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 The Mirage 2000 was actually a candidate in our new-fighter competition, but was withdrawn (I know not why).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