Ottawa Citizen story on aircraft procurment for Snowbirds .

[Gino Under]

Replace the Tudors?
I'm all for it.
Spend the money now in todays dollars and not in 2020 dollars.
Politicians who make these budget decisions don't know the first thing about aircraft or operating aircraft. They'd rather pay for an expensive aircraft and see it sit on the ground rather than let the Air Force operate it.

The RCAF know best what aircraft is best suited for assignment to the Snowbirds Squadron, so let them get on with a decision.
Nobody builds the Tudor anymore so while the Hawk might be a good choice, I think it would be nice to use a North American built product that has some Canadian content in it.
F-18? Well, strip them down to their underwear to lighten the load and help reduce DOC. At least the CF-18 is still operational in the RCAF.
F-16? Now yer talking!
Plenty of cheap iron sitting in the desert around Tuscon. Practically brand new.

Gino Under

[SAR_YQQ]

Tutor - emphasis on the T

[frosti]

F-18? Well, strip them down to their underwear to lighten the load and help reduce DOC. At least the CF-18 is still operational in the RCAF.

You want fighter aircraft with very high airframe hours performing complex manoeuvres over large crowds? I know I wouldn't be at that show....

[Colonel Sanders]

Isn't that what they're doing right now?

[bizjets101]

Minor thread deviation . . .

Someone imported this CL41G Tebuan into Canada in June - not registered 'yet'? Was N403AG.

Click Here CL-41G Tebuan info.

[Gino Under]

TuTor. Got it, thanks. (what the hell was I thinking?)

frosti

Airshows are performed on a stage. More accurately, in a box with defined floors and distances from the audience for safety reasons. Transport Canada has an Airshow Manual that spells it all out.
If you've ever seen a Snowbird performance you might have noticed they don't do extreme maneuvers (as suggested). You don't do that with a 9 aeroplane formation.
I'd think the Snowbird 9-man formations would be no less awesome with F-16s (the two seat trainers) or the F-18 (two seat version). Heck, they might even throw in a two man exciting-as-hell solo act within an act.
As for old beat up fighters, are old beat up trainers better, safer?
..........................

The Snowbird Demonstration Team has always raised controversy in Canada. From Senators to MPs. Airshow proponents to airshow nay sayers. Newspaper editorials to television commentators.
The reality IS, the team exists. It is NOT a profit centre for the taxpayer, it's a financial obligation. As previously pointed out, they are a recruiting tool, similar to the RCMPs Musical Ride.
A budgetary drain on the taxpayer, yes. But they are there and deserve our support. Fact is, we have a military and they deserve the best we can provide. This organization regardless of branch of service constantly turn a pigs ear into a silk purse and still idiots in the media manage to come up with their stupidity and all we need to do is ignor it.

Maybe we should be asking the demonstration squadron what they believe would be the appropriate replacement aircraft for the job?

Gino Under

[TG]

Do it with drones.

Little paint job with some Humbrol http://www.humbrol.com/
And here you go! (start at 40")

[Panama Jack]

I am going to go with the likes of jeta1, Beefitarian, and Old Dog Flying on this one.

Everything has to be paid for that Government spends, and the person who has to pay for it is taxpayers like you and me. In exchange for this payment I expect a service that brings some sort of value which is worth paying for. That puts me in a rather curmudgeonly category when it comes to things the Government spends money on-- because it's my f%*king money!

As much as I like airplanes, I am sorry, I just don't see it being something I should pay for-- I rather use that money towards my own recreational flying. Having been at AirVenture in Oshkosh, I see that private individuals are more than capable of filling the gap for thrilling the crowds.

Time has come to axe the Snowbirds.

[Old Dog Flying]

PJ: I posted the EXTRA 300 in Snowbird colours with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. I'm a retired RCAF officer who worked with the Snowbirds from the start 1971 and I am proud to have been there.

We have had demonstration teams in Canada from the mid 1920s when the Siskins were thrilling crowds; the first Vampire team in 1948; any number of Mustang teams; the Skylancers and the Golden Hawks flying Sabres; the Golden Centenairres in their beautifully painted CT-114 Tutors; The Goldilocks flying the Harvards. and of course the Red Knight in the T-33 and Tutor.

Supporting the Snowbirds is money well spent

Barney

[Panama Jack]

I respect your past efforts as an RCAF officer, as I do for all who have served in the military.

However, I am still not convinced that the Snowbirds offer good value for money but I invite you to try to change my mind.

In a time when Government is trying to reduce spending while the National Debt and personal tax burdent increases, something has to give. I see billions being spent on politicians' pet projects to to pander to all sorts of groups while doling pork out to politically connected businesses, and this is all rather disturbing when you think about that one day, either you or your children or your grandchildren will have to foot the bill for the largesse.

I agree that certain military spending is of value; I particularly appreciate the role that Search-and-Rescue play. Perhaps the approach should be the way the Government is increasingly doing everything else-- namely on a cost recovery basis. Want the Snowbirds to come to your airshow? Bill it to the airshow organizers and let them pass the cost along to attendees in the form of ticket costs. Let Economics allow the public to decide whether it is money well spent, or not.

[CLguy]

Yeah let's cancel the Snowbirds and save a whole bunch of money that could be better spent on a place called Attiwapiskat or some other well deserving money pit. You wouldn't actually be naive enough to believe the government would lower our taxes?

[126.7_STFU]

I agree with CL Guy. End of story. Lots of money is pissed away elsewhere. Why not look into Harpers secret service, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (guaranteed you will find lots of coin here), or the 200 million dollar lawyer stimulus package called the Human Rights Commission + Tribunal. Cut them out of the picture and you we will have new planes in 3 years.

The CF-5's would also be very expensive to operate. Swiss team (Patrouille Suisse) is doing away with their F5's for a reason.

[Shiny Side Up]

Perhaps the approach should be the way the Government is increasingly doing everything else-- namely on a cost recovery basis. Want the Snowbirds to come to your airshow? Bill it to the airshow organizers and let them pass the cost along to attendees in the form of ticket costs. Let Economics allow the public to decide whether it is money well spent, or not.

Interesting point. Do the Snow Birds just show up for free if you ask nicely and the Federal government deems your event worthy? I suspect there's more to it than this. Anyone have any direct info on what's required to book them?

[iflyforpie]

There will always be social ills no matter how much money you throw at them. The Snowbirds are something to be proud of--a (currently) 100% homegrown precision aerobatics team that often puts other military teams who have much newer and more powerful aircraft to shame.

I didn't join the Forces because of the Snowbirds (I couldn't anyways because of my vision) but they are a big part of why I am a pilot today.

Those who object based on practicality should look at their own lives. How much do you spend on frivolous items or pleasurable pursuits rather than more practical things like paying down the mortgage or credit cards or donations? And is it necessarily such a bad thing? We need to enjoy life too.

[Shiny Side Up]

http://www.airshows.forces.gc.ca/Docume ... 120329.pdf

Interesting read, if dry, but it certainly ain't free to host such stuff that our military will provide for your event. Especially interesting was the bit on how DnD mandates that they purchse fuel if its part of the deal, and they have some pretty decent requirements for crew lodging that you're required (as the event hoster) to provide. Notably, the Snowbirds, perform all over the place (2000th show was in Reno) so I suspect that the government views the PR that the 'birds provide is not just valuable at home but also abroad. As above, only Banana Republics have prop demo teams, so not having a demo team would be something of a gaffe in the standings of our NATO brethren. Notably Canada already cheaps out on its demo team, its the only one that operates without any support aircraft for the team. In the world. I think it also currently uses the oldest aircraft of any demo team in the world too, the aforementioned banana republics at least have new prop planes. FFS India has newer aircraft in their demo team and they still have cows in their streets, unclean drinking water, and one of the worst literacy rates in the world.

If we didn't have them we'd have to join Iceland at the NATO kiddie table.

[Panama Jack]

The arguement that we should spend the money on the Snowbirds because we piss away money on other frivilous causes is a weak one for me. I am equally antagonistic to this type of Government misspending. And to cite that I splurge in my own discretionary spending habits. . . well, the difference there is that I am managing my own money on what I want to spend it on (it this a flawed concept?).

Speaking of Banana Republics and Switzerland, the Swiss Airforce Team uses Pilatus PC-7's (props). Sure, I know there is an incentive here because Pilatus is a Swiss company and flying the PC-7 displays the capability of the type to an international military crowd (read that to mean potential buyers), that the equivalent for Canada would be to equip the Snowbirds with Bombardier C100's, blah blah blah. . . All I wanted to say is that I have seen them perform and it was impressive. And I do appreciate that being a spectator of airshows is not just purely visual, but also aural-- some people get horny when they hear certain noises like the sound of a jet tearing by low level and at high speed.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Qu2Xiy7tYWA[/youtube]

[Gino Under]

I'm not clever enough to determine the role or roles for Canada's military. But, if I were to use the argument our government shouldn't waste taxpayer money on the Snowbirds, it might follow that we shouldn't be spending taxpayer money on the military period.

We're not at war. Nor are we rushing into places like Syria to defend the defenseless against a tyrannic dictator to protect OUR rights and freedoms like other countries do.
It seems to me that in recent times we've been sucked into participating in other countries (read country) agenda.
(Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc., etc., you could ask why were we involved?)

I haven't heard of any nation about to invade or threaten war against us.
So, why not have the bare minimum, single force military assert our sovereignty at our borders? Sounds simple enough. Might even be cheaper for us taxpayers.

Even this proposal sounds lame to me.

Years ago the GoC bought 5 A-310s.
At the time, JC practically refused to use the 310 for state travel as it was too pretentious. Instead, he would roll up at a summit in a Challenger 601 while his counterparts showed up in kit like the Concorde or 747-400s. How stupid and how embarrassing for the head of state from a country like Canada? As a taxpayer I was outraged to think we bought these aeroplanes with no will or intent on the part of the PM to use them.
(NOTE: This is not the case today)

I also believe when the government spends taxpayer money to operate or to purchase and operate something they accept responsibility to effectively and responsibly do so.

IMHO, this includes the Snowbird Demonstration Team.

Gino Under

[Instructor_Mike]

Hawks would be the ideal IMO if we wanted active in the military. I don't like the idea of a fighter jet for a few reasons.

1) The US uses F-16s and F-18s so we don't need to do the same.
2) Front line fighters are too expensive in both initial cost and operating cost.
3) When I've seen the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds, they do loud very fast passes back and forth which is ok, but trainers (like the tutor) can do mulitiple formation changes in front of the crowd.

The old airshow joke was when you don't have skill like the Snowbirds in the Tutor, you make up for it with noise and fighter jets

[Moose47]

"As above, only Banana Republics have prop demo..."

Hmmm, I would not call Australia a Banana Republic. Guess what type of aircraft the Royal Australian Air Force's demo team known as the 'Roulettes' operate now after they turned in their Macchi 326's?

http://www.airforce.gov.au/roulettes

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DTUe6lRb9vVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Ds7zQISaC-18

Cheers...Chris

[Moose47]

Gino - It must take great skill to fly an aircraft with only a 'left wing'!

Cheers...Chris

[Panama Jack]

@ Gino,

When I was growing up there was something going on called "The Cold War" between Western Nations and the Soviet Block countries. Canada, in her wisdom, decided to join NATO which collectively pooled defense resources of numerous large and small countries and provided a deterent an invasion of a country outside of NATO. There are some commitments of NATO members, for which Canada has to spend resources on the military.

Would/will Canada be threatened if it did not belong to NATO? Hard to say that it prevented something that never happened.

Overseas and "peacekeeping" missions are controversial; one only need look at Afghanistan and Canada's reasons for getting involved in that.

As far as the ex-Wardair purchase of the A310's-- another issue of controversy. I would hope that the GoC got a good deal from them but the purchase may have also had political motivations. One is a VIP transport and the others are either Transports or Tankers, which replaced the aging 707's.

Do we need a military? Well, every country in the World has one and you need some level of deterence, not unlike having a lock on your door even if you live in a safe part of town.

[Beefitarian]

I'd suggest F-35s but we can't afford 9 of them so some of the team would be without planes.

[ea306]

Interesting read and points of view.

I do not agree on many things our government spends our money on...money that the government somehow believes is their money.

The snowbirds are probably one of the things our government spends money on that I don't mind and actually enjoy. Not interested in the recruitment aspect of the military, but do recognize the personal sacrifices that it's member make.

In this discussion I find myself agreeing with GINO UNDER. If we are going to have a military.....then I support the SnowBirds. (More interesting to me than seeing stuff getting blown up in a war zone.)

I also do understand Panama Jack in his view of spending our money.

Snowbirds are about Canadian Pride. Having a PM showing up for Summits on the Global Theater in a biz jet when others are showing up in B747 and Concorde etc is maybe being cost conscious. But there are other areas that real money could be saved. The Government has the A310 now...use it. I like that Canada is operating an Airbus product rather than a Boeing in this instance.

[Moose47]

ea306 said "But there are other areas that real money could be saved."

You are absolutely right. How about we start with cutting off all foreign aid for the next five or ten years. No immigration into this country until the un-employment level gets below 5 percent. Cancel certain Liberal 'legacy' pet projects that cost billions annually. The savings could be used for all sorts of domestic things like settling all outstanding land claims, boost the military's budget allowing for a number of new and permanent bases in the high arctic and helping Canadian medical students with financial assistance providing they serve in under-staffed regions of rural and northern Canada for their first five years after board certification.

Cheers...Chris