Why didn't Canada use F-106 Delta Dart?

[buffnut453]

Not entirely relevant to the thread, but back in my RAF days we used to joke that the Jaguar had 2 engines so that if one engine failed the other engine could ensure the aircraft reached the scene of the crash.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm sure you are right. Northrop also got caught on bribery dealing with South Korea.

I wonder about Canada's licence to build Northrop F-5. It didn't offer much capability to an airforce already operating the F-101 and F-104.

 

[davparlr]

Offering to build whole or part of an aircraft in a buying country is not considered bribery. It is done all the time and is considered offsetting the cost. Giving money or other benefit to a procuring officer for personal benefit is called bribery. As for the F-5, it is an inexpensive, reliable, low maintenance, low operating cost, fighter, quite capable of holding its own against more expensive contemporary fighters such as the F-4 in typical day VFR, conditions, in combat. In addition, when operating with Sparrow or AMRAAM missiles, it has all-weather capability. It also has a potent air-to-ground capability. A good buy for the money made it a very successful aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Beautiful aircraft. One of my favorites and one of two I would have loved to fly, the F-8 the other. Unfortunately all were in the Air National Guard. This plane will go supersonic with wing tanks. It could also supercruise.

I've posted on other threads about my father in law's experience flying this aircraft, he loved it. During dis-similar aircraft combat exercises he bagged an F-15!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wonder about Canada's licence to build Northrop F-5. It didn't offer much capability to an airforce already operating the F-101 and F-104.

I'm not picking on you but NOT TRUE! The F-5 was a wonderful aircraft - easily flown, cost effective to maintain and operate and the CF-5s had an avionics suite similar to the F-18 in their later life. Drop bombs or dogfight, the F-5 could do both well. I worked on CF-5s that were given to the Botswana Defense Force and they were clean, well maintained machines.

 

[Admiral Beez]

What options did Canada have over the F-101?

I imagine had we held out a little longer with the Canuck we'd have F-4 Phantoms, at least for NORAD if not in the CF-104's nuclear strike role. Meaning we'd likely never get the F-18A in the early 1980s and instead join the British, Germans, Greeks, Japanese, Israelis, etc. operating the Phantom into the 1990s. Maybe we'd replace the F-4 with later F-18 variants.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What options did Canada have over the F-101?

I imagine had we held out a little longer with the Canuck we'd have F-4 Phantoms, at least for NORAD if not in the CF-104's nuclear strike role. Meaning we'd likely never get the F-18A in the early 1980s and instead join the British, Germans, Greeks, Japanese, Israelis, etc. operating the Phantom into the 1990s. Maybe we'd replace the F-4 with later F-18 variants.

I think Trudeau (the first one) wanted F-4s which IMO would have been a great choice, but IIRC he pissed off Johnson or Nixon, they told him to pound sand.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Interesting...

"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."

Now I don't know the validity in this...

"In 1957, Diefenbaker committed Canada to NORAD without consulting either his cabinet or Parliament – a decision that led directly to the cancellation of the Avro Arrow.

With Canada's aviation dream shattered, the RCAF was forced to accept the American F-101 Voodoo (an aircraft it had previously turned down in favour of the Arrow) to replace the Canuck with a supersonic interceptor. In Europe, the RCAF's duties expanded to include delivery of tactical nuclear weapons at the same time consideration was being given to a replacement for the Sabre. 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. Canadair built 200 Starfighters for the RCAF as well as sections of 104s destined for the German Luftwaffe."

A procurement problem - Wings Magazine

Having worked for Lockheed, I can tell you that "production offset" (allowing a foreign customer produce part or all of a procured airframe) has always been a marketing strategy. It was done with great success on the CP-140 program.

 

[nuuumannn]

but back in my RAF days we used to joke that the Jaguar had 2 engines so that if one engine failed the other engine could ensure the aircraft reached the scene of the crash.

A Jaguar pilot once said to me that he thought the Jaguar was the only aircraft that counted its take-off run in its combat radius...

 

[Admiral Beez]

The one Canadian jet fighter I would have liked to have seen a replacement for was options for a non-A-4 Skyhawk successor to the McDonnell F2H Banshee.



Assuming, and that's a big if, that a fleet defence fighter role was deemed necessary in this ASW era of the RCN, I'd opt for something supersonic yet compact, like the Grumman F-11 Tiger. If Lockheed's F-104 can be beat, the later AIM-7 Sparrow capable Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger could have served both the RCAF and RCN. That would have been something exciting to see on Bonnie. But I'm venturing into fantasy now, since everyone seemed to use A-4s (or Hawker Sea Hawks) on their Majestic/Colossus class.

 

[davparlr]

Maybe the carriers were too short for fighter performance aircraft. The F11F-1F was an impressive aircraft with better performance than the F8U and a bit lighter but the F8U was already available. I suspect the Canadians felt the carriers were too short or did not think they needed that level of performance from their aircraft.

 

[davparlr]

I've posted on other threads about my father in law's experience flying this aircraft, he loved it. During dis-similar aircraft combat exercises he bagged an F-15!

From what I've read pilots loved the F-106. I'll look for your post.

 

[Crimea_River]

The one Canadian jet fighter I would have liked to have seen a replacement for was options for a non-A-4 Skyhawk successor to the McDonnell F2H Banshee.

Assuming, and that's a big if, that a fleet defence fighter role was deemed necessary in this ASW era of the RCN, I'd opt for something supersonic yet compact......

You need a fleet to need fleet defense. And with no carriers after the 60's a replacement for the Banshee would have been a non-starter.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You need a fleet to need fleet defense. And with no carriers after the 60's a replacement for the Banshee would have been a non-starter.

I know, though to be fair the RCN of the 1960s was much larger than it is today. This site is a great resource on the RCN and all things battleship, etc. Canadian Navy of Yesterday and Today

Still, it makes one wonder why the RCN bothered with the Banshee and its AIM-9 upgrade - what role was it intended for?

It must have been a fun time to be a RCN aviator. But IDK, with a loss rate of over 30%, including drowning one pilot, perhaps not. This jet is obsolete already, but looks sweet here.

Some good info here Harold A. Skaarup Web page

 

[GreenKnight121]

As for the F-5, it is an inexpensive, reliable, low maintenance, low operating cost, fighter, quite capable of holding its own against more expensive contemporary fighters such as the F-4 in typical day VFR, conditions, in combat. In addition, when operating with Sparrow or AMRAAM missiles, it has all-weather capability. It also has a potent air-to-ground capability. A good buy for the money made it a very successful aircraft.

Sorry, until some of the modernization programs in the 1990s and later, no F-5 could operate either the Sparrow or the AMRAAM - if they even could after the modernizations!

You must also remember that the 1960s F-5s (F-5A, F-5B) WERE ground-attack primarily, with very minimal air-air capability... their simple radar lacked any air-air mode whatsoever. It was not until the F-5E of 1972 that there was an F-5 with a real air-air radar - and that was designed for only guns and WVR (AIM-9 Sidewinder) missiles!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

F-106, despite being single-engined, had 15 losses in first 90.000 hours, compared to 17 for the F-4. In the first 213.000 hours, it had 26 losses, compared to 44 for the F-4. It can be seen that the more complex F-4 had worse loss rate than the F-106 despite having two engines, and while F-106s loss rate improved, F-4s grew worse.

There's a curveball here. In its early years, the F4 was a carrier based Navy aircraft, USAF came later. The F4 was the heaviest, fastest fighter the Navy's flight decks had seen to date, with the attendant loss rate. It didn't have the luxury of operating from two-miles-long runways. Apples to oranges comparison. So, many of those losses could be attributed to other causes than the reliability of the twin engine configuration. For a nugget fighter pilot, it was a really big step from the TF9J in advanced training to the F4B in the RAG squadron. In the early days, only experienced pilots were transitioned into the F4, as existing squadrons changed over their aircraft types, and the loss rate wasn't too, too bad. Then they started getting nuggets straight out of flight school, and the accident rate went up dramatically. In the end, they wound up modifying a few planes to give the aft cockpit a set of flight controls for initial transition training. At least that's the way it was told to me by the career Phantom jocks in the RAG, which confirmed what I'd read in Aviation Week back in the day.

 

[davparlr]

Sorry, until some of the modernization programs in the 1990s and later, no F-5 could operate either the Sparrow or the AMRAAM - if they even could after the modernizations!

You must also remember that the 1960s F-5s (F-5A, F-5B) WERE ground-attack primarily, with very minimal air-air capability... their simple radar lacked any air-air mode whatsoever. It was not until the F-5E of 1972 that there was an F-5 with a real air-air radar - and that was designed for only guns and WVR (AIM-9 Sidewinder) missiles!

You are right, I worked on the F-5E Saudi and it had everything put on it including the kitchen sink and it did not provide capability for the AiM-7 and, of course, the AMRAAM didn't exist. Nor, as for as I know as I had moved on to the Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, did Northrop offer any program to include these. It must be noted that the F-16 also was a day VFR fighter unable to carry the AIM 7 until a F-16C block change and advent of the AMRAAM, in 1998, 17 years after the introduction of the F-16. Also, it must be noted that T-38s, F-5As, and F-5Es were used as aggressor aircraft for the Navy's Top Gun and Air Force's Weapons School and acquitted themselves quite well.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I was in Botswana, the folks I dealt with were desperate to get Sidewinders for their CF-5s. At the time they were having border issues with Zimbabwe, they were operating MiG-21s (Chinese built).

 

[davparlr]

There's a curveball here. In its early years, the F4 was a carrier based Navy aircraft, USAF came later. The F4 was the heaviest, fastest fighter the Navy's flight decks had seen to date, with the attendant loss rate. It didn't have the luxury of operating from two-miles-long runways. Apples to oranges comparison. So, many of those losses could be attributed to other causes than the reliability of the twin engine configuration. For a nugget fighter pilot, it was a really big step from the TF9J in advanced training to the F4B in the RAG squadron. In the early days, only experienced pilots were transitioned into the F4, as existing squadrons changed over their aircraft types, and the loss rate wasn't too, too bad. Then they started getting nuggets straight out of flight school, and the accident rate went up dramatically. In the end, they wound up modifying a few planes to give the aft cockpit flight controls for initial transition training. At least that's the way it was told to me by the career Phantom jocks in the RAG, which confirmed what I'd read in Aviation Week back in the day.

Yeah, this would take more analysis, primarily looking at loses due to single engine failures alone. Having grown up about 2 miles from the approach end of RW 7 Sherman field, Pensacola NAS, I had been immersed in Naval aviation (SNJs used to scare me when they flew over the house, which was all the time). After the war and into the '50s, Naval aviation had a horrendous reputation for aircraft safety, it seemed that every time the Antietam or the Lexington went out for carrier quals a plane and pilot would be lost. As you said, up until about 1970, the Navys advanced trainer was the TF9F of Korean war vintage. Quite a jump to an F-4. In the 1950s, when the AF advanced trainer was the WW2 era T-33, the AF recognized this problem and developed the T-38 specifically for the century series fighter. The T-38 flew final between 155 and 170 kts, depending on configuration and weight, the F-106 flew final at 178 kts, a few knots faster than the F-104. The Navy has sensed cleaned up its safety performance.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

The Navy has since cleaned up its safety performance.

Large angled decks, mirror landing systems, steam catapults, zero/zero seats, (all British innovations), enhanced flight sims, NATOPS standardized procedures, tech school rather than OJT for support personnel, standardized maintenance control, all have contributed to the safety improvements over the years.

up until about 1970, the Navys advanced trainer was the TF9F of Korean war vintage.

When I got out in 1974, nuggets in the attack pipeline were finishing up Advanced in TA4Fs and J's, but fighter types were still reporting to the F4 RAG out of TF9s.
We briefly hosted a TF9 Advanced squadron for their ordnance delivery phase, because their regular range was tied up by USAF for (we learned later) rehearsals for the Son Tay raid. One of the jets had a flameout right after liftoff, dropped back on the runway, missed the overrun cable, and the crew ejected. The instructor was fine, but the student's parachute lanyard parted during seat separation, and he fell into a mangrove thicket. His body was recovered without a bruise or broken bone; he had died of cardiac arrest when his chute failed to open. The thimble on the parachute lanyard was improperly crimped.