WI: Make the Sea Vixen relativly common

On paper, Sea Vixen looks like a decent replacement for CF-100 Canucks in the long-range, high-altitude interceptor role.
How early would we need to change the Point of Departure so that Sea Vixens dominate the RCAF interceptor role?
Remember that during the late 1950s, MD Banshees dominated meets that pitted RCN and RCAF. Sidewinder missiles gave RCN Banshees a huge advantage, even if thier airframes were tired and obsolete.

I wonder if Sea Vixens could operate from the gravel and snow runways that dominate the Canadian Arctic?
I imagine you'd say the Vixen would have dominated those runways. :openedeyewink:
 
Apart from the French buying some instead of the Crusader the only realistic way to make it more common is for the RAF to buy it instead of the Javelin and have some exports of the land based version.

The D.H. 110 and Gloster G.A.5 were both begun at the same time. Initially 13 D.H. 110 and 4 G.A.5 prototypes were ordered, but cut back to 2 of each in the 1949 defence cuts.

If the creation of Hawker Siddeley was brought forward from 1960 to 1948 then its feasible that the Ministry of Supply orders 17 prototypes of one HS night fighter in the late 1940s and then cuts the number of prototypes back to 4 in the 1949 cuts. But the RAF version enters service at the same time as the OTL Javelin.

The next step if for a supersonic HS Sea Vixen to be ordered for the RAF instead of the G.50 thin-wing Javelin and RN in place of the OTL Sea Vixen, which ought to save the British taxpayer some money by developing one aircraft for similar roles instead of 2. That might save the RAF version from cancellation. Regardless the HS Sea Vixen goes into service at the same time as the OTL Sea Vixen. With the extra performance its more likely that the French would buy it instead of the Crusader.
 
On paper, Sea Vixen looks like a decent replacement for CF-100 Canucks in the long-range, high-altitude interceptor role.
How early would we need to change the Point of Departure so that Sea Vixens dominate the RCAF interceptor role?
Late 1940s probably. That is the RAF and RN buys the D.H.110 instead of the Javelin and the RCAF buys the supersonic version (developed for the RAF and RN instead of the Thin-Wing Javelin and OTL Sea Vixen) instead of the CF-101 Voodoos they bought IOTL.
Not so sure about how gracefully Sea Vixen would have flown off of HMCS Bonaventure's flight deck??????
The same as Centaur and Hermes if...

We go back to 1945 and have Canada buy one of the 4 Centaur class that was cancelled in October 1945 instead of the Majestic class ship it bought IOTL. While we are at it Australia buys 2 of the others in place of the 2 Majestics it bought. Or they both build Centaurs in their own shipyards.
 
Remember that McDonnell-Douglas CF-101s were not the RCAF's first choice for interceptors, rather CF-101 Voodoos were purchased after a long series of mistakes.

Mistakes started with RCAF greed demanding a "made in Canada" fighter: the CF-100. CF-100 Canucks proved capable long-range, all-weather, subsonic, interceptors, on a par with Sea Vixens.
Then the RCAF got really greedy and ordered the supersonic Avro CF-105 Arrow for a similar interceptor role. Problem was, Avro of Canada needed to develop a new airframe, 4,000 psi hydraulic system, new engines, new missiles, new fire-control systems, etc. ..... far more than Canadian tax-payers were willing to pay for during the 1960s!
After the Arrow program collapsed, the RCAF bought Bomarc missiles to plug the gap in North American defenses. No one seriously believed that Bomarcs were an adequate defense, so Ottawa and Washington began negotiations about Canada taking over the Pine Tree Line, buying second-hand USAF interceptors, loaning instructor pilots, etc.
The USAF was phasing out (single-mission interceptors) F-101 and replacing them with (dual role, fighter-bombers) F-4 Phantoms, so it was an easy exchange for the USAF.
The USAF also enjoyed dozens of exchange officers teaching young American limits to fly during the Vietnam War, when the USAF could barely spare experienced pilots from SE Asia.
 
Remember that McDonnell-Douglas CF-101s were not the RCAF's first choice for interceptors, rather CF-101 Voodoos were purchased after a long series of mistakes.

Mistakes started with RCAF greed demanding a "made in Canada" fighter: the CF-100. CF-100 Canucks proved capable long-range, all-weather, subsonic, interceptors, on a par with Sea Vixens.
Then the RCAF got really greedy and ordered the supersonic Avro CF-105 Arrow for a similar interceptor role. Problem was, Avro of Canada needed to develop a new airframe, 4,000 psi hydraulic system, new engines, new missiles, new fire-control systems, etc. ..... far more than Canadian tax-payers were willing to pay for during the 1960s!
After the Arrow program collapsed, the RCAF bought Bomarc missiles to plug the gap in North American defenses. No one seriously believed that Bomarcs were an adequate defense, so Ottawa and Washington began negotiations about Canada taking over the Pine Tree Line, buying second-hand USAF interceptors, loaning instructor pilots, etc.
The USAF was phasing out (single-mission interceptors) F-101 and replacing them with (dual role, fighter-bombers) F-4 Phantoms, so it was an easy exchange for the USAF.
The USAF also enjoyed dozens of exchange officers teaching young American limits to fly during the Vietnam War, when the USAF could barely spare experienced pilots from SE Asia.
In hindsight the CF-101s were a good idea. We could have saved the expense funding the UK's subsidiary Avro Arrow program.
 
Top