whining in a few years when the reality of Turd 2’s reckless spending kicks in. Trust me.

[AirFrame]

The timing of this thread is extremely eerie.

You spelled "coincidental" wrong.

Personally I don't think they would lose anything by going to a prop-driven trainer. Having seen acts by two propellor-driven trainer equipped crews (Brazilians and Italians, I think?) I think the acts were very similar to the Snowbirds in terms of scale and in terms of bringing a larger number of airplanes into the sky at once. Bigger jets will mean needing more airspace and a larger act. Part of the appeal of the Snowbirds is that they do a compact show, manoeuvers are closer to see and more impressive to the crowd. 9 Tucanos painted in Snowbird colours would be excellent.

[AirFrame]

I've never heard a kid say to their parents, "I want to fly a subsonic aircraft designed in the mid-1950's."

Never been around a kid who became a Snowbird pilot then, eh? Many of them say that they saw the Snowbirds perform at an airshow once and wanted to do that ever since. As a kid they had no idea the jet was subsonic or designed in the mid-1950's, nor did they care, and i'm sure they still don't. It's really not about the plane.

And having attended airshow briefings with the Snowbirds, Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, and others in the room, I can tell you that the other teams respect what the Snowbirds can do with those subsonic aircraft designed in the 1950's. It's not easy, but they make it look like it is.

[EI-EIO]

We’ll all be whining in a few years when the reality of Turd 2’s reckless spending kicks in. Trust me.

the juvenile namecalling aside, CPI is down 0.2pc in April and governments are borrowing at 1% or less over 30 year periods (e.g. Ireland's 30 year issue at 0.79% on the 14th). If you want to get a politicially sensitive procurement done, doing so during a torrent of other spending is probably the time to do so. Supporters of the Canadian military who want them to get suitable equipment for their roles should consider that if you are willing to hate the Liberals and NDP whether they spend on the military or not, then polticial calculus will mean their approach in the future will be "not", especially given the gong show that is the current slate of CPC leadership candidates.

[leftoftrack]

why would they buy a new airframe? The aircraft commander fucked up royally. engine failure should not equal stall into spin into a spiral into a house. Its not the planes fault this turned out the way it did. Please don't spend a billion of my tax dollars on a frame that will end up the same way when handling an emergency incorrectly.