# A new Avro Arrow (or Super Arrow) instead of the F-35 (Merged thread)



## Retired AF Guy

armyguy1 said:
			
		

> Well that would be amazing to see the Arrow as Canada's next fighter... such a shame how they scrapped it all those years ago



Yes, it was a shame that the Arrow was destroyed, but contrary to what many people think, the Arrow was not the "most advanced fighter" of its  time. The American's were testing the F-4 Phantom at the same time and it flew just as high and fast as the Arrow, plus it had an air-to-air refueling capability.  

The idea of resurrecting the Arrow is just so dumb.


----------



## aesop081

armyguy1 said:
			
		

> such a shame how they scrapped it all those years ago



Yes it is such a shame that we scrapped it rather than continue development work alone (i.e. the weapons system) and bankrupt the entire defence budget as a result. It's not like the CF needed anything other than a new fighter at the time.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes it is such a shame that we scrapped it rather than continue development work alone (i.e. the weapons system) and *bankrupt the entire defence budget as a result. It's not like the CF needed anything other than a new fighter at the time.*



 :goodpost:

300 Milpoints inbound for for properly understanding and explaining the situation.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There is a lobby group who are pushing for the Avro Arrow to come back from the grave as Canada's next front line fighter.  Maj. Gen (Ret) Lewis MacKenzie is leading the charge, but getting no real bites in Ottawa.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/will-legendary-avro-arrow-make-lazarus-like-return/article4530724/


----------



## OldSolduer

As much as I like Lew Mac, he's a retired Army officer. He should have stayed in his arc of fire IMHO.


----------



## Eaglelord17

They do know that we completely destroyed all blueprints as well as the jets themselves right? So essentially what this former general is perposing is reverse engineering a fighter jet which barely existed for a brief amount of time and all the designers are dead or close to it with only pictures and a few models to go on? Seems a bit crazy.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Well maybe they will finally open up  that barn in Saskatchewan now ...  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

There was no "room" in the global aerospace market for another country to compete in the sophisticated, high performance fighter _niche_ back in the 1960s. I can see no change 50 years later ~ except, perhaps that Canada is not as well positioned for that particular market niche as it was back then.

The government of the day made a tough decision about where we "fit" and *maybe* the (relative) success of _Bombardier/Canadair_ justifies that decision - maybe not. But, the fact is that we did, nationally, abandon that market niche and, in my opinion there is no going back.

Despite what some politicians think, the defence budget is not a regional employment programme.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> As much as I like Lew Mac, he's a retired Army officer. He should have stayed in his arc of fire IMHO.


The Arrow is to many Canadians, including me, an opportunity lost.  I can understand how there are those who would love to see it in the sky, who wouldn't?  But, this is almost as crazy as Hellyer claiming he sees UFO's.  I'm with you, Jim.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Would love to see an all-Canadian fighter in the skies, but lets be realistic.  This will never happen.  Even well established fighter production companies (i.e. Sweden's Saab with the Gripen) are struggling to make their projects profitable.  This would be a money pit that would probably eclipse purchasing the F-35 (and probably even the F-22 if it was available for export).

Sorry Lew, but you're off the mark on this one.


----------



## Journeyman

What most of the Avro Arrow's cheerleaders conveniently overlook is that the CF-105 was designed to go in a straight line very, very quickly in order to intercept then-newly developed Soviet jet-powered bombers. It was feared that such fast long-range bombers would trump the CF-100's capabilities.

It was never designed for, and its resurrected capabilities would be inadequate for, a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft.

Let it rest in peace in Canadian mythology.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What most of the Avro Arrow's cheerleaders conveniently overlook is that the CF-105 was designed to go in a straight line very, very quickly in order to intercept then-newly developed Soviet jet-powered bombers. It was feared that such fast long-range bombers would trump the CF-100's capabilities.
> 
> It was never designed for, and its resurrected capabilities would be inadequate for, a multi-role attack/fighter aircraft.
> 
> Let it rest in peace in Canadian mythology.



You're letting facts and common sense get in the way of patriotism and media flashy headlines.


----------



## Journeyman

:-[   Sorry. Sometimes I forget myself.


----------



## Haletown

Must be silly season on Planet Ottawa.

Very surprised LM would allow his reputation to be associated this brain phart of an idea.


----------



## Maxadia

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Maj. Gen (Ret) Lewis MacKenzie is leading the charge...



Why?

Can he really be that out of touch with things, that he thinks this country can sustain bringing a small-niche fighter back online from 50 years ago?

Like someone mentioned in the other thread, it would be very similar to the Foxbat, and completely useless for the role we are looking for a new fighter to fill.  Sure, it would be wonderful and nostalgic to have the Arrow fly again...but if you're going to do that maybe just bring Billy Bishop's plane back online while we're at it.  :

I think I just heard Lt.-Gen. Lawson's eyes roll back in his head.  Talk about having an early headache on the job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cancelling the project I could understand, the destruction of the aircraft and plans I don't. I suspect the aircraft would have made good test planes and a slowed development arc might have kept our aerospace industry chugging along without sucking up huge amounts of the budget.


----------



## aesop081

This has nothing to do with the CF-105. Lew Mack is just an unfortunate victim of a political play to discredit the Government.


----------



## Old Sweat

I've known Lew for more than 40 years (we met on Combat Team Commanders Course 7201) and today was the first time he did not make sense. He was interviewed on the morning show on CFRA  and said things like:

the AVRO engineers all took plans home with them and still have them;

the Arrow doesn't need stealth technology as it flies at 90,000 feet;

what we are talking about is the Arrow Mk III and IV. The ones scrapped in the 1950s were earlier models; and

there is no such thing as precision bombing [I guess he never heard of smart munitions].

I'll leave it at that other than to suggest he was fed some really bad talking poits.


----------



## Ostrozac

And what weapons would the modernized CF-105 carry? The original version was designed to deliver air-to-air nuclear weapons and detonate them over northern Canada.

Why we, as a nation, have chosen to romanticize a particularly nasty aspect of the Cold War is beyond me.

Combat aircraft are a means to deliver a package to a point. That package could be air-to-air missiles and gunfire, or bombs, or even a camera. But it is hard to discuss aircraft without discussing the "package".

At the end of the day, the Arrow wasn't a general purpose multirole fighter-bomber. It was a specialist tool. If we are only going to have a single fighter in the inventory, it has to be general purpose.


----------



## Shrek1985

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Yes, it was a shame that the Arrow was destroyed, but contrary to what many people think, the Arrow was not the "most advanced fighter" of its  time. The American's were testing the F-4 Phantom at the same time and it flew just as high and fast as the Arrow, plus it had an air-to-air refueling capability.
> 
> The idea of resurrecting the Arrow is just so dumb.



flat wrong. Look it up; Avro aircraft and cold war aviation by Whitcomb


----------



## Maxadia

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And what weapons would the modernized CF-105 carry? The original version was designed to deliver air-to-air nuclear weapons and detonate them over northern Canada.



I believe the Sparrow was chosen as a weapons system for the Arrow?


----------



## Shrek1985

This makes everyone involved look stupid.

I agree that the F-35 is the wrong aircraft for us, but the role it is intended to fill, it could do very well. problem is; it's totally the wrong role for us to fill with an aircraft this expensive.

We don not need the Avro Arrow, unless we're talking the MKIV, ect, we need an aircraft LIKE the arrow. High Speed, High Altitude, Long Range. Something we can double in the strike and air-defence suppression role. such as the latest version of the MIG-31.

The F-35 is a completely different kind of aircraft than the Arrow was. They play different games, entirely. It's like matching up a hockey and water polo team. 

now...if you were to, for instance develop a weapon effective against stealth aircraft and put it on a mach 3+, 90,000 ft + ceiling airframe, then it's not even a contest.


----------



## aesop081

RDJP said:
			
		

> I believe the Sparrow was chosen as a weapons system for the Arrow?



Sparrow II to be exact. After the United States decided to abandon development in 1956, Canada was left alone to bear the cost and risk. That obviously did not go anywhere and contributed to the downfall of the CF-105.


----------



## Ostrozac

While the Arrow was orginally supposed to have Sparrow II -- my understanding is that because Sparrow II simply didn't work, that the primary armament was then changed to the AIR-2 Genie nuclear weapon, the same one that we eventually used on the CF-101 Voodoos.


----------



## GAP

Mods...I think a split off of the F-35 thread to it's own Arrow resurrection thread is due....


----------



## aesop081

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> While the Arrow was orginally supposed to have Sparrow II -- my understanding is that because Sparrow II simply didn't work, that the primary armament was then changed to the AIR-2 Genie nuclear weapon, the same one that we eventually used on the CF-101 Voodoos.



After the cancelation of the Sparrow II project by the US in 1956, Canadair was brought in to continue its development in Canada. Avro argued that the Falcon missile was a better choice. The canadian development of Sparrow II was not cancelled until 1959, cancellation of the Arrow was requested in 1958. I don't think the Genie was ever intended for use with the CF-105


----------



## Journeyman

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> I agree that the F-35 is the wrong aircraft for us, but the role it is intended to fill, it could do very well. problem is; it's totally the wrong role for us to fill with an aircraft this expensive.


What RCAF roles are you advocating/arbitrarily dismissing...and based on what?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What RCAF roles are you advocating/arbitrarily dismissing...and based on what?



If he choses to answer that, it can be in the F-35 thread lest we interlock the topics again.


----------



## Journeyman

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> flat wrong. Look it up; Avro aircraft and cold war aviation by Whitcomb


OK, instead of "flat wrong; look it up," would it not be more useful for you to post the CF-105 / F-4 stats with sources, rather than having each and every reader here go out and purchase Whitcomb's book?
After all, Amazon says they have only five used in stock (from $77.58); by the time we all swapped addresses and passed the book around, the thread would be long dead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think it's high time to redevelop the mosquito as a stealthy intruder using proven technology and domestically sourced materials. The Bristol Beaufort can play the part of our Marine Sovereignty mission supported by Sutherland flying boats.


----------



## Gorgo

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There is a lobby group who are pushing for the Avro Arrow to come back from the grave as Canada's next front line fighter.  Maj. Gen (Ret) Lewis MacKenzie is leading the charge, but getting no real bites in Ottawa.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/will-legendary-avro-arrow-make-lazarus-like-return/article4530724/



My God!  Who's insane dope-dream IS this?!

I agree with many of the people who have contributed to this thread.  The Arrow is an *interceptor*.  We have no need for such a plane these days.

We'd be better off buying the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet instead of the F-35.  The latter design hasn't been proven by ANY stretch of the imagination and even if we're just getting the standard non-V/STOL version of the plane to equip 3 and 4 Wings, the complete boondoggle of the development process in America is just going to slow down development on all versions and jack up the costs even more.  Besides, given our fighter pilots' experience with the CF-188 - which is an F/A-18A - converting over to a CF-188E Super Hornet would be as simple as pie and not require so much in the way of infrastructure changes.

Why on Earth didn't the Air Force consider THAT?!


----------



## Haletown

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think it's high time to redevelop the mosquito as a stealthy intruder using proven technology and domestically sourced materials. The Bristol Beaufort can play the part of our Marine Sovereignty mission supported by Sutherland flying boats.



Excellent idea          

I heard a rumor that the plans for the Sopwith Camel went home with those workers and it would an uber stealthy aircraft,  flying so low and slow nothing could touch it.


----------



## PuckChaser

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Why on Earth didn't the Air Force consider THAT?!



Because, as stated earlier, the production line is closing and the US is planning on replacing the Super Hornet in 10 years with the F-35. They're not going to keep parts plants open for our 65 airframes.


----------



## armyguy1

Reading all of this stuff about what fighter people think we should get makes me wonder, if there wasn't all of these issues and obstacles to overcome to get a specific aircraft what actually is the best fighter out there to date?


----------



## aesop081

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Why on Earth didn't the Air Force consider THAT?!



The RCAF did not have the benefit of your insights at time.  :



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> which is an F/A-18A



...and F/A-18*B*............We have those too.........


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The Banshee, Voodoo and Starfighter were far along the curve when they were bought. The Sabres were about halfway by the time they really got going. 

The only ones the RCAF was in on from the beginning were the CF-100's (for obvious reasons) and the CF-18's.


----------



## observor 69

When we retired the Voodoo it was so far over the hill in technology and airframe hours that I am not sure it could have survived in a real war.
 The 104 was designed for a high speed high altitude intercept but being used to attack ground targets. And like the Voodoo,at the end, was struggling for parts and support.
So now we are looking at buying the most advanced state of the art aircraft, and who wouldn't love that!
But with our record it wouldn't be all that unusual if we bought a Super Hornet compromise buy?


----------



## Remius

Well if we are thinking of resurecting the Arrow, it is only fitting we bring back some other worthwhile projects like this one (for the Navy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

Project Habakkuk would accomplish many things and likely complement the Arrow.  For one, we have plenty of the source materials to build at least two (to start).  It hits all the marks.  Low cost, locally built, arctic soverignty, environmental, low upkeep, very little crew required etc etc. 

Plus as a bonus, we could get a pile of sea faring nations to buy into this early so as to receive a lower price and share in upkeep and materials.  Heck, I'm sure we can convince caribeean nations to buy in due to low costs.

I'm writing someone about this as we speak...


----------



## dapaterson

Bah!  We need to look to the future, not the past.  F-35, not CF-105.  SCSC, not Project Habakkuk.  And CASW, not 60mm mortars!


----------



## Pat in Halifax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Bah!  We need to look to the future, not the past.  F-35, not CF-105.  *SCSC*, not Project Habakkuk.  And CASW, not 60mm mortars!



SCSC has been superseded by CSC (Canadian Surface Combatant) Admittedly, it is the 4th kick at the cat on that one:
CADRE;
SCSC:
DR, and now
CSC


----------



## Maxadia

Crantor said:
			
		

> Plus as a bonus, we could get a pile of sea faring nations to buy into this early so as to receive a lower price and share in upkeep and materials.  Heck, I'm sure we can convince caribeean nations to buy in due to low costs.



I don't think there is enough nations that consistently use the colder waters of the planet to keep the costs down.  Plus, they'd have to solve the problem of ice flow in milder temperatures.


----------



## Remius

RDJP said:
			
		

> I don't think there is enough nations that consistently use the colder waters of the planet to keep the costs down.  Plus, they'd have to solve the problem of ice flow in milder temperatures.



Sounds like someone forgot about the "Can" in Canada.  Besides, no refunds. Imagine a fleet of these ice-boats with Arrows on them!


----------



## Shrek1985

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What RCAF roles are you advocating/arbitrarily dismissing...and based on what?



Note "with an aircraft this expensive".

Do you know the term quantitative incompetance? It's when it no longer matter how good what you have is, because you don't have remotely enough to do the job. Think Tiger IIs, vs T-34s. or in our case simply too damn few aircraft for the price. Go the other way around, determine how many airframes you need and how much you have to spend, then, taking into account it has to last 30+ years and survive canadian weather and have absurd range; find the aircraft types that fit that set of requirements. if you are smart you ignore politics at this stage. Dare to dream with me now.

NOT; we need a super-advanced american-style stealth fighter, so we don't look backward.

As opposed to the roles the arbitrarily dismissed by the F-35, such as home defence (range) and soverignty preservation (numbers). It can do, we think, everything else we do right now. Note the forshadowing; what we do right now.


----------



## Shrek1985

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, instead of "flat wrong; look it up," would it not be more useful for you to post the CF-105 / F-4 stats with sources, rather than having each and every reader here go out and purchase Whitcomb's book?
> After all, Amazon says they have only five used in stock (from $77.58); by the time we all swapped addresses and passed the book around, the thread would be long dead.



wilco, when I get home to my books.


----------



## Kirkhill

I would love to see a graphite Mossie with PWC turboprops.

No idea what it would do but it love to see one flying just because....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> wilco, when I get home to my books.




Don't bother, the _National Post_ gave us a "ready reckoner:"







The F-35 outclasses the CF-105 in pretty much everything except speed, for which, as Journeyman
said, it was specifically designed as an interceptor.


----------



## Haletown

In this day and age of advanced radar, optical and infrared targeting systems, the one thing the Arrow would excel at is being a great target.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would love to see a graphite Mossie with PWC turboprops.
> 
> No idea what it would do but it love to see one flying just because....



Point to note, IMHO the Mosquito was actually the first Stealth aircraft. Low observable on radar, fast, manouverable. My favorite aircraft of all time!


----------



## Danjanou

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sounds like someone forgot about the "Can" in Canada.  Besides, no refunds. Imagine a fleet of these ice-boats with Arrows on them!



Could the escort vessels be sharks with friggin lazers on their heads? ;D


----------



## Remius

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Could the escort vessels be sharks with friggin lazers on their heads? ;D



See, this is exactly the kind of out of the box thinking we need.


----------



## jollyjacktar

For those of us old enough there was the guy who was proposing "The Defender" ultralight aircraft for the Air Force back when the CF-18 was but a gleam in a pilot's eye.  Think of how many of these combat baby's we could get for $16 B.

http://www.combatreform.org/combatultralights.htm


----------



## Shrek1985

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't bother, the _National Post_ gave us a "ready reckoner:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-35 outclasses the CF-105 in pretty much everything except speed, for which, as Journeyman
> said, it was specifically designed as an interceptor.



no, really I don't mind.

As representative; a  thrust to weight ratio comparison.

Lockheed F-12B 48,000lbs dry thrust, 64,000lbs with afterburners, .69-1 thrust to weight ratio
North American F-108 Rapier same thrust, .8-1 thrust to weight
Arrow Mk 3 (the globe needs to distinguish mark and engines, those are Mk1, pre-porduction stats with American pratt and whitney engines) 39,700lbs dry, 53,300lbs with AB, .81-1
Arrow Mk 4 as above with 118,156lbs with AB and ramjets.


Mk2 arrow; mach 2.3 in tests
E-Model F-4 (mid-60s) mach 2.25, approx 24,000lbs thrust.

Again; comparison is off; the F-4E is a mid-60s bird, while by that time, the Mk3 and 4 arrows could have been flying. But also; role, the F-4 was developed into a multirole craft, the arrow had a more limited scope; interceptor, recce, strike.

Info from the afore mentioned book, as well as The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.

I am not arguing for a new arrow, i'd be shocked if you told me our gelded aerospace industry could produce such a thing in anything like a useful time frame. But better aircraft in more appropriate roles could be had in greater numbers for our money, but we'd have to divorce politics from procurement first.


----------



## George Wallace

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information being put forward in this proposal.  The previous post had info from the National Post, which greatly differs from that stated by a spokesperson (not Gen Mackenzie) from the consortium as to the capabilities of the aircraft.  The figures I heard on CTV interview had the Arrow flying higher, faster, and longer range than the F-35.   I would be curious to see how these figures are going to change over the next few days/month/weeks/year (?).


----------



## armyguy1

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of conflicting information being put forward in this proposal.  The previous post had info from the National Post, which greatly differs from that stated by a spokesperson (not Gen Mackenzie) from the consortium as to the capabilities of the aircraft.  The figures I heard on CTV interview had the Arrow flying higher, faster, and longer range than the F-35.   I would be curious to see how these figures are going to change over the next few days/month/weeks/year (?).



Yeah I was kind of shocked to read the spec comparison to the F-35 listed considering the differences in reports too. What the heck is real, or are we getting two totally bias reports to try and persuade people to support their proposed jet? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle in terms of Arrow capabilities?


----------



## Shrek1985

armyguy1 said:
			
		

> Yeah I was kind of shocked to read the spec comparison to the F-35 listed considering the differences in reports too. What the heck is real, or are we getting two totally bias reports to try and persuade people to support their proposed jet? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle in terms of Arrow capabilities?


 
This is becoming sickening more and more common in all weapons literature. With the decline of respectable dead-tree sources, the rise of internet sensationalism and sock-puppet magazines, it is becoming extremely difficult to determine the true capabilities of new weapons systems.


----------



## Danjanou

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> For those of us old enough there was the guy who was proposing "The Defender" ultralight aircraft for the Air Force back when the CF-18 was but a gleam in a pilot's eye.  Think of how many of these combat baby's we could get for $16 B.
> 
> http://www.combatreform.org/combatultralights.htm



Yeah but then this issue would become bigger 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/107432.0/topicseen.html


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ultralights are much easier to learn how to fly than a fast mover.  You'd be able to crank out the new intrepid birdmen/women at a far faster pace.  Hell they did it in a matter of hours back when aircraft were not so much more sophisticated.  In college I took ultralight lessons and had my first solo in a very short timeframe.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ultralights are much easier to learn how to fly than a fast mover.  You'd be able to crank out the new intrepid birdmen/women at a far faster pace.  Hell they did it in a matter of hours back when aircraft were not so much more sophisticated.  In college I took ultralight lessons and had my first solo in a very short timeframe.


What was it like to fly around the time of the Wright Brothers?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Wilbur was very patient as an instructor, but Snoopy kept trying to hot dog all the time which drove Orville nuts.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

That crazy Snoopy.

I truly don't understand where this discussion is coming from at a time of budget reduction and fiscal penny pinching.  Even if the Avro Arrow in it's newest incarnation was the absolute best choice hands down in every way, and could be delivered at a cost of less than $100 million per aircraft, there are still numerous costs that would drive the money spent into the absurd range.  Just building the infrastructure alone to make this project work would take billions of additional funding that the government does not have.  Even to use an existing airframe manufacturer that has factories and warehouses in Canada, we would need to sink gobs of money into making them ready to roll a useable proto-type off the line.

And timeframe?  Wow, we're probably talking a decade until we would see full scale production taking place.

This is me a humble dirt eater sitting on the sidelines.  Just wow.


----------



## Staff Weenie

I wonder how much it would cost to genetically engineer humans with big wings.....


----------



## WingsofFury

I would take everything being reported with a grain of salt, and here's why.

The Arrow program was shrouded in secrecy with a lot of the true accomplishments never being kept on the official record.  One can make assumptions about what performance levels it did hit, but the only people who know the true details of how the plane flew have all passed away.  We can make comparisons to other aircraft developed at the time, including the -106, but as we've seen through the progression of airframes and the roles that they play, the design, role, and not to mention the construction materials have changed the way the aircraft are built.

Another facet of this project, which nobody has spoken about in detail, is what type of original documents actually exist.  On top of that, even if the original blueprints do actually exist somewhere, can you imagine how much it would take in development dollars to get this thing moving?  It'd make what is being spent on the F-35 (which is nothing, by the way) seem miniscule.  Think about how much in then dollars of the defence budget it cost to develop the Arrow and then wonder how much such a proposition would impact the Forces today.

While the notion of an all Canadian fighter is something that we as a country could take pride in, the reality of actually making it happen would hurt this country greatly, especially when we could have easily purchased aircraft either in development or already developed for a lesser amount which have significant capabilities that would more than meet our needs.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I wonder how much it would cost to genetically engineer humans with big wings.....


Pfft, all it takes is to send you down South or into the sandbox for a time.  You'll end up with a case of bat wings in the daytime, guarenteed.  Least for us guys...


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Pfft, all it takes is to send you down South or into the sandbox for a time.  You'll end up with a case of bat wings in the daytime, guarenteed.  Least for us guys...



Man... :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Crantor said:
			
		

> Man... :facepalm:


You're right, me and my new eyeglass Rx.  I thought he wrote "bat wings"  not "big wings".  Doh.   :-[


----------



## HB_Pencil

I find it somewhat humorous is how Boudreau and large segments of the public think that this would be more of a benefit for Canadian industries than the F-35 program. Maybe its a symptom of just how bad the discussion surrounding this program has become. First off, there is no way Canada could develop all of the fighter's components indigenously, without spending tens or even a hundred billion on development.

Certain equipment like Radars, avionics  and engine components would need to be sourced out to American companies. There just are no firms in Canada that could develop and produce a modern useful radar without recourse to foreign technology or spending obscene amounts of money.  The only firm that comes to mind is MDA, however I suspect getting them to do so would run into the billions under the most optimistic of estimates. Avionics alone cost over 50% of most aircrafts' value... and this is the area Canada is weakest industrially. 

By comparison Canada will likely gain a positive return on investment, over and above the procurement and development costs for the F-35. Now the Arrow might eventually result in more money in aggregate being invested in Canada, for no other reason than the staggering amounts of funding it would require to get such a project off the ground. 




			
				Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> This is becoming sickening more and more common in all weapons literature. With the decline of respectable dead-tree sources, the rise of internet sensationalism and sock-puppet magazines, it is becoming extremely difficult to determine the true capabilities of new weapons systems.



I think you have the wrong emphasis here. There  aren't any hard estimates for what this fighter can do because they don't exist. This attempt was completely based on some nationalist/business effort to undertake this work in Canada and get out of the F-35 program. This submission was very weak concerning the hard capabilities of a Boudreau Arrow, which the fantastical performance claims illustrate extremely well. It was their thought that they would modify the design to meet whatever defence needs the government required. This is why you see them asking for a grant to "study" the issue. 

In a way its the very same problem that afflicted the first Arrow; we will finish it no matter the cost.


----------



## Loachman

The first glimmer of sanity (on this matter) in the mainstream media:

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Time+shoot+down+wacky+plan+rebuild+Avro+Arrow/7221915/story.html

Time to shoot down wacky plan to rebuild Avro Arrow

By Les MacPherson, The StarPhoenix September 11, 2012 

Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.

Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.

Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.

Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.

By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.

Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.

There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?

Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?

A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.

The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix


----------



## Danjanou

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ultralights are much easier to learn how to fly than a fast mover.  You'd be able to crank out the new intrepid birdmen/women at a far faster pace.  Hell they did it in a matter of hours back when aircraft were not so much more sophisticated.  In college I took ultralight lessons and had my first solo in a very short timeframe.



Oh yeah that's what milnet.ca needs more pilots signing up here as members.  ;D

 :stirpot:


----------



## rampage800

Hard to believe that a former Army General would endorse an aircraft with no air to ground cape, mind boggling really. Never would have thought Lou would be that naive.


----------



## dapaterson

Lew should go back to racing - an area where he has some knowledge and experience - and stay away from aircraft, where having been a passenger does not make you an aeronautical engineer.


----------



## observor 69

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lew should go back to racing - an area where he has some knowledge and experience - and stay away from aircraft, "but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" does not make you an aeronautical engineer.


----------



## Ostrozac

If Canada is seriously looking at alternatives to F-35A, I suppose that any reasonable options should be investigated. As mentioned, it may be impossible to get Super Hornet or F-22 at this point, but perhaps the F-15SE Silent Eagle could be an option. Or even life-extending the F-18 fleet until F/A-XX is ready.

CF-105 would not be a reasonable option. We'd be better off buying Mig-31 -- that would also give us an obselete high-altitude interceptor, but at a reasonable pricetag and we wouldn't even have to build a billion-dollar factory - Russia delivers!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> If Canada is seriously looking at alternatives to F-35A, I suppose that any reasonable options should be investigated. As mentioned, it may be impossible to get Super Hornet or F-22 at this point, but perhaps the F-15SE Silent Eagle could be an option. Or even life-extending the F-18 fleet until F/A-XX is ready.
> 
> CF-105 would not be a reasonable option. We'd be better off buying Mig-31 -- that would also give us an obselete high-altitude interceptor, but at a reasonable pricetag and we wouldn't even have to build a billion-dollar factory - Russia delivers!




What about this? I'll bet they'll deliver, too.


----------



## Ostrozac

Good observation on the J-20, Edward, yet another single-role aircraft, but with the opposite problem from that of the Arrow -- J-20 is supposed to be a stealthy light bomber (a poor man's F-117?) with minimal/no air-to-air capability. Might be just the thing to suppress Taiwan's air defences, but not really suited for intercepting Bears over the Beaufort Sea.

Canada has stated, repeatedly, that we want a multi-role aircraft. LGen Deschamps has publicly stated that he does not want the air force to have multiple fighter types. From that, can I infer that the RCAF's institutional memory of the CF-5/CF-101/CF-104 days are not happy ones? If we were to go with a mixed fleet, that opens up all kinds of options, but I don't see that in the cards.


----------



## jollyjacktar

What about looking to Europe?  Typhoon, Rafael?  Does it have to be towards the US?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What about looking to Europe?  Typhoon, Rafael?  Does it have to be towards the US?


I guess the argument can be made that we're once again taking a step back when it comes to trying to get a 5th generation fighter, as the above choices are 4th generation.

I personally am a big fan of the super-hornet, mostly due to cost, capability and training/support.  But again as has been said in previous posts the production of the SH will end soon and we will still be with a 4 (maybe 4.5) generation fighter.


----------



## aesop081

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> can I infer that the RCAF's institutional memory of the CF-5/CF-101/CF-104 days are not happy ones?



No, you can not. The trouble is the reality today, mostly the $$$ reality, is that multiple fleets create more problems for the RCAF than benefits. More training courses for air and ground crews, more OTUs, more specialized systems to maintain (just look at the mess of different DEWS we have)..........


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The argument against the Rafael is that we either adopt the europeon weapon systems or spend money configuring it to take the US based weapons we use. Hard to say what industrial benefits we would get out of the deal, likely not as many as the F-35. Going by wiki, Rafael wins on the range both cruise and combat, which would be useful for Canada. Cost cited is 90-120million USD (2010) Rafael has 14 hardpoints to mount stuff on, F-35 has 10 (4 internal)


----------



## jollyjacktar

No easy answers, and I'm afraid it's not my part ship.  I can usually identify a airplane from a bird 9 times out of 10.  It's a shame that politics will no doubt raise it's massive/ugly head into this procurement and cost us all lots of time, money and frustration.  Which thought came to me as I watched a Cormorant come by my window to drop off a customer and all I could think of is "if Jean Chretien had been more of a man and less of a politician we'd (RCAF/RCN) not still be waiting for new choppers almost 20 years later...


----------



## Haletown

not saying wiki is possibly incorrect, but the data on range for the Rafale vs F 35 might be in error.

Based on a basic Fuel Fraction calculation, the  F-35 is better on range

Max weight
F-35A = 31,800kg     Rafale = 24,500kg

Internal fuel
F-35A = 8,300kg    Rafale = 4,250kg

Fuel fraction
F-35 = 0.26    Rafale = 0.17

Arm both aircraft with 2 x 1000lb bombs and 2 x AAM and the equation really changes.  The F-35 flies that mission without external stores.  The Rafale flies all its armaments externally (except its gun) and the resultant  parasitic drag requires the Rafale to carry at least a couple of external fuel tanks  -  I  don't have the figures at hand right now but memory says the Rafale needs to add two external fuel tanks to do the same mission as the F-35 does on internal fuel & weapons but even then the Rafale still can't match the F-35 range.

The other problem is the Rafale, while being a wonderful plane , is getting long in the tooth . . . same vintage as the F-18. First flights were mid 1980's.  It has been upgraded and improved but it is very long in its development cycle, with very little improvement space left.   Same for the Typhoon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

wiki wrong!!!!!   I'm shocked, my whole world has been undermined...... ;D

the devil is always in the details.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Canada's NDP:  Pushing 50 Year Old Defence Solutions!





> The NDP will be meeting this week with the Canadian group that's pitching a plan to resurrect the Avro Arrow as a solution to the government's fighter jet problems.
> 
> "We've got a great aerospace industry in Canada, and of course, updating, bringing a much more modern version of the Avro Arrow or something along those lines would make a lot more sense," NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said Sunday, comparing the storied Canadian jet to the U.S.-built F-35 the government was on track to purchase.
> 
> "We could define our own needs for our armed forces, our weather conditions, and we could build something in Canada, leaving all the benefits here instead of shipping those jobs south."
> 
> The government turned down the idea from the consortium of engineers and design experts, who said their idea would produce a faster, more efficient jet that would cost Canadians less than the F-35s, and boost the national economy.
> 
> The Conservatives said the proposal is unrealistic and too risky.
> 
> Despite the government's rejection, the NDP is willing to give the idea some thought.
> 
> The NDP's military procurement critic Matthew Kellway has scheduled a meeting this week with Marc Bourdeau, the president of Bourdeau Industries, which is spearheading the proposal ....


Opposition for the sake of opposing....


----------



## OldSolduer

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Canada's NDP:  Pushing 50 Year Old Defence Solutions!Opposition for the sake of opposing....



Their gasp on reality is tenuous at best when it comes to Defence issues. Pauline Jewett was like that in the mid 80s, and they haven't changed since.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> spend money configuring it to take the US based weapons we use.



1- It is "Rafale", not "Rafael".

2- Integration work for some US weapons has already begun.


----------



## honestyrules

Another point against the RAFALE, is that it hasn't been sold to other countries...doesn't seem to be a popular plane in the fighter jet world, for whatever reasons.
They just recently proved their worth in Libya.... I assume buyers prefer either next gen or battle proven aircrafts..



> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20110807.aspx


----------



## aesop081

delavan said:
			
		

> is that it hasn't been sold to other countries...



Wrong again.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/132379/why-rafale-won-in-india.html

Then.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/france-emirates-rafale-idUSL5E8D26WQ20120202


----------



## HB_Pencil

delavan said:
			
		

> Another point against the RAFALE, is that it hasn't been sold to other countries...doesn't seem to be a popular plane in the fighter jet world, for whatever reasons.
> They just recently proved their worth in Libya.... I assume buyers prefer either next gen or battle proven aircrafts..



Actually the Rafale seems to be the most popular aircraft behind the F-35. It won the biggest competition where the F-35 was not competing in, the Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Competition. It had tentative deals with the UAE and Morocco... with the former seeming to be back on and the latter being cancelled in favour for F-16s. Apparently its also the front runner in the Brazilian competition.


----------



## a_majoor

If the NDP and others really want to go all "back to the future" on aircraft procurement, the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed is probably available since the USAF has been directed to end the program. Not even the Arrow can outrun a laser beam.... >


----------



## OldSolduer

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the NDP and others really want to go all "back to the future" on aircraft procurement, the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser Testbed is probably available since the USAF has been directed to end the program. Not even the Arrow can outrun a laser beam.... >



But it's it attached to a frickin shark? >


----------



## cphansen

When I first saw this thread, I thought it was a hoax or a joke.  How could anyone seriously consider updating a fifty year old design, one which never went into service with any nation?

Now however I fear people are all too serious.  I hope this doesn't turn into another fiasco like the Liberal's cancelling of the naval helicopter.

The Arrow, beautiful aircraft it was, was cancelled by the RCAF brass because it was too expensive and getting it would have meant there would have been no funds available for any other acquisitions.  An airforce is a lot more than a couple of fast high altitude interceptors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we could buy some ex-Soviet SU-15 Flagons and paint them to look like Arrows, likely fool a most non aviation types from a distance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vq1kINiZE&playnext=1&list=PL4C0B1706A94CCDA0&feature=results_video


----------



## a_majoor

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> But it's it attached to a frickin shark? >



That's the RCN project. Once they get the Mutant Sea Bass thing sorted out you should see that project go full steam ahead.


----------



## Words_Twice

The F-35, IMHO is a plane that attempts to do everything, albiet poorly. Lets buy 150 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the same amount of money, and be done with it. It's a proven platform, and it will perform any mission we ask of it.


----------



## DonaldMcL

Words_Twice said:
			
		

> The F-35, IMHO is a plane that attempts to do everything, albiet poorly. Lets buy 150 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the same amount of money, and be done with it. It's a proven platform, and it will perform any mission we ask of it.



Or... F-15Es! I firmly believe that'd be a better fit for Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary

SherH2A said:
			
		

> When I first saw this thread, I thought it was a hoax or a joke.  How could anyone seriously consider updating a fifty year old design, one which never went into service with any nation?



I would suggest they are not. Someone is trying to create and ride an emotional wave of political lobbying and public enthusiasm which would lead to political decisions to use the DND budget to recreate a new sector of the Canadian aviation industry, design a plane around the "Arrow concept" and produce just the numbers we would be buying, in addition to the lifecycle maintenance requirements. Given advancements in technology and design since the 1950s, I expect the only part of the Avro Arrow that would actually survive is the name of the plane.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Words_Twice said:
			
		

> The F-35, IMHO is a plane that attempts to do everything, albiet poorly. Lets buy 150 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the same amount of money, and be done with it. It's a proven platform, and it will perform any mission we ask of it.



What part does it do "poorly"? 

In almost every category the F/A-18E is inferior to the F-35 when you actually put it into an operational situation. Combat radius, speed, maneuverability, survivability, sensors and reliability. Cost is the only area where the F-35 is inferior, but the difference is less than what most people believe: $10~$15 million per plane. Depending on how the logistics system pans out, the long term operational costs will probably pretty close, particularly when you consider that for the last 10~15 years of its lifecycle Canada will be the only operator of the type internationally. That's because everybody will have retired the type in favour of the F-35. Finally, we can't buy anymore F/A-18Es: The US Government is in the process of closing down its manufacturing line as they start up the F-35. 




			
				BobSlob said:
			
		

> Or... F-15Es! I firmly believe that'd be a better fit for Canada.



So then we're paying significantly more (both up front and in O&M) for slightly better range, speed (which you never use anyways) and total ordinance,with the trade off of lower reliability, poorer maneuverability, sensors and survivability. Oh and we would get nowhere near the advantages industrially that we've been accruing from the JSF partnership. 


Frankly, there really isn't a "better choice" for Canada. The only other option is to say we're done doing anything and just give up our fighter capability, because even for arctic security you're basically going to need the benefits of low-observables and sensors to do an effective job after 2020.


----------



## dapaterson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I would suggest they are not. Someone is trying to create and ride an emotional wave of political lobbying and public enthusiasm which would lead to political decisions to use the DND budget to recreate a new sector of the Canadian aviation industry, design a plane around the "Arrow concept" and produce just the numbers we would be buying, in addition to the lifecycle maintenance requirements. Given advancements in technology and design since the 1950s, I expect the only part of the Avro Arrow that would actually survive is the name of the plane.



Not at all.  I anticipate a fully historically accurate Avro Arrow:

Costs will escalate, causing the per unit cost to increase.

Successive governments will claim to be supportive, while requiring changes to move to more off-the-shelf technology.

Those changes will further inflate the cost.

And, finally, the government will can the program, leading to angst and wailing by Canadian nationalists.


----------



## Haletown

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I would suggest they are not. Someone is trying to create and ride an emotional wave of political lobbying and public enthusiasm which would lead to political decisions to use the DND budget to recreate a new sector of the Canadian aviation industry, design a plane around the "Arrow concept" and produce just the numbers we would be buying, in addition to the lifecycle maintenance requirements. Given advancements in technology and design since the 1950s, I expect the only part of the Avro Arrow that would actually survive is the name of the plane.



BINGO!

This is a long running story in Canadian politics and is further entwined with Quebec based politics, entitlements and the subsidized aerospace industry.

Recall just a few years ago the Bloc heads in parliament and the Quebec and national media getting all wound up about the single source contract to buy C-17's and not considering the A400's?  Airbus  had stoked up the usual suspects and media sources about how great the A400 would be for the Quebec  aerospace industry, blah, blah, blah. 

This is just another chapter in that long running saga, except this time it is beyond the normal dumb as a bag of hammers idea and is in a new, much higher orbit of absolute, complete and total stupidity.


But the amusement value is good and it is a great distraction for the government.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Weaponize an SR71 and include VSTOL capabilities.


----------



## a_majoor

I sort of agree the F-15E strike Eagle is a better "fit" given we have range issues (ferry flights in Canada are equal to strategic deployments for most other nations), and the ability to unload lots of ordnance on people's heads should always be considered a good thing. Indeed, If I had been around to purchase fighters for the CF back in the late 1970's early 1980's, that's exactly what I would have asked for.

Of course it is now 2012, so a 70's vintage design (even if it were to be entirely "new build") would still have all the limitations of a 1970's design, and need extensive redesign and testing to integrate the same features that a CF-35 comes with. 

Ask yourself if you would rather be driving a 1970's vintage Mustang or a 2012 one? (If you think that is an unfair comparison because of the cheesy "Mustang II", then feel free to use a '69 Mustang. Where are the ABS brakes, electronic engine controls, airbags, SiriusXM radio option etc on the "Boss" Mustang? The 2012 one has comparable performance to the '69 one, and also gets better fuel economy, produces less pollution, is safer in crashes etc. etc.) The same sort of issues arise using 1970 vintage designs like the F-18 or even 80's designs like the Gripen, Typhoon or Rafale.

By 2030 or so, when it is time to retire the CF-35, technology could have gone in many different directions. Air combat might be waged by UCAV's, 747 sized carriers mounting megawatt lasers or drones the size of hummingbirds and insects, so looking to the past might only be helpful in very limited and specific situations.


----------



## dapaterson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *By 2030 or so, when it is time to retire the CF-35,* technology could have gone in many different directions. Air combat might be waged by UCAV's, 747 sized carriers mounting megawatt lasers or drones the size of hummingbirds and insects, so looking to the past might only be helpful in very limited and specific situations.



Given the first CF-35 will not enter operational service before the early to mid 2020s, I do not expect to see them retiring before 2040 at the earliest.


----------



## Shrek1985

Anyone here tell me what the percieved requirements actually are, in as few words as possible, for a new canadian fighter?

I know what I think, what does DND think?


----------



## JorgSlice

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Anyone here tell me what the percieved requirements actually are, in as few words as possible, for a new canadian fighter?
> 
> I know what I think, what does DND think?



One that can fly? Has wings, an engine or two of the jet propulsion variety, preferably made of Aircraft grade metal as to withstand wind, weather, and debris?

Oh and capable of delivering a payload in the form of, but not limited to: missiles, rockets, cannons, machine guns, and bombs?

 ;D


----------



## HB_Pencil

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> Anyone here tell me what the percieved requirements actually are, in as few words as possible, for a new canadian fighter?
> 
> I know what I think, what does DND think?



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/mcr-bce-eng.asp

You compare any potential competitor aircraft across those categories and its fairly apparent that the F-35 comes out ahead.


----------



## OldSolduer

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> One that can fly? Has wings, an engine or two of the jet propulsion variety, preferably made of Aircraft grade metal as to withstand wind, weather, and debris?
> 
> Oh and capable of delivering a payload in the form of, but not limited to: missiles, rockets, cannons, machine guns, and bombs?
> 
> ;D


Or sharks with laser beams


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Or sharks with laser beams


*sigh, I thought we talked about this Jim.  With the recent budget cuts we couldn't even afford Angry Seabass, so we had to go with mildly ill-tempered Pike.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> *sigh, I thought we talked about this Jim.  With the recent budget cuts we couldn't even afford Angry Seabass, so we had to go with mildly ill-tempered Pike.



The Northern Snakehead has better weaponization potential, but not enough Canadian content.


----------



## JorgSlice

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> *sigh, I thought we talked about this Jim.  With the recent budget cuts we couldn't even afford Angry Seabass, so we had to go with mildly ill-tempered Pike.



Pike!? Here I was... listening to the Sgts weep as they were told that it had even been downgraded to grumpy Goldfish with pen lights! Not even water proof.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Pike!? Here I was... listening to the Sgts weep as they were told that it had even been downgraded to grumpy Goldfish with pen lights! Not even water proof.


With the recent cancellation of communiting assistance they found a little more funding to upgrade from grumpy Goldfish.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thankfully an unitended benefit was realized by the low grade fish food that was bought for the goldfish, making them believe there was nothing left to live for, combined with endless series of diversity and harassment training course. They are now fully suicidal and ready to take out the first target of opportunity. I understand that the ISAF is gifting some to the ISI HQ in Pakistan to return the favours.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

One thing I find curious about this whole thing is that there is hardly any info out there on Marc Bourdeau, the guy heading up the consortium behind this proposal. The only thing I could find is that he is the President of Bourdeau F1 Limited and Bourdeau Industries, and former Chairman and CEO at Vector Motorsports Group Inc. The same goes for Bourdeau Industries, the company that he owns. I tired Google and there's hardly anything in the public domain. 

Does about have any info about this guy or this consortium?


----------



## Old Sweat

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> One thing I find curious about this whole thing is that there is hardly any info out there on Marc Bourdeau, the guy heading up the consortium behind this proposal. The only thing I could find is that he is the President of Bourdeau F1 Limited and Bourdeau Industries, and former Chairman and CEO at Vector Motorsports Group Inc. The same goes for Bourdeau Industries, the company that he owns. I tired Google and there's hardly anything in the public domain.
> 
> Does about have any info about this guy or this consortium?



His interests in motorsports may explain Lew Mac being involved.


----------



## Shrek1985

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/mcr-bce-eng.asp
> 
> You compare any potential competitor aircraft across those categories and its fairly apparent that the F-35 comes out ahead.



What? are the numbers we asked for classified?

No, that's not how it's done; you put an actual value to your requirements; Range; 1500K, Endurance; 8 hours, Speed; Mach 2.5 sprint, mach 1.5 super cruise. I'm spitballing here, but this is more like a fill in the blanks sheet without the blanks. These are definitions for the values being looked at without actually stating what the standards sought are.

For instance, here's a set of German requirements for some super weapon or other from WWII; Speed; 1000kph, Range; 1000km, Payload; 1000lbs.

The only useful information is at the bottom; they wanted a stealth aircraft and unless i miss my guess, short of *GASP!* setting aside politics, the F-35 was the only available export-approved stealth aircraft.

How much of each value is actually required to actually do things laid out in these requirements? That's what I'm asking for.


----------



## aesop081

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> What? are the numbers we asked for classified?



Yes.


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

Whoa wait, they're taking the Arrow out of storage in NDP HQ's basement?!?!?    With the No Defence Plan party behind them, they'll be flying in no time!  :facepalm:  But seriously, best overall buy is the plane we won't have to replace in 10-15 years and be at this point AGAIN. Too bad the Yanks never thought of an export version of the F-22 with the avionics and stealth capabilities of the F-35 export. It might be cheaper than the original F-22 but more than F-35. But that's a dead horse getting beat... Again. Anyways all that aside, To have a retired general get behind a 50+ year old design like that is just plain airheaded. We gave up our aircraft industry with the Arrow. If anyone thinks the F-35 is too much, just imagine how much money, time and overruns/delays we'd hit. You thought the SAR/Navy chopper acquisition was lenghty and horrible, imagine building our own 4+/5/6 gen multi-role fighter aircraft would be....


----------



## Michael OLeary

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> No, that's not how it's done; you put an actual value to your requirements; Range; 1500K, Endurance; 8 hours, Speed; Mach 2.5 sprint, mach 1.5 super cruise. I'm spitballing here, but this is more like a fill in the blanks sheet without the blanks. These are definitions for the values being looked at without actually stating what the standards sought are.



No, that's not how it's done [in Canada]. Here we identify the sexy new piece of kit we want, and then massage the estimate process to ensure it's the only possible contender.


----------



## estoguy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes it is such a shame that we scrapped it rather than continue development work alone (i.e. the weapons system) and bankrupt the entire defence budget as a result. It's not like the CF needed anything other than a new fighter at the time.



THIS.  For a major third year term paper, I did an essay on the Arrow.  The above is one of the many reasons it didn't work out. Nostalgia aside, technically, it WAS a great aircraft, but it really didn't meet all of our needs, and was rather mismanaged by Avro.  They only managed about 70 hours of flight time in them, which compared to the testing on most aircraft is a drop in the bucket.  Even the test pilots never understood why the plane wasn't more rigorously tested.

Not only that, but the foreign interest in it or any of the technology (engines, for example) dried up quickly when the costs came in.  

It was just too damn expensive, even with the things that got trimmed out.

And when the decision came to end the program, they had to be scrapped.  It was no secret that there were spies here from the other side.  The Arrow was leading edge tech that couldn't have been left sitting around and there really wasn't a practical use for a handful of what more or less prototype aircraft.

BTW - as an aside, my prof gave me an A+ on the paper and wrote on it "Best essay I have ever read on the Arrow. 'Nuff Said."


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:

So.....no sharks then? With Laser Beams?


----------



## estoguy

Thanks Jim!  People who still cry over the Arrow really haven't delved deeply into the subject. It was a reason I tackled it.  I wanted to know if all the talk of greatness and woe were justified.  Whenever I get the chance, I try to educate the students I meet on it.  Even amongst some teens, they've gotten the message that it was some kind of travesty, which it wasn't.  We couldn't sustain it.  End of line. 

But how would we fly a shark?  ???


----------



## George Wallace

estoguy said:
			
		

> But how would we fly a shark?  ???



Slung beneath a Black Helicopter.


----------



## Maxadia

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Slung beneath a Black Helicopter.



If you mean a Blackhawk, why not revive this design?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

RDJP said:
			
		

> If you mean a Blackhawk, why not revive this design?   ;D



I see you are not a Conspiracy Theorist.


----------



## Jarnhamar

How long before someone suggests bringing back the Airborne regiment armed with FNs to safeguard the airports with the arrow's?


----------



## Eaglelord17

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> How long before someone suggests bringing back the Airborne regiment armed with FNs to safeguard the airports with the arrow's?


Screw bringing back the FN when we can arm them with some Ross Rifles as all that seems to matter to the NDP is if it is a Canadian solution (I know there a British design)   :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How about you trust the opinion of pretty much every fighter pilot in Canada?



Oh my,....................just waaaaaaaaaay too many punch lines to know where to begin.


----------



## Maxadia

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How about you trust the opinion of pretty much every fighter pilot in Canada?



Like all the ladies at the bars do?  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

RDJP said:
			
		

> Like all the ladies at the bars do?  ;D



OOOhhhhh that's nasty!!


----------



## Good2Golf

Note to self: "Say 'professional assessment' instead of 'opinion'...it likely will sound much more...well...professional."

For those who are not current CF188 pilots or F-35 test pilots or project engineers, but who would like to know what some of the "5th Generation Fighter" capabilities are that makes the F35 fleet of aircraft so capable, do a quick search of "distributed aperture system" or "JSF DAS".  The overall theme is an expansive "system of systems" that includes sensors, weapons...oh, and a few pilots here and there...that all act together to provide greater levels of situational and tactical awareness as well as the ability to do something about it.

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Note to self: "Say 'professional assessment' instead of 'opinion'...it likely will sound much more...well...professional."



Opinion of a professional, professional assessment. Same thing expressed differently. I'm not one that cares about small technicalities that make no difference... In the end, it is still my informed opinion on the matter. I am not really a man of word, rather a man of action.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For those who are not current CF188 pilots or F-35 test pilots or project engineers, but who would like to know what some of the "5th Generation Fighter" capabilities are that makes the F35 fleet of aircraft so capable, do a quick search of "distributed aperture system" or "JSF DAS".  The overall theme is an expansive "system of systems" that includes sensors, weapons...oh, and a few pilots here and there...that all act together to provide greater levels of situational and tactical awareness as well as the ability to do something about it.



DAS is one thing... There are way more coming up  as well.


----------



## Scott

Did someone hear a toilet flush? Or was this said like the dude that doesn't always drink beer, but when he does he drinks Dos Equis?



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Opinion of a professional, professional assessment. Same thing expressed differently. I'm not one that cares about small technicalities that make no difference... In the end, it is still my informed opinion on the matter. I am not really a man of word, rather a man of action.



Holy fuck, Goose, get over yourself and go watch a few Old Spice commercials or something.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Scott said:
			
		

> Did someone hear a toilet flush? Or was this said like the dude that doesn't always drink beer, but when he does he drinks Dos Equis?
> 
> Holy frig, Goose, get over yourself and go watch a few Old Spice commercials or something.




I guess you missed the sarcasm...


----------



## Scott

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I guess you missed the sarcasm...



Guess you missed the sarcasm smiley. Judging by the PMs I have received there were others who did as well.

Or is the above simply some backpedalling.

Unfortunately my connection doesn't allow me access to smileys, but I know they are there...


----------



## Good2Golf

There are times when the pen can be mightier than the sword, and where well-considered words are worth the actions of a thousand people.  

In the fullness of time, you will come to understand this, Max.  Perhaps rather than telling everybody why they will never know much of the F-35 program (which, BTW, really is not the way the Goverment wants to be seen on this issue) you could have helped inform, vice try to impress others with how much you are may be authorized to know.  I would hope that you are good at what you do, but there is a line between confidence and arrogance.  As you develop personally and professionally, you will better know where that line lies.  Good luck with that.

HB_Pencil, thank you very much for taking the time to help me and others develop a better understanding of the capabilities and intricacies of the F-35.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Yes, but "internexperts"TM have opinions on everything!   No logic, competence, or experience required.  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but "internexperts"TM have opinions on everything!   No logic, competence, or experience required.  :nod:



You are so correct. I am amazed once again.  Ah its Tuesday at the Armouries!!


----------



## Danjanou

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, but "internexperts"TM have opinions on everything!   No logic, competence, or experience required.  :nod:



But they did stay a wifi equipped Holiday Inn  8)


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Danjanou said:
			
		

> But they did stay a wifi equipped Holiday Inn Express  8)


Corrected.  Because a normal Holiday Inn doesn't give you the smarts and brainpower that a Holiday Inn Express does.


----------



## NavyShooter

BAH!

All of you have moved away from the core of this thread and back to debating the F-35 and it's costs....

HERE is what we SHOULD be discussing:

http://142.179.170.230/avro/

While there's no project updates in quite a while, they have the structure listed as "approved" as of February 2011...


----------



## Maxadia

Somehow I don't see the specs on this one fitting the bill.... :



http://142.179.170.230/avro/wiki/Arrow2Specifications

 :sarcasm:


----------



## PanaEng

RDJP said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't see the specs on this one fitting the bill.... :
> 
> http://142.179.170.230/avro/wiki/Arrow2Specifications
> 
> :sarcasm:


duhhhh!!!! because it is a .6 scale...
all you have to do is multiply by 1.6 and you will get the specs for the actual thing. Factor in a modest 30%  (multiply again by 1.3 or 2.08 total) improvement in performance of the components (powerplant, weight, etc.) over the development period and you end up with a pretty sweet platform...
 ;D
 :dude:
 :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

RDJP said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't see the specs on this one fitting the bill.... :
> 
> 
> 
> http://142.179.170.230/avro/wiki/Arrow2Specifications
> 
> :sarcasm:



I can't believe the spec for take-off and landing speeds. ???

I am no expert in aviation but, as a naval officer, I can tell you that at those specs, you could fly the things on and off something as small as the Ol' BONAVENTURE without any assistance from catapults or any deflectors, and land it without any  trap wires. Just the wind over deck would get you half way to launching speed. 

Other than "jump-jets" like the Harriers, I don't know any jet fighter that could do that.

The closest thing would be the Sukhoi Su-33, but even it had a 140 Kts take off/landing speed and needed 400 feet of take off strip plus a high angle bow ramp to take off.


----------



## a_majoor

Nonsense; the Arrow is far too out of date to replace or supplement the CF-18. If we are going for something _new_ we should look at the AVRO Project "Y"  ;D

http://www.laesieworks.com/ifo/lib/AVRO-Omega.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
http://www.stenulson.net/rcflight/manta.htm (bonus, an actual flying model)
http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/AvroProjectYPage.htm


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

How many hours have test pilots logged though?  It has to be more than 50 or we shouldn't even consider it.  I love it's resemblance to a shovel head.


----------



## Maxadia

PanaEng said:
			
		

> duhhhh!!!! because it is a .6 scale...
> all you have to do is multiply by 1.6 and you will get the specs for the actual thing. Factor in a modest 30%  (multiply again by 1.3 or 2.08 total) improvement in performance of the components (powerplant, weight, etc.) over the development period and you end up with a pretty sweet platform...
> ;D
> :dude:
> :rofl:



Wow, what an awesome idea.  Maybe we should just multiply the specs for the F35 by 1.6 as well.  :


----------



## NavyShooter

Geez.....

Trying to drop a bit of humour in....the fact that there's a civvy group, trying to get a working/flying example of the Arrow back in the air as a demonstrator seemed like it might fit well in this topic.  

Alas, I guess not.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I got your back on this one NS!!!


----------



## FoverF

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I can't believe the spec for take-off and landing speeds. ???
> 
> I am no expert in aviation but, as a naval officer, I can tell you that at those specs, you could fly the things on and off something as small as the Ol' BONAVENTURE without any assistance from catapults or any deflectors, and land it without any  trap wires. Just the wind over deck would get you half way to launching speed.
> 
> Other than "jump-jets" like the Harriers, I don't know any jet fighter that could do that.
> 
> The closest thing would be the Sukhoi Su-33, but even it had a 140 Kts take off/landing speed and needed 400 feet of take off strip plus a high angle bow ramp to take off.



It's not a fighter jet. It's a fibreglass airshow demonstrator. No radar, no weapons, no ejection seat, no significant avionics to speak of, and no means of actually fitting any of the above. 

Like a fibreglass shell of a Panzer V mounted on a quad for re-enactments. 

Except WAAAAY less safe. 

I've been in that shop, seen that aircraft, talked to the guy who engineered it. I doubt it will reach any of it's predicted performance specs, and I pray to god they don't try to meet them.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ahhh, 

FoverF got it....

Interesting that you've seen the aircraft....is it closer to flightworthiness?  Ish?

NS


----------



## FoverF

I'd say I haven't seen it since about 2008 or 2009, so I couldn't tell you how much progress they've made since then.


----------



## vonGarvin

As a master of Flames of War, here's my opinion on what we need:







It's easy to paint, and at 1/100, it's easy to game on a table-top format


:sarcasm:


----------



## Pandora114

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojy1Sr3ELFs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Damn right we should build our own.  Specs are a wee bit far reaching...but the guy's heart is in the right place.


----------



## MikeL

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Damn right we should build our own.



Why should we?  Why should we go with something that doesn't currently exist?  Just because some people are sentimental about the Avro Arrow doesn't mean it should be brought back.  Does the Avro Arrow  fit the requirements the RCAF have?  AFAIK the Arrow was designed to be a interceptor,  not a multirole fighter -which I believe is what the RCAF want.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojy1Sr3ELFs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> Damn right we should build our own.  Specs are a wee bit far reaching...but the guy's heart is in the right place.



Where are we going to get the money to design and build an aircraft from the 1950s and attempt to modernize it? The Arrow would be having its 100th anniversary of project cancellation before it left a drawing board.


----------



## Pandora114

Why should we build our own aircraft instead of outsource to another country?

1:  Economy.  Canadian jobs.  Need I say more?  Look at the Naval contract to the Irving Shipyard. That has created many job opportunities.  
2: Less foreign hands in the stew.  (Looking at the fake chips in the Hercs as an example) 


Even if they don't do the whole Avro Arrow  revamp thing (I didn't make the video, I just saw it and thought it would be a cool idea)  An aircraft designed and built in Canada would be better for the country over all.


----------



## dapaterson

More expensive to buy, since there are fewer a/c to amortize the development costs.

More expensive to maintain, since there are fewer a/c in service needing spares.


Big R&D in defence is best left to others: Compare the acquisition of the C17 to the C148 to understand the benefit of buying off the shelf from someone else vs going on our own.


----------



## a_majoor

I noticed a passing resemblance to the YF-23 in the video concept. This brings up an interesting point for would be RCAF Air Marshals; what exactly does Canada need for its air force to do? Following the answer to that, the next question is how is this best achieved, followed by what is the most economical means of doing so? A long range fighter like the YF-23 or Arrow might fulfill *some* of the roles the RCAF is tasked to perform, but at a tremendous cost.

We also need to ensure the answers are flexible and broadly applicable to many situations; few people involved in the purchase of the CF-18 Hornet would have imagined the theaters and tasks the CF-18 actually had to perform in such places as the Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Libya. The YF-23 (or the AVRO Arrow) would have limited utility in such missions. 

While the argument for internal economic development has some appeal, the fact of the matter is that the market for military hardware is very small, and production runs really don't generate economies of scale most of the time. Sweden is perhaps the last small nation which was able to maintain a home grown aviation defense industry, and that pretty much died out in the 1980's (SAAB builds the Gripen in collaboration with BaE, and the Swedish Parliament had to amend Swedish laws to allow export of advanced military hardware for the project to be even viable.)

Lastly, we need to take a real look at the evolution of technology. Are large manned fighters really the best way to project power in the future? What about UAV and UCAV's? What about 747 sized airplanes mounting megawatt lasers or railguns? What about micro air vehicles the size of insects?

Yes, the Arrow has an important place in Canadian history and mythology, but I don't expect to see a return of the Arrow in your lifetime or mine.


----------



## FoverF

I think the Navy should build a modernised version of the HMS St Lawrence.

After all, she was a historically significant ship, and never had a chance to prove herself in battle.

Of course her 24 and 32 pounder cannons would have to be replaced with modern weapons, and maybe replace the square-rigged sails with a more economical COGOG propulsion. And of course the wooden hull would be replaced with welded aluminium.

Okay, so maybe not a single item would be shared between the two designs, and we'd build a deeply-flawed design based on operational needs from before my parents were born. And sure, it would cost exactly as much to design and build as a brand-new, clean sheet design (ie tens of billions). Never mind the fact that Canada doesn't have the technical expertise to produce something like this domestically, and would have to buy virtually all of the systems from foreign suppliers anyways.

It would all be worth it because it would bear a superficial resemblance to something with historical significance from the distant past!


----------



## Dissident

While I think that recreating a modernized 1950's plane is a silly idea, the design shown is pretty.

This should porbably be in the CF135 thread, but more and more I see something such as this as the future:
-Larger 2 seater Interceptor/Smaller bomb truck/UAV operating platform capable of controlling a mix of
         -Fast and manoeuvrable Air to air drones
         -Air to ground drones
         -EW/Wild weasel Drones
-A light prop driven CAS platform.

Way out of my lane, but yeah.


----------



## medicineman

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Why should we build our own aircraft instead of outsource to another country?
> 
> 1:  Economy.  Canadian jobs.  Need I say more?  Look at the Naval contract to the Irving Shipyard. That has created many job opportunities.
> 2: Less foreign hands in the stew.  (Looking at the fake chips in the Hercs as an example)



LSVW project...need I say more?

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

I think we should dust off the specs and drawings for the old 3/4 ton Dodge Army Truck, re jig it with a Hemi engine and drive train, upgrade the heaters etc.....


----------



## Old Sweat

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I think we should dust off the specs and drawings for the old 3/4 ton Dodge Army Truck, re jig it with a Hemi engine and drive train, upgrade the heaters etc.....



As someone who has travelled several thousand kilometres in the vehicle, it had very many strong points, not least of which was a dearth of over-engineering.


----------



## Loachman

NinerSix said:
			
		

> This should porbably be in the CF135 thread,



What's a "CF135"?

The CH135 was the Twin Huey.



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> but more and more I see something such as this as the future:
> -Larger 2 seater Interceptor/Smaller bomb truck/UAV operating platform capable of controlling a mix of
> -Fast and manoeuvrable Air to air drones
> -Air to ground drones
> -EW/Wild weasel Drones



Why do we need a pure interceptor?

Why do we need a small "bomb truck"?

When will this airborne "UAV operating platform appear"?

When will these various fancy "drones" appear?

Note: A "drone" is a variety of UAV, which is pre-programmed prior to launch. Anything that is remotely piloted is not a "drone".



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> -A light prop driven CAS platform.



Why? What for?



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> Way out of my lane,



Yeah.


----------



## Journeyman

NinerSix said:
			
		

> This should porbably be in the CF135 thread Mess/Chatter....


...especially if the overarching technical requirement is that "it looks pretty."   :nod:


----------



## Dissident

Loachman said:
			
		

> What's a "CF135"?
> 
> The CH135 was the Twin Huey.
> 
> Why do we need a pure interceptor?
> 
> Why do we need a small "bomb truck"?
> 
> When will this airborne "UAV operating platform appear"?
> 
> When will these various fancy "drones" appear?
> 
> Note: A "drone" is a variety of UAV, which is pre-programmed prior to launch. Anything that is remotely piloted is not a "drone".
> 
> Why? What for?
> 
> Yeah.



F35, my bad.

I am not familiar at all with the exact terminology, so let me expand:

Interceptor: Something fast that can patrol/meet an unknown contact or threat, airborne or maritime, for further identification or termination. Thinking mostly of encroaching ships and (Russian?) aircraft "in the North".
Bomb truck: Something to carry air to ground ordinance since it is what we the Airforce seems to be involved in the most while on combat operations with NATO. 
It could be a larger 2 seater/2 engines which could be considered a large fighter/interceptor and be at the same time a bomb truck of small proportions (smaller than an F111?).

Drones/UAV: Not exactly sure of the terminology again, but I imagine something in between. A back seater would likely only be able to pilot one UAV at a time, right? So a back seater operating 2-5 "drones" would be task managing the drones, not directly piloting them.

Yes, it is my idea "for the future" and they are WAG. However, I am willing to bet a fine bottle of your choice that we will see something like the above developed in the next 20 years (before I release.)

The light prop CAS is just something I would always like to be available when I am on the ground. As to why, I would refer you to the CAS thread, all 22 pages of it:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-342409.html#msg342409


----------



## AlexanderM

This is the type of aircraft I wish we were buying, but there's no way it would fit within our budget.  A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Or a B24 liberator up armored and used as a ground support aircraft.


----------



## OldSolduer

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Or a B24 liberator up armored and used as a ground support aircraft.


I prefer the Sopwith Camel. We can up engine those babies, new tech the airframe and wings and voila!  ;D


----------



## armyvern

Pandora114 said:
			
		

> Why should we build our own aircraft instead of outsource to another country?
> 
> 1:  Economy.  Canadian jobs.  Need I say more?  Look at the Naval contract to the Irving Shipyard. That has created many job opportunities.
> ...



Yep, and look how many troops have trashed feet, ankles, knees, hips and backs due to your Number 1 being applied to footwear.


----------



## GK .Dundas

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, and look how many troops have trashed feet, ankles, knees, hips and backs due to your Number 1 being applied to footwear.


 Vern,Vern. Please don't bring  reality into this . If you do that this thread could  just end  before it got really entertaining .Like how we 're suppose to pay for this Super -Arrow ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Vern,Vern. Please don't bring  reality into this . If you do that this thread could  just end  before it got really entertaining .Like how we 're suppose to pay for this Super -Arrow ?



Borrow it from Chief Spence??


----------



## GAP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Borrow it from Chief Spence??



That would make it like Disney Land....oh, wait, they have shares in them too!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Borrow it from Chief Spence??



You'll need a pot some bones and chicken blood in order to find where that money is hidden now.


----------



## Loachman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.



Why?

What is the threat that that you envisage a pure interceptor having to counter?


----------



## AlexanderM

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> What is the threat that that you envisage a pure interceptor having to counter?


Are you aware that between Russia and China they plan on building 10-16 new carrier battle groups over the next 20 years or so?  Anyone can say that the resources in the north will be peacefully divided up by the UN, but this remains to be seen.  As time goes on those resources will only become more and more valuable and our sovereignty, especially in the north, more and more important.  Having a fighter that can cover the real estate simply seems prudent to me.


----------



## Loachman

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Interceptor: Something fast that can patrol/meet an unknown contact or threat, airborne or maritime, for further identification or termination. Thinking mostly of encroaching ships and (Russian?) aircraft "in the North".



Why buy a pure interceptor rather than a multi-role fighter that is not limited to just one job, ie F35?

Can you find an example of anybody building a pure interceptor these days? Why not?

Ships don't generally need anything particularly fast to deal with them. We have Aurorae for them.



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> Bomb truck: Something to carry air to ground ordinance since it is what we the Airforce seems to be involved in the most while on combat operations with NATO.



Why buy a "bomb truck" rather than a multi-role fighter that is not limited to just one job, ie F35?



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> It could be a larger 2 seater/2 engines which could be considered a large fighter/interceptor and be at the same time a bomb truck of small proportions (smaller than an F111?).



Why buy something big with two seats and two engines if something with one seat and one engine (that is more reliable than two and simpler to maintain) can carry an adequate load, ie F35?

Unless you have delusions of ACSO grandeur...



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> Drones/UAV: Not exactly sure of the terminology again, but I imagine something in between. A back seater would likely only be able to pilot one UAV at a time, right? So a back seater operating 2-5 "drones" would be task managing the drones, not directly piloting them.



I am not aware of any "drones" currently in production, or planned. Current UAVs are the Remotely Piloted Vehicle variety. Most, if not all, with any useful range and payload have crews of at least two.

Why not control them from ground stations via satellite link as is done now? What advantage do you see being gained by having an airborne control station?

Via what means do you propose to control them? Remote control and video links require directional antennae and a fair amount of power. Y'ain't going to fit that into any fighter-type aircraft.

quote author=NinerSix link=topic=107407/post-1201624#msg1201624 date=1358266309]
Yes, it is my idea "for the future" and they are WAG. However, I am willing to bet a fine bottle of your choice that we will see something like the above developed in the next 20 years (before I release.)[/quote]

I can be patient.



			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> The light prop CAS is just something I would always like to be available when I am on the ground. As to why, I would refer you to the CAS thread, all 22 pages of it:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-342409.html#msg342409



I believe that I've posted in that thread. I believe that I've said, at least once, why this suggestion has no merit.

I want to see _*your*_ reasons, though.

And examples of any other military organizations of any real significance that also think that this is a good idea.


----------



## Loachman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Having a fighter that can cover the real estate simply seems prudent to me.



Did I ask why we should have a _*fighter*_, or did I ask why we should have a pure _*interceptor*_ as you specified?


----------



## AlexanderM

Loachman said:
			
		

> Did I ask why we should have a _*fighter*_, or did I ask why we should have a pure _*interceptor*_ as you specified?


Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.


----------



## HB_Pencil

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.



That's not quite correct. The original F-15 (A/C/J) were air superiority fighters with no A2G abilities (except its Cannon). The current F-15s (E/I/SG/K/SE) are for all intents and purposes multi-role long range strike aircraft. The latter was weighed down with conformal fuel tanks, is a twin seater and more avionics... which the F-15C does not need for its air superiority role.


----------



## AlexanderM

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> That's not quite correct. The original F-15 (A/C/J) were air superiority fighters with no A2G abilities (except its Cannon). The current F-15s (E/I/SG/K/SE) are for all intents and purposes multi-role long range strike aircraft. The latter was weighed down with conformal fuel tanks, is a twin seater and more avionics... which the F-15C does not need for its air superiority role.


But, of course, these days one would expect any fighter to be multi-role, even if one was best suited to an air-superiority role.


----------



## Loachman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.



"Pure" was added for emphasis.



			
				AlexanderM said:
			
		

> A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.



You specified "interceptor". An interceptor intercepts. That's all that it does.

I react to what is written, not what you may, or may, not have meant.

If you want a multi-role fighter that can conduct interceptions and air-superiority missions and whatever else, then please say so.


----------



## AlexanderM

Sorry.  I would have thought that multi-role is always implied when it comes to fighters these days, as in, I wouldn't imagine building a fighter for only one purpose.  In a fantasy world, I would see us purchasing a 5th generation, stealth, supercruise, multi-role aircraft, with an exceptional range, that is kick-ass in an air-superiority role, but this has nothing to do with the real world.


----------



## Loachman

Roger.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Are you aware that between Russia and China they plan on building 10-16 new carrier battle groups over the next 20 years or so?


Do you have a source for that?

I ask only because the Chinese have been running into snags with the Liaoning (ex-Varyag), and I've heard claims -- unsubstantiated so far -- that Russia intends only to have one aircraft carrier in the Pacific by 2017. That leaves a bit of a delta between 2 and 10-16, and I've heard of nothing that significant out to "20 years _or so_."


----------



## AlexanderM

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do you have a source for that?
> 
> I ask only because the Chinese have been running into snags with the Liaoning (ex-Varyag), and I've heard claims -- unsubstantiated so far -- that Russia intends only to have one aircraft carrier in the Pacific by 2017. That leaves a bit of a delta between 2 and 10-16, and I've heard of nothing that significant out to "20 years _or so_."


There was one specific article for this but goes back a couple years now, may be difficult to find, but will try.  In meantime, here are some others,

http://wareye.com/china-will-build-four-aircraft-carrier-battle-groups-in-two-stages

another one,

http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html


http://strikefighterconsultinginc.com/blog/sharing-the-pacific-with-russian-chinese-indian-aircraft-carriers/

I believe these articles account for 6 Russian and 4 Chinese carrier groups.  I read in another article I'm having trouble finding that it may be expanded down the road.

This is from the one article alone,

Russia is planning to build six new aircraft carriers after 2020. Russian naval planners foresee at least one Russian Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), comprising 15 vessels supporting the aircraft carrier will be deployed in the Pacific Ocean by 2017.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I believe these articles account for 6 Russian and 4 Chinese carrier groups.  I read in another article I'm having trouble finding that it may be expanded down the road.


I hope you can find the "one specific article," because these links do little to support your premise.  

They reaffirm that Russia intends to deploy one carrier to the Pacific, with the other one going to the Northern Fleet; any others, if built, remain unaccounted for -- it cannot be assumed that unless otherwise stated, everything is going to the Pacific.  The links for China, (beyond keeping my filters busy, blocking sites for "Dating Chinese Women"  :  ) actually paint a gloomier picture for the near- to medium-future of Chinese carrier aviation.  India presents a greater carrier capability than China appears able to, anytime soon.

I believe changes in the Pacific CV/CVN threat remain a dubious factor in justifying any Canadian defence planning.


----------



## AlexanderM

http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html

This is from the one article alone, funny I don't see it at being the least bit dubious.

Russia is planning to build six new aircraft carriers after 2020. Russian naval planners foresee at least one Russian Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), comprising 15 vessels supporting the aircraft carrier will be deployed in the Pacific Ocean by 2017.


----------



## Journeyman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html


Yes. That's your second link, already posted above. 

You could probably keep posting it, but it will continue to say that of Russia's intention to build six new carriers, only one is specifically earmarked for the Pacific.  Of China, it says that its one carrier is now to be used only as a test lab for future carriers, of unspecified numbers or capabilities.

Again, still nothing to justify Canadian defence expenditures.  Sorry.


----------



## AlexanderM

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes. That's your second link, already posted above.
> 
> You could probably keep posting it, but it will continue to say that of Russia's intention to build six new carriers, only one is specifically earmarked for the Pacific.  Of China, it says that its one carrier is now to be used only as a test lab for future carriers, of unspecified numbers or capabilities.
> 
> Again, still nothing to justify Canadian defence expenditures.  Sorry.


You do realize that carriers can be moved around right?  It isn't a issue, at all, that they have , so far, only stated one for the Pacific.  It is an issue that they will have that capability, which can potentially be present in any location, including the pacific and the north sea.  Russia has one, will build six more, that's seven, China has one, will build four more, that's five, adds up to 12.  I'm also of the opinion that once China starts building carriers they may not stop at four, we'll see.

The idea that all of this should not be a part of the equation for future Canadian military planning is completely ridiculous, and I hope that those making the decisions are not in agreement with you.  Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Loachman

I remain skeptical.

I have seen many, many overestimates of Soviet/Russian capabilities throughout my career.

What they say and what they do/can do are not necessarily the same.


----------



## OldSolduer

Alexander you are a ballsy one. 

So what do you base all this on? I'll read your links and make up my own mind. 

Gotta warn you though, Journeyman can be......well keep it up and you'll see.

Just a heads up. Oh and Alexander, your profile is pretty empty.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> You do realize that carriers can be moved around right?  It isn't a issue, at all, that they have , so far, only stated one for the Pacific.  It is an issue that they will have that capability, which can potentially be present in any location, including the pacific and the north sea.  Russia has one, will build six more, that's seven, China has one, will build four more, that's five, adds up to 12.  I'm also of the opinion that once China starts building carriers they may not stop at four, we'll see.
> 
> The idea that all of this should not be a part of the equation for future Canadian military planning is completely ridiculous, and I hope that those making the decisions are not in agreement with you.  Just my opinion, of course.



How does your analysis of Russia's economy and its ability to expand significantly its Navy link up with those linked articles?  As those who are familiar with capital programmatics will tell you, "follow the money!"  Do you think Russian money flow supports the claims?


----------



## HB_Pencil

Loachman said:
			
		

> I remain skeptical.
> 
> I have seen many, many overestimates of Soviet/Russian capabilities throughout my career.
> 
> What they say and what they do/can do are not necessarily the same.



Personally I agree. I doubt we will see more than one more Russian Carrier... if that. The long term fundamentals of the Russian Economy are not great, and there are so many areas where they need to recapitalize their capabilities.

Nevertheless there is a need for an effective ability to defend the north. With the arctic becoming increasingly accessible due to global warming and Russia searching for new oil resources, there is a risk that needs to be acknowledge. PErsonally, I wouldn't be worried about their carrier fleet, real or imagined. Equipped with Su-33s with relatively limited systems (no ASMs or any guided ground weapons) they aren't really a threat. However all Russian surface combatants are equipped with some very effective systems, and there are a lot of them. The northern fleet consists of the Adm. Kuznetzov (CV), the Kirov (CGN), Slava (CG), eight destroyers and 40 submarines. 

Pound for pound, these are very effective ships. First their anti-ship missiles are some of the best in the world with the Granit and Moskit systems; our navy is completely outclassed here. Furthermore their Air defence systems are extremely effective and would need to be rolled back with an extensive air effort. They also have a large port on the arctic, where we don't. So while we might not face a dramatic threat like carrier groups, the Russians can easily deploy quite a potent surface capability that we can't currently match.


----------



## a_majoor

Economics, geography and demographics are against the Russians building massive fleets of Carrier battle groups. They have only just launched their first nuclear submarine in almost two decades (it was actually laid down in 1996, but essentially abandoned because there was no money to complete it). With many competing military and civilian projects competing for limited funds, carriers will have a hard fight to be built. Falling oil and gas prices will only make Russia's economic position worse.

Geographically, Russia has few outlets to the open oceans, and as a land power, sees much greater threats on its land borders. Russia has traditionally focused the bulk of its military power there, and for good reason.

Demographically, Russia faces a potential population crash of epic proportions, with some estimates suggesting Russia will lose half its population by 2035. Who will man these ships and aircraft, when the land borders and factory floors still need people?

China may be in the grips of similar problems for any putative carrier fleet, since China needs to focus its economic energy on keeping a huge population happy and prosperous enough to maintain the legitimacy of the current ruling class.

The "First Island Chain" also provides a potent barrier to any Chines attempts to build and pass a blue water fleet into the Pacific, these are essentially unsinkable aircraft carriers for launching offensive strikes, and have choke points between them to channelize any Chinese ships and ideally block them with mines and submarines.

China's decades old "one child" policy has set up a situation with the potential to increase social instability, and China as a whole is in a demographic race to "Get rich before it becomes old".

As for what sort of RCAF aircraft that might be required to deal with these putative threats, we would need long range aircraft with the ability to carry multiple anti ship weapons to flood the potential defense zones. I would think a B-1 Lancer might do the trick, or a B-2 Spirit if we are really serious. The possible 2 seater spinoff of the YF-23 might make an attractive third choice, although you would need many more. You could also do the unexpected; the Martin Seamaster was a jet powered seaplane with the size and performance similar to a B-52, so long range strikes or mine laying are available options, with a very extended loiter time and the ability to appear from unexpected locations. Of course if you are willing to wait a bit, a developed Boeing ABL would be able to zap seaborne targets with a megawatt laser array, or we could develop a satellite that deorbits on command and falls on the enemy ship at near reentry speed.

So saying we "need" plane X is really limiting your thinking; there are many ways to do the job, once the job has been clearly defined. Given the possibility of large concentrations of enemy carriers is low, the need for special capabilities by the RCAF to counter them is also low.


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> How does your analysis of Russia's economy and its ability to expand significantly its Navy link up with those linked articles?  As those who are familiar with capital programmatics will tell you, "follow the money!"  Do you think Russian money flow supports the claims?


I think it is an entirely different equation, that being the need for resources, which is only going to increase.  There are those who believe that wars over water could begin by 2025, and it remains to be seen what conflicts might occur over the resources in the north.  Russia and China have both stated that they are going to build carriers, I have no problem if people are skeptical over their ability to deliver, but the possibility of that threat certainly needs to be in the equation regarding our future planning.  What if Russia is only able to build 3, China 2, they still represent a threat, and it has been pointed out that they have plenty of other threats.  

If countries feel that certain resources are critical, they may indeed find a way to make good on their plans.  At some point countries are going to, at the very least, percieve resources as becoming scarce, and when that happens conflict may very well occur.  This needs to be in the equation regarding our future military planning otherwise our northern sovereignty may at some point be at risk.


----------



## AlexanderM

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So saying we "need" plane X is really limiting your thinking; there are many ways to do the job, once the job has been clearly defined. Given the possibility of large concentrations of enemy carriers is low, the need for special capabilities by the RCAF to counter them is also low.


OK, agreed!  All that really matters is that we have things covered, to whatever extent is possible, given our own resources.  So, if a plan or strategy will work, then great.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I think it is an entirely different equation, that being the need for resources, which is only going to increase.  There are those who believe that wars over water could begin by 2025, and it remains to be seen what conflicts might occur over the resources in the north...



So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?


I can find articles that say they can't do it and some that say they can.  Here is an article saying the money has already been budgeted.  I do not believe that you can say what Russia can and cannot accomplish.  We need to wait and see, but the possiblity of conflict in the north is very real.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120726/174788498.html


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I can find articles that say they can't do it and some that say they can.  Here is an article saying the money has already been budgeted.  I do not believe that you can say what Russia can and cannot accomplish.  We need to wait and see, but the possiblity of conflict in the north is very real.
> 
> http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120726/174788498.html



You are certainly a cup-half-full type when it comes to Russia.  I take from that article that they sold one of their two carriers to India, the remaining carrier built almost three decades ago is overdue for an overhaul and money that was unavailable for any hull starts in November 2011 is now, 14 months later, available.  All very specious at best.

Perhaps the Russians may build 10 carrier groups (about 80-100 ships in total) as you foresee.  Perhaps not.  In either case, the potential increase in a Norther maritime menace seems but a minor factor in the need for Canada's new generation fighter jet.

Returning to the topic thread, having studied much of the Arrow's history (not just the rah, rah, sis boom bah, of the revive the great days of the post WW II arms race), I am highly sceptical that any attempt to re-engineer and produce a small fleet of Arrow 2s would do anything other than bankrupt the country...kind of like the Arrow '1' could have done back in the 50's had the program continued.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Sporadic E

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Yes, it was a shame that the Arrow was destroyed, but contrary to what many people think, the Arrow was not the "most advanced fighter" of its  time. The American's were testing the F-4 Phantom at the same time and it flew just as high and fast as the Arrow, plus it had an air-to-air refueling capability.
> 
> The idea of resurrecting the Arrow is just so dumb.



Interestingly that after the cancellation of the Arrow. Mario Pesando went on to head design and manufacture at McDonnell Douglas. Further, the F4 went through major design overalls. Ever notice how similar the intake geometry of the F4 is to the Arrow?


----------



## Sporadic E

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I've known Lew for more than 40 years (we met on Combat Team Commanders Course 7201) and today was the first time he did not make sense. He was interviewed on the morning show on CFRA  and said things like:
> 
> the AVRO engineers all took plans home with them and still have them;
> 
> the Arrow doesn't need stealth technology as it flies at 90,000 feet;
> 
> what we are talking about is the Arrow Mk III and IV. The ones scrapped in the 1950s were earlier models; and
> 
> there is no such thing as precision bombing [I guess he never heard of smart munitions].
> 
> I'll leave it at that other than to suggest he was fed some really bad talking poits.



yeah, well... I had family member that worked at Avro so I am pretty opinionated. However, lets get our facts right! The MK 2 would have done 78K ft at best (which is still pretty remarkable). There were design study that were being considered that would have greatly increased the service ceiling. Nevertheless, they were design studies like the PS-2 anti ICBM Arrow. However, they never got further than paper!

I once asked Jim Floyd what his thought were on the Arrow being a ground attack/low level attack aircraft; He said that if the Arrow were employed in a nape of the earth concept, the pilot and WO would have had a punishing ride! The Arrow was meant to intercept and destroy incoming aircraft with extreme prejudice. The concept back then was to loiter above the unsuspecting invading aircraft and  swoop down killing everything it saw! All this crap about intercepting an enemy aircraft and preforming a break Judy on them came much later.

There was no Mk 4 on paper. Beyond the Mk 3 there was only design studies... PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 etc. 

Some cool things that I was privy to (and saw the documentation) was Avro was well aware how much the BOMARC was a lemon. I saw Jim Floyd personal notes on the documentation on how there was potential of the enemy jamming, and turning the missiles around and flying them back at us. Further, the Astra guidance system was shaping up to be freakishly remarkable!

Can the Arrow be brought back? I don't know... If someone was to build it today would it REALLY be an Avro Arrow? The company died in 1962! There are several professional engineers out there that like to point out that the drawings and blueprints are based on 1950's tooling's, metallurgy, manufacturing methods and materials. If you were to embark on manufacturing an aircraft using those drawings as a benchmark you would have to use the methods of the 1950's! Current methods would require complete recalculation!

I am a fan of the Arrow, however I choose to remember it for what it was, a remarkable aircraft for it's day. Would it still be around today? Damn right! We would have flown that bad boy into the ground! Just look at all the other kit the CF has.

Oddly enough, the Arrow had such a specific combat role tailored to Canada's needs that it would still be relevant today!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sporadic E said:
			
		

> ...
> Oddly enough, the Arrow had such a specific combat role tailored to Canada's needs that it would still be relevant today!




Would it? Who do we think is sending fleets of manned bombers over the pole with the aim of attacking either 1) the fixed, land based component of America's strategic nuclear arsenal, or 2) North American cities? 

Our CF-18s do, now and again, escort a nuclear/cruise missile capable TU-95 _Bear_ bomber out of our airspace, but how much manned bomber/stand off platform capability do the Russians have?






CF-18 intercepts in Russian _Bear_ in an undated photo


Edit: typo


----------



## Journeyman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Gotta warn you though, Journeyman can be......well keep it up and you'll see.


Nahhh.... adding value to a discussion takes more than simply repeating a flawed premise over and over, despite several people pointing out the absence of credible sources.

He's already been added to the <ignore> pile.   :boring:


----------



## AlexanderM

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?


Just back to the topic of money for a moment they have plenty of money.

Not the best source, but this is from Wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces#Budget

The recent steps towards modernisation of the Armed Forces have been made possible by Russia's economic resurgence based on oil and gas revenues as well a strengthening of its own domestic market. Currently, the military is in the middle of a major equipment upgrade, with the government in the process of spending about $200 billion (what equals to about $400 billion in PPP dollars) on development and production of military equipment between 2006-2015 under the State Armament Programme for 2007-2015 (GPV - госпрограмма вооружения).[45] Mainly as a result of lessons learned during the August War, the State Armament Programme for 2011-2020 was launched in December 2010. Prime Minister Putin announced that 20-21.5 trillion roubles (over $650 billion) will be allocated to purchase new hardware in the next 10 years. The aim is to have a growth of 30% of modern equipment in the army, navy and air force by 2015, and of 70% by 2020. In some categories, the proportion of new weapon systems will reach 80% or even 100%.

Russia to boost defence spending.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121017/176690593.html

and,

http://www.examiner.com/article/russia-to-triple-military-spending


There are many articles about this, they have money, coming from oil, gas and an economy that is improving.  Go ahead, follow the money, they have it.


----------



## Loachman

Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.


----------



## observor 69

Loachman said:
			
		

> Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.




"Always two there are, a master and an apprentice"  Yoda


----------



## Good2Golf

Loachman said:
			
		

> Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.



Do you mean discerning, as in looking at the quoted article then thinking to yourself, "hey...when the article notes that:"



> Russia’s 2012 defense budget was $30.7 billion



"...that means that Russia will spend a whole 50% more than Canada does on defence.  Wow!  Those carrier battle groups will just be streaming out of Russian shipyards in no time." ?

 :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

And if anyone thinks Russia is rich then please tell us why are they selling _Backfire C_ bombers at fire-sale prices? Hint: Russia is a rich country with a poor, fiscally inept government.


----------



## George Wallace

Info page on the www:

http://www.hooler.com/superarrow/about.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Isn't the niche already filled by the F-22?


----------



## Privateer

> With an augmented fuel system, where she can carry liquefied air, the Super Arrow can, we think anyway, fly as high as 250 000 feet and with a booster rocket attached underneath, we believe the Super Arrow could become a sub-orbital vehicle.



Hell, ya!   ;D


----------



## Haletown

The SuperArrow project  an excellent Friday Funny!  . . .  proof that there are always folks who need to switch up their meds.


----------



## Danjanou

with the credentials of the designer I cannot sse any issue with us turning out a couple of squadrons of these badboys within a few months and well uinder budget.  :



> Joe Green is a professional Canadian artist and designer and proud to be an honorary member of the Third Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. *He is a graduate of the prestigious Emily Carr University and hold a Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts with a speciality in 3D Computer Animation, Visual Effects, Motion Capture and Fine Arts Painting.* The flag featured in the video unveiling the Super Arrow is an 8'x4' oil on canvas painting dedicated to the late Jack Layton for his service to Canada and now hangs in the House of Commons controlled Offices of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Green's presented 158 of those prints on the 30th Anniversary of the signing of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms to 3 PPCLI in honour of 158 soldiers lost in Afghanistan, along with 65 to the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, Team Canada, various Olympians and other stellar Canadians as a way to acknowledge and inspire them.
> 
> Joe Green is a proud patriot and his work hangs in various locations ranging from the Canadian Space Agency, Third Battalion RHQ to various other locations across Canada. Green counts many soldiers has his close friends and as such, took into consideration their needs directly as front line troops into the design and weapon systems of the Super Arrow. Pictured to the right, Green is getting applause for completing a 7 year project in which he produced a 1000+ page military anthology titled "April 17th, In the Name of Canada", a memorial book, 2.5 years in the making, dedicated to the first four Canadian soldiers lost in Afghanistan on Operation Apollo and where a camp flag of 3 PPCLI was presented to him, which Green made available to the Canadian Space Agency where it flew on STS-115/12A.


----------



## a_majoor

Ah, the '50's were such a great time for aerospace dreamers. Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACE) that would convert from jets to rockets, ramjet powered "Super Hustlers" that would penetrate Soviet airspace at Mach 4 and even real life projections of evolved CF-105 "Arrows" that would use rocket boosters, ramjets or other combinations to accelerate to the edge of the atmosphere and attempt to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles (although these were mostly paper studies on the backs of napkins).

Of course the real world is not a pretty place, although some very small bench engines using the LACE principle were run in the early 60's, the state of the art still has not matured, SKYLON is even today building a prototype "bench" LACE engine and I doubt a flyable one will arrive soon. Despite decades of research, hypersonic flight is still a rarity, although it may emerge from the "Black world" near the end of the decade.

As for what sort of airplane *we* need, I could probably make a strong case for the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly as a CAS and forward observer platform, or a B-1 to project power (from Canada to Libya or Afghanistan in the very recent past as good examples), or look ahead to large transport sized aircraft that can carry high energy laser weapons or railguns to attack targets on the ground and in the air.

The Arrow was built for a particular mission that made sense in that time and place; that time and mission has passed into history. 

edit to add:

Given the very few viable choices that would actually meet the needs of the RCAF and still be cost effective, perhaps this is one of the few alternatives to the CF-35:

http://www.warbirdradio.com/2013/09/fa-18-super-hornet-prototype-featuring-conformal-fuel-tanks-takes-flight/



> *F/A-18 Super Hornet Prototype Featuring Conformal Fuel Tanks Takes Flight*
> Posted by Staff Writer on September 2, 2013 · Leave a Comment
> 
> WARBIRD RADIO – According to a recent news release The first flight of an F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet prototype featuring conformal fuel tanks (CFT) designed and built by Northrop Grumman Corporation, took place earlier this month.
> The design and assembly of the tanks were completed in less than 10 months, ahead of schedule, due to rapid prototyping processes. The conformal fuel tanks and other new Advanced Super Hornet features allow flexibility for longer range and/or low-observable missions.
> 
> “We invested in conformal fuel tank research and development so we could offer our domestic and international customers the most capable and sophisticated F/A-18 possible,” said John Murnane, F/A-18 program manager, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “Given the challenge of developing the CFT in a short period of time, the success of the first prototype flight is an incredible achievement for our team.”
> 
> Both the F/A-18 and its electronic attack variant, the EA-18G, will benefit from the conformal fuel tanks. The tanks, which are added to the upper fuselage of the aircraft, accommodate up to 3,500 pounds of additional fuel. For a typical strike mission, a Super Hornet or Growler with CFT can increase its unrefueled radius by up to 130 nautical miles or increase its station time by more than 30 minutes. For the EA-18G aircraft, the tanks also provide enhanced capabilities when operating from an aircraft carrier by reducing overall weight.
> 
> CFTs are an example of practical modernization of a reliable, proven airframe. The tanks provide new capabilities to the warfighter and can be included on new aircraft or retrofitted to the 600-plus aircraft already operating worldwide.
> 
> In addition to conformal fuel tanks, the prototype aircraft features an enclosed weapons pod designed and built by Boeing, the prime contractor for the F/A-18. Other key members of the F/A-18 industry team have also developed upgrades for the Advanced Super Hornet.
> 
> The first flight of the Advanced Super Hornet prototype took place Aug. 5 in St. Louis as part of a demanding flight test demonstration program. Several flight tests have also taken place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. These flight tests will provide the F/A-18 industry team with valuable data on flying qualities, drag and signature levels.
> 
> Northrop Grumman produces about 40 percent of the work content for F/A-18 and about 50 percent for the EA-18G. The company manufactures the center/aft fuselage and vertical tails for both aircraft, as well as the airborne electronic attack subsystem for the EA-18G.


----------



## thunderchild

Why not have stealth avenger drones for "first night" operations.  We can then buy another platform at less cost for multi role uses, IE the JAS-39e/f.  Then we have time(20-30years) if we choose to develop our own fighter, possably with countries like Australia or the UK.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lord Black of Crossharbour seems to share the Arrow nostalgia and has lost his capitalist/economic mind:



> ...Instead of deferring $3.1-billion in defence spending...the government should get on with it...and channel economic stimulus through defense research and development...should work With Bombardier and others to rebuild the Canadian Aerospace industry, which is still recovering from Diefenbaker’s cancellation of the Avro Arrow in 1959...
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/15/conrad-black-a-boring-budget-from-an-unpopular-government/  [about half-way through]



How's this Bombardier effort working out for him?



> Investors flee after Bombardier posts results, bumps up cost of CSeries
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/aerospace/Investors+flee+after+Bombardier+posts+results+bumps/9505802/story.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## WingsofFury

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Why not have stealth avenger drones for "first night" operations.  We can then buy another platform at less cost for multi role uses, IE the JAS-39e/f.  Then we have time(20-30years) if we choose to develop our own fighter, possably with countries like Australia or the UK.



Why have 2 platforms when 1 can do it all in the F-35?

Canada will never develop its own fighter capability, nor will countries like Australia and the UK partner with us, as they are both invested in the F-35 program.

As well, why would we only want a platform for 20-30 years when the operational life of most of our assets approaches 40 years or more?


----------



## AirDet

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Lord Black of Crossharbour seems to share the Arrow nostalgia and has lost his capitalist/economic mind:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/15/conrad-black-a-boring-budget-from-an-unpopular-government/  [about half-way through]
> 
> How's this Bombardier effort working out for him?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



You know Mark, I quite enjoyed that article. While there was some tongue-in-cheek he did make some interesting points. I'm not saying we need to rebuild the Arrow, but I do like the idea of investing in Canadian industry.

Thanks for posting it.


----------



## a_majoor

Investing in Canadian industry only makes sense when the industry builds something that people actually want. London has Diamond Aricraft, which is still sitting with its hand out hoping for a Government loan to build a light jet aircraft. The fact that potential customers are not beating a path to the door suggests that perhaps this is another one of those loans that never, _ever_ gets repaid.

The auto industry in Canada serves as a great example of a huge money sink, with several levels of government sinking billions of dollars into the industry (even before the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler). The net result was simply to prop up the company balance sheets even as the car industry in Canada has gradually shrunk. While there are a few exceptions to the rule (think Toyota), they are indeed exceptions, and we certainly don't see the economic growth or job creation that _billions_ of dollars of investment should have produced.

As for "stealth" drones or UCAVs, for a nation with Canada's level of military resource commitment, cruise missiles make more sense from a cost/benefit perspective.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Still I would have liked the completed Arrows to have been used as test aircraft instead of scrap. Typical political response to a fiscal, technical issue.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Still I would have liked the completed Arrows to have been used as test aircraft instead of scrap. Typical political response to a fiscal, technical issue.



I'd like to see that done with the Super Arrow project, I probably could never get the backing for a production aircraft, but maybe as a technology demonstration aircraft or even a recce aircraft I think it could work out. Apparently its gotten the attention of some people high up in the airforce like Lt.General Yvan Blondin who said in an interview if he would consider the super arrow said it would be great if one could appear in competition.


----------



## WingsofFury

Just for the sake of being up to date....a posting today from Bourdeau Industries facebook page.  Bolding added by me.



> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=954777537909909&id=402158416505160
> 
> BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> The time has come to break cover and take a stand. . . . .
> 
> WE are still waiting to see which of 4 Canadian national media will step and air our update package sent to them starting Friday October 9th.
> 
> Just so all our followers know, October 9th is also the date Bourdeau Industries, as the ONLY Canadian proponent since July 2010 with a Made in Canada proposal to replace the Cf18s, filed a formal complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada.
> 
> That complaint was centered on our specific exclusion last year from the National Fighter Replacement Secretariat's " options analysis" where 5 hand picked foreign companies were asked to submit information on the jets they had "in production or to be in production in the future". (Our "Letter of Protest " on the closing date of submissions is in the photos section here).
> 
> The complaint also documents the "anti -Canadian" competitive environment that directly resulted from the acts and/or omissions of the Government of Canada since 1957 (signing of the first NORAD agreement) and 1958 (when the first Defense Production Sharing Agreement was signed) leading to Canadians and Canadian companies being increasing excluded from major air defence contract in return for destroying the Avro Arrow and the company and industrial infrastructure necessary for any future Made in Canada air defence program on this scale.
> 
> Canadian industry has systematically been denied opportunities to compete for national air defence contracts. This is further evidenced by (1) the growth of these foreign suppliers' collective IRB deficits from $23 billion in 2012 to $30 billion at the end of 2015 to $49 billion projected by 2025, and (2) the systematic elimination of Canadian companies (through trade agreements, M&A and public policy) that formed the industrial foundation of this country in both primary and secondary industries that had become a fully integrated industrial powerhouse, by 1955, capable of supplying major programs like the Avro Jetliner, the Avro Arrow and other advanced projects such as an all Canadian SST (similar to the Concord).
> 
> *The remedy we seek is;
> 
> (1) a 60 month re industrialization timeline imposed before the GoC offers a new RFP (within a new competition) to replace the Cf18s,
> 
> (2) an award of $3 billion representing an "equalization /catch-up" grant representing 10% of the current (2015) IRB deficit of $30 billion contractually owed Canadian taxpayers,
> 
> (3) this grant will allow Bourdeau Industries the funds required to, (a) $1 billion necessary to rebuild the long destroyed primary and secondary human and industrial infrastructure,(b) ensure the availability of the 60 month project plan's operating capital of $1 billion, and (c) $1 billion to match the grant funding provided by the US government initially of $750 million each to Boeing and Lockheed Martin in to build 2 "X-fighters for their JSF competition" without "bankrupting the respective companies.
> 
> The third $1 billion (c) will be used to construct TWO 5th Generation Supersonic CF105 MK3 all weather fighter interceptor/attack bombers specifically for the defence of Canada's homeland territories and waters and in support of North American air defence operations. These two examples of production Made in Canada Cf105 MK3 will be used for competition demonstration flights in the aforementioned open and transparent competition.*WE know it will take some time to recover these IRB deficits. With that in mind, we have also requested an advance against the $3 billion of $300 million to enable an immediate start of IP programs, CAD/CAM design work, hiring the top 3 levels of company leadership, site selection, facilities/tooling and assembly line design and approvals and other related activities leading up to the balance of the full 60 month program.
> 
> You all have asked how to support Canada's reclamation of its potential and future for ourselves and our children. I would suggest this is a good start.
> 
> PM Harper has said he will continue with the F35, NDP leader Mulcair and Green leader May have said they want an open and transparent competition, without being specific as to its methodology or objectives.
> 
> Liberal leader Trudeau has announced their intention to cancel the F35, ensure a new, open and transparent competition, the successful jet must have North American air defence as its PRIMARY MISSION capability and that there be maximum industrial benefits for Canadian companies.
> 
> Bourdeau Industries has, with your encouragement, pushed this as far as we can. It is now up to you to decide what kind of Canada you want for the next 10 years and beyond.
> 
> Please write your local media and call your local talk shows and raise these issues using the facts and historical evidence we have always presented here.
> 
> Share with you network of friends. . . . .
> 
> You now know where the parties stand on this issue.
> 
> Please vote accordingly. . . . .
> 
> Sincerely,
> Marc Bourdeau
> President
> Bourdeau Industries Limited.


----------



## dimsum

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Just for the sake of being up to date....a posting today from Bourdeau Industries facebook page.  Bolding added by me.



I would love to know what that guy is smoking.


----------



## PuckChaser

I was banned from the Facebook page for asking for technical data on the aircraft performance, and more info than what you'd write on a cocktail napkin.

$3B CAD gets us 2 aircraft? Sounds like a great deal, where do the Liberals sign up? They can even build it in Shawiningan.


----------



## CombatMacguyver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was banned from the Facebook page for asking for technical data on the aircraft performance, and more info than what you'd write on a cocktail napkin.
> 
> $3B CAD gets us 2 aircraft? Sounds like a great deal, where do the Liberals sign up? They can even build it in Shawiningan.



It's nothing to be taken seriously.  Evidently "they" (it's probably only one guy) only have $20k to work with.  You can't even open a Mac's Milk with that.

It's just a medium for this guy to Harper-hate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they contract with the Iranians to gain their expertise in building a stealth Arrow


----------



## Lumber

That was an entertaining read. I especially like his diagram where the jet intake leads directly to the internal weapons bay.


----------



## armyvern

Just came across an Avro Arrow part in inventory here ...

Must snap a pic.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Are you crapping me?

Do more than snap pic- notify your boss and call DHH. It probably needs to go the to Aviation museum!


----------



## armyvern

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you crapping me?
> 
> Do more than snap pic- notify your boss and call DHH. It probably needs to go the to Aviation museum!



Not kidding; you should see the repairable reserve parts sitting here waiting upon you-know-who to make decisisons; we live in a world of "risk aversion" vice risk management.  No one wants to make the official call on parts hanging around for decades that are actually now obsolete and so they sit.  

Already have an historical artifact number on the go.


----------



## George Wallace

DAMN!  You are reigniting the "Missing Arrow" controversy.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> DAMN!  You are reigniting the "Missing Arrow" controversy.



I think I might have seen one flying over Lake Winnipeg...... >

There was the story of a missing one.....right?


----------



## Zoomie

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just came across an Avro Arrow part in inventory here ...


Where's "here" again?  PM is fine.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just came across an Avro Arrow part in inventory here ...


Not seen previously because it was under some Somalia docs?   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Journeyman, are you suggesting the CAF should be ordered to take a day off from their tasks and go through all of their stores and facilities to find the "missing" Arrow, or any part thereof? :christmas happy:


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Journeyman, are you suggesting .....


I'd make no such suggestion; you can never tell when some Good Idea Fairies may bumble past and go, "ah ha!"   :facepalm:


----------



## medicineman

Too late - I saw this and could use a few extra Class A days for Xmas  ;D

MM


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, my wife, who works at the Space Agency with engineers likes to remind me that, the way they tend to treat "secret" documents, the biggest "Avro Arrow" discovery will probably be something like a full set of plans found by family members finally going through their father or grand-father's "old trunk in the attic" type of discovery.  :nod:


----------



## quadrapiper

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There was the story of a missing one.....right?


Concealed, in pieces, throughout the CAF stores system.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Walked into the supply depot at Shilo and they had stacks of WWII fuel tins in the 1980's. They vanished shortly after I told them what they were.


----------



## medicineman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Walked into the supply depot at Shilo and they had stacks of WWII fuel tins in the 1980's. They vanished shortly after I told them what they were.



Sounds like when I was looking for Somalia docs and found in the dungeon of my pharmacy stores several brass cans with bottles of dehydrated human plasma from dated from 1943.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just came across an Avro Arrow part in inventory here ...
> 
> Must snap a pic.



Does it look like this?


----------



## Rifleman62

Saw the representative of the new RCAF flying near Luke AFB in Phoenix, AZ on Saturday. The Super Arrow or simply screwed.


----------



## GK .Dundas

medicineman said:
			
		

> Sounds like when I was looking for Somalia docs and found in the dungeon of my pharmacy stores several brass cans with bottles of dehydrated human plasma from dated from 1943.
> 
> MM


 There's an urban legend that among other things they found a battery of 18 pounders, a Centurion and several hundred cavalry saddles.But strangely no paperwork on Somalia .
 :


----------



## medicineman

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> There's an urban legend that among other things they found a battery of 18 pounders, a Centurion and several hundred cavalry saddles.But strangely no paperwork on Somalia .
> :



Spook friends of mine said they found Jimmy Hoffa as well - strangely enough, he was in WITSEC as the keeper of the lost files of Somalia.

MM


----------



## Journeyman

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> ....a Centurion and several hundred cavalry saddles.


To be fair, that was in the Strathcona's QM......behind the gravy barrels.  Getting through all that gravy....to find _anything_.... would be an amazing feat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, that was in the Strathcona's QM......behind the gravy barrels.  Getting through all that gravy....to find _anything_.... would be an amazing feat.




^^^This :goodpost:


----------



## a_majoor

We need a squadron crest for the new Arrow squadron. Here is my suggestion:


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you crapping me?
> 
> Do more than snap pic- notify your boss and call DHH. It probably needs to go the to Aviation museum!



My little piece of the arrow.


----------



## NavyShooter

Of note, this group is actually BUILDING a flying, piloted, scaled replica of the Arrow:

https://www.facebook.com/AVROMuseum/











http://www.avromuseum.com/

http://www.avromuseum.com/uploads/1/8/3/9/18390559/masterplan2014.pdf


----------



## PuckChaser

They're already way ahead of the idiots who want us to trash the F-35 for their Super Arrow which is drawn on a napkin. Cool project!


----------



## dapaterson

Looking at the wooden frame, I think I know what they're using for propulsion.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Looking at the wooden frame, I think I know what they're using for propulsion.












Meets the twin engine requirement.   :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Meets the twin engine requirement.   :nod:



Journeyman, you could have at least mirror-flipped the image on the long axis to provide appropriate centre-line symmetry...

[/boules-busting]

   ;D


----------



## NavyShooter

To e honest, this group has a better chance of getting an Arrow (replica) flying than the "Super Arrow" does of ever seeing a hangar or a runway.

I will note that they've got wooden mock-ups, but the main wing-spars are actually Carbon Fiber.  They posted a video of them laying one up and vacuum sealing it to get the bubbles out.

They've got over $150k in the bank (according to one of their statements) have plans to buy a hangar, have $100,000 set aside for that and have a grant application in for fund matching.

It appears not to be a fly-by-night group, rather, they seem fairly well organized, funded, and their estimate is that they have 40% of the airframe done.



*Edit to add*  They also did structural testing of their wing spar design last year, and the loading was for 5000 lbs, the spar broke at 9,000 lbs.  Almost a 2X factor.

Neat.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Generally, in aviation, you shoot for a 4x factor...


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok, and see, I learned!  

I hope they did too!


----------

