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

[PStickney]

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]

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]

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]

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.