Question other aircraft for the Canadian Air Force

[Anime Ninja]

I have been thinking on other air craft that the RCAF could have had, looking over the list I see a bunch that might have been and could have been a better buy or just different in the long run for Canada.

This is just more modern planes:

- WardAir's DC-10-30, I see that they had 3 DC10 that when they went bankrupt could have go to the RCAF, remade in to KC-10? Might have helped with the Air-to-air refueling gap that was there until the A310 MRTT /CC-150 was brought online

- F-4, I could see it being used to replace the CF-101, CF-100 and CF-104 in the intercept and bombing role. RCAF goes to a single airframe for its fighters. Sure the cose is high at the start but over the years a single airframe would save money

- Tornado, to replace the F-4, as above a single air frame

- F-14 we get them before Iran blocks the sale, would be a great replacement for the CF-101 but would most likely have a short life once the cold war ended.

- F-15 a high priced fighter which would need a second air frame for the Air to ground role, might have been a good replacement if we are looking in the early 90's to replace a fleet of F-4 and got a multi-role build of the F-15, maybe a special Canadian version to meet the Air Forces needs.

- F-16 a "light" to work with the F-14 or a buy of the F-15

- F-18E/F if the CF-188 replacement program decided that they wanted to replace them starting them in the 20teens or late 2000's The F-35 was still just a test program. and Canada needed something quicker.

- EH-101 hold off for a couple of years and then make the buy after an election, they kept their promise in the other election but now it is new mandate from the people.

- Twin Otter replacements, start buying some in the 80's I head about this from some guys when I was living up north in the 80's the pilot was hoping that the goverment would replace them with newer models of the same plane.

There are others but I just wanted to start the conversation on this.

What do people think.

I am not adding in any planes that were "paper" or test aircraft or anything else that would not be for sale for Canada so no Avro Arrows or F-22

 

[Riain]

What are the decision points for each type buy? Can any be deferred, bought forward or merged with other buys? What political imperatives have to be met?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Mirage III instead of the F5?

 

[Zheng He]

Isn't money always an issue, this is why you won't see them go with bigger more expensive planes like the F-4, F-14, F-15, or Tornado.

F-16 would be a good fit because it would integrate well with the US air defense system that started transitioning F-16s to Air National Guard units in the late 1980s.

 

[jsb]

- Tornado, to replace the F-4,

Why do you need to replace the F4 until long after the Cold War?

 

[Anime Ninja]

Why do you need to replace the F4 until long after the Cold War?

I was thinking that due to Canada being a partner in the Tornado program, Canada finds that it can't afford 2 high class fighters and sell off the old F-4s

Or might keep both.

 

[Blue cat]

I have been thinking on other air craft that the RCAF could have had, looking over the list I see a bunch that might have been and could have been a better buy or just different in the long run for Canada.

This is just more modern planes:

- WardAir's DC-10-30, I see that they had 3 DC10 that when they went bankrupt could have go to the RCAF, remade in to KC-10? Might have helped with the Air-to-air refueling gap that was there until the A310 MRTT /CC-150 was brought online

- F-4, I could see it being used to replace the CF-101, CF-100 and CF-104 in the intercept and bombing role. RCAF goes to a single airframe for its fighters. Sure the cose is high at the start but over the years a single airframe would save money

- Tornado, to replace the F-4, as above a single air frame

- F-14 we get them before Iran blocks the sale, would be a great replacement for the CF-101 but would most likely have a short life once the cold war ended.

- F-15 a high priced fighter which would need a second air frame for the Air to ground role, might have been a good replacement if we are looking in the early 90's to replace a fleet of F-4 and got a multi-role build of the F-15, maybe a special Canadian version to meet the Air Forces needs.

- F-16 a "light" to work with the F-14 or a buy of the F-15

- F-18E/F if the CF-188 replacement program decided that they wanted to replace them starting them in the 20teens or late 2000's The F-35 was still just a test program. and Canada needed something quicker.

- EH-101 hold off for a couple of years and then make the buy after an election, they kept their promise in the other election but now it is new mandate from the people.

- Twin Otter replacements, start buying some in the 80's I head about this from some guys when I was living up north in the 80's the pilot was hoping that the goverment would replace them with newer models of the same plane.

There are others but I just wanted to start the conversation on this.

What do people think.

I am not adding in any planes that were "paper" or test aircraft or anything else that would not be for sale for Canada so no Avro Arrows or F-22

This general topic seems to have been covered a number of times over the years That being said in my view the low hanging fruit in terms of jet combat air craft is probably for Canada to build something else under licence in place of the CF5's. In my view changing the historical CF104 and CF101 acquisitions (and probably by extension the decision making process that lead to the CF18 being acquired) would be harder.

Edit to add, I seem to recall reading that the RCAF would have preferred to have the F106 vs the F101 so maybe given more money the RCAF might have acquired newly built F106's as interceptors.

 

[Bougnas]

During the program that led to the CF-104 being selected, Canada was considering the purchase of:
- 200 F-105B Thunderchief strike aircrafts
- After the F-105 was found to be too expensive, the Grumman Super Tiger was preferred, first 340 then 214 aircrafts.

The Super Tiger was preferred by the RCAF over the F-104 because:

The Super Tiger would probably have been a better choice than the F-104 in hindsight because the strike role with nukes became progressively less important and it was more suited for peacekeeping while the F-104 was too specialized. It would probably have butterflied the CF-5 purchase. However West Germany chose the F-104 so for standardization purposes the F-104 was more interesting. Getting the Super Tiger into service would probably either require butterflies in the German choice of the F-104 or a more committed Canadian leadership.

Alternatively, the F-4C was continuously liked the RCAF and could indeed plausibly have replaced the CF-101 and CF-104 as the nuke role was abandonned, but you would have to convince Defence Minister Paul Hellyer that the F-5 was a poor choice.

On transport aircrafts, focusing solely on the C-130 Hercules instead of buying unsuitable modified airliners would have made more sense, while some C-141s could have been purchased as desired to have great strategic transport capability.

Generally, the problem with RCAF procurement was that there was no coherent strategy, too limited cooperation with the Army, political interference, and too many new roles for Canadian Forces were added even though budgets decreased. The Big Air Force idea of the 1950's shows the hubris of RCAF leadership, with the Avro Arrow being its most infamous example. In hindsight, keeping the original idea of only developping a Mach 1.5+ single-engined airframe and adding proven off-the-shelf components to it could have resulted in a successful Canadian fighter in the late 50's, similar to the Swedish Draken development.

 

[Blue cat]

Alternatively, the F-4C was continuously liked the RCAF and could indeed plausibly have replaced the CF-101 and CF-104 as the nuke role was abandonned, but you would have to convince Defence Minister Paul Hellyer that the F-5 was a poor choice.

Replacing the original batch of CF101's (and probably the second batch as well) with anything other than a dedicated NORAD interceptor air craft (ie the F106) with SAGE, nuclear air to air weapons etc seems unlikely to me.

Edit to add, maybe in an alternate time line the F4 could have been obtained instead of the F5's that were built under licence, and perhaps the F4's could have also replaced the CF104's over time. Once the need for SAGE capability and nuclear armed air to air weapons fades from the NORAD role perhaps the F4 could have taken over those duties as well, although the USAF kept dedicated NORAD interceptors in service into the 1980's so Canada may have wanted to do the same.

Also as I mentioned in a prior thread there may well have been some perceived political benefits in simply using the same equipment that the USAF used for the NORAD role. A unique made in (or for) Canada solution might have been seen as opening Canada to more criticism vis a vis their ability to help defend US Air space. Once the NORAD role declined somewhat in importance over time (and the USAF eventually disbanded ADCOM) then these issues were probably much less important when the Canadians purchased the F18 in the 1980s. In the 1960's and probably the early 1970's using the same aircraft that ADCOM used probably made a lot of sense for Canada. I suspect the actual cash out flow from Canada for the used F101's was likely rather low vs buying new air craft.

 

[HarryLeferts]

I don’t know why people seem to have such an issue with the CF-5s, they were pretty good to be honest. Though the fact that Canada produced them does mean that it is not exactly impossible for Canada to somehow get permission to produce the F-20 Tigershark, which was comparable to the early F-16s.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I don’t know why people seem to have such an issue with the CF-5s, they were pretty good to be honest. Though the fact that Canada produced them does mean that it is not exactly impossible for Canada to somehow get permission to produce the F-20 Tigershark, which was comparable to the early F-16s.

People don't like the CF-5 because the primary reason it got selected was so the Liberals could win votes in Quebec and because it was cheap. Canada did not need a "Light Fighter" which was so superfluous to RCAF requirements that nearly half of all planes produced got thrown in storage as soon as they came off the assembly line because the Airforce couldn't find a use for them. Also, Canada is not getting the F-20 unless other countries buy the F-20 in bulk and since there is no reason for the F-16 to not be as successful as it is OTL, that's not happening.

Historically the RCAF did consider the procurement of 3 Squadrons of F-4C Phantoms in support of a hypothetical Canadian Mobile Force for service on NATO's Northern Flank in the 63 Whitepaper, with the Air Staff recommending at one point for the purchase of some 288 Phantoms something which was eventually toned down to about ~220 Aircraft for 8 Fighter Squadrons. With the new Tac Air program, the RCAF preferred the F4 but was ruled out due to cost with the $215 million allocated to the new program only allowing the RCAF to procure 60 Phantoms vs 100+ F-5s and also because Hellyer was a cheapskate and the Tiger was eventually selected in a run-off between the Skyhawk, Intruder, Corsair, and F-5 for the RCAF's new Tac Air Program.

There was some talk of the RCAF getting 4E Phantoms to replace the 101 and 104 fleets but that was killed by a lack of will, funding, and US needs in the SEA.

To have Canada get the Phantom the easiest way would be to just have someone else become Defense Minister (Hellyer chokes on Chickenbone?) whose more receptive to RCAF demands. The RCAF would likely continue to fly the Phantom well into the 90s likely opting to just buy more F4s to replace the Starfighter and Vodoo fleets. There would probably be some major Fighter Program to replace the F4 lasting into the late 90s and early 2000s with the replacement for that probably being pushed well into the 2020-30s

 

[Nick P]

To have Canada get the Phantom the easiest way would be to just have someone else become Defense Minister (Hellyer chokes on Chickenbone?) whose more receptive to RCAF demands. The RCAF would likely continue to fly the Phantom well into the 90s likely opting to just buy more F4s to replace the Starfighter and Vodoo fleets. There would probably be some major Fighter Program to replace the F4 lasting into the late 90s and early 2000s with the replacement for that probably being pushed well into the 2020-30s

Canada has a high quality aviation industry in the 1950's. After the Avro Arrow gets cancelled it is struggling and Canada has a Brain Drain to the US as all their scientists and engineers leave.
So when the RCAF needs a new fighter why not have McDonnell Douglas do a deal with Avro Canada to license build the F-4 or major components at Malton Ontario?

The Vietnam War is getting hot by 1966 and losses of the newest and best fighter in the USAF and USN need to be replaced almost faster than they can be built. Having an extra factory takes the strain off St Louis. The Canadian factory could also provide sub-assemblies to MD St Louis or focus on overseas sales.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

People don't like the CF-5 because the primary reason it got selected was so the Liberals could win votes in Quebec and because it was cheap. Canada did not need a "Light Fighter" which was so superfluous to RCAF requirements that nearly half of all planes produced got thrown in storage as soon as they came off the assembly line because the Airforce couldn't find a use for them. Also, Canada is not getting the F-20 unless other countries buy the F-20 in bulk and since there is no reason for the F-16 to not be as successful as it is OTL, that's not happening.

AIUI the RCAF wanted 200 Phantoms to replace the Starfighters in the 6 surviving squadrons in 1st Air Division.

But as you wrote the Liberals got a licence to build Freedom Fighters in Quebec to win votes (and save the Confederation) rather than because the RCAF's existing fighters were wearing out. However, AIUI the reason why the number of aircraft built was cut to 135 and why many of the 135 aircraft that were built went straight into storage was because another round of defence cuts reduced the number of fighter squadrons rather than because the RCAF/Air Command could not find a use for them.

I don't have any proof but I suspect that another reason why the number of aircraft built for Canada was cut from 200 to 135 was because the Netherlands bought 105. AIUI Northrop cried foul because they said it broke the licence agreement.

AFAIK (and that's via what I've read on this site) is that it's range and payload were pathetic. IIRC it has been written on this board that if one took off with a full payload it would have to land immediately because it was running out of fuel.

135 Phantoms built under licence in Quebec would be a lot more expensive than the 135 Freedom Fighters built IOTL. Therefore, a plausible POD could be that the Liberals thought that they had to win more votes in Quebec and they decided to do it by ordering a more expensive aircraft. I'm guessing that 135 licence built Phantoms would need more people to build them than 135 licence built Freedom Fighters, which would create more aerospace workers in Quebec that wanted to keep their jobs after the 135th Phantom was delivered. That would create a reason for all Canadian political parties to spend more on Air Command in the 1970s and 1980s, that is votes.

 

[Blue cat]

AIUI the RCAF wanted 200 Phantoms to replace the Starfighters in the 6 surviving squadrons in 1st Air Division.

But as you wrote the Liberals got a licence to build Freedom Fighters in Quebec to win votes (and save the Confederation) rather than because the RCAF's existing fighters were wearing out. However, AIUI the reason why the number of aircraft built was cut to 135 and why many of the 135 aircraft that were built went straight into storage was because another round of defence cuts reduced the number of fighter squadrons rather than because the RCAF/Air Command could not find a use for them.

I don't have any proof but I suspect that another reason why the number of aircraft built for Canada was cut from 200 to 135 was because the Netherlands bought 105. AIUI Northrop cried foul because they said it broke the licence agreement.

AFAIK (and that's via what I've read on this site) is that it's range and payload were pathetic. IIRC it has been written on this board that if one took off with a full payload it would have to land immediately because it was running out of fuel.

135 Phantoms built under licence in Quebec would be a lot more expensive than the 135 Freedom Fighters built IOTL. Therefore, a plausible POD could be that the Liberals thought that they had to win more votes in Quebec and they decided to do it by ordering a more expensive aircraft. I'm guessing that 135 licence built Phantoms would need more people to build them than 135 licence built Freedom Fighters, which would create more aerospace workers in Quebec that wanted to keep their jobs after the 135th Phantom was delivered. That would create a reason for all Canadian political parties to spend more on Air Command in the 1970s and 1980s, that is votes.

It would be interesting (to me anyways) to speculate what Canada might have done in the 1980's and beyond if they had acquired approx 135 Phantoms in place of the CF5's. I wonder if they would have purchased any teen series fighters during the cold war and what they might be flying today ? Replacing the CF101's with some of those Phantoms in the 1980's (perhaps after a mid life update ?) seems plausible to me vs buying new air craft for the NORAD mission. As much as I like to think Canada might have purchased some newer fighters in the the 1980's I wonder if the existence of flyable phantoms might have caused Canada to punt the issue down the road until the cold war ended, and then I wonder if there would have been the political will to push thru a new fighter aircraft purchase ? I suppose eventually something would have had to have been done ?

In some ways I believe it is fortunate that IOTL Canada purchased their CF18 fleet towards the end of the cold war.

Thoughts ?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It would be interesting (to me anyways) to speculate what Canada might have done in the 1980's and beyond if they had acquired approx 135 Phantoms in place of the CF5's. I wonder if they would have purchased any teen series fighters during the cold war and what they might be flying today ? Replacing the CF101's with some of those Phantoms in the 1980's (perhaps after a mid life update ?) seems plausible to me vs buying new air craft for the NORAD mission. As much as I like to think Canada might have purchased some newer fighters in the the 1980's I wonder if the existence of flyable phantoms might have caused Canada to punt the issue down the road until the cold war ended, and then I wonder if there would have been the political will to push thru a new fighter aircraft purchase ? I suppose eventually something would have had to have been done ?

In some ways I believe it is fortunate that IOTL Canada purchased their CF18 fleet towards the end of the cold war.

Thoughts ?

As my impression is Canadian defence procurement is determined by the number of votes that it would secure and to kill Quebec separatism with kindness rather than the best interests of HM Canadian Forces. I appreciate that politics affects defence procurement in all countries, but the impression that I have formed from reading the posts on this site is that Canada is one of the extreme examples of this.

Therefore, it's decided by votes. If Canada's politicians think that buying new teen fighters will buy more votes than refurbishing the existing fighters then teen fighters it will be. Teen fighters built under licence or purchased from the USA with a generous offset package would create more jobs/secure more existing jobs than refurbishing the Phantoms so teen fighters it will be in spite of refurbished Phantoms being cheaper.

However, if they do put it off could they buy some USAF or USN teen fighters with low flying hours that had become surplus to requirements due to the end of the Cold War at knock-down prices?

 

[Blue cat]

As my impression is Canadian defence procurement is determined by the number of votes that it would secure and to kill Quebec separatism with kindness rather than the best interests of HM Canadian Forces. I appreciate that politics affects defence procurement in all countries, but the impression that I have formed from reading the posts on this site is that Canada is one of the extreme examples of this.

Therefore, it's decided by votes. If Canada's politicians think that buying new teen fighters will buy more votes than refurbishing the existing fighters then teen fighters it will be. Teen fighters built under licence or purchased from the USA with a generous offset package would create more jobs/secure more existing jobs than refurbishing the Phantoms so teen fighters it will be in spite of refurbished Phantoms being cheaper.

However, if they do put it off could they buy some USAF or USN teen fighters with low flying hours that had become surplus to requirements due to the end of the Cold War at knock-down prices?

Perhaps.. My suspicion is that Canada might end up setting records for the number of flight hours they can eek out of a Phantom. I have my doubts that buying any new fighter air craft after the cold war would be considered a way to gain votes so long as Canada can at least credibly defend its own air space / carry out their NORAD mission. My understanding is that there a floor of perhaps 60 air frames or so that Canada needs to have in order to credibly carry out their NORAD mission so perhaps at some point when that floor point is reached the Canadians buy used teen series fighters (sort of like the IOTL purchase of used Australian F18's ? Although I don't know if that purchase was triggered by an impending in ability to carry out NORAD missions or some other reason.)

Maybe in this alternative time line post Sept 2001 the Canadians might have a bit more enthusiasm for buying new fighter planes ?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Perhaps.. My suspicion is that Canada might end up setting records for the number of flight hours they can eek out of a Phantom. I have my doubts that buying any new fighter air craft after the cold war would be considered a way to gain votes so long as Canada can at least credibly defend its own air space / carry out their NORAD mission. My understanding is that there a floor of perhaps 60 air frames or so that Canada needs to have in order to credibly carry out their NORAD mission so perhaps at some point when that floor point is reached the Canadians buy used teen series fighters (sort of like the IOTL purchase of used Australian F18's ? Although I don't know if that purchase was triggered by an impending in ability to carry out NORAD missions or some other reason.)

Maybe in this alternative time line post Sept 2001 the Canadians might have a bit more enthusiasm for buying new fighter planes?

The refurbished Phantoms aught to be cheaper than OTL's Hornet purchase. Have you any idea what they'll spend the difference on? If anything?

 

[Blue cat]

The refurbished Phantoms aught to be cheaper than OTL's Hornet purchase. Have you any idea what they'll spend the difference on? If anything?

I really don't know..

Historically Canada did participate in a number of post cold war over seas operations where their CF18 fleet flew combat missions. I don't what the implications might have been for Canada if they had older Phantoms vs newer CF18's in that time frame. I seem to recall the lessons learned from some of those missions drove at least some of the requirements for the mid life update of the CF18 force.

I believe Canada still participates from time to time in missions such as supplying fighters to help defend the Baltic states. I am not sure how credible an upgraded Phantom would be in such a role ? Maybe at some point they might have acquired a smaller fleet of more modern fighters for overseas expeditionary type of missions. I still have my doubts such a purchase would have been seen as gaining votes for the government that pushed it forwards.. Or maybe in an alternate time line they can upgrade the F4 enough to be credible ?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I really don't know..

Historically Canada did participate in a number of post cold war over seas operations where their CF18 fleet flew combat missions. I don't what the implications might have been for Canada if they had older Phantoms vs newer CF18's in that time frame. I seem to recall the lessons learned from some of those missions drove at least some of the requirements for the mid life update of the CF18 force.

I believe Canada still participates from time to time in missions such as supplying fighters to help defend the Baltic states. I am not sure how credible an upgraded Phantom would be in such a role ? Maybe at some point they might have acquired a smaller fleet of more modern fighters for overseas expeditionary type of missions. I still have my doubts such a purchase would have been seen as gaining votes for the government that pushed it forwards.. Or maybe in an alternate time line they can upgrade the F4 enough to be credible ?

Honestly doubt Canada will be able to keep flying the F-4 into the 2010s without at least a replacement program in the works. While Canada could probably get its hands on some ex-USAF and German Phantoms on the cheap the numbers of hours on the airframes are probably going to start racking up heavily, a program to acquire a 4.5 or 5th Gen Fighter would probably be initiated in the 2000s assuming Canada doesn't just sign onto the JSF program as we historically did.