MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: tigershark on July 02, 2007, 06:56:29 PM
-
Does Canada really need to spend so much money on there CF-18s an 80's designed aircraft? I must admit after reading the article I had no idea that Canada's AF flew so many sorties and dropped 387,000 pounds of precision weapons in the Serbia and Kosovo campaign. I just thought since Canada getting the F-35 that they might opt to hold off until the new aircraft come on board. Maybe there's somebody who could explain or understands the needs of Canada's AF better I do and shed some light on this. My personnel thoughts were the Canadian AF should have chosen the F-16 years ago because of its better range, Canada is huge.
The article I found
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=3728
-
You are right my friend...the short legged Hornet, for a huge country isn't very suitable. The -16 is better in that field.....i recall that in the '80's the Hornet was apreciated (at least here in Greece, a country who has by now nearly 140 Falcons) as more quality product....3 MFD, HOTAS...while the Falcon was behind in this fields...
Again, i can't see why Canada needs even the F-35....maybe, they want a good bomber for NATO missions/wars?
-
Neither I understand that decission.... Mora than aviation, probably a poitic or "bussiness" decission, I believe ::)
-
You are right my friend...the short legged Hornet, for a huge country isn't very suitable. The -16 is better in that field.....i recall that in the '80's the Hornet was apreciated (at least here in Greece, a country who has by now nearly 140 Falcons) as more quality product....3 MFD, HOTAS...while the Falcon was behind in this fields...
Again, i can't see why Canada needs even the F-35....maybe, they want a good bomber for NATO missions/wars?
Yes, you're right, the Hornet was a true multi-role platform from the start, I think maritime strike was also a big argument for Canada to select the Hornet. It was still the cold war. With F-15 and F-16 units in Alaska and Iceland... why not go for a more multi-role platform. Also the Hornet had AMRAAM capability from the start and I believe more capable radar at that time. Finally, I'd like to question the difference in combat range between the Hornet and F-16...it's not that big a difference...? It's also possible that on the Hornet more industrial advantages could be gained. Guess someone needs to.
As regards, to the F-35, yep, NATO and business. I don't think it's looking for a big number...
Finally, yes, they do need to spend money on them... to prolong their service life, and to incorporate at least PGMs including JDAM, datalink, target pod, and NVG (or do they have that already?).. otherwise they're useless to current NATO ops, and I'm sure Canada would like to offer the Hornet capability as their NATO contribution more than troops on the ground.