[Newsbot]

Title: Cost cuts snare Snowbirds
Category: Military
Posted By: SigPig
Date: 2009-03-25 06:33:34
Canadian

[SigPig]

Can't say I agree with most of this but still an interesting read. From what I have heard the snowbirds are extremely safe for their age due to the many spare airframes still in storage from their time as a training aircraft. Though to see the team get come new planes, say in the form of Hawks would be nice.

[ridenrain]

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

[SigPig]

ridenrain ridenrain:

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

Whats the Challenger have to do with it?

[ridenrain]

Just a flippant remark about priorities.

[SigPig]

The Challenger first entered service in the early 1980's long before the Tutors were up for replacement in any capacity. Kind of a none issue really.

I still maintain that the Tutor is a viable aircraft in terms of safety simply because we have a whole mess of spares. Though in terms of appearances it does look a tad bad that our demonstration team is flying forty year aircraft. But unsafe they are not.

[hurley_108]

I think he was talking about Chretien's Challenger commuter jets....

[ridenrain]

I did say it was flippant...

Does the US still have these in their boneyards?

[bootlegga]

But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

ridenrain ridenrain:

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

Far less than a C-17...

[ziggy]

SigPig SigPig:

The Challenger first entered service in the early 1980's long before the Tutors were up for replacement in any capacity. Kind of a none issue really.

I still maintain that the Tutor is a viable aircraft in terms of safety simply because we have a whole mess of spares. Though in terms of appearances it does look a tad bad that our demonstration team is flying forty year aircraft. But unsafe they are not.

Nothing wrong with a 40 year old aircraft.

[RUEZ]

bootlegga bootlegga:

But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

ridenrain ridenrain:

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

Far less than a C-17...

But not as low as those kickass British subs.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

ridenrain ridenrain:

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

Far less than a C-17...

But not as low as those kickass British subs.

You mean the one that got a Brit carrier in a NATO exercise a while back? Yeah, they are pretty kickass!

[PENATRATOR]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

ridenrain ridenrain:

What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

Far less than a C-17...

But not as low as those kickass British subs.

...or cancelled choppers

[bootlegga]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

Far less than a C-17...

But not as low as those kickass British subs.

...or cancelled choppers

Or the cancelled Arrow...

[uwish]

well no matter which government did what to whom and when is irrelevant.

I think the jets are still viable for another 5 years, 10 is pushing it for sure. I am not suggesting they replace them with 18's but I think the Hawk is a good choice as stated here before.

The government really needs to seriously look at replacing them and not get into the typical CF duct tape it until it falls apart mentality. I think the brass should be pushing the government to replace or disband the unit due to operational limitations of the aircraft. Once the public get wind the snowbirds might be disbanded there would be no choice BUT to replace the AC.