[llama66]

its an interesting idea, There are not many mach 3+ aircraft in the world (MiG-25 and the SR-71 is all I can think of...). I think would be awesome to see the CF-105 Arrow revived, it would breathe new life into our high tech and aviation industries, therefore putting jobs and money back into the economy. Unfortunately finding foreign orders might be difficult...

[saturn_656]

llama66 llama66:

its an interesting idea, There are not many mach 3+ aircraft in the world (MiG-25 and the SR-71 is all I can think of...). I think would be awesome to see the CF-105 Arrow revived, it would breathe new life into our high tech and aviation industries, therefore putting jobs and money back into the economy. Unfortunately finding foreign orders might be difficult...

Whatever plane would come out of this initiative, it most certainly would not be a CF-105 Arrow.

Avionics, engines, and weapons outfit of the 1950's CF-105 would be beyond obsolete today. A new Canadian jet fighter might superficially resemble an Arrow but the commonality would (read: should) end there. Also the airframe would need to be reworked (developed from scratch) as maneuverability was a tertiary consideration with its design. It was meant to do two things, fly high and fly fast. Any modern fighter would own a Arrow in WVR combat.

You want to develop a new domestic jet interceptor? Awesome. But calling it "the Arrow" just gives critics ammunition to fire at it.

General Lewis MacKenzie General Lewis MacKenzie:

While the F-35 carries the “F” for fighter it would be more accurately described as an A-35, the “A” standing for the attack role, its primary strength. But this role is assumed more and more in every conflict by cruise missiles, particularly during first strike takedown of enemy air defences. It should be noted that Canada has participated in three wars in the past 32 years, Gulf War One, Serbia/Kosovo and Libya, without one CF-18 scratching its paint let alone being hit by enemy fire. Not bad for an aircraft described as obsolete.

While the CF-105 carries "F" for fighter, it would be more accurately described as an interceptor, with the interception of Soviet bombers being its only role.

This is a role that for all intents and purposes is dead (at the very least dormant). All of our combat missions in the last fifty years have been biased towards dropping ordinance on enemy ground assets (coincidentally the A-35's forte), not shooting down bombers or dogfighting MiGs.

Should we ignore air to air? Definately not. But we shouldn't only buy a one trick pony (interceptor) either.

Gen. Lewis points to cruise missiles taking over certain strike roles from fighters.

Firstly, Canada doesn't possess them nor are there plans to buy any.

Secondly, cruise missiles are launched by one of four things:

Fighters, Bombers, Surface Combatants (destroyers and cruisers), and Submarines.

Canada has no bombers, Canada has no SS(G)N's, Canada has no surface combatants capable of carrying cruise missiles. So that leaves us with... FIGHTERS!

So its nice to say that cruise missiles are replacing fighters... except when you realize you need those same fighters to launch said missiles.

Damn, eh.

[llama66]

Ok, they are not saying the Arrow Mk.I (al la 1959) they are saying an updated version, so I'd assume they'd remember to update the avionics. I believe they refered to it as the Mk.III.

[saturn_656]

llama66 llama66:

Ok, they are not saying the Arrow Mk.I (al la 1959) they are saying an updated version, so I'd assume they'd remember to update the avionics. I believe they refered to it as the Mk.III.

Once you rework an entire plane top to bottom, it really deserves a new designation.

[jeff744]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

llama66 llama66:

Ok, they are not saying the Arrow Mk.I (al la 1959) they are saying an updated version, so I'd assume they'd remember to update the avionics. I believe they refered to it as the Mk.III.

Once you rework an entire plane top to bottom, it really deserves a new designation.

Depends how much of the original design would remain, besides the F-35 is the Lightning II, we could always call a new Arrow the Arrow II.

[saturn_656]

If we want to build a modern and effective fighter, it will have little in common with the CF-105.

[herbie]

We could buy all the F-35 licenses and subsidize a new factory so Bombardier could build them for $750 million each!
Oh wait, the Liberals aren't in office anymore.....

Revive the Mosquito!
They were faster than a Bear bomber and plywood's pretty stealthy isn't it?

[Canadian_Mind]

Even the Arrow would have been more suited to the attack role than the current F-35. Larger weapons capacity, and it's weapon bay was 18 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 8 feet wide. The F-35 can't carry the standard, high impact Tomahawk Cruise Missile, only the smaller ground attack munitions (JDAM, JSOW, etc). Arrow has this same limitation, but while the JSF has only 4 internal weapons stations, the Arrow would have 8 for air-air weapons, 4-16 for ground attack weapons, or a varied mixture of both. Point is the arrow was designed to be more conformable. You literally drop a pod that was the old weapons bay, and pop a new one back into place. Rather than the Air Weapons Technicians having to install each individual missile, they outfit the pod while the bird is either in the air or in the hanger, and just put it in place. A far more efficient system.

[Gunnair]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Even the Arrow would have been more suited to the attack role than the current F-35. Larger weapons capacity, and it's weapon bay was 18 feet long, 4 feet deep, and 8 feet wide. The F-35 can't carry the standard, high impact Tomahawk Cruise Missile, only the smaller ground attack munitions (JDAM, JSOW, etc). Arrow has this same limitation, but while the JSF has only 4 internal weapons stations, the Arrow would have 8 for air-air weapons, 4-16 for ground attack weapons, or a varied mixture of both. Point is the arrow was designed to be more conformable. You literally drop a pod that was the old weapons bay, and pop a new one back into place. Rather than the Air Weapons Technicians having to install each individual missile, they outfit the pod while the bird is either in the air or in the hanger, and just put it in place. A far more efficient system.

Pie in the sky dreaming unfortunately. I would submit there is zero political will to do this.

[BeaverFever]

Is there anyone with knowledge of aircraft engineering who has endorsed this idea. Installing new "materials and technology" would probably not be an "upgrade" but more likely require a complete redesign of the Arrow from ground up. NIt's not like installing a CD player in your dad's old Chevy guys.

NOR should it be assumed that the rebuilt arrow with new mateirals an technology would perfrom the same as the old arrow (there's even controversy over the old arrow' actual performance numbers anyway).

I'm sorry but the whole idea sounds ridiculous from start to finish.

[Gunnair]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Is there anyone with knowledge of aircraft engineering who has endorsed this idea. Installing new "materials and technology" would probably not be an "upgrade" but more likely require a complete redesign of the Arrow from ground up. NIt's not like installing a CD player in your dad's old Chevy guys.

NOR should it be assumed that the rebuilt arrow with new mateirals an technology would perfrom the same as the old arrow (there's even controversy over the old arrow' actual performance numbers anyway).

I'm sorry but the whole idea sounds ridiculous from start to finish.

Well, I'm no aeronautics engineer but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Well, the C-130 for example is still having variants pushed out and the airframe design is from the mid 50's. That, however, is a cargo plane and not a high performance fighter. I would submit that maybe one can take an existing 1950's airframe design and retweak it, but really, I wonder why would you when you could take a 1980's or 1990's airframe and do the same thing.

Agreed though, non-starter.

[BeaverFever]

True for the C-130, I would counter however that is a very different scenario as the various new materials and technologies were introduced incrementally over decades. Further, the actual shape and dimensions of the airframe were also altered incrementally. This is quite different from taking a first-run 1950's C-130 prototype and tyring to graft 21st century techonology into virtually every aspect of the design at once.

And, as you pointed out, its propeller-driven transport and not a supersonic fighter jet

[Gunnair]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

True for the C-130, I would counter however that is a very different scenario as the various new materials and technologies were introduced incrementally over decades. Further, the actual shape and dimensions of the airframe were also altered incrementally. This is quite different from taking a first-run 1950's C-130 prototype and tyring to graft 21st century techonology into virtually every aspect of the design at once.

And, as you pointed out, its propeller-driven transport and not a supersonic fighter jet

No need to counter really. The only relevancy I was getting at is that the military does use older airframe designs still.

[PJB]

What I see here is Canada's biggest problem. We are a bunch of chicken-shits. We have all of the technology and capability to build aircraft on our own be we are too damn scared to do it! The AVRO Arrow was so far beyond anything that anyone could possibly consider yet we built it. Then along come our friends from down south saying 'wait a second, you can't do that." So our gutless government at the time stopped it. Canada is a on-going joke when it comes to any kind of military initiative. Let's design and build a home-grown aircraft that we need.

[Gunnair]

PJB PJB:

What I see here is Canada's biggest problem. We are a bunch of chicken-shits. We have all of the technology and capability to build aircraft on our own be we are too damn scared to do it! The AVRO Arrow was so far beyond anything that anyone could possibly consider yet we built it. Then along come our friends from down south saying 'wait a second, you can't do that." So our gutless government at the time stopped it. Canada is a on-going joke when it comes to any kind of military initiative. Let's design and build a home-grown aircraft that we need.

You know that'll cost a ton of cash right?