Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 29990 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...urp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html

Quote:
Both challengers unveiled the outlines of a new push to respectively market the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon to Ottawa as replacements for the Canadian air force's Boeing CF-18 (F/A-18A/B) Hornets by the end of the next decade.

As a member of the nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter programme since 2002, Lockheed executives have described Canada as a likely buyer for up to 80 F-35s, although the Department of National Defence has released a revised requirement for 65 jets.

Will the recent Australian decision to go with the F-35 make a difference? While single engine jets have proven to be reliable, Canada does have a whole lot of nothing to patrol. 2 engines were considered better than one in the decision to buy the F-18.


What the...?
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 30012 times:

It depends what Canada wants to do.

If the job is to do exactly what the CF188s do now, then the Super Hornet isn't a bad choice.

If the air-to-air role has expanded, or is more emphasised, or if CAF pilots are to have an aircraft that will return a decent exchange ratio against the most advanced threat types, or if there is an aspiration for greater industrial participation and/or stimulus, or if the aircraft is to serve for an extended period, then Typhoon is a better choice.

Only if the Canadians want to do 'first day of the war', 'kick down the door' missions that absolutely necessitate stealth does the F-35 represent a better bet. It's likely to be the most expensive option, and will give the Canadians less freedom of action and autonomy than the other choices (though the other side of the same coin is that it is perhaps the best choice for interoperability if Canada wants its forces to be completely integrated into a US led and US dominated coalition), and is a less useful tool for the air defence role as practised by the CAF.

Saab seem to think that Gripen is "in with a shout", too.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 29992 times:

I think it would be a horrible idea to buy into the F35 program in the next two decades unless you absolutely have to. I'm still waiting for a "modern" fighter from the west that didn't enter into service as a complete waste of money... Let the USAF foot the bill to take the early usless piles of junk shoveled out to show they are "on time" and then when the 2nd or 3rd generation of the plane hits, then buy it. You know, when they figure out how to keep the frame in one piece. It isn't a hanger queen with buggy useless software and badly designed electronics. When the engine matures and meets some reasonable level of quality... etc.

Superhornets could be cheap ways to get some frames till the good F35 hit the market, or the gripen is also a good choice though given the ties with the US I'd place it lower than I would a nation that DOESN'T share boarders and coastlines. However, I wonder if Boeing could just crank out a few more plain hornets on the cheap to extend the current canadian fleets life. I guess I don't see that they have a huge need for upgrading to the superhornet given how unlikely they will be using it for heavy ground strikes and the like. I absolutely don't see the typhoon having a chance. Its not cheap, its not "local", and frankly its still unproven.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 1):
and will give the Canadians less freedom of action and autonomy than the other choices (though the other side of the same coin is that it is perhaps the best choice for interoperability if Canada wants its forces to be completely integrated into a US led and US dominated coalition), and is a less useful tool for the air defence role as practised by the CAF.

Might check into seeing if they have pills for paranoid tendancies. If they buy a Saab, they don't have to join the great scandinavian empire and bow before thier new nordic lords. Your assumption that a product from south of thier boarder would make them the lapdog of the US is very.... er... yah. Ask Iran if they feel like they have to call up the US government for some groveling before thier masters every time they want to use thier american planes or american missiles.


User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 29960 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
I think it would be a horrible idea to buy into the F35 program in the next two decades unless you absolutely have to. I'm still waiting for a "modern" fighter from the west that didn't enter into service as a complete waste of money... Let the USAF foot the bill to take the early usless piles of junk shoveled out to show they are "on time" and then when the 2nd or 3rd generation of the plane hits, then buy it. You know, when they figure out how to keep the frame in one piece. It isn't a hanger queen with buggy useless software and badly designed electronics. When the engine matures and meets some reasonable level of quality... etc.

I tend to agree. Not only that, the final price tag has yet to be determined and it's probably going to be pretty close to that white elephant called the F-22.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 29905 times:

The Super Hornet is a good acft not great. Why would a country without acft carriers buy a SH, you are buying alot of capability that will not used or needed =dead weight. Plus the SH has a hard time getting past Mach 1 slicked down with external stores forget about it.The F-18G is really slow but faster than the EA-6B. Most ex F-14 drivers lament how much speed they don't have anymore. The F-18A-D is faster and a better dogfighter. Speed is life. I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out or the Eurofighter or the newest block F-16 that Israel,Oman and Poland bought. Unless Canada decides to get in war with US those sould be sufficient.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 29867 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out

Best fit for our mission profile IMHO. We usually get stuck playing 'peace keeper' (witness Afghanistan). A multi-role aircraft is the best fit for those situations. The new F15 provides additional (theoretically) protection from radar guided missiles while having the ability to make a mess of ground targets.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 29862 times:

I still say LM dropped the ball big time from the marketing perspective with the JSF. They should have prolonged it's inception by 5 to 10 years so as not to take sales away from their F-22 as well as what should have been a better offer in F-16E/F just as the Hornet went to the Super Hornet E/F models.

Anyways, with those new F414 uprated thrust engines, AESA powered F/A-18F's are all the Canucks need per their current (and foreseeable future) mission requirements.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 29690 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Anyways, with those new F414 uprated thrust engines, AESA powered F/A-18F's are all the Canucks need per their current (and foreseeable future) mission requirements.

Not knocking the Super Hornet but I'm inclined to believe the Canadians would do well to go with the Typhoon. Better overall performance, good air-to-ground capability, very manueverable and could be bought at a reasonable cost (given Canada can probably afford them anyway). F-35 may be more than the Canadians need and Super Hornet is past technology, if you really think about it.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 29672 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out

Best fit for our mission profile IMHO. We usually get stuck playing 'peace keeper' (witness Afghanistan). A multi-role aircraft is the best fit for those situations. The new F15 provides additional (theoretically) protection from radar guided missiles while having the ability to make a mess of ground targets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/f-15se/images/28535/boeing-f-15se.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...5se/images/28535/boeing-f-15se.jpg

While I fully agree with that view, the uncertainty of the Silent Eagle actually going into full production without a parallel commitment from the USAF and maybe a sizeable order from Japan, puts a damper on this option. Being the only plausible export customers along with South Korea and Singapore - their insistence on "stealth" and 5th Gen technology doesn't inspire much confidence. Boeing pitting the Super Bug for the Canadian requirement only makes matters worse, as it signals the company's doubt about the SE's viability, and their unwillingness to undermine the F/A-18's chances.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 29602 times:

I'm a big fan of the F-15 in general but the Silent Eagle will still cost 100 mil or more per copy. For that price, Canada can get something more than a refurb.


What the...?
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 29338 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
They should have prolonged it's inception by 5 to 10 years so as not to take sales away from their F-22 as well as what should have been a better offer in F-16E/F just as the Hornet went to the Super Hornet E/F models.

And here I was thinking that the a/c were being developed because the US Air Force needed them  Smile
The F35 / F22 a/c are in the same league as the F16 / F22 one is more air superiority and the other a multi-role a/c, the only reason you have that opinion is because the OEM's have gone overboard in the development cost of the a/c. F15, F16 and F18 were all in production at the same time while the B2 was developed, mayber the OEM's need to rehire the folks who were around when those were done, at least the did not attempt to delay production for additional sales.

As for Canada, the silent Eagle will probably be the best fit, so what if it is a rehash of the F15, it is the most economical a/c they can obtain, that is unless the OEM want to shaft the customer, if the give Canada a deal and deliver on time, what would that do for the other potential buyers? Typhoon is now going through some issues with the UK and Germany for funding for the latest batch, which would Canada receive, the older or newer tranche?


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 29230 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
As for Canada, the silent Eagle will probably be the best fit, so what if it is a rehash of the F15, it is the most economical a/c they can obtain, that is unless the OEM want to shaft the customer, if the give Canada a deal and deliver on time, what would that do for the other potential buyers? Typhoon is now going through some issues with the UK and Germany for funding for the latest batch, which would Canada receive, the older or newer tranche?

Aside from Strike Eagle, though, all Eagle variants are basically counter air, and Canada wants/needs a more multi-role a/c, as we can't afford dedicated units of AtA and AtG. Hence our participation in the JSF program. But from Tranche 2 onwards, Typhoon has an increasing AtG capability, even more in Tranche 3A/B.

From that perspective I think the Typhoon makes some sense, and given the apparent reluctance of Germany and the UK to proceed with all or at least some of Tranche 3, there may be an opening to negotiate a favourable deal.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineXt6wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29152 times:



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 11):
Aside from Strike Eagle, though, all Eagle variants are basically counter air, and Canada wants/needs a more multi-role a/c, as we can't afford dedicated units of AtA and AtG. Hence our participation in the JSF program. But from Tranche 2 onwards, Typhoon has an increasing AtG capability, even more in Tranche 3A/B.

The new version of the F15 can switch between its "mild stealth" mode to ground attack in a couple of hours with the removal of the conformal fuel tanks and install of external hardpoints. It can do this on the flight line of a forward base, does not require high level attention for the switch.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 28827 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I'm a big fan of the F-15 in general but the Silent Eagle will still cost 100 mil or more per copy. For that price, Canada can get something more than a refurb.

Even if Boeing makes good on its claim of "possibly" slashing down the SE's price, and completing its development (presumably) not much later than the F-35? And the scope described certainly suggests more than just a refurb.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-costs-for-100-million-f-15se.html

Quote:
"Boeing is seeking risk-sharing partners to develop a new version of the F-15E Strike Eagle that adds stealth characteristics and a new electronic warfare suite to the multi-role fighter.

The risk-sharing deals would shorten the timeline to develop the renamed F-15 Silent Eagle, which possibly would lower its estimated $100 million cost, Chris Chadwick, president of the military aircraft division, said on 3 June at a media roundtable hosted by Boeing."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 28787 times:

I would say that the F/A-18E/F is a reasonable option for Canada, considering how their Air Force has been equipped in the past 25 years.
Isn´t it a better platform than the F-18C/D? Ok, it´s not as fast and powerful as a Tomcat or an F-15, nor as manouvrable as a Typhoon or a Raptor, but still, it´s the top fighter of the US Navy, it can´t be that bad.

If the Hornet has been good through the ´80s and ´90 and early 2000s (with all its shortcomings), why wouldn´t the Super Hornet be good now, in a time when no Soviet nuclear bombers are threatening to enter
Canadian airspace and no heavy armored armies are at the border of Western Europe, ready to invade?

30 to 50 Super Hornets, along with the latest upgraded Hornets would do a good job till
the F-35 gets in.
Afterall, I believe that Canada will go for the F-35 having invested already some funds in the development fase.
I am actually no fan of the F-35 and I think that, of all the nations that invested in it, Italy has the best role for it, having to replace a mediocre light weight attack aircraft like the AMX and a good albeit old strike aircraft like the Tornado. The same could be said for the STOVL variant intended to replace the Harrier fleets of US Marines, RAF/RN and Italian Navy.
But in my opinion, the F-35 is not going to be a good air defence fighter like the Typhoon, the French Rafale or the Russian Flankers.
So, Canada might have to think what they need.
A good air defence fighter to keep its airspace safe? Then relying only on the Lightning II might be a mistake.
A multirole fighter with good air-to-ground and some air-to-air capability? Then the F-35 is a good buy.
You need both? Then no other choice than a mixed fleet.


Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 28776 times:

There was a time when Canada would develop her own military aircraft.

Could you picture a tank-buster based on the old CF-100 frame?

Or the CF-105 re-made as a F-111 style strike fighter?

Or even something completely new.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 28687 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):

Or the CF-105 re-made as a F-111 style strike fighter?

Tease.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):
There was a time when Canada would develop her own military aircraft.

Yep  Sad  ashamed   banghead  I could go waaaaay off topic here and rant a very long rant about what could have been. Hopefully the BBD folks will have some success with the C Series and restore at least a little bit of the Canadian aerospace industry that has been gutted by government BS and corporate greed.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 28541 times:



Quoting Steman (Reply 14):
But in my opinion, the F-35 is not going to be a good air defence fighter like the Typhoon, the French Rafale or the Russian Flankers.

The CF-18 was never a good air defense fighter, the Hornet was designed as a light fighter with ground attack capacity to be flung off a carrier, leaving the air defense to the F-14. All we have used the CF-18 for is bomb runs in a few conflicts and patrols. Canada really relies on NORAD for real air defense. Im not dissing the CF-18, I love the plane, many fond memories, but tactically, it is what everyone says it is... Jack of all Trades, master of none.


The CAF needs to get its head out of the cold war and into the modern ages. Right now, we need long range patrols and a small reactionary force. A fleet of UAVs could handle the sovereignty patrols, and a few squadrons of F-35s for our international obligations. The F-35 would be atleast as good as the CF-18, so our air-to-air 'capability' is intact. What Canada would gain from the F-35 is some stealth, but more importantly a REAL ability to interact with international forces.


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 28528 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):
The CAF needs to get its head out of the cold war and into the modern ages. Right now, we need long range patrols and a small reactionary force. A fleet of UAVs could handle the sovereignty patrols, and a few squadrons of F-35s for our international obligations. The F-35 would be atleast as good as the CF-18, so our air-to-air 'capability' is intact. What Canada would gain from the F-35 is some stealth, but more importantly a REAL ability to interact with international forces.

Doesn´t look like Canada had a good Cold War air defence then.
Relying on Norad, once the F-101 were retired, meant relying on USAF units in Alaska and Island?

Agree with you though that the F-35 will be a good solution for today´s needs and for Canada´s position in international politics. After all air defence doesn´t seem to be of primary importance now for Ottawa. It´s a similar situation to many European Countries where the threat is not represented anymore by hordes of Soviet fighters and bombers.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 28454 times:

Yup, that is about right, and IMO once the CF-105 got canned, our air defense capabilities were just extensions of the USAF (second hand F-101s, F-104s, and Bomarc missles).

But really, Canada doesn't need a big force, just a good detection system (thus the UAVs). Anything coming over the pole would be seen hours away, and anything in Canada of tactical value other than CFB Cold Lake is withing 300km of the US border, leaving more than enough time for the USAF to save our asses (quite sad really, isn't it?). But an attack coming over the pole or even reaching North America is quite unlikely.

Today, our biggest concern is maintaining patrols of our territorial waters to the north from those commie bast... Russian friends, and illegal aliens coming across the Pacific (and maybe the odd loose foot). F-35s would be a bit overkill for such tasks. UAVs could even replace the CP-140s for our east coast patrols. What can a manned surveillance aircraft do, that a UAV couldn't? I would rather have a unmanned aircraft up north in the event of a engine failure. Thousands of miles from anything is not a good place to have to ditch a plane (not that anywhere is a good place to ditch a plane).


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 28433 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Yup, that is about right, and IMO once the CF-105 got canned, our air defense capabilities were just extensions of the USAF (second hand F-101s, F-104s, and Bomarc missles).

The threat situation changed. No longer was there the threat of hordes of Soviet bombers; that threat moved to Soviet ICBM's. The "bomber gap" suddenly no longer existed and the ICBM was the main, overriding threat. The CF-105 could do nothing about those.

The CF-105 was competing with other military projects for funding. Had any government allowed the CF-105 project to continue, it would have [b][i]disarmed[b/][i/] Canada. The project was opposed by, inter alia, the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and the majority of the Air Staff - for good reasons.

With the launch of Sputnik, governments around the world were re-assessing their fighter jet needs and requirements. Canada especially could not afford to continue with a project that may or may not be even useful in a few years. The entirety of the Avro Arrow imbroglio was financial: building and flying the Arrow would have destroyed the Canadian Forces unless unconscionably huge increases were made to the defence budget – in the teeth of a major recession!

It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. The government made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada no longer needed the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.

The funding that was supposed to go to the CF-105 was instead diverted to recapitalize the Army and Navy, as both services needed new equipment. The Navy got the new destroyers it needed. The Army got their new tanks and trucks.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
UAVs could even replace the CP-140s for our east coast patrols. What can a manned surveillance aircraft do, that a UAV couldn't?

There are situations where on the spot human problem solving and timing is crucial. Furthermore, a manned presence brings a whole new element in sovereignty; they know we see them, and they can see us. No one is going to do anything stupid in this situation.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 28427 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
2 engines were considered better than one in the decision to buy the F-18.

The original premise for purchasing the F/A-18 Hornet was that at the time, the F/A-18 Hornet had better overall capability (unlike the F-16 at the time, the Hornet could use radar-guided missiles and was capable of dropping many types of air to ground ordinance other than dumb bombs) than the F-16 Falcon, which was up until that point, still a point defence fighter. Furthermore, it was expected that the F/A-18 Hornet would get more export orders (Canada was the first foreign customer of the Hornet). This obviously didn't pan out.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 28398 times:



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
The CF-105 was competing with other military projects for funding. Had any government allowed the CF-105 project to continue, it would have [b][i]disarmed[b/][i/] Canada. The project was opposed by, inter alia, the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and the majority of the Air Staff - for good reasons.

With the launch of Sputnik, governments around the world were re-assessing their fighter jet needs and requirements. Canada especially could not afford to continue with a project that may or may not be even useful in a few years. The entirety of the Avro Arrow imbroglio was financial: building and flying the Arrow would have destroyed the Canadian Forces unless unconscionably huge increases were made to the defence budget – in the teeth of a major recession!

It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. The government made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada no longer needed the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.

Overall agree with the thrust of your argument, although I point out that 50 years after the Arrow was cancelled, we're still getting probed by "Bear" variants in both the Arctic and the East Coast.

Peter Zuring's book, "The Arrow Scrapbook" does hint that the US offered to fund at least some of the initial production run, and also that the Luftwaffe at least had a sniff. But basically it was going to be a domestic-only program had it gone ahead -- and it was still quite a ways from operational service. I would hazard that the production run for RCAF use would have been on the order of 100 or so.

Given the enormous cost growth in the Arrow program, the sensible thing to do was to shut it down, and redeploy defense dollars where they might do more good. Diefenbaker still gets a lot of criticism for the decision, but had Pearson been the PM, he would have done the same thing.

Now, as for the Jetliner, that was truly a blunder.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1403 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 28388 times:

Is it true that Canada at one time wanted to get the A-7 for its ground attack units but opted instead for the F-5 because it looked like the USAF would get the F-5E for the Air National Guard?
Only that the ANG got early models F-16 instead and the CAF had to do with the less capable F-5?

And what was the story behind the acquisition of F-101B?
If I´m not wrong this model only served shortly with the USAF in the air defence role, being superseded by the F-106A.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 28384 times:



Quoting Steman (Reply 23):
Is it true that Canada at one time wanted to get the A-7 for its ground attack units but opted instead for the F-5 because it looked like the USAF would get the F-5E for the Air National Guard?
Only that the ANG got early models F-16 instead and the CAF had to do with the less capable F-5?

And what was the story behind the acquisition of F-101B?
If I´m not wrong this model only served shortly with the USAF in the air defence role, being superseded by the F-106A.

Don't know about the A-7 angle, although that's interesting.

The F-101B was a stop-gap acquired after the Arrow was cancelled, I believe something like about 75 were taken in. Ironically, the F-101B was assessed as part of the AIR 7-3 specification that led to the Arrow program, and was rejected as not meeting the requirement. I agree the F-101B didn't last long in the US inventory, but Canada had a tradition of twin-engined interceptors (i.e., CF-100) for patrols over remote regions, and I think that's why the F-106 was not considered.

The 'stop-gap' soldiered on until the 80s when the CF-18 entered service, b.t.w.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Joecanuck : The Arrow was canned as were thousands of jobs and the Canadian aerospace industry. Canada got the f-101, f-5's and the Bomarc missile...and not exact
26 Oroka : A UAV capable of long range northern patrols are not going to be dinky little units. There is no reason a UAV couldnt do every job the CP-140 does. Y
27 Post contains links ThePointblank : There were lots of different reasons that conspired to kill the Arrow program, everything from technical challenges with the missiles and fire contro
28 Joecanuck : And Canada ended up with an interceptor, (the CF-101, which nobody else wanted), good for little else but bomber interception to be later supplanted
29 Connies4ever : The CF-104 was a strike a/c only, never used as an interceptor. I'd disagree. IIRC the Arrow THEN was projected to cost something like $8M per (these
30 Joecanuck : The voodoo was a plane nobody wanted...it was leftovers that the US was glad to get rid of. The starfighter was a crap strike fighter, unable to carry
31 Connies4ever : I would not characterise the Starfighter as a crap strike a/c. It could carry the requisite nuclear package into WarPac country and get out due to it
32 Rwessel : The Germans lost 292 out of 916 (32%). Italy lost something like 38%. Belgium 37%. Canada lost 110 out of 238, for a whopping 46% loss rate. While th
33 Connies4ever : Germans often referred to the Starfighter as "The Widowmaker" -- the a/c had a bad problem with spins coupled to engine failure. But as you point out
34 ThePointblank : The CF-100's were still obsolete and needed replacement. It was just that the USAF was able to make the F-101B's available to us by redeploying some
35 Post contains links CYQL : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...65-us-fighter-jets/article1595525/ Looks like the cabinet has made up their mind to buy the F-35.
36 TheCol : We can speculate and debate all we want, but we all know that we are going to see one of the following scenarios play out: A. The Harper government st
37 Post contains images keesje : Are the french sitting on their hands?
38 Arrow : My late father was a senior engineer at Avro and worked on the Arrow. And I watched it fly a few times, once up close and personal in flight prep on
39 DEVILFISH : From the link in Reply 35..... Quote: "But that hasn’t stopped the manufacturers of jets such as Boeing’s Super Hornet from trying to whip up a st
40 kl671 : $9 Billion dollars to buy 65 aircraft that will protect Canada for the next 20 or 30 years compared to the $1 billion Canada is spending on security
41 KC135TopBoom : Correct, Russia has sent several Tu-95s on long range recon missions over the last few years to both Alaska and Canada (along with Japan and Guam, to
42 BMI727 : Considering what the F-22 is capable of, I would say that the F-35 is the one that is the white elephant here.
43 Post contains links mffoda : More news from Canada.... http://defensenews-updates.blogspot.com/ (NSI News Source Info) OTTAWA, Canada - June 9, 2010: Ottawa is moving on a sole-so
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing X-32 Or Lockheed Martin X-35 Will Win? posted Thu Sep 20 2001 07:17:30 by B777-777X
Which Boeing Model Is Best For New Air Force 1? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 18:13:34 by Nitepilot79
Another Crash For Canada’s Snowbirds. posted Fri Oct 10 2008 07:38:03 by KrisYYZ
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Boeing Predicts Good Year For C-17 posted Thu Feb 21 2008 12:21:59 by Kaitak
New Patrol Aircraft For Canada? posted Tue Sep 25 2007 04:56:09 by KrisYYZ
Boeing Confirms Further Delays For The 737 AEW&C posted Fri May 25 2007 14:00:21 by WINGS
F-15K -- Options For Canada, Australia? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 02:23:18 by AerospaceFan
F-35 For Turkish AF posted Thu Sep 29 2005 20:06:58 by Bahadir
Boeing/Grumman Team-up For CEV posted Thu Nov 11 2004 23:41:28 by DfwRevolution
More CH-148 Cyclone Delays For Canada... posted Thu May 26 2011 14:15:33 by JoeCanuck
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc
Boeing, UAE Announce Order For 6 C-17s posted Wed Jan 6 2010 12:54:28 by Propilot83
Which Boeing Model Is Best For New Air Force 1? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 18:13:34 by Nitepilot79
Another Crash For Canada’s Snowbirds. posted Fri Oct 10 2008 07:38:03 by KrisYYZ
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
F-35 A Possible CF-18 Replacement For Canada? posted Mon Jan 19 2009 15:05:53 by AC788
Boeing X-32 Or Lockheed Martin X-35 Will Win? posted Thu Sep 20 2001 07:17:30 by B777-777X
S Korea 4-4E Replacement: F-15 Or F-35? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 07:10:05 by art
More CH-148 Cyclone Delays For Canada... posted Thu May 26 2011 14:15:33 by JoeCanuck
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc
Boeing, UAE Announce Order For 6 C-17s posted Wed Jan 6 2010 12:54:28 by Propilot83
Which Boeing Model Is Best For New Air Force 1? posted Mon Mar 23 2009 18:13:34 by Nitepilot79
Another Crash For Canada’s Snowbirds. posted Fri Oct 10 2008 07:38:03 by KrisYYZ
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Both F-15SE And F-35 For South Korea? posted Fri May 24 2013 06:26:02 by bikerthai
New Look For Canada's AF1 (CC-150) posted Sun Feb 24 2013 12:26:24 by krisyyz
S Korea 4-4E Replacement: F-15 Or F-35? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 07:10:05 by art
More CH-148 Cyclone Delays For Canada... posted Thu May 26 2011 14:15:33 by JoeCanuck
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format