Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5444 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6570 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.
LMP737 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 4692 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6554 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.
Ant72LBA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 416 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6489 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.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13320 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6496 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.
WrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6437 times:
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.
Goose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 6314 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.