Quote:
Originally Posted by speede5
Replacing the 18 has little to do with it's airworthiness. It is maintained well and is as safe as any other aircraft in the CF fleet.
The problem with it's age is that it costs much more to keep it airworthy, as stress damage accumulates you have to do more invasive repairs etc. Parts failures can be extremely costly as items which need replacement are out of production or there is a high turnaround time. This is a major issue with the Tutor fleet as well.
The CF tends to use it's aircraft well past the original service life, and that is fine but it costs a fortune. Imagine how much easier it is to find parts and service a 2010 Ford compared to a 1950 Ford. Both can be roadworthy but one the dealer will have parts on the shelf and the other you will search the internet for a month and pay through the nose.
Another of the main factors is that the 18 is not plug and play with other Nato aircraft. We aren't as capable to play with the US when they are in theatre. A recent avionics update helped but it's not the best way to go.
|
I always thought that the upgrade would have put us more in line or close to NATO requirements, what's missing in terms of interoperability?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|