Have the PANAVIA Tornado ADV bought by RCAF instead of F-18 Hornet?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Have the PANAVIA Tornado was chosen by the RCAF instead of the McD F-18 Hornet

What would be the pro's and con's?
With the greater range and payload would it be any better especially in regards to the vast Canadian geography?
What Canadian/US systems, engines, weapons could be added to the Canadian built aircraft?

Much obliged!

 

[CV12Hornet]

Canada was a sign-on to some of the programs that eventually led to the Tornado; they pulled out due to political issues related to manufacturing and the focus on strike in Western Europe. That's tricky to handle if you want a POD there.

During the later competition in 1977 that led to the selection of the CF-18 is tricky as well. The Tornado was eliminated alongside the Tomcat and Eagle on cost grounds - curious, considering the Eagle would prove only barely more expensive to buy than the Hornet.

The greater range and payload would've been useful for Canada.

 

[NORGCO]

View attachment 624491

Have the PANAVIA Tornado was chosen by the RCAF instead of the McD F-18 Hornet

What would be the pro's and con's?
With the greater range and payload would it be any better especially in regards to the vast Canadian geography?
What Canadian/US systems, engines, weapons could be added to the Canadian built aircraft?

Much obliged!

What were the mission priorities? That aught to be the determining factor. Of course I know that Australia bought the F-18 because the politicians set the key requirements that the new plane "Be cheap, inexpensive, and not cost too much" so there is that to consider.

I'm assuming defence against Soviet bombers was a core requirement, if so the Tornado Air Defence Variant is in the same general class as the F-14, ie designed to destroy Soviet bombers as far away from their targets as possible. So the emphasis was on range, radar, a specialist radar operator to run it, and firepower. A decent secondary strike capability was also advertised when they were trying to sell them to the RAAF.

Given that the RCAF was operating the F-5 I might be wrong about those priorities. A early F-14 alternative it wasn't. If you want something for dog-fighting Mig 21's or similar Tornado would not be my first choice. Having never flown one I can't be sure of course.

As to Canadian or American systems replacement, making sure it is compatible with whatever was already in use would seem a standard move, or get a licence to produce locally if that is not workable. Leave the engines alone, they were specifically designed for the Tornado, the radar too I believe. Sorry to be shy on details of this kind.

 

[Riain]

What were the mission priorities? That aught to be the determining factor. Of course I know that Australia bought the F-18 because the politicians set the key requirements that the new plane "Be cheap, inexpensive, and not cost too much" so there is that to consider.

The Hornet was US$35 million, about the same price as an F14 or F15.

 

[Riain]

The 1983 Tornado is a mini F111, Canada needs a multi-role fighter with BVR capability which pretty much makes the Hornet the only option.

To be perfectly honest the Hornet was the best multi-role fighter in the world in the mid 80s, it had BVR and Harpoon capability as well as great all round air to air and air to ground capability.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Given that the RCAF was operating the F-5 I might be wrong about those priorities. A early F-14 alternative it wasn't. If you want something for dog-fighting Mig 21's or similar Tornado would not be my first choice. Having never flown one I can't be sure of course.

The Canadians also had to maintain tactical strike capability for their forces in Europe, which would be what the F-5s would be doing.

 

[Fred the Great]

The Hornet was US$35 million, about the same price as an F14 or F15.

Yeah, I really don’t understand that comment. As I recall, key was that the Hornet had two engines. If we wanted cheap as chips there were other options.

 

[Riain]

Yeah, I really don’t understand that comment. As I recall, key was that the Hornet had two engines. If we wanted cheap as chips there were other options.

The Hornet was cheap for what it could do, but that doesn't make is cheap in absolute terms. It was the only fully developed fighter-bomber with BVR AAM and Harpoon capability in a single configuration. Imagine trying to make the F14/15/16, Mirage 2000 or Tornado do all that in 1983, we'd have to foot the development bill and hope it worked. 2 engines was a requirement as well, but I think it might have been the cream on top that such a capable plane had 2 engines.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I suspect the Hornet also came out more expensive than anticipated. The selection had been before the plane was introduced, after all.

 

[Blue cat]

Canada was a sign-on to some of the programs that eventually led to the Tornado; they pulled out due to political issues related to manufacturing and the focus on strike in Western Europe. That's tricky to handle if you want a POD there.

During the later competition in 1977 that led to the selection of the CF-18 is tricky as well. The Tornado was eliminated alongside the Tomcat and Eagle on cost grounds - curious, considering the Eagle would prove only barely more expensive to buy than the Hornet.

The greater range and payload would've been useful for Canada.

Perhaps Canada also looked at fuel costs (I presume the F15 being a larger air craft with more powerful engines would have used more fuel than the F/A 18 ?)

From comments I read at the time some factions within the Canadian Air force were reportedly in favor of the F15, but I suspect it was more aircraft than Canada really needed and the F/A18 was likely seen as a less expensive (vis a vis overall life cycle costs) choice with greater multi role capability as delivered. I have also read comments after the selection process was completed that the two finalists were the F16 and the F/A18 and the F/A18 was seen as more capable and having more growth potential.

Presumably the ability of the chosen air craft to work with Canada's existing air to air refueling air craft which used the probe and drogue system may also have played a small role in not selecting the F15 ? (My understanding is Canada favored an "off the shelf" buy and I am not aware of the F15 having a refueling probe ?)

My understanding is that once the CF18 was in service the Canadians trialed larger external fuel tanks to increase its ability to fly longer "patrols" for the home air defense role but never adopted them. I believe the NORAD mission typically involved keeping aircraft on ground alert that would have intercepted targets within GCI radar coverage so range may not have been as big an issue as the size of Canada might at first glance lead one to believe.

I agree with the comments made by Riain.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

They'd have to buy a mix of Tornado IDS and ADV. The former to replace the Starfighters in Germany and the latter to replace the Voodoos in Canada. However, they don't want to buy enough aircraft to make that workable. As @Riain wrote.

The 1983 Tornado is a mini F111, Canada needs a multi-role fighter with BVR capability which pretty much makes the Hornet the only option.

To be perfectly honest the Hornet was the best multi-role fighter in the world in the mid 80s, it had BVR and Harpoon capability as well as great all round air to air and air to ground capability.

It's only going to work in a TL where the RCAF/Air Command has been allowed to maintain a larger fighter force. The post-war peak was 21 regular fighter squadrons which consisted of 9 in Air Defence Command and 12 in the First Air Division in Germany. However, by the time the Canadian Government bought the Hornet this had been reduced to 3 Voodoo squadrons in Canada, 3 Starfighter squadrons in Germany and the Freedom Fighter squadrons.

 

[Blue cat]

They'd have to buy a mix of Tornado IDS and ADV. The former to replace the Starfighters in Germany and the latter to replace the Voodoos in Canada. However, they don't want to buy enough aircraft to make that workable. As @Riain wrote.

It's only going to work in a TL where the RCAF/Air Command has been allowed to maintain a larger fighter force. The post-war peak was 21 regular fighter squadrons which consisted of 9 in Air Defence Command and 12 in the First Air Division in Germany. However, by the time the Canadian Government bought the Hornet this had been reduced to 3 Voodoo squadrons in Canada, 3 Starfighter squadrons in Germany and the Freedom Fighter squadrons.

I recall the Canadian Govt in the early 1980's also considered the home based Starfighters as having an "emergency" air defence capability In that context I can see why the Canadians only wanted to operate one type of primary fighter / ground attack aircraft going forwards. (Although the CF5's lingered in service for some time after the CF18 was adopted.)

 

[CalBear]

The Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft.

Tne ADV, as its name suggests, really in not, nor were the other alternatives under consideration. the early versions of the Tomcat and Eagle were pure air-to-air (the designers of the F-15 even had a mantra on the issue "not a pound for air-to-ground") The Canadian Forces really don't have the luxury of separate fighter/interceptor airframes and attack aircraft. That left them with two practical option the F-16 and F-18, with a variant of the Mirage III as an outside possibility.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I recall the Canadian Govt in the early 1980's also considered the home based Starfighters as having an "emergency" air defence capability In that context I can see why the Canadians only wanted to operate one type of primary fighter / ground attack aircraft going forwards. (Although the CF5's lingered in service for some time after the CF18 was adopted.)

I agree. A mix of specialised types doesn't suit an air force of this size.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some background information.

Air Command had 8 first-line fighters squadrons (Nos. 409, 416, 421, 425, 433, 434, 439 and 441) in 1980 and 3 training squadrons (Nos. 410, 417 and 419) in the second-line.

Quote from The Rise and Fall of Canada's Cold War Air Force, 1948-1968 by Bertram C. Frandsen, Footnote 15 on Page 292.

Department of National Defence, Defence 1979, Ottawa: Information Canada, 1980, p. 98. By this time, the number of operational aircraft consisted of fifty-four CF-104, thirty-six CF-101 and twenty-four CF-5 fighters for a total of 114 aircraft, not including those required for training, testing, maintenance spares or attrition.

That works out as:

54 CF-104 in Nos. 421, 439 and 441 Squadrons​

36 CF-101 Cacnucs in Nos. 421, 439 and 441 Squadrons​

24 CF-5 Freedom Fighters in Nos. 433 and 434 Squadrons​

According to Shores (in the History of the Royal Canadian Air Force) the Canadian Government said that it could afford 130-150 fighters to replace the existing types and the provisional Hornet order was for 113 CF-18A and 24 CF-18B.

 

[Blue cat]

View attachment 624491

Have the PANAVIA Tornado was chosen by the RCAF instead of the McD F-18 Hornet

What would be the pro's and con's?
With the greater range and payload would it be any better especially in regards to the vast Canadian geography?
What Canadian/US systems, engines, weapons could be added to the Canadian built aircraft?

Much obliged!

I suppose if Canada for what ever reason had decided to focus the bulk of their fighter force on the air to air / interception role from the mid 1980's on wards the Torndao ADV would have been a strong contender (but probably not the winner IMHO.)

I suppose Canada could have considered that the CF5's would have had some on going utility in the air to ground role in some settings but probably not in the same roles they historically planned to use the CF104 and the CF18 for.

I suppose if Canada selected the Tornado ADV as you propose there could have been a subsequent plan to by the ground attack versions of the Tornado (which might have been axed when the Cold War ended ?)

This all seems a bit implausible to me. IMHO if there really was a pressing need for Canada to acquire a modern dedicated long range interceptor air craft in the 1980's (presumably for the home air defense / NORAD mission) then I suspect one way or another the Canadians would have obtained an American built air craft (if the need vis a vis NORAD was great enough the Americans might have been prepared to subsidize the purchase in some way in if a US aircraft was chosen ?) IMHO it seems to me most likely Canada would have ended up with something along the lines of the US F16ADV if there was a perceived urgent need for a dedicated interceptor in that time frame. If it was good enough for the US I expect it would have been good enough for Canada, although maybe used F15A models might have been a possibility perhaps on a loaner basis until something along the lines of the F16ADV became avalaible ?

Edit to add:
Buying the F/A18 does seem to make a lot of sense

 

[ShySusan]

The Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft.

Tne ADV, as its name suggests, really in not, nor were the other alternatives under consideration. the early versions of the Tomcat and Eagle were pure air-to-air (the designers of the F-15 even had a mantra on the issue "not a pound for air-to-ground") The Canadian Forces really don't have the luxury of separate fighter/interceptor airframes and attack aircraft. That left them with two practical option the F-16 and F-18, with a variant of the Mirage III as an outside possibility.

IIRC, Grumman had developed an F-14C strike/fighter variant of the Tomcat in the 70s that was supposed to use the P&W F401-PW-400, a navalised F100 engine, in place of the TF30s. In the timeframe that Canada was looking to buy new fighters, that wouldn't have been more a few years back. There's really no reason that I can think of that would prevent Grumman from dusting those plans off and selling Canada a Bombcat.

 

[Riain]

In a shameless piece of self promotion, I sort of already did make this happen, if you're willing to stretch what the Tornado ADV means in a different TL.
A series of assumptions: a Britwank of a budget?
IOTL the AFVG of 1966 was a mini F111K that morphed into the multinational MRCA when became the Tornado which was then (poorly) made into the ADV. ITTL the AFVG remains a fighter-bomber to replace the RAF's big fleet of multi-role Lightnings, and Canada buys it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some more background information.

The RCAF maintained a force of 21 fighter squadrons from 1954 to the end of 1960. The squadrons were Nos. 409, 410, 413, 414, 416, 419, 421, 422, 423, 425, 427, 428, 430, 432, 433, 434, 439, 440, 441, 444 and 445.

At the end of 1960 there were nine squadrons in Air Defence Command (all flying CF-100 Canucks) and twelve squadrons in No. 1 Air Division (four with Canucks and eight with Canadair Sabres).

However, the 21 squadrons were reduced to seven by the end of 1970 as follows:

Four squadrons were disbanded in 1961 - Nos. 413, 428, 432 and 433. They were CF-100 Canuck squadron in Air Defence Command.​

Four squadrons were disbanded in 1962 - Nos. 419, 423, 440 and 445. They were CF-100 Canuck squadrons in No. 1 Air Division.​

Two squadrons were disbanded in 1964 - Nos. 410 and 414. They were the CF-101 Voodoo squadrons in Air Defence Command.​

Two squadrons were disbanded in 1967 - Nos. 434 and 444. These were Starfighter squadrons in No. 1 Air Division.​

No. 434 Squadron was reformed on CF-5 Freedom Fighters in 1968 which brought the total up to ten.​

Three squadrons were disbanded in 1970 - Nos. 422, 427 and 430. These were Starfighters in No. 1 Air Division, which was renamed No. 1 Canadian Air Group.​

The seven surviving squadrons were Nos. 409, 416, 421, 425, 433, 439 and 441. That is:

Nos. 421, 439 and 441 Squadrons with CF-104 Starfighters with Canadian Forces Europe in Germany.​

Nos. 409, 416 and 425 Squadrons with CF-101 Voodoos in Air Defence Command.​

No. 433 Squadron (renamed 433e Escadrille) with CF5A Freedom Fighters in Mobile Command.​

The following second-line fighter units existed between 1960 and 1980:

No. 1 (Fighter) Operational Unit, which disbanded on 1st April 1962 by being renamed the Sabre Conversion Unit.​

No. 3 (All-Weather Fighter) Operational Training Unit, which was renamed No. 410 Operational Training Squadron on 1st February 1968.​

No. 6 (Strike-Reconnaissance) Operational Training Unit, formed in 1961 and renamed No. 417 Operational Training Squadron on 1st February 1968.​

The Golden Hawks aerobatic team, which was disbanded in 1964.​

No. 434 Operational Training Squadron was formed on 15th February 1968 to train the CF-5 pilots. It became an operational fighter squadron in 1975.​

No. 419 Tactical Fighter Training Squadron formed in 1975 to train the CF-5 pilots.​

​

The upgrading of No. 434 squadron in 1975 increased the number of operational fighter squadrons in the newly formed Air Command from seven to eight. That's why Post 15 says that Air Command had eight first-line and three second-line fighter squadrons in 1980.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The regular personnel strength of HM Canadian Forces was around 120,000 from the 1954 until 1963. This declined to around 80,000 in the early 1970s and was maintained at that level for the rest of the Cold War.

The 120,000 from 1954 to 1963 was roughly:

50,000 Army​

50,000 RCAF​

20,000 RCN​

The 80,000 from the early 1970s to the end of the Cold War was rougly:

30,000 Mobile Command​

14,000 Maritime Command​

36,000 Air Command which had the former Canadian Army and Naval aviation formations as well as the former RCAF.​

The earliest figure I have for the percentage of GNP Canada spent on defence is 1966 when it was 3% (total regular personnel was 107,000) and it was about 2% from 1972 until the end of the Cold War.

Sources: The Institute of Strategic Studies via the Encyclopaedia Britannica Books of the Year and Canada Yearbooks.