Alternative Snowbird Aircraft (merged)

[FredDaHead]

I hope this doesn't go where I think it'll go..

Oh you know the lieberals will use their own failure to try and harm the Conservatives. Isn't that what they've been doing since PM Harper came in?

 

[observor 69]

Oh you know the lieberals will use their own failure to try and harm the Conservatives. Isn't that what they've been doing since PM Harper came in?

Gee I thought it was the other way around. Harper is constantly telling us how the Liberals failed at this failed at that blah blah.
It is becoming a tired old song.
How about for a change he tells us what the Harper government can do?

 

[volition]

Well, your still getting paid...for now ;D

 

[Crimmsy]

Bumping an old thread, but Finland has announced that it is buying the 18 Hawk 66's that Venga Aerospace was interested in.

Article Link

Finnish air force snaps up surplus Hawk trainers
By Craig Hoyle

The Finnish air force has signed a deal worth about €40 million ($53.7 million) to acquire 18 secondhand BAE Systems Hawk 66 trainers from the Swiss air force, bringing to an end an almost five-year effort to dispose of the surplus aircraft.

Finnish defence minister Jyri Hakamies says the aircraft are being obtained for the cost of around two new-build advanced jet trainers, but offer a combined remaining service life of 90,000 flight hours: sufficient for 15 years of use.

"The purchase allows the service more time to plan its future flight training arrangements and enables co-operation in this field with other European air forces," the defence ministry says. Finland is a member of the planned nine-nation Eurotraining scheme, along with Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden, with the partners eyeing the establishment of a shared pilot training service by around the middle of the next decade.

The ex-Swiss air force aircraft will join Finland's fleet of 49 Hawk 51/51As, operations of which take place primarily from Kauhava airbase. The newly acquired aircraft feature only minor differences in their avionics, engines and weapons systems, the defence ministry says.

Other previous potential uses for the surplus aircraft had included a Venga Aerospace Systems proposal to offer the Hawks as replacements for the Canadair CT-114 Tutors flown by the Canadian Forces' Snowbirds display team.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/607845

Plan would keep team's ancient jets in the air until 2020 despite safety worries
Mar 25, 2009
Allan Woods

OTTAWA – A plan to keep Canada's ancient Snowbirds airborne 10 years beyond their lifespan would ignore previous warnings that they should be immediately replaced and could put the lives of the precision pilots at unnecessary risk.
Documents obtained by the Toronto Star show senior defence officials have asked Defence Minister Peter MacKay to approve a plan that would see the CT-114 Tutor jets perform through to 2020.
The officials say that doing so presents "technical risks" but will save a significant amount of money.

But any decision to extend the service of the Tutors would come despite internal military reports, some dating back to 2003, urging that they be replaced "immediately," in the wake of a number of accidents, including the 2007 death of Capt. Shawn McCaughey.
He died when his seat belt malfunctioned while flying upside down at a Montana air show.
A final report on the investigation into his death, which exposed a delay in dealing with the lingering problem of seat-belt malfunctions, has not been completed.

Seven Snowbird pilots have perished in flight since 1972. The planes have flown since 1963 and have performed at North American air shows since 1971.
The safety of the planes – the last one was produced by Canadair in 1966 – is a sore point for the air force, which faces pointed questions each time a Tutor crashes.

It is seeking final approvals for the $116 million it will take to upgrade and maintain the jets.
Without the upgrades, it will be impossible for the Snowbirds to continue the precision and acrobatic flights after the 2010 air show season thanks to obsolete parts and difficulty servicing the fleet.

There is no longer time to replace the Snowbird fleet by 2010 so the upgrades are the only way to keep the planes in the air until either 2015 or 2020, the documents from last fall explain.
Senior air force officials, including Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, the chief of the air staff, told MacKay that purchasing replacement aircraft for 2015 would lessen the technical risks associated with extending the CT-114 beyond that date.

Extending service of the Tutors to 2020 is a "technically challenging" option but it would allow the Canadian Forces to select a plane that could serve double duty with both the air force's pilot training program and the Snowbirds, providing a "significantly lower cost when compared against a new aircraft acquisition."
The estimated cost to upgrade the seat, engine and navigation systems on the Tutors through to 2020 is $116 million, while buying replacement planes in 2015 "in effect increases the long-term life cycle costs of providing air demonstration capability," says the briefing note, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

There is still a risk that the NATO Flying Training Canada program, through which NATO countries send pilots to bases in Moose Jaw, Sask., and Cold Lake, Alta., for jet pilot training, will select replacement aircraft that are "not compatible with the Snowbird mission" in 2020, the briefing note says.
"If this occurs, the (Canadian Forces) would be in the position of having to purchase a unique, stand-alone fleet. ... However, it is anticipated that this risk is low."
No final approval has been granted to the extension yet, said a spokesperson for MacKay, though the documents note a decision is expected before this summer.
On the Snowbirds' website, it says the pilots are "very confident flying the Tutor. It is safe and performs extremely well as a demonstration aircraft."
Former Snowbird lead pilot George Miller agreed that the safety risks that go along with flying the aging planes wouldn't necessarily be greater, noting that the seatbelt system and ejection seats have been much improved in recent years.

What is lamentable is that by the end of the next decade Canada's flagship demonstration team will be flying an obsolete plane that does little to represent the modern air force, he said."We have a great tradition as military officers of having a stiff upper lip and just doing what we're told ... so you can bet that the airplanes will be pristine," said Miller. "But down deep we know darn well it's a shame that we as a western frontline country don't have the wherewithal to represent our nation."

The only other option for the future of the Snowbirds – scrapping the team completely – is out of the question for the military.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Why not just use soem of the mothballed Cf 18s like the US Navy Blue Angels?
Would look like we were using newer equipment and fly  state of the art aircraft for PR and public shows.
Just  my  thoughts

 

[Kirkhill]

Or perhaps the Snowbirds could be redesignated: " The Canadian Forces Heritage Flight".

 

[dapaterson]

Why not just use soem of the mothballed Cf 18s like the US Navy Blue Angels?
Would look like we were using newer equipment and fly  state of the art aircraft for PR and public shows.
Just  my  thoughts

Mothballed CF-18s are mothballed because they had the highest number of flight hours or other reasons not to invest in keeping them flying.  As well, the CF-18 is hardly state-of-the-art - the fundamental design is three decades old.

The slower speed of the Snowbirds is actually a selling point - you can do a lot more over the crowd when you're flying slow, and manage some maneuvers that aren't as impressive at high speed.

Of course, even if we were to disband the CF, we'd keep the Snowbirds and the Ceremonial Guard...

 

[aesop081]

Why not just use soem of the mothballed Cf 18s like the US Navy Blue Angels?

Other than the fact that they are mothballed for a reason, the cost of operating the CF-188 compared to a jet trainer-type aircraft is huge.

Having seen both the Snowbirds and the Blue Angels , the Tutor has the major advantage of being slower and thus keeping the show where it should be : Right in front of the crowd.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Suppose they  could get  some used airframes from the US Navy  cheap and do the F 18 , buy some replacement airframes off ebay , or get  spares for the Tutors from museums?
I worked at the Hamilton Air Show in the 90s , and I got to attend some dinners and after show bar nights. There was some Snow Birds there along with some other country  's team , the other country  said if the Snow Birds had more powerful jets the show they  could would beat  any other team in the world. The pilot siad the show The Birds put on in their aged jets then was great and chnage of plane would make it even more impressive

 

[aesop081]

Suppose they  could get  some used airframes from the US Navy  cheap and do the F 18

It wouldnt change the huge operating costs of flying 11 Hornets. The USN is dealing with issues with continuing to operate "legacy" Hornets ( A and B models) so why would we want to buy more time expired aircrafts.

The Birds put on in their aged jets then was great and chnage of plane would make it even more impressive

They wouldnt be able to put on the same show with a Hornet.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I do not know anything about the cost of operating the Turtors or the F18s. I just parrotted what  i heard at the airshow. I am know the Blue Angels use the F18 and they  use older frames. Saw it on the Military Channel.
Before I am told to stay in my lanes I have this to say. I would liek to see the SnowBirds keep flying , in newer machines and safer machines. They  do put on a great  low speed show.

 

[aesop081]

I am know the Blue Angels use the F18 and they  use older frames.

I suspect that the BAs will not operate legacy Hornets for very long as the USN is begining to look at getting rid of all A and B - models that are in service. They will likely move to newer C/D models or even E/F models. Even the USAF thunderbirds are trading in the A/B model F-16s for newer C ( block 52 IIRC) models.

I would liek to see the SnowBirds keep flying ,

Within the AF itself, there is strong debate on that.

in newer machines and safer machines.

There are better suited machines out there.

 

[dapaterson]

There are better suited machines out there.

I, for one, look forward to the 430 ETAH Demonstration Team replacing 431 AD Sqn.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Defence officials want Snowbird jets in air until 2020: report
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 | 12:51 PM ET
CBC News

Senior defence officials have asked Defence Minister Peter MacKay to approve a plan to keep the 1960's-era jets used by the Snowbirds in the air until 2020, according to a published report.

The Toronto Star said Wednesday it has obtained documents in which officials acknowledge there are "technical risks" in keeping the CT-114 Tutor jets performing for another 11 years.

However, the officials said the move would save a lot of money, said the report.

The planes have been flying since 1963 and have performed in air shows since 1971.

Military officials have said in the past they don't expect the jets to be replaced any time soon.

In 2002, the officer in charge of purchasing aircraft for the armed forces, said the Tutor could be flown until 2020.

"We can fly the Tutor, safely and effectively, for quite some time as long as perhaps 2020," said Col. Dave Burt, the Canadian Forces director of air requirements.

In 2003, a military study recommended replacing the Tutor jets with the British Aerospace Hawk T1, the plane used by the British demonstration flying team. The Canadian Forces currently uses the Hawk as its advanced training jet at CFB Moose Jaw.

Supporters argue the team is a vital icon of the Canadian Forces, while critics say the $10-million budget could be better spent within the military.

Seven Snowbird pilots have died in flight since 1972, the latest being Capt. Bryan Mitchell, who was killed, along with military photographer Sgt. Charles Senecal, in October 2008 when their jet crashed in a farmer's field near 15 Wing Moose Jaw, an airbase in southwest Saskatchewan.

In May 2007, Capt. Shawn McCaughey died when his seat belt malfunctioned while flying upside down at a Montana air show.

With files from the Canadian Press

 

[observor 69]

A few years ago I was present at the "Wings Over Houston Airshow". I found the Snowbirds boring and I couldn't figure out why. My conclusion is "variety", lots and lots of it, is what I find interesting.  Old aircraft, new, ancient , military or civy, home built,  whatever, it is the world of aviation that I love. Static displays, fly pasts, anything old or new in the world of aviation it all adds interst to the event. So for me the Snowbirds have become a none issue, until Canada can present something new/old /different.
Speaking of which I just recalled HAWK ONE might just be the ticket! 
Disclaimer: The American crowds at Houston/ Ellington Field loved the Snowbirds. 

 

[geo]

Nothing wrong with the TUTORS in principle.... they are just getting pert long in the tooth.  When parts are scarce & maintenance starts to become a headache, it's time to start thinking about finding a replacement... Hell, I joined in 1970 & I thought that at 38-39 yrs of service - I was old !!!

 

[dapaterson]

it's time to start thinking about finding a replacement... Hell, I joined in 1970 & I thought that at 38-39 yrs of service - I was old !!!

No argument here  >

 

[aesop081]

  When parts are scarce

The suppy of parts is not the issue. The CF has lots of old Tutors around to get parts from. Thats how we manage to replace crash aircraft so quickly. The issue is that everything is old and tired.

 

[George Wallace]

Why not just use soem of the mothballed Cf 18s like the US Navy Blue Angels?
Would look like we were using newer equipment and fly  state of the art aircraft for PR and public shows.
Just  my  thoughts

I know it was just a thought, but did you also think that this would probably mean moving the whole unit, from Moose Jaw to Cold Lake where CF 18 maint and infrastructure exist.  This would mean that the Pilots would no longer be drawn from the School cadre of Instructors. 

CF 18s would not be sent to Moose Jaw, as they are not "Training" aircraft. 

Simple solutions really are quite often a lot more complex than one with no experience in the decisions to be made may think.