Long term effects of an F-104 scandal

Remember that the F-104 was originally for tended as a light-weight fighter of US allies The USAF only flew them long enough to convince allies that it was a good plane.
After about 1965, the only F-104s still painted in USAF colours were really training Luftwaffe pilots in American airspace.
The USA only sold them less potent fighters for two reasons: First, few of those allies could afford first-line fighters.
Secondly, the USAF did not want former allies equipped with the very best weapons in case they had to re-invade later. This reminds me of a conversation with A US Navy SEAL friend that I had not seen for a few months. “We were down in [some armpit of a Latin American country] teaching them how to patrol rivers and stop drug trafficking.”
“What if you have to re-invade later?”
“Don’t worry. We only taught them 3/4 of what we know.”
 
Grumman’s Super Tiger was much prettier than most of the jet fighters flown by the RCAF.
The deal to build CF-104s at Canadair in Montreal was just another in a long string of over-priced defence contracts awarded to firms in Quebec. The RCAF was often baffled about what to do with these airplanes.
OTOH well-paying defence contracts bought enough votes to keep Quebec from separating from the rest of Canada. So this was a case of useless less weapons winning a war without ever firing a shot in anger. All those si lly airplanes helped Canada avoid a bloody civil war.

Examples of silly airplanes built. by Canadair include North Star airliners which were basically Douglas DC-4 airliners powered by war-surplus Merlin engines. Grand Canada Airways needed many years to learn how to make Merlin engines last more than a few hundred hours. RCAF Transport Command also flew a batch of North Stars.
The CF-104 always seemed like an odd interceptor to defend Canada’s vast airspace. In the end, RCAF CF-104s got stuck with the nuclear strike role in Europe at around the same time thatOttawa was earning good press by sending soldiers on United Nations Peacekeeping missions. Canadian voters never heard the full story about nuclear weapons based on Canadian soil.
The RCAF was even more baffled by what to do with Canadair-produced CF-5 light fighters. They barely had enough range to deliver a full bomb load to the end of their own runway. In the end, CF-5s were mostly used as lead in trainers for new pilots destined to fly supersonic fighters.
 
riggerrob said:
Why is paying bribes the normal way of doing business in the Second and Third World contriesb but considered taboo in First World Countries?

Just this past year Ottawa has been scandalized by rumours that a Canadian construction firm paid bribes to win contracts in Libya!
Click to expand...

I understand the bitterness, but this is also backward reasoning. Basically - because we (we = developed countries, world leaders, whatever) are democracies, and bribes are absolutely anti-democratic ?
I mean the basic rule of a democracy is equality of all citizens, and a bribe break that equality using money. As simple as that. Equality between people, equal rights for every citizen, can't be buy, can't be thrown into a trash bin using money.
Of course that's idealistic but that's the basic rule of democracy.
Weapon dealers, obviously, don't give a rat about that rule. Dassault was as bad as Lockheed, no question about this. Marcel Dassault political career in the Oise department, followed by his son Serge in Corbeilles -Essonne... better not to think about them.
 
riggerrob said:
Grumman’s Super Tiger was much prettier than most of the jet fighters flown by the RCAF.
The deal to build CF-104s at Canadair in Montreal was just another in a long string of over-priced defence contracts awarded to firms in Quebec. The RCAF was often baffled about what to do with these airplanes.
OTOH well-paying defence contracts bought enough votes to keep Quebec from separating from the rest of Canada. So this was a case of useless less weapons winning a war without ever firing a shot in anger. All those si lly airplanes helped Canada avoid a bloody civil war.

Examples of silly airplanes built. by Canadair include North Star airliners which were basically Douglas DC-4 airliners powered by war-surplus Merlin engines. Grand Canada Airways needed many years to learn how to make Merlin engines last more than a few hundred hours. RCAF Transport Command also flew a batch of North Stars.
The CF-104 always seemed like an odd interceptor to defend Canada’s vast airspace. In the end, RCAF CF-104s got stuck with the nuclear strike role in Europe at around the same time thatOttawa was earning good press by sending soldiers on United Nations Peacekeeping missions. Canadian voters never heard the full story about nuclear weapons based on Canadian soil.
The RCAF was even more baffled by what to do with Canadair-produced CF-5 light fighters. They barely had enough range to deliver a full bomb load to the end of their own runway. In the end, CF-5s were mostly used as lead in trainers for new pilots destined to fly supersonic fighters.
Click to expand...

On a technical point Canada’s F-104s weren’t primarily meant for or tasked with the Canada-based NORAD interceptor role, that was CF-100s then CF-101s.
 
15 years ago during my accute CF-105 fanboism era, I had the same difficulties wrapping my brain around post CF-105 debacle procurements. Second-hand F-101s for a much downrated NORAD interceptor role, while the RCAF pivoted toward... nuclear strike in Europe. So Canadair nuclear attack CF-104s for NATO replaced Avro Canada CF-105 for NORAD. A little bizarre, but that was NATO, and that was Cold War.

CF-5 procurement of course was even more stupid. "hey look, a *dirt-cheap* twin-jet aircraft, we need twin-jet for safety over the Arctic, like the CF-101s, but can't afford Phantoms. THIS is the answer ! Plus it is so cheap, it will be able to bolster the CF-104 force in Europe for nuclear strike !" sure, dude... o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O what could possibly go wrong with such reasonning ? (facepalm)

"What, you say... it has no range , bah, can't be that bad... let's procure 250 of them, we will see once in service..."
 
Last edited:
Of course, the intended replacement for the CF-105 wasn't the CF-101, it was the IM-99 Bomarc and its SAGE system ... which, people today tend to forget served on at CFB North Bay until 1972. Ironically, it was Lester Pearson who pushed for a nuclear role for Canada's military ... after his Nobel Peace Prize win. PM Pearson's position on nuclear weapons put him into conflict with this MND, Paul Hellyer.

Hellyer wanted out of the nuclear strike role and the to dump the CF-104 along with it. But the MND found out that previous GoC agreements meant he was stuck with CF-104s for another decade. The RCAF wanted both CF-104s and Phantoms. Hellyer offered the Cabinet the option of buying F-5s or increasing DND's budget to afford Phantoms. Doubtless, he already knew which option they would choose.

Industrially, the CF-116/CF-5 buy related to the earlier CF-104 purchase. The existence of the US/Canadian Defence Production Agreement didn't mean that Canada could license anything it wanted. Basically, the US government was just as happy to license the Northrop light fighter as it had been the Starfighter before it. But neither Washington nor McDonnell Aircraft was willing to license the Phantom to Canadair.

At the time, keeping the Cartierville production lines busy was one of the major reasons that Canadian governments approved purchases for the RCAF. From that point of view, the CF-5 served its purpose.
 
Archibald said:
Wow. Thanks for the picture, was a gorgeous aircraft, really. Except for the sidewinders mounting which sounds completely stupid. But you British will correct that, as done on the Lightning and Jaguar: same upside-down, but above the wing, of course.

The French Navy may buy 42 of them, think OTL Crusader deal - not before 1962, when Clemenceau enter service. What is really interesting is that the Breguet 1120 Sirocco of 1959 was extremely similar in weight, power, swept wing, dimensions...

The Super Tiger might be a better deal than the Crusader for the Clemenceaus for a simple reason. It had a J79 in place of the bulky J57, making the Super Tiger shorter, so no incidence wing, plus blown flaps for the French ones.
A quick check of Wikipedia shows that the Super tiger was 49 ft long against 54 ft for the Crusader. 5 ft is 1.5 m. The wingspan was also shorter.


Bingo to myself. The Sirocco was only marginally smaller than the Super Tiger, which is hardly surprising. Yet the sirocco was designed in 1959, with the Clemenceaus out of the shipyard hence probably a clear vision of the deck size and catapults limits. Well in this case, the Super Tiger just fits like a glove, actually better than the Crusader (see above).

Breguet 1120 Sirocco

Length: 14.2 meters
Span: 9.0 meters
Height: 4.4 meters
Wing Area: 27m2
Weight(s)
5180kg empty
8400kg normal TOW
11900kg MTOW

Grumman Super Tiger
  • Length: 48 ft 9 in (14.85 m)
  • Wingspan: 31 ft 8 in (9.65 m)
  • Height: 14 ft 4 in [9] (4.36 m)
  • Wing area: 250 ft² (23.25 m²)
  • Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6,277 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 21,035 lb (9,561 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 26,086 lb (11,833 kg)
And of course the J79 bury the Atar in raw thrust, except for the 9K50 which did not existed before 1966 and the Mirage F1.
Click to expand...


Yeah it would have been a much better fit than the Crusader, as we discussed in another thread if it weren't for a nasty test flight... You don't need the second seat for sparrow/aspide/skyflash..it helps, but is not a deal breaker; the Italians used them on single seat F-104's. So you could get her down to under 47 feet, add in a folding F4K style nose and now we are talking about a VERY small package folded up!

If the F-104 bribery comes to light in a time frame that alters procurement that means Canada picks the Tiger, which they were leaning toward but like the Japanese changed their mind at the last minute. If they choose the 98L's wing or even just add the wing tips(maybe), they could be operated from Bonaventure. I know the Canadians did carrier tests for the A4 and were also considering the A7 but did not do any flying trials for it. It was not worth them getting another type for a limited use so Canada let a fast jet element go. Having commonality with the Air Force changes the calculus. I know that they shared their test results with Australia and it influenced their purchase of A4 for their carrier. If Japan goes with Tiger I see no reason why Grumman might not pitch it to the Aussie's.. I am frankly amazed that they did not in the first place since they were looking at Mirage and super tiger beat mirage in most fly offs.

Anyone ever notice that the dimensions on the J-65 in the F-11 is just about dead on the same as the TF-41.. within an inch of the same length, and within in 50 pounds of the same weight.. cut the F-11 intakes to just a little behind the the forward most gun ports for the increased air volume and BOOM! You get all the thrust of the J-79, a whole lot more range and loiter and not enough additional drag to not make it a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Another consideration is production, would Grumman have agreed to licenced production in Europe? The creation of ARGE Nord and ARGE Sud were vital to keep the West German and Dutch (and to a lesser extent Italian) industries active in constructing modern military aircraft. If so, there is no reason why the Germans, Dutch and Italians could not have all brought Super Tigers.

Bucaneer is less likely even in a strike role. When you are looking to carry a single nuclear weapon, the Super Tiger looks better on paper. Remember US weapons are more compact, Bucaneer was lugging around the bloated Red Beard. In regards to finance, some of the development was covered by MDAP funding so its not beyond the realms of possibility that Germany could have asked for MDAP funds to buy some. Politically, trying to not upset the Soviets and East Germans, its possible the sale of an bomber would have been impossible to sanction.

Mirage III might have been a cheaper option.
Hard to see the British having any skin in this game post 57. The Lightning is a potent interceptor but this predates the later 'multi-role' developments (I use the term loosely) for export to the Middle East and its hard to see how you could make a good nuclear fighter-bomber out of it.

Of course the more fascinating result might be that projects like the VJ 101 or VAK 191 actually make it to production during the late 1960s. An Anglo-French-German Jaguar anyone?
Click to expand...

From what I can glean from my book on the super tiger.. they were willing to let the Japanese build them, see no reason why they would pitch a fit about the Europeans or the Aussies building them.. no clue why they never tried to pitch them to Australia.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom