Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:55 am
BDK, I did some digging. Boeing builds the forward fuselage of the T-45 and BAE build the rear fuselage and the wing. The engine is a two spool marinized Rolls Royce. But the article says that they are trying to lease Hawks, not T-45s. The Hawks are ALL BAE, so the question arises again, what business is it of the US State Dept as it regards approval for a machine built in the UK ?
Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:34 am
sabredriver wrote:why would the US government have say on a british product?
Because Venga, the lessor, are a US Company.
Avro Arrow
Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:56 am
Oh boy, the Avro Arrow subject.
Hey Edward, thank you for handling that one so well. It's too big a subject to be written about in thread about the snowbirds.
My two cents is that there were internal and external factors that all led to the demise of the Avro Arrow. I hadn't heard of the U2 story before, but that's not out of the realm possibility. None-the-less, it happened and we could start our own topic on that one.
As for the Tutors being replaced, that's weird that the Canadian Armed Forces would need any approval or what have you from any US agency.
I wouldn't really say that the Tutor is a Chevette either. Sure it's old, but it's a nice looking machine. I'm not really excited about seeing ANOTHER formation group using the Hawks. It seems so unoriginal.
That's all for now, it's bedtime.
Cheers,
David
Hey Edward, thank you for handling that one so well. It's too big a subject to be written about in thread about the snowbirds.
My two cents is that there were internal and external factors that all led to the demise of the Avro Arrow. I hadn't heard of the U2 story before, but that's not out of the realm possibility. None-the-less, it happened and we could start our own topic on that one.
As for the Tutors being replaced, that's weird that the Canadian Armed Forces would need any approval or what have you from any US agency.
I wouldn't really say that the Tutor is a Chevette either. Sure it's old, but it's a nice looking machine. I'm not really excited about seeing ANOTHER formation group using the Hawks. It seems so unoriginal.
That's all for now, it's bedtime.
Cheers,
David
Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:46 am
why would a us state deptartment have to OK to Canada....a UK built aircraft leased by a US firm
that is the most wackest thing ive heard so far
US didnt OK the sales of european helicopters did it? to canada?
that is the most wackest thing ive heard so far
US didnt OK the sales of european helicopters did it? to canada?
Re: Avro Arrow
Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:54 am
daveymac82c wrote:I'm not really excited about seeing ANOTHER formation group using the Hawks. It seems so unoriginal.
As a kid growing up in the North America, I always thought the Snowbirds were the most interesting of all the demo teams. Something about the 9-jet formation was really interesting -- much more interesting than the 6-jet performances by the "home team" US teams, the T-Birds/Blues.
Jet teams with that many aircraft are commonplace in Europe, but that's really unique in NA. Hawks or not, the 'birds will remain a relevant and interesting demo team in my book.
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:45 am
I'm going to have to agree with David. Despite their age the Tutor is a great aircraft. If it weren't for practical concerns regarding maintenance and spares I'd love to see them solider on well into the future. It lends some nice continuity right back to the Golden Centenaries.
I'm sure the Hawk is a very appropriate aircraft for them if they do need a replacement, but I agree that it's too bad they'll look so Red Arrows-like flying them. Nothing against the RAs.... great team, great displays. But the Tutor at least makes the Snowbirds distinct.
What I find odd about this whole deal is the idea of the CF leasing the aircraft. I know it’s done often enough, but considering there are no actual Hawks on the CF register (they're leased for the NATO flying training program also) it seems to make the future of the team a little more questionable. At least with the Tutors they've owned them for a long time, and aren't in a bind when the lease runs out! They can just keep on running them as long as they see fit. With these leased Hawks, if the lease ends and the political climate isn't right then it’d arguably be much easier to axe the team than it would be now where they have their own birds and just keep on doing their thing.
My 2 cents anyways. Regardless, I hope they keep the 9 ship format. As Randy pointed out, its adds nicely to the mix of North American display teams.
Cheers
Edward
I'm sure the Hawk is a very appropriate aircraft for them if they do need a replacement, but I agree that it's too bad they'll look so Red Arrows-like flying them. Nothing against the RAs.... great team, great displays. But the Tutor at least makes the Snowbirds distinct.
What I find odd about this whole deal is the idea of the CF leasing the aircraft. I know it’s done often enough, but considering there are no actual Hawks on the CF register (they're leased for the NATO flying training program also) it seems to make the future of the team a little more questionable. At least with the Tutors they've owned them for a long time, and aren't in a bind when the lease runs out! They can just keep on running them as long as they see fit. With these leased Hawks, if the lease ends and the political climate isn't right then it’d arguably be much easier to axe the team than it would be now where they have their own birds and just keep on doing their thing.
My 2 cents anyways. Regardless, I hope they keep the 9 ship format. As Randy pointed out, its adds nicely to the mix of North American display teams.
Cheers
Edward
Last edited by Edward Soye on Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:58 am
Venga is a Canadian company.
Brian....
Brian....
Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:08 pm
This is one of those issue many look at from a nostalgic point of view, not a practical one. You have to remind yourself that the Snowbirds are a recruitment and marketing tool for DND and they should represent the skills and technology of the modern day forces. Does the Tutor represent this? Are the Tutor the best tool for that job?
There's also an issue of survivability of the team, down the road when the aircraft have to be replaced, what then? The cost of replacement will be higher and there may be less options. There are politicians and senior military officials who see the team as an un-necessary expense, money that can better be spent elsewhere and would see this as their chance to kill the team.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the options I've heard to extend the life of the Tutors is to scale back the show to reduce the stress on the aircraft to extend thier flying life. I like this idea even less, I can see it, 20 years from now we'll have a one Tutor team flying straight and level flyby's. SMOKE ON!
The Snowbirds are a unique display team which I'm proud to call Canadian and my hope is that the team remains intact and continue to be the only nine jet military team in North America. Which jet should they fly? The one that's best for the team and ensures their long term operation. Newer aircraft may provide some certainty and stability for the team. My biggest fear is that nothing is done until its too late and the team is disbanded or becomes a shell of its former self because of lack of planning and vision by DND.
Whether you support the Hawk as a replacement or not, the Tutors will have to be replaced at some point and it's good to see Venga and ARINC take some initiative and provide a proactive solution to a need.
For anyone who hasn't seen the Venga proposal, go to http://www.vengasystems.com/snowbirdproposalsummary.pdf
I guess the questions I can throw out to all the people who want to see the Tutors stay as the teams mount, how long should they keep them and what should they do when the aircraft have to be replaced?
BTW daveymac82c, I heard the CMF's Tutor did a tail dragger impression because of the snow. Was there any damage to it?
I think this is the longest message I've wrote!
Brian....
There's also an issue of survivability of the team, down the road when the aircraft have to be replaced, what then? The cost of replacement will be higher and there may be less options. There are politicians and senior military officials who see the team as an un-necessary expense, money that can better be spent elsewhere and would see this as their chance to kill the team.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the options I've heard to extend the life of the Tutors is to scale back the show to reduce the stress on the aircraft to extend thier flying life. I like this idea even less, I can see it, 20 years from now we'll have a one Tutor team flying straight and level flyby's. SMOKE ON!
The Snowbirds are a unique display team which I'm proud to call Canadian and my hope is that the team remains intact and continue to be the only nine jet military team in North America. Which jet should they fly? The one that's best for the team and ensures their long term operation. Newer aircraft may provide some certainty and stability for the team. My biggest fear is that nothing is done until its too late and the team is disbanded or becomes a shell of its former self because of lack of planning and vision by DND.
Whether you support the Hawk as a replacement or not, the Tutors will have to be replaced at some point and it's good to see Venga and ARINC take some initiative and provide a proactive solution to a need.
For anyone who hasn't seen the Venga proposal, go to http://www.vengasystems.com/snowbirdproposalsummary.pdf
I guess the questions I can throw out to all the people who want to see the Tutors stay as the teams mount, how long should they keep them and what should they do when the aircraft have to be replaced?
BTW daveymac82c, I heard the CMF's Tutor did a tail dragger impression because of the snow. Was there any damage to it?
I think this is the longest message I've wrote!
Brian....
Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:39 pm
I've been trying to think this through and I've got no idea why the State Dept. would need to approve this transfer, unless Venga plans either to import the Hawks through the U.S., or maybe for some reason they want to register them in the U.S.?
Jim
Jim
JETS ARE FOR KIDS
Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:53 pm
BLR ***Great idea LOL ... Snowbird SMOKE ON .... That is a horible way for the tutor to depart. I would like to see the Snowbirds with Tutors fly along side a couple Hawks for one season ... would that not be a cool way for the Birds to retire the Tutor? I think what should be done after the Tutor is retired is the CF should consider retaining a couple for a Heritage flight, add the CF-5s and others and there you go, the perfect retirement for the TUTOR.
The CF has it's recruiting tools. The most visable of course is the Snowbirds. Their Job is to recruit youth for the Forces. I remember some older friends who were flying "real" airplanes (TIGER MOTHS), one said "son - Jets are for Kids". It is with this thought that I support the use of a Jet for the Snowbirds and not an aircraft with a prop. The only logical and economical solution I could see is the Hawk. After reading the Venga summary, it seems that it just may be possible.
The posts here and the news releases had me go to my friends in the military to ask why the heck the US would have a say in the Canadian Forces. They explained that regardless of where the aircraft was manufactured if it has US technology in it .... there must be approval from the State Department. The word they used was something "itar"
As a tax payer I do not have a problem with leasing Hawks. It makes much more sense to lease "new" aircraft at the same current operating cost as the Tutor then it does to spend a 1/2 BILLION tax dollars on a recruiting tool when they could lease with no capital expenditure. (ASSUMING I READ THE VENGA CONCEPT CORRECTLY)
Just my 2 cents!
The CF has it's recruiting tools. The most visable of course is the Snowbirds. Their Job is to recruit youth for the Forces. I remember some older friends who were flying "real" airplanes (TIGER MOTHS), one said "son - Jets are for Kids". It is with this thought that I support the use of a Jet for the Snowbirds and not an aircraft with a prop. The only logical and economical solution I could see is the Hawk. After reading the Venga summary, it seems that it just may be possible.
The posts here and the news releases had me go to my friends in the military to ask why the heck the US would have a say in the Canadian Forces. They explained that regardless of where the aircraft was manufactured if it has US technology in it .... there must be approval from the State Department. The word they used was something "itar"
As a tax payer I do not have a problem with leasing Hawks. It makes much more sense to lease "new" aircraft at the same current operating cost as the Tutor then it does to spend a 1/2 BILLION tax dollars on a recruiting tool when they could lease with no capital expenditure. (ASSUMING I READ THE VENGA CONCEPT CORRECTLY)
Just my 2 cents!
Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:46 am
I wonder why any technology in a BAE Hawk would be considered U.S.
The Hawk was flying with many countries long before the T-45 was selected and the current partnership formed.
Of course if T-45 improvements have adapted to the newer Hawks, I guess that could explain the reason for the need for approval.
The Hawk was flying with many countries long before the T-45 was selected and the current partnership formed.
Of course if T-45 improvements have adapted to the newer Hawks, I guess that could explain the reason for the need for approval.
US APPROVAL
Sat Dec 16, 2006 2:51 am
I believe it was actually the avionics in the Swiss aircraft....
Re: US APPROVAL
Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:09 am
Vulture wrote:I believe it was actually the avionics in the Swiss aircraft....
But the the clocks are Swiss...right?!
A good example of the control mechanism is the case not to long ago when the US killed the sale by Spain of 12 European made (EADS-CASA) military transport aircraft to Venezuela because aircraft contained US military technology and required approval from Washington. It’s my understanding that a country isn’t obligated to follow these rules, but if n’ you want to business with the good ol US of A, then you best be following da rules!
Br...
Re: JETS ARE FOR KIDS
Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:38 am
[quote="Vulture"]BLR ***Great idea LOL ... Snowbird SMOKE ON .... That is a horible way for the tutor to depart. I would like to see the Snowbirds with Tutors fly along side a couple Hawks for one season ... would that not be a cool way for the Birds to retire the Tutor? I think what should be done after the Tutor is retired is the CF should consider retaining a couple for a Heritage flight, add the CF-5s and others and there you go, the perfect retirement for the TUTOR.
They still got six or so viable, unsold T-33s at Mountainview, but someone better hurry before they're stripped of usable parts and scrapped
The CF has it's recruiting tools. The most visable of course is the Snowbirds. Their Job is to recruit youth for the Forces. I remember some older friends who were flying "real" airplanes (TIGER MOTHS), one said "son - Jets are for Kids". It is with this thought that I support the use of a Jet for the Snowbirds and not an aircraft with a prop. The only logical and economical solution I could see is the Hawk. After reading the Venga summary, it seems that it just may be possible.
The posts here and the news releases had me go to my friends in the military to ask why the heck the US would have a say in the Canadian Forces. They explained that regardless of where the aircraft was manufactured if it has US technology in it .... there must be approval from the State Department. The word they used was something "itar"
ITAR=International Traffic in Arms Regulations (deals with sale/transfer of arms between different countries)
I had to get permission from the US Dept of Defense Technology Transfer Division and the US State Dept Office of Defense Trade Controls to import my T-33 from Canada to the USA because the aircraft was built with US technical data/assistance even though it was mfd by Canadair
They still got six or so viable, unsold T-33s at Mountainview, but someone better hurry before they're stripped of usable parts and scrapped
The CF has it's recruiting tools. The most visable of course is the Snowbirds. Their Job is to recruit youth for the Forces. I remember some older friends who were flying "real" airplanes (TIGER MOTHS), one said "son - Jets are for Kids". It is with this thought that I support the use of a Jet for the Snowbirds and not an aircraft with a prop. The only logical and economical solution I could see is the Hawk. After reading the Venga summary, it seems that it just may be possible.
The posts here and the news releases had me go to my friends in the military to ask why the heck the US would have a say in the Canadian Forces. They explained that regardless of where the aircraft was manufactured if it has US technology in it .... there must be approval from the State Department. The word they used was something "itar"
ITAR=International Traffic in Arms Regulations (deals with sale/transfer of arms between different countries)
I had to get permission from the US Dept of Defense Technology Transfer Division and the US State Dept Office of Defense Trade Controls to import my T-33 from Canada to the USA because the aircraft was built with US technical data/assistance even though it was mfd by Canadair
NEW HAWKS NEW PAINT JOB?
Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:13 am
Hey gang I saw the pic from Venga, with the proposed new Hawks in Snowbirds colours. I am amazed that if the team is updating their image and aircraft, you would think that the paint for the team would be updated as well, no? I would love to see a kick ass paint scheme that was very modern and similar in complexity of some of the paint jobs they do on the CF-18 ....
IMHO
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3DCF-18%26fr%3Dslv1-mdp%26b%3D141&w=700&h=360&imgurl=decals.kitreview.com%2Fdecals%2Fimages%2FCF-18A_LED48044-00.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdecals.kitreview.com%2Fdecals%2Fle48044da_1.htm&size=72.6kB&name=CF-18A_LED48044-00.jpg&p=CF-18&type=jpeg&no=147&tt=13,970&oid=dc769ab5ffd90c12&ei=UTF-8
ARE There any repaints for a hawk Snowbird for MS FS?
Vulture
IMHO
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3DCF-18%26fr%3Dslv1-mdp%26b%3D141&w=700&h=360&imgurl=decals.kitreview.com%2Fdecals%2Fimages%2FCF-18A_LED48044-00.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdecals.kitreview.com%2Fdecals%2Fle48044da_1.htm&size=72.6kB&name=CF-18A_LED48044-00.jpg&p=CF-18&type=jpeg&no=147&tt=13,970&oid=dc769ab5ffd90c12&ei=UTF-8
ARE There any repaints for a hawk Snowbird for MS FS?
Vulture