Canadian AF- Why Hornet and not the Eagle?

[Sauragnmon]

Are you 100% sure that the Chief of Land Staff in the early 2K's wasn't a beancounter from Logistics?  This was the era before our grand Newfie Tanker took the reins, and his successor, another Tanker.  The MGS crap was before Hillier became CoDS, and if I recall, the last CoDS was one of those bean counters out of Logistics.

I wasn't meaning any specific problem with our Tac Air, just highlighting the fact that our Tac Air is so fracking long in the tooth it isn't funny.  They wanted the MGS because it was liftable with our current Tac Air.  It's about time we're getting something bigger, I hear Globemasters are on the menu, and some new Hercs, along with some Nooks, about bloody fracking time.

I wonder if there's ever been a Chief from Intel.... makes me wonder.

[Gary]

The decisions we see verses the the decisions made behind closed doors are hugely different. The purchase of any weapons system by the government of any country goes through a huge process to give the respective country the best deal possible while giving everyone a fair chance. More often than not, the transparency process is such that each bidder gets to see the other's bids in order to be fair. As a result, the military doesn't necessarly get the tools they want and have to make due with what they are given. This often explains why the process takes years to decide. Let's not forget the "what's in it for me" factor as well. Kensian (spelling is wrong) theory is correct in that every dollar a government can spend inside it's own borders will eventually see itself equalling 5 to 7 dollars in the overall economy of the nation.

Every now and again, the process is usurped but not often. And some times that very process is so stupid it isn't funny. Take the Arrow, the Canadian Holy Grail of aviation. If you look at the documents coming out of the RCAF at the time, they didn't want the thing in that configuration, yet AVRO refused to listen. (Can't remember the name of the book it it was the one written by the guy who was trying to build a flying Arrow for it's 50th anniversary.) We vilify the government of the time, however for the RCAF the singular purpose interceptor was something they couldn't see spending their entire budget on. Yeah, she was a great bird, but for what role? The bean counters tried to keep her going, the PM tried to keep her going, but AVRO wouldn't listen to the RCAF and this conflict made a big enough wedge that the Bomarc debate gained momentum in Ottawa and poof, we got a useless missile system. The kicker, the Phantom was in the works at the time and the RCAF wanted AVRO to pay attention to it. They wanted Ottawa to pay attention to it and so on, and in the end we got cast off's that the USAF didn't particularly like. (VooDoo and Starfighter) I can't help wonder what the RCAF would have ended up doing with the Spook.

The Hornet seems on the surface to be a good compromise of a lot of factors but like all compromise (and committees) you have to give up something to gain another. I wish I knew more about Canada's role in the F-35. I am not sure I am such a great fan of her, but the press behind it sounds cool. She's not as sexy looking as the Hornet IMHO but she's supposedly the cat's PJ's.

[kitnut617]

I wasn't meaning any specific problem with our Tac Air, just highlighting the fact that our Tac Air is so fracking long in the tooth it isn't funny.  They wanted the MGS because it was liftable with our current Tac Air.  It's about time we're getting something bigger, I hear Globemasters are on the menu, and some new Hercs, along with some Nooks, about bloody fracking time.

I had to have a look at the date of the posting after reading this 'cause I thought I missed something -----  we have Globemasters, three of them, all delivered last year

[rallymodeller]

... I can't help wonder what the RCAF would have ended up doing with the Spook.

Something like this?


McDonnell CF-110A Phantom 25601, Central Evaluation and Proving Establishment (CEPE), RCAF Cold Lake, 1960

[Sauragnmon]

Yeah, guess that tells me how old that issue of Air Force was... about damn time we got new lift gear though.

Rally, depends on which Spook versions we would have gotten - we looked at both the original and Spey birds, at varying points in the timeframe.

[pyro-manic]

I think the Phantom would have been an excellent choice for Canada. I have these two on the to-do list...

[rallymodeller]

Rally, depends on which Spook versions we would have gotten - we looked at both the original and Spey birds, at varying points in the timeframe.

You're right -- that one's based on the idea that we hopped on the USN bandwagon in '59.

I also did this one based on an F-4J:


I have to say that I rally like Richard's profiles as well.

Okay, time to get this thread back on track. Be right back.

[rallymodeller]

Had to finish the shading on this -- had it in my "incomplete" folder for a while now.

[apophenia]

... we looked at both the original and Spey birds, at varying points in the timeframe.

Sauragnmon: do you know what those timeframes were? Seems odd to be looking at Speys when we were flying CF-104s. It'd be interesting to know what the rational was.

[Sauragnmon]

We weren't looking to replace the 104's at the time the Speys were brought up - it was a counterpoint to people in the ministry going "but they won't let us produce them local and modify them" "but the Brits did it!" which still got shot down over price.  At the time, the concept of acquiring Phantoms, even Spey Spooks, was to replace the aging Clunks, and compliment our 100/104 fleet.  Our Phantoms were for the most part still considered for Tactical Air Support.  I don't recall the exact timeframe, though.

[rallymodeller]

To expand on Saur's point about buying Spooks for CAS, IIRC they were looking at what McAir originally proposed to the Germans as the F-4F: a simplified, single-seat Phantom optimized for ground-support.

[Gary]

The question of what would we have done with the Spook is one of 'would we have gotten a carrier big enough to handle them?' and 'would we have gotten more involved in SouthEast Asia being as we had an asset worthy of the theatre?' How about, 'would we have KC-135's in the fleet?' or 'would we have Iroquois engines in the belly of the beast?'

The profiles are dead sexy BTW, and inspiring. Ya almost want to do a group build based on the idea of Phantoms done up for countries that never flew them. Canada, France, Mexico, Egypt, Taiwan, Spain, etc.

The other big question is, what if Avro had listened to the RCAF and put some of the features and abilities into the Arrow that the Phantom had? What would she look like and how much would the airframe have had to been adapted. There were proposals made by Avro after the cancellation to make her more multi-rolled, but alas the deed was already done.

I think the dithering from the Arrow experience and the lessons learned from what happened the decade and a half or so afterward taught the Ottawa folks a thing or three about the purchase of aircraft and more importantly the results of putting all your eggs in one basket. The CF-18 made compromises but still delivered everything we were essentially looking for. Multi-role, within a budget, kept our ability to fulfill our NATO and NORAD duties on one platform and IMHO makes one of the neatest air show flying demonstrations every year I go.

Let that last point sink in...

I am a cynical person, however when you consider that the only real contact John Q Public has with the air force is an air show, the thing with your flag better be danged cool. Taxpayers wanna see what their money is buying and the Hornet delivers an awesome spectacle. Any one remember the VooDoo display? Four fast straight passes, then one where they pitch up at a 45 degree angle and then land for fuel. Yawn

[Scooterman]

Ya almost want to do a group build based on the idea of Phantoms done up for countries that never flew them. Egypt, Spain, etc.

Uh Gary...

[NARSES2]

Multi-role, within a budget, kept our ability to fulfill our NATO and NORAD duties on one platform and IMHO makes one of the neatest air show flying demonstrations every year I go.

Let that last point sink in...

I am a cynical person, however when you consider that the only real contact John Q Public has with the air force is an air show, the thing with your flag better be danged cool. Taxpayers wanna see what their money is buying and the Hornet delivers an awesome spectacle. Any one remember the VooDoo display? Four fast straight passes, then one where they pitch up at a 45 degree angle and then land for fuel. Yawn

Never really thought about that Gary, but that is absolutely spot on, and I'm a natural cynic to. That's why the Harrier still grabs attention at UK airshows - it's that little bow to the taxpayers at the end of the display.

[nev]

My wife has no intrest in planes whatsoever, and hated the one airshow I took her too - but she thought the Harrier bow was the most wonderful thing.  Not from an aerodynamics standpoint I might add, but because it was so polite!