Where could European aviation be today had political agendas not prevented such an aviation industry arising in the 60's

[Admiral Beez]

OK got ya but the CF-101 was never used in that role. The CF-101 never carried any air to ground weapons AFAIK - if I'm wrong, please enlighten me!

I was referring to your note above that no attempt was made to put bombs on their CF-101s, and that an attempt wasn't necessary since it was a known fighter bomber. Had the RCAF decided to use their CF-101s as bombers they would've just done it, no contemplation necessary.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was referring to your note above that no attempt was made to put bombs on their CF-101s, and that an attempt wasn't necessary since it was a known fighter bomber. Had the RCAF decided to use their CF-101s as bombers they would've just done it, no contemplation necessary.

This is a "would have," "could have," "should have" - we would never know because history didn't present a scenario where this "could have" happened, but I believe in reality, no CF-101 ever dropped a bomb

 

[Jagdflieger]

This might be why…it's a big country.

View attachment 666161

I doubt one could fly the notoriously short ranged Lightning from Cold Lake to the DEW line and back.

View attachment 666188

Thanks for the maps - interesting, but I don't see range as a valid reason. With 900mls the Lighting had more or less the same range as the F-104
The BAC Lightning's radar, avionics and the weapon load was regarded to be questionable/not satisfactorily. Due to only Britain initially purchasing this aircraft I could imagine
that the price was also far more steep then that of a F-104.

These issues show once again that a concerted effort via a consortium is necessary in order to get numbers and $ into ones pockets (to keep developing) if one would have wanted
to challenge the US dominance in the market.

As for the Arrow (most likely the most advanced aircraft of the time) - simply due to it's size, would probably not have been favored by the European NATO members.
I am not sure as to the requirements regarding maintenance and service of this aircraft or it's price - but most likely "extreme"? for the time.

BTW, I just stumbled yesterday onto this TV docu - your favorite aircraft, Enjoy

 

[GrauGeist]

This is a "would have," "could have," "should have" - we would never know because history didn't present a scenario where this "could have" happened, but I believe in reality, no CF-101 ever dropped a bomb

Weren't virtually all F-101 (and derivatives) only equipped to carry missiles (including nuke-tipped)?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thanks for the maps - interesting, but I don't see range as a valid reason. With 900mls the Lighting had more or less the same range as the F-104

You're comparing the wrong birds. The CF-104 was the RCAF's ground attack aircraft in the ETO. For the NORAD distant interceptor role we used the CF-101, with a range of 1,520 miles. The Lightning, especially the early F.3 were much shorter ranged at 800 miles, and that's with large external tanks. To put that into perspective, it's over 900 miles from the RCAF's large interceptor airbase at CFB Cold Lake to the airfield at Canadian Forces Northern Area Headquarters (CFNA HQ) in Yellowknife.

If there's any European fighter tailor made for Canada's NORAD role it's the Tornado F3, though it too is shorter ranged than the Voodoo. Canada was an early partner in the Panavia program and a could have ended up with Tornado IDS in Europe and ADV (F3) in North America. Not a terrible result, though given our government's parsimony we'd likely be flying both into the 2030s.

 

[Jagdflieger]

You're comparing the wrong birds. The CF-104 was the RCAF's ground attack aircraft in the ETO. For the NORAD distant interceptor role we used the CF-101, with a range of 1,520 miles. The Lightning, especially the early F.3 were much shorter ranged at 800 miles, and that's with large external tanks. To put that into perspective, it's over 900 miles from the RCAF's large interceptor airbase at CFB Cold Lake to the airfield at Canadian Forces Northern Area Headquarters (CFNA HQ) in Yellowknife.

If there's any European fighter tailor made for Canada's NORAD role it's the Tornado F3, though it too is shorter ranged than the Voodoo. Canada was an early partner in the Panavia program and a could have ended up with Tornado IDS in Europe and ADV (F3) in North America. Not a terrible result, though given our government's parsimony we'd likely be flying both into the 2030s.

Not really - Canada did not opt for the BAC Lightning for the ETO. Because as you also wrote due to wanting a strike aircraft in the ETO - which the BAC Lighting couldn't perform.
So actually nothing much to do at all with the BAC's range issues.

I am aware about Canada initially being a Panavia member - it would have been a perfect aircraft for Canada - range of the MRCA variant is 1600mls (internal fuel) and the IDS version 2200mls (internal fuel).
But now you are getting the F-35 - ahm... range?

But please help me on this: AFAIK Canada had around 240 CF-104's, out of which "only" at maximum 80-100 operated in Europe - if that is the case, where did the other 140-160 fly around or were stationed at?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

But now you are getting the F-35 - ahm... range?

F-35A (assuming that's the model Canada will buy) has a 1,300 mile range - but Canada also has a few of these:

Source; The internet

 

[Admiral Beez]

But please help me on this: AFAIK Canada had around 240 CF-104's, out of which "only" at maximum 80-100 operated in Europe - if that is the case, where did the other 140-160 fly around or were stationed at?

Per Wikipedia only 200 were made. Canadair CF-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia Take into account those sold to other operators and I think the numbers line up.

 

[Jagdflieger]

F-35A (assuming that's the model Canada will buy) has a 1,300 mile range - but Canada also has a few of these:

View attachment 666248

Source; The internet

Yes, but the issue was about "internal fuel" and even a Saab 37, Tornado or a BAC Lightning can be air refueled

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yes, but the issue was about "internal fuel" and even a Saab 37 or Tornado can be air refueled

Back then it was - you brought up Canada and the F-35 meaning "the present" so it's obvious range (of lack there of) will more than likely not be an issue with the RCAF and the F-35 as shown

 

[Jagdflieger]

Back then it was - you brought up Canada and the F-35 meaning "the present" so it's obvious range (of lack there of) will more than likely not be an issue with the RCAF and the F-35 as shown

I was actually refering to the BAC Lightning supposed lack of range issue - wouldn't have been an issue if a tanker had been procured from the British together with the BAC.
Anyone knows when the Brits, French or the USA went into air-refueling?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was actually refering to the BAC Lightning supposed lack of range issue - wouldn't have been an issue if a tanker had been procured from the British together with the BAC.
Anyone knows when the Brits, French or the USA went into air-refueling?

USA and Britain developed practical air to air refueling after WW2

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

USA and Britain developed practical air to air refueling after WW2

That was certainly its operational deployment, though experiments dated back to 1925(?)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That was certainly its operational deployment, though experiments dated back to 1925(?)

Yes and into the 30s as well.

 

[Shortround6]

Practical was NOT this.

Things got better quickly

June 27th 1923

But aside from record breaking and experiments it took until the late 30s to see any use made of it in a scheduled commercial flight.

" From August 5 to October 1, 1939, sixteen crossings of the Atlantic were made by Empire flying boats, with fifteen crossings using FRL's aerial refueling system.[14]​ After the sixteen crossings further trials were suspended due to the outbreak of World War II.[15]"​

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If my memory is working half-assed decent, Carl Spaatz and Ira Eaker were both involved in these experiments. I'm busy with a beer and so ain't gonna appeal to Wiki, and if I'm wrong I'll take my lumps.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I always thought it odd that both France and Sweden could have robust and competitive postwar fighter programs but Britain, for the most part could not.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sweden has always kept an iron in the fire.

 

[Shortround6]

Sweden didn't try to deliberately wreck it's aircraft industry in the late 1950s the 1960s.

Some of the leaders of the British government were trying to blame some of the British economic woes of the time on spending too much money on defense and costly aircraft projects.

Britain did have too many airframe manufactures and perhaps too many engine makers but instead of letting the market sort out some of them they tried to have their cake and eat it too. In order to even place a bid proposals on a number of projects companies had to merge with another company. This cut down the number of "companies" but not the number of factories/workers as quickly. Of course in British fashion they refused to order more than prototypes of the resulting planes meaning that the merged companies made no money on the canceled projects. This cycle went thru several go-rounds until it looked like there was going to be one airframe make left and one engine maker. Then the brilliant minds in government finally realized they helped create monopolies.
They had also hamstrung a lot of the effort to sell aircraft to overseas buyers by refusing to buy any for England.

Customer to English salesman.
" If the Star Jupiter XX is so wonderful how come the RAF isn't buying any? The Americans are buying their own Longhorn/Bison 300. What is actually wrong with the Star Jupiter XX?"

With the empire shrinking British aerospace could not depend on ex colonies buying British for old times sake. The Government took too long to figure that out.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This cycle went thru several go-rounds until it looked like there was going to be one airframe make left and one engine maker. Then the brilliant minds in government finally realized they helped create monopolies.

This is a concern, I think. We're down to three major manufacturers.