Jump to content

Where oh where is our Hornet replacement?


Recommended Posts

I agree with much of what you said Neu. I will say this, I think given the requirements and  industrial spinoffs  at the time in the 1960's, adding the CF-101B and CF-104 were  sound, cost effective and logical choices... Let  me explain.

 

With the demise of the CF-105 Arrow and the CF-100 Clunk as you said becoming obsolete, Canada needed a long range interceptor to help fulfill our role in NORAD. Though the USSR building up its ICBM's and SLBM's took off in the 1960's it still relied heavily on its long range nuclear capable bombers. So NORAD needed capable interceptors, The USAF used notably F-102's which IMO were below grade but also hundreds F-101B's and soon after relied on the F-106 as its preeminent interceptor. The US Govt. as I said in an earlier post  gave Canada a   good deal on acquiring CF-101B's for our capability to intercept USSR bombers over our North. Again I think the CF-101B was a great jet for its roll, serving what  25-30 years  in both US and Canadian inventories. The RCAF/Canadian Air Force was able to do with the CF-101B all, cheaper and with longer legs   than the CF-105 Arrow  would have done. Sorry my fellow Canucks but this is  the truth. One O Wonder crews all seemed to speak highly of the Voodoo in both USAF and RCAF service.

 

The CF-104 Starfighter was  as great jet... Let me explain.

 

It was small, fast, relatively cheap to buy and easy to maintain, fulfilled numerous roles in numerous   air forces and because  Lockheed wanted sales and the US government  wanted  a cheaper and easy to export fighter to fill various NATO air forces we saw  the F-104 being sold under contract  to keep numerous  NATO, European aircraft manufactures  busy with building  F-104's for many NATO air  forces including   Canada. The Starfighter was  a great plane for its role in history, Interceptor, strike fighter, maritime strike,  tactical recon plane all roles filled well enough by F-104's at   very  low cost to its users.  Keeping non-US aircraft manufacturers and sub contractors busy  was all just gravy. The F-16 in the 70's and 80's did the same  for manufacturing and  filing in various  air forces as the F-104 did and today F-35 fills a similar role.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98183

 

Fleetwide super hornet/Growler grounding after serious incident. Badly injured crew. 

 

Also, Oxygen problems in the Super Hornet fleet persist:

 

 

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/08/nothing-scares-hornet-pilots-more-than-losing-oxygen-and-happens-all-time/82255406/

 

Pilots speaking on the condition of anonymity

 

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I  would like to know why people think that the Avro Arrow was short ranged compared to it contemporaries. Even though most books are written bye enthusiasts there are some interesting dilogue with engineering staff and actual documents that pertain to the CF105 and buying US interceptors that were  available at the prior to cancelation.  The Arrow was canceled early 1959 and CF101 began entering service in 1962. Part of the cost added to the Arrow project, is the Orenda Iroquois engine, originally not intended for the arrow. Avro borrowed money for both projects from the Canadian government, and it is not only Avro to blame for delays in their program but also the RCAF for changing their requirements. The Cf100 also had changes during its development causing delays, its different designing and testing andaircraft and building some elses design already provin,  without making changes to which the F35 has suffered. in the fifties not many prototypes had foreign sales before the design was proved to be sound, and yet ghe Arrow was knocked for no foreign sales.  Most countries that buy from the US will not buy unless the US buys , F107, F20, F17/F18 land based version.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my book called "Arrow" specs for Arrow variants were as follows:

 

Arrow 2 with Orenda Iroquois Engines had a range high speed of 264 miles  max. range 408 miles.

 

Arrow 2A with Orenda Iroquois 2 Engines high speed range was 575 miles and max. range of 787 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

Arrow 3 with Orenda Iroquois 3 Engines high speed range  was 487 miles and a max. range of 593 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

CF-101B Voodoo had a nominal range of 1,520 nautical miles.

 

Looking through my beautiful book on  the Arrow and I will say this, it was one of the most beautiful jet interceptors ever made. It was a class act, high tech marvel and would have served the RCAF ably. Canadians should be proud of what AVRO made in the Arrow, but again the CF-101B Voodoos proved just as capable and cheaper with as I said longer legs.

 

I will cherish my  book on the Arrow and Canadians should always be proud of her. 

 

Edited by Gordon Shumway
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

Interesting, it's not just an O2 issue, it sounds like the whole system is having issues.  An "over-pressurization" problem was not what I was expecting.

 

This line brings up one of my concerns with the F-35:

 

As a result, the bulk of the Navy’s strike fighter force was effectively out of action for almost four days.

 

With the F-35 expected to make up the bulk of the fighters of the US Navy, Marines and Airforce, as well as other countries, if there's an issue like this that comes up, most of the fighter capability of the US and allied military air power seems like it would be out of commission.

Edited by Ken Cartwright
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a problem with only having one type of fleet. But we just can not afford more types like the PM is suggesting. I would think if health and safety regulations of today were in place in years gone by we would have had the the same situation with fleet groundings. Crap , even in my job the amount of health and safety concerns raised compared to when I started 27 years ago is mind numbing. However preventing un necessary loss of life is a valid concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

Interesting, it's not just an O2 issue, it sounds like the whole system is having issues.  An "over-pressurization" problem was not what I was expecting.

 

This line brings up one of my concerns with the F-35:

 

As a result, the bulk of the Navy’s strike fighter force was effectively out of action for almost four days.

 

With the F-35 expected to make up the bulk of the fighters of the US Navy, Marines and Airforce, as well as other countries, if there's an issue like this that comes up, most of the fighter capability of the US and allied military air power seems like it would be out of commission.

 

That's always the risk. For air forces with a single type even more so. 

 

If the need is great enough the risk is swallowed and flying and fighting goes on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ken Cartwright said:

Interesting, it's not just an O2 issue, it sounds like the whole system is having issues.  An "over-pressurization" problem was not what I was expecting.

 

This line brings up one of my concerns with the F-35:

 

As a result, the bulk of the Navy’s strike fighter force was effectively out of action for almost four days.

 

I wonder if the Aussies have the same problem, ie: is it a Super hornet issues or a USN issue

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, martin_sam_2000 said:

I wonder if the Aussies have the same problem, ie: is it a Super hornet issues or a USN issue

 

Given that they fly identical aircraft, I'm guessing they are impacted by this issue as well.  

 

Despite that overly dramatic article from such a respected source as The National Interest, this really isn't the end of the world.  Aircraft are incredibly complex machines and occasionally have problems.  Occasionally, the decision is made to ground a fleet until either the problem is fixed or it's understood well enough to allow operations to resume.  The F-22 had major problems with it's O2 system that may have cost the life of one of it's pilots and took years to identify and resolve.  Despite all that, it's still going strong.   An F-35 burned to a crisp a few years back, resulting in a fleet-wide grounding and long term flight restrictions until a fix could be fielded.  The F-35 is still plodding along as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, martin_sam_2000 said:

I wonder if the Aussies have the same problem, ie: is it a Super hornet issues or a USN issue

 

Sean

 

It was a super hornet/Growler issue. One version I saw said it was a every type of hornet issue (A-F but can't confirm) How other nations reacted, IE if they are tighter on safety depends on the nation/service. The US Navy tends to be more anal retentive about safety

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 4:59 AM, Gordon Shumway said:

According to my book called "Arrow" specs for Arrow variants were as follows:

 

Arrow 2 with Orenda Iroquois Engines had a range high speed of 264 miles  max. range 408 miles.

 

Arrow 2A with Orenda Iroquois 2 Engines high speed range was 575 miles and max. range of 787 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

Arrow 3 with Orenda Iroquois 3 Engines high speed range  was 487 miles and a max. range of 593 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

CF-101B Voodoo had a nominal range of 1,520 nautical miles.

 

Looking through my beautiful book on  the Arrow and I will say this, it was one of the most beautiful jet interceptors ever made. It was a class act, high tech marvel and would have served the RCAF ably. Canadians should be proud of what AVRO made in the Arrow, but again the CF-101B Voodoos proved just as capable and cheaper with as I said longer legs.

 

I will cherish my  book on the Arrow and Canadians should always be proud of her. 

 

And they hadn't even selected, much less, paid for a weapons system. The Iroquois definitely should have been kept and developed. The USAF had interest in the engine. The rest of the jet was better off set aside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the chart showing the range of different mark of arrows specs , and it  lists the  range as combat radius at high speed, that would be not at cruise speed  of mach. 91 but at mach 1.5  which would make a significant fuel consumption rate. Thus the short combat radius and range  from base, cruise range would be a farther distance at a slower speed. The Voodoo as a comparison cruise speed is mach .83 with a combat radius of 550-600 miles , this is not at a high speed and the fuel consumption is much higher a higher mach speeds. The posted range for the  Voodoo is probably max range at cruise speed or ferry range. What does the F35  and super hornet range compare considering engine technology is vastly improved since the 50s 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-12-13 at 2:44 AM, -Neu- said:

 

No, that sort of view has been allowed to propagate, and its to the detriment of us actually understanding what's going on today. First off, our aviation industry is the Fifth largest in the world. We are a world leader in landing gear assemblies (heroux devtek), carbon fibre structures (Magellan), turboprop engines (P&W Canada) and top line aircraft simulators (CAE).So the claim that "we'll never catch up" is complete BS. 

 

 

I know we debated this before and you are well educated in this area.

 

There was an exodus from the aviation industry after the Arrow was cancelled. There is no debating we are fifth in the world, I ask where would we be if we didn't have that set-back?

 

My father was part of the Arrow program. He played soccer on the same team as all the leading engineers and test pilots. He knew them well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-12-21 at 2:59 AM, Gordon Shumway said:

According to my book called "Arrow" specs for Arrow variants were as follows:

 

Arrow 2 with Orenda Iroquois Engines had a range high speed of 264 miles  max. range 408 miles.

 

Arrow 2A with Orenda Iroquois 2 Engines high speed range was 575 miles and max. range of 787 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

Arrow 3 with Orenda Iroquois 3 Engines high speed range  was 487 miles and a max. range of 593 miles. (with optional drop tanks)

 

CF-101B Voodoo had a nominal range of 1,520 nautical miles.

 

Looking through my beautiful book on  the Arrow and I will say this, it was one of the most beautiful jet interceptors ever made. It was a class act, high tech marvel and would have served the RCAF ably. Canadians should be proud of what AVRO made in the Arrow, but again the CF-101B Voodoos proved just as capable and cheaper with as I said longer legs.

 

I will cherish my  book on the Arrow and Canadians should always be proud of her. 

 

 

I spoke with my dad about the range debate yesterday (Xmas Day).  He said there were plans to increase the range on subsequent builds by increasing fuel capacity and tinkering with engine design.

 

They didn't have true numbers with the Orenda engine yet, just estimates.

 

The Arrow was still very much in the design stage. My dad says this was true with the Voodoo too at this time. The numbers for the Voodoo being quoted in this thread are final production numbers. His opinion is the Voodoo numbers were likely very close at the same stage of production as when the Arrow was cancelled.

 

He also said speed was critical in these days (or so the thinking was). The pilots knew they were on one way trips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Cool info Scooby. But we will never know  about this  stuff  on the Arrow as it never came to service. I think most Canadians and notably aviation  fans be they Canadian  and others  will agree the CF-105 Arrow  would have become a  great  interceptor. It's myth is  greater than its reality was though. But the RCAF would have used it ably for  many years.  This said we probably would never have been able to buy  and keep very many as it was   just  so expensive and  likely would  have  grown more expensive with the lack of likely foreign  sales. The USA manufacturers were  just more  able to  produce  aircraft to suit our and all other friendly/NATO nation's  needs.   But I would loved to be able to say here that Arrows served  ably in our RCAF  for  many years. It was a GREAT PLANE! for its short life.

 

That said IMO CF-101B and CF-104s were really good choices for RCAF service as both platforms served  25+ years each in our air force  for NORAD and  NATO service. Hind sight being 20/20 though Canada could have done better all be it more expensive by  buying into the F-4 Phantom programme, except doing so would have likely meant    Canada  never getting  the contract   build  what ? 250+ CF-104's  and that would have been more lost jobs. I doubt McDonnell Douglas would have  signed up to let Canada  build F-4's for our  air force and even for other NATO forces  as Lockheed did with CF-104's.

 

That said it would have been interesting to have seen CF-4 Phantoms in RCAF service.

Edited by Gordon Shumway
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/12/2016 at 0:20 PM, Gordon Shumway said:

 Cool info Scooby. But we will never know  about this  stuff  on the Arrow as it never came to service. I think most Canadians and notably aviation  fans be they Canadian  and others  will agree the CF-105 Arrow  would have become a  great  interceptor. It's myth is  greater than its reality was though. But the RCAF would have used it ably for  many years.  This said we probably would never have been able to buy  and keep very many as it was   just  so expensive and  likely would  have  grown more expensive with the lack of likely foreign  sales. The USA manufacturers were  just more  able to  produce  aircraft to suit our and all other friendly/NATO nation's  needs.   But I would loved to be able to say here that Arrows served  ably in our RCAF  for  many years. It was a GREAT PLANE! for its short life.

 

That said IMO CF-101B and CF-104s were really good choices for RCAF service as both platforms served  25+ years each in our air force  for NORAD and  NATO service. Hind sight being 20/20 though Canada could have done better all be it more expensive by  buying into the F-4 Phantom programme, except doing so would have likely meant    Canada  never getting  the contract   build  what ? 250+ CF-104's  and that would have been more lost jobs. I doubt McDonnell Douglas would have  signed up to let Canada  build F-4's for our  air force and even for other NATO forces  as Lockheed did with CF-104's.

 

That said it would have been interesting to have seen CF-4 Phantoms in RCAF service.

I hace met so many people who think the arrow was the ultimate fighter plane that could almost anything, like its kind in other airforces it would done its 20+years as an inceptor and no more, out of the century series of interceptors and what the RAF used not many strayed from there purpose of design. The F104 was picked to replace F86s in the tactical roll even it was a nuclear one, RCAF original choice was the F105, but they wanted to built here, until our government wanted GE to build the P&W J75 here. In the end the government had to get orenda to make J79 for 104s to their embarrassment. If our airforce was not so close to the USAF we might have considered the F4 , as it was a navy plane at that time

Link to post
Share on other sites

 seafuryfb,

 

The Thud would definitely have been a better fast, strike fighter for the RCAF  at our Nato bases in Europe at the time. But it was more costly above the stuff you noted here. The F-104 was ably peddled by Lockheed and the US government of the day as a  near perfect  at that time export fighter for its Nato allies and  served well in many Nato air arms at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I never knew the RCAF was considering the F-105. i knew about the F-14 as well as the F-15 mainly because I have seen photos with RCAF markings on them during evaluations I would recon.

 

Anyway an F-105 in marking similar to what the CF-101 wore would be pretty cool. I have some extra CF-101 sheets so maybe I can put one of my Monogram F-105F kits on the drawing board to do a what-if or what-could-have been project. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I know the last guy to fly the CF-100 Canuck. He got a ride in a two seater 105. Loved it. Apparently the shear POWER was amazing. Of course I would have rather seen the CF-110 (CF-4)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, skyhawk174 said:

Wow, I nevelarw the RCAF was considering the  F-105. i knew about the F-14 as well as the F-15 mainly because I have seen photos with RCAF markings on them during evaluations I would recon.

 

Anyway an F-105 in marking similar to what the CF-101 wore would be pretty cool. I have some extra CF-101 sheets so maybe I can put one of my Monogram F-105F kits on the drawing board to do a what-if or what-could-have been project. 

I have a picture of a 50s promo model F105 in RCAF markings, it was at CFB Trenton museum it was silver with the olive green upper like bare metal/silver Finish. I would think that it we be in markings similar to F104s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadair was approached by the USMC in the early 60s to manufacture the Phantom, but with Spey engines. This was before the British did exactly that. My only guess as to why the USMC wanted Speyed Phantoms was the better low altitude and acceleration performance the Spey allowed over the J-79s, was that they were wanting to operate the Phantom from the smaller USN carriers.
The Phantom was the #1 choice of the RCAF in the late 60s, with some of their evaluation pilots favouring the A-7. Instead, the F-5 was picked as it was the least expensive and we could get more of them for the same amount of money.
We then proceeded to build them at Canadair, at a cost near what a stock F-4 would have been to buy, and then park them in storage as we didn't actually have a role for them, then upgraded them in the early 90s to near-Hornet systems, only to put them into storage as we didn't have the budget to operate them.
Sometimes the best buy doesn't work out that way.

 

Alvis 3.1
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

Canadair was approached by the USMC in the early 60s to manufacture the Phantom, but with Spey engines. This was before the British did exactly that. My only guess as to why the USMC wanted Speyed Phantoms was the better low altitude and acceleration performance the Spey allowed over the J-79s, was that they were wanting to operate the Phantom from the smaller USN carriers.
The Phantom was the #1 choice of the RCAF in the late 60s, with some of their evaluation pilots favouring the A-7. Instead, the F-5 was picked as it was the least expensive and we could get more of them for the same amount of money.
We then proceeded to build them at Canadair, at a cost near what a stock F-4 would have been to buy, and then park them in storage as we didn't actually have a role for them, then upgraded them in the early 90s to near-Hornet systems, only to put them into storage as we didn't have the budget to operate them.
Sometimes the best buy doesn't work out that way.

 

Alvis 3.1
 

I feel like this is all canadian military procurment in a nutshell. Sad, but it seems tonwork sometimes. 

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

Canadair was approached by the USMC in the early 60s to manufacture the Phantom, but with Spey engines. This was before the British did exactly that. My only guess as to why the USMC wanted Speyed Phantoms was the better low altitude and acceleration performance the Spey allowed over the J-79s, was that they were wanting to operate the Phantom from the smaller USN carriers.
The Phantom was the #1 choice of the RCAF in the late 60s, with some of their evaluation pilots favouring the A-7. Instead, the F-5 was picked as it was the least expensive and we could get more of them for the same amount of money.
We then proceeded to build them at Canadair, at a cost near what a stock F-4 would have been to buy, and then park them in storage as we didn't actually have a role for them, then upgraded them in the early 90s to near-Hornet systems, only to put them into storage as we didn't have the budget to operate them.
Sometimes the best buy doesn't work out that way.

 

Alvis 3.1
 

True, but Botswana  got a heck of a good deal. Does not that make Canadian  tax payers happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...