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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.