news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Cost cuts snare Snowbirds

Canadian Content
20676news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Cost cuts snare Snowbirds


Military | 206756 hits | Mar 25 6:33 am | Posted by: SigPig
24 Comment

Plan would keep team's ancient jets in the air until 2020 despite safety worries

Comments

  1. by avatar SigPig
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:41 pm
    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.

  2. by ridenrain
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:04 pm
    What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?

  3. by avatar SigPig
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:36 pm
    "ridenrain" said
    What's the trade in value for a challenger jet?


    Whats the Challenger have to do with it?

  4. by ridenrain
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:44 pm
    Just a flippant remark about priorities.

  5. by avatar SigPig
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:49 pm
    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.

  6. by avatar hurley_108
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:56 pm
    I think he was talking about Chretien's Challenger commuter jets....

  7. by ridenrain
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:02 pm
    I did say it was flippant... :D

    Does the US still have these in their boneyards?

  8. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:45 pm
    But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...


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


    Far less than a C-17... :roll:

  9. by Anonymous
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:47 pm
    "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.


    Nothing wrong with a 40 year old aircraft.

  10. by avatar RUEZ
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:58 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...


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


    Far less than a C-17... :roll:
    But not as low as those kickass British subs.

  11. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:24 pm
    "RUEZ" said
    But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...


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


    Far less than a C-17... :roll:
    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!

  12. by avatar PENATRATOR
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:58 pm
    "RUEZ" said
    But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...


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


    Far less than a C-17... :roll:
    But not as low as those kickass British subs.


    ...or cancelled choppers

  13. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:59 pm
    "PENATRATOR" said
    But I thought the Conservativs love the CF...

    Far less than a C-17... :roll:

    But not as low as those kickass British subs.


    ...or cancelled choppers

    Or the cancelled Arrow...

  14. by avatar uwish
    Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:08 pm
    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.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2026 by Canadaka.net