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.

 

[The Bread Guy]

the siskin II is not a jet lead in trainer though, that aircraft has not been selected yet.

Someone should tell whoever made last year's RCAF FB info=graphic I posted upthread, saying "Pilots undergoing Advanced Flying Training Fixed-Wing and Advanced Flying Training-Jet programs will train on this game-changing plane before moving on to the multi-engine program in Southport, MB or the Fighter Lead-in Training programs, respectively ...."

Then again, the FB post says the original Siskins started in 1930 while other RCAF sources here and here & Wikipedia say 1929, so ....

 

[Rainbow1910]

It's interesting to see folks elsewhere acting like the sky is falling and the RCAF has dove onto its sword in accepting a far inferior platform, when turbo-prop powered aircraft are fairly commonplace among international demonstration squadrons.

Brunei, New Zealand, Thailand, Chile, Israel, Indonesia, Croatia, Malaysia, Morocco, Poland, Switzerland, Australia, Jordan, South Africa, Ireland, China, Brazil and Japan all have prop powered demonstrator/air display teams without any huge issues. Is it a bit disappointing to lose turbines and their distinctive presence? Sure however, I think it's more important that we finally shuffle the Tutors off to the boneyard before we lose more manpower, airframes and potentially the lives of bystanders

The CT-157 Siskin II (Pilatus PC-21) is an advanced, safe and relatively low maintenance aircraft that fits a demonstrator role pretty well. Using the same aircraft for training and demonstration purpose allows us some good personnel and logistics pipelines. It's an aircraft with a sizable number of operators and an active production line, something which should let the RCAF keep operating these aircraft for a considerable amount of time.

Give them an awesome paint scheme and the Snowbirds will be back to being a crowd pleaser following their hiatus.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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

Did I mention, it carries 17.76 mm guns?

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.

To be scrupulously fair, most headline writers seem to be using versions of those terms (including the usually-pro-military National Post), according to Google News:

On the other side of the narrative coin, the info-machine version (also archived here) doesn't seem to say "no more Snowbirds for a while" in those words until way down into the statement, so message triage is everywhere