Avro Arrow killed in the cradle?

[Scott Kenny]

If you have actually built CF-105 then arguably it makes sense to replace the electronics wholesale in the 1970s instead of building new planes. There is nothing wrong with the airframe performance wise and its big enough with enough power output to fit the new electronics. So why not a modernization or even newly built aircraft? Likely rather cheaper than new aircraft.

Even if not the CF-105, I'd say. Like I said, Tu128s hung on till 1990, so there's no great reason whatever interceptor gets built in the 1950s/early 1960s couldn't hang in there as well. But you would absolutely have to start a replacement program about 1975-80 for service entry in 1985-90.

The RW Air Force looked at the F-14 but, for an avionics & sensors upgrade, the F-15's kit would have won out - for NORAD compatibility (and Hughes continuity for the F-15's AN/APG-63 radar).

Oh? I knew that the F-14 was pitched as an F-106 replacement in the US, didn't know it also got looked at Up North!

If we're just raiding the F-15 for equipment, sure. I don't see Eagles being a good replacement for a dedicated interceptor unless the RCAF built bases up North of 60. Kinda short-ranged to make Arctic patrols from bases down near the US border.

 

[Hood]

My argument here is that the RCAF got what it asked for - a beautifully-handling all-weather interceptor with a fairly impressive range for the size of airframe. And, other than those wing joints, the 'Clunk' was built like a tank ... eventually proving to have 10 times the planned airframe life. Not a bad result for a bunch of Colonials and ex-pats!

For me, I think its a shame that the RAF didn't buy CF-100s instead of continuing to tinker with the Meteor NF and Venom NF models.

There was always a lot of friction between the UK and Canadian interests in the aviation industry. It wasn't always one-way traffic, there were attempts to buy Caribous and CF-105 but in the end we ended up with some Beavers. In return we overhauled Europe-based RCAF Sabres but we didn't seem to have much to offer Canada except for Buccaneer-based fighters or surplus unsold Comets or jet-powered HP Heralds for navigator training. And while Sir Tom Sopwith and Roy Dobson might boast about Hawker Siddeley's Canadian holdings, they don't really seem to have pushed the C-101 or C-102 for British use, preferring to keep their own market share.
Plus there was US industry breathing down Canada's neck.

 

[riggerrob]

For me, I think its a shame that the RAF didn't buy CF-100s instead of continuing to tinker with the Meteor NF and Venom NF models.

There was always a lot of friction between the UK and Canadian interests in the aviation industry. It wasn't always one-way traffic, there were attempts to buy Caribous and CF-105 but in the end we ended up with some Beavers. In return we overhauled Europe-based RCAF Sabres but we didn't seem to have much to offer Canada except for Buccaneer-based fighters or surplus unsold Comets or jet-powered HP Heralds for navigator training. And while Sir Tom Sopwith and Roy Dobson might boast about Hawker Siddeley's Canadian holdings, they don't really seem to have pushed the C-101 or C-102 for British use, preferring to keep their own market share.
Plus there was US industry breathing down Canada's neck.

OTL World War 2 saw Canadian industry grow vastly and shift away from British practices towards American practices. This was partly due to British inability to provide sufficient drawings, tools, engineers, etc. to establish shadow-factories to build British patterns.
OTOH during the 1920s and 1930s, the USA had built up a massive tool-making industry and could quickly supply Canadian factories with all the tools they needed to ramp up production for WW2.
Secondly, American-pattern locomotives, trucks, airplanes, etc. were better suited to the huge open spaces of Canada.
For example, While researching the Leyland-designed, Bobcat APC, I stumbled across the notion that Leyland Motors of Canada struggled to sell trucks on the Canadian market, while Ford, GMC, etc. were selling thousands.
Oh if I could only interview my dear departed grandfather on the subject of the Canadian trucking industry from the 1920s through the 1960s??????

 

[riggerrob]

…. the Arrow looks to have among the worst cockpits ever, in terms of outward visibility. With Falcon missiles, no gun and that cockpit, if you encounter another fighter you might as well just eject.

Avro Arrow cockpits resemble a combination of F-106, Canberra and Sea Vixen.
The pilot got a faceted windshield because that was believed to be the strongest for early supersonic fighters.
Meanwhile the radar intercept officer huddled in a dark cave while trying to read a dim, crude radar screen.

 

[riggerrob]

For me, I think its a shame that the RAF didn't buy CF-100s instead of continuing to tinker with the Meteor NF and Venom NF models.

There was always a lot of friction between the UK and Canadian interests in the aviation industry. It wasn't always one-way traffic, there were attempts to buy Caribous and CF-105 but in the end we ended up with some Beavers. In return we overhauled Europe-based RCAF Sabres but we didn't seem to have much to offer Canada except for Buccaneer-based fighters or surplus unsold Comets or jet-powered HP Heralds for navigator training. And while Sir Tom Sopwith and Roy Dobson might boast about Hawker Siddeley's Canadian holdings, they don't really seem to have pushed the C-101 or C-102 for British use, preferring to keep their own market share.
Plus there was US industry breathing down Canada's neck.

This was because Britain was bankrupted by two world wars and was desperately trying to continue its colonial economy where they imported food stuffs from the colonies in return for exporting high-tech weapons.
Sadly, this economic model was rendered obsolete by the Breton-Woods Accords which introduced free-trade to most of Britain’s colonies.
Meanwhile, the American economy was booming, close at hand and building vehicles better suited to the wide open spaces of Canada.

 

[Apophenia]

Oh? I knew that the F-14 was pitched as an F-106 replacement in the US, didn't know it also got looked at Up North!

If we're just raiding the F-15 for equipment, sure. I don't see Eagles being a good replacement for a dedicated interceptor unless the RCAF built bases up North of 60. Kinda short-ranged to make Arctic patrols from bases down near the US border.

Yes. One of the offers put to DND was a mixed fleet - F-14s to replace the CF-101s and F-16s to replace the rest.

Yep, the F-15 may work fine from Elmendorf AFB but not from 'Bagtown' to Baffin. On F-15 electronics and sensors, ideal would be the direct replacement of aged CF-105 with their F-15 equivalents. Otherwise, DAR 5 will gold-plate/maple-leaf it all.

 

[Apophenia]

For me, I think its a shame that the RAF didn't buy CF-100s instead of continuing to tinker with the Meteor NF and Venom NF models.

There was always a lot of friction between the UK and Canadian interests in the aviation industry. It wasn't always one-way traffic, there were attempts to buy Caribous and CF-105 but in the end we ended up with some Beavers. In return we overhauled Europe-based RCAF Sabres but we didn't seem to have much to offer Canada except for Buccaneer-based fighters or surplus unsold Comets or jet-powered HP Heralds for navigator training. And while Sir Tom Sopwith and Roy Dobson might boast about Hawker Siddeley's Canadian holdings, they don't really seem to have pushed the C-101 or C-102 for British use, preferring to keep their own market share.
Plus there was US industry breathing down Canada's neck.

The RAF always could have taken on CF-100s as an 'interim' night fighter type. Have 'Avro UK' nail together the part sets and power them with Avons for added Brit-content. Job done ... except for finding a new name?

For Hawker Siddeley bosses, part of the Canadian chill (besides the weather) was that profits all stayed in Canada. Probably that seemed like a fair deal to Ottawa but it didn't give HS Group much incentive to fund development, improvements, or research.

 

[Archibald]

Avro Arrow cockpits resemble a combination of F-106, Canberra and Sea Vixen.
The pilot got a faceted windshield because that was believed to be the strongest for early supersonic fighters.
Meanwhile the radar intercept officer huddled in a dark cave while trying to read a dim, crude radar screen.

I've built the Hobbycrap 1/72 scale Arrow two times. The second one got a F-14 Tomcat canopy (on top of IRIAF camo and markings) and it fit like a glove.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes. One of the offers put to DND was a mixed fleet - F-14s to replace the CF-101s and F-16s to replace the rest.

I don't see that working well, early F-16s were day fighters only and frankly kinda crap for most of the NATO support mission. F-18s were definitely the right choice to replace everything else.

What's the range of an F-18B with max fuel tanks, 2x Sparrows on the fuselage stations and 2x Sidewinders on the wingtips?

Yep, the F-15 may work fine from Elmendorf AFB but not from 'Bagtown' to Baffin. On F-15 electronics and sensors, ideal would be the direct replacement of aged CF-105 with their F-15 equivalents. Otherwise, DAR 5 will gold-plate/maple-leaf it all.

For sure.

 

[Apophenia]

I don't see that working well, early F-16s were day fighters only and frankly kinda crap for most of the NATO support mission. F-18s were definitely the right choice to replace everything else.

What's the range of an F-18B with max fuel tanks, 2x Sparrows on the fuselage stations and 2x Sidewinders on the wingtips?

F-14/F-16 mix: Agreed. For a host of reasons, an F-15/F-16 mix would have had a better chance. In the end, neither option had a hope. DND was committed to a single, twin-engined type. The final argument was between F/A-18 or F-18L. Fortunately for MDC, Northrop had a bad habit of launching suits against its former customers.

On F-16 NATO missions. The F-16s were basically F-104 replacements in Europe. Operators seemed to like them and offsets with GD seemed to go smoothly (DOD/FMS relationships maybe a bit less cheerful).

Hornet range: Max for the F/A-18B is usually given as 1,800 nm/3,333 km. But, I suspect such numbers only count in a pair of AIM-9s ... so drop a few clicks for the AIM-7s.

 

[Scott Kenny]

On F-16 NATO missions. The F-16s were basically F-104 replacements in Europe. Operators seemed to like them and offsets with GD seemed to go smoothly (DOD/FMS relationships maybe a bit less cheerful).

Because anything would be an improvement over an F-104 in the low altitude bomber role!

Hornet range: Max for the F/A-18B is usually given as 1,800 nm/3,333 km. But, I suspect such numbers only count in a pair of AIM-9s ... so drop a few clicks for the AIM-7s.

Hrm. I assume that's ferry range? Let's assume the pair of Sparrows adds enough drag that you have a "ferry range" of 1500nmi, which kinda arcs to a patrol range of about 500nmi and almost an hour while there.

 

[uk 75]

The UK would probably have joined Australia and Canada in buying F18s if Tornado had not used up all the available money and the US had not developed the Harrier II.
F18 would have replaced Lightnings and Phantoms in UK and Germany and Jaguars in UK. A two seat F18 might have been used instead of Tornado in the strike role.
On the other hand the F15 and F16 combination might have suited the RAF better though it would have been unique outside the US and Israel. Japan sort of had it too.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The UK would not have brought F-18.

 

[red admiral]

The UK would not have brought F-18.

Why not?

I don't remember F-16 really coming up, but F-15 and F-18 were definitely looked at as Tornado ADV and Eurofighter alternative options. Likelihood is low because the decisions were all about the industrial capability of a "UK" product.

 

[zen]

Why not?

I don't remember F-16 really coming up, but F-15 and F-18 were definitely looked at as Tornado ADV and Eurofighter alternative options. Likelihood is low because the decisions were all about the industrial capability of a "UK" product.

Seriously?
Exactly how much more in-flight refuelling would early F18s need for the GIUK Gap Patrol?

Hornet makes far more sense as an alternative to late Jaguar.
And notably during Jaguar Successor studies, designs rather close to F16 and F18 emerged.

For a alternative RN F/A-18 is still a strp down from raw performance figures for the F4K.

Eurofighter emerges after Hornet and crucially after intelligence has discovered Fulcrum and Flanker.

 

[Hood]

Agreed, if any aircraft impressed the RAF and MoD at that time it was the F-18.

The whole point about the AST.403 designs that eventually lead to Eurofighter was that they were meant to be superior to the F-16 and F-18 to justify spending on a national programme. Otherwise the MoD was clear that it might just as well buy US kit (nobody thought it would take another 20 years to develop a new fighter). A Tornado, Hornet, Harrier II RAF frontline force would have been pretty cool in the 1980s and 90s, but the RAF still flying patched up F/A-18As today would be very lame.

Re: NATO F-16s, there was no real consensus of opinion on what the four Eurogroup nations wanted to replace their F-104s. They asked SACEUR what he thought, he said they needed something capable of "conventional offensive air operations with the capability for limited air superiority and a limited nuclear capability." The Dutch interpreted this as "we need an interceptor". Mirage F1 seemed to be the only European aircraft that fit the bill (Viggen was never likely to be chosen). Eventually they decided on choosing whatever the USAF chose for LWF for simplicity (plus it was unlikely that the US would sanction the integration of US tactical nukes on anything non-US in origin), had the USAF gone with YF-17 then Europe would have had Hornets, but instead it was the F-16.

 

[red admiral]

Seriously?
Exactly how much more in-flight refuelling would early F18s need for the GIUK Gap Patrol?

Hornet was a bit later for comparison with Eurofighter rather than ADV programme (F-15 and 14 for that one) . It was a low risk, low cost, air-to-air and air-to-surface capable aircraft so made plenty of sense to compare with Eurofighter as an option. Obviously we chose to spend billions extra to keep Warton going instead, and Eurofighter offered some performance benefits in some areas as well.

 

[Archibald]

RAF was lucky to afford 165 Tornado ADV... as a spinoff of a colossal european paid IDS development and orders (998 airframes with the gold plated Saudi orders). ADV as a poor's man F-14.
No such luck for the lone AdA with the lone Mirage 4000 as a F-15 wannabee. P.110 proved equally unaffordable.
Both services saw the writting on the wall and a savior in the F-18 mid-size fighter with mid-size F404 turbofans.
RAF derived EJ200 from RB.199 and designed a Hornet size eurocanard around a pair of them.
France created M69/M88 from scratch and went the same way with mostly similar results.
Rafale and Typhoon origins in 1978 evenly match the Hornet first flight same year. Plus a decade since early P.530 studies and then YF-17 intensive flight testing since '74... France had pilots flying a pre-Hornet YF-17 in 1978.

 

[uk 75]

The RAF had two different fighter requirements by the 1980s

A long range interceptor with long range radar and missiles was needed to cover the North Atlantic and North Sea. If money had been no object F14 with Phoenix would have fitted. Tornado ADV with Skyflash was what we could afford.

To deal with Su24 and Mig 27 attackers over West Germany or Denmark and Norway Lightnings and Phantoms needed replacing as did three squadrons of Jaguars in the close air support role. F18 would have done the job if money were there. As it was another twenty years were needed to get Typhoon.

 

[uk 75]

Canada was in a similar position to the UK.

A long range interceptor and related radar and missiles was essential to defend Canada's airspace.

In Europe Canada needed a tactical fighter in West Germany. When it had the job of reinforcing Norway it needed a close air support aircraft.

If Canada had had sufficient money it could have developed Arrow to meet both roles in the way it used the CF18 later. However, it would have been a smaller Arrow and would have needed F4 like radar and armament.

As it was Canada had to go with Voodoo/Bomarc and Starfighter. The Norway assignment was used to justify the CF5.

In an ideal world Canada now would have both F22 and F35s.

 

[Apophenia]

Canada was in a similar position to the UK...

It may seem that Canadian and British requirements look similar ... but the differences were critical.

This may sound like whinging but, if the RAF needs more tactical fighters deployed to West Germany, it faced a 900 km max hop from the UK. For Canadian tactical fighters, it was a 4,575 km flight from the closest jumping-off point (RCAF Goose Bay). For the later Norway missions, it was 2,475 km from Goose to Reykjavik and another 1,595 km to Stavanger.

In theory, Canadian interceptors are expected to protect 38 times more territory than in the UK (not including the GIUK Gap, of course). This, naturally, brings up relative population size and the available tax bases which result. So, no, Canada would never have "had sufficient money" to further develop the Arrow ... in any direction.

In 1957, Canada had a population of just over 16 million - the UK had three times that number (the US over ten times). That suggests that the GoC had long been promising to meet alliance commitments which had always been beyond Canada's economic and industrial capabilities. Whether such over-promising was out of obsequiousness, delusion, carelessness, or mendacity, I leave to others to gauge.

 

[uk 75]

But Canada does not have to maintain a nuclear deterrent or provide Rhine Army and RAF Germany plus the second most powerful navy in NATO.
And UK interceptors do have to range far and wide over the N Atlantic to deal with Soviet bombers.
But being specific Canada could have built its own interceptor and tactical fighter but like the UK why do so when the US has what you need almost off the shelf. The Voodoo/Bomarc and F104/F5 combos were like the Phantom and Hercules for the RAF in 1965 a better deal than Arrow or TSR2/P1154/AW681. Even F111K would have been if we had stayed East of Suez.
Of course unlike Canadair the two UK manufacturers had Harrier, Buccaneer and then Jaguar and Tornado.

 

[Apophenia]

Okay. But aren't you now kind of arguing against "Canada was in a similar position to the UK"?

 

[uk 75]

A bad habit I picked up from recent Prime Ministers in the UK. Your post was very good.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Canada was in a similar position to the UK.

A long range interceptor and related radar and missiles was essential to defend Canada's airspace.

In Europe Canada needed a tactical fighter in West Germany. When it had the job of reinforcing Norway it needed a close air support aircraft.

If Canada had had sufficient money it could have developed Arrow to meet both roles in the way it used the CF18 later. However, it would have been a smaller Arrow and would have needed F4 like radar and armament.

Honestly, Canada needed to do a High-Low split. Big expensive interceptor for Canada bought in enough numbers to cover the airspace, and a small cheap tactical fighter for NATO bought in however many numbers the alliance required.

Buy a pile of A4s or something for NATO, keep at least 50% more aircraft back home for war reserve and pilot training and whatever else you can find to use them for. Make sure it's got at least a 3000km ferry range for Goose Bay to Reykjavik and then to wherever.

Honestly, had the CF105 been completed even with SARH Sparrow, as a long range F-4, it may have competed well in the US against the F102/106.

Related question: What's the max range of an A/A loaded F-4E with 3 big drop tanks, 4x Sparrows, and 4x Sidewinders? (Wondering if the F-4 could have fulfilled the Canadian Interceptor requirements)

 

[Apophenia]

Related question: What's the max range of an A/A loaded F-4E with 3 big drop tanks, 4x Sparrows, and 4x Sidewinders? (Wondering if the F-4 could have fulfilled the Canadian Interceptor requirements)

I can't see Air Defence Command agreeing to replace CF-104s with Skyhawks.

The F-4E festooned with all those drop tanks might have worked. But the timing is rather awkward for DND - with a USAF service entry of Oct 1967. RW, the CAF early-model CF-101s wouldn't be swapped for lower-time USAF Voodoos until the early '70s.

Possible scenario: What if, instead, Ottawa ponied up for Phantom but realised that the CAF didn't really need the E-model's M61A1 gun? The USAF over VN did ... so, perhaps, the USAF welcomes the chance to replace 66 of its gunless F-4Ds with new-build F-4Es? Canada could then budget-in later F-4E-level avionics and engine upgrades.

Ideal for the interceptor would have been a crystal ball to see the belly CFT on Boeing's 1983 'Super Phantom' concept. Then you could dispense with drop tanks (although retaining the option of twin 1,400 L ferry tanks on the outboard pylons).

Alternative scenario: Play more realistically with Treasury Board's tight fist. Wait until the second tranche CF-101s time-out in the early '80s while planning to buy F-4s rebuilt to full Boeing/P&W 'Super Phantom' standards.

Alt/Alt scenario: Canada remains involved in the MRCA programme, adopting locally-assembled Panavia CF-182A Tornados (akin to GR1s) for the NATO interdiction role. [1] When the CF-101s time-out, they are replaced by CF-182C Tornade interceptors to fulfil the NORAD role. Akin to the RAF Tornado F2 ADV, the CF-182C would be a Canadair-developed derivative - perhaps the bait to keep Canada in MRCA? - fitted with US AN/APG-65 radar and the FCS from the F/A-18 Hornet.

Armament for the interceptor would depend upon whether Canada went with Skyflash or chose AIM-7 (which would never have entered CAF service without a 'CF-110' Phantom). Missile choice would be partly influence by the Navy's CPFP - ie: does Maritime Command stayed with the SM-2 or move on to RIM-7 Sea Sparrows as in OTL?

This way, Canada get a manufacturing share as well as a big degree of airframe commonality on its preferred twin-engined aircraft. It also leaves Canada without a fighter capable of 'mixing it' ... which would make our politicians happier. My guess is that part of the 'Peace Dividend' would be dispensing with the CF-182A (once CFB Baden-Soellingen shuts down) and MLUing the CF-182C fleet for NORAD use.

______________________________

[1] I picked my fake 'Century Series' designation for the anticipated year of service entry - 1982.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I can't see Air Defence Command agreeing to replace CF-104s with Skyhawks.

It's not like they're using the F104s as fighters over Europe, they're nuclear-capable bombers.

So get a better, cheaper nuclear-capable bomber. Like the A-4 or maybe the A-7, depending on when exactly the whole purchase happens.

You'd be able to get used USN A-4s for cheap as they replace the Skyhawks with A-7s in the mid 1960s.

Also, time-wise, this could have been instead of the F-104s in 1961, if the Canadians would have the money to buy new Skyhawks (and probably if Canadair wasn't already building parts of the Starfighter).

If we're stuck with CF104s, then we could replace those with A-7Es in the early 1970s and actually have a really good ground attack plane.

Whatever is bought for the NATO Support role, 9-12 squadrons worth, 6-8 squadrons in Europe, 3-4 squadrons in Canada for training and war reserves.

The F-4E festooned with all those drop tanks might have worked. But the timing is rather awkward for DND - with a USAF service entry of Oct 1967. RW, the CAF early-model CF-101s wouldn't be swapped for lower-time USAF Voodoos until the early '70s.

Possible scenario: What if, instead, Ottawa ponied up for Phantom but realised that the CAF didn't really need the E-model's M61A1 gun? The USAF over VN did ... so, perhaps, the USAF welcomes the chance to replace 66 of its gunless F-4Ds with new-build F-4Es? Canada could then budget-in later F-4E-level avionics and engine upgrades.

Good point, taking used -Ds would probably be the best option for getting Phantoms. Did the -Ds have an IRST unit, or was that just the USN models?

After all, the RW RCAF took used F101s for the interceptor job.

Alt/Alt scenario: Canada remains involved in the MRCA programme, adopting locally-assembled Panavia CF-182A Tornados (akin to GR1s) for the NATO interdiction role. [1] When the CF-101s time-out, they are replaced by CF-182C Tornade interceptors to fulfil the NORAD role. Akin to the RAF Tornado F2 ADV, the CF-182C would be a Canadair-developed derivative - perhaps the bait to keep Canada in MRCA? - fitted with US AN/APG-65 radar and the FCS from the F/A-18 Hornet.

Armament for the interceptor would depend upon whether Canada went with Skyflash or chose AIM-7 (which would never have entered CAF service without a 'CF-110' Phantom). Missile choice would be partly influence by the Navy's CPFP - ie: does Maritime Command stayed with the SM-2 or move on to RIM-7 Sea Sparrows as in OTL?

This way, Canada get a manufacturing share as well as a big degree of airframe commonality on its preferred twin-engined aircraft. It also leaves Canada without a fighter capable of 'mixing it' ... which would make our politicians happier. My guess is that part of the 'Peace Dividend' would be dispensing with the CF-182A (once CFB Baden-Soellingen shuts down) and MLUing the CF-182C fleet for NORAD use.

______________________________

[1] I picked my fake 'Century Series' designation for the anticipated year of service entry - 1982.

Remember that the F-4s would be instead of CF101s.

But yes, Tornadoes instead of CF-18s would be a slick trade. The only advantage I see for Hornets is that the airframes are truly multi role instead of boxed into strike or interceptor.

 

[Hood]

Possible scenario: What if, instead, Ottawa ponied up for Phantom but realised that the CAF didn't really need the E-model's M61A1 gun? The USAF over VN did ... so, perhaps, the USAF welcomes the chance to replace 66 of its gunless F-4Ds with new-build F-4Es? Canada could then budget-in later F-4E-level avionics and engine upgrades.

Or they could do what the RAF/RN did and buy the F-4J airframe? Would still have the AN/AWG-10 with AN/APQ-120.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Or they could do what the RAF/RN did and buy the F-4J airframe? Would still have the AN/AWG-10 with AN/APQ-120.

Runs into needing to be able to talk to the USAF SAGE GCI system.

 

[Apophenia]

It's not like they're using the F104s as fighters over Europe, they're nuclear-capable bombers...

Remember that the F-4s would be instead of CF101s...

... The only advantage I see for Hornets is that the airframes are truly multi role instead of boxed into strike or interceptor...

A-4 response: I probably should have made that a statement - 'Air Defence Command would not have accepted Skyhawks.' How do we know? Douglas pitched A-4s to Canada. NDHQ's response? Non, merci beaucoup!

F-4s instead of CF101s: Then those F-4s need RCAF FOC in 1961.

Multi-role Hornets: CAF/RCAF RW experiences showed that multi-role just means interceptors that time-out sooner.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A-4 response[/i]: I probably should have made that a statement - 'Air Defence Command would not have accepted Skyhawks.' How do we know? Douglas pitched A-4s to Canada. NDHQ's response? Non, merci beaucoup!

Still seems odd, as that mission was for nuclear strike, not for fighters.

Frankly, the A-7 is the ideal plane for the RCAF NATO mission, but the definitive A-7E isn't available until 1967 or so.

Anyways, let's assume that the CF104 deal goes through as happened in the late 1950s. CF104 is adopted in 1962 as a nuclear strike ground attack plane.

Since the CF-104 was replaced by the CF-5 in 1968, buying the A-7E instead of the CF-5 would be a huge improvement in capability. It's got a terrain-following radar, so you can still fly in the European Winter nasty weather, or fly at night, or whatever. It's still got a pair of Sidewinders, and 1000rds of 20mm to feed that M61. It's also a more sophisticated aircraft, which will sting a lot less than buying the "monkey model" F-5. That has major industrial advantages if we can get Canadian companies making some of the electronics.

F-4s instead of CF101s: Then those F-4s need RCAF FOC in 1961.

Hrm. That would be tricky, as the USAF hadn't adopted the F-4 yet. Either just adopting the USN F-4B version (but that runs into the SAGE issue), or delaying replacing the CF100s until 1963 to get USAF F-4Cs (-Ds aren't available until 1965, that's probably too long a wait to get a good northern interceptor).

I'd be highly tempted to delay the CF100 replacement until 1963, assuming that someone in the Canadian MoD had been hearing about the F-4 since 1958. Maybe a radar upgrade for the CF100s to tide them over till F-4Cs are available.

But getting F-4Bs would mean an easy upgrade to the AWG-10 in the -Js, and that gives a look-down-shoot-down capability in 1966, and a Helmet Mounted Sight in 1972!

Hell with it. Buy F-4Bs in 1961, build some (or parts of them) in Canada like with all the other planes Canada has adopted. Build a way to let the Navy electronics talk to USAF systems, Canada has good electronics engineers. Upgrade them to -J electronics (APG-59 radar and AWG-10 FCS) in 1967 or so. See if you can keep the IRST under the nose, remove ground attack modules from the system if you have to (I assume the IRST was removed due to weight issues). Further upgrade to AWG10B and the AVG-8 from the F-4S in the mid 1970s.

Multi-role Hornets: CAF/RCAF RW experiences showed that multi-role just means interceptors that time-out sooner.

Had not considered that issue, objection withdrawn.

Canadian Tornadoes are probably the ideal path for the third generation of RCAF jet interceptor (CF-100, F-4, Tornado ADV-C), adopted in the 1980s.

 

[royabulgaf]

OTL World War 2 saw Canadian industry grow vastly and shift away from British practices towards American practices. This was partly due to British inability to provide sufficient drawings, tools, engineers, etc. to establish shadow-factories to build British patterns.
OTOH during the 1920s and 1930s, the USA had built up a massive tool-making industry and could quickly supply Canadian factories with all the tools they needed to ramp up production for WW2.
Secondly, American-pattern locomotives, trucks, airplanes, etc. were better suited to the huge open spaces of Canada.
For example, While researching the Leyland-designed, Bobcat APC, I stumbled across the notion that Leyland Motors of Canada struggled to sell trucks on the Canadian market, while Ford, GMC, etc. were selling thousands.
Oh if I could only interview my dear departed grandfather on the subject of the Canadian trucking industry from the 1920s through the 1960s??????

Ford, Dodge, and GMC were also making a lot of trucks for the Canadian market.

 

[Apophenia]

Going back to reply #111 ...

A-7E: The USAF's A-7D would have been the match ... but first USAF deliveries weren't until Dec 1968.

Working against this was Canadian politics. The Pearson Liberals had snuck the nuclear strike role in through the back door. When Pearson was replaced by Pierre Trudeau in 1968, a new "strategy of suffocation" was applied to NATO nukes. Hence the shift to conventionally-armed CF-104s in 1972.

The CF-5 (CF116) purchase was down to MND Hellyer's Northrop obsession. But the 'Tinkertoy' also reassured Ottawa that CAF aircraft could no longer deliver nukes in Europe.

CF-100 upgrade: The RCAF rejected the Canuck Mk.8 proposal. But maybe substituting Sparrow IIIs for the proposed Eagles? The AN/APG-40 radar and MG-2 FCS were well past their prime but the RCAF does seem to have been wedded to Hughes products. So maybe the AN/APG-51 set?

In light of the RCAF's then-recent Sparrow II experiences, a 1962 purchase of USN fighters is improbable. In regard to contemporary DND-USN relations, even my Sparrow III proposal is a bit of a stretch ...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Going back to reply #111 ...

A-7E: The USAF's A-7D would have been the match ... but first USAF deliveries weren't until Dec 1968.

Working against this was Canadian politics. The Pearson Liberals had snuck the nuclear strike role in through the back door. When Pearson was replaced by Pierre Trudeau in 1968, a new "strategy of suffocation" was applied to NATO nukes. Hence the shift to conventionally-armed CF-104s in 1972.

The CF-5 (CF116) purchase was down to MND Hellyer's Northrop obsession. But the 'Tinkertoy' also reassured Ottawa that CAF aircraft could no longer deliver nukes in Europe.

The idea behind the A-7D/E was that it was a capable attacker, and not a "third world air force" plane like the F-5.

And the A-7 is a very capable conventional bomber as well, so that covers Trudeaus issues. And I'm sure that a sufficiently motivated Politician could order the RCAF to remove the nuclear command and control systems from the A-7s. Selling it would require explaining to the Politicians that being able to fly in the winter in bad weather makes it less likely that nukes would be needed at all.

CF-100 upgrade: The RCAF rejected the Canuck Mk.8 proposal. But maybe substituting Sparrow IIIs for the proposed Eagles? The AN/APG-40 radar and MG-2 FCS were well past their prime but the RCAF does seem to have been wedded to Hughes products. So maybe the AN/APG-51 set?

In light of the RCAF's then-recent Sparrow II experiences, a 1962 purchase of USN fighters is improbable. In regard to contemporary DND-USN relations, even my Sparrow III proposal is a bit of a stretch ...

It'd probably take a very strong demonstration of Sparrow IIIs to convince the RCAF about them, yes. On the order of one hit knocking down a B29/Tu4, I'd imagine.

 

[uk 75]

It is worth noting that Norway operated F5s and Canadian and Dutch F5s were initially intended to reinforce Norway in a crisis or war. Norway and Netherlands later replaced theirs with F16s and Canada dropped its reinforcement role.

 

[riggerrob]

It is worth noting that Norway operated F5s and Canadian and Dutch F5s were initially intended to reinforce Norway in a crisis or war. Norway and Netherlands later replaced theirs with F16s and Canada dropped its reinforcement role.

RCAF transport command never had enough cargo airplanes to support the mission to reinforce Norway. That whole mission was more of an empty political promise.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RCAF transport command never had enough cargo airplanes to support the mission to reinforce Norway. That whole mission was more of an empty political promise.

Building bases "North of 60" to operate interceptors and supplying said bases would probably greatly improve that problem.

 

[Apophenia]

The idea behind the A-7D/E was that it was a capable attacker, and not a "third world air force" plane like the F-5.

And the A-7 is a very capable conventional bomber as well, so that covers Trudeaus issues. And I'm sure that a sufficiently motivated Politician could order the RCAF to remove the nuclear command and control systems from the A-7s. Selling it would require explaining to the Politicians that being able to fly in the winter in bad weather makes it less likely that nukes would be needed at all.




It'd probably take a very strong demonstration of Sparrow IIIs to convince the RCAF about them, yes. On the order of one hit knocking down a B29/Tu4, I'd imagine.

At first, PET wanted the CAF out of European bases altogether (I assume that Cabinet talked him around on that).

The driver behind CF-5s was the MND. That makes it tougher to resist. And, as uk75 noted, the CF-5As were to meet up with Canadair-built Dutch NF-5As in Norway. There, they would reinforce RNorAF's Norhrop-built F-5As. It made a kind of sense - and you can't often say that about plans springing from the mind Paul Hellyer!

Sparrow IIIs: Agreed. A dramatic demonstration ... or just enough time passing that hurt feelings/egos in DAR 5 have eased

 

[Apophenia]

RCAF transport command never had enough cargo airplanes to support the mission to reinforce Norway. That whole mission was more of an empty political promise.

Ah ... but you are forgetting about the awesome sealift chops of the Afloat Logistics Support Capability (ALSC) ... I meant Joint Support Ships (JSS) ... er um, Queenston class ... upps, I should say new Protecteur class!

Oh wait, a quarter century later, and they still don't exist, do they

 

[Scott Kenny]

At first, PET wanted the CAF out of European bases altogether (I assume that Cabinet talked him around on that).

Probably reminded him about what it'd look like withdrawing from NATO...

The driver behind CF-5s was the MND. That makes it tougher to resist. And, as uk75 noted, the CF-5As were to meet up with Canadair-built Dutch NF-5As in Norway. There, they would reinforce RNorAF's Norhrop-built F-5As. It made a kind of sense - and you can't often say that about plans springing from the mind Paul Hellyer!

Okay, that does make sense, but in all honesty all three nations should have been flying A-7s for CAS, not trying to make a 3rd World AF armed trainer a ground attack plane.