Lockheed’s unbuilt C-141 Starlifter variants

The Lockheed L-300 (or GL207-45) was proposed as the "Super Hercules" in response to USAF RFP 476L, as shown on this proposal cover from December, 1960.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed GL207-45.jpg
    Lockheed GL207-45.jpg
    157.1 KB · Views: 425
Variants from Lockheed 476L Proposal docs Vol 2.


http://c141heaven.info/dotcom/lockheed/476l.php (new URL for this site)
 

Attachments

  • 476L-Proposals-5.jpg
    476L-Proposals-5.jpg
    316.9 KB · Views: 480
  • 476L-Proposals-4.jpg
    476L-Proposals-4.jpg
    381.6 KB · Views: 452
  • 476L-Proposals-3.jpg
    476L-Proposals-3.jpg
    280.4 KB · Views: 439
  • 476L-Proposals-2.jpg
    476L-Proposals-2.jpg
    395.9 KB · Views: 462
  • 476L-Proposals-1.jpg
    476L-Proposals-1.jpg
    425.1 KB · Views: 473
1965 Variants brochure


http://c141heaven.info/dotcom/lockheed/versatility_brochure.php
 

Attachments

  • versatility_010w.jpg
    versatility_010w.jpg
    73.4 KB · Views: 355
  • versatility_009w.jpg
    versatility_009w.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 335
  • versatility_008w.jpg
    versatility_008w.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 330
  • versatility_007w.jpg
    versatility_007w.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 332
  • versatility_006w.jpg
    versatility_006w.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 346
  • versatility_005w.jpg
    versatility_005w.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 356
  • versatility_004w.jpg
    versatility_004w.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 323
  • versatility_003w.jpg
    versatility_003w.jpg
    61.1 KB · Views: 264
  • versatility_002w.jpg
    versatility_002w.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 252
  • versatility_001w.jpg
    versatility_001w.jpg
    45.1 KB · Views: 282
More. I like the Eagle AAM launcher...
 

Attachments

  • versatility_017w.jpg
    versatility_017w.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 334
  • versatility_018w.jpg
    versatility_018w.jpg
    54 KB · Views: 346
  • versatility_019w.jpg
    versatility_019w.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 358
  • versatility_020w.jpg
    versatility_020w.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 357
  • versatility_016w.jpg
    versatility_016w.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 298
  • versatility_015w.jpg
    versatility_015w.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 290
  • versatility_014w.jpg
    versatility_014w.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 324
  • versatility_013w.jpg
    versatility_013w.jpg
    37.5 KB · Views: 341
  • versatility_012w.jpg
    versatility_012w.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 317
  • versatility_011w.jpg
    versatility_011w.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 306
Still more...
 

Attachments

  • versatility_027w.jpg
    versatility_027w.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 314
  • versatility_028w.jpg
    versatility_028w.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 309
  • versatility_029w.jpg
    versatility_029w.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 342
  • versatility_030w.jpg
    versatility_030w.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 329
  • versatility_026w.jpg
    versatility_026w.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 312
  • versatility_025w.jpg
    versatility_025w.jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 331
  • versatility_024w.jpg
    versatility_024w.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 333
  • versatility_023w.jpg
    versatility_023w.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 332
  • versatility_022w.jpg
    versatility_022w.jpg
    37.3 KB · Views: 371
  • versatility_021w.jpg
    versatility_021w.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 394
Fascinating. A C-141 bomber, a C-141 interceptor with Eagle AAMs! It would have been easier to list the things this airplane couldn't do...
 
The hose and probe tanker reminds me that the Canadian Forces C-141 order was to include twin hose pods. This order was cancelled when cheap cancelled Boeing 707s became available.
 
Thanks for sharing, Paul !

The idea of building bomb/missile bays into a given fuselage and getting a bomber/transport this
way was seen on other types, too, but it seems not to be that easy. Is it the reinforced floor,
intended to carry heavy loads, that makes it more difficult, than is obvious at first glance, or
just too low interest of such jack-of-all-trades, that prevented this idea from being realised ?
 
One possible reason to not load bombs in cargo planes and commercial transports: politics. the moment you convert a C-141 or a 747 into a bomber, you make them *all* valid targets, like how the Brits loading armament and weapons aboard passenger liners in WWI made them valid targets for the Uboats.
 
Orionblamblam said:
...the moment you convert a C-141 or a 747 into a bomber, you make them *all* valid targets, ...
Click to expand...

Not sure, civil airliner were regularly confiscated/chartered when the need arose, at least in
the SU the differentiation between military and civil aircraft was theoretical at best.

I think, cutting large wholes into the underside would need more, than just starting the
cutting disk. Beefing up the remaining frames certainly would be needed and maybe the result
would just look externally like the original aircraft.
During the time of the Vietnam conflict, such a bomb truck may have been really worthwhile,
IF it could have been realised quick and cheap. It wasn't used in that role, so I would assume
important reasons.
 
Jemiba said:
Not sure, civil airliner were regularly confiscated/chartered when the need arose, at least in
the SU the differentiation between military and civil aircraft was theoretical at best.
Click to expand...

Well, that's sorta the difference between the USA and the USSR.

The C-141 showing up in a disaster area was generally seen as a good thing, as they tended to come with medical supplies and the like.

During the time of the Vietnam conflict, such a bomb truck may have been really worthwhile,
IF it could have been realised quick and cheap.
Click to expand...

SHAZAM!
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_upy14pesi4
 
Hi,

does anyone hear about C-141B/AC2,with only two engines ?.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a110231.pdf
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    53.5 KB · Views: 520
Regarding message #39 about the Convair proposal for the C-141. Many moons ago, I saw a Convair propaganda movie about their proposal. It may have been unsolicited.
 
C-141 proposal
Spotted on eBay, without explanatory details, is this poster of a stretched, re-engined C-141R with winglets apparently proposed by a Snow Aviation International. The size looks similar to the C-141B but, because it lack's the refueling recepticle that was added to that type during the rebuild process, one can assume that it predates the C-141B program My guess is that new engines (type unknown) were deemed undesireable because the additional payload they would have delivered (assumption) would typically be unusable due to cargo volume constraints. The C-141A was typically volume-constrained and the purpose of the C-141B stretch was to better match the volume to the payload - new, more powerful engines would have put the airplane back in the same box.
The paint job seems out of date though. As I recall, the C-141B program started during MAC's grey/white airliner livery days - the camo paint job illustrated wouldn't be adopted until later, maybe Mr. Snow was prescient.
Alternatively, it could be that the C-141R was proposed as a later rebuild of the C-141B and that the new engines and winglets would provide range that would make the refueling capability unnecessary. Proposing the removal of the refueling gear seems unlikely though.

s-l1600eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...jpg
 
Last edited:
taildragger said:
C-141 proposal
Spotted on eBay, without explanatory details, is this poster of a stretched, re-engined C-141R with winglets apparently proposed by a Snow Aviation International. The size looks similar to the C-141B but, because it lack's the refueling recepticle that was added to that type during the rebuild process, one can assume that it predates the C-141B program My guess is that new engines (type unknown) were deemed undesireable because the additional payload they would have delivered (assumption) would typically be unusabe due to cargo volume constraints. The C-141A was typically volume-constrained and the purpose of the C-141B stretch was to better match the volume to the payload - new, more powerful engines would have put the airplane back in the same box.
The paint job seems out of date though. As I recall, the C-141B program started during MAC's grey/white airliner livery days - the camo paint job illustrated wouldn't be adopted until later, maybe Mr. Snow was prescient.
Alternatively, it could be that the C-141R was proposed as a later rebuild of the C-141B and that the new engines and winglets would provide range that would make the refueling capability unnecessary. Proposing the removal of the refueling gear seems unlikely though.

View attachment 631256
Click to expand...

I never knew SAIC had a C-141 proposal, but that looks similar artwork from a 1994-ish Northrop Grumman proposal to upgrade the C-141 fleet instead of continuing on with the C-17 during the time when C-17 was under political pressure due to delays and cost overruns.

As I recall NG was proposing to add CFM-56s, winglets and a glass cockpit along with replacing the wing boxes (again). But the C-141 community pronounced it inadequate, citing newly discovered-141 flight restrictions over windscreen frame cracking and tail structure problems (and they were scary).

Towards the end of my service, C-141s were speed-limited due to the tail structure issues, weight limited by the wing boxes and altitude limited by the windscreen cracks. I seem to recall one mission from the US to Africa were the C-141 was flying 250 knots instead of 350, flying at 25,000ft instead of 35,000 and carrying only 3/4 normal weight.

At that point replacing those worn-out old Starlifters was the only rational decision. They were simply too far gone to repair and there was the serious likelihood that more major issues would be unearthed when any such upgrade program began. I'll point to the corrosion problems encountered in the E-8A program that drove up costs enough to requiring two aircraft to be cut from the program to pay for the unexpected corrosion repairs on the rest of the program.

The political threat of such a C-141 upgrade to the C-17 was said to be one of the reasons that the C-141s were all destroyed very shortly after arrival at the Boneyard instead of languishing for years like most other retired aircraft models.
 
Bill Walker said:
The hose and probe tanker reminds me that the Canadian Forces C-141 order was to include twin hose pods. This order was cancelled when cheap cancelled Boeing 707s became available.
Click to expand...
So when was Canada looking at C-141's Bill Walker? Would appreciate knowing more!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Wyvern said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Still more...
Click to expand...


What would the flare launcher's use be?
Click to expand...

For illuminating night fighting, in particular large scale engagements on conventional battlefields, though such types of aircraft were also used in conflicts like Vietnam. These were especially important before night vision gear for infantry and vehicles was widely available, though they still have their uses even now.
 
Pioneer said:
So when was Canada looking at C-141's Bill Walker? Would appreciate knowing more!!
Click to expand...

Bill hasn't been around for awhile, so allow me Pioneer ... On his website, Bill notes four serials held for Canadian Forces' CC-141s - 14101 to 14104.

General interest in the C-141 began as far back as 1964. However, numbers for proposed Canadian Starlifter procurements were often higher than those four 'held' serial numbers suggest. Approval had been given in June 1967 for four C-141s (+ a single DC-8). By May 1968, 11 i]Starlifter[/i]s were proposed by one of the Deputy Chiefs, Force Development - MGen Norman George Wilson-Smith (see below).

From a thesis: The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968, by Bertram C. Frandsen, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, 2015

page 283

As the current CC-106 Yukon aircraft would reach the limit of their operational life by 1973, at the 16 May 1968 meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee, Major General N.G. Wilson-Smith, the Deputy Chief Force Development, proposed that the Yukon be replaced with eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter jet transports during the period 1972-74 at a cost of $175 million.107 However, it was a missed opportunity, as no orders had been placed in 1967 before the production line closed down.108 Apart from the obvious increase in airlift capabilities, the C-141s would have been a capable refuelling aircraft as the “C-141 could refuel four CF-5A fighters on transatlantic ferry from wing tanks while hauling 30,000-lb flyaway kits and other gear to operate fighters from overseas bases.”109 The opportunity to obtain six additional C-130 aircraft was also allowed to pass.110


107 DHH 73/1223, Series 4, Box 105, File 2103, 174th Meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee Defence Review, 16 May 1968.

108 DHH 73/1223, Series V, Box 113, File 2500F, S1151-4110/D1 (DSecDD (MM) 4 August 1967, Defence Council
Presentations. At the 226th Defence Council meeting on 27 June 1967, approval had authorized for the purchase of four C-141 and one DC8 aircraft. See also Flying Review International, Vol. 22, No. 15, November 1967, reporting the acquisition of four C-141 tanker-transports, while “Aeronews and Military Report,” Air Progress, Vol. 21. No. 2, August 1967 reported the procurement of ten C-141 jet transports.

109 Ibid.

110 In 1970-71, five Boeing 707 aircraft were procured to replace the Yukon transport, of which two were modified in 1972 as air-to-air refueling tankers. Five additional C-130H aircraft were acquired in 1975.

pp 288-289

The acquisition of the five CC-137s was a far cry from the original plan to acquire eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter military jet transports (and possibly the giant Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transports) that had fallen through in 1967, an acquisition that would have provided considerable airlift and flexibility for the mobile force.

135 Ibid. pp. 33-35. See also R.G. Husch, “Future Long Range Air Transport in the RCAF,” Air Force College Journal, 1964. In this article, Squadron Leader Husch discussed a replacement for the Yukon and Hercules transports, noting that the C-141 was unable to utilize semi-prepared runways. Husch noted the growing importance of airlift in the military strategy for brushfire wars.
 
Orionblamblam said:
One possible reason to not load bombs in cargo planes and commercial transports: politics. the moment you convert a C-141 or a 747 into a bomber, you make them *all* valid targets, like how the Brits loading armament and weapons aboard passenger liners in WWI made them valid targets for the Uboats.
Click to expand...

All C-141s (unless used in a Medevac role) were legitimate targets (except for the one bailed to NASA). As are/were airliner-derived tankers (KC-135, VC-10, KC-10) and support (E-3, E-4) and maritime aircraft (P-3, Nimrod, P-8). Ask Korean Air Lines how this can go wrong. The best example of an air force deliberately blurring the line was the IDF's alleged repainting of a KC-707 in Air Lingus colors to support the Entebbe raid in 1976.
 
Last edited:
Thank you my dear Apophenia, for both your time and effort in responding to my question.

How interesting and what a sadly missed opertunity by the Canadian Armed Forces.


Regards
Pioneer
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
More. I like the Eagle AAM launcher...
Click to expand...
I'll be damned, is that a Fulton hook on the nose of the AS&R proposal? Crazy stuff. I feel like I don't see that weird gizmo too often.
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Kuwaiti RFI on 707/C-135 & C-141:
archive.org

State Dept cable 1974-196959 : State Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

State Dept cable 1974-196959
archive.org
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why exactly would Kuwait not be interested in in-flight refueling? Economics, maybe? I'm not particularly well versed on Kuwait's aerial situation, especially around that time frame, so I'm just curious.
 
littlebit said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
More. I like the Eagle AAM launcher...
Click to expand...
I'll be damned, is that a Fulton hook on the nose of the AS&R proposal? Crazy stuff. I feel like I don't see that weird gizmo too often.
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Kuwaiti RFI on 707/C-135 & C-141:
archive.org

State Dept cable 1974-196959 : State Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

State Dept cable 1974-196959
archive.org
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why exactly would Kuwait not be interested in in-flight refueling? Economics, maybe? I'm not particularly well versed on Kuwait's aerial situation, especially around that time frame, so I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

There just weren't a lot of countries using inflight refueling at the time. And it was probably viewed as a slightly sensitive technology that might interfere with the exportability of the aircraft.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Still more...
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that in their brochure, Lockheed had already considered and studied a "stretched" derivative of their L-300 (or GL207-45) design in advance. I always had in my head that it was a much later afterthought by the USAF and Lockheed, which derived the C-141B.

Thanks again overscan

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Apophenia said:
Pioneer said:
So when was Canada looking at C-141's Bill Walker? Would appreciate knowing more!!
Click to expand...

Bill hasn't been around for awhile, so allow me Pioneer ... On his website, Bill notes four serials held for Canadian Forces' CC-141s - 14101 to 14104.

General interest in the C-141 began as far back as 1964. However, numbers for proposed Canadian Starlifter procurements were often higher than those four 'held' serial numbers suggest. Approval had been given in June 1967 for four C-141s (+ a single DC-8). By May 1968, 11 i]Starlifter[/i]s were proposed by one of the Deputy Chiefs, Force Development - MGen Norman George Wilson-Smith (see below).

From a thesis: The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968, by Bertram C. Frandsen, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, 2015

page 283

As the current CC-106 Yukon aircraft would reach the limit of their operational life by 1973, at the 16 May 1968 meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee, Major General N.G. Wilson-Smith, the Deputy Chief Force Development, proposed that the Yukon be replaced with eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter jet transports during the period 1972-74 at a cost of $175 million.107 However, it was a missed opportunity, as no orders had been placed in 1967 before the production line closed down.108 Apart from the obvious increase in airlift capabilities, the C-141s would have been a capable refuelling aircraft as the “C-141 could refuel four CF-5A fighters on transatlantic ferry from wing tanks while hauling 30,000-lb flyaway kits and other gear to operate fighters from overseas bases.”109 The opportunity to obtain six additional C-130 aircraft was also allowed to pass.110


107 DHH 73/1223, Series 4, Box 105, File 2103, 174th Meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee Defence Review, 16 May 1968.

108 DHH 73/1223, Series V, Box 113, File 2500F, S1151-4110/D1 (DSecDD (MM) 4 August 1967, Defence Council
Presentations. At the 226th Defence Council meeting on 27 June 1967, approval had authorized for the purchase of four C-141 and one DC8 aircraft. See also Flying Review International, Vol. 22, No. 15, November 1967, reporting the acquisition of four C-141 tanker-transports, while “Aeronews and Military Report,” Air Progress, Vol. 21. No. 2, August 1967 reported the procurement of ten C-141 jet transports.

109 Ibid.

110 In 1970-71, five Boeing 707 aircraft were procured to replace the Yukon transport, of which two were modified in 1972 as air-to-air refueling tankers. Five additional C-130H aircraft were acquired in 1975.

pp 288-289

The acquisition of the five CC-137s was a far cry from the original plan to acquire eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter military jet transports (and possibly the giant Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transports) that had fallen through in 1967, an acquisition that would have provided considerable airlift and flexibility for the mobile force.

135 Ibid. pp. 33-35. See also R.G. Husch, “Future Long Range Air Transport in the RCAF,” Air Force College Journal, 1964. In this article, Squadron Leader Husch discussed a replacement for the Yukon and Hercules transports, noting that the C-141 was unable to utilize semi-prepared runways. Husch noted the growing importance of airlift in the military strategy for brushfire wars.
Click to expand...
A belated thank you Apophenia for both your time and effort!

What a sad missed opertunity for the Canadian Defence Force.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Apophenia said:
Pioneer said:
So when was Canada looking at C-141's Bill Walker? Would appreciate knowing more!!
Click to expand...

Bill hasn't been around for awhile, so allow me Pioneer ... On his website, Bill notes four serials held for Canadian Forces' CC-141s - 14101 to 14104.

General interest in the C-141 began as far back as 1964. However, numbers for proposed Canadian Starlifter procurements were often higher than those four 'held' serial numbers suggest. Approval had been given in June 1967 for four C-141s (+ a single DC-8). By May 1968, 11 i]Starlifter[/i]s were proposed by one of the Deputy Chiefs, Force Development - MGen Norman George Wilson-Smith (see below).

From a thesis: The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968, by Bertram C. Frandsen, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, 2015

page 283

As the current CC-106 Yukon aircraft would reach the limit of their operational life by 1973, at the 16 May 1968 meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee, Major General N.G. Wilson-Smith, the Deputy Chief Force Development, proposed that the Yukon be replaced with eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter jet transports during the period 1972-74 at a cost of $175 million.107 However, it was a missed opportunity, as no orders had been placed in 1967 before the production line closed down.108 Apart from the obvious increase in airlift capabilities, the C-141s would have been a capable refuelling aircraft as the “C-141 could refuel four CF-5A fighters on transatlantic ferry from wing tanks while hauling 30,000-lb flyaway kits and other gear to operate fighters from overseas bases.”109 The opportunity to obtain six additional C-130 aircraft was also allowed to pass.110


107 DHH 73/1223, Series 4, Box 105, File 2103, 174th Meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee Defence Review, 16 May 1968.

108 DHH 73/1223, Series V, Box 113, File 2500F, S1151-4110/D1 (DSecDD (MM) 4 August 1967, Defence Council
Presentations. At the 226th Defence Council meeting on 27 June 1967, approval had authorized for the purchase of four C-141 and one DC8 aircraft. See also Flying Review International, Vol. 22, No. 15, November 1967, reporting the acquisition of four C-141 tanker-transports, while “Aeronews and Military Report,” Air Progress, Vol. 21. No. 2, August 1967 reported the procurement of ten C-141 jet transports.

109 Ibid.

110 In 1970-71, five Boeing 707 aircraft were procured to replace the Yukon transport, of which two were modified in 1972 as air-to-air refueling tankers. Five additional C-130H aircraft were acquired in 1975.

pp 288-289

The acquisition of the five CC-137s was a far cry from the original plan to acquire eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter military jet transports (and possibly the giant Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transports) that had fallen through in 1967, an acquisition that would have provided considerable airlift and flexibility for the mobile force.

135 Ibid. pp. 33-35. See also R.G. Husch, “Future Long Range Air Transport in the RCAF,” Air Force College Journal, 1964. In this article, Squadron Leader Husch discussed a replacement for the Yukon and Hercules transports, noting that the C-141 was unable to utilize semi-prepared runways. Husch noted the growing importance of airlift in the military strategy for brushfire wars.
Click to expand...
A belated thank you Apophenia for both your time and effort!

What a sad missed opertunity for the Canadian Defence Force.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Why sad? The good guys won the cold war. I'm sure C-141s with maple leafs would have looked great but any additional capabilities acquired by Western forces would have been a waste.
 
taildragger said:
Pioneer said:
Apophenia said:
Pioneer said:
So when was Canada looking at C-141's Bill Walker? Would appreciate knowing more!!
Click to expand...

Bill hasn't been around for awhile, so allow me Pioneer ... On his website, Bill notes four serials held for Canadian Forces' CC-141s - 14101 to 14104.

General interest in the C-141 began as far back as 1964. However, numbers for proposed Canadian Starlifter procurements were often higher than those four 'held' serial numbers suggest. Approval had been given in June 1967 for four C-141s (+ a single DC-8). By May 1968, 11 i]Starlifter[/i]s were proposed by one of the Deputy Chiefs, Force Development - MGen Norman George Wilson-Smith (see below).

From a thesis: The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968, by Bertram C. Frandsen, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, 2015

page 283

As the current CC-106 Yukon aircraft would reach the limit of their operational life by 1973, at the 16 May 1968 meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee, Major General N.G. Wilson-Smith, the Deputy Chief Force Development, proposed that the Yukon be replaced with eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter jet transports during the period 1972-74 at a cost of $175 million.107 However, it was a missed opportunity, as no orders had been placed in 1967 before the production line closed down.108 Apart from the obvious increase in airlift capabilities, the C-141s would have been a capable refuelling aircraft as the “C-141 could refuel four CF-5A fighters on transatlantic ferry from wing tanks while hauling 30,000-lb flyaway kits and other gear to operate fighters from overseas bases.”109 The opportunity to obtain six additional C-130 aircraft was also allowed to pass.110


107 DHH 73/1223, Series 4, Box 105, File 2103, 174th Meeting of the DND Estimates Review Committee Defence Review, 16 May 1968.

108 DHH 73/1223, Series V, Box 113, File 2500F, S1151-4110/D1 (DSecDD (MM) 4 August 1967, Defence Council
Presentations. At the 226th Defence Council meeting on 27 June 1967, approval had authorized for the purchase of four C-141 and one DC8 aircraft. See also Flying Review International, Vol. 22, No. 15, November 1967, reporting the acquisition of four C-141 tanker-transports, while “Aeronews and Military Report,” Air Progress, Vol. 21. No. 2, August 1967 reported the procurement of ten C-141 jet transports.

109 Ibid.

110 In 1970-71, five Boeing 707 aircraft were procured to replace the Yukon transport, of which two were modified in 1972 as air-to-air refueling tankers. Five additional C-130H aircraft were acquired in 1975.

pp 288-289

The acquisition of the five CC-137s was a far cry from the original plan to acquire eleven Lockheed C-141 Starlifter military jet transports (and possibly the giant Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transports) that had fallen through in 1967, an acquisition that would have provided considerable airlift and flexibility for the mobile force.

135 Ibid. pp. 33-35. See also R.G. Husch, “Future Long Range Air Transport in the RCAF,” Air Force College Journal, 1964. In this article, Squadron Leader Husch discussed a replacement for the Yukon and Hercules transports, noting that the C-141 was unable to utilize semi-prepared runways. Husch noted the growing importance of airlift in the military strategy for brushfire wars.
Click to expand...
A belated thank you Apophenia for both your time and effort!

What a sad missed opertunity for the Canadian Defence Force.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Why sad? The good guys won the cold war. I'm sure C-141s with maple leafs would have looked great but any additional capabilities acquired by Western forces would have been a waste.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing my dear taildragger, but if the shit had of hit the fan and with Canada being the distance it was from the Central front of the Cold War, I could see the likes of "Apart from the obvious increase in airlift capabilities, the C-141s would have been a capable refuelling aircraft as the “C-141 could refuel four CF-5A [or later two F/A-18A/B's for that matter] fighters on transatlantic ferry from wing tanks while hauling 30,000-lb flyaway kits and other gear to operate fighters from overseas bases.”

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Hindsight is mostly what this site is about, dear. While I'm sure that a good case could have been made in 1965 for the CC-141, with hindsight it's clear that they were unnecessary. Perhaps we can say that it was a "sad missed opportunity for the Canadian Defense Force" to create history and photos for your browsing pleasure. Canadian taxpayers everywhere doubtlessly regret the error.
 
Last edited:
taildragger said:
C-141 proposal
Spotted on eBay, without explanatory details, is this poster of a stretched, re-engined C-141R with winglets apparently proposed by a Snow Aviation International. The size looks similar to the C-141B but, because it lack's the refueling recepticle that was added to that type during the rebuild process, one can assume that it predates the C-141B program My guess is that new engines (type unknown) were deemed undesireable because the additional payload they would have delivered (assumption) would typically be unusable due to cargo volume constraints. The C-141A was typically volume-constrained and the purpose of the C-141B stretch was to better match the volume to the payload - new, more powerful engines would have put the airplane back in the same box.
The paint job seems out of date though. As I recall, the C-141B program started during MAC's grey/white airliner livery days - the camo paint job illustrated wouldn't be adopted until later, maybe Mr. Snow was prescient.
Alternatively, it could be that the C-141R was proposed as a later rebuild of the C-141B and that the new engines and winglets would provide range that would make the refueling capability unnecessary. Proposing the removal of the refueling gear seems unlikely though.

View attachment 631256
Click to expand...
Nice looking concept. Looks like a high-wing Airbus A340.
 
thefrecklepuny said:
taildragger said:
C-141 proposal ... paint job seems out of date though...
Click to expand...
Nice looking concept. Looks like a high-wing Airbus A340.
Click to expand...

“Technical Evaluation of Snow Aviation International Unsolicited Proposal, 7 Feb 94"

Globemaster III: Acquiring the C-17, Betty Raab Kennedy, Air Mobility Command Office of History, Scott Air Force Base, IL, 2004, pg. 266

No useful details there but it does give a rough date for that unsolicited SAI proposal.
 
According to the newest issue of the French aviation magazine, in 1968 the French DoD wanted to buy twelve Lockheed C-121 Starlifters to transport cargo and soldiers all over the world, especially 'special cargo' to the French nuclear test sites in French Polynesia, South Pacific. At the minister conference in 1968, the French president CdG said: "Non".

Source (Facebook 2023-11-18): https://fr-fr.facebook.com/LeFanaDelAviationMagazine/
 

Attachments

  • 20231123_Le Fana de l'Aviation_1968_French_Air_Force_Lockheed_C-141_propect.jpg
    20231123_Le Fana de l'Aviation_1968_French_Air_Force_Lockheed_C-141_propect.jpg
    282.4 KB · Views: 86
taildragger said:
All C-141s (unless used in a Medevac role) were legitimate targets (except for the one bailed to NASA). As are/were airliner-derived tankers (KC-135, VC-10, KC-10) and support (E-3, E-4) and maritime aircraft (P-3, Nimrod, P-8). Ask Korean Air Lines how this can go wrong. The best example of an air force deliberately blurring the line was the IDF's alleged repainting of a KC-707 in Air Lingus colors to support the Entebbe raid in 1976.
Click to expand...
Please don’t place too much faith in the “rules of war” as they are a very recent concept and selectively enforced.
Leiber Code 1863
Hague Convention 1899
Geneva Convention 1864.
While first-world armies are rigidly held to the written rules, not all nations have ratified the agreements. Few third-world generals have even heard about this conventions while even fewer take them seriously.
Those rules of war evolved in Western Europe after the Industrial Revolution, after too many minor wars had left farm fields fallow. Part of the problem was the increased lethality of guns which could eradicate a civilian population. European nobles eventually figured out that farmland was of the few durable forms of wealth. Most European wars merely replaced one prince with another prince. Half the time, the new prince did not even speak the local language, but the biggest difference was how many peasants/farmers/plowmen died during the war(s). If only a few peasants died, then the survivors would resume plowing the following spring and newly-conquered lands could remain profitable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom