A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aircraft that never lived up to their promise



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old December 4th 03, 06:25 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article z_Wyb.544890$9l5.43876@pd7tw2no,
"Ed Majden" writes:

"Andrew Chaplin"
Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
Glove?


The Velvet Glove was actually a CF-100 experimental missile. The CF-105 was
going to use the Sparrow II missile. It would have been no big deal to
adapt the Genie to the Arrow if they had wanted to. Canada was reluctant to
adopt nukes but eventually did with the Bomarc, CF-101, and the CF-104 in
Europe. We were asked to leave France when we took on the nuclear role.


Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
built solely as Nuke Bombers. They didn't have guns, AAMs, Bomb
pylons, or even gunsights. The only thing they could do was haul a
single bomb very fast at low altitude in almost any weather.
Conventional capability was added in the late '60s/early '70s
(Trudeau era) at a cost almost as great as the initial cost of the
airplanes.
Canadian Air Defence was provided by the CF-101s and teh Bomarcs, both
of whgich were only effective when carrying Nukes. (2 IR falcons doesn
not a Studly Bomber Killer make).
The Army's main punch in Europe were a couple of Honest John rocket
Regiments, again, only effective when carrying Nukes.

The bombs may have been "Dual Key" U.S. built weapons, but Canada had
been pretty much completely set up as a Nuke-Only shop for 5 years
before the French threw their tantrum. (The proximate casue of which
was a U.S. RF-101 overflight of their Nuke Weapons Lab. It seems that
DeGaulle didn't want the rest of NATO to know what he was up to.)

The U.S. always had control of the nukes. The U.S. would not hand over this
control to France so we were asked to leave. The French then developed
their own nuke program. 2(F)Wing in France closed with 1(F)Wing remaning
open as a transport base. 3(F)Wing and 4(F)Wing in Germany took on the nuke
strike recon role after converting from Sabres and CF-100s. This roll again
changed down the road but I'm not sure when as I was back in Canada by then.
Today Canada is non nuclear again after the Bomarc and CF-101s were phased
out of service.


Uhm, the French Nuke Program had been happily rolling along since the
1950s. The Force de Frappe was formed in the early '60s, and they got
their Mirage IVs in 1961.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #92  
Old December 4th 03, 07:33 AM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Stickney"
Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
built solely as Nuke Bombers.


I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear weapons!
The F-104 was designed as a fast high altitude interceptor for the USAF.
They sold it as an inexpensive, so to speak, aircraft to several Allied
countries. The West Germans used them in a fighter roll where they became
known as the "Widow Maker" because of several accidents. The RCAF used it as
a strike-recon low level nuclear tactical bomber. I did the acceptance
checks on these aircraft when they were delivered to 3(F)Wing in Zweibruken,
Germany. They were brought over in C130 Hercs where they were reassembled
on arrival. I guess they didn't want to risk flying them over as they did
earlier with the Sabres and CF-100's. Do some web searching and get your
facts straight! The French and the British did develop independent nuclear
programs but the French wanted control of any nuclear weapons on French soil
and the U.S.A. would not do this.


  #93  
Old December 4th 03, 08:03 AM
hlg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...

Westland Whirlwind (one of my favourites)


I assume here that you refer to the WW2 fighter-bomber. Let down by
unreliable engines.


TSR.2


Technically, this met or exceeded all its performance requirements, and
promised even more. However, costs were going through the roof, and the
project was not merely cancelled; it was destroyed stone by stone, and salt
ploughed into the ruins.



My suggestions:

Saunders-Roe (SaRo) Lerwick. WW2 twin-engined flying boat; some problem with
the hydrodynamics of the planing portion of the fuselage meant that it
rarely managed even to get out of the water and into the air.


  #94  
Old December 4th 03, 08:45 AM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ed Majden"
I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear

weapons!
The F-104 was designed as a fast high altitude interceptor for the USAF.
They sold it as an inexpensive, so to speak, aircraft to several Allied
countries. The West Germans used them in a fighter roll where they became
known as the "Widow Maker" because of several accidents. The RCAF used it

as
a strike-recon low level nuclear tactical bomber. I did the acceptance
checks on these aircraft when they were delivered to 3(F)Wing in

Zweibruken,
Germany. They were brought over in C130 Hercs where they were reassembled
on arrival. I guess they didn't want to risk flying them over as they did
earlier with the Sabres and CF-100's. Do some web searching and get your
facts straight! The French and the British did develop independent

nuclear
programs but the French wanted control of any nuclear weapons on French

soil
and the U.S.A. would not do this.

Should have added, the Canadian version of the F-104 was built under
licence at Canadaire Ltd in Montreal and was designated as the CF-104.
Early versions of the F-104 had a downward ejection seat as they were
concerned about clearing the high tail. Not a good idea for the role Canada
used the CF-104 for so an upward ejection seat was used. Accidents also
often happen during take-off. Not a good idea for downward ejection at this
time. Hard on the old butt! ;-)


  #95  
Old December 4th 03, 11:39 AM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:xyAzb.558017$9l5.502070@pd7tw2no...
|
| "Peter Stickney"
| Now, that's most patently untrue. The fact is, in the late 1950s,
| early 1960s, Canada had jumped onto the Nuke Bandwagon more deeply
| than any other NATO country, including the U.S.. The CF-104s were
| built solely as Nuke Bombers.
|
| I have never read so much B.S. about Canada's nuclear roll. The
| Diefenbaker government had to be dragged into the accepting nuclear
weapons!

Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear Weapons:
The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts the
Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.


  #96  
Old December 4th 03, 02:36 PM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brett" |
Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear Weapons:
The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts the
Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.

Never read this book. Deif lost an election over his fence sitting and
reluctance to accept nuclear weapons. I lived through this era having
enlisted in the RCAF in 1958. Started out on the Cf-100, went to Europe on
the CF-104's, spent two tours on Bomarcs and finished off on CF101's as a
ground crew tech. We were anxiously waiting for the Arrow, but alas and
sadly, the program was cancelled. This was known as "Black Friday". Saw
the Arrow do a couple of over flights over the base I was on along with the
B47 test bed with the Iroquois engine strapped on the rear.


  #97  
Old December 4th 03, 04:04 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matt Wiser" wrote:

Here's a few:
TBD Devastator


Respectfully disagree. While slow, obsolete and vulnerable,
the 15 TBDs of VT-8 played a crucial role in a crucial battle of the
WW2 Pacific campaign. They have to be given at least an "assist" for
their decoy role, thus allowing the sinking of IJN carriers at Midway.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #98  
Old December 4th 03, 07:13 PM
Brett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed Majden" wrote:
| "Brett" |
| Ever read a book by John Clearwater titled "Canadian Nuclear
Weapons:
| The Untold Story"? It includes some information about the efforts
the
| Pearson government to sign up for the use of US nuclear weapons.
|
| Never read this book. Deif lost an election over his fence
sitting and
| reluctance to accept nuclear weapons.

And Pearson's Liberals won by "embracing" the idea - nice switch by
them, they were "anti" when Diefenbaker first started down the path and
it was Pearson's government that signed the agreements.

| I lived through this era having
| enlisted in the RCAF in 1958.

Try reading the book it basically agrees with Peter Stickney's comment
about Canada and the "Nuke Bandwagon".

| Started out on the Cf-100, went to Europe on
| the CF-104's, spent two tours on Bomarcs and finished off on CF101's
as a
| ground crew tech. We were anxiously waiting for the Arrow, but alas
and
| sadly, the program was cancelled. This was known as "Black Friday".

You were "anxiously waiting for the Arrow", you probably didn't have a
year of service in when it was cancelled in Feburary 1959.

| Saw
| the Arrow do a couple of over flights over the base I was on along
with the
| B47 test bed with the Iroquois engine strapped on the rear.



  #99  
Old December 4th 03, 07:40 PM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brett"
You were "anxiously waiting for the Arrow", you probably didn't have a
year of service in when it was cancelled in Feburary 1959.

Had just completed my various trades courses and arrived at my first ops
station on CF-100's. We were waiting for the CF-105 courses to start when
the whole thing went down the drain!


  #100  
Old December 4th 03, 09:00 PM
Andrew Chaplin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Brett" wrote in message
...

And Pearson's Liberals won by "embracing" the idea - nice switch by
them, they were "anti" when Diefenbaker first started down the path and
it was Pearson's government that signed the agreements.


This was the classic Canadian political wedge issue, and Pearson was able
to cleave the Conservative constituency with it and set a course that
would allow the Liberals to form four governments in succession (albeit
with two minorities).

My father got in severe ca-ca over this. Douglas Harkness, then MND, went
to a mess dinner at H.M.C.S. Carelton, where my dad was the naval
reserve's Int and PR officer. During dinner Harkness spoke against Dief's
(irrational) policy, revealing the break in cabinet solidarity. My father
promptly wrote a press release about MND's remarks and it landed him in
hot water; he was asked not to parade. Dief lost the election that
resulted from the loss of confidence in the Conservative government, and
my father was asked back. (I am sure my father voted neither Conservative
nor Liberal in that election.)

Try reading the book it basically agrees with Peter Stickney's comment
about Canada and the "Nuke Bandwagon".


We did not fully dismount from the "Nuke Bandwagon" until about 1993 when
we ceased teaching nuclear fire planning on the Artillery Staff Duties
Course and at the Canadian Land Force Command and Staff College.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 1st 04 02:31 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 September 2nd 04 05:15 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 April 5th 04 03:04 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 1 January 2nd 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.