Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Canada Choose The F-18?  
User currently offlineVio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1446 posts, RR: 10
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6282 times:

Hi,

I was wondering, why did Canada choose the F-18 as their advanced figher? Most NATO countries choose the F-16. From what I hear, the price tag, for an F-16 is significantly lower. Is that true?

Thanks


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEGFFbmi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6228 times:

Politics.. should have gone with another fighter.. !

Regards,

Milo


User currently offlineVio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

So then, what would you say would've been a better choice?


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5420 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Well, aside from Milo's patently incorrect answer, let's take a real look at the issue. Yes, the F/A-18 is more expensive than the F-16. In FY98, a new F/A-18 cost $39.5 million, whereas a new F-16 cost $26.9 million. When the RCAF expressed interest in buying a new fighter aircraft in 1977 they quickly narrowed the field down to two competitors - the F-16 and the F/A-18. While I cannot find the rationale for the decision in a published resource, my gut instinct would be that the F/A-18 was chosen because of its twin-engine design - the same reason why the Navy ignored the Congress and procured the F/A-18 instead of the F-16.


South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6181 times:

If my memory serves me correctly the F/A-18 being a twin-engined aircraft was a major deciding factor. The RCAF patrols some very inhospitable terrain. A pilot flying a single engined aircraft would be out of luck if that engine craped out. In addition it might be a awhile before a SAR chopper could get to him.

User currently offlineVio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

Yup, I see those points. Makes perfect sense. Thank you  Smile


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlineAnt72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6116 times:

A very old copy of "Modern Fighting Aircraft - F/A-18" by Mike Spick (published by Salamander Books, London in 1984) confirms that the choice of the F/A-18 over the F-16 was for two reasons. Firstly, as stated above, was the safety aspect of having a twin engine design. Secondly, the Canadian authorities felt that the larger F/A-18 had more growth potential than the F-16.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6123 times:

The RCAF had a requirement for NORAD CAPs over large areas of Canada, as well as the NATO role in Germany.
In the late 1970s, when Canada was looking for a new fighter to replace not only F-104s, but F-101s too, the F-16 had yet to be cleared with medium range air to air missiles, the F-16As were then only AIM-9 Sidewinder capable, the air defence requirement needed AIM-7 Sparrows.
The F-18 was cleared for AIM-7s from the start, F-16s capable of medium range missile carriage would have to wait for the F-16C, and later still, modernised F-16As.
Another air defence mod for Canada was the addition of a spotlight in the forward fuselage, for night interceptions of Soviet long range aircraft.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6113 times:

It was a twin, it's early versions could handle BFR missiles, and it was a lot cheaper then the aircraft the Forces Canada actually wanted....The Panavia Tornado.


Before you laugh remember that the F-101 and the F-104 really are point interceptors like the F.2 and F.3 versions of the Tornado.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Guys,
You are correct, a twin engine was a must have. But I feel obliged to point out that the RCAF ceased to exist in 1969 when the various branches of the Army, Navy(RCN) and Air Force(RCAF) amalgamated into the Canadian Armed Forces(CAF). We still exist today as 1 Canadian Air Division within the Canadian Forces.

Yours in Aviation
WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Just "Canadian Forces" now. Being "Armed" isn't PC. *sigh*

And as mentioned, the twin-engine configuration was a must. The Forces evaluated the F-15 as well, and had an F-14 for evaluation too - I remember seeing the pictures of them in the book "Sixty Years", a history of the RCAF & CAF.... but both had too hefty a price tag for the Canadian government to swallow.



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

Actually its Forces Canada.

Still merging the services wasn't as big of a blunder as not replacing the Bonnaventure has turned out to be.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Did Canada Choose The F-18?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did RB-57F Need The Extra J 60 Turbojets? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 23:20:31 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Did Not Rengine The C-141 Starlifter posted Fri Feb 3 2006 20:21:58 by 747400sp
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Why Did The French Navy Operate The F-8 posted Sat Mar 19 2005 18:58:58 by RampRat74
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Does The F/A-18 "Super Hornet" Have AC? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 22:36:49 by CX747
Did You Know The F-14 Was Nearly Powered By TF-41? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 01:46:28 by 747400sp
What Do You Like About The F/A-18-E/F Super Hornet posted Mon Mar 27 2006 23:12:13 by 747400sp
Why Would Israel Want The Dhruv. posted Sat Jan 29 2005 11:21:45 by HAWK21M
Why No Winglets On The Air Force One? posted Mon Aug 16 2004 09:03:19 by Squirrel83

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format