Alternative buys for Canada

[kerick]

Politics is definitely more of an issue than technology. And I for one don't understand it very well. I have better understanding of quantum physics than how political decisions are made. The old saying is legislation and sausage are two things you don't want to see how it's made.

[kitnut617]

but then Canadian purchases not making sense is hardly unrealistic is it? 

I'd have to agree with you there Harold, the present PM thinks buying obsolete F-18A's is the way to go instead of using the money towards the F-35's

[Weaver]

Canada goes French.

(Work out the politics for yourself... )

1. Canada buys the CF-101B as in real life.

2. Lockheed's 'over-enthusiastic' sales techniques are exposed early, and Canada therefore cancels the CF-104G in protest.

3. Instead of buying the Starfighter, Canada does a deal with the French in the early 1960s to build the Mirage IIIE under licence to meet it's NATO nuclear strike commitment. Although it's generally thought of as a 'fighter' nuclear strike was, in fact, a main role for the aircraft in French service, using AN-52 tac nukes. I see no earthly reason why it couldn't be adapted to carry NATO-stock B-28 nukes instead.

4. Since the Mirage deal went well, Canada goes for the Jaguar instead of the F-5 to meet it's NATO Northern Flank commitment in the early 1970s. Again, the aircraft are built in Canada under licence. The Mirage 5 would be another alternative, with the attraction of a common fleet with the IIIEs, but I think the Jag's short/rough field capability would swing it for this application. Stock Mirage 5s and Norwegian airfields are not the best of friends and as the RAF has repeatedly demonstrated, the Jag is very Norway-compatible.

5. When Canada converts it's nuclear strike commitment to conventional strike only in the early 1970s, the Mirages are easily re-roled using JL-100 rocket+fuel pods and RPK fuel+bomb stores. This might lead to the CRV-7 technology being applies to the French 68mm rocket instead of, or as well as, the US 70mm one.

6. In the late 1970s, Canada selects the Mirage 4000, built under licence again, to replace the Voodoo. Dassault struggled, and ulitimately failed IRL, to get the 4000 into production, so the Canadians might be able to get a good deal out of this, ie.e. in return for getting the 4000 a launch order, Canada gets to be a permanent partner in all subsequent export sales.

7. The Mirage IIIE and Jaguar fleets are upgraded throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The Mirages get ATAR-9K50 engines and canards, and the Jags get uprated Adours, FIN-1064 nav/attack systems and overwing Sidewinder rails. Both get varying degrees of smart weapon capability in the 1990s.

8. In the 2000s, the Jags and Mirages are gradually replaced by a fleet of licence-built Rafales.

[AS.12]

I do so desperately want Canadian Jaguars! 

One other route to it would be to hand-wave-in the F-4 which the Canadian Forces wanted ( and which were subsituted by F-5s ).  Somehow money was found for that etc.  Soon it would be realised that the CF-101 was actually inferior to the F-4 as an interceptor, which led to the latter being switched into a NORAD role and the Voodoos returned to the USA.

With the reroled F-4s leaving the NATO contribution unfilled, Canada ( bought | license-built ) Baby Phantoms in their place.  I mean, Jaguars.

[zenrat]

Given that Alyeska was never sold to the US, the Republique Socialiste Canadiene would naturally use nothing but Soviet sourced materiel.

[Weaver]

Here's a thought: what if Canada bought the Voodoo for the strike role as well as the fighter role?

TAC inherited the F-101A/C from SAC and didn't appreciate it's limited stores options, amongst many other things, so let's say they were even less enamoured of it than they were in real life and decided to proceed with the RF-105 recce-Thud instead of the RF-101 (in hindsight, that's an out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire kind of choice, but they wouldn't know at the time). This frees up McDonnell production space, so since the Canadians are buying the F-101B anyway, they propose the F-101C and RF-101C for the Canadian NATO strike requirement. Since commonality across the fleet is the big selling point, the aircraft on offer are hybrids: single-seaters with F-101C avionics but the F-101B's J57-P-55 engines with long afterburner cans. The common fleet argument wins the day and the Voodoo is accepted rather than Lockheed's Starfighter proposal.

The CF-101C/CF-101R fleet is expanded and maintained over the years by remanufacturing unwanted USAF Voodoos and passing them on to Canada. They make it through to the mid 1970s, when a Canadian decision to get out of the tactical nuclear weapons business (a little later than IRL) renders all but the recce versions useless, since they have little conventional weapons capability. This pushes Canada to make a quick decision on replacements, and since they're now used to a single-type fleet, they go for the F-18, seeing it as a compromise between the F-15 and F-16.

So I picked up two Valom RF-101A for a bargain price at Bolton. These not only have the radar noses included as well as the camera ones, but they also have the 20mm cannon muzzles moulded as extra bits. This got me thinking, and then more reading got me questioning the idea that the Voodoo's conventional strike capability was as limited as was claimed at the time. Here's a modified scenario:

1. Canada bails out of the Starfighter deal for whatever reason.

2. The RCAF wants the F-105 but a) they can't afford it and b) the USAF wants all they can get, because in this world US Def.Sec. McNamara has reversed his decision to arbitarily limit F-105 production (or at least set the limit higher), so TAC want to replace all their strike-Voodoos with F-105Ds and all their RF Voodoos with RF-105Es (the second of two abortive IRL attempts to make a recce-Thud).

3. Since the Canadians want a pure nuclear bomber on the cheap plus work for their aerospace industry and TAC don't want the Voodoos, a deal is struck. TAC transfers all the existing -A/C/RF- Voodoos to the RCAF and McDonnell helps Canadair set up shop to remanufacture them to a higher G-limit and common spec as proposed to, but rejected by, the USAF.

4. All the existing -Cs, plus a few more new-builds (orders that were converted to RF-101Cs in real life) go to the RCAF and go straight into service as interim aircraft. All the exisiting -As go straight to Canadair to be completely stripped down and rebuilt. (note 1)

5. As the rebuilt -As enter RCAF service, the -Cs start to come back to Canadair for the same treatment, minus the structural mods which they've already got. Then  the RF-101A/Cs get the upgrade. All the upgraded aircraft are designated CF-101S (for strike) or CF-101R (for recce) whatever their original build standard.

6. Due to training issues identified with the strike Voodoos, Canada also buys a dozen more F-101Fs (twin-stick -Bs) and converts them to strike trainers, with CF-101S radars and avionics in the nose and the former missile bay. This turns out to be much more complicated and expensive than expected, but it does eventually produce useable CF-101Ts.

7. The Canadian Voodoo fleet stands nuclear alert in Europe for about ten years, armed with B-28 tac nukes held under NATO dual-key arrangements.

8. In 1972, the Canadian government renounces the use of nukes and the Canadian Strike Wing has to convert to conventional weapons. This is a problem for the CF-101S, since it has no guns and only three hardpoints, two of which are usually only used for drop tanks and all of which are close together, close to the undercarriage and close(ish) to the ground. Initial thoughts are to reinstate the guns, but a study by Bristol Aerospace comes to a different conclusion. The ranges required for the conventional mission are substantially shorter, so they propose to keep the extra internal fuel in place of the guns in order to use less external tankage and therby free up pylons. With the addition of some extra bits of hardware, a surprisingly useful amount of weaponry can be carried. This proposal is accepted, and the work done, mostly by Bristol. (notes 2 & 3)

9. The CF-101S/Rs soldier on into the 1980s, with attrition and defence cutbacks gradually reducing the size of the force, until finally replaced by Tornados from about 1985.




Notes:

1. Rebuilding the F-101A to CF-101S standard entails the following:

a. Reinforced structure to take 7.33g (this was the main difference between As and Cs)
b. J75-P55 engines with long afterburner cans, as fitted to the CF-101B (to get a homogenous fleet)
c. Cannon ammo tanks replaced by an extra fuel tank (this was a real life option for ferrying)
d. Cannons replaced by extra navigation avionics



2. The modifications and purchases neccessary to give the CF-101S a conventional capability are as follows:

a. Centreline hardpoint plumbed for fuel and outer hardpoints wired for weapons.

b. Single 2000lb Mk.84 LDGP bombs or equivalents on all three fuselage pylons (Can't be dropped together due to mutual interference).

c. Bristol designed and built slimline tandem stores pylons (similar to Tornado fuselage side pylons) which allow two 1000lb Mk.83 LDGP bombs or equivalents to be carried on each fuselage hardpoint. Primarily used to carry up to six BL.755 cluster bombs or Matra Durandal runway cratering bombs.

d. Bristol find a warehouse full of 29-round CF-100 tip pods, prove that they fit, adapt them to their new CRV-7 rockets and put the pods back into production. Three 29-round pods actually give eleven more rockets than four 19-round ones and prove a much cleaner and easier fit.

e. A limited number of SUU-23 (20mm Vulcan) pods are procured, although they're more often used in publicity photographs than training.

f. Aircraft wired to carry up to three Paveway-series laser-guided bombs, although 2000lb class weapons can only be carried on the outer pylons if they are the later folding-fin types, due to undercarriage clearance. The aircraft can't self-designate, but it can drop/toss the bombs into range of a target designated by a ground-FAC or another aircraft.

g. At the same time, an IR Linescan pod similar to that used by the Jaguar, is procured for the CF-101Rs.



3. Many other ideas for weapons are proposed and/or trialled but rejected for various reasons:

Big cluster bombs. The proposal is to make 2000lb-class cluster bombs in order to use the pylon space to the maximum. This is rejected in favour of standard bombs carried on the tandem pylons.

Other cluster bombs and sub-munition dispensers. Various US weapons, the French BAT100/BAP120 and Beluga systems and the (proposed) German MW-1 are evaluated, but they're all rejected in favour of licence-built BL.755s. The (proposed) British JP.233 is also evaluated, but rejected as over-specialised in favour of a combination of Durandals and modified BL.755s.

Big rockets. Various larger rockets, such as the 100mm Thompson-Brandt, the 5" (127mm) Zuni and the Bofors 135mm are trialled. They all prove feasible, but the Canadian government declines to buy any of them, stating that the 70mm CRV-7 is more than adequate for all intended rocket targets. To what extent this decision is influenced by a desire to favour and promote a Canadian-produced weapon is unclear.

Different rocket pods. Various 2.75" (70mm) and 68mm rocket pods are trialled, but all are either awkward/draggy to fit or under-utilise the space available. All are rejected in favour of the CF-100 tip-pod solution.

Different gun pods. Various 30mm DEFA and ADEN pods are considered, but the sheer volume of fire from Vulcan pods is considered preferable, and CRV-7 rockets are considered a better option where the desired single-round penetration/terminal effects are beyond what 20mm can achieve.

Laser self-designation. Both Pave Spike and ATLIS targeting pods are trialled (under a CF-101T) on forward fuselage mountings that don't use one of the three weapon hardpoints. The conclusions are that self-designation is too workload-intensive for a single pilot in low-level flight, the tactic is not appropriate for low-level use anyway and integrating the systems would require too much expensive re-working of the cockpit and avionics.

Missiles. AS-30L is proposed for use with the ATLIS pod but rejected at the same time. TV Maverick is felt to be inappropriate for low-level use and would require too much cockpit re-work, while laser-Maverick is rejected for the same reason as the other laser-designated weapons. Kormoran and Exocet are fit-checked and found workable, but rejected because the Canadian Strike Wing doesn't have an antiship tasking. TV-MARTEL is fit-checked and evaluated (on RAF Buccaneers by Canadian WSOs), but found to be only suitable for a two-seat aircraft. AS.37 Anti-Radar MARTEL, Standard ARM and Shrike are all found to be workable, but the Canadian government declines to buy any of them on the ground that the Strike Wing doesn't have a SEAD tasking either.

[Weaver]

Okay, completely different tack. What if Canada decided to stand by it's aircraft industry and spend the money to design and build all (or most) of it's major combat aircraft? This isn't to suggest anything like an infinite budget, but the fact that the CF-105 got as far as it did suggests that they had choices and that means those choices could have been different. Let's look at it by mission, assuming that the historical requirements remain the same:


Continental Air Defence

Well we all know what this one looks like, don't we boys and girls? The CF-105 goes into service instead of the real life Voodoo+BOMARC combination. Actaully getting the Arrow into service sooner and more affordably might entail a two-stage process:

CF-105A: Minimum risk and development time version. J-75 engines, Hughes fire control and Falcon missiles.

CF-105B: Presumed twin-stick conversion trainer

CF-105C: Production switches to a version that meets more of the requirement goals. Orenda Iroquois engines or alternative, Conway or Olympus engines with  Canadian-developed afterburners. Worth noting that a) the original CF-105 proposal featured the Wright J-67 which was a licence-built Olympus, and b) the Swedes managed to make a success of this route: developing indiginous versions of licence-built foreign engines. Fire control is either an Astra system that's made to work (possibly by limiting ambitions) or the AWG-10 from the Phantom. Missiles could be Sparrow IIIs carried in the bay, or conformally with fuel in the bay. Another possibility would be a Canadian version of Sparrow III with the same electronics but tail controls and strake wings so that more of them can fit in the bay (note that current Advanced Sea Sparrow missiles have this configuration).


NATO Nuclear Strike

At it's height, the Canadian Strike Wing in Europe had eight squadrons (6 x strike, 2 x recce) so large numbers are obviously a factor (Canadair built 200 CF-104s for this role), which then automatically makes cost and manning a factor. Given the apocalyptic scenarios in which this force might be used, this might all make a case for a "one bomb, one pilot, one engine, one way" type of solution, which is what the Starfighter provided. Lets look at the options:

1. Use the Arrow. The problems with this are that it's expensive to buy and operate (big, 2 x engines, 2 x crew), it's wing loading is far too low for low-level, high-speed work and it's strength factors are likely not high enough either. The only CF-105 bomber proposal I'm aware of was a sort of mini-Vulcan type role, using a half-scale Blue Steel.

2. Use one Arrow engine for commonality and design a Starfighter-ish aircraft around it. The Iroquois or whatever you substitute for it are much bigger than a J-79, so this implies an aircraft in the size range of the F-105/F-106. Using a delta wing would piggy-back off Arrow aerodynamic work, but would bring the problems of long field-length endemic to the Mirage IIIE. Using a tailed delta or thin straight wing would mean all new aerodynamic work. Accepting external bomb carriage would reduce the size a bit.

3. Use a single, smaller engine, such as an afterburning Spey or Canadian equivalent. This obviously entails a whole new engine project, but the advantage is that it can be tailored around the mission more closely.

4. Use two smaller engines. This is based around the argument that it's a 'light bomber' rather than a 'fighter-bomber' so agility isn't such a big deal. It can therefore have two, structurally efficient wing-mounted engines and a fuselage full of fuel, like a Yak-25/27/28 or mini-Skywarrior. Using a Delta wing might give a sexy mini-Hustler design, although a tailless delta would have the same limitations as in any other scheme.


NATO Northern Flank

This is the reinforce Norway mission for which the CF-116 (F-5) was bought. Havn't got many detailed thoughts on this, but here are a couple:

1. Use the Strike Fighter. Canada gave up it's nuclear role in the early 1970s and progressively reduced the size of the Canadian Strike Wing. If the Canadian strike fighter chosen above is flexible enough to convert to the conventional role, then simply re-purpose the excess aircraft.

2. Join the Jaguar programme. Canada would certainly get production work out of this, and might well get a slice of the design work too if they join early enough, allowing them to influence the resultant design.




Thoughts?

[Weaver]

The Canadian "one bomb, one engine, one pilot, one way" strike fighter might look a bit like the Vought V-382:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5691.0.html

This had wingtips that folded flat for take-off and landing, then rotated to point upwards for high-speed, low-level flight to increase the wing loading.

Another couple of possible layouts would be the North American MX1764 and the 'unknown North American fighter-bomber' (which looks more like a Republic design to me...) featured together with the V-382 in chapter eight of American Secret Projects - Bombers.

[Snowtrooper]

The Canadian "one bomb, one engine, one pilot, one way" strike fighter might look a bit like the Vought V-382:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5691.0.html

Looks a bit like scale-o-rama with 1/48 Hunter front fuse and wings (with 1/72 cockpit from somewhere and reshaped nosecone), 1/48 Starfighter mid-fuse and repositioned intakes and 1/72 Thud tail.

[Weaver]

The Canadian "one bomb, one engine, one pilot, one way" strike fighter might look a bit like the Vought V-382:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5691.0.html

Looks a bit like scale-o-rama with 1/48 Hunter front fuse and wings (with 1/72 cockpit from somewhere and reshaped nosecone), 1/48 Starfighter mid-fuse and repositioned intakes and 1/72 Thud tail.

The canopy reminds me strongly of a Skyhawk, in fact, the whole thing has a supersonic-Skyhawk feel to it.

If the hypothetical Canadian project has a J-75-class engine, and we like a low wing and shoulder-mounted intakes, then that makes me wonder if we couldn't use most of an F-106 fuselage with a different nose grafted on and conventional wings.

[McColm]

The  HS Nimrod would have been an ideal alternative to the CP-140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft and would have been the envy of the USNavy because they didn't buy them either but always wanted their own.
Although the Blackburn Buccaneers weren't strictly fighter aircraft they could have been missile carriers, sort of make do and mend.

[Weaver]

I could see Canada buying Buccaneers, but only if the RAF and maybe the Germans got behind it much earlier. In the real-life timeframe when the Canadians chose the Starfighter, the RAF were busy slagging the Bucc off at every opportunity.

[Weaver]

Here's a thought: what if Canada bought/built the Viggen for the NATO Northern Flank role? It's obviously perfect for the conditions and the engine and many subsytems are American, so they'd be supportable on the other side of the pond.

[jcf]

"What if Canada decided to stand by it's aircraft industry and spend the money to design and
build all (or most) of it's major combat aircraft?"

The CF-105 was cancelled because of bloated costs, if produced it would have absorbed
the majority of the defense budget for years to come, there simply wouldn't have been
the monies available for your scenario, particularly another all new combat aircraft from
scratch. Canada simply didn't have the population, and thus taxation, base to support
such a huge program.

[kitnut617]

And even though we're about double that population now, because of the cost of these project, we can't support it now either ---