Will legendary Avro Arrow make Lazarus-like return?

[machman]

The destruction of the Avro Arrow still makes me sad...as does the mothballing of the amazing HMCS Bras d'Or Hydrofoil. From Wiki:

HMCS Bras d'Or (FHE 400) was a hydrofoil that served in the Canadian Forces from 1968 to 1971. During sea trials in 1969, the vessel exceeded 63 knots (117 km/h; 72 mph), making her the fastest unarmed warship in the world.

The vessel was originally built from 1960 to 1967 for the Royal Canadian Navy, as a project for the testing of anti-submarine warfare technology on an ocean-going hydrofoil. The RCN was replaced on 1 February 1968 by the unified Canadian Armed Forces, and HMCS Bras d'Or was commissioned into that service several months later. Changes in priorities and cost overruns later led to the project's cancellation.

 

[saskadude]

The real issue is, as has been mentioned, the close ties we have to the US military industry. The costs of building a home grown aviation industry would ridiculous. Might be great for feel good Canadian nationalism, but not realistic. On the other hand, if we are willing to accept only the sloppy seconds of our neighbors to the South, maybe we need to look at alternatives. Joint development with another country(ies) would be a good option. Might piss some people off in Washington, but who cares?

In terms of our needs, an aircraft that can protect from coast to coast and protect arctic sovereignty with a long range would be better than any "compromise" multi role fighter. If future conflicts are to be fought in smaller engagements on the ground, how many of these things do we need anyway?

 

[chanman]

Just an observation I made years ago..wonder if anyone shares my theory..avro arrow..1958...f4 phantom came to be in 1960 twin engine,fast..ahead of its time..coincidence ?were we robbed of our technology ?told to destroy our copys after our govt sold out ?just a theory of mine..(adjusts tinfoil hat)..watch this video and picture the arrow instead of f4 or is it just me ?...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4pMSKWASNE

... No.

The first flight of the Phantom II was in 1958, as was the Arrow's

The Arrow is a pure delta designed to operate over land. The Phantom has swept wings with noticible dihedral and designed to fold to fit on aircraft carriers.

The F-4 carries all its weapons externally. The Arrow carries all its weapons internally.

The F-4 has a single canopy over both crew members. The arrow has seperate canopies.

The F-4 was designed to protect US Navy forces from anti-shipping strikes. The Arrow was deisgned to stop nuclear bombers traversing the arctic.

The F-4's engines top well short of the tail assembly (much like the F-101 Voodoo). The Arrow's engines extend all to the way to back of the plane.

The Arrow has much more in common with the F-102, F-106 or maybe the original Mirage III in terms of mission or even configuration, but is much larger than those (or an F-4). In fact, in terms of length and weight, the Arrow is very close to the French Mirage IV nuclear bomber.

 

[Coyote Ugly]

They should just build "IT" at Area 51. Whatever "IT" is.

I'm hoping for a saucer-shaped job powered by a nuclear 426 Hemi, a few .50's,....

 

[Dr.Lector]

Yeah, avro, that's what Canada needs right now,
a plane with paddle wheels.

 

[TheTooner]

Umm. That would be ridiculous.
We can't ressurect and update 1950s technology and put it in the modern combat arena.

We are 60 years out of date on this issue. It would take a monumental effort (read as $$$), and massive R&D program to produce a new fighter jet in Canada. Countries with far greater resources than ours have stumbled trying to do this, even when they stayed in the game for the last half century.

The only thing the Avro Arrow has in common with modern fighters, is that they both fly.

Kirk

More to the point, we can't update what we don't have. There is nothing real left of the Arrow to base a new version on.

If there were, an Arrow of the early 21st century it could probably be as potentially great as that Arrow was in its time, but it was a pure interceptor, and unless we swear off contributing to NATO and other out of area operations, we need multi-role fighter jets or we need to enlarge the Air Force to run more than one type. None of these things are within our financial reach.

 

[TheTooner]

Meh, while we're at it, might as well resurrect the Sopwith Camel and the P-51...

We could perhaps sell enough of those to collectors to produce some real funds for our defense budget.

 

[Dyspnea]

The Iroquois engines were installed in 206 (and had started taxi trials I believe) at the time the project was cancelled. 206 was also parked outside with four other operational jets, IFRC 201, 202, 204 and 205 at the time everyone was ordered to leave the plant, however in the famous June Callwell photo taken overhead while the planes were being cut up, 206 is not to be seen and in fact I don't think there is a photo of 206 being destroyed...

While mostly correct, the 206 is certainly destroyed and its metal recycled into someones car, the nose section of 206 sits in Ottawa in the air space museum.

Of the same photo you speak "tin foil" hatters will point out in early photos 203 is the only one not being dismanteled. And a later photos show the 203 absent. Hatters believe the government/employees/us military etc, stored away 203 because at the testing phase it had flown the fastest and highest (?). Personally I believe it did not escape the torches, nor any arrow.

 

[Joe549]

While mostly correct, the 206 is certainly destroyed and its metal recycled into someones car, the nose section of 206 sits in Ottawa in the air space museum.

Of the same photo you speak "tin foil" hatters will point out in early photos 203 is the only one not being dismanteled. And a later photos show the 203 absent. Hatters believe the government/employees/us military etc, stored away 203 because at the testing phase it had flown the fastest and highest (?). Personally I believe it did not escape the torches, nor any arrow.

Here is one of the photos I refer to...

Just checking one of my books on the Arrow, the ones that were outside were the five completed ones, 201 - 205. 206 may possibly have been inside the hanger as opposed to outside. Another photo in the book clearly shows 203 being cut up, second one from the top in the above photo.

A lot of people that were 'there' at the time swear that one did escape, ie stolen. Whether it is true or not...... It would be really cool if there is still an original Arrow out there that may some day be able to soar through our skies once again.

 

[Dyspnea]

Here is one of the photos I refer to...

Just checking one of my books on the Arrow, the ones that were outside were the five completed ones, 201 - 205. 206 may possibly have been inside the hanger as opposed to outside. Another photo in the book clearly shows 203 being cut up, second one from the top in the above photo.

A lot of people that were 'there' at the time swear that one did escape, ie stolen. Whether it is true or not...... It would be really cool if there is still an original Arrow out there that may some day be able to soar through our skies once again.

Yea that's the photo, I was incorrect referring to the 203, It should have been 202, which is absent in the photo.

 

[Pblatzz]

While I can say the Arrow will never be as it was in the 1950's, The idea is the point. Yeap, it's a large undertaking and expensive, who's kidding who. But what bugs me
is the that there seems to be a lot of nay-sayers on Canada's ability to complete a project like this (and I'm not saying it's an easy or a logical decision).

But, are you aware of the knowledge base of suppliers in the Aerospace industry? Look a the services that are being provided currently and the suppliers/vendors that are registered with AIAC
some are just Canadian offices of US manufactures

http://www.aiac.ca/canadas-aerospace-industry/canadian-aerospace-products-and-services/

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

depends what game you want to play. The arrow is the same sort of aircraft as the Mig-31 series. The F-35 is more akin to an F-100 Super Sabre to use an era-appropriate analogy.

Arrow vs F-35 is like apples and pine cones

I would argue that the KIND of aircraft the arrow was would serve our needs much better than a carrier-optimized multirole aircraft. Speed and ceiling put aircraft in whole other leagues, never mind what range does.

We'd do better developing weapons which can detect and destroy stealth aircraft and selling them to everyone.

But to be realistic; we need to lok at Russian birds, since only Russia has similar REAL defense needs as Canada does

 

[smellie]

For all you guys who like to say "Meh" just because something is not shiny-new, I will remind you that the LEE rifle has been in constant production/development since EIGHTEEN SEVENTY-EIGHT, when the first parts were produced by the Sharps' company.

It will still kill you VERY dead if you happen to be standing in front of it.

Victor Charlie learned a lot about obsolete aircraft while he was getting the sh*t bombed and strafed out of him by that obsolete TRAINER, the AT-28D. Anyone who laughs at the concept of old technology obviously has not seen any of it IN ACTION.

Sincerely, I would not want to be the object of the disaffections of a Mosquito. You want a cheap, easily-made, totally nasty, very stealthy ground-attack aircraft, there it is: just haul one out of a museum and start copying, Norinco-style.

There is a lot to be said for reviving and possibly revising the basic design of the Arrow. One point: look at the speeds the thing attained........ on 1950s technology. WHY does something have to cost 50 times as much, just because it is "modern".... when the actual PERFORMANCE is inferior?

If you really want to see a near-indestructible interceptor aircraft built with obsolete technology, look at the MiG-25. It also is a 1950s design and it has critical parts made from STEEL........ and I'll betcha a slice of raisin pie that you don't have anything that can CATCH one.

So, kindly, a little less "Meh", a little less sarcasm, a little less posturing from the heights of your vast COD-generated sense of superiority...... and a little more CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHT.

End of rant.

If I get pinked for this one, it will have been WORTH IT.
.

 

[Coyote Ugly]

If the don't bring the Avro Arrow back, are we always going to buy Chinese Made Junk, including Fighter Jets in the Future?

 

[czechsanchez]

...

 

[Nyles]

I think more to the point the Arrow was in no way designed to perform close air support, and if our army is going to go on any more overseas deployments I'd rather see the money invested in something that can actually drop a bomb at low level. We spent out entire time in Afghanistan relying on foreign aircraft for support, hoping that we didn't need any at the same time an American unit did, because guess who was going to get it?

 

[Cocked&Locked]

I think more to the point the Arrow was in no way designed to perform close air support, and if our army is going to go on any more overseas deployments I'd rather see the money invested in something that can actually drop a bomb at low level. We spent out entire time in Afghanistan relying on foreign aircraft for support, hoping that we didn't need any at the same time an American unit did, because guess who was going to get it?

Oh i don't know, american pilots made sure we "got it" at least once!

at least if it's our guys dropping the bombs they'll try harder to make sure they land on the hostile and not the friendly

 

[fugawi]

I think more to the point the Arrow was in no way designed to perform close air support, and if our army is going to go on any more overseas deployments I'd rather see the money invested in something that can actually drop a bomb at low level. We spent out entire time in Afghanistan relying on foreign aircraft for support, hoping that we didn't need any at the same time an American unit did, because guess who was going to get it?

x2 plus replace those Sea Kings already!!!

 

[Ioncannon]

depends what game you want to play. The arrow is the same sort of aircraft as the Mig-31 series. The F-35 is more akin to an F-100 Super Sabre to use an era-appropriate analogy.

Arrow vs F-35 is like apples and pine cones

I would argue that the KIND of aircraft the arrow was would serve our needs much better than a carrier-optimized multirole aircraft. Speed and ceiling put aircraft in whole other leagues, never mind what range does.

We'd do better developing weapons which can detect and destroy stealth aircraft and selling them to everyone.

But to be realistic; we need to lok at Russian birds, since only Russia has similar REAL defense needs as Canada does

That's what I always said. The MiG's and Sukhoi's can hold there own, and are much cheaper then the US equivalent. Too bad we probably have some old Cold War agreements in our NATO contracts.

Building a Avro Arrow MK3 would be a stupid idea since the plane is greatly outdated. Now a built from the ground up Avro Arrow II?

 

[RememberTheSomme]

Wow. A new Canadian Arrow for the 21st century.

Radar rendering all stealth mode obsolete( big f@#king layoffs at Lockheed and Northrop Grumman).

Big internal load out of lots of fire and forget goodies. You can run but you can't hide! A new Velvet Glove, muhahaevil:.


Smoking along a Mach 2.5+ afterburners in but she ain't pinned, 65,000 feet of Canuck air below your wings.

Royal Canadian Air Force in bright red letters against that pretty white paint, nice little roundel there.

GD yes,......let's do it Canadian built ball busting, look down,.. shoot down,.. splash down, anything that moves in our airspace with hostile intent. As to deploying into third world countries in the future, and the call for close air, I'd say let the one who called the party provide that.