Canada's next Jet Fighter?

[Kilo 2-3]

Canada's involvement to date in the program has been to ensure that Canadian military contractors gain access to contracts. Canada will come out ahead even if they do choose a different solution. Canada is in a nice position right now, they can just wait and see how the F35 pans out, no rush.

The F35 has always looked a bit odd for Canada, for a couple of reasons. One is that Canada has always prefered dual engines, as being a bit safer in the arctic environment. The other is that perhaps an air superiority fighter / interceptor type would fit the bill more. Mind you, the CF18's aren't that, and have worked out fine, so the super hornet would be a natrual choice?

Canada's going to need a multi-role type, even if their NORAD interceptor role may be one of their more frequent or visible missions.

I'm of the mind that the F-35 makes quite a lot of sense for Canada, despite the fact that some Carlo Kopp comes to mind...) claim it is a "pure strike aircraft, useless as a fighter, etc. " (The F-35's potential place in the USAF's and USN's force structure is the probable cause of this rather sophomoric claim).

As we've touched on before, the Super Hornet, while it offers some advantages, holds a fairly high opportunity cost, and is most regards far less desirable than the JSF.

The F-35 is a tolerable interceptor and air superiority fighter and it's strike capabilities and LO make it a very well-rounded aircraft which will be a major evolution and in some areas, a revolution, in CAF capability.

As for the single-engine issue, it's less of a problem than it seems.

 

[moahunter]

I wonder which variant Canada will choose, F35C might be a good option. The CF18's are based on the naval variant - the stronger undercariage has proven valuable in terms of reliability, and the C variant looks to have a longer range.

 

[Go229]

We did, it's call Avro Arrow. But the government killed it under US pressure plus the Conservative hate technology. This is why we can't have nice thing in Canada

Aahhh the Arrow... I just bought the Storms of Controversy book and i'm quite captivated by it. I can't beleive it, even if it's old history. Treason on a massive scale, really representative of the useless government we have in Canada. If we had got the Arrow this situation would be quite different... Just imagine what great leaps and bounds Avro Canada would have advanced with it's success. We would have outsold the Americans in fighter aircraft, threatened the US as major provider of aircraft in NATO and the all powerful US military-industrial complex could not let that happen... Besides, where do you think all those Avro engineers got work after cancellation? Down south...

Makes you need a drink :drunk1

 

[moahunter]

^Arrow was already out of date by the time is was close to production - most of the interceptors of this generation disappeared as air forces went for more multi function aircraft with better maneuverability (rather than just speed) - ICBM's eliminated much of the point of it.

Worldwide, the Arrow was not the only heavy high-speed interceptor design cancelled at that time; the Republic Aircraft XF-103 and the North American Aviation XF-108 Rapier, designed to have higher performance specifications than the Arrow, were cancelled in the mock-up stage of development at approximately the same time.[10][11] Even the Convair F-106 Delta Dart was very nearly terminated. In the UK, the ramifications of the 1957 Defence White Paper led to the cancellation of the ultra-sophisticated TSR-2 and almost all manned fighter aircraft development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow


Makes a for good story though, and it sure was pretty.

 

[luccloud]

^Arrow was already out of date by the time is was close to production - most of the interceptors of this generation disappeared as air forces went for more multi function aircraft with better maneuverability (rather than just speed) - ICBM's eliminated much of the point of it.

Funny thing is that the conservative purchased 133 F101 Voodoo later on which proof that there's still a bomber threat.

Also, the XF103 and XF108 are still in mock up stage while the Arrow already built 5 flight test aircraft. They also cancelled a automatic mail sorter because it's a "million dollar monster"

 

[Go229]

It was Rediculous 1930ies thinking. And yes, of course we bought F-101s, because you can't intercept a recon flight with NUCLEAR TIPPED SAMs... And i'm pretty sure the reason they didin't buy F-106s was that the public would have gone apeshizzle when the government would have bought a fighter that's designed for the same thing as the Arrow, same Delta technology, same Fire control system but American made...

I propose we put the surviving arrow nose section, put it in a weatherproof glass display, and put it right in front of parliament, pointed away from it. As an eternal, silent reminder of the stupidity of governments worldwide.

But yeah, if it would have gone into final testing with the Iroquois engine it would have been much faster and with further development (and more titanium) the Arrow could have reached mach 3 and been superior to the Mig-25 only 20 years earlier. I think it could have been suited to various roles, anything we need! Reconaissance, Strike-Attack, Light Bomber, EW platform, RECORD BREAKER...

^Arrow was already out of date by the time is was close to production - most of the interceptors of this generation disappeared as air forces went for more multi function aircraft with better maneuverability (rather than just speed) - ICBM's eliminated much of the point of it.

.
As far as i know the classic interceptor role was alive and well in Canada. Just look on a globe and see what's on the other side of the north pole. The prelude to WWIII would have been backfire bombers zooming in from the north and releasing Long-range nuclear cruise missiles. The American thinking was to shoot them down with Nuclear SAMs over Canada, but i guess they just wanted to scare us into complying with it's armaments agenda.

 

[moahunter]

.
As far as i know the classic interceptor role was alive and well in Canada.

It is alive today, and more relevant, because beyond visual range weapons are much better and could be used in more situations. But not then, Vietnam later showed how poor air to air missiles of the time were. Back then, the worry was nuclear war. Having a plane that could only perform one role (shooting down bombers), and a role that was unlikely at that time to be needed given ICBMs and mutual destruction, just didn't make sense to spend a ton more development money on (just like other countries gave up the quest, there was no export market anymore either), when an already developed version was waiting on the shelf for a much lower price (a plane that ended up performing sufficient). Arrow was just a big burecratic subsidy, not unlike other subsidies to buy votes in Quebec today.

 

[Go229]

when an already developed version was waiting on the shelf for a much lower price (a plane that ended up performing sufficient).

You mean the F-101 and F-104? They performed according to their design but they could not test the Avro arrow in the interceptor role. I mean what is it to keep 2-3 squadrons of Avro Arrow for defence of the north and buy other planes for the other roles. And see what i said above i think the Arrow could have had more than an ace up it's sleeve.

And if you want my opinion on the spending it was more than balanced by the prestige and experience gained by the Canadian aerospace industry and Avro. Avro was closed after the cancellation of the Arrow, and the USA "brain-drained" the aerospace industry for all it was worth. Avro would have had a long, illutrious carreer and would probably be up there with Lockheed, McDonnel Douglas, Dassault, Saab, ect... (probably a branch of one of those today )

Arrow was just a big burecratic subsidy, not unlike other subsidies to buy votes in Quebec today.

I totally agree about the subsidies to buy vote thing, it's an endemic problem in Qc and Canada. We are paralyzed by it. But a big bureaucratic machine it was just because of the government. The core team of designers worked hard and long and needed every penny. They even adopted the Cook-Caigie approach to design because it saved lots of time and money.

 

[luccloud]

It is alive today, and more relevant, because beyond visual range weapons are much better and could be used in more situations. But not then, Vietnam later showed how poor air to air missiles of the time were. Back then, the worry was nuclear war.

Avro arrow was canceled before the Vietnam war and Avro Canada is headquartered in Ontario.

 

[moahunter]

^I know, the performance of aircraft in the Vietnam war (or lack there of, with respect to air-to-air missile systems), proves it was the right decision at the earlier time to not spend more money than needed on a limited role interceptor. The only thing the Avro really had going for it, was that it was very beautiful to look at (a good "pride" building thing, which I suspect is why it hurt so many people that it was cancelled).

It was a bureaucratic subsidy regardless of the province, if the program had merit, the export sales would have paid for much of it. The hard reality though, is that other countries weren't interested in interceptors, and were cancelling comparable, and even conceptually superior, programs.

 

[Bluesaphirro]

Canadas CF18 fighters are getting pretty long in the tooth. Canada has spent something like 150 million towards the F35 JSF program which seems to still be away's off yet as far as entering active service. Some Canadians now seem to be waviering on the idea. The thought has come up that the JSF will not fit the needs of Canada and perhaps the cost may put it completely out of reach. With the vast areas that the jets would be required to patrol, the range of the JSF has been called into question. Add to this fact that Canada has prefered twin engined aircraft in the past. Other companies, such as Boeing, Saab and Mirage are smelling the blood in the water and have been making their pitch to the Canadian Government that perhaps they should go with an aircraft already in service and perhaps said aircraft would be better suited towards the needs of Canada. I believe the original plan called for 135 JSF's but rumor has it that it could be cut to as little as 80 because of costs. I am of the opinion that Canada would be better off buying new F15 Strike Fighters or the new version of the F18 Super Hornet. Whichever is cheaper. Do they cost more than the estimated 50 million the JSF is predicted to cost? The F15 has a proven track record and is still a credible threat to anyones air force...Canada does not have a huge population, when compared to the United States, and their armed forces reflect that fact. They cannot afford to fight prolonged conflicts overseas in any real numbers and money is a very big issue when picking any new military weapon. Yet they deserve, in my humble opinion, the best possible weapons that will fill the role required for defense of the country. The JSF is not operational as yet and Canada needs a long range interceptor/fighter/bomber very soon.. I just do not see the JSF filling this role. It may very well turn out to be a very good aircraft but I feel that Canada can do just as well for perhaps less money. Your thoughts are welcomed. Thank you very much.

On the Economy side, I think it is very prudent that Canadian Armed Forces should have thought of it in buying a Squadrons of F15 Strike Eagles dubbed (F15C for Canadian) Strike Eagles. Instead of buying the most expensive JSF F35 Lightning 2 But then again the CAF and the Canadian Government had already made their commitments to the JSF program so to them there is no turning back for them..

 

[Kilo 2-3]

On the Economy side, I think it is very prudent that Canadian Armed Forces should have thought of it in buying a Squadrons of F15 Strike Eagles dubbed (F15C for Canadian) Strike Eagles. Instead of buying the most expensive JSF F35 Lightning 2 But then again the CAF and the Canadian Government had already made their commitments to the JSF program so to them there is no turning back for them..

They'd be CF-15s, as the F-15C Strike Eagle designation would cause too much confusion between the USAF's current F-15C (Air superiority variant) and F-15E Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle was never really intended for use in air-to-air, it has the capability, but its primary role is as a mud-mover. Based on this, it might have been seen as less-than ideal for Canada, who needed more of a strike fighter and less of a dedicated bomber.

However, it is possible they could have worked something out with McDonnell to create a balanced two-seater interceptor and striker F-15. However, if it came down to that, there's an outside chance that Canada might have also considered buying Tomcats and adding "bombcat" capability (CF-14s, that would have been nice )

Had they chose to acquire the rights to build or buy CF-15s, Canada might currently be interested in the F-15 "Silent Eagle," an LO/stealthy two-seater strike and air superiority version. However, it's also possible that Canada's 1980s-era CF-15s would have aged by now to the point were the F-35 would still be considered

 

[moahunter]

^Given the experience with the CF18's, the superhornet might be a better fit, certainly a more cost effective one. Superhornets replaced Tomcats in the US for cost reasons, Tomcats would have been a mistake.

I think Canada still has the option of pulling out of the F35 program, nothing will have been lost due to the large amount of tax revenue from Canadian contractors. A nice situation, can just wait and see how it turns out.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

OK, I did a little bit of research and turned up some interesting info.

Canada actually did consider buying the F-15, F-14 Mirage F.1, F-17/F-18L (a lightweight non-naval version of the F/A-18), F-16 and the Tornado during its New Fighter Aircraft Program in the late 1970s.

Due to financial reasons the F-15, F-17, Tornado and F-14 were removed from consideration. (non other nations had formally committed to buying the F-17 so a purchase of the F-17 would place the costs of finalizing the development of the fighter squarley on Canada's shoulders) And after a bit of haggling over cost, jobs, and politics, the F/A-18 was chosen over the F-16.

However, according to Allan Ng, Canada almost made a back-door deal with Iran to buy the F-14As, the revolutionary government had inherited from the Shah. However, the deal fell through due to Canada's active and pro-US involvement in the Iran Hostage Crisis.
(Canadian Forces CF18 Hornet fighter aircraft - Canadian Defence Policy - CASR In Detail [Part 3])

As for the cost issue, refer to my prior post. My apologies in advance, it's a bit of a long read.

"It it is going to cost a fair amount of money to continually upgrade the F-35, but it is important to also consider that the CAF is going to have to upgrade the F/A-18E/F as well...and those upgrades would cost money too...

It's about whole capability. While the sticker prices may be different and one may have a "better" price than the other, but there's something you have to also consider the other, hidden costs down the road.

The F-35 is a newer aircraft, that means it will reach obsolesence at a slower rate than the older F/A-18. In this aspect, the F-35 is a better investment for Canada's future.

There's also the survivability issue.

If you buy Super Hornets and then you start having airframe losses in combat because the Super Bug can't operate safely in contested airspace, then you've just poured several million down the drain. In the F-35 you're not juts buying the airplane, you're buying an increased chance that it won't get shot down or detected in the first place.

The F-35 is also vastly more capable than a Super Hornet on a one-for-one basis. A few F-35s can do the job of a far larger group of Super Hornets simply because the JSF taren't going to demand the same amount of SEAD and jamming the F/A-18s are going to require.

This means that you can effectively make a smaller F-35 buy and get roughly the same capability as you would with a comparable number of Super Hornets. (I do say "roughly" because there's something to be said for having a larger number of airframes to compensate for aircraft down for maintenance and to allow for more geographical area to be covered. "Even a Spitfire can't be in two places at once")."

 

[Go229]

I have held in my hands an authentic project model of a F-16A with Canadian colors. Interestings to think what would have happened if we went the other way.

 

[luccloud]

^I know, the performance of aircraft in the Vietnam war (or lack there of, with respect to air-to-air missile systems), proves it was the right decision at the earlier time to not spend more money than needed on a limited role interceptor. The only thing the Avro really had going for it, was that it was very beautiful to look at (a good "pride" building thing, which I suspect is why it hurt so many people that it was cancelled).

It was a bureaucratic subsidy regardless of the province, if the program had merit, the export sales would have paid for much of it. The hard reality though, is that other countries weren't interested in interceptors, and were cancelling comparable, and even conceptually superior, programs.

Canadian air defense needs are totally different from what happened in Vietnam. Unless the Soviet was planning to build a lot of air field inside arctic, I really don't see any possibilities for CAF to encounter a Mig 21.

We are talking about a military program, of course it's funded by the govt. Military sales are always influenced by politics,it's like Canada won't buy SU30 even if it's more cost effective.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Canadian air defense needs are totally different from what happened in Vietnam. Unless the Soviet was planning to build a lot of air field inside arctic, I really don't see any possibilities for CAF to encounter a Mig 21.

We are talking about a military program, of course it's funded by the govt. Military sales are always influenced by politics,it's like Canada won't buy SU30 even if it's more cost effective.

I do agree with you that a Canadian interceptor would not have and likely will not encounter Russian or other enemy fighters during an intercept mission.

However, to be fair, I think the original thrust of Moahunter's argument was that dedicated interceptors (the original mission of the F-4 Phantom II was as a self-vectoring interceptor, and this was one of the reasons it didn't have a gun, had straight-line power and speed, and realtively bad agility, etc.), proved to struggle when changing roles (e.g. F-4 BVR interceptor to F-4 MiGCAP and dogfighter) based on their technical limitations.

This drawback would have made the Arrow a poor overall choice, since it would have required the RCAF to also aquire tactical fighters to ensure Canada did not have a major capability gap. However, I do disagree with Moahunter on this point.

Until the 1980s and the purchase of the CF-188 Canada proved willing to operate a mixed force of single- or only dual-role aircraft like Canucks, Voodoos, CF-116s, CF-104s, etc. and did it successfully. Had Canada elected to build and fund the Arrow, they would probably have gone the mixed force route, operating Arrows as interceptors, CF-116s or Mirages, etc. as tactical air superiority or light strike aircraft, and other aircraft like the F-111 or the Buccaneer for tactical and nuclear strike (many other jets could have served in this role, I'm just offering these as examples and I'm not stating that the RCAF would have or nessecarily should have become a Buc or Aardvark operator). Thus the lack of multi-role capability in the Arrow might not have been such a big obstacle.

The purchase of the Arrow wouldn't have meant that Canada would have been forced to make it its sole fighter aircraft.

As you said, export sales would have helped greatly in spreading costs. Who would have been in the market for Arrows? Britain? Australia? Sweden? (even though they tended to buy Saab and already had the Draaken) Japan? The long-range interceptor is a specific one, and one not every nation needed.

 

[luccloud]

I do agree with you that a Canadian interceptor would not have and likely will not encounter Russian or other enemy fighters during an intercept mission.

However, to be fair, I think the original thrust of Moahunter's argument was that dedicated interceptors (the original mission of the F-4 Phantom II was as a self-vectoring interceptor, and this was one of the reasons it didn't have a gun, had straight-line power and speed, and realtively bad agility, etc.), proved to struggle when changing roles (e.g. F-4 BVR interceptor to F-4 MiGCAP and dogfighter) based on their technical limitations.

This drawback would have made the Arrow a poor overall choice, since it would have required the RCAF to also aquire tactical fighters to ensure Canada did not have a major capability gap. However, I do disagree with Moahunter on this point.

Until the 1980s and the purchase of the CF-188 Canada proved willing to operate a mixed force of single- or only dual-role aircraft like Canucks, Voodoos, CF-116s, CF-104s, etc. and did it successfully. Had Canada elected to build and fund the Arrow, they would probably have gone the mixed force route, operating Arrows as interceptors, CF-116s or Mirages, etc. as tactical air superiority or light strike aircraft, and other aircraft like the F-111 or the Buccaneer for tactical and nuclear strike (many other jets could have served in this role, I'm just offering these as examples and I'm not stating that the RCAF would have or nessecarily should have become a Buc or Aardvark operator). Thus the lack of multi-role capability in the Arrow might not have been such a big obstacle.

The purchase of the Arrow wouldn't have meant that Canada would have been forced to make it its sole fighter aircraft.

As you said, export sales would have helped greatly in spreading costs. Who would have been in the market for Arrows? Britain? Australia? Sweden? (even though they tended to buy Saab and already had the Draaken) Japan? The long-range interceptor is a specific one, and one not every nation needed.

For Avro Arrow, British and Austria will probably be the only potential market but probably not that high, however, with a technology sharing or even joint development, the odds should improved a lot. Another thing is that it's possible to sell some of arrow technology, like the LiIroquois jet engine, which imo had a great potential for export if it was not canceled.

 

[luccloud]

^I know, the performance of aircraft in the Vietnam war (or lack there of, with respect to air-to-air missile systems), proves it was the right decision at the earlier time to not spend more money than needed on a limited role interceptor. The only thing the Avro really had going for it, was that it was very beautiful to look at (a good "pride" building thing, which I suspect is why it hurt so many people that it was cancelled).

It was a bureaucratic subsidy regardless of the province, if the program had merit, the export sales would have paid for much of it. The hard reality though, is that other countries weren't interested in interceptors, and were cancelling comparable, and even conceptually superior, programs.

It hurt so many people because it killed off the whole Canadian Aerospace industry, destroyed a vital design base of Canada and lead to a horrible brain drain.

All your comparison are skewed and not fully consider the situation.

First, the "comparable" programs were still in concept stage and only existed on paper, whereas the arrow was close to finish flight test.

Second, one should consider the arrow with its replacement, not other fighter jets. Followed the cancellation, the Diefenbaker govt later decide to purchase F-101 (Equipped with unguided nuclear rocket) plus the Bomarc missile (also nuclear tipped).

So the real option was:

A) Continue the funding of the Avro Arrow Project
B) Cancel the Avro Arrow Project, which immediately resulted in the collapse of the Avro company and caused 30 thousand people to become unemployed right away and use that money to buy F101 and Bomarc missile.

Maybe because it's a different time, but I really can't see how can they though that the F101 with unguided nuclear rocket/ nuclear Bomarc missile was better suited to defend Canada.

 

[Bluesaphirro]

For Avro Arrow, British and Austria will probably be the only potential market but probably not that high, however, with a technology sharing or even joint development, the odds should improved a lot. Another thing is that it's possible to sell some of arrow technology, like the LiIroquois jet engine, which imo had a great potential for export if it was not canceled.

Question? But It would have been a possibility should Avro had not only built the Arrow solely as fighter interceptor but an Interceptor and bomber as well? Surely that would give Canada a greater domestic mass production of the Arrow.. To me that plane I would definitely considered a great warplane for CAF..

They'd be CF-15s, as the F-15C Strike Eagle designation would cause too much confusion between the USAF's current F-15C (Air superiority variant) and F-15E Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle was never really intended for use in air-to-air, it has the capability, but its primary role is as a mud-mover. Based on this, it might have been seen as less-than ideal for Canada, who needed more of a strike fighter and less of a dedicated bomber.

However, it is possible they could have worked something out with McDonnell to create a balanced two-seater interceptor and striker F-15. However, if it came down to that, there's an outside chance that Canada might have also considered buying Tomcats and adding "bombcat" capability (CF-14s, that would have been nice )

Had they chose to acquire the rights to build or buy CF-15s, Canada might currently be interested in the F-15 "Silent Eagle," an LO/stealthy two-seater strike and air superiority version. However, it's also possible that Canada's 1980s-era CF-15s would have aged by now to the point were the F-35 would still be considered

Sorry for the confusion regarding my designation of F15C ( Canada ) Strike Eagle, your right about that I should have designate it CF15 Strike Eagle.. Thanks for the correction, Given to your thought of this makes me wonder which of the two is more a gas gussler the F15 Or F14? come to think of it there both hungry jet fuelled fighter jets which led me to think it is a factor why CAF chosen the F/A18 Hornet for jet fuel economy and given the Hornet is built as a Interceptor and Maritime Strike capable which the hornet a favorite among nations who wants Multi-Role Capability just like Canada. And regarding the possible CF14 Bombcat wow! it could have been a great asset for CAF as well.. knowing all to well the F14 Tomcat has it own history of Air to Air Combat record during the day U.S. Navy vs Qhadafy's Russian built fighter jets now that what I call a real showdown air to air combat duel.. during the 80's.