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

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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Nonsense; the Arrow is far too out of date to replace or supplement the CF-18.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....