# Snowbird Future



## ags281 (12 Aug 2004)

For the first time in quite a few years I'm actually in Vancouver around the time of the Abbotsford airshow. I was all excited, but then I realized a weekend trip with the family is planned for the same weekend. @#R#%&#*#$$@#*)%@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :threat:   :crybaby: 

Anyway, seeing as I'll be in Snowbird withdrawal, I just got to thinking what could replace the Tutors when their service with the team is up in the next couple years. Obviously it would make sense to use an aircraft already in service with the CF for logistics and training, meaning either Harvard II, Hawk, or Hornet. 

IMO, the Hornet is out because it's too expensive, too fast (not friendly to showcasing good piloting skills rather than pure speed), and would make the Snowbirds a Blue Angels clone (ick   ). The Harvard II would share the same benefits as the Tutor in that all pilots in the CF will already be qualified on them, but unfortunately props just aren't as sexy as jets to the average person, so the LCF would drop a bit. 

This leads me to conclude that we should get some Hawks for the red suits to play with. While only the fighter jocks will be qualifed on them before joining the team, at least they make sense logistically, and would probably suit the established style of the Snowbird shows best. 

Anyone have any other suggestions? Think we should scrap the team instead? Get a team specific plane? Replace some Griffins with heavier helos and use the surplus to form a helo demonstration team?   > 

What do you think is best?


----------



## Spr.Earl (12 Aug 2004)

C.T. 155 Hawk.
It's a bit faster than the Tuders but a very nimble plane.


I'll be there and will try and get some photos this weekend.


----------



## Inch (12 Aug 2004)

CT155 Hawk has my vote as well.  Technically, not everyone is qualified on the Harvard, you need to have wings and do a check ride to be able to sign it out on your own. We do go solo but it's under approval of your instructor.  Since the Harvard came into service a few years ago, no one is trained on the Tudor, so in the next few years guys trying out for Snowbirds will have zero time on the Toots. Everyone that goes to try out for the Snowbirds does a conversion course on the Toots since no one is current on them other than the team. So an airframe that no one is qualified on isn't a big concern.

The Hawks are very sexy aircraft.

Cheers


----------



## Yard Ape (12 Aug 2004)

Should we even keep the Snowbirds if they are going to such funds from a strained operational & training budget?


----------



## Slim (12 Aug 2004)

Don't even start that...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Aug 2004)

Hmmm what are the offsets of having a demonstration squadron?
1) Teaches pilots intricate manuevers that might save their lives in a combat situation thus saving them and the aircraft they are flying.
2) Some members of the public don't have any contact with the CF at all and this might be their lone exposure to the CF. Do you want to take that away from them.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (12 Aug 2004)

As everyone's said, the Hawk.  BAe is already pushing the government to use their aircraft.  I was at the Moose Jaw air show, and in the program guide (Which was $5   )and there was and advertisement about how the Hawk would be the next best aircraft for the tutors, and how DND should replace them.  As much as I love watching the Snowbirds, I think there are bigger priorities in the air force, although I'd love to see them flying new a/c just as much as any of you.


----------



## ags281 (12 Aug 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> Don't even start that...


Hey, it's a fair question. It certainly isn't cheap to run the team, but there are huge benefits in terms of recruiting, PR and such. Very few communities in Canada actually have a CF presence that many residents are aware of, but I'm betting most Canadians have seen the Snowbirds either in person or on TV (Canada day, remembrance day, etc). It just comes down to whether or not the costs outweigh the benefits, which can't be determined unless the question is asked.

IMO it's a great way to increase the visibility of the forces in Canada as well as the US (they're quite sought after south of the border as well, though priority goes to Canadian shows) and they're worth the money spent on them.



			
				CF104Starfighter said:
			
		

> As much as I love watching the Snowbirds, I think there are bigger priorities in the air force, although I'd love to see them flying new a/c just as much as any of you.


I think they stated when the rest of the Tutor fleet was retired that the Snowbirds would only get use of them for a couple more years. Keeping an old airframe flying in small numbers is an expensive undertaking. I wouldn't be surprised if buying them Hawks actually breaks even or saves money in the long run, so I don't think it's a matter of priorities.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (12 Aug 2004)

Yea, but usually a few years to the government means more than a few.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Aug 2004)

Replacing the Tutors is not really on the scope of the penny pinchers at 1 CAD.  There are operational upgrades and new FW SAR aircraft that have much higher priority.  Don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure the boys at 431 (AD) Sqn would be more than willing to strap on a Hawk, but they know not to hold their collectives breathes for the time being.  At close to $20 million a pop, the Hawk is not a cheaper alternative to maintaining the current fleet of Tutors.  Don't forget about the 60-70 Tutors that are currently moth-balled at Mountainview, lots of spare parts and spare airframes there.
The CF is going to require another governmental budget to chip in and purchase some new Canadian icons.  Heritage Canada and External Affairs (they are our ambassadors to the world - or at least the USA) should poney up a few million smackers and put new rubber on the ramp at 15 Wing.

there's my $0.02


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Aug 2004)

ags281 said:
			
		

> ...  the Hornet is out because ... and would make the Snowbirds a Blue Angels clone (ick  ) ...



By that rationale, using the Hawk would make the Snowbirds a Red Arrows clone (they would both fly red Hawks and wear red flightsuits)!


----------



## Kilted Mayhem (13 Aug 2004)

I can't believe that no one has considered the CF-5. If the Tudors have to be replaced why can we not use our surplus CF-5's. The CF-5 is one sexy aircraft.


----------



## nULL (13 Aug 2004)

Seeing as how CF-5's were once a front line fighter (a poor one apparently) and not specifically designed as a trainer would probably mean higher maintainance requirements than something like a Tudor or Hawk. Given their age and uselessness these days, spare parts would be hard to come by, not to mention that mechanics wouldn't have been trained on it for the past couple of decades - or so I'd be led to believe.

http://www.rcaf.com/1969_1996_unification/aircraft/fighters/freedomfighter/


----------



## Zoomie (13 Aug 2004)

AHEM... T_U_T_O_R, notice the lack of a D


----------



## Inch (13 Aug 2004)

I can't believe I spelt that wrong.  I feel shame.

The CF-5 is far too fast to be used as a demonstration plane. The were the only ones that could exceed the 265 kt holding speed, their limit was 310 Kts, they were also pretty much the only "E" category aircraft meaning that their approach speed was above 165 Kts, even the CF 18 has a holding limit of 265 kts. CF 5's went this fast because they had to, it wasn't the greatest jet design that ever flew.

It's true the Red Arrows fly Hawks as well, but that's on the other side of the pond, when do they come over here and us go over there....right you are, never.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Aug 2004)

Don't the Hawks in other air forces have a secondary ground support role?


----------



## Inch (13 Aug 2004)

Not sure if they do or not, I'm pretty sure ours can be armed, but I'd imagine that's just for training.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 Aug 2004)

There's is a front-line version of the Hawk (Mk 200?), although few and far between: how about 'probably yes.'

There's something to be said for using your best technology (i.e., Hornets) for your demonstration teams (in terms of PR, recruiting, etc.) ... then again, 1970's technology is probably not something to brag too much about.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem (13 Aug 2004)

Not to give up on my CF-5 idea to easily.
When we retired the CF-5's in 1995, 37 aircraft had received upgrades. There is still life in the old birds. As for demonstration teams there was an old team called the Rut Zulus in the 70's that flew CF-5B's. I just thought that it might be a cheap idea.
I also feel shame for spelling Tutor wrong


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Aug 2004)

Not a trainer? A poor fighter? 

http://www.rcaf.com/1969_1996_unification/aircraft/fighters/freedomfighter/index.htm

Also they are one of the cheapest jet fighters to operate at less than 1/3 of the operating cost of a hornet. As my grandfather says " Criminal how the government turned such a great company into Bombardier" but he worked at Canadair for 40 years. 

And guys the F-5s hour glass figure is damn sexy.

Not saying they should be used by the snowbirds but they were and still are a cool little plane.


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Aug 2004)

So 165 knots and an unpaved runway. Sounds like a whole lot of pucker factor.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f5a-4.jpg

The F-5 is an older aircraft that brought about some interesting changes in the aircraft industry. To compare it to a current in service aircraft is to deny the decades of development and upgrades that separate the two. Just remember that during Vietnam prop driven T-28 Trojans were often times more effective in the CAS role than cutting edge aircraft like the Phantoms. It is interesting how the perception of an aircraft does not truly reflect the ability or quality of the aircraft. 
Take the Spitfire, interesting plane, cool elliptical wing. To bad the wing spar is almost impossible to repair or even inspect for corrosion , and the Merlin engine is mounted in one of the most bizarre fashions I have ever seen.


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Aug 2004)

I was talking to a couple of the Snowbirds at the Abbotsford Airshow this weeekend and they were saying there is no plan yet to replace the TuTors at the present time but they thought the Hawk would be a very good choice.
As usual they put on a very good show.
I took photos and will post them when I get the film developed.


----------



## Mask (16 Aug 2004)

Inch,
Our Hawks (Mk 115) are not cleared to carry any weapons...we do have a dummy AIM-9L Sidewinder but is there for show and to balance the ACMI pod out on the other side.  The only stores we are cleared to carry is the centreline fuel tank.  For our air to air and air to ground missions we can simulate carrying weapons but it is just for HUD symbology and attack validation.  In terms of other countries...the UK Hawks (T1s I believe) can carry the ADEN cannon (30mm and mounted on the centreline position) and other air to air/air to ground munitions.


----------



## Inch (16 Aug 2004)

Understood.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Aug 2004)

Now we're in trouble....  3 Pilots on these means.

Welcome Corey...  Psst.. This is the guy who used to live at 203 with the Chocolate Lab and Shitzhu.


----------



## ags281 (17 Aug 2004)

I'd like to say something useful, but I'm too busy drooling at the pic Mask posted.


----------

