Canadian AF- Why Hornet and not the Eagle?

[Weaver]

Weaver: according to some sources, the Tornado originated with a study by two Canadian officers. It'd be interesting to know what that original, single-seat MRA concept looked like. Did it have the MRCA's swing-wings? Inquiring minds want to know!

Hmmm, a fixed-wing, single-seat CF MRA might make a good whif ...

Hmmm - as I understand it, MRCA evolved out of AFVG when the French pulled out of the latter. AFVG looked very like Tornado, except that it had semi-circular intakes and bigger, lower bypass engines, potentially giving it more of an air-to-air bias. The big dispute in the design stage of Tornado had the Germans and Italians demanding a lighter, cheaper single-seat CAS version, whilst the RAF wanted longer range: the ideal RAF machine would probably have looked like the stretched F.3 airframe with GR.1 avionics. The German/Italian position was based on their Starfighter experience, but they were eventually persuaded that their single seater would be only slightly cheaper and MUCH less capable than a two-seater. The quid-pro-quo for that was the RAF accepting a shorter, common 2-seater.

If the Canadians had staying the in picture, it would have been interesting to see what influence they had. I'd have imagined they'd be agitating for the long-range version, but you reckon they wanted a single seater? Interesting.... any more info?

[kitnut617]

Well, Scooter, your situation would mean that the F-111 was accepted early on into the Tactical Support role up here in the GWN, instead of the CF-5 - they were favoured for the Tac Support situation, which means yes, we'd be looking at purebred fighters.

It's my understanding that the RCAF wanted the F-105 and got told they were getting the CF-116 (F-5) 'Course being able to get almost three CF-116 to every one F-105 might have come into the equation   

[Weaver]

Well, Scooter, your situation would mean that the F-111 was accepted early on into the Tactical Support role up here in the GWN, instead of the CF-5 - they were favoured for the Tac Support situation, which means yes, we'd be looking at purebred fighters.

It's my understanding that the RCAF wanted the F-105 and got told they were getting the CF-116 (F-5) 'Course being able to get almost three CF-116 to every one F-105 might have come into the equation   

Then again, how many CF-116s are equivalent to one F-105? 

[Sauragnmon]

Actually, at the time, the RCAF's frontrunner was the Phabulous Phantom for Tactical Air Support.  The navy also came up at that time with the need to replace their Panthers, and wanted the A-4 Skyhawk.  Those were the tops of the wishlists at that time for air support.  Thuds were looked at, as were Varks, as were a number of others, but the government didn't decide to splurge, in typical conservative Canadian fashion, and took advantage of the fact that Northrop was willing to let Canadair build the F-5's in country, in addition to the budget, and That's how we got the 116, completely in the face of the fact that not only the Forces commission for the replacement (the first one, that got dismissed by the minister) but the one that the Minister convened on the subject, BOTH put the Phantom on the top of their lists.  The second group had a short list of contenders, the A-4 and F-4 being on that list along with the F-5, and possibly one other.  There was an article on it I read in the RCAF's magazine, written by one of the guys who was on that commission.  They backed down and accepted the F-5 Solely on ONE clause - that it was meant as an interrim solution.  Other than that, they were adamant on the desire for Phantoms or something heavy duty.

[apophenia]

Actually, at the time, the RCAF's frontrunner was the Phabulous Phantom for Tactical Air Support.

There was a good cartoon in Air International years ago of an F-5 being given a cosmetic make-over to make it look more like an F-4 for the CF.

Weaver: I think those Canadian officers were claiming some credit for the original MRA Starfighter replacement.

[viper29_ca]

Yeah, basically the competition that resulted in the CF-188 consisted of"

F-16
F/A-18
F-15
F-14
Tornado
Mirage F-1 which in the very end was switched to the Mirage 2000

All in all, the Mirage F-1 and Tornado had teething problems. The Mirage 2000 wasn't ready. The F-15 and F-14 were too expensive, thus it came down to the F-16 and F/A-18, with the F-16 being eliminated by virtue of only having one engine over the 18's 2 engines....which seemed like a much safer bet for long intercept and patrol missions over Canada's north.

Getting 40-80 F-14s on the cheap either from Iran, or from the US with the second shipment that was to go to Iran would have been excellent, would have made for a great multi-force airforce. Imagine Soviet bomber pilots being greeted by CDN F-14s over the arctic. And with the US Navy now without the F-14, there would be no shortage of parts for them.

Back to the 2 engine rule....while I agree with it....makes it funny that we now may be pursuing a single engine fighter for the CF-188's replacement in the F/A-35......

[Sauragnmon]

Viper, you and me both.  I don't get why we're going for the JSF either, probably a cost thing, YET AGAIN.  Stupid fracking bean counters making the big decisions like that, they oughta be hung up for treason, because it's the same jackwits who wanted to replace our Leopard C1's with fracking Stryker MGS's on sole virtue that they could be transported with our current Tac Lift aircraft - COMPLETELY forgetting that Most if not ALL our Tac Lift resources are getting so long in the tooth they drag furrows on the ground flying at 30kft in the first place.  Our helicopter fleet's longtoothed, we're only JUST regaining Tac Lift Helo operations, SAR Choppers are sucking dirt not long after they get out of the shop in the first place, they only just replaced the crappy Jeep-class vehicles we had, I still bloody swear the Motto of the CF should be:

We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.  We have done so much for so long with so little we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

Thank the gods our training budget is actually well maintained.  I hope with the downtime they want in 2011, we can actually get all our bloody crap updated and in service.  The cost cutting from the operational budget for that downtime, should help us actually get some fracking modernization done.  Fracking beancounters.

[rallymodeller]

What he said! ^

[apophenia]

Fracking beancounters.

Yep, even their own progenitors wouldn't defend them. But on the armour analogy, lets not forget that DND's erstwhile decision to pursue MGS came from the Chief of Land Staff. The Tac Lift requirement, in turn, was the brainchild of Shinseki and fellow-travellers.

The dreaded beancounters probably were probably working on ways to may MGS even less combat-worthy (if that was possible). But they didn't invent this crap.

[pyro-manic]

rally: That MapleVark of yours is top of my list for the next Profiles GB. Beautiful piece of work.

[GTX]

Back to the 2 engine rule....while I agree with it....makes it funny that we now may be pursuing a single engine fighter for the CF-188's replacement in the F/A-35......

Will hardly be an issue with the F-35.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Speaking of Canadian Tomcats...



Regards,

Greg

[apophenia]

Gary: you must be thinking of the CF-5. The CF-18s were built in St. Louis. Canadair might've got some related IRBs but they'd be about it.

[rallymodeller]

Some of the final assembly and outfitting took place at McAir's facility at Pearson Airport (the old Avro plant). Things like the spotlight and so forth.

[apophenia]

Some of the final assembly and outfitting took place at McAir's facility at Pearson Airport (the old Avro plant). Things like the spotlight and so forth.

Cool. Thanks Jeremy (I'd thought they were doing DC-9 wing parts and the like). Is this the facility where TAM is now?