• Canadian Government Urged to Restart Avro Arrow Project
    52 replies, posted
Our neighbour at our cottage in Quebec (and also a close family friend) work on the liquid oxygen systems in the original Avro Arrow. just going to point out that no, it would not be able to compete with modern jets but keep in mind it's 60 years old and was easily 30 years ahead of it's time.
I've never even heard of this Avro Arrow Project....
[QUOTE=garychencool;37610611]If this project continued during World War 2, it would have been one of the fastest jets ever at the time. But nope, the project had to be canceled.[/QUOTE] What kind of drugs are you taking?
I've seen a scale replica of the avro arrow before. that thing is huge. It's more similar to a supersonic bomber than a fight jet so I'm guessing that's why we need a small and nimble stealth fighter like the f-35's.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;37609440]It's not as outdated as one would think. Here is a chart that I made. [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]CF-35[/TD] [TD]CF-105[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Cruise Speed[/TD] [TD]Mach 1.1[/TD] [TD]Mach 0.91[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Max Speed[/TD] [TD]Mach 1.6+ (tested to 1.61)[/TD] [TD]Mach 2+[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust (dry)[/TD] [TD]28000[/TD] [TD]25000[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust with Afterburner[/TD] [TD]43000[/TD] [TD]47000[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust to Weight[/TD] [TD]0.87[/TD] [TD]0.95[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The Avro Arrow blew all fighter jets out of the water at the time, and if we had one, could still compete amongst the world's fighter fleets. If the plane was rebuilt today, the plane would have a large amount of composites, replacing part's of it's aluminium body, and a larger engine, increasing thrust to weight, and decreasing fuel consumption.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean anything, it's a flying brick and wouldn't match today's need for stealth. And God knows how maneuverable that thing could possibly be.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;37609440]It's not as outdated as one would think. Here is a chart that I made. [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD]CF-35[/TD] [TD]CF-105[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Cruise Speed[/TD] [TD]Mach 1.1[/TD] [TD]Mach 0.91[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Max Speed[/TD] [TD]Mach 1.6+ (tested to 1.61)[/TD] [TD]Mach 2+[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust (dry)[/TD] [TD]28000[/TD] [TD]25000[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust with Afterburner[/TD] [TD]43000[/TD] [TD]47000[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Thrust to Weight[/TD] [TD]0.87[/TD] [TD]0.95[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] The Avro Arrow blew all fighter jets out of the water at the time, and if we had one, could still compete amongst the world's fighter fleets. If the plane was rebuilt today, the plane would have a large amount of composites, replacing part's of it's aluminium body, and a larger engine, increasing thrust to weight, and decreasing fuel consumption.[/QUOTE] Yeah guess what [code]Specifications (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F-13) (Specifications for other models can be found at:-Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants) Orthographic projection of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Data from Mikoyan MiG-21 (Famous Russian aircraft),[1]Combat Aircraft since 1945[61] General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 15.76[62] m (51 ft 8.47 in) Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 5.66 in) Height: 4.1 m (13 ft 5.41 in) Wing area: 23.0 m2 (247.3 ft2) Empty weight: 4,871 kg (10,738 lb) Gross weight: 7,100 kg (15,650 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Tumansky R11F-300, [B]37.27 kN (8,380 lbf) thrust dry, 56.27 kN (12,650 lbf) with afterburner[/B] each Performance [B] Maximum speed: 2,125 km/h (1,385 mph) Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[/B] Range: 1,580 km (981 miles) [B] Service ceiling: 19,000 m (62,335 ft)[/B] [/code] Come at MiG bro [editline]10th September 2012[/editline] MiG 21 was produced since 1959, and is the most produced supersonic aircraft of all time. It's even faster and could climb even higher than the arrow. And Russians still retired them 22 years ago. Making a fuel bucket which can go super fast and super high doesn't guarantee it can compete with modern stuff.
i remember watching that tv miniseries starring dan aykroid in tech class
I could have sworn the Canadian air force looked like a flock of geese.
[QUOTE=Lamar;37614916]That doesn't mean anything, it's a flying brick and wouldn't match today's need for stealth. And God knows how maneuverable that thing could possibly be.[/QUOTE] Stealth isn't necessary when in the foreseeable future Canada probably won't be fighting anyone with modern air defenses unless NATO decides to intervene in Syria, but even then American stealth planes can take out the advanced stuff first. When I first read the article I envisioned them wanting to make a smaller and more maneuverable aircraft that shares the same basic design of the Arrow, similar in capabilities to the Eurofighter or Rafale.
I don't really see why; the F-35 [I]is[/I] dreadfully overpriced, but there hasn't been a need for interceptors after the nuclear bomber fleets of the 50's were put down in favour of ballistic missiles.
If it was revised so as to meet what the RCAF needs then I would love to see the Avro Arrow fly in my lifetime. I know it would probably be a dream come true for my Dad.
That jet wouldn't do anything the CF-18 or F-35 is designed to do And the guy spearheading this is a general for [B]land forces[/B] who retired in 1993, what is he going to know about modern aircraft. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_MacKenzie[/url]
We only need jets that are capable of patrolling our far northern borders, we don't need 5th Generation top of the line stealth fighters because honestly, who are we going to fight? (Hopefully) By now, we are past giant dust-ups between huge powers and our military will only be used in A) Self-Defense or B) In cooperation with international forces in times of peacekeeping and security. We don't need stealth fighters to bomb some shithole 3rd world dictator who's most advanced weapon is a gun with a knife on the end.
I'm certainly no fan of the F-35, but I think part of the draw of the low observable nature of the F-35 is that the F-35 doesn't necessarily need to be somewhere to protect it. A similar concept is used in a prison design called a panopticon. Basically the prison is designed as a cylinder with cells being located along the walls and a central tower that has a clear view of all the cells. The tower has one way glass, allowing the guards to look out, but the prisoners to never know if they are being watched. Ultimately, given the way the human brain works, prisoners just assume they are being watched pretty much all the time. A similar concept applies to why high end security guards wear sunglasses all the time. If you don't know where they are looking, you assume they see everything in their field of view. The F-35 is possible to detect using excellent ground RADAR stations and possibly even some airborne RADAR aircraft, but it is unlikely that an interceptor will be able to detect it on its own at any reasonable range. So, being unable to see where Canadian patrol aircraft are, it is assumed that they are everywhere inside standard patrol routes. Given that air supremacy is the primary role of defensive patrol aircraft, you unfortunately need to have rather advanced aircraft. Just a theory. Otherwise I have no idea why Canada wants the F-35 at all.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37617821]Just a theory. Otherwise I have no idea why Canada wants the F-35 at all.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's any other option really. The F-22 isn't going to get exported, and it costs way too much anyway. The only other jet available is the F-35. Canada could do what Australia did and get a bunch of F-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap between the Classic F18 and the F-35 because of the F-35 delay, but it's a bit late for that now. Yeah other options could be the F-15, but even it isn't that advanced any more, and it's air superiority as opposed to a multirole platform, and then Russian jets are an option, but fat chance of a coalition partner ever purchasing any of them over a US-made product.
[QUOTE=Tony;37618000]I don't think there's any other option really. The F-22 isn't going to get exported, and it costs way too much anyway. The only other jet available is the F-35. Canada could do what Australia did and get a bunch of F-18E/F Super Hornets to bridge the gap between the Classic F18 and the F-35 because of the F-35 delay, but it's a bit late for that now. Yeah other options could be the F-15, but even it isn't that advanced any more, and it's air superiority as opposed to a multirole platform, and then Russian jets are an option, but fat chance of a coalition partner ever purchasing any of them over a US-made product.[/QUOTE] You're leaving out current gen European aircraft like the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. I will always stand by my decision that any of those three are a better choice for Canada than the F-35.
Borrow some of our eurofighters we can rename them worldofighters if you want
It's funny how everyone knocks the f-35 but praises the f-22. The f-22 has a whole shit-ton of maintenance, logistical, and safety problems, and is a basically Air-to-Air only aircraft, and is still expensive as fuck. The f-35 is an aircraft that can do Air-to-Air, and Air-to-Ground on the same payload, a longer range, better stealth tech, and is way safer for the pilots, but is ungodly expensive.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;37618109]You're leaving out current gen European aircraft like the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. I will always stand by my decision that any of those three are a better choice for Canada than the F-35.[/QUOTE] I think thrust vectoring is the huge drawcard that the F-35 has which is going to be applicable to every operator, no matter how big or small their air force. Integration with current aircraft is a big thing as well. The leap from the F-18 to the F-35 isn't going to be as big as the leap to a Typhoon or Gripen. Support is a huge thing as well, buying a US aircraft means that Canada can co-operate a shitload with the US because of the similar platforms. The enormous control surfaces of the F-35 which are set far behind the centre of gravity gives it far better aerodynamic properties as well, translating to fluid maneuverability. Could go on forever, but internal weapons/stealth of the F-35 are a huge advantage as well. The Typhoon was initially designed as air superiority which isn't really what Canada needs. Small nations like Canada/Australia need a true multirole platform, or multiple platforms which is something Canada doesn't have. The only issue with the F-35 is cost, anyone with any sense would agree that the cost has blown up far more than anyone expected it would, although the Typhoon does nearly cost as much as the F-35 which is pretty odd. The Rafale/Gripen cost significantly less, but the platforms really don't have anything special going for them. [QUOTE=stewe231;37618244]It's funny how everyone knocks the f-35 but praises the f-22. The f-22 has a whole shit-ton of maintenance, logistical, and safety problems, and is a basically Air-to-Air only aircraft, and is still expensive as fuck. The f-35 is an aircraft that can do Air-to-Air, and Air-to-Ground on the same payload, a longer range, better stealth tech, and is way safer for the pilots, but is ungodly expensive.[/QUOTE] Elaborate on the F-22 safety problems, can't say i've heard of any except one problem with the oxygen system fucking up which was fixed pretty fast. Also the F-22 is praised for pretty obvious reasons, the thrust vectoring is crazy good. While it was designed as air superiority, it still maintains a pretty good ground attack capability, and its e-war capabilities are great too. But yeah maintenance with the F-22 is crazy as hell, no smaller air force would operate it in their right minds.
The history of the Avro Arrow is a sad one. We weren't allowed to have it to ourselves. Now they want to bring it back? Even if they modernize it, it's still going to be out of date. How would the Avro ever prove itself by todays standards? Weren't the original plans destroyed along with the remaining planes (except for the one that went missing, rumoured to have gone to France?).
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37615058]Yeah guess what [code]Specifications (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F-13) (Specifications for other models can be found at:-Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants) Orthographic projection of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Data from Mikoyan MiG-21 (Famous Russian aircraft),[1]Combat Aircraft since 1945[61] General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 15.76[62] m (51 ft 8.47 in) Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 5.66 in) Height: 4.1 m (13 ft 5.41 in) Wing area: 23.0 m2 (247.3 ft2) Empty weight: 4,871 kg (10,738 lb) Gross weight: 7,100 kg (15,650 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Tumansky R11F-300, [B]37.27 kN (8,380 lbf) thrust dry, 56.27 kN (12,650 lbf) with afterburner[/B] each Performance [B] Maximum speed: 2,125 km/h (1,385 mph) Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[/B] Range: 1,580 km (981 miles) [B] Service ceiling: 19,000 m (62,335 ft)[/B] [/code] Come at MiG bro [editline]10th September 2012[/editline] MiG 21 was produced since 1959, and is the most produced supersonic aircraft of all time. It's even faster and could climb even higher than the arrow. And Russians still retired them 22 years ago. Making a fuel bucket which can go super fast and super high doesn't guarantee it can compete with modern stuff.[/QUOTE] Please keep in mind the Arrow never really reached production and there we still many improvements that could've been made to it.
[QUOTE=Tony;37618293]Elaborate on the F-22 safety problems, can't say i've heard of any except one problem with the oxygen system fucking up which was fixed pretty fast. Also the F-22 is praised for pretty obvious reasons, the thrust vectoring is crazy good. While it was designed as air superiority, it still maintains a pretty good ground attack capability, and its e-war capabilities are great too. But yeah maintenance with the F-22 is crazy as hell, no smaller air force would operate it in their right minds.[/QUOTE] While you may have me on the Oxygen problem. The F-22 can only carry JDAMs and SDMs, but cannot self designate nor carry them with it's standard load-out. The F-35 is more of a multi-role aircraft which better suits most countries needs.
The government just shot down the plan a few days ago. Looks like the arrow won't be flying after all. [url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-shoots-down-plan-to-revive-avro-arrow-fighter-plane/article4535481/[/url] Also... [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;37615058]Yeah guess what [code]Specifications (Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21F-13) (Specifications for other models can be found at:-Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants) Orthographic projection of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. Data from Mikoyan MiG-21 (Famous Russian aircraft),[1]Combat Aircraft since 1945[61] General characteristics Crew: 1 Length: 15.76[62] m (51 ft 8.47 in) Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 5.66 in) Height: 4.1 m (13 ft 5.41 in) Wing area: 23.0 m2 (247.3 ft2) Empty weight: 4,871 kg (10,738 lb) Gross weight: 7,100 kg (15,650 lb) Powerplant: 1 × Tumansky R11F-300, [B]37.27 kN (8,380 lbf) thrust dry, 56.27 kN (12,650 lbf) with afterburner[/B] each Performance [B] Maximum speed: 2,125 km/h (1,385 mph) Maximum speed: Mach 2.05[/B] Range: 1,580 km (981 miles) [B] Service ceiling: 19,000 m (62,335 ft)[/B] [/code] Come at MiG bro [editline]10th September 2012[/editline] MiG 21 was produced since 1959, and is the most produced supersonic aircraft of all time. It's even faster and could climb even higher than the arrow. And Russians still retired them 22 years ago. Making a fuel bucket which can go super fast and super high doesn't guarantee it can compete with modern stuff.[/QUOTE] Your forgetting something.... [quote]The Arrow was revealed to the public on October 4th, 1957. Unfortunately on that date, the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite. This event stole the spotlight from the Arrow, and resulted in changing how people thought of air defence. Since the Iroquois were still in development in 1957, [b]Avro decided to power the first five Arrows with Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojets. These American engines didn't even meet the dry thrust of the PS-13 at full afterburners.[/b] These first five Arrows were designated the Mk.(Mark) 1, and the all Canadian aircraft with the Iroquois engines would be Mk.2s. [/quote] The PS-13 also underwent simulated testing at mach 2.3+ at (20,000m).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.