FastCargo 412 Posted August 9, 2009 The question should be if to go for new F-16's or renew the current fleet. Surely going the referb route is the cheapest? Not necessarily. Folks who've worked on them could tell ya better, but I know that lot's of F-16s have been retired due to fatigue...lots of hard hours flown. Unlike the older days, where engineers tended to put extra 'beef' on the airframe because the precision wasn't there and they erred to the cautious side, as STORM said, more modern aircraft tend to cut lots closer to the bone on specs...resulting in less overall life due to wear and tear. Anyway, because of this, you'd have to put a LOT of work into an airframe to get it back up to speed...verses just spending a little extra money and getting a brand new airframe. In some cases it makes sense (T-38), but in other cases it doesn't. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 10, 2009 Also, if the cost is very close (between refurb and new build) it makes more sense in this case (where you're addressing shortfalls in numbers) to buy new. While being refurb'd the plane is out of service for a long time, so you actually decrease the active inventory to do it. That's why the USMC went with a mixed new build/refurb for the H-1 program instead of total refurb. I think the same thing is happening with the CH-47s? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
