New Jets for Snowbirds?

[srgalahad]

"The Czech military has pitched to Defence Minister Peter MacKay the purchase of used fighter aircraft to replace the venerable planes used by the Canadian Forces Snowbirds aerobatic team.


According to news media in the Czech Republic, Canada has expressed interest in buying nine L-159 jets, with the Czech Defence Ministry noting that talks between the two countries are just beginning.


MacKay's press secretary Jay Paxton confirmed that an offer of L-159 aircraft had been forwarded to the minister by his Czech counterpart. But Paxton added that "no commitment was made" by MacKay.


The Czech news report indicated it was Canada that first made the overtures about buying the L-159s earlier this year."


http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Czech+jets+touted+Canada+Snowbird+replacement/2097947/story.html

Ok guys, get painting!

Rob

[jkcook28]

Since they already have them, why have they not used these:

[stiz]

cheaper? Also i doubt the f18 will be able to do some of their manovers :kilroy:

[srgalahad]

to quote from the same article above:

Using CF-18s would make it easier for the team to perform around the world, but would reduce their availability for smaller venues in Canada, which have runways too short to accommodate the jets, the air force concluded. In addition, the CF-18s would be 20 times more expensive to operate than the Tutors.

[viking3]

BAe Hawks would probably be more suited for the reasons listed above.


Regards, Rob:ernae:

[srgalahad]

BAe Hawks would probably be more suited for the reasons listed above.
Regards, Rob:ernae:
Is that a Gimli bias? :icon_lol:

I suspect the difference would be purchase price as the Hawk is new production while it looks like 'gently used' L-159's and the Czechs are likely to cut a good deal to peddle the excess planes. However, we'd need a couple of spare airframes and a deal on parts supply.

Heck, I'd be happy if they were to go to T-6II's but the PR is not as good as with the sound of jets

[jkcook28]

...snip..the CF-18s would be 20 times more expensive to operate than the Tutors.

That's the way I like my tax dollars spent! Something I can actually see. For once.

If ya want to run with the big dogs... :mixedsmi:

[CG_1976]

Love to see a hornet but Rob is right considering the current economics. At least we can virtually dream:jump:.

[PRB]

...i doubt the f18 will be able to do some of their manovers :kilroy:

I'm pretty sure the FA-18 can manage simple loops and rolls...

[cheezyflier]

I'm pretty sure the FA-18 can manage simple loops and rolls...

not the way i fly :icon_lol:

[Railrunner130]

Looking ahead, they are planning on buying the F-35. They are also purchasing the T-6, or Harvard II.

I imagine at some point there will be an end to spares for the Tutors, making the Tutor vs Hornet debate irrellivent. If this is true, it would seem to me that it would come down to cost effectiveness (Harvard) vs. super coolness (Hornet). While I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, it would seem to me that the Hornet would win because part of the Snowbirds mission is recruiting. Kids love jets over props.

The L-159 would certainly fill that role, but why purchase an airplane for a demo team that you don't otherwise fly?

Like I said, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

[CG_1976]

F-35 might be in trouble up here. Single engine is junk when it comes to canada's vast open tundra and arctic climates. You need a Twin Engine thats the debate.

[Panther_99FS]

F-35 might be in trouble up here. Single engine is junk when it comes to canada's vast open tundra and arctic climates. You need a Twin Engine thats the debate.

What about the single-engine Saab J-39 :ques:

[tigisfat]

What about the single-engine Saab J-39 :ques:


Exactly. Some of the world's greatest fighters engineered in and for cold climates are single engined.

As far as coolness and recruiting, while I would like to see Hornets and JSFs as well, they did specifically say that they needed to get into and out of small airfields to make their presence felt across Canada. They are, after all, as much as I like seeing them here, Canadian. Domestic needs must come first. The Canadians have done a fine job all over the world with their single hornet demos.

I'll bet the Texan II gets it. They can fly those all over Canada and reach recruiting goals.

[jmig]

I have never seen the Snowbirds. They don't make it south to the Swamp Belt. So, maybe their numbers outweigh the power factor.

I remember in the Carter years when the Thunderbirds went from flying the F-4 to the T-38. What a disappointment. What a downer.

The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels are about Power! Air Power! The size and noise of the F-4 was a great symbol of Air Power. The T-38 Pfffftttttt!

After the F-4 it was like they went to toy jets. IMO the show lacked something with the T-38s. The Blues went to the A-4. It was a real Weapons System.

Don't get me wrong, I love the T-38. It is as fine a trainer made, over 50,000 pilots attest to that. But, it is like taking out a pocket knife for a knift fight in a bar when used to represent the might USAF.

[stiz]

thing is jmig .. there ment to please the growd ... not blow em into chunks :icon_lol:

[jmig]

thing is jmig .. there ment to please the growd ... not blow em into chunks :icon_lol:

You don't remember the days in Europe when the TB'S, Blues, possibly other display tams could go supersonic.

I don't know if this is true. I heard it second or third hand. However, I heard the Solo's were know for coming over the crowd from the rear supersonic during the performance.

Power baby! It all about Power!

[stansdds]

Using training aircraft for aerobatics is not a bad idea. I enjoy seeing the Thunderbirds in their F-16's and the Blue Angels in their F/A-18's, but trainers can do pretty much the same maneuvers, but at slower speeds, making it easier for the crowd to watch them. Trainers also burn less fuel, so there is the cost factor. Also, the article states that the Snowbirds perform shows at airports with short runways, high performance fighters usually require a lot of landing distance, so for the Canadian team, trainers make sense.

[Silver Fox]

Something very odd about this...

1. 9 aircraft is insufficient for the Snowbirds, it's a 9 plane show. 9 airframes doesn't allow for any spares or attrition losses.

2. The L-159 is a single-seat combat aircraft. The Snowbirds transport their support crew in their birds, as well as providing numerous press flights. Hard to do without a second seat.

3. One of the pressing reasons to replace the Tutors is that they are not representative of a type flown by any other unit of the Canadian Air Force. The L-159 would have the exact same shortcoming.

[tigisfat]

Something very odd about this...

1. 9 aircraft is insufficient for the Snowbirds, it's a 9 plane show. 9 airframes doesn't allow for any spares or attrition losses.

2. The L-159 is a single-seat combat aircraft. The Snowbirds transport their support crew in their birds, as well as providing numerous press flights. Hard to do without a second seat.

3. One of the pressing reasons to replace the Tutors is that they are not representative of a type flown by any other unit of the Canadian Air Force. The L-159 would have the exact same shortcoming.


I don't think the L-159 is a single seater.

[Naki]

There are single and two seat versions of the L-159

[stansdds]

The "A" model is a single seater, but the "B" and "T1" are two seat aircraft.

[Helldiver]

You guys got it all wrong. The jets fly over and then they take up five miles to turn around. Then the pass each other with a great deal of noise and the stink of kerosene and then they take up another five miles to turn around.
In 1946 when the Navy Flight Exhibition team (Later the Blue Angels) flew, every stunt was right in front of you. No flying for miles to turn around. There was always something to watch. Far more entertaining and much more stunts were performed. They really gave you your moneys worth. Anyone that watched the F8-F Bearcats will bear out what I say. I say fit the Canadians with a bunch of Pitts and everybody, including the bean counters, will be happy.

[viking3]

You guys got it all wrong. The jets fly over and then they take up five miles to turn around. Then the pass each other with a great deal of noise and the stink of kerosene and then they take up another five miles to turn around.
In 1946 when the Navy Flight Exhibition team (Later the Blue Angels) flew, every stunt was right in front of you. No flying for miles to turn around. There was always something to watch. Far more entertaining and much more stunts were performed. They really gave you your moneys worth. Anyone that watched the F8-F Bearcats will bear out what I say. I say fit the Canadians with a bunch of Pitts and everybody, including the bean counters, will be happy.

Right on Helldiver you tell'em.

Regards, Rob

[Silver Fox]

A tandem seat version addresses only one problem... the least important one. You also have to consider the optics of buying a combat-capable display aircraft while the boys in Afghanistan lack organic air support assets.

They should be looking at the AT-6B.

[CG_1976]

Another Tandem option is the A-29B Super Tucano from Brazil. The Tucano puts the AT-6 in the ground in all directions IMHO having seen them many times in operation IRL. In FSX ive ran Piglet's head on with Iris AT-6 and for Performance Airshows I got better stability and durability from the A-29B. Just another thought on Props.

[Helldiver]

Who's aboot to argue from someone from Gimli?

[Silver Fox]

I'm afraid the Embrear Super Tucano is a complete non-starter. No CF commonality, and it comes from Embrear... Bombardier's nemesis and a company the Canadian Gov. has complained about concerning trade practice violations.

There would be a better chance of buying F-22's :)

[CG_1976]

I'm afraid the Embrear Super Tucano is a complete non-starter. No CF commonality, and it comes from Embrear... Bombardier's nemesis and a company the Canadian Gov. has complained about concerning trade practice violations.

There would be a better chance of buying F-22's :)

Excellent point and something new learned. didnt know about the Trade practice issues and violations. Thank you:icon29:

[tigisfat]

You guys got it all wrong. The jets fly over and then they take up five miles to turn around. Then the pass each other with a great deal of noise and the stink of kerosene and then they take up another five miles to turn around.
In 1946 when the Navy Flight Exhibition team (Later the Blue Angels) flew, every stunt was right in front of you. No flying for miles to turn around. There was always something to watch. Far more entertaining and much more stunts were performed. They really gave you your moneys worth. Anyone that watched the F8-F Bearcats will bear out what I say. I say fit the Canadians with a bunch of Pitts and everybody, including the bean counters, will be happy.


There is already a military aerobatics team that flies Extra 300s. It's entertaining to watch them disassemble their aircraft and load them into a C-130 to get to the next show.

[Railrunner130]

I believe you're talking about the Brazilian Smoke Team. I saw them quite a while back. They were good, but I was more impressed (and happy) that they were able to make the show than with their performance.

It seems to me that a military demonstration team that would use aircraft that are not in fleet service is very much like false advertising. After all, their main goals are recruiting and goodwill. A kid that joins the military thinking he can work on or fly (say an L-159) and then learns "Those are just for show, You'll never work on those." is a bait and switch. If he sees an F-18 (for example) demonstration that captures his imagination and then he joins with the goal of working on the F-18 demo team is much more fair to him. It's also more achievable. He also may be just as happy to just work on the F-18, even though he may never become a part of the demo team.

[Naki]

You guys got it all wrong. The jets fly over and then they take up five miles to turn around. Then the pass each other with a great deal of noise and the stink of kerosene and then they take up another five miles to turn around.
In 1946 when the Navy Flight Exhibition team (Later the Blue Angels) flew, every stunt was right in front of you. No flying for miles to turn around. There was always something to watch. Far more entertaining and much more stunts were performed. They really gave you your moneys worth. Anyone that watched the F8-F Bearcats will bear out what I say. I say fit the Canadians with a bunch of Pitts and everybody, including the bean counters, will be happy.

I have to agree in part with Helldiver..our Air Force did have a jet aerobatic team on Skyhawks (actually we had two jet teams for a short while..another on Aermacchis) and a piston powered aerobatic team with CT-4 Airtrainers (the Red Checkers, which are stilll around). Whlist the jet team was spectacular the piston team can fly a much tighter routine and within the confines of the crowd line.

[stiz]

Power baby! It all about Power!

well going by what i've off the red arrows and the videos of the snowbirds, blue angles and thunderbirds ... i prefer the red arrows and snowbirds ... mostly because their more fun to watch and stay in view. Dont get me wrong the flying skill of all of em is supurb .... but display teams are just that, a display, and the f18s and f16s just aint that good at it ... they zoom past ... takes ages to turn around ... then zoom past again. Whereas the red arrows are always in view and (from what i can tell) so are the snowbirds. :engel016:



It seems to me that a military demonstration team that would use aircraft that are not in fleet service is very much like false advertising. After all, their main goals are recruiting and goodwill. A kid that joins the military thinking he can work on or fly (say an L-159) and then learns "Those are just for show, You'll never work on those." is a bait and switch. If he sees an F-18 (for example) demonstration that captures his imagination and then he joins with the goal of working on the F-18 demo team is much more fair to him. It's also more achievable. He also may be just as happy to just work on the F-18, even though he may never become a part of the demo team

but then if someone was looking at joining an airforce you would hope they knew what planes it flew :kilroy:

[stansdds]

I agree on keeping the airshow where it can be seen in its entirety. Perhaps the Snowbirds will switch to the T6 (CT-156) Texan II.

[jmig]

POWER BABY!

It is like gunboat diplomacy and May Day Military parades. Only, it is your citizens you are trying to impress and not another nation's leaders.

Military demonstration teams are a symbol of a country's air power and a recruiting tool, as someone pointed out earlier. The F-18 or F-16 does more to symbolize power and impress a 17 year old than the T-6II or Hawk.

As a final piece of evidence I ask you, who is the bigger draw at an airshow, the Thunderbirds or Red Barron Pizza team?

*Ahhhh yes, nothing like a good argument to get the blood flowing first thing on a Sat. morning*

:)

[Silver Fox]

If it was about power, the the Thunderbirds would be in Eagles... with Raptors one the way. The Blue Angels would have done many years in Tomcats before accepting Super Hornet.

Fighters are needed at airshows to provide sound and fury... but air demonstration teams should be showing off the skill, precision and grace that military aviation is capable of. Of all the major military teams I can think of, only 3 fly fighters... the rest are in trainers.

That says something...

[jmig]

If it was about power, the the Thunderbirds would be in Eagles... with Raptors one the way. The Blue Angels would have done many years in Tomcats before accepting Super Hornet.

Fighters are needed at airshows to provide sound and fury... but air demonstration teams should be showing off the skill, precision and grace that military aviation is capable of. Of all the major military teams I can think of, only 3 fly fighters... the rest are in trainers.

That says something...

Who's the other one?

:icon29:

[Ferry_vO]

Of all the major military teams I can think of, only 3 fly fighters... the rest are in trainers.

Teams flying fighters:

Blue Angels :F-18
Thunderbirds: F-16
Patrouille Suisse (Switzerland): F-5E
Turkish stars:NF-5A/B
Russian Knights: Su-27 Flanker
Strizhi (Swifts): MiG-29

Teams flying trainers (Note how most fly 'home-grown' aircraft!):

Red Arrows: Bae Hawk
Patrouille de France: Alphajet
Frecce Tricolori: MB-339
PC-7 Team (Switzerland): Pilatus PC-7
Midnight Hawks (Finland): BAe Hawk
Asas de Portugal: Alphajet
Patrulla Aguilas (Spain): Casa C-101
Biało-Czerwone Iskry (Poland): PZL Iskra

Other military teams:

Royal Jordanian Falcons: Extra 300
Marche Verte (Morroco): Mudry CAP 231

Non-Military teams:

Breitling team: Aero L-39
Blades: Extra 300
Flying Bulls: Alphajet

:)

[Silver Fox]

About 1/2 of both fighter and trainer lists I would cut as not really being major teams... but I would add the Aussie Roulettes, Brazilian Smoke Sqdn and Canada's Snowbirds.

[jmig]

Don't the Russians fly fighters?

Oops! Nevermind. Just re-looked at ferry's post.

[srgalahad]

It seems to me that a military demonstration team that would use aircraft that are not in fleet service is very much like false advertising. After all, their main goals are recruiting and goodwill. A kid that joins the military thinking he can work on or fly (say an L-159) and then learns "Those are just for show, You'll never work on those." is a bait and switch.

So is getting him pumped about flying an F-16 and then handing him a cabin-crew assignment on a C-9 Nightingale. There's not necessarily a connection between "show" and "go".

Don't forget that a huge part of the PR and recruiting value comes not from the flash and noise of the flying, but the face-to-face contacts at the autograph line afterward. There the kids and parents meet pilots and crew and can ask about the reality instead of the theatrics. Demo teams are trained to explain the nitty-gritty of recruiting and careers - it's their job.

Once I learn how to shrink an .avi file I'll post a tidbit from a summer show with the Snowbirds.

[srgalahad]

Here's a little clip. Sorry about the watermark but I gotta do this on the cheap for now. Handheld Canon pocket camera ( I forgot I'd tried 'video mode') and I guess an old dog can learn a few tricks.. it's also my first YT upload.... will wonders never cease?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bpeselKq3g
<object height="344" width="425"> <object height="344" width="425"> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0bpeselKq3g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object></object>

[srgalahad]

I have never seen the Snowbirds. They don't make it south to the Swamp Belt. So, maybe their numbers outweigh the power factor.

Guess you missed May 9 & 10, 2009 then.
http://www.barksdaleafbairshow.com/
http://www.snowbirds.forces.gc.ca/v2/as-sa/sch-cal-eng.asp

[jkcook28]

Hey, did they stick the Sabre in there to keep interest? ;) I prefer the front-line aircraft myself, for the noise alone!
(all comments in jest here):)

[srgalahad]

The Sabre is Hawk 1...

http://www.vintagewings.ca/page?a=19&lang=en-CA
http://www.vintagewings.ca/rsrc/vwc/pdf/sabre.pdf

As part of the 100th Anniversary it's been touring the country, solo and with the Snowbirds. Typical show is for the Snowbirds to "bring in" the Sabre then go offstage while the Sabre performs, then do their show later.

[Willy]

What about the T-38? (actually, I'd like to see a flight demo team in T-33s, but then I like the older stuff).

[Silver Fox]

I liked the T-birds in the white mice, Angels were great in the old Scooters as well. I wonder what the show would be like if the T-birds flew Warthogs? :)

[Willy]

I much preferred the Blue Angels when they were flying the A-4 than the F/A-18.