Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Canada's defence : Doesn't anyone care?
Message-ID: <5902@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 13:30:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5902
Posted: Thu Aug 22 13:30:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Aug-85 13:30:59 EDT
References: <833@utcs.UUCP> <835@utcs.UUCP>, <615@alberta.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 49

>	I do question the decision to purchase F-18's.

It was probably the best aircraft available at the price our glorious
government was willing to pay, unfortunately.

> The F-20 is far cheaper and about equal in capabilities. It also is
> capable of greater range.

I haven't checked the range numbers, but you're probably right.  Note
however that the F-20 didn't exist at the time when we were buying.
You can wait forever to get the best buy; we damn near did!  The CAF's
fighters were falling apart, and should have been replaced ten years ago.
I'm afraid that F-18s today make me happier than F-20s three or four
years down the road.

> The F-16 is faster and more reliable and about the same price.

They're both in the same speed range, last I heard.  The F-16 can't, at
the moment, carry medium-range air-to-air missiles, which is a significant
loss for air defence.  Yes, this will be fixed eventually, at the cost of
greater complexity and hence lower reliability.  It's also single-engined,
which is the subject of perennial debates about safety; not a trivial
issue for long-range operations in places like the Arctic.

> The Super Entende(sp?) is cheaper,faster, greater range, and like the 
> F-16, battle proven. 

Are you sure you aren't confusing two different aircraft?  The Super Etendard
is basically a subsonic light bomber, not a fighter.  The Mirage 2000 was
actually a candidate in our new-fighter competition, but was withdrawn
(I know not why).  It's too new for any combat experience.

Your comments about political motivations for the F-18 purchase are
probably right.  But missile capabilities and two engines made it the
winner of the cheapie fighters, at the time anyway.

As to what we *should* have had...  The Panavia Tornado is built by a
consortium originally organized by... Canada!?!  We withdrew from it
during the Trudeau years because there was no clear requirement for 
the aircraft (!).  For our needs, it's a much better aircraft than any
of the lightweights.

If you want another example of lost opportunities, some years ago
Grumman was interested in using a Canadian order to get a land-based
variant of the F-14 going.  They were keen enough on this that the price
might well have been manageable.  Then.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry