The Canadians paid to maintain the nuclear delivery systems, which are necessarily more expensive. The weapons were still property of their country of origin.
Fictional inventory of modern airforces
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
Do you mean no Canadian aircrafts in Europe then?
I want those millions of dollars on an extra CMBG and a lot more dakka for both in Europe then
MatthewB
Banned
Just a different role for CAF in Europe. Delta Dart can serve as air superiority interceptors, same as the Saab 35 Draken in northern NATO. We can also send rotaries and transports. And the F-106 can carry the Genie nuke.
It’s not tactical nukes, but the Dart can carry bombs for strike roles too. Shown here with six 500 lb bombs. When we’re done with the Darts we’ll get some NR-349 for NORAD.
Last edited:
It must be noted that the PAF flew clapped out (ex-USAF "A's") versions; first gen J-79's in them, and with aircrew that were nowhere near the standard of NATO training. And they also (due to poor training) tried to use the 104 in ACM engagements, a role for which it was never designed.
Down in the dirt over Eastern Europe there's little chance that a MiG-21 will catch/gain a firing solution on a 104G in burner.
I hate hypotheticals like this, for just this reason.
It never happened, and there is little more than speculation to back it up.
My personal involvement with Canada's CF-104 community is the foundation upon which I base my opinion.
Poorly flown (tactically), obsolete "Starfighters" (built in 1955-56 and given to the PAF under MAP) getting "waxed" by the InAF in 1970 is really rather irrelevant to the point I'm making here.
In 1963 the WARPAC had little means of dealing with the NATO threat. By 1968 they still had little means of dealing with the threat.
I don't think so.
The F-101B's that we flew were more than sufficient in the role. They had "longer legs" than the 106 and the dash performance between the two was measured in only a few minutes over the same distance. There's a reason why "CONvair" gained the rep of "CON" first and "Air" after it.
The F-106 was ridiculously expensive (on a per unit basis) once the USAF/ADC cut the order from 1000+ to the couple of hundred built.
I would agree that when the RCAF (Trudeau) ditched the "Strike" role for the Air Division in Europe we should have re-equipped with F-4E's (200 units) which would have better filled the conventional attack mission in NATO (rather than trying to "make" the CF-104 do it). F-4E's could have also worked for NORAD, but they are notorious fuel hogs so an investment in an upgraded (versus the two CC-137's we had at the time) tanker fleet would be required.
ANYTHING that would obviate the utterly useless CF-5A would be a win. Buy a small fleet of T-38/F-5B for lead in training if need be.
Pitching a half a Billion 1965 $CA down the sewer that Cartierville had become (i.e. the CF-116) is one of the biggest (of many) things that PET shit the bed on.
I have lived in Alberta since 1977...don't get me going on Trudeau Sr. LOL!
For that matter? Don't get me going on Justin either...
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Was there any domestic military airplane effort which you approve of?
Barry Bull
Donor
I though PAF received USAF assistance in training and is widely regarded as quite competent in terms of its pilot corps?
Barry Bull
Donor
There is the issue of Canadian strategy being focused on being part of an alliance to consider.
Barry Bull
Donor
Unrealistic in terms of possibility of export and affordability. Only SU-24 and II-78 were ever exported. Also, just the operating costs (both equipment and manpower) is going to place a heavy burden on defence budget.
Moreover, Tu-95 and Tu-22M are just one part of the Soviet A2/AD system. The Soviet maritime surveillance system, the backbone of its A2/AD system, was much more than just TU-95.
Combination of SU-24 and II-78 and domestic made naval surveillance plane would make a potent local deterrence against naval power projection, but one need to realise that it takes much more to defend against a USN CVBG.
It’s not tactical nukes, but the Dart can carry bombs for strike roles too. Shown here with six 500 lb bombs.
Unfortunately, I think that's a prank. Some visiting bigwig was supposed to be shocked by it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't flown with them. I think that either F-102s or -106s did use their IR sight to detect trucks at night along the trail and use guns (or possibly IR AAMs!) to give them a wake-up call, but that's about as far as it went. Shame, those bombs look pretty comfortable there.
Khanzeer
Banned
but when used as a air superority fighter how does the F-104G fare against Mig21PF/PFM/MF ?
f-104S would be far superior though
There was also the Beriev S-13 which was a much more direct copy of the U-2 Dragon Lady.
I believe a small number of Bears were exported to Indonesia when the country was leaning socialist.
That aside, any export prohibitions on say Backfires would need to be looked at before and after the Soviet Union collapsed. Following the collapse, a lot of previous export prohibitions were subject to modifications- so long as the customer paid full price and posed no future threat to Russia. For example, the Soviets never exported nuclear submarines. After the collapse, the Russians leased two advanced nuclear submarines long term to India.
As for burdens on the defense budget, Iranian Phantoms and Tomcats are also maintenance heavy and highly complex aircraft. Yet, Iranians developed the expertise to operate both rather well. My guess is that the Iranian Air force would have the ability to fully operate SU-24s, Backfires and the venerable Bear. Likewise, Iran also had experience with Boeing 737 tankers.
Though Iran can never develop the ability to truly defend against the United States as the US could stack up to say, four carrier battle groups against an opponent if it really and truly wants to, I think a credible Iranian ability to defend against an "after thought" US strike could be developed via skill, the right equipment and access to Russian intelligence and expertise.
That would mean developing the ability to defend against, but not necessarily defeat, a single battle group, and preferably two. Iran could afford to lose a lot, but sinking a screening ship, let alone damaging a carrier would be a huge morale win for Iran and a PR disaster for the US navy.
I agree, Iran's new sea power would need to include some well operated (a key need) advanced Kilo submarines for both reconnasiance and a possible nasty diesel surprise. The Iranians would also need access to Russian satellites.
After the Kosovo humiliation, my guess is that the Russians would very cooperative in sharing satellite intelligence and say, shore signal based triangulation intelligence against US interests. Russian assistance against US interests could also include crew training and mission planning "tips and tricks" gained over a thirty year period.
Last edited:
Are you refering to long range or short range fights? In a dogfight, I think the Mig21 would win. Vietnam proved they could do it against better fighters than the 104. There would be no long range 21 vs 104G fights simply because neither carried long range weapons (at least at the 104's time, I believe modern Indian updated 21 can carry long range AAMs). The 104S carried Sparrows and, latter on, Aspides so it would have a massive advantage in a long range fight.
Bears were exported to India. Those were Tu-142 Bears, though, not the Tu-95; they were strictly maritime patrol craft. I think that may be what the prior poster was thinking of.
Depends what you mean by 'truly defend'. Defeating the US in open battle? Obviously not. Making any war so costly that the US will would break before the Iranian one in any realistic environment? That's a lot more accessible and pretty much what Iran has been setting itself up to achieve. For the hypothetical air force OoB, I'd argue that getting the capability to deploy access denial systems within as large an area as possible would be the main goal when it comes to facing the US. If Iran can reliably set up long-duration sleeper mines in a very large area, it would make any war inherently too costly to be reasonable.
OTOH, when it comes to actual symmetrical warfare, I believe the goal would not be to fight off the US but rather an alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, who both loathe Teheran and are its most likely opponent outside the US. Anti-shipping warfare would take a backseat in this situation, particularly as any such conflict would have a major political part in trying to convince the rest of the planet to side with one side or the other, and sinking tankers doesn't get yourself friends.
To deal with that kind of situation, you'd want to deny air power to both opponents in a defensive situation. Defensive for three reasons:
* You want to get the international community to pressure the two other countries, so looking like the victim is a good starter;
* Bombing either country would start a massive amount of shitstorm, Israel being so small that civilian casualties would become too much of a political problem, Saudi Arabia meaning 'oil' for many countries, and the spice must flow, so to speak;
* Doing offensive warfare and bombing is much more logistics-intensive.
First of all, I'd aim for bizjet-sized AEW planes, like the Swedish ones. They are a cheap and effective force-multiplier, and are small enough to be protected effectively against first strikes. Some Flanker would be good, but they kinda fall in the trap of being too expensive to be spammed and not modern enough to reliably face the more modernish fighter-bombers out there. Getting JF-17 from China would be a decent move, particularly if they can be integrated with whatever IADS money can buy from China or Russia. The good thting is that Iran would have an excellent argument to convince these countries to sell it a decent anti-VLO suite (and let's be honest, every large military power out there has systems designed to defeat passive stealth, it's been around thirty years now): if a conflict happens, whoever sold the IADS would be given the full data obtained from combat against the F-35I, which would allow a lot of tweaking and tinkering to further improve the systems for their own use.
So, JF-17 or Su-30 equipped with proper IRST and EW sensors, if we wanna stay within the current geopolitical setup. If we go for political shifts, one could imagine a world where either Sweden or France moved further away from the US, and thus get Gripen E or Rafale C, for proper anti-stealth counter-air, possibly coming with software limitations to prevent air-to-ground operations as a good faith show to not further push the tensions.
Khanzeer
Banned
I was referring to short range fights btw F104G and fished F/J , I think f104S is the only bvr equipped starfighter
Yes, that is what I mean by "truly defend". Iran would probably want to deter quick and easy military interventions by the United States and make an US military action require a relatively large mobilization to initiate. Then, they would probably want to be able to resist long enough until international pressure called off the action.
Using todays aircraft availability, I would agree that a "low / high" mix of JF-17s and advanced two seat Sukhois might be the best choice. Though they could be supplemented by small AEWs, Sweden maybe reluctant to sell them any.
Their main force multiplier would probably be Russian and Chinese willigness to harm US interests by providing intelligence etc. For example, Russia and China could not only supply satellite data, but position radar ships in the Indian Ocean that provide real time warnings to Iran. Advanced Kilo type submarines manned by skilled crews could also be head aches for the United States.