# How to get Phantom II into RCAF service instead of CF-101, 104 and 116?



## Admiral Beez (Apr 15, 2022)

I’ve often thought that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II would have done well in Canadian service in place of the CF-101 Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-116 Freedom Fighter. There are some challenges, unit cost being top of mind of course, especially as many of the Voodoos were bought second hand on the cheap. Also, the Starfighters and Freedom Fighters were assembled in Canada, creating jobs and financial offsets. There’s also the matter that only the NORAD-focused Voodoo needed two aircrew, meaning that the ETO-focused squadrons would need double the aircrew. The biggest matter is timing, as without a replacement the RCAF will be flying the increasingly obsolete CF-100 Canuck and CL-13 Sabre into the 1960s.

So, given the above, how do we get the Phantom into RCAF service instead of the Voodoo, Starfighter and Freedom Fighter?







Maybe start by kiboshing the pricey Avro CF-105 Arrow project by the Canadian subsidiary of the UK's Hawker-Siddeley Group before it got started? That program alone cost CAD $400 million, or $3.7 billion today (in the 1960s a F-4E cost about CAD $2.5 million). To keep some aerospace jobs in Canada the Phantom could be assembled in Canada, like in the UK and Japan - though the top Canadian engineers will still likely leave for NASA, etc. as they did when the Arrow program was canceled.

Had Canada got the Phantom do we think they’d still get the CF-18 Hornet in the 1980s? Other NATO and Allied players kept their Phantoms well into the 1990s, including Greece, Germany, Japan and Britain.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2022)

First we need one of these............................

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> So, given the above, how do we get the Phantom into RCAF service instead of the Voodoo, Starfighter and Freedom Fighter?


In hindsight? Start here...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 15, 2022)

Mo money, mo money, mo money.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In hindsight? Start here...
> 
> View attachment 664918


A troublesome PM who tore apart the CAF, but to be fair PET wasn’t PM until 1968, likely a few years (but worrisomely close) after the necessary introduction of whatever replaces the CL-15 and CF-100. Germany and others did receive their Phantoms around 1968-70, but hopefully Canada’s commitment to Phantoms would be firm with initial aircraft delivered before PET becomes PM in 1968.

And more fairness; Trudeau‘s government (1968-79, 80-84) did oversee some significant procurement for the Canadian Forces, including the CF-18 Hornet, CC-130 Hercules, CP-140 Aurora, CH-47 Chinook, the Iroquois class guided missile destroyers, the Protecteur class AORs, Leopard I MBT, M109 howitzer (begun under Pearson), M113 APC, and the Colt Canada C7 rifle. Yes, PET deserves to be derisively remembered for scrapping the newly refitted HMCS Bonaventure, buying the cheapo CF-116, playing uniform tailor and amalgamating the services, but he wasn’t the worst PM the forces has had. That honour arguably goes to his son and his dithering on the F-35, CSC, etc. Mind you, Chrétien and Harper didn’t do much better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 15, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> First we need one of these............................
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 664914


Well yes, reflecting on any historical fork in the road requires a time machine. But we’re not outside the realm of possibilities. The US introduced the Phantoms in 1962, followed by Allies before the end of the decade, and the CF-100 as it was soldiered on into the 1980s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2022)

I think the US would have been ok seeing Canada as an F-4 operator but Trudeau's anti NATO rhetoric in the late 60s and early 70s as well as his relationship with Nixon squashed any hope of that happening. 

The key was having the airframe of a portion of it built in Canada, something that Lockheed and Northrop offered. This is an interesting article from 2013:

_Moving into the mid-1960s, the RCAF was under fiscal restraint and was not able to acquire all the Voodoos and Starfighters required to replace the phased-out Canucks and Sabres. In 1965 a competition was announced for a lightweight fighter.* The aircraft that the RCAF preferred, the F-4 Phantom, was far from a lightweight and the government chose the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter, to be designated as the CF-116. Again the government insisted on a license agreement and most of the 115 CF-116s were built by Canadair.*_









A procurement problem - Wings Magazine


The storm of controversy that has arisen around the CF-18 replacement project and the ongoing delays with the CH-148 Cyclone are but the latest chapters in a play that has been running since Confederation.




www.wingsmagazine.com





In this article, it mentions that the RCAF wanted to F-105 for it's NATO mission in Europe, interesting!

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Apr 15, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In this article, it mentions that the RCAF wanted to F-105 for it's NATO mission in Europe, interesting!


The F-105 would have made much more sense for the ETO low level strike role the CF-104 was assigned to.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 17, 2022)

Following the cancellation of the TSR-2 and the F-111K, there was an urgent need to not only acquire a more modern fighter for the RAF but also to maximize the British content. For the they F-4K used Spey turbofan engines rather than J-79's and British avionics. There were explanations of how much better the Spey would be than the J-79 and how it might be adopted in the later American F-4's, but in reality it was a major mistake. In the words of Bill Gunston, the RAF ended up with the slowest, shortest ranged, and most expensive F-4's in the world. When they need to some more to defend the Falklands after evicting the Argentines in the mid-80's, they gave no thought to building more of those monstrosities and bought surplus USN F-4J's instead. RAF pilots had to be warned that the J-79 equipped Phantom II was a whole 'nuther animal and if they tried to fly them like a K they risked going into orbit.

Read an interesting piece about the CF-5 (note, the C stood for the Canadian dollar which was what it was all about). A former RCAF pilot who flew them said that it had no manuever flaps and no radar, which made them little more than toys, and dangerous toys at that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> Read an interesting piece about the CF-5 (note, the C stood for the Canadian dollar which was what it was all about). A former RCAF pilot who flew them said that it had no manuever flaps and no radar, which made them little more than toys, and dangerous toys at that.


In the 1980s I spent 5 years working with the CAF and worked with several pilot who flew CF-5s and was told quite the opposite. Sure, they wanted something more advanced but it was decided that what ever aircraft the CAF chose at the time, Canada wanted their own production line and they got that from Northrop.

The pilots I've worked with who flew the CF-5 loved it for it's simplicity and it's handling, and I heard the same thing from American pilots as well. I briefly worked on F-5s in Botswana and it was a great little aircraft if someone wanted a "low budget" fighter/ fighter bomber.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2022)

The F-5 may have been entry-level but it sure looked top tier. I would have loved to have seen the F-20 in service instead of in commercials.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 17, 2022)

Hey Snautzer01, you have a picture of an F-5 around? T-38s are fine. In Canadian livery, of course!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2022)

Here's a pic of me in Botswana - they flew CF-5s, at the time I was there they were very clean and well maintained.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 18, 2022)

Here is one view of the CF-5.



And an explanation of how it got that way:









The Royal Canadian Air Force, Paul Hellyer, and the CF-5


DND photo PCN77-118 CD 108 IMAGE 0056 Introduction History has not been kind to Paul Hellyer. Canadian airmen, in particular, have few good things to say about him. In addition to being responsible for ending the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) as an independent service, Hellyer’s role in...




forums.spacebattles.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## AMCKen (Apr 18, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In hindsight? Start here...
> 
> View attachment 664918


WOW! You really posted this?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2022)

AMCKen said:


> WOW! You really posted this?


Sure - why not? I've seen a lot worse!!!! Would it have it been better if I posted Rene Levesque getting hit by a train?


----------



## AMCKen (Apr 18, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sure - why not? I've seen a lot worse!!!! Would it have it been better if I posted Rene Levesque getting hit by a train?


Maybe someone should post a picture of you with a dot on your forehead.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2022)

AMCKen said:


> Maybe someone should post a picture of you with a dot on your forehead.


If they did I want it painted red and blood oozing out of it!!!

It was obviously a joke - I'm sorry you're butt-hurt!

Please govern yourself accordingly - cyberspace is very lonely this time of year!


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 18, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sure - why not? I've seen a lot worse!!!! Would it have it been better if I posted Rene Levesque getting hit by a train?


I would like that! I don't even know who he is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I would like that! I don't even know who he is.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Apr 18, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> The F-105 would have made much more sense for the ETO low level strike role the CF-104 was assigned to.


How so? In terms of penetration capability (Speed/Range/Load, for Nuke Strike) and the systems on board (The only major difference being Doppler Nav on the F-105, and an INS in the F-104G/CF-104 , there wasn't a whole lot to choose from. The 105 was bigger, more expensive, had a better conventional capability, a pretty air air-air capability, and could be mid-air refueled. But the Canadians didn't go for any of that - No tankers, no conventional or air-air capability whatsoever (Not even a gunsight). Would the Thud, or even a normal F-104G have been better? Most likely, but that's not what Ottawa wanted to buy.


----------



## PStickney (Apr 18, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> Following the cancellation of the TSR-2 and the F-111K, there was an urgent need to not only acquire a more modern fighter for the RAF but also to maximize the British content. For the they F-4K used Spey turbofan engines rather than J-79's and British avionics. There were explanations of how much better the Spey would be than the J-79 and how it might be adopted in the later American F-4's, but in reality it was a major mistake. In the words of Bill Gunston, the RAF ended up with the slowest, shortest ranged, and most expensive F-4's in the world. When they need to some more to defend the Falklands after evicting the Argentines in the mid-80's, they gave no thought to building more of those monstrosities and bought surplus USN F-4J's instead. RAF pilots had to be warned that the J-79 equipped Phantom II was a whole 'nuther animal and if they tried to fly them like a K they risked going into orbit.
> 
> Read an interesting piece about the CF-5 (note, the C stood for the Canadian dollar which was what it was all about). A former RCAF pilot who flew them said that it had no manuever flaps and no radar, which made them little more than toys, and dangerous toys at that.


What do you get when you Spey a Phantom? It gets fat, slow and clumsy.
In addition, the afterburning Speys had their own set of problems that took a fair amount of time, energy, and sweat to sort out - very much like the TF30, although the Spey's problems were kept less visible to the public.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2022)

PStickney said:


> How so? In terms of penetration capability (Speed/Range/Load, for Nuke Strike) and the systems on board (The only major difference being Doppler Nav on the F-105, and an INS in the F-104G/CF-104 , there wasn't a whole lot to choose from. The 105 was bigger, more expensive, had a better conventional capability, a pretty air air-air capability, and could be mid-air refueled. But the Canadians didn't go for any of that - No tankers, no conventional or air-air capability whatsoever (Not even a gunsight). Would the Thud, or even a normal F-104G have been better? Most likely, *but that's not what Ottawa wanted to buy.*


But it's what the RCAF wanted but I guess the politicians knew better!

_"The RCAF preferred the F-105 Thunderchief, but the government chose the F-104 Starfighter based on Lockheed's proposal to build the aircraft in Canada in collaboration with Canadair."_









A procurement problem - Wings Magazine


The storm of controversy that has arisen around the CF-18 replacement project and the ongoing delays with the CH-148 Cyclone are but the latest chapters in a play that has been running since Confederation.




www.wingsmagazine.com





I think Canada would have been the only foreign operator of the F-105 approved by the US DoD


----------



## MIflyer (Apr 19, 2022)

PStickney said:


> In addition, the afterburning Speys had their own set of problems


The TF-30 was troublesome but the TF-41 Spey copy was a disaster when put in the USAF A-7D. I got sent to MBAFB in October 1975 to put their A-7D's back in the air and the ultimate cause was the TF-41 problems. At that time the base had 80 A-7D's and only 37 engines. Based on what I heard at OC-ALC it appears that AFLC refused to realize that the Allison version of the Spey, was, just like the British version, designed to be custom assembled, using parts stacked up and match drilled for each individual engine. Trying to take them apart and run them through depot maintenance as if all parts were interchangeable was disastrous. The USN used the TF-41 in its A-7E for over a decade longer than the Air Force, so they must have done the overhauls correctly.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

