Upgrade Canada's 1960s military: effects

To clear the political decks, Bob Winters beats Trudeau for the Liberal leadership in '68.

Army: Bobcat APC (cancelled in '63 IOTL) is given more time to work out its teething problems and is introduced into service by '68. Centurions are upgraded, since the budget probably doesn't have room for Chieftains.

Navy: homebuilt DDGs/FFGs, something is done about the Bonnie. Perhaps the Eagle or a CVS with Harriers in the 1980s?

Air Force: In 1969 AIRCOM recommended Rhinos to replace the elderly Voodoos, promptly axed by PET. Without him in office, the purchase goes through. KC-130s for AAR, maybe a 707 or 2 for AWACS. I would also recommend Chinooks and Hueys for air mobility, you don't need gunships.

So my questions are: how long does this TOE remain in service? Possible replacements? Any possible deployments?
 
I imagine Bobcats would be reasonably common on peacekeeping missions - Cyprus, Sinai, etc. Any possible export sales for the Bobcat, or would the M113 basically take over its niche?

Quick question: what is the Rhino?
 
Army: Bobcat APC (cancelled in '63 IOTL) is given more time to work out its teething problems and is introduced into service by '68. Centurions are upgraded, since the budget probably doesn't have room for Chieftains.

The Bobcat would be excellent, though its smaller than the M113 and has a few flaws in its design. The Centurions should get the upgrades the Israelis did with theirs. I would still use the M113 alongside it in a few roles, though.

Navy: homebuilt DDGs/FFGs, something is done about the Bonnie. Perhaps the Eagle or a CVS with Harriers in the 1980s?

Homebuilt DDGs might be good, but in this case it might be better just to buy a variant of the American Charles F. Adams class, or wait until the mid to late 70s and order the Kidd class destroyers. Homebuilt FFGs is even harder, because the first real FFGs of the USN were the Perry class. One could easily enough take the design, give it the wider beam of the Spanish Perrys and a longer rear to allow the use of the Sea King. And if you do these, you'd likely end up scrapping the Halifax class.

As the Bonnie, she could still work for a few more years. Eagle is an option (one which I used myself ;)) but that ship is quite old. Might be better to buy into the Invincible class development, or maybe even junk the Bonnie a year earlier than OTL and buy HMS Victorious off the disposal list. (Fitted with A-4 Skyhawks and Buccaneers as well as the Trackers and Sea Kings, this ship would have a fair punch indeed.) If you buy into the Invincibles plan, one could easily see at least two of those for the MARCOM.

Political elements might also play here - CF Morale, particularly in the Maritime Command, went absolutely into the shitter in the 1968-1970. Announcing the unification and then saying "Guys, a unified force means you guys have to able to support our ground guys, and we're getting you good ships and airplanes to do it" would probably help this. Refitting or fixing stuff could be passed politically as a way of reducing unemployment, which was a major problem in late 1960s/early 1970s Canada.

Air Force: In 1969 AIRCOM recommended Rhinos to replace the elderly Voodoos, promptly axed by PET. Without him in office, the purchase goes through. KC-130s for AAR, maybe a 707 or 2 for AWACS. I would also recommend Chinooks and Hueys for air mobility, you don't need gunships.

Buying the F-4 in 1969 is dumb if you ask me. By that time, it was well known that the F-14 and F-15 were on the drawing board. Hang on to the Voodoos and Starfighters for a few years and buy the Eagle or Tomcat to replace them. If you need lighter-weight fighters with air-to-ground capability, buy the F-16, Mirage F1 or Tornado in the mid to late 70s. I would only clear the Rhino if you could get them for cheap. Otherwise, save the cash and buy the good stuff in a few years.

KC-130s don't work worth a shit for air-to-air refueling of jets, which Canada knows now, because they simply are too slow. The best way here is to get a few KC-135s specifically for the goal or get yourself a number of 707s or similar airplanes (ex-RAF Comets, or former civilian VC10s, DC-8s or Comets) for the air-to-air refueling job. Buying 707s in number in the 70s makes the most sense - four AWACS birds, six to eight refueling tankers and two VIP planes would all work well.

The Chinook is a given - its the best at its job out there, though with a smaller payload than the Sea Stallion. (The Chinook, however, is faster and climbs quicker.) The Twin Huey entered CF service in the early 70s in any case, and for transport duties something with a bit more beans is preferable. The Twin Huey does that well, though the Aerospatiale Puma would also work nicely.
 
I would say the Invincible option is a better one, because operating even a relatively small CV like Vicky would eat up everything else.

We can't afford either the Eagle or the Tomcat without axing something else or domestic spending cuts to pay for them that would not fly in 1960s/1970s Canada, even with a de facto Blue Tory leading the Liberal Party.

Looking at the NFA competition, the teens and Tornado were rejected due to their price tag, which I doubt would be offset without a major increase in the defence budget, more than is politically viable. The Mirage's combat radius is too small, so that leaves the F-16.
 
The F4 is much less expensive than a F15 or a F14 ... I doubt they let them build those in Canada, and I suppose that building the Rhino will be quite possible.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The F4 is much less expensive than a F15 or a F14 ... I doubt they let them build those in Canada, and I suppose that building the Rhino will be quite possible.
Actually the Phantom's biggest advantage is that it is a true multi-role aircraft. The early generation Eagle and Tomcat were pure air-to-air, great at that job, but unless you have the budget space to buy an equal number of attack birds not really a good fit.

The F-4 was a dead solid front line interceptor (and a pretty good fighter once the 20mm gun was added), with an impressive bomb load (better than either the B-57 or B-66 and not all that much less than the conventional load of a B-47), and it was fast as a thief in photo-recon role. It could also be used in the Wild Weasel role (probably the best aircraft in the role anywhere in the world before the F-15E in the 1990s).

For a small air force the key is versatility.
 
Actually the Phantom's biggest advantage is that it is a true multi-role aircraft. The early generation Eagle and Tomcat were pure air-to-air, great at that job, but unless you have the budget space to buy an equal number of attack birds not really a good fit.

The F-4 was a dead solid front line interceptor (and a pretty good fighter once the 20mm gun was added), with an impressive bomb load (better than either the B-57 or B-66 and not all that much less than the conventional load of a B-47), and it was fast as a thief in photo-recon role. It could also be used in the Wild Weasel role (probably the best aircraft in the role anywhere in the world before the F-15E in the 1990s).

For a small air force the key is versatility.

You just reminded me of a funny (and entirely fitting) comment about the F-4 that a friend of mine made once when were discussing multi-role air-craft.

Aside from listing what you mentioned, he capped it off with: "Ah, F-4...was there anything you couldn't do?":D
 
I'm a fan of the F-4, too. But by 1969, better stuff was on the way, and as Canada's budget is only capable of supporting a mid-size force, I still think its better to not spend money on the Rhino in 1969 unless you could get it cheap. Not because its bad, but because better stuff is on the way and the cost is an issue.

If the Eagle and the Tomcat are too pricey, than stick with the Hornet. It's better than the F-16 for Canada's purposes. But then again, one could remember that Canada was trying to buy Iran's F-14s, which the Americans would LOVE for us to do. Like in Canadian Power, I am thinking that Canada looks to keep a decent budget and goes for the NFA program, but the ability to get 79 F-14s for peanuts is just too good to pass up and Canada by the mid-1980s has F-14s in the air defense role (which they were designed for) and the light fighter role handled by the F-16 or F-18. Canada could also buy the four Kidd class destroyers from the USA for peanuts, too - the USN effectively convinced President Carter to let the USN use them, if they can be sold to Canada you better believe Carter will back that.

Canadian F-14s would be a much appreciated thing in Washington, for both NORAD / NATO air defense and political reasons. Hell, get Washington to help us out with the bills on the F-14s - to get its latest naval interceptor out of the hands of a nation which is an enemy to them, they probably would help us.

If you are gonna find the cash to buy AWACS birds and extra 707s for transport duties, between the extra budget and not allowing the CP-140 project to get gold-plated and run massively over budget (just buy them as the US have P-3s, or better yet rebuild the Argus' with modern systems and save the whole deal) then you can trim down the budgets to the point where one can replace the CF-101 and CF-100 with the F-14 and the CF-104 with the F-18. (If we are butterflying Trudeau, we can also toss the CF-5s, too, thus further improving budgets.)

This puts us by the mid 1980s having bought:

80 CF-14 Tomcat (the 80th unit was delivered to the USN, we'd get it instead)
125 CF-18 Hornet
4 E-3 Sentry
6 CC-137 (Boeing 707) aerial refueling tankers

^ This fleet here is highly capable one in pound-for-pound terms. The CF-18s would be mostly stationed with the Canadian squadrons stationed in Europe for a while, while the F-14s, being air defense units only, would stay in Canada for air-defense duties, along with the E-3s.
 
Air Force: In 1969 AIRCOM recommended Rhinos to replace the elderly Voodoos, promptly axed by PET. Without him in office, the purchase goes through. KC-130s for AAR, maybe a 707 or 2 for AWACS. I would also recommend Chinooks and Hueys for air mobility, you don't need gunships.

I think your timeline is a bit off here. The Voodoos didn't enter service until late 1961 and served into the 80's. The late 60's fighter competion was held because not enough VooDoos and Starfighters were aquired to replace the Clunks and Sabres, not in order to replace the VooDoos. The air force did indeed want the Phantom but the government chose the cheapest aircraft on offer and bought F-5s.

It really depends upon how much money is available. Without PET the military would no longer be the red headed stepchild but there are still budget realities to deal with. I think the Phantom is much more likely than anything else. Canadian service chiefs love multi-role 'cause they know kit has to last 20-40 years.

The Iranian F-14s were discussed a decade later (79-80) and would be a possible VooDoo replacement as they were getting elderly by then. The F-14 would slot nicely into the air defence role the VooDoos were filling.
 
Canada isn't likely to buy the first production batch of a teen series fighter so won't get anything until 1978-9 at best if holding out for a teen. In 1969 the F4 was being built at a rate of 72 a month, if ordered in 1969 Canada could probably have IOC in 1972-3 and the F4 will be good until the late 90s, a good return on investment.
 
Canada isn't likely to buy the first production batch of a teen series fighter so won't get anything until 1978-9 at best if holding out for a teen. In 1969 the F4 was being built at a rate of 72 a month, if ordered in 1969 Canada could probably have IOC in 1972-3 and the F4 will be good until the late 90s, a good return on investment.

I don't disagree, but the Voodoos are good enough to last until the early 1980s, and the aircraft that in 1969 were in desperate need of replacement were the Sabres and the CF-100s. IMO, you could pay those off and run with the Voodoo and Starfighter until the teens come around, but F-4s are possible if the money is there. My concern is that some numbskull in Ottawa thinks "Hell, those things are still good enough!" and we end up with them STILL flying for the CF in 2010. As I said, if its cheap enough, go for it. Otherwise, don't bother.
 
I'm a fan of the F-4, too. But by 1969, better stuff was on the way, and as Canada's budget is only capable of supporting a mid-size force, I still think its better to not spend money on the Rhino in 1969 unless you could get it cheap. Not because its bad, but because better stuff is on the way and the cost is an issue.

If the Eagle and the Tomcat are too pricey, than stick with the Hornet. It's better than the F-16 for Canada's purposes. But then again, one could remember that Canada was trying to buy Iran's F-14s, which the Americans would LOVE for us to do. Like in Canadian Power, I am thinking that Canada looks to keep a decent budget and goes for the NFA program, but the ability to get 79 F-14s for peanuts is just too good to pass up and Canada by the mid-1980s has F-14s in the air defense role (which they were designed for) and the light fighter role handled by the F-16 or F-18. Canada could also buy the four Kidd class destroyers from the USA for peanuts, too - the USN effectively convinced President Carter to let the USN use them, if they can be sold to Canada you better believe Carter will back that.

Canadian F-14s would be a much appreciated thing in Washington, for both NORAD / NATO air defense and political reasons. Hell, get Washington to help us out with the bills on the F-14s - to get its latest naval interceptor out of the hands of a nation which is an enemy to them, they probably would help us.

If you are gonna find the cash to buy AWACS birds and extra 707s for transport duties, between the extra budget and not allowing the CP-140 project to get gold-plated and run massively over budget (just buy them as the US have P-3s, or better yet rebuild the Argus' with modern systems and save the whole deal) then you can trim down the budgets to the point where one can replace the CF-101 and CF-100 with the F-14 and the CF-104 with the F-18. (If we are butterflying Trudeau, we can also toss the CF-5s, too, thus further improving budgets.)

This puts us by the mid 1980s having bought:

80 CF-14 Tomcat (the 80th unit was delivered to the USN, we'd get it instead)
125 CF-18 Hornet
4 E-3 Sentry
6 CC-137 (Boeing 707) aerial refueling tankers

^ This fleet here is highly capable one in pound-for-pound terms. The CF-18s would be mostly stationed with the Canadian squadrons stationed in Europe for a while, while the F-14s, being air defense units only, would stay in Canada for air-defense duties, along with the E-3s.

Only 4 E-3A's? I would think more planes would be bought, considering Canada's size and possible aircraft unavailability. Though since the E-3A's are being used for air defense, I suppose they are in a NORAD pool with the USAF E-3A's. Would E-2's be a possibility as well? Especially if they are operating from Canadain carriers.

I know there was at least one Canadian flying on the AWACS in the late 70's and early 80's. An NCO, he joined the USAF during Vietnam. Hmm, I suppose this could lead to a joint NORAD AWACS squadron.
 
To clear the political decks, Bob Winters beats Trudeau for the Liberal leadership in '68.

Army: Bobcat APC (cancelled in '63 IOTL) is given more time to work out its teething problems and is introduced into service by '68. Centurions are upgraded, since the budget probably doesn't have room for Chieftains.

Navy: homebuilt DDGs/FFGs, something is done about the Bonnie. Perhaps the Eagle or a CVS with Harriers in the 1980s?

Air Force: In 1969 AIRCOM recommended Rhinos to replace the elderly Voodoos, promptly axed by PET. Without him in office, the purchase goes through. KC-130s for AAR, maybe a 707 or 2 for AWACS. I would also recommend Chinooks and Hueys for air mobility, you don't need gunships.

So my questions are: how long does this TOE remain in service? Possible replacements? Any possible deployments?

I'm thinking MacCauley will vote for having helicopter gunships. At least so they are around when he's in Afganistan. :)
 
Only 4 E-3A's? I would think more planes would be bought, considering Canada's size and possible aircraft unavailability. Though since the E-3A's are being used for air defense, I suppose they are in a NORAD pool with the USAF E-3A's. Would E-2's be a possibility as well? Especially if they are operating from Canadain carriers.

I know there was at least one Canadian flying on the AWACS in the late 70's and early 80's. An NCO, he joined the USAF during Vietnam. Hmm, I suppose this could lead to a joint NORAD AWACS squadron.

I am thinking that four E-3s would be a good balance between what Canada wants to spend and what would cover the country's north. Canada for real coverage would need at least 6-8 of them, but the E-3 costs a lot and so Canada would probably not be willing to shell out for that many of them.

Canada's whole air defense structure works within NORAD, and so would the Canadian E-3s. E-2s are smaller and cheaper but not as effective or able to stay up for a as long, and Canada would not be able to afford a carrier that could operate them easily.
 
I'm thinking MacCauley will vote for having helicopter gunships. At least so they are around when he's in Afganistan. :)

Considering we're talking about the time when the AH-1 Cobra was scaring the hell out of the Vietnamese, one could see Canadian Cobras later on.
 
Top