Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Return Of The Avro Arrow?  
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Posted (2 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5476 times:

I don't know what he was smoking, but recently retired Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie of the CF proposed canning the F-35 program and substituting an updated version of the Avro Arrow.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09...tive-to-f-35-stealth-fighter-jets/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

I'll be Devil's Advocate here: what if the powers that be actually decided to go ahead with an updated Arrow ?

- I believe it would be difficult if not impossible to get your hands on detail design drawings, so no starting point;
- All production jigs and tools have long since been destroyed;
- It would be a domestic market only, since most everyone else has signed onto the F-35, for better or worse. Likely a maximum of about 100-110 a/c would be built, which would push the cost through the roof. Program cost might actually be more than what the F-35 will ultimately cost us (if Canada actually proceeds with it, see below);
- Arrow was only ever designed to be an interceptor (a nuclear strike version was looked at), but these days, to intercept what, exactly ? F-35 and F-18 have the advantage of being much more multi-role;
- program timetable would likely not mesh with the out-of-service date for the existing CF-18s.

So a "new" Arrow is for many reasons simply not practical, and therefore many expect the F-35 is a fait accompli. However, a committal from the new agency created to oversee military acquisition programs has not made any statement on that topic. The committee was created basically to make acquisition programs more transparent as DND has frequently and persistently misled parliament concerning costs and timescales on these programs.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

wwwwuuuuuuuutttttt t f.

wow, that is just dumb. I love the arrow, but this is just dumb. other than scraps of the design, nothing exists, it would be a whole new program.

dumb.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5378 times:

MacKenzie is quoted in the article as saying, “It’s an attack aircraft. It’s designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets,”

I don't recall the Arrow ever being designed to be anything but a very high performance interceptor. And it surely didn't come along at a time when stealth was even being considered by other than Lockheed, perhaps. Assuming what's been said about drawings, tools, and jigs being destroyed, the project would literally have to start from square one and would be an all-new program, given that it would have to be updated to reflect current technology. Given that a stealth airplane has to be designed from the ground up to have stealth capability, it appears what he's suggesting is going to be nearly impossible, beyond being way too expensive to pursue.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5365 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 2):
MacKenzie is quoted in the article as saying, “It’s an attack aircraft. It’s designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets,”

That statement really got me thinking MacKenzie was on something. You're correct that it was only intended as a high performance interceptor. And there's precious little to intercept anymore.

The nuclear strike role had been considered, as a free fall tactical would have fit in the weapons bay -- perhaps that's what prompted his "attacking ground targets" statement.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5316 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Thread starter):
I don't know what he was smoking

Hello!!! Crack!!!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5312 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
That statement really got me thinking MacKenzie was on something. You're correct that it was only intended as a high performance interceptor. And there's precious little to intercept anymore.

Quite. It was a pure interceptor.
Fine aircraft it might have been, impressive as an engineering achievement - from a relatively small industry - the real reason Arrow was axed, or at least the reason along with costs, was the reduction in it's mission in importance.
By the time it flew, ICBM's were starting to be the major threat to the North American continent, over the aircraft of the Soviet Long Range Aviation force.

The tiny number of Soviet SS-6 missiles at the beginning of the 1960's was just the start and those who had to plan for the defence of Canada knew it.
Canadian airspace still needed guarding, policing, unglamorous the F-101's might have been, they would pass muster for the task, within NORAD.
CF-105's costs would have been out of proportion relative to the mission and would have had serious effects on the rest of the Canadian armed forces.

That was true in 1959, how the hell anyone who wishes to be taken seriously thinks that 53 years on, a revived Arrow is of any utility in the 21st Century battle-space, for Canada's requirements today, is off the wall.
Is this story a spoof?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5285 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
Fine aircraft it might have been, impressive as an engineering achievement - from a relatively small industry - the real reason Arrow was axed, or at least the reason along with costs, was the reduction in it's mission in importance.
Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
CF-105's costs would have been out of proportion relative to the mission and would have had serious effects on the rest of the Canadian armed forces.

Your latter point is the real reason the Arrow was axed. And, it was on the recommendation of the various service heads. Canada had/has only a small amount of $$ to allocate to defense so it has to be spent wisely (and we will see this if the F-35 does indeed go forward). Army needed new tanks, navy needed new destroyers, air force itself needed new transport fleet (even in 1958 they were relying on DC-4Ms !). So Arrow was offered up. What it would have cost to deploy I do not know, but I have read $8M per frame in 1958 dollars, outside of R&D costs, which at the time of cancellation were on the order of $500M (1958). And that does not include required infrastructure improvements.

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
That was true in 1959, how the hell anyone who wishes to be taken seriously thinks that 53 years on, a revived Arrow is of any utility in the 21st Century battle-space, for Canada's requirements today, is off the wall.
Is this story a spoof?

Don't think the story is a spoof. An industrial backer is a company called Bourdeau Industries, which operates in both the UK & Canada.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5141 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
CF-105's costs would have been out of proportion relative to the mission and would have had serious effects on the rest of the Canadian armed forces.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
Canada had/has only a small amount of $$ to allocate to defense so it has to be spent wisely (and we will see this if the F-35 does indeed go forward). Army needed new tanks, navy needed new destroyers, air force itself needed new transport fleet (even in 1958 they were relying on DC-4Ms !). So Arrow was offered up.

This is one of the reservations I have about F-35 - it risks being so expensive to buy and operate that other elements of defence capability will have to be sacrificed. Improving capability by X in one domain at the cost of a loss of capability of 2X in other domains = BAD IDEA to me.

It's a shame that the Arrow was developed so long ago, making resuscittion a non-starter. Canada might like to re-examine alternatives to F-35 such as Rafale, Typhoon, F-15(?) in the light of the uncertainty surrounding F-35 costs and availability.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13210 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting art (Reply 7):
This is one of the reservations I have about F-35 - it risks being so expensive to buy and operate that other elements of defence capability will have to be sacrificed

But at least the F-35 is relevant to the sort of missions today and in the future.

This whole 'bring back the Arrow' stuff seems to be about the aircraft's potential performance, one never proven in testing as it did not progress that far.
Nothing that would protect it from a modern AD missiles.


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 706 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

I, for one, think the US should tank the F-35 and pursue the F-104 as an alternative.

User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 9):
I, for one, think the US should tank the F-35 and pursue the F-104 as an alternative.

No way Steve, bring back "The Thud", the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Supersonic right on the deck!   

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4772 times:

Or resurrect the Arrow's US contemporaries of the same 1950s era mach 3+ high performance bleeding-edge technology of the time superfighters; the North American XF-108 Rapier and the titanium turbo-ramjet powered Republic XF-103 Thunderwarrior.  

[Edited 2012-09-17 09:46:47]


Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2411 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 11):
XF-108 Rapier

For a project cancelled in the late 1950ies, this looks really... cool!


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Quoting neutrino (Reply 11):
the North American XF-108 Rapier

Quite a good-looking bird, that one!


TSR-2/0979918/L/" target="_blank">View Large TSR-2/0979918/M/" target="_blank">View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Freer - Touchdown-aviation



If we're gonna resurrect long extinct one-offs though, my vote goes for the TSR-2.



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

No, Reenginner and update the A5C Vigilante.

Tough carrier qualidued airframe, get rid of that stupid liniear bomb system and use the space for fuel and eltronics.

I'm working from memory but i think the j79's on it where very early dash numbers so there is a high performance gain that could happen there with newer plants that are similar in size



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

NAA proposed a 3-engine Vigilante for the Improved Manned Interceptor program. The 3rd engine would have replaced the "stupid linear bomb system."

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2111 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 15):
NAA proposed a 3-engine Vigilante for the Improved Manned Interceptor program. The 3rd engine would have replaced the "stupid linear bomb system."

This made me 'lol' for real, something that rarely happens on here, so thank you  


I loved the A-5, got to see it again a couple of months ago at the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, FL. What a beast!



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

Or bring back the YF-12; still the highest flying and fastest sustained-speed fighter till this day. Then again, what use do we have for a oversized leaky interceptor?   


Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Return Of The Avro Arrow?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Return Of Strategic Air Command? posted Fri Oct 17 2008 11:24:30 by Lumberton
Hockey Fans Discuss The Intracacies Of The Arrow posted Sat May 8 2004 00:18:39 by Garnetpalmetto
Great Video Of The F 16 In Norwegian Air Power Ann posted Fri May 11 2012 19:44:01 by Mortyman
94th Anniversary Of The Red Baron's Death: 21.4.12 posted Sat Apr 21 2012 20:06:59 by vanguard737
Eventual Fate Of The Shuttle Carrier 747 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 09:30:42 by RobertS975
What Came Off Of The Left Wing After Takeoff? posted Thu Feb 2 2012 23:53:57 by potus
The Age Of The Majority Of The Usaf C-17? posted Thu Mar 3 2011 19:03:30 by 747400sp
The Experimental Flight Of The US-XP posted Sun Feb 6 2011 09:35:09 by mrskyguy
Stunning Shots Of The Royal Air Force posted Mon Jan 10 2011 14:47:27 by skinny
National Museum Of The Usaf Changes posted Thu Nov 4 2010 11:53:49 by broke
Return Of The 767-400ER - Usaf Bird Assigned Line# posted Sat Jan 19 2008 12:09:11 by Stitch
The Return Of Strategic Air Command? posted Fri Oct 17 2008 11:24:30 by Lumberton
Hockey Fans Discuss The Intracacies Of The Arrow posted Sat May 8 2004 00:18:39 by Garnetpalmetto
Great Video Of The F 16 In Norwegian Air Power Ann posted Fri May 11 2012 19:44:01 by Mortyman
94th Anniversary Of The Red Baron's Death: 21.4.12 posted Sat Apr 21 2012 20:06:59 by vanguard737
Eventual Fate Of The Shuttle Carrier 747 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 09:30:42 by RobertS975
What Came Off Of The Left Wing After Takeoff? posted Thu Feb 2 2012 23:53:57 by potus
The Age Of The Majority Of The Usaf C-17? posted Thu Mar 3 2011 19:03:30 by 747400sp
The Experimental Flight Of The US-XP posted Sun Feb 6 2011 09:35:09 by mrskyguy
Stunning Shots Of The Royal Air Force posted Mon Jan 10 2011 14:47:27 by skinny

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format