AHC: Canadair F - 4 Phantom

[La Rouge Beret]

The Canadair Sabre along with the Avon Sabre was regarding as being the superlative version of the Sabre. Furthermore the Canadians also made several changes to other aircraft they employed in their Air Force including the CF - 5.

As such my first question is what changes are required Canada purchase the F - 4 Phantom for use the RCAF or super bonus points with the RCN as well. The second part would be Canada is it likely that Canada would produce the Phantom and be able to export same. If this is the case what changes if any would they make?

Here's a picture to help with your thoughts:

 

[TFSmith121]

It certainly would be a good choice for the Canadians,

It certainly would be a good choice for the Canadians, given the range, multi-engine, multi-crew, and multi-role possibilities, but (historically) the Canadians needed interceptors for North America, multi-role fighter bombers for Germany, and some sort of "swing" capability for both and (potentially) out of area deployments.

They had bought F-101s, F-104s, and F-5s in the '60s and '70s for those roles, which gave them a fairly mixed fleet, but also one which didn't really need to be replaced in the 1970s - they stretched to the 1980s, and the F-18 buy.

An alternative would be that the F-101 and F-104 buys go forward, to sustain (roughly) three squadrons (18 a/c) each of 101s for the NORAD role and four (24 a/c) for the TAG group, with three in Germany and one in North America as a reserve. Instead of buying the F-5 (~50 a/c were operational or maintained in storage by 1980 or so), buy (presumably with some MDAP assistance) 72 F-4s to replace the F-101s with NORAD.

Then, replace the F-104s in the 1980s with the F-18.

Trying to keep any sort of fast jets for the RCN is pretty much impossible; Canada could not afford to keep running a carrier after Bonaventure, which was too small for anything but A-4s...

Best,

 

[Delta Force]

The F-105 and F-106 were considered for the role of becoming Canada's next generation interceptor, I'm not sure about if there was any formal consideration or proposal for the F-4. There was considered of equipping the F-105 with the Orenda Iroquois. The Canadian military might also have been able to procure aircraft from France, perhaps in the form of an exchange. France wanted to purchase a large number of Orenda Iroquois engines, and perhaps Canada could have acquired the Mirage III or an advanced interceptor based on the Mirage IV design.

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, the 106 certainly would have made for interoperability

The F-105 and F-106 were considered for the role of becoming Canada's next generation interceptor, I'm not sure about if there was any formal consideration or proposal for the F-4. There was considered of equipping the F-105 with the Orenda Iroquois. The Canadian military might also have been able to procure aircraft from France, perhaps in the form of an exchange. France wanted to purchase a large number of Orenda Iroquois engines, and perhaps Canada could have acquired the Mirage III or an advanced interceptor based on the Mirage IV design.

Well, the 106 certainly would have made for interoperability with the USAF, but the Phantom brings in two engines, two seats, and a much more "general purpose" capability than the 106 would, much less a re-engineed 105, which just screams cost... and French designs are just an entirely separate supply chain, which is just more cost.

The F-4 also raises the possibility of simply replacing the 104s with three more squadrons of Phantoms in the 1980s, to a total of six.

There does seem to be some continuity from Voodoo to Phantom to Hornet - all McDak.

The Canadians seem to have a spent a lot of money on designs for equipment - both aircraft and ships - that, although certainly interesting, were hardly the cheapest and simplest to procure.

Most of the other NATO air forces that were (roughly) equivalent to the Canadians in this era got along with 2 fast jets in this era - the Norwegians had the F-104/F-5 mix, as did the Dutch; the Belgians had 104s and Mirage Vs. The Danes had 100s/104s/and Drakens, but the 100s were procured a generation earlier...

They needed something to replace the Canucks and Sabres in the '60s; Voodoos and Starfighters seem reasonable, but Phantoms presumably could replace both in the 1970s.

Best,

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Given the timing it probably isn't the easiest thing to pull off. Among the other things I've heard, F-4s were apparently thoroughly backlogged at the time this might be a real possibility. Of course Canadair does sort that problem out.

The idea of an Iroquois powered Phantom is definitely interesting though (the dimensions are such that I think it should be workable...) . I could easily see it outperforming and indeed resulting in the cancelation of the Spey Phantom...

I do like the mention of A-4s as well. Its always bothered Mr that we didn't go that way, even setting Bonaventure aside they would have been better in Europe than the F-5 and while the starfighter had its uses they really didnt end up a very good investment.

 

[Ming777]

You'd need another Prime Minister than Trudeau Senior or a more competent Defence Minister

 

[TFSmith121]

More than you ever want to know:

More than you ever want to know:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

Oh, Canada!

Makes US procurement practices look rational...

Best,

 

[Just Leo]

More than you ever want to know:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

Oh, Canada!

Makes US procurement practices look rational...

Best,

Excellent article. I don't really know if it makes US policy seem that rational, since there's a different agenda involved, screwing the military. It's quite rational in this context. The improvement made to the F-5 involved lengthening the front landing gear leg to improve take-off performance. I don't know why they bothered, since the aircraft capabilities were still well below filling any requirement.
The Orenda Iroquois definitely wouldn't fit in an F-4. Besides that, it wasn't developed, and nobody knows if it could be developed because it and the aircraft it was to power, which was developed, were cancelled. The reason given, partially correct, is the same reason given for lack of interest in the F-4, and later, F-15. Too expensive.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

More than you ever want to know:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

Oh, Canada!

Makes US procurement practices look rational...

Best,

Well that certainly was a bloody depressing read, but in saying that it certainly supports our conclusion that the F - 4 Phantom was a reasonable fit for the RCAF.

Given the timing it probably isn't the easiest thing to pull off. Among the other things I've heard, F-4s were apparently thoroughly backlogged at the time this might be a real possibility. Of course Canadair does sort that problem out.

The idea of an Iroquois powered Phantom is definitely interesting though (the dimensions are such that I think it should be workable...) . I could easily see it outperforming and indeed resulting in the cancelation of the Spey Phantom...

I do like the mention of A-4s as well. Its always bothered Mr that we didn't go that way, even setting Bonaventure aside they would
have been better in Europe than the F-5 and while the starfighter had its uses they really didnt end up a very good investment.

That's the question isn't it the Spey engine F - 4 Phantom seems like a good compromise and with another user may result in improvements to the Spey engine. Although I am intrigued by an Iroquois engine Phantom, but I would probably rate that as a low outcome unless Rolls Royce somehow had some skin the game.

The A - 4 is a different story, but I would say it would represent a good opportunity for a joint development with the RAN with regards to a replacement fleet carrier for each country.

 

[riggerrob]

CF-5 had such a short range that it could barely drop a full bomb load on the end of tis own runway!
Hah!
Hah!
Seriously, CF-5 production had far more to do with buying votes in Montreal (home to Canadair) than any RCAF mission.
This is a recurring problem in Canadian defense procurement.

CF-101 Voodoo proved to be a decent long-range interceptor, but it was only an interceptor. Since the RCAF acquired CF-101s during the Viet Nam war, the concept of buying F-4s probably died before it left a politician's mouth. The USAF gladly traded (single-mission) CF-101s for RCAF flying instructors. During the late 1960s, plenty of Canadian flying instructors did (exchange) tours of duty at USAF flying schools.

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, at least the jets the US buy (generally) can

Excellent article. I don't really know if it makes US policy seem that rational, since there's a different agenda involved, screwing the military. It's quite rational in this context. The improvement made to the F-5 involved lengthening the front landing gear leg to improve take-off performance. I don't know why they bothered, since the aircraft capabilities were still well below filling any requirement.
The Orenda Iroquois definitely wouldn't fit in an F-4. Besides that, it wasn't developed, and nobody knows if it could be developed because it and the aircraft it was to power, which was developed, were cancelled. The reason given, partially correct, is the same reason given for lack of interest in the F-4, and later, F-15. Too expensive.

Well, at least the jets the US buy (generally) can function in the threat environments they are purchased for - amazing what throwing money at a problem can do.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yep; my bet would be (in a rational world) the

Well that certainly was a bloody depressing read, but in saying that it certainly supports our conclusion that the F - 4 Phantom was a reasonable fit for the RCAF.



That's the question isn't it the Spey engine F - 4 Phantom seems like a good compromise and with another user may result in improvements to the Spey engine. Although I am intrigued by an Iroquois engine Phantom, but I would probably rate that as a low outcome unless Rolls Royce somehow had some skin the game.

The A - 4 is a different story, but I would say it would represent a good opportunity for a joint development with the RAN with regards to a replacement fleet carrier for each country.

Yep; my bet would be (in a rational world) the Canadians could replace the F-101s with three squadrons (~72 a/c, plus spares) in the early 1970s and the F-104s with three more (~72 a/c, plus spares) in the late 1970s.

Seems like a better buy than F-101s and F-104s and F-5s and then F-18s...

The Israelis bought straight off the line (granted, with a huge discount through FMS) but that's always going to be a better buy than co-production.

Which, if the goal is Canadian jobs, put the money directly into industries that it makes sense. A "Canadian" fighter production line seems not the best use of scarce resources - whereas a precursor to Bombardier's line of regional jets would seem to make more sense. Much more of a market, certainly.

And the A-4 and RCN carrier is just a complete white elephant - one carrier is like one battleship. What do you do when it is in the yard?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yep, a Canadian fighter production line makes about as

CF-5 had such a short range that it could barely drop a full bomb load on the end of tis own runway!
Hah!
Hah!
Seriously, CF-5 production had far more to do with buying votes in Montreal (home to Canadair) than any RCAF mission.
This is a recurring problem in Canadian defense procurement.

CF-101 Voodoo proved to be a decent long-range interceptor, but it was only an interceptor. Since the RCAF acquired CF-101s during the Viet Nam war, the concept of buying F-4s probably died before it left a politician's mouth. The USAF gladly traded (single-mission) CF-101s for RCAF flying instructors. During the late 1960s, plenty of Canadian flying instructors did (exchange) tours of duty at USAF flying schools.

Yep, a Canadian fighter production line makes about as much sense as a Canadian sports car or motorcycle production line; you can do it, but the economies of scale pretty much don't exist...

A Canadian production line for regional airliners, or pickup trucks, however...

Best,

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Yep; my bet would be (in a rational world) the Canadians could replace the F-101s with three squadrons (~72 a/c, plus spares) in the early 1970s and the F-104s with three more (~72 a/c, plus spares) in the late 1970s.

Seems like a better buy than F-101s and F-104s and F-5s and then F-18s...

The Israelis bought straight off the line (granted, with a huge discount through FMS) but that's always going to be a better buy than co-production.

Which, if the goal is Canadian jobs, put the money directly into industries that it makes sense. A "Canadian" fighter production line seems not the best use of scarce resources - whereas a precursor to Bombardier's line of regional jets would seem to make more sense. Much more of a market, certainly.

And the A-4 and RCN carrier is just a complete white elephant - one carrier is like one battleship. What do you do when it is in the yard?

Best,

You raise some good points about the options available to the Canadian economy as a whole. I certainly agree that the Canadians missed a trick in not having a single airframe for their entire fleet and the Phantom certainly seemed to offer that.

In relation to a sole carrier, I approach it from a different perspective. I would rather have access to organic fixed wing air support for 2/3 of the year, then solely rely on crab air for the entire year.

 

[TFSmith121]

Sure, but there does come a time when the

You raise some good points about the options available to the Canadian economy as a whole. I certainly agree that the Canadians missed a trick in not having a single airframe for their entire fleet and the Phantom certainly seemed to offer that.

In relation to a sole carrier, I approach it from a different perspective. I would rather have access to organic fixed wing air support for 2/3 of the year, then solely rely on crab air for the entire year.

Sure, but there does come a time when the costs for something as expensive, in terms of acquisition and operations, as a carrier and its escorts and its air group just becomes prohibitive.

The ex-light fleet carriers made sense for the RAN and RCN in the 1940s-50s, I suppose, because the cost of acquisition was marginal, but there just was no efficient way to replace them, and trying to maintain a force large enough to sustain the rule of three was just impossible for both countries.

The RAN is looking to recreate that with the assault carriers, but they are multi-role ships and, in some ways, the air group is very different than Melbourne and Sydney and the RCN ships.

Not that anyone cares, but icebreakers and fleet submarines (SSN) seem more of a need than any sort of carrier for the Canadians, for obvious reasons; for the RAN, the assault carriers make sense, but that also requires a level of integration between the RAN, the RAAF, and the Army that may not be simple.

The USMC is part of the USN for a reason, after all.

Best,

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Sure, but there does come a time when the costs for something as expensive, in terms of acquisition and operations, as a carrier and its escorts and its air group just becomes prohibitive.

The ex-light fleet carriers made sense for the RAN and RCN in the 1940s-50s, I suppose, because the cost of acquisition was marginal, but there just was no efficient way to replace them, and trying to maintain a force large enough to sustain the rule of three was just impossible for both countries.

The RAN is looking to recreate that with the assault carriers, but they are multi-role ships and, in some ways, the air group is very different than Melbourne and Sydney and the RCN ships.

Not that anyone cares, but icebreakers and fleet submarines (SSN) seem more of a need than any sort of carrier for the Canadians, for obvious reasons; for the RAN, the assault carriers make sense, but that also requires a level of integration between the RAN, the RAAF, and the Army that may not be simple.

The USMC is part of the USN for a reason, after all.

Best,

Agreed on the above and the articles that I have read particularly in support of the RCN acquiring a SSN capability are fairly well documented. As for the interplay between the RAN, the RAAF and the Army with regards to the LHD's that could be best discussed over a beer.

 

[TFSmith121]

Some day, I'll take you up on that, if I can...

Agreed on the above and the articles that I have read particularly in support of the RCN acquiring a SSN capability are fairly well documented. As for the interplay between the RAN, the RAAF and the Army with regards to the LHD's that could be best discussed over a beer.

Some day, I'll take you up on that, if I can...

Best,

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My inclination on Bonaventure is that keeping her around on her own probably doesn't make that much sense, but that doing so probably does us a lot of good in the long run. At really any point during the cold war the primary RCN function really was ASW and a couple of carriers along the lines of Invincible were talked of on more than one occasion and certainly would have made a lot of sense for that purpose; in my view this is much less a nonstarter than OTL if there is any real naval aviation capability left by the time the through deck cruiser model appears. A-4s though seem a better option than the F-5 whether we keep a naval capability or not, and could help to deal with the reality that there would probably never have been enough F-4s to actually have a comfortably sized single type while we had forces deployed in Europe.

Of course SSNs would be a better investment than carriers of any sort, but frankly I think we have the budget for both. Given a completely free hand I'd structure TODAY'S navy along the lines of 2-3 assault ships (ideally by picking up the Russian Mistrals, though whether they are delivered or not is still supposedly in the air), reduce the new frigate order to 12 ships (at least initially) but also bring in at least six SSNs (my inclination would be Barracuda's between cost and crew size, but Astute's could work, as could a new design if the Australians could be talked into an imo completely unnecessary switch to the Collins Class replacement being nuclear). Icebreakers I'm really undecided on TBH... They would be nice from a political standpoint but I rather suspect more AOPVs in combination with the SSN fleet would actually be of more use.

 

[TFSmith121]

But that seems rather unlikely for Canada, even

My inclination on Bonaventure is that keeping her around on her own probably doesn't make that much sense, but that doing so probably does us a lot of good in the long run. At really any point during the cold war the primary RCN function really was ASW and a couple of carriers along the lines of Invincible were talked of on more than one occasion and certainly would have made a lot of sense for that purpose; in my view this is much less a nonstarter than OTL if there is any real naval aviation capability left by the time the through deck cruiser model appears. A-4s though seem a better option than the F-5 whether we keep a naval capability or not, and could help to deal with the reality that there would probably never have been enough F-4s to actually have a comfortably sized single type while we had forces deployed in Europe.

Of course SSNs would be a better investment than carriers of any sort, but frankly I think we have the budget for both. Given a completely free hand I'd structure TODAY'S navy along the lines of 2-3 assault ships (ideally by picking up the Russian Mistrals, though whether they are delivered or not is still supposedly in the air), reduce the new frigate order to 12 ships (at least initially) but also bring in at least six SSNs (my inclination would be Barracuda's between cost and crew size, but Astute's could work, as could a new design if the Australians could be talked into an imo completely unnecessary switch to the Collins Class replacement being nuclear). Icebreakers I'm really undecided on TBH... They would be nice from a political standpoint but I rather suspect more AOPVs in combination with the SSN fleet would actually be of more use.

But all that seems rather unlikely for Canada, even during the Cold War, given the historical OOB for all three branches. There just does not seem to be much scope for a significantly larger navy and Air Force, unless the Arm is reduced significantly from the four brigades it had historically n the 1980s.

Even then, I don't know if that would be enough...

Best,

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Re the carriers does anybody know if the RAN and RCN considered buying Centaur and Hermes when they became surplus to RN requirements?

Centaur was decommissioned in 1965 and the RN could have run on Albion from 1973 instead of converting Hermes to a commando carrier 1971-73.

Say that the RAN bought Centaur in 1965 to replace Melbourne as the operational carrier. Melbourne in turn replaced Sydney as a fast transport, but retained her ability to operate fixed wing aircraft so that she could be used as a fixed-wing carrier in an emergency.

The Canadian Armed Forces, Maritime Command, could take over Hermese in 1971 and in the meantime run on Bonaventure.

Both ships are faster, have 2 steam catapults and can carry 50% more aircraft. But the downside is that they need bigger crews. Also both ships might require expensive refits to fit the requirements of their new owners. E.g. new electronic systems such as radars.