Defending a country's interests is what a military is for. I won't bother reciting examples where armed force was required to defend a country since you can easily look that up yourself. And a quick scan of the CAF's websites will indicate the many, many other things Canada's Armed Forces are responsible for besides "killing people at the whim of the government". If you ever find yourself down in the bush I'm sure you'll be happy to see them show up overhead in a Cormorant.sky's the limit wrote:A great "recruiting tool" for an Armed Forces... Hey, look at the neat airplanes, lets sign up to kill people at the whim of whichever Gov't we have in place at the time. Super. I'd like to see recruiting just spell out what the military actually is, be a refreshing change, although I'm not sure they would get many new faces.
Snowbirds.....time to shut them down??
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
I work at recruiting. There is no lying going on. There is everyone from infantry, armoured, singals, pilots, mechanics, MPs, naval systems ops and more working in the recruiting centre I'm in. Some have found themselves in a combat theatre, others have not. Overall they provide a great picture of the CF for applicants. I would rather see no one apply than have cowards apply under false pretenses. At least we know where Canada stands in the scheme of things.sky's the limit wrote:C
As for the Snowbirds, I grew up watching them a couple times a summer, always enjoyed them, but I do question their purpose. A great "recruiting tool" for an Armed Forces... Hey, look at the neat airplanes, lets sign up to kill people at the whim of whichever Gov't we have in place at the time. Super. I'd like to see recruiting just spell out what the military actually is, be a refreshing change, although I'm not sure they would get many new faces.
Yes the CF serves the gov't "at the time." Its our job. We bring the interests of Canada wherever they're needed. Just try and make it a political argument, since Liberal's sent us to every theatre we're in atm and Conservatives have kept us there. Despite being the government of the day, our government is always elected by the canadian public and that's who we serve, ultimately.
It will take many more incidents to deter CF pilots and applicants from aspiring to that position. As it stands, being accepted as a pilot in the snowbirds is among the higher honours one can achieve. CF Pilots are aware of the dangers throughout their training, since a few of the NFTC ground school guys are ex Snowbirds, and have great stories, .Their value as an entertainment tool for the public is well known, but some examination of costs, both monetary and human should be considered as we go forward. Maybe some changes need to be made?
Groundpilot and others who read the Globe comments: I choose to believe those people are trolling for attention, nothing more.
If you took away the Snowbirds tomorrow I doubt it would make the difference financially in sending Hornets to Afghanistan or any other operational concern as far as costs go(I couldn't find the budget for precise numbers). You'd also rip the heart out of every pilot that still had the dream of being in that elite group. It would also give you folk another axe to grind which is precisely what you'd like I suppose. Nothing like milking a man's death for your political BS, eh?
As far as kit, how about you armchair experts wait for the report. The tutor is a capable aircraft. It's old, sure, but no more burnt out than that pos 'ho you guys are dragging around up north. Civie operators would love to get the kind of maintenance this team gets.
RIP Capt McCaughney.
There's a poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... VoteResult
Poll Results
Is it worth having the Snowbirds aerobatic team despite the risk?
Yes
(26%) 3346 votes
No
(74%) 9623 votes
Total votes: 12969
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... VoteResult
Poll Results
Is it worth having the Snowbirds aerobatic team despite the risk?
Yes
(26%) 3346 votes
No
(74%) 9623 votes
Total votes: 12969
That'll buff right out 
A poll can say anything a pollster wants, all they have to do is ask the right people. In this case we'll assume they asked Joe public on the street what they thought. This person contributes about 3 seconds a month thinking about military matters in total. He is overtaxed, gas prices rise, his mortage is causing him heartburn, and out of the blue someone asks in the wake of a highly publicized accident if he thinks his tax dollars should pay for the Snowbirds. I'd be tempted to say no myself.Dash-Ate wrote:There's a poll
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... VoteResult
Poll Results
Is it worth having the Snowbirds aerobatic team despite the risk?
Yes
(26%) 3346 votes
No
(74%) 9623 votes
Total votes: 12969
Now ask the same guy on July 1st while standing on the lawn at Parliament Hill as the team flies over and you might get a different answer. Now ask people who actually know about the real value of the team like TheCheez and his recruiting colleagues and I'll bet you they are 100% in favour of keeping the team.
-
Siddley Hawker
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: 50.13N 66.17W
Right on the main G&M page:Siddley Hawker wrote:The Globe & Mail huh? Anyone know just where the poll was taken?
Globe & Mail
Vote now and vote often!
New equipment wouldn’t necessarily save lives. One such possible replacement, the CT-155 Hawk has been described as less maneuverable and less stable. That can certainly work against them if they continued the same precision formation flying they are known for.Let's buy them equipment that was made in this century.
That’s quite an offensive statement Hedley but even more disturbing it’s just incorrect. If it’s just your “opinion” it’s inconceivable what would possess a grown man to write such rubbish.I've mentioned before that Italy, which is one f*cked up tiny, irrelevant country, has Ferrari, Lamborghini and Ducati.
I suggest you do a little research before you make such ludicrous and hurtful statements.
Did you know that Bombardier is the third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world? Again, a little research would do wonders.Canada, which enjoys an incredibly high standard of living and education, has thus far produced Celine Dion.
As for the snowbirds, I visit the occasional air show if I happen to be in town. I’m a big fan of watching big fast loud airplanes roaring by. Personally, the precision flight teams are a bit of a yawn for me. What really makes me feel all patriotic and endears the Snow Birds to me is when they do other things outside of the air shows like a well timed fly-by at Remembrance Day services. Or even at the opening game of a Ball Game.
Should the snowbirds be disbanded? I think we need to find out what the circumstances of the last crash are. It’s odd for an airplane to just drop out of the sky like that.
They are also a corporate welfare bum. Not something to be proud of.Bombardier is the third largest aircraft manufacturer ...
Which was my point. Canada doesn't have very much to be proud of.
The Snowbirds are an exception, so it really isn't very surprising that Canadians would want to shut them down, so we all can be uniformly mediocre.
Are you trying to tell us that Boeing and Airbus don't enjoy government handouts? How about Embraer?They are also a corporate welfare bum. Not something to be proud of.
Sorry to have to break this to you but ALL the major aeropspace manufacturers that trade internationally are backed by their corresponding governments.
As a proud Canadian, I would be more than happy to help you find another country to live in.Which was my point. Canada doesn't have very much to be proud of.
First to answer the question : NO
We should keep some fun in the military as it is good for moral.
Although i had heard that all leave was cancelled until moral improves
We should have a Helicopter team as well .Could be trouble if the libs ever get back in.
Some war kite flyers (maybe for the cadets to help teach strategy)those kids from windy Lethbridge would have an advantage as they can practice almost all year round
Some Remote Controlled UAV 's demonstrations at the airshows for the nintendo generation.You can get paid to play nintendo/x-box
Airshows are fun .Everyone loves a good airshow.
These pilots need to have some fun as that is when your learn the most .These pilots are mostly instructors and it will improve their teaching skills by doing something that is fun .
Who says that being in the military should be all work and no play.
Why not use CF-18's instead At least the ejection seats work on the CF-18's
We should keep some fun in the military as it is good for moral.
Although i had heard that all leave was cancelled until moral improves
We should have a Helicopter team as well .Could be trouble if the libs ever get back in.
Some war kite flyers (maybe for the cadets to help teach strategy)those kids from windy Lethbridge would have an advantage as they can practice almost all year round
Some Remote Controlled UAV 's demonstrations at the airshows for the nintendo generation.You can get paid to play nintendo/x-box
Airshows are fun .Everyone loves a good airshow.
These pilots need to have some fun as that is when your learn the most .These pilots are mostly instructors and it will improve their teaching skills by doing something that is fun .
Who says that being in the military should be all work and no play.
Why not use CF-18's instead At least the ejection seats work on the CF-18's
props?
While Harvard II's may seem like an obvious choice, I don't think any Snowbird pilot would be too happy about performing close quarter formations among 9 props waiting to bite into the next guys skin.
I heard (avcanada being the place for heresay) that a couple of CF instructors put in for transfers when the Harvard II came. They simply did not want to teach formation flying due to fear of the prop. I don't blame them, after being in jets for as long as they have (entire career).
That aside, as an educated aviator, i think it's impressive the types of maneuvers the Snowbirds can pull off with a not so capable airplane.
Can't wait to see them again!
I heard (avcanada being the place for heresay) that a couple of CF instructors put in for transfers when the Harvard II came. They simply did not want to teach formation flying due to fear of the prop. I don't blame them, after being in jets for as long as they have (entire career).
That aside, as an educated aviator, i think it's impressive the types of maneuvers the Snowbirds can pull off with a not so capable airplane.
Can't wait to see them again!
This has got to be the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard.fear of the prop
Fear of the prop?! WTF?!
http://www.pittspecials.com/movies/outsideloop.wmv
http://www.pittspecials.com/movies/flyby.wmv
Do pilots that weren't bottle fed fear boobs?
To 'TheCheez' - in general, I agree with most of what you posted. However, I want to comment on one thing:
Here's the thing, the Snowbirds (and their predecessors) were born out of the Air Force flight training program. The original idea was to demonstrate the high level of proficiency of the Air Force's pilots, by showing just how good they were. These demo teams were formed by regular, every day Air Force flying instructors, flying an average, every day Air Force training aircraft.
Until fairly recently, every member of the Snowbirds would have previously flown the Tutor during their training. But now, that is no longer the case. The team are flying the last remaining Tutors in the service.
For that reason, and in keeping with the nature of and traditions of our teams, I personally feel the Tutor should be replaced; and should be replaced with a type of aircraft already being flown elsewhere in the forces. That makes the selection somewhat limited. Fighters (i.e. the Hornet) are too expensive, and IMHO would be a complete waste of tax dollars. That leaves trainers such as the Harvard II or the Hawk.
As an airshow type, I'd hate to see the team stuck with anything prop driven ... they just wouldn't be the same. Look at the effect that transition has had on other teams (such as the Aussies). So, to me the Hawk seems like a natural choice.
As for CID's comments about the Hawk being less stable or some such thing ... the Red Arrows seem able to keep putting on a good show with their fleet. I'd be interested to see more details on the ARINC / Venga Aerospace proposal for providing the team with leased Hawks. They claim to be able to provide (and maintain) a fleet of 20 Hawks for the squadron, while still providing a savings over the current operating costs of the Tutors.
Just my 2 cents.
Now, not that I want to be marked as an 'armchair expert' or anything, but why do you think they should keep flying the Tutor?TheCheez wrote:...As far as kit, how about you armchair experts wait for the report. The tutor is a capable aircraft...
Here's the thing, the Snowbirds (and their predecessors) were born out of the Air Force flight training program. The original idea was to demonstrate the high level of proficiency of the Air Force's pilots, by showing just how good they were. These demo teams were formed by regular, every day Air Force flying instructors, flying an average, every day Air Force training aircraft.
Until fairly recently, every member of the Snowbirds would have previously flown the Tutor during their training. But now, that is no longer the case. The team are flying the last remaining Tutors in the service.
For that reason, and in keeping with the nature of and traditions of our teams, I personally feel the Tutor should be replaced; and should be replaced with a type of aircraft already being flown elsewhere in the forces. That makes the selection somewhat limited. Fighters (i.e. the Hornet) are too expensive, and IMHO would be a complete waste of tax dollars. That leaves trainers such as the Harvard II or the Hawk.
As an airshow type, I'd hate to see the team stuck with anything prop driven ... they just wouldn't be the same. Look at the effect that transition has had on other teams (such as the Aussies). So, to me the Hawk seems like a natural choice.
As for CID's comments about the Hawk being less stable or some such thing ... the Red Arrows seem able to keep putting on a good show with their fleet. I'd be interested to see more details on the ARINC / Venga Aerospace proposal for providing the team with leased Hawks. They claim to be able to provide (and maintain) a fleet of 20 Hawks for the squadron, while still providing a savings over the current operating costs of the Tutors.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Brew
Brew
