Snowbird Future

[Czech_pivo]

Clearly the key focus as opposed to something like Advanced Flying Training Jet ? They seem to have missed the key word JET?

Am I the only thinking this makes the RCAF a laughing stock?

They'll only be a laughing stock if the Siskin II used for the Snowbirds get the nickname 'The Foreskin II's'

 

[KevinB]

I'm still confused as to why the decision on this - as opposed to having them fly an actual fighter aircraft.
Like the BlueAngles or Thunderbirds.

Or even a dual role Jet Trainer and Ground Attack Aircraft

I am just curious on the "bang for buck" of having a prop demo aircraft - while I have no doubt the Siskin II is a lot cheaper than the TF-50 or M-346 that as @Retired AF Guy points to, or a F-35. I must admit I don't see the appeal of taking qualified Jet pilots out of the stream to step back into a prop - and for those who will point to the fact that you can grab any fixed wing pilot and have them in the SnowBirds, to me that just lessens the brand.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Any word on what the existing Snowbird pilots will be doing from Q4 2026 until the early 2030's?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Any word on what the existing Snowbird pilots will be doing from Q4 2026 until the early 2030's?

My guess is they'll get transferred back to the operational squadrons...

... or get posted to important PowerPoint building billetts in a HQ somewhere

 

[MrWhyt]

I'm still confused as to why the decision on this - as opposed to having them fly an actual fighter aircraft.
Like the BlueAngles or Thunderbirds.

probably don't have the airframes to spare

Or even a dual role Jet Trainer and Ground Attack Aircraft

we don't have one, yet. I imagine the optics of shutting down the team are better if it is announced that they're transitioning to a new aircraft rather than just shutting them down and saying "we'll figure out the replacement later"

 

[FJAG]

I'm still confused as to why the decision on this - as opposed to having them fly an actual fighter aircraft.
Like the BlueAngles or Thunderbirds.

Or even a dual role Jet Trainer and Ground Attack Aircraft

I am just curious on the "bang for buck" of having a prop demo aircraft - while I have no doubt the Siskin II is a lot cheaper than the TF-50 or M-346 that as @Retired AF Guy points to, or a F-35. I must admit I don't see the appeal of taking qualified Jet pilots out of the stream to step back into a prop - and for those who will point to the fact that you can grab any fixed wing pilot and have them in the SnowBirds, to me that just lessens the brand.

I had a bit of a hiccup myself over this but, on reflection there are some good points which make this a reasonable choice.

1. Making it a cheap aircraft and cheap to maintain is always a good point;

2. Being able to operate it out of small airports without a major support tail makes it super accessible;

3. You don't need to take a qualified jet jockey and down stream him back to prop. You can take any pilot after having qualified on the prop and divert him into the Snowbirds for a year or two before moving on to other things; It increases the pool of available pilots at the front end and leaves the folks at the back end of the training to get on with their job;

4. The brand is what you make it. These things fly almost as fast as a Tudor (Tudor 486mph, PC-21 426 Mph), should be able to do all the same manoeuvres and can make a coloured smoke trail somehow. When you get right down to it, that's all you see at a distance. At larger airshows there will probably be displays and flyby's of operational aircraft. If the CAF and RCAF's brand depends on whether or not we fly a prop or a 60-year old jet or some other jet trainer, than we've got bigger problems that need sorting out.

 

[OldSolduer]

It been a few years since I attended an airshow BUT the Snowbirds - while technically excellent - are kinda boring. The F14 and the F18 solo demos are far noisier and far more fun and entertaining. The B1B - wow what can I say?
I always liked the prop guys that could drive their aircraft to the limits...far more entertaining.

 

[dapaterson]

Also gives additional training capacity by redirecting aircraft from show team to training system.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Or POTUS's Super F-35 that will have two engines

Get with the vocab: It's called the Trump class Battle-jet.

 

[FJAG]

The headline editors for CBC are sure tilting towards the words "grounding" and "sidelining" when the thrust of the articles clearly are indicating a transition.

At the pace that DND works, a 3 year hiatus to complete the transition appears quite normal. A shortened time frame would be preferable but 3 years is not an "End of the World" headline feast.