Talk:McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo

old comments
This is a very well-written and interesting article and I'm pleased to see such good quality contributions relating to Canada. Great work! A few suggestions/points/questions:

In the lead section: In 'The Decision to Acquire the CF-101' In 'Squadron Operations' In 'Operation peace wings'
 * '...CF-101 Voodoo was the Canadian designation...'. This seems like an odd way to start the article. Maybe something like "The CF-101 was an interceptor aircraft used by the Canadian Forces in xxxx to yyyy...." and mention later that the aircraft is the same as / equivalent to the F-101. The way it is now seems to place too much emphasis (because it's mentionned first) on the fact that the CF-101 is just a Canadian designation of an American aircraft.
 * Use of "Off the record". This seems a bit weird for an encyclopedic article, especially since it is historical. The previous sentences don't really say that there was no bomber threat, so saying that it was recognised, "off the record", seems out of place.
 * 'in February 1959, the Canadian Minister of National Defence publicly". Maybe say who the MND was?
 * How about listing the location of the squadrons? ie: 416 Squadron (New Brunswick). I know you had listed them in the previous section, but I don't think it would hurt to re-mention them.
 * 'aircraft after only 57 seconds!' This is impressive, but I've never seen an exclamation point used in an encyclopedic article (not that I've read that many). If this is common and accepted, then disregard.
 * 'actually older than the original fleet, but were lower time airframes with updates' I don't understand this part (maybe it's just me). Do you mean the airframes had less (flight) time? Seems like there is a hyphen missing, a spelling mistake, a wrong word, or a grammatical error somewhere.

Finally, any reason why the sources aren't numbered? I'm used to seeing numbered sources, but maybe it's done differently in these types of articles.

I would also remove the disambig at the top. It's unlikely that someone would search for CF-101 with the intention of seeing the F-101, which is mentionned in th first few sentences anyway. --jag123 01:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are all good points, and I'll address them. Possibly, the reason for some of these concerns stems from the fact that this article is a condensation of a magazine article I wrote on the subject for a specialist audience, and some extra explanations would be necessary for a more general audience. (I had done some of this already, but it would seem that I need to do some more!).

One query -- I'm not quite sure what you mean by numbering the references. Do you mean footnoting? This would get rather involved.

Voodude 21:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I really like the changes, especially the lead section. Re: references, I was refering to the lack of '#' or '*' beside the citations, but that's been fixed. I'm still a bit puzzled by the "unofficially the bomber threat was there" thing. Was the Avro not capable/suitable for intercepting bombers? Was this some kind of backroom deal? As a reader, I feel like I'm missing some key piece of info that would tie it all together. --jag123 00:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "unofficially" part is to compress the story a bit. Essentially, the Avro Arrow project was cancelled because of cost, circa 1958-59. The RCAF agreed to the cancellation of the Arrow on the condition that a less expensive interceptor was purchased instead. The Voodoo was identified early on as the necessary replacement interceptor. However, the 'optics' of purchasing an American interceptor aircraft just after the devastating cancellation of a domestic equivalent were awful, and so it was publicly maintained that the CF-100 was still adequate for the job. (It wasn't -- it had been designed to intercept piston engined bombers of late Second World War and late Forties vintage, and wasn't up to the job of intercepting jet bombers). Thus, the decision to acquire the Voodoo was deferred for a time until the controversy died down. As noted elsewhere in that section, there were additional controversies regarding the acquisition of a weapons system using nuclear warheads, and tradeoffs with the USA on costs of air defense overall, and these played a part in delaying the decision too. Voodude 18:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Voodude: The cost per aircraft was the 650 million spent on the program to 1958,plus the two billion plus required from 1959 to 1964, divided by 169 ARROWS, OR FIFTEEN MILLION, SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, eleven millon three hundred thousand in unsunk cost. According to the RCAF historial website, also quoted by Insinger, the TWO YEAR OLD Voodos cost ONE MILLION, FIVE HINDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND PER PLANE, half of which was payable by offset, ie, Canada Staffed & maintained the eleven Radar stations on Canadian soil, previously staffed by Americans. Even after amortising the 116 million spent on the BOMARC ( 846,715.00) per CF101, Canada was miles ahead. Insingers seminal work. http://scaa.usask.ca/gallery/arrow/thesis/thesis9.htm.

The RCAF & Defense depatment kept very accurate accounts, BTW. Thanks for your sensible analysis,& if you can ever get your insights on the Avro Arrow site, I would be most gratefull. Regards Reg Saretsky August 21, 2007

(BTW, Bill, WADR, there is "nothing vague" about the DOD or the RCAF accounts, or cost estimates. They are accurate to the nth degree.. ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Not to take umbrage but the contemporary record did not cite costs until after the cancellation of the Avro CF-105 Arrow. Both company and government cost estimates were vague as to actual outlays of research and development costs as well as the laying on of avionics and missile systems expenses that drove unit costs up even higher. Various estimates were cited in the media that in the case of the government's figures were incredibly over-inflated because all R&D costs from 1953 on were factored in while Avro insisted on quoting "fly-away" costs that were unrealistic because engine, systems and weapons were not included. There was no intended Arrow or CF-100 replacement envisioned in 1959 because the Minister of Defence had bought into the Bomarc point-defense system. The RCAF actually had a number of other options but the F-101B Voodoo became the logical choice when they were practically given away by the Pentagon. There really was no purchase agreement instead there was a "gentleman's agreement" that hinged on a number of other factors not the least being US insistence that Canada provide adequate NORAD support. The CF-100 was forced to soldier on throughout the interim period until 1961 even though the government had clear indications that the Bomarc was inadequate and that an advanced manned interceptor was required as a deterrent to the latest Soviet bomber threat. Bzuk 2:30 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Bill -- I have copies of RCAF documentation and minutes of the Chiefs of Staff Committee and Cabinet discussion from the summer and fall of 1958, obtained by research at the National Archives and DND Department of History. All make it clear that the reason for the cancellation of the Arrow (as considered by the RCAF and DND, at the time) was cost.  There is an comparison of possible options available -- Buy 169 Arrows, buy 60 Arrows, complete the 30-odd pre-production aircraft, etc.  It was decided that for what the Arrow offered, it was uneconomical, and that off-the-shelf U.S. interceptors would accomplish the same thing at far lower cost.  I agree that in subsequent years, there have been widely varying accounts of what the 'real' cost of the Arrow would have been, but there is plenty of evidence from before the time of the cancellation to show that the reason for the cancellation was economic.


 * In the same documentation, it is also made clear that the RCAF did not consider Bomarc by itself to be sufficent, and the CF-100 was already considered obsolescent. The condition of the RCAF agreeing to the cancellation of the Arrow was that a U.S. interceptor would be purchased in its stead.  They briefly considered the F-106C/D before it was cancelled in September 1958, and discussion thereafter focused on the F-101B.  Most of the details of the CF-101 deal were in place by mid-1959, but it was dragged out for almost two years because of discussion on the details of how it would be paid for, plus concerns about Canada acquiring the nuclear armed Genie rockets that were the CF-101s main armament.  Initially, I was rather surprised that the F-106 wasn't considered, but the records show that the decision about what aircraft (and how many) were available was largely made in Washington.  66 Voodoos are discussed from the start, which is probably fewer than the RCAF wanted (given that they had to equip 5 Squadrons and an OTU).  I suspect that the RCAF would probably have preferred 100-ish aircraft if they could get them, but this wasn't on offer.  Eventually, this was dealt with by reducing the number of squadrons from 5 to 3.--Voodude 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course costs were discussed at the Chief of Staff level and there was a virulent argument amongst the group about the impact of supporting an expensive weapons systems that the Avro CF-105 Arrow represented, however, the official government line for the cancellation did not stress costs. In the PM's address on 23 September 1958, the main thrust was on describing a lessening bomber threat accompanied by the announcement of the acquisiton of Bomarc missiles that "could be used with either a conventional high explosive warhead or a nuclear warhead" along with SAGE being installed in Canada. The mistaken reference to the Bomarc B's weapon load would later come back to haunt the government. A reference to the continuation of the CF-100 in air defense as well as the announcement that the CF-105 program was under review and that six Arrows would be completed at the cost of $398 millions by March 1959 was the only mention of cost. In the 20 February 1959 announcement, the main reason cited by the PM was that the CF-105 was "overtaken by events" and only in conclusion was the figure of $7.8 millions/unit brought out in contrast with a 1952 estimate of $1.5-$2 millions/aircraft. That the government figures were based on the initial scale of 500-600 aircraft as well as the discrepancy between what the Avro Aircraft company considered "fly-away" costs, the inclusion of the cancelled ASTRA/Sparrow avionics/weapons system and the addition of research and development expenses led Greig Stewart to conclude that the figures cited were from "senior officials of a department that had already decided against the Arrow."
 * As to the acquisition of the McDonnell F-101B, politics as much as military considerations were involved. Secretary of the US Air Force, Donald A. Quarles made a recommendation on 3 April 1959 that the RCAF would still require an advanced interceptor. A decision so soon after the cancellation of the Arrow would have been political dynamite. Only the F-102 (the F-106 was not really in the running) and F-101B could fulfill the immediate requirement for a supersonic interceptor. While the F-102 was limited in range, the F-101B had range, a two-seat crew and two-engines and was produced in sufficient numbers (479). Another reason for the Voodoo choice was also predicated on the availability of 66 F-101Bs. As to the Bomarc, it essentially was a "point-defence" system with, as it turned out, questionable reliability and accuracy. Its reliance on a nuclear warhead was partly predicated on the Bomarc's inability to intercept and destroy an attacking bomber with conventional explosives. The decision to incorporate Bomarc bases was influenced by the Pentagon's need to close in the defensive line of missile bases on the East Coast. Bzuk 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

They're the same...
What is the difference between this aircraft and the F-101 besides the fact that they have different designations and have been in service with different airforces? Is there any reason except Canadian pride to keep this as a separate article?

Peter Isotalo 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is reason for it to be a separate article. While it is the same aircraft, the acquisition of the aircraft was controversial in Canada.  Once in service, however, the CF-101 had a unique role and service history in Canada.  That would not be done justice to within the scope of the article on the F-101.  Sunray 06:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so absolutely no difference except that it flew for a different airforce. It's like having separate articles for commercial airliners for each airline they've flown for. I know you like this stuff, but seriously... It's not encyclopedic. Summarize the information and put it in Canadian Air Force and F-101 Voodoo. And please don't say that you can't simply remove a lot of information. This is just plain airforce (not airplane) cruft.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Originally, this article was a part of the F-101 article. However, the content here is actually more extensive than the F-101 article, and I felt that the big chunk of Canadian history in the middle of the F-101 article would disturb its flow, so I broke it out as a separate article. As noted above, the story of the Voodoo in Canada is a significant piece of Canadian history, playing a role in the fall of the Conservative government in 1963, and tying in with Canada's little known role as a (former) nuclear armed nation.

--Voodude 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A fine article, most informative and um, encyclopedic... Sunray 09:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly the same
USAF and RCAF/CF Voodoos are not exactly the same (I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF). The first USAF 101's were single-seat and had 4 20MM cannon. All RCAF/CF Voodoos were two-seat and Falcons/Genies only. Early pre-unification RCAF 101's did not have the infra-red sensor on the nose. The second batch of Voodoos for the Canadian Forces were similar to USAF 101's (most of which ended up in the Air National Guard), but did not have the underfuselage air scoop and "slime lights" (formation-keeping light strips). A good source is the book Century Jets, edited by David Donald.--MarshallStack 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"(I'm not including the recon versions flown by the USAF)" But you are including the nuclear strike version operated by TAC for some reason. The only versions of the F-101 Voodoo that should be discussed are the twin-seat interceptor, and the twin-seat trainer. The CF-101Bs were ex-USAF F-101Bs. They were not modified for Canadian service. Early-USAF F-101Bs lacked the IRST (they were fitted to American F-101Bs in Project 'Bright Horizon'. CMarshall (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

specs
The Specifications for the Canadian Voodoo were the same as the F-101B for which Canada was the only foreign customer.