|Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):|
And Canada ended up with an interceptor, (the CF-101, which nobody else wanted), good for little else but bomber interception to be later supplanted by the CF-104, which was good for little else than bomber interception), a nuclear armed missile, (which nobody else wanted), and the f-5, which is a pretty good supersonic trainer.
Except for the F-5, each of those other platforms was no less specialized than the Arrow.
The CF-100's were still obsolete and needed replacement. It was just that the USAF
was able to make the F-101B's available to us by redeploying some of their fighters around in a few NORAD sectors that they were able to offer them to us for a very low price. We still needed something to intercept lone Soviet aircraft probing our airspace, and the F-101 did the trick, especially after SAGE came online.
|Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):|
In the end, it cost Canada at least as much, if not more for all of the systems which weren't any more capable than the Arrow...with the added consequence of 50,000 people being put out of work overnight.
Any difference in the cost of the Arrow and the American planes purchased was negligible. It's not like all that hardware was given to Canada. It came out of the same coffers that would have paid for the Arrow...and that stuff wasn't cheap.
The American military didn't want Arrow and since dief signed Canada on to be subjugated by NORAD, and the US assured Pearkes that they had plenty of planes, no worries, Canada didn't need the Arrow.
Dief and the gang got suckered. It was a bad deal.
The Arrow's per unit projected cost was 4 times that of the eventual replacement, the CF-101, and was double that of the F-106 Delta Dart. And the Arrow was not that much more capable than the Delta Dart, or even the F-4 Phantom II
which took flight around the same time the Arrow did.
The government was put into a quandary; they could either continue with Arrow and cancel other military projects (leaving the Navy and the Army to become quickly ineffective), or it could cancel the Arrow, allow other military projects to continue, and move forward with NORAD and SAGE. Think about it: the threat environment has changed. No longer was the primary axis of attack was through Soviet bombers, it was through ICBM's. No interceptor aircraft in the world at the time and today can intercept a ICBM. Do you continue with projects that suddenly become questionable in terms of military value, or do you can it?
The government made the militarily and economically correct decision. It was a difficult decision politically, but it was a decision that had to be made. Around the world, many other governments cancelled projects that were very similar to the Arrow; the US cancelled the XF
-103, the XF
-108 Rapier, and almost cancelled the F-106 Delta Dart. The British canned nearly every single manned fighter in the same time period, save for the English Electric Lightning. The aviation industry in those nations survived these cancellations. A.V. Roe didn't, because of how fragile the company was.
|Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 33):|
Germans often referred to the Starfighter as "The Widowmaker" -- the a/c had a bad problem with spins coupled to engine failure. But as you point out, many other a/c of the era had similar accident rates. They too were referred to as "Widowmakers". But realistically, operate a single-engined a/c long enough, you'll start to lose them.
No, the majority of Starfighter losses was at low altitude... not surprising especially due to the type of missions they flew in NATO service, which was that of a low level tactical strike aircraft. Controlled flight into terrain was especially an issue, and many fighters of that era were not known to be easy aircraft to fly. Canadian losses were higher because of the environment; our F-104's were parked outside with no hangars and that had a bad effect on the various avionics inside the fighter. Everyone else got to park their Starfighters in a hangar... except for us...
Mind you, of all the 'Century' series fighters, the F-104 had an okay accident rate compared to many other types; in fact, the F-100 Super Sabre had the worst accident rate of all the 'Century' series fighters.
Having twin engines does not mean that the aircraft is safer; for example, the majority of CF-18 crashes that involved engine failure involved situations where both engines failed due to a common cause (such as fuel starvation).
Interestingly, the F-16 has one of the best records for engine-related shutdowns in flight, despite it having only 1 engine. Also, one of the most reliable helicopters in the world for flight hours flown is the Bell 206 Jet Ranger (including military variants), which only has 1 engine.