RCAF Alternatives to CF-101 for NORAD role?

My sources say at least some CF100's were supersonic in a dive.

If Top Gun has taught us anything its that dives are the most useful manoeuvre in Cold War aerial shadow boxing, especially 4G negative dives, inverted!

a-quick-glimpse-at-the-coolest-job-in-the-world-video.jpg
 
If the US wants Canada to use US nukes on RCAF Lightnings so badly then they can shoulder the cost burden. Otherwise they can leave the Lightnings conventionally armed until the circumstance warrant a drastic loosening of the conditions surrounding their fitment.
Do you believe the Lightning could even have carried and launched the Genie nuclear armed air to air rocket used by the CF101 ?

I suppose something could have been figured out (probably involving more risk and expense) but I'm having a hard time envisioning Genies being easily used in place of the AAM's on the sides of the Lightning, plus a mixed load of AAM's and nuclear armed rockets might also have been an issue ?

That being said the aerodynamic performance of the lightning might have been useful for a war time intercept mission where time was of the essence for interceptors to scramble and destroy nuclear armed bombers while they were still within GCI radar coverage.

Given the historically poor performance of many early AAM's and the use of the genie by the Canadians until the retirement of the CF101's I suspect the Candadians were quite happy to have access to the nuclear armed genie rocket.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if the Genie could be carried externally, but every other AAM is so I can't imagine any massive hurdles.

As for the performance of the Lightning, if the Canadian and British Governments come to some sort of deal like the Canadian and US governments did over the Voodoo and BOMARCs then the RCAF will get Lightnings no matter how suitable or otherwise they are. If the Lightning lack an amount of tactical flexibility due to shorter range then this might be offset by buying more of them or upgrading an airbase or two or getting extra radars or tankers or whatever.
 
I don't know if the Genie could be carried externally, but every other AAM is so I can't imagine any massive hurdles.

As for the performance of the Lightning, if the Canadian and British Governments come to some sort of deal like the Canadian and US governments did over the Voodoo and BOMARCs then the RCAF will get Lightnings no matter how suitable or otherwise they are. If the Lightning lack an amount of tactical flexibility due to shorter range then this might be offset by buying more of them or upgrading an airbase or two or getting extra radars or tankers or whatever.
Yep... I suspect it could have been made to work if needed....

I'm also not convinced the range issue is all that big a deal for a war time intercept mission especially if the air craft have already been dispersed. For peace time operations I can see range being more of an issue.
 
yep. Here's a pair on a F-89
F-89Js.jpg
A quick google search leads me to believe the Genie has approx twice the mass of the AAM caried by the lightning. I also seem to recall the Geneie was "launched" by being dropped where upon a lanyard was pulled to start the rocket motor (vs being fired from a rail as many other AAM's are (no I can't be bothered to lookup how the lightning's AAM's were launched after I saw the apparent difference in mass I stopped looking at this issue...)

Plus there is the matter of detonating the war head of the Genie at the correct time.

I wouldn't want to under estimate the effort involved in using genie with an air craft not originally designed to carry it, but I suppose it could have been made to work.

Buying an aircraft designed by the manufacturer to use this weapon (and tested by the USAF) might have some advantages :)
 
Last edited:
A quick google search leads me to believe the Genie has approx twice the mass of the AAM caried by the lightning. I also seem to recall the Geneie was "launched" by being dropped where upon a lanyard was pulled to start the rocket motor (vs being fired from a rail as many other AAM's are (no I can't be bothered to lookup how the lightning's AAM's were launched after I saw the apparent difference in mass I stopped looking at this issue...)

Plus there is the matter of detonating the war head of the Genie at the correct time.

I wouldn't want to under estimate the effort involved in using genie with an air craft not originally deigned to carry it.
Predictor gunsight, otherwise not much different from the WWII era 'Tiny Tim'

20121126034641-7431470e-cu_s9999x200.jpg

20121119185649-ea737155.jpg
 
A glance at this picture will show wing pylons with a pair of rocket pods, I believe these pylons could carry a 1000lb bomb, so the 822lb Genie should be within limits. That's assuming the Genie is even a hard and fast requirement instead of a way to keep up engagement between the US and Canada.

440px-EE_Lightning_F.53_418_G-AXEE_Kuw_LEB_07.06.69_edited-5.jpg
 
I'm done with this topic. I don't see how a predictor gun sight addresses the issues I have outlined.

Bye for now.

You don't need full SAGE uplink capability.
The Hughes MA-1 had that, but the earlier Hughes E-4 in the F-86D or E-5 in the F-94 and F-89 would be fine with updated missile parameters, since it could handle 2.76" FFARs. It used the APG-33 radar to continuously measure the range, azimuth and elevation of the target and alert the pilot when the current intercept course would give a good firing solution.
from

The cockpit radar display was a small, about 8" square screen with a hood to keep out ambient light. Typical radar displays are a circle or part (sector) of a circle, since radar dishes typically scanned in a circular left-right motion. The Hughes E-4 Fire Control System (FCS) featured a display that was rectangular. The radar sweep line, instead of employing a circular pattern, was vertical and swept horizontally from side to side. The advantage was the sweep was expanded at shorter ranges to provide greater precision as you got close to the target. There was a name for this display that escapes me.


The maximum range of the E-4 radar was about 15 miles. If it "saw" the target, there would be a bright spot on the vertical radar scan line as it swept through. When you saw that, you would inform GCI that you had "Joy" and take over manually. There was a joystick in the cockpit that, by depressing a trigger, would allow you to manually control the radar dish in the nose. You would focus the radar on the target, holding it with the joystick which now also had vertical control of the dish. If you got it pointed right, the target return would brighten. By releasing the trigger, the radar would "lock on" to the target and follow it automatically.


Picture the situation. Your aircraft is flying at 90º to the target's heading, maintaining a 39º orientation ahead of the target. Any time the "angle off" to another aircraft remains constant, you are on a collision course. You are nose-on to him, a minimum cross section for him to see. You maintain position by adjusting airspeed (Remember, with all this going on, you are still flying the aircraft "blind", with your head stuck in a hood.) The E-4 FCS displays a "steering circle" that flits around the screen telling you how to steer. The object is to keep this little circle in the center of the screen.


When the FCS computer detects you are 30 seconds from the firing point, still on a collision course, the display changes to a large circle with a small one in the center and a steering dot. The radar display is gone. Now your job is to center the dot in that small circle. At 10 seconds to go, the circle collapses into a short straight line with the dot. Your job then is to bury the dot in the line. The dot shifts left and right with the wings (roll) and up and down with the aircraft nose angle (pitch). The fire control system will time rocket firing to adjust for any slight horizontal position deviation, but it can't adjust for elevation. It also requires wings level. Burying the dot in the little line assured that you were level with the target with wings level. The system also at the 10 second point inserts a slight offset from a true collision course, called an "F-pole" so that your rockets, which of course travel much faster than you, will impact the target and you will pass just behind him. This was called a lead collision course.


The difference with the E-5 was the added Genie capability, the warhead went off on time delay after firing
 
Last edited:
The Lightning could indeed carry the AIR - 2. It was seriously considered (but not adopted) by the RAF and would have been carried (singly) semi - conformally in (or replacing, depending on mark) the belly tank. Indeed, you'll find a b & w picture of a trial installation of this arrangement in Tim McLelland's excellent book on 'the frightening'.

Still make a shit choice for the Canadians, though - GCI or not.
 
Thinking through the role of the CF101 in Canada, could one have used a civil airliner or tanker type on constant CAP carrying a whole battery of missiles? Not the dash speed of the CF 101 but a hugely greater range/loiter ability. IIRC the Vickers VC10 was offered for this role in the UK.
 
Top