Snowbird replacement aircraft

[iflyforpie]

The Tudor is --so-- Canadian. It nicely symbolizes the "ancientness" of our frontline fighter fleet on the world stage. We are the "thrift" recyclers and endless maintainers of --insignificant numbers of ancient junk--.

I have to agree, in this generation of bottom line and wanting the "big bucks" I think military demonstration teams are dreams of years gone by. The main motivation to create a team was to sell the armed forces as a career, it's not like that anymore. Young pilots entering the industry is money oriented and the first question now is how much do you pay. They also want to establish their seniority so going to the military for the large part is not going to fill their expectations and in fact be a liability due to loss of seniority.

Very true.

When I was growing up there was an aura of mystery and excitement around anything to do with aviation. Now all you have to do is peruse instagram or YouTube to see everything and read forums to get the low down.

A friend of mine was doing his Group 1 initial at Pro and there was an ex-Hornet driver pretty much beside himself trying to figure out how to convert everything as fast as possible because he needed to be at AC mainline yesterday. If he made it he’s probably getting a heavy dose of what the industry is like right now.. but at least doing a bit better than his fellow AC pilots.

But yeah.. see the Snowbirds, they are very nice, but they don’t really inspire people to join up. Especially in this modern world where it isn’t sitting in a base in Germany waiting for WWIII that probably isn’t going to happen... but following the Americans on another jingoistic crusade to the sandbox to accomplish precisely nothing.

Ultimately it will be the Canadian Public who will decide. I’m sure that there is enough popular support that any disbandment of the team would never happen.

[DadoBlade]

RippleRock wrote: "The Tudor is --so-- Canadian" May I gently remind him The Tudor period occurred between 1485 and 1603 in England and Wales. Tudor was also an architectural style that developed in England between 1485 and 1558.

The Tutor period however, started in Canada in the early 1960's.

Canadair did propose a replacement for the Tutor in the late 1960's. I think it was a tandem-seat swept wing design. A resin scale-model of the design still exists, somewhere.. The design resembled the Russian KB SAT SR-10 jet trainer.

The USAF retired the twin-engine Cessna T-37 in 2009.
The RAF retired the single-engine BAC Jet Provost in 1993.


The RCAF also operated six AVRO Tutors from the early 1930's to 1940:

[DadoBlade]

Total thread drift, but there was indeed an aircraft named Tudor. A four-engine pressurised, taildragging airliner developed by AVRO. Based on the wing and undercarriage from the AVRO Lincoln bomber, the Tudor was produced from 1945 to 1949. Only 38 were produced, but with nine variants. BOAC cancelled its order for Tudors in 1947, instead taking delivery of 22 Canadair North Stars which they renamed C-4 Argonauts, and used them extensively between 1949 and 1960.

The sole Canadian operator of the AVRO Tudor, Lome Airways Limited, operated the type V on DEW Line support missions from 1953 to 1959. Here is CF-FCY:

[valleyboy]

Ironic this thread has become a little more relevant today.

[snowcrest]

The timing of this thread is extremely eerie.

[Inverted2]

I bet Trudy announces something soon. Every day he comes out at 11:00 am like a coo coo clock he spends another billion on something. He can just print more money and buy the new jets and everything will be just fine.

[rigpiggy]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

[Old fella]

I would respectfully suggest if a poll was taken from the general public, replacement ac for Snowbirds wouldn’t rate very high, probably wouldn’t even register. At this conjecture it would be who cares, way more pressing issues. Having said that I always enjoyed Snowbirds aerial demonstrations, starting in the ‘70s and beyond. The CFB Shearwater airshow was always a fun time, remembering many happy hours there with wife and kids few yrs back, especially the kids as they really got a charge out of the big airplanes.

[schnitzel2k3]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

Is 775M anywhere near enough to buy 12-13 replacement jets plus parts for a demo team?

I'm honestly not sure, just used to seeing much larger numbers when procuring new military hardware.

What did the jets from down under cost Trudeau?

[rigpiggy]

775/63% is 448m based upon the 24m/aircraft of the USAF order 20 aircraft should be easily done, especially if they did a larger order to replace the Hawks. Figure 2Bn 50 aircraft order including sims.... and lease out to NFTP, after all they are getting F35s overseas, why would they pay to run Hawks?

[L39Guy]

There are a few things to consider about any replacement aircraft for the Snowbirds.

First, is cost and the ability to fund it. With lots of deferred equipment acquisitions on the horizon (CF18 replacement) a lot of $ will be tied up. And that is to say nothing of the $250 billion that the COVID response is going to pile onto the national debt. IMHO, there is no money available to buy replacement aircraft.

Second, the Tutors, in the big picture, cost almost next to nothing to operate. The aircraft are long since bought and paid for, there are tons of spare aircraft and parts sitting in Mountain View, and that the biggest cost is the maintainers that are doing the maintenance in Moose Jaw. Fuel burn is a fraction of any replacement aircraft.

Third, while Sunday's accident was an enourmous tragedy one cannot let that event interfere with rational thought. As an example, let's say the Snowbirds get a Hawk replacement - another single engine aircraft - and it has a similar engine failure just after take-off. There is no guarantee that the same scenario would not have unfolded. If avoiding an accident involving an engine failure is to replace one single engine aircraft with another at great cost, you have accomplished nothing. And, as I have pointed out on another thread, while the airframe is nominally almost 60 years old the engines are relatively new and are still in production to satisfy the 500+ T38's the USAF still flies that use the same, basic engine. It is of note that none of the Tutor accidents are a result of the 60 year old airframe failing; they all seem to be engine related.

A better ejection seat? The new models are quite large and likely would not fit into the Tutor cockpit. And even if they did, an engineering program to support a 12 operational aircraft fleet is tough to justify.

Finally, I would submit that if there was not a fatality in this accident (and the margin between being a successful and unsuccessful ejection in this case being in the order of seconds), this accident like the one in October would not be as big an issue nor the replacement of the Tutor be such an issue.

[schnitzel2k3]

775/63% is 448m based upon the 24m/aircraft of the USAF order 20 aircraft should be easily done, especially if they did a larger order to replace the Hawks. Figure 2Bn 50 aircraft order including sims.... and lease out to NFTP, after all they are getting F35s overseas, why would they pay to run Hawks?

What would you recommend for airframes, if our opinions actually mattered, for the Snowbirds?

I think a smaller team of 6 CF-118 trainers would be ideal, plus spares. Transition them from active duty over to the team.

Use that 775M for newer airframes to replace our current selection of Hornets. I'd like to see the E Grippen or Growler in our fleet within the next 10 years. Sorry, not trying to start a 5th vs 4th gen thread drift guys.

[RippleRock]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

[schnitzel2k3]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

We could very well be involved in the next Cold War with China regarding COVID19.

Might not be a bad idea to continue to support our Forces, particularly in very economically and politically unstable times.

[L39Guy]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

Just because the "Cold War" is over it doesn't eliminate the need for an armed services; the armed services exist for more than the defense of Europe. There is not enough room or my time to explain what they do but I urge to look them on on the government website to see for yourself.

And since the military does exist there is a need to continually recruit, just like any other "business" and the Snowbirds is one of the best vehicles to do that. Pretty difficult to recruit with ships and amoured vehicles but aircraft are extremely mobile and can reach hundreds of thousands in a single go (an airshow).

In addition to the recruiting aspect, the Snowbirds are one of the few remaining national symbols in this country that helps differentiates us from the Yanks. And, as Operation Inspiration clearly demonstrated, the Snowbirds are a unifying force across our great country; some of the comments on Facebook of people bursting into tears when they did their fly-over is proof of this.

As far as your assessment of manned fighters, you are even more out-to-lunch on that account. But rather than me explaining the role of manned aircraft and specifically fighters, if your thesis is correct what do countries continue to buy them at great cost? Surely if there was no need for them the militaries around the world would be cancelling programs and parking the jets they do have. Drones and satellites definitely have their role but so far at least they cannot replace the human element, much like the notion of pilotless passenger aircraft.

[RippleRock]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

Just because the "Cold War" is over it doesn't eliminate the need for an armed services; the armed services exist for more than the defense of Europe. There is not enough room or my time to explain what they do but I urge to look them on on the government website to see for yourself.

And since the military does exist there is a need to continually recruit, just like any other "business" and the Snowbirds is one of the best vehicles to do that. Pretty difficult to recruit with ships and amoured vehicles but aircraft are extremely mobile and can reach hundreds of thousands in a single go (an airshow).

In addition to the recruiting aspect, the Snowbirds are one of the few remaining national symbols in this country that helps differentiates us from the Yanks. And, as Operation Inspiration clearly demonstrated, the Snowbirds are a unifying force across our great country; some of the comments on Facebook of people bursting into tears when they did their fly-over is proof of this.

As far as your assessment of manned fighters, you are even more out-to-lunch on that account. But rather than me explaining the role of manned aircraft and specifically fighters, if your thesis is correct what do countries continue to buy them at great cost? Surely if there was no need for them the militaries around the world would be cancelling programs and parking the jets they do have. Drones and satellites definitely have their role but so far at least they cannot replace the human element, much like the notion of pilotless passenger aircraft.

They don't make "pilotless" passenger aircraft, they aren't even on the drawing board yet. Let's stick to a apples vs. apples comparison.

A drone does in fact have a "person" on scene....the operator, which is likely overseen by an immediate superior. A pilot in a fast fighter will likely see less than the sophisticated cameras onboard a Predator anyway. Plus, what the pilot sees is usually an image on radar or other imaging device......no advantage over a drone operator. A huge plus in a combat scenario is that the "pilot" isn't onboard, so the "adrenalin/fear induced" error factor would likely be less.

I've never heard a kid say to their parents, "I want to fly a subsonic aircraft designed in the mid-1950's." The Tutor is ancient and slow ( but it is cute ). How can it "inspire"? I've been to a few US airshows where the Snowbirds have attended. Every time I've heard comments around me like..." what type of aircraft is that?...ummmm...I donno….. I think its one of those Cessna Dragonflys that we gave to the Vietnamese in the early 60's" or...."any average pilot could fly one of those, they're so slow, look at the straight wing and tubby cockpit"

You'll likely tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but this is what I've heard firsthand. Maybe they inspire some Canadians, but to me they are a 60 year old symbol of our inability to move forward with proper equipment for our forces. Constant recycling and upgrading inferior products. The men and women of our armed forces certainly deserve better.

[EI-EIO]

According to this NatPost (no friend to the present government) an estimate of $775m was made in 2012 but not proceeded with by the then (Conservative) government. That’s not quite the same as a cancellation as I read it. Whether the decision to extend the current fleet was ill advised will be a matter best held over until after the investigation findings.

https://nationalpost.com/news/aircraft- ... until-2030

The piece itself claims voices within CF do not see Snowbirds as adding to combat effort. A full replacement of Hawk and Tutor with T-7s with a common airframe economy of scale between the two, and a further economy of scale with the F404 powerplant could change that. Even more so if a CF-5-esque variation was made available. Question would be how to get the Canadian content numbers into the politically viable zone.

As for the claims above that the Snowbirds are enthusiastically received and are material to recruitment... this might at the very least be a matter which splits differently in urban and rural Canada, but what I saw here in Toronto in respect of GovCan requesting this mission was a mix of either indifference with the odd picture popping up on a blog or a twitter account, or eye rolling that we were following the Americans on this, with that Administration more likely looking for a distraction from their failures than inspiration for their front line workers. We are all stuck in our house, losing track of time, can’t congregate in optimal viewing areas; how many people actually saw these displays as a % of the populations overflown?

[snowcrest]

I bet Trudy announces something soon. Every day he comes out at 11:00 am like a coo coo clock he spends another billion on something. He can just print more money and buy the new jets and everything will be just fine.

How about you try putting on some big boy pants and stop whining like a child?
Borderline pathetic.

[jakeandelwood]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

And that Snowbird aircraft could have easily been a 172 doing circuits, had an engine failure, and killed your fictional 7 year old on bike. Should we shut down recreational flying so we are not risking innocent 7 year olds lives?

[jakeandelwood]

Quote "I've never heard a kid say to their parents, "I want to fly a subsonic aircraft designed in the mid-1950's." unquote.

Ripplerock, you've probably never heard a kid say that because they probably don't care, they are just enjoying the Snowbirds show.