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.
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.
"SigPig" said 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.
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.
What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?
Whats the Challenger have to do with it?
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.
Does the US still have these in their boneyards?
What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?
Far less than a C-17...
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.
But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...
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.
But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...
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!
But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...
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
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...
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.