Questions abut an Alternate CAF

On that basis the Canadian Phantom II should be the CF-110 Spectre to coincide with the F-110 Spectre.

I thought "Canadian Aardvarks!" the first time I read CF-111.

Fair enough, I had mentally scratched off using 110 as it was OTL reserved for the Albatross but with the RCAF handing off SAR to the Coast Guard during the unification process that would free up 110 for the Spectre.
 
In your timeline is there enough money to re-equip the 4 CF-100 Canuck squadrons in the 1st Air Division with CF-105s instead of disbanding them in the early 1960s?

IIRC the Belgians bought some and also IIRC replaced them with SAMs. If the RCAF keeps the Arrow instead of buying the Bomarc, the Belgians might follow suit.

An alternative would be to buy 120 extra Phantoms to re-equip them with.

IOTL Canadair built 200 CF-104G for the RCAF and 140 standard F-104G Starfighters for other air forces. The RCAF also bought 38 CF-104D trainers from Lockheed.

ITTL Canadair would build 238 Phantoms instead of the 200 CF-104G and 38 CF-104D. Lockheed or another firm in the Starfighter Group would have built the 140 F-104G. However, buying 120 extra Phantoms to replace the CF-100s in the 1st Air Division would increase the total number of airframes to 358 ITTL against 340 Starfighters IOTL.
 
On that basis the Canadian Phantom II should be the CF-110 Spectre to coincide with the F-110 Spectre.

I thought "Canadian Aardvarks!" the first time I read CF-111.

Though if you still go with the Starfigher and maintain defence spending at 3.5 to 4% of GNP the Aardvark might be affordable. That is buy 200-240 F-111s in place of the 135 Freedom Fighters. That would be enough to equip 8 squadrons plus second-line units and attrition replacement.
 
Though if you still go with the Starfigher and maintain defence spending at 3.5 to 4% of GNP the Aardvark might be affordable. That is buy 200-240 F-111s in place of the 135 Freedom Fighters. That would be enough to equip 8 squadrons plus second-line units and attrition replacement.

Or if the RCAF remains committed to the nuclear strike mission, they might see the F111 as a replacement for the CF104. They also would have been potent conventional strike air craft. IIRC IOTL the USAF only based two wings of F111's in Europe, and a Canadian wing of F111's would have been a significant boost to NATO.
 
Or if the RCAF remains committed to the nuclear strike mission, they might see the F111 as a replacement for the CF104. They also would have been potent conventional strike air craft. IIRC IOTL the USAF only based two wings of F111's in Europe, and a Canadian wing of F111's would have been a significant boost to NATO.

That's what I meant.

There would be a one-to-one replacement of the Starfighers in Europe so that there would be 6 squadrons in 2 wings, plus 2 squadrons in Canada in place of the Freedom Fighter squadrons.

It probably would be too expensive for 3.5 to 4% of GNP, but I'd like to see the RCAF/Air Command maintained at 21 regular fighter squadrons until the end of the Cold War.

E.g. in 1965 it would have 13 Arrow and 8 Starfighter squadrons. 1st Air Division would have 4 Arrow and all 8 Starfighter squadrons with the balance of the Arrow squadrons assigned to Air Defence Command.

Then between about 1970 and 1975 the Starfighter squadrons would convert to the F-111.
 
4% GDP is high for defence spending considering how much Ottawa was ramping up medical, education, bureaucratic, etc. spending to support the baby-boom.

Phantoms would be the most cost-effective because they were dual-role interceptors and bomb-haulers. Interceptors to replace CF-101 Voodoos and CF-105 Arrows ... and bomb-haulers to replace ???
Starfighter could never haul a large bomb-load and CF-5 hauled a dismal bomb-load in comparison. That leaves CF-5 with only the advanced-trainer mission because they could help young pilots build time at a fraction of the cost of "real fighters."
 
Finished the chart for the RCAF aircraft on strength at during 1980

LVtBSCR.png
 
Operating both C-141 and Boeing 707 needlessly clutters maintenance and training. If you hang refuelling pods under the wings, a C-141 can fly 3 missions: transport, cargo and refuelling. C-141 could also replace C-130s in the para-drop role. C-141s could haul more cargo to CFS Alert during Boxtop Operations. The biggest problem would be jet engines ingesting dust and gravel while landing at Alert.

The primary role for 707s was flying replacement pongos to our far-flung colony on Germany.

And I say again that Labrador helicopters should be replaced by Sikorsky S-61 R (ramp) to combine the logistics and training tails with the Sea King fleet.

Cessna 172 is a decent basic trainer, but it lacks the aerobatic capability of a Beechcraft Musketeer or Grob. Mind you, Musketeers were not the best aerobatic aeroplanes, requiring extensive development of a ventral fin before they could do spin training. Even so, the Canadian Air Force lost a Musketeer after a pilot used an "unconventional stall entry maneuver" that resulted in an unrecoverable spin.

As for your choice of DHC-7 ... the choice is time-sensitive because only a few Dash-7s were made before they were supplanted by Dash-8s which are still made today.
 
Last edited:
Operating both C-141 and Boeing 707 needlessly clutters maintenance and training. If you hang refuelling pods under the wings, a C-141 can fly 3 missions: transport, cargo and refuelling. C-141 could also replace C-130s in the para-drop role. C-141s could haul more cargo to CFS Alert during Boxtop Operations. The biggest problem would be jet engines ingesting dust and gravel while landing at Alert.

The primary role for 707s was flying replacement pongos to our far-flung colony on Germany.

And I say again that Labrador helicopters should be replaced by Sikorsky S-61 R (ramp) to combine the logistics and training tails with the Sea King fleet.

Cessna 172 is a decent basic trainer, but it lacks the aerobatic capability of a Beechcraft Musketeer or Grob. Mind you, Musketeers were not the best aerobatic aeroplanes, requiring extensive development of a ventral fin before they could do spin training. Even so, the Canadian Air Force lost a Musketeer after a pilot used an "unconventional stall entry maneuver" that resulted in an unrecoverable spin.

As for your choice of DHC-7 ... the choice is time-sensitive because only a few Dash-7s were made before they were supplanted by Dash-8s which are still made today.

When you first mentioned the S-61R I read it as the S-61L, the passenger bird the Coast Guard and Helijet operate. Makes sense, will be doing an update soon. As for the CC-141/CC-137 I guess standardizing the strat transport squadron on one type would make sense but I think at least 2 boeings should be bought for VIP transport. I can't see the PM travelling overseas in a cargo hauler.

As for the Dash 7 I originally envisioned it as the logical earlier replacement for the Cosmo seeing as partially took over their transport duties in Germany. Would just upgrading the Cosmo fleet and keeping them around until Dash 8s come available make more sense?
 
(I feel like despicable heretic for saying this but)

Would it not make more sense to cut the Arrow (say very early on a help develop/license the F4, maybe with Iroquois engine ?)

Would a fleet with just C115 and 141s not save cash ? (do you need the 130s or 137 ? apart from maybe a VIP airliner or 2, alternatively just fly air Canada ?)
 
(I feel like despicable heretic for saying this but)

Would it not make more sense to cut the Arrow (say very early on a help develop/license the F4, maybe with Iroquois engine ?)

Would a fleet with just C115 and 141s not save cash ? (do you need the 130s or 137 ? apart from maybe a VIP airliner or 2, alternatively just fly air Canada ?)

Riggerrob convinced me to do away with the CC-137 except for as a VIP aircraft but neither the Buffalo nor the Starlifter were versatile medium transports. The Herc will be needed and used ITTL just as much as it was OTL.

It would make worlds more sense to avoid the Arrow all together and just standardize on Canadian built (and engined) F-4s. I originally discounted it though because I had thought with the Arrow being designed as an interceptor serving above northern Canada it would have had a much better ranger but a quick wiki search determined that assumption was wrong (680 verses 660km). Even if the Arrow is chosen by the RCAF and even the RAF I can't see Avro keeping its doors open into the seventies. At that point the dominance of the states in the military aerospace industry was unquestionable. Eventually spare parts will begin to run out and like how the F.3 Phantom was bought in the eighties to replace Lighting in the RAF I could see a similar thing happening over here.
 
Last edited:
Top