Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Canada's defence : Doesn't anyone care?
Message-ID: <1887@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 15:56:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1887
Posted: Mon Aug 26 15:56:47 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Aug-85 17:19:37 EDT
References: <833@utcs.UUCP> <835@utcs.UUCP> <615@alberta.UUCP> <5902@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 73
Summary: 

In article <5902@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>	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.

And, given the history of the F-18's disappointments during development,
the F-20 isn't likely to be much better.

>> 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.

That was one of the few demands that the CAF placed upon the aircraft
that the Govt. respected (dual engines).  Particularly given the history 
of the F104, I wouldn't like to be flying over the arctic with only 
one engine.

An interesting point can be found.  I seem to remember, that given their 
druthers, the CAF would have loved to get F-15's (somewhat combat proven,
better performance and longer reliability history).  The main problem at 
the beginning of the selection process was that the F-15 cost almost twice 
as much as the F-18 did.  At the first "cut-off" they dropped the F-15
due to cost.  By the time the final selection was made, interestingly enough,
the F-15 was no longer more expensive than the F-18 - in fact it was
cheaper!

>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.

Agreed.  Or, the F-15 or F-14.  Toronados would have made a big difference
in the Falklands if only the British could have maintained them there.

>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.

Goes back even farther - to the Avro Arrow of course!

BTW: some people have been commenting about the agedness and supposed
ineffectiveness of the Canadian Navy.  You may be interested in knowing,
though the papers haven't picked it up yet, that the Navy is embarking
(and the Govt. is now committed to) a MAJOR destroyer rebuild program.  
I understand that over the next 5 or so years every one of our destroyers
is going to be completely replaced EXCEPT for the good-ol' WWII-type
steel hull (and probably most of the superstructure) itself.  In this, 
they expect to have destroyers technologically at least as good as any 
others in the world, and with hulls that will stand up somewhat better 
than the Brit's did in the Falklands.  They're supposed to last until
the end of the century.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321