Replacing the Subs

[lenaitch]

and the F18 as well.

What would have been the better choice back then; keeping in mind that all governments seek to include domestic economic benefits?

 

[Underway]

comes from countless times I have been disappointed by the choices made, sorry. For decades and including all parties incidentally I have seen the politics side make their choices based upon votes rather than upon the best choice and watched us struggle to make it work. The Iltis comes to mind and the F18 as well. Helicopter choices make the list. Perhaps this time we will be lucky.

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]

What would have been the better choice back then; keeping in mind that all governments seek to include domestic economic benefits?

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).

 

[Underway]

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).

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.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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).

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…..

 

[YZT580]

What would have been the better choice back then; keeping in mind that all governments seek to include domestic economic benefits?

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]

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.