![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The US F-18 costs 35 million USD per unit so how can the Canadian CF-18 Hornet cost 35 million canadian dollars? It must be more but I don't know the exact cost...:( I hope someone knows. Pseudoanonymous 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Canada ordered 138 Hornets (98 As and 40 Bs). As of 2003, 15 had been lost. Source: F/A-18 Hornet, The AirForces Monthly book of. My Jenkins Hornet book says Canada's Hornet contract was worth C$2.34B in 1977. Don't know if that includes parts & support or not. - Fnlayson 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see move a comparison between the Canadian and American versions. Marcus1060 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The initial purchase was for 138 planes.
The CF-18's cost 15 million USD. The CF-18B's cost approximately 15.5 million USD. The exact cost was not allowed to be made public because of specifics in American reporting rules. Canada paid much less than the Americans for the planes since they bought in larger numbers than the US Navy procurement procedures would allow. -- Opitusflos 15:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we put something to the fact that 409 just stood up and 441 and 416 no longer exist? We could put a list of inactive squadrons perhaps. Jeremy D. 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
433 does not exist anymore either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzer117 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I found the tidbit about the painted canopy very interesting as I have never read about anything like that before. So, do write more about it because I have no idea how it is supposed to work.
I moved this from the F/A-18 Hornet article for incorporation here. Hope to have integration completed within a week, but feel free to help out. - BillCJ 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone has deleted this without discussion:
It is referring to a direct translation, as French for Hornet is Frelon. As written, I believe it is correct, but maybe we should reword it so as to be more clear. - BillCJ 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by the list of armaments used by the CF-18. Listed among them are cluster mines and nuclear warheads. Canada does not make use of nuclear weapons. Also, if cluster mines are the same thing as air-dropped landmines, Canada's signing of the international landmine treaty strictly forbids the use of these weapons.
If someone could clarify where this list of armaments came from I'd appreciate it. Ve4cib 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why there should be a section called "old specs". and any idea why some values are different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGerm ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I've completely revamped the article to include more history of the New Fighter Aircraft competition. I've also done some minor highlighting of the service of the CF-18 in CF service. ThePointblank 07:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A new page has been established on Wikipedia for the New Fighter Aircraft program. As this ties into the CF-18 (as well as the aircraft it replaced, and the other aircraft that were considered for Canada's use), perhaps some of the material on this subject should be transferred or duplicated there. -- 64.201.38.62 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
New Fighter Aircraft program → CF-18 Hornet
This article contradicts the apg-65 page. Please see the talk:apg-65 page for details. Kitplane01 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the list of losses even accurate and worth keeping? -- Steven 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This article completely glosses over the politicized and controversial history of the NFP.
The F-18 is simply not the perfect plane for Canada - although nothing would be. But the F-16 was clearly the aircraft we needed. It had better air-to-air, better air-to-ground, better systems and better range. The F-18 had to trade away many of the wins here in order to be carrier operated. Those changes add a considerable amount of weight to the aircraft, and for Canadian operations it's all dead weight. Hey, I'll never go against better landing gear, the AF's can't afford to write of landing incidents. But come on... the catapult hook? Let alone the arrester, folding wings and general up-gauging every bit of metal in the entire airframe. That we really don't need. What did we need? Well the AF said two engines, but even back then it was pretty clear that the single/double engine debate was really not what people thought it was ten years earlier. And even then, uhhh, F-18L?
The press was all over them about this. It was in all the papers and even on As It Happens. But there's not a single mention of this here.
Oh no, not here. Here it actually tries to say the arrestor hook is a good thing (umm: the F-16 has one too, and for what we're talking about here, it's exactly as good). And if someone can tell me exactly how all of the design losses due to having a folding wing are "useful when operating the fighters from smaller airfields", I'm all ears! Maybe if they had the god-only-knows amount of range they traded off for that, they wouldn't need to operate from them? Yikes! Maury ( talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's been addressed well enough in New Fighter Aircraft program. Unfortunately the copies of As It Happens are quite expensive, so that's going to have to wait. Maury ( talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
When I was in the CAF QTS I was performing quality assurance for the headsup display unit. During that time, I was informed by Ottawa that the CF18 folding wings was necessary to for the limited space found in hangers in the far north. Torontofred ( talk) 15:19, 05 December 2010 (UTC)TorontoFred 05th December, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.22.76 ( talk)
I will point out that the F-35 is not considered to be the replacement for the CF-18; this is pointed out by former Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) of the Department of National Defence, Alan Williams in his book Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From the Inside. Instead, he stated that the justification for the investment in JSF as presented to the Cabinet and the Minister of National Defence by him was instead economics; as the US stated that only companies allowed to bid on contracts for the JSF program were from nations that have put investment (as one of the tiered partners), the government of the day had fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program could severely damage the Canadian aviation industry. The DND felt that through investments in the avionics and the airframe of the CF-18 fleet, they could keep the CF-18 serviceable until 2017-2020. ThePointblank ( talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, you have removed much of the information I posted on 23 July 2010 about the decision by the Canadian government to purchase the F-35 as a replacement to the CF-18 fleet. As a result of this deletion you have removed the reference tags to DNDs website that updates and amends information contained in the CF-18 wiki article (costs, delivery dates).
Would like to have updated information and new section put back in to complete the lifecycle of the article / aircraft.
I agree some of the information was superfluous and from the dedicated F-35 page but do that find the information already there to be of a higher standard and more complete, although agree some details may be a bit much. In fact the information probably is more at home on the CF-18 page than on the universal Lightning page! Also I am not entirely sure readers interested in the CF-18, (especially in the future), should be required to read the much larger Lightning page to get the full story.
Perhaps this is a good time to open a new wiki page for the CF Lightning, the CF-135 (maybe)?
Thanks, J ( 81.154.176.137 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
217.169.36.22 ( talk) 09:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The US F-18 costs 35 million USD per unit so how can the Canadian CF-18 Hornet cost 35 million canadian dollars? It must be more but I don't know the exact cost...:( I hope someone knows. Pseudoanonymous 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Canada ordered 138 Hornets (98 As and 40 Bs). As of 2003, 15 had been lost. Source: F/A-18 Hornet, The AirForces Monthly book of. My Jenkins Hornet book says Canada's Hornet contract was worth C$2.34B in 1977. Don't know if that includes parts & support or not. - Fnlayson 04:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see move a comparison between the Canadian and American versions. Marcus1060 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The initial purchase was for 138 planes.
The CF-18's cost 15 million USD. The CF-18B's cost approximately 15.5 million USD. The exact cost was not allowed to be made public because of specifics in American reporting rules. Canada paid much less than the Americans for the planes since they bought in larger numbers than the US Navy procurement procedures would allow. -- Opitusflos 15:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we put something to the fact that 409 just stood up and 441 and 416 no longer exist? We could put a list of inactive squadrons perhaps. Jeremy D. 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
433 does not exist anymore either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzer117 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I found the tidbit about the painted canopy very interesting as I have never read about anything like that before. So, do write more about it because I have no idea how it is supposed to work.
I moved this from the F/A-18 Hornet article for incorporation here. Hope to have integration completed within a week, but feel free to help out. - BillCJ 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone has deleted this without discussion:
It is referring to a direct translation, as French for Hornet is Frelon. As written, I believe it is correct, but maybe we should reword it so as to be more clear. - BillCJ 03:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused by the list of armaments used by the CF-18. Listed among them are cluster mines and nuclear warheads. Canada does not make use of nuclear weapons. Also, if cluster mines are the same thing as air-dropped landmines, Canada's signing of the international landmine treaty strictly forbids the use of these weapons.
If someone could clarify where this list of armaments came from I'd appreciate it. Ve4cib 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why there should be a section called "old specs". and any idea why some values are different? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGerm ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I've completely revamped the article to include more history of the New Fighter Aircraft competition. I've also done some minor highlighting of the service of the CF-18 in CF service. ThePointblank 07:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A new page has been established on Wikipedia for the New Fighter Aircraft program. As this ties into the CF-18 (as well as the aircraft it replaced, and the other aircraft that were considered for Canada's use), perhaps some of the material on this subject should be transferred or duplicated there. -- 64.201.38.62 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
New Fighter Aircraft program → CF-18 Hornet
This article contradicts the apg-65 page. Please see the talk:apg-65 page for details. Kitplane01 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the list of losses even accurate and worth keeping? -- Steven 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This article completely glosses over the politicized and controversial history of the NFP.
The F-18 is simply not the perfect plane for Canada - although nothing would be. But the F-16 was clearly the aircraft we needed. It had better air-to-air, better air-to-ground, better systems and better range. The F-18 had to trade away many of the wins here in order to be carrier operated. Those changes add a considerable amount of weight to the aircraft, and for Canadian operations it's all dead weight. Hey, I'll never go against better landing gear, the AF's can't afford to write of landing incidents. But come on... the catapult hook? Let alone the arrester, folding wings and general up-gauging every bit of metal in the entire airframe. That we really don't need. What did we need? Well the AF said two engines, but even back then it was pretty clear that the single/double engine debate was really not what people thought it was ten years earlier. And even then, uhhh, F-18L?
The press was all over them about this. It was in all the papers and even on As It Happens. But there's not a single mention of this here.
Oh no, not here. Here it actually tries to say the arrestor hook is a good thing (umm: the F-16 has one too, and for what we're talking about here, it's exactly as good). And if someone can tell me exactly how all of the design losses due to having a folding wing are "useful when operating the fighters from smaller airfields", I'm all ears! Maybe if they had the god-only-knows amount of range they traded off for that, they wouldn't need to operate from them? Yikes! Maury ( talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's been addressed well enough in New Fighter Aircraft program. Unfortunately the copies of As It Happens are quite expensive, so that's going to have to wait. Maury ( talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
When I was in the CAF QTS I was performing quality assurance for the headsup display unit. During that time, I was informed by Ottawa that the CF18 folding wings was necessary to for the limited space found in hangers in the far north. Torontofred ( talk) 15:19, 05 December 2010 (UTC)TorontoFred 05th December, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.22.76 ( talk)
I will point out that the F-35 is not considered to be the replacement for the CF-18; this is pointed out by former Assistant Deputy Minister (Material) of the Department of National Defence, Alan Williams in his book Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement: A View From the Inside. Instead, he stated that the justification for the investment in JSF as presented to the Cabinet and the Minister of National Defence by him was instead economics; as the US stated that only companies allowed to bid on contracts for the JSF program were from nations that have put investment (as one of the tiered partners), the government of the day had fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program could severely damage the Canadian aviation industry. The DND felt that through investments in the avionics and the airframe of the CF-18 fleet, they could keep the CF-18 serviceable until 2017-2020. ThePointblank ( talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, you have removed much of the information I posted on 23 July 2010 about the decision by the Canadian government to purchase the F-35 as a replacement to the CF-18 fleet. As a result of this deletion you have removed the reference tags to DNDs website that updates and amends information contained in the CF-18 wiki article (costs, delivery dates).
Would like to have updated information and new section put back in to complete the lifecycle of the article / aircraft.
I agree some of the information was superfluous and from the dedicated F-35 page but do that find the information already there to be of a higher standard and more complete, although agree some details may be a bit much. In fact the information probably is more at home on the CF-18 page than on the universal Lightning page! Also I am not entirely sure readers interested in the CF-18, (especially in the future), should be required to read the much larger Lightning page to get the full story.
Perhaps this is a good time to open a new wiki page for the CF Lightning, the CF-135 (maybe)?
Thanks, J ( 81.154.176.137 ( talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC))
217.169.36.22 ( talk) 09:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)