Canada picks the F-16

When the Mulroney Govt picked the Hornet over the Falcon in 1988, there were outcries about the fact that GD had quietly offered to set up shop in Quebec, thereby boosting the fortunes of the Quebec economy, and with both Mulroney and Bourassa soon to face the voters, the choice was obvious. But the Bug was recommended as best fulfilling requirements. In order to pick the Bug, MoD had to practically "cook the numbers" as Levesque said. WI the F-16 had been chosen? Effects on AIRCOM and our defence capabilities?
 
When the Mulroney Govt picked the Hornet over the Falcon in 1988, there were outcries about the fact that GD had quietly offered to set up shop in Quebec, thereby boosting the fortunes of the Quebec economy, and with both Mulroney and Bourassa soon to face the voters, the choice was obvious. But the Bug was recommended as best fulfilling requirements. In order to pick the Bug, MoD had to practically "cook the numbers" as Levesque said. WI the F-16 had been chosen? Effects on AIRCOM and our defence capabilities?

Actually, the first CF-18s entered service in 1985/6. The purchase occurred sometime between 1978 and 1983.
 
How would our defence capabilities have changed though? Would we have eventually updated to C Block 30 or higher, or stayed with the ADF as many European clients did?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
WI the F-16 had been chosen? Effects on AIRCOM and our defence capabilities?

The F-16 is a good plane, and as far as price goes, it's definitely a cheaper plane to operate than the CF-18.
It also is used in great numbers by Canada's fellow NATO allies, like the US, the Netherlands, Greece, and others.

But myself, I can't help but think that the CF-18 in Kosovo was much more capable as a bombtruck. They can carry more ordnance than the F-16, and though the F-16s have more air-to-air kills to their record, that never seems to be what the Canadian air force does is in it's air missions.

So, I'd probably say...if it was switched to F-16, then there'd be less money needed to operate the fleet, it'd be a bit more variable as far as missions go (the F-16 is endlessly modded), but it wouldn't be as big as the Hornet.

The F-16 can do everything pretty well. The CF-18 can do most things great.
 
The F-16 is a good plane, and as far as price goes, it's definitely a cheaper plane to operate than the CF-18.
It also is used in great numbers by Canada's fellow NATO allies, like the US, the Netherlands, Greece, and others.

But myself, I can't help but think that the CF-18 in Kosovo was much more capable as a bombtruck. They can carry more ordnance than the F-16, and though the F-16s have more air-to-air kills to their record, that never seems to be what the Canadian air force does is in it's air missions.

So, I'd probably say...if it was switched to F-16, then there'd be less money needed to operate the fleet, it'd be a bit more variable as far as missions go (the F-16 is endlessly modded), but it wouldn't be as big as the Hornet.

The F-16 can do everything pretty well. The CF-18 can do most things great.
Both the Bug/Superbug, and Falcon are both multirole, so...the main difference IMO would be price, and legs. CF-18's although having a limited range themselves have a longer range than Falcons do, so for Canada's purposes, having a longer range, and heavier load is more important than having more of them.

No Canada producing and operating the Avro Arrow...this I want to see.
 
This was done a while back, but you need a few things to make that work.

1) Have the Liberals win the 1957 election. They will likely lose their majority because Duplessis will fully mobilize the Unionist apparatus on behalf of the Tories. St-Laurent had already ordered a cost review, but you need either Pearson or Robert Winters to succeed him at 24 Sussex.

2) C.D. Howe remains at MCI, where he's doing what Byrnes did for FDR during the war, running the domestic economy.

3) Find foreign customers. No way Avro can turn a profit on RCAF orders alone.

4) Like the Israeli Lavi, our infrastructure can only support one defense mega-project at a time. That means no Bonnie CVL and few upgrades for the army. Even with our golden era of defense budgets, there will be a Cinderella service.
 
This was done a while back, but you need a few things to make that work.

1) Have the Liberals win the 1957 election. They will likely lose their majority because Duplessis will fully mobilize the Unionist apparatus on behalf of the Tories. St-Laurent had already ordered a cost review, but you need either Pearson or Robert Winters to succeed him at 24 Sussex.

2) C.D. Howe remains at MCI, where he's doing what Byrnes did for FDR during the war, running the domestic economy.

3) Find foreign customers. No way Avro can turn a profit on RCAF orders alone.

4) Like the Israeli Lavi, our infrastructure can only support one defense mega-project at a time. That means no Bonnie CVL and few upgrades for the army. Even with our golden era of defense budgets, there will be a Cinderella service.
From what I have heard, the Arrow would be in direct competition with the F-4 for export, by the time it came around, the US would be just transitioning into the F4, so for about a year, would there be any possibility of large amounts of sales to NATO to counter the MiG threat that the US had a hard time fending off in Vietnam, although it doesn't look like the Arrow had a gun either. I'm not to well versed in the West's general air prowess in the early 60's though. I know Mirages were good.
 
The problem with the Arrow was that is was like the Delta fighters- made for intercepting Bears and Badgers BVR, not dogfighting. Unlike the Rhino, that was not just a matter of slats, Vulcan, and Sidewinder mods. Useless for ground-pounding, CAS or anything beyond interception/CAP. Can't be deployed anywhere but Western Europe or the US because of the finicky electronics.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
3) Find foreign customers. No way Avro can turn a profit on RCAF orders alone.

The Arrow almost got a lease on life when the RAF needed a new plane. They took a serious look at the Arrow when it was on it's downward funding sprial, and almost injected funding into it. Had the RAF put in an order (we're talking 80+), then the production could've gotten off the ground just through that.

4) Like the Israeli Lavi, our infrastructure can only support one defense mega-project at a time. That means no Bonnie CVL and few upgrades for the army. Even with our golden era of defense budgets, there will be a Cinderella service.

And I've got more respect for the Arrow than the Lavi. Avro wasn't trying to field a knock-off of an American aircraft like IAI was.
 
The problem with the Arrow was that is was like the Delta fighters- made for intercepting Bears and Badgers BVR, not dogfighting. Unlike the Rhino, that was not just a matter of slats, Vulcan, and Sidewinder mods. Useless for ground-pounding, CAS or anything beyond interception/CAP. Can't be deployed anywhere but Western Europe or the US because of the finicky electronics.
Well, *if* Canada has been able to produce the Arrow for maybe even just one NATO nation for interceptor roles, say, the RAF, if that had went through, we're talking a semi decent homegrown aircraft industry here. If the British buy them, I'm guessing at least one other NATO nation will at least look into it. So, then you might see a homegrown Canadian fighter.

Even if it didn't do anything but CAP and BVR interception, it would make a good longer range counterpart to the ADF role for the Falcon yes?
 
Yes, but it would have to be replaced by the late 1970s, perhaps with a successor model combined with Falcons or Hornets for ground-pounding. Eagles and Tomcats are out of our league price-wise. What's also required is perhaps a squadron of KC-135's for AAR and some C-130H's. What we have now are converted A310's, but not enough of them...
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Yes, but it would have to be replaced by the late 1970s, perhaps with a successor model combined with Falcons or Hornets for ground-pounding. Eagles and Tomcats are out of our league price-wise. What's also required is perhaps a squadron of KC-135's for AAR and some C-130H's. What we have now are converted A310's, but not enough of them...

The Canadians are getting new C-130s right off the production line. The C-5s they're getting are from the USAF.

Another thing to think about with the Avro Arrow program was that when it went down, there was an immense brain drain in the Canadian aerospace industry. It was the 60s, and when the Canadian aerospace programs didn't seem to be going anywhere, alot of the engineers went south of the border: to NASA.
Canadian engineers were high up in the Apollo, Skylab, and Space Shuttle programs. A lot of them didn't come back, and that hurt any chance of a come back for the Canadian aerospace program.
 
Last edited:
Nothing unusual about the pure fighter interceptor in that time frame. The Convair Deltas were never adapted for any other combat role, the English Electric Lightning and Gloster Javelin were pure air defence fighters and the same goes for a lot of other types, particularly Soviet, from that period.
It's sad when such promising aircraft are stillborn, an RAF Arrow would have been a marvelous step up from the Javelin and would have looked beautiful.
 
The fact that nobody except Americans ever invade Canada (probably because of superior beer) covers up any shortcomings in defence policy. There has always been an insistance on twin-engined aircraft in the air-defence role ie; CF-100, CF-101 and CF-18. NATO commitments are determined politically, resulting in Canadair Sabres, CF-104's, and CF-18's. The F-16 doesn't align with air defence policy unless some politicans are suitably greased and production is done by Bombardier. The Arrow saga has caused heated arguments for 50 years to date, and continues. Here's what I believe. The aiframe was everything it was supposed to be. The Orenda engines were incapable of withstanding high pressures/temperatures and new blades were on hand to try and fix it, but were not yet fitted. Incidentally, JSF engines may be encountering similar problems. It goes with envelopes and edges. The fire control radar system was cancelled and some say that the F-4 benefitted from Canadian financed and cancelled research. Missiles of the period were all bad and a Canadian Velvet Glove was cncelled because bad American missiles looked easier. There was never a gun in the picture because it wasn't fashionable. The Arrow was of interest to the British to replace Javelin or thin-wing Javelin but they weren't money-bags and didn't even develop the thin-wing Javelin. John Diefenbaker cancelled and scrapped it for the good of the country. Pride is a sin.
 
For AH, Canada develops the Arrow fully, and installs a home-develloped 27mm revolver cannon. The Turks and Caicos are invaded using our new-found military might and the first step in Canadian Empire begins. Where will it end? Jamaica? Belize?
 
From what I recall the F-18 was choose over the F-16 because it came with all weather radar guided missiles platform [4 missiles], while the F-16 was daynight fighter with sidewiders only [2 missiles]. Also the F-18 had two engines which sounded better if looseing an engine occured while patroling over the artic. In my opinion it was and still is the best choice for our defenses.
 
Despite the cries of foulplay, Canada wouldn't ahve chosen the F-16 under any circumstances. We kind of like to ahve the added security of a second engine in case one goes out over the arctic. That was why we selected the CF-18.
 
I agree the reason that the Canadians chose the F-18 was the fact that it was a dual engine aircraft and if anything went wrong with 1 engine the plane could make it home on the second.

It was also one of the reasons that Australia chose the aircraft and wanted the F-22 and not the F-35.
 
Top