- Reaction score
- 6,833
- Points
- 1,160
What would have been the better choice back then; keeping in mind that all governments seek to include domestic economic benefits?
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 9,384
- Points
- 1,210
I understand.
I think if we continue to do things like this submarine contract, where the military narrows the selection down to two acceptable options, and then hands it over to the public service to do their calculations things will be better.
Though there is some potential for problems given the authority the DIA Minister will have, in looking at the authorities they will get they can only approve projects up to $1 billion and anything higher needs to go to Treasury Board or Cabinet.
The two sole source contracts that are big recently are the JORN/Arctic OTH Radar and the Global Eye one, which I think are fairly defensible from a military use perspective. Perhaps not "ideal" for the second but good enough and we will have control over the solution (which is quite important right now).
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,016
- Points
- 1,190
Was the F-15 in consideration?
Incidentally, we almost bought Iran's F-14s, but they ended negotiations after our involvement in the hostage crisis was leaked (in the long run, we probably dodged a bullet not going with the F-14 given its complexity and maintenance requirements).
- Reaction score
- 9,384
- Points
- 1,210
Friend of mine was one of the first guys to fly the F-18 when they took his CF104 away. He stated that a good chunk of the Airforce wanted the F-15 and that a lot of NATO air forces though we were crazy to buy a "naval aircraft" as our land based fighter.
Then they say the performance and all changed their mind, and many bought some themselves.
- Reaction score
- 7,782
- Points
- 1,260
To be the devils Advocate - if we had taken them we would have dodged (saved) the entire Aussie F18 debacle and we very well could be already flying the F35 now…..
Probably the F14 or F15. We have been paying a penalty in costs since we bought the CF18 due to the increased weight needed for its carrier strengthened frame.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,143
- Points
- 1,010
None of this is correct.
First of all, the F-14 was not on offer, and is a carrier borne fighter also, so same "weight" problem you allege as the F-18. The F-14 was simply not in production anymore - the US navy having moved on to the F-18.
As for the F-15, it was also not on offer.
The choice was between the F-16 and the F-18. Did we make the wrong choice at the time? I don't know but it's irrelevant to the current situation which is not repeat not caused by the choice we made but the the undue delay in replacing them with more modern planes, as is the usual stupid Canadian practice.
First of all, the F-14 was not on offer, and is a carrier borne fighter also, so same "weight" problem you allege as the F-18. The F-14 was simply not in production anymore - the US navy having moved on to the F-18.
As for the F-15, it was also not on offer.
The choice was between the F-16 and the F-18. Did we make the wrong choice at the time? I don't know but it's irrelevant to the current situation which is not repeat not caused by the choice we made but the the undue delay in replacing them with more modern planes, as is the usual stupid Canadian practice.
It was initially but it was too expensive. We could have had the F14 but we didn't want to pay for it. We went for the low priced stuff
- Reaction score
- 9,384
- Points
- 1,210
Ah yes F-16. Thanks for the correction @Oldgateboatdriver !
- Reaction score
- 1,779
- Points
- 1,160
If I remember correctly, Canada offered to buy the F-14s from Iranians after the Iranian Revolution, but then PM Joe Clark did something and the deal fell through.
Didn't France offer one of the Mirages as a candidate? Cannot remember which variant.
None of this is correct.
- Reaction score
- 1,996
- Points
- 1,160
The F-14 and F-15 were both examined during Canada's New Fighter Aircraft competition in the 1970s. However, neither aircraft made it to the final stages of the competition. By the time the decision was actually being made, the practical choice had narrowed to the F-16 and the F/A-18, with the F-18L also briefly remaining in contention before falling away.
The F-14 was never a particularly realistic option for Canada. It was a large, expensive fleet defence interceptor designed around U.S. Navy carrier operations and long range missile engagements. Likewise, the F-15 offered exceptional performance but came with higher acquisition and operating costs than Canada was prepared to accept. The RCAF was looking for a multi-role fighter capable of air defence, NORAD commitments, NATO operations, and ground attack while remaining affordable to buy and operate.
Whether the F-16 would have been the better choice is an interesting academic debate, but it is largely irrelevant to the situation facing the RCAF today. The CF-18 served Canada exceptionally well for more than four decades and proved adaptable through numerous upgrades. The real issue is not the choice made in 1980. The real issue is that successive governments of all political stripes delayed replacing the fleet for so long that aircraft originally expected to serve for roughly 25 to 30 years ended up carrying the load for over 40.
Had Canada selected the F-16 instead, we would still have faced exactly the same replacement problem. The debate should not be whether the Hornet was the wrong choice. The debate should be why Canada repeatedly postponed fighter replacement programs for decades and then acted surprised when the fleet began showing its age.
In that respect, the CF-18 is not the problem. The procurement system is.
The F-14 was never a particularly realistic option for Canada. It was a large, expensive fleet defence interceptor designed around U.S. Navy carrier operations and long range missile engagements. Likewise, the F-15 offered exceptional performance but came with higher acquisition and operating costs than Canada was prepared to accept. The RCAF was looking for a multi-role fighter capable of air defence, NORAD commitments, NATO operations, and ground attack while remaining affordable to buy and operate.
Whether the F-16 would have been the better choice is an interesting academic debate, but it is largely irrelevant to the situation facing the RCAF today. The CF-18 served Canada exceptionally well for more than four decades and proved adaptable through numerous upgrades. The real issue is not the choice made in 1980. The real issue is that successive governments of all political stripes delayed replacing the fleet for so long that aircraft originally expected to serve for roughly 25 to 30 years ended up carrying the load for over 40.
Had Canada selected the F-16 instead, we would still have faced exactly the same replacement problem. The debate should not be whether the Hornet was the wrong choice. The debate should be why Canada repeatedly postponed fighter replacement programs for decades and then acted surprised when the fleet began showing its age.
In that respect, the CF-18 is not the problem. The procurement system is.
- Reaction score
- 3,952
- Points
- 1,040
I wouldn’t even argue it is the procurement system, rather the political system. None of the political parties have been serious about the military since the 80s (and even then they spent more because of the red threat than any desire to keep up on defence).
Look at the CAF today, basically everything is at the point of replace it and start fresh because the majority of equipment is past its best before date.
Ships intended for 25 years at 30+ years. Planes same thing. Land vehicles worn out and at end of life.
Carney is a breath of fresh air for this as he is the first PM in decades to even pretend to take it seriously. Whether that amounts to anything is a whole other story.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 19,464
- Points
- 1,260
If his defence spending levels endure beyond the current US administration I will be impressed.
He is doing what is needed to be done, but I don't believe the intent is delivery of anything. The intent is announce, creative accounting and delay. Out last the US Administration.
If I am wrong we still win... So there's that.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,533
- Points
- 1,040
Oh god, I sure hope we don't take the bait.
All for one: Norway, Germany sell Canada on shared submarine fleet
- Reaction score
- 23,799
- Points
- 1,010
It is a good idea. Except that I do not trust Germany one bit to maintain a delivery schedule.
