Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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!
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 bombI 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.
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-104This 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
Weren't virtually all F-101 (and derivatives) only equipped to carry missiles (including nuke-tipped)?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
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.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
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.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.
F-35A (assuming that's the model Canada will buy) has a 1,300 mile range - but Canada also has a few of these:But now you are getting the F-35 - ahm... range?
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.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?
Yes, but the issue was about "internal fuel" and even a Saab 37, Tornado or a BAC Lightning can be air refueledF-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
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 shownYes, but the issue was about "internal fuel" and even a Saab 37 or Tornado can be air refueled
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.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
USA and Britain developed practical air to air refueling after WW2I 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
Yes and into the 30s as well.That was certainly its operational deployment, though experiments dated back to 1925(?)
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.