Skip to main content

   Once upon a time Canada counted itself among the select group of countries with an aerospace industry capable of producing leading edge aircraft. From major contributions to the effort needed to win World War II, Canada came out of the war with production facilities, trained workers, designers, and the ambition to build on these assets to become a player in the world aviation business.

    These hopes came to a climax with the Avro Arrow, CF-105. Envisioned as a high-speed, high altitude interceptor, it became synonymous with Canadian national pride. Five models were built and flown, with a sixth in the pipeline. But - and does this sound familiar? - rising costs, doubts about its mission, weapons systems, and other concerns led the government to not only shut down the program, but take steps to make sure it could never be revived.

    The effects on the Canadian aerospace industry were dire; thousands were thrown out of work, and the Avro company never recovered. Canada's position at the forefront of aviation design was forfeited. The resentments still linger today, especially when Canadians look at the costs of the F-35s they're in line to buy and the doubts about that program. It's why there are those who are working to bring the Arrow back - as a fifth or even 6th generation design.

     More below the Orange Omnilepticon.

         The Arrow is still a subject of controversy, and the answers as to what actually happened and how good the aircraft could have been are not settled and may never be. This CBC documentary (about an hour long) looks at the history of the CF-105 and all of the issues associated with it.
http://youtu.be/...

         Here's a few of the high points. Cancellation saved the government of Canada a fair amount of money, though there are questions about what would have happened if Avro had been able to sell the Arrow to other countries. It saved a battle between the Canadian service branches over funding. It ended up tying Canada to the U.S. for aircraft.  (They ended up buying second hand F-101 Voodoos with much lower performance.) It was contended that new technology (the Bomarc missile) would have been a more cost-effective interceptor - (it flopped). The Avro Company went under, in part because government insistence on concentrating on the Arrow didn't allow it to pursue other contracts that might have kept it alive. Thousands of skilled workers were laid off; a lot of engineering talent went south and ended up in the U.S. with consequent effects on Canada's industrial base. It contributed to Canada's national self-esteem problem.

         Canadian plans to purchase F-35 Lightning IIs are reigniting passions over the Arrow. There are those who contend it would be possible to resurrect the Arrow for less money - and it would still be a better aircraft! Additional arguments are that this would be billions of dollars that would be pumped directly into the Canadian economy and add thousands of jobs. At some point Canada is looking to replace the CF-18s they're currently flying. Given the costs of the F-35 and the problems reported to date, revival of the Arrow is a topic that keeps coming up.
http://youtu.be/...

        No one is actually bending metal yet, but modern CGI and digital engineering design software is allowing a lot of imagineering to take place - and generating some videos dripping with attitude and national pride. There's one proposal that looks like a relatively straightforward updating of the original Arrow design.
http://youtu.be/...

Take a look at what is being hyped as the "Super Arrow" from another group - 6th generation air superiority, modern avionics, integral canards and vectored thrust, Mach 3 capabilities with stealth features, impressive weapons load...
http://youtu.be/...

       As is pointed out in the video narration at the end, Canada has access to U.S. aviation technology that could be used to build this aircraft, thanks to participation in the F-35 program, and (although it's not explicitly stated) without the design compromises imposed on the Lightning II - no mention of a VTOL version.

      In a continued display of enthusiasm, a website for the Super Arrow has been set up. There's some impressive artwork, design ideas, and promises of more to come.

We are working to complete for our first phase of prototype testing a complete digital version of the Super Arrow which is being completed by our Beaverworks simulator technician for the X-Plane platform. This platform will give a true to life, or as close as possible, performance of the real aircraft. We will be continuing to refine her design and performance capabilities.

We are in the process of developing and manufacturing a 1/8th scale flying demonstrator with a target date of the Summer of 2015 to show Canadians what this aircraft physically looks like along with proving performance capabilities to show what a prospect for a replacement for the CF-188 Hornet's could be.

We are working on sourcing our logistics and supply chains to produce a realistic proposal to submit if requested. We envision that any realistic proposal would be submitted on or after January 1, 2017. Until that time, the Super Arrow will be under development with our engineering and aerospace team. We want to make certain this aircraft lives up to or exceeds any performance benchmarks before we proceed down that path to ensure Canadian would get value for their investment. We will not publish any further information on our team or aircraft capability for security reasons. If you are interested in perhaps joining our team or are an investor, please do not hesitate to contact our group at info@superarrow.ca. All members of our team will have to pass security clearances conducted by law enforcement in order to quality. - See more at: http://www.hooler.com/...

      How realistic is this? Don't ask me - but it's sure a pretty aircraft to look at.
Poll

What do you think of the Return of the Arrow?

4%6 votes
13%18 votes
21%28 votes
0%1 votes
20%26 votes
35%46 votes
2%3 votes
0%1 votes

| 129 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (34+ / 0-)

    I just happened to run across this by accident and thought it worth writing up. It would be ironic if the F-35 program led to the rebirth of the Avro Arrow in whatever form.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 07:54:32 PM PDT

    •  What About the BAC TSR-2 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, Bluefin, JeffW

      Another sweet aircraft from the late 1950s was the BAC TSR-2.  It suffered the same fate as the CF-105 when a new government was elected in the UK and it had to review the cost growth the program was experiencing.  The history of the aerospace industry would have been quite a bit different if either or both of these programs had actually gone ahead.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:57:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fighter jets may be any governments (12+ / 0-)

    Greatest waste of money and resources.

    •  Yes and no (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, antooo, jessical, Bluefin

      As the Arrow story shows, Canada lost jobs, potential sales to other countries, industrial talent, diminished its technology base, and gifted the U.S. with purchase of U.S. aircraft with Canadian money. They also took a big hit in national pride and self-identity.

      Military spending is not simple - the money does more than simply buy tools of death. There are almost certainly better things to spend it on, and often ways to spend it more efficiently - but it's not a black and white issue.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:12:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If they want VTOL... (8+ / 0-)

    ...then they could also resurrect the Avrocar!

    I kid! I kid!

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:26:43 PM PDT

    •  Given modern computational resources... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, JML9999, Bluefin

      The stability problems might be solved with the kind of computer stabilization and control systems they're building into aircraft. We also have better tools to model the fluid dynamics now. Who knows?

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:35:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Avrocar's biggest problem... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar, annieli

        ...wasn't stability. It was lack of power.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:41:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  heck, make it run on biomass (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW, xaxnar, Simplify, Bluefin
          Maple syrup was first collected and used by the indigenous peoples of North America. The practice was adopted by European settlers, who gradually refined production methods. Technological improvements in the 1970s further refined syrup processing. The Canadian province of Quebec is by far the largest producer, responsible for about three-quarters of the world's output; Canadian exports of maple syrup exceed C$145 million (approximately US$130.5 million) per year.

          Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

          by annieli on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:49:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bring Back The Flying Pancake (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, xaxnar, annieli, JML9999, Pilotshark

      Landing speed of 20 mph.  Lindbergh saw the prototype and flew it a number of times.

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:40:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reminds me too much... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar, JML9999, Bluefin

        ...of another Chance-Vought aircraft, the F7U Cutlass.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:18:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Another Plane Ahead Of Its Time (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xaxnar, Bluefin, JeffW

          It looks fairly conventional today, but it had problems because the primitive jet engines kept flaming out.

          Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

          by bernardpliers on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:49:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And more problems than that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xaxnar, Bluefin, JeffW
            The Gutless Cutlass
            In the early jet age, pilots had good reason to fear the F7U
            By DC Agle, AIR & SPACE MAGAZINE, Aug. 2012

            Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

            by Simplify on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:14:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It killed a lot of naval aviators (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            xaxnar, JeffW, FarWestGirl

            The engines were underpowered and prone to flame-outs. The nose gear had a habit of collapsing. This would be bad for any aircraft but deadly during carrier ops.

            At one point an Air Wing commander actually ordered the entire F7U squadron off his ship.

            Because I have a head filled with worthless trivia - that chrome doohickey on the hood of a '57 Chevy is a stylized F7U.

            If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

            by Major Kong on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:02:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  An April issue (when else?) of... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xaxnar, FarWestGirl

              ...FineScale Modeler magazine showed one person's view of a Cutlass rebuild. Lengthened, new engines, and a whizzo with a back seat. Oh, and that overlong front landing gear replaced with something less-prone to snapping.

              Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

              by JeffW on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:28:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  They are lumberjacks and they're OK.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, xaxnar, Bluefin
    Canadian plans to purchase F-35 Lightning IIs are reigniting passions over the Arrow. There are those who contend it would be possible to resurrect the Arrow for less money - and it would still be a better aircraft!

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:40:37 PM PDT

  •  It was small minded (conservative) politicians (7+ / 0-)

    who killed the Arrow, and AVRO. If it had been built, the Arrow would probably still be flying with advanced models. In fairness to the pols, it was a technologically confused era, the US cancelled at least half a dozen 'advanced' concept programs about that time. The F-35 is another TFX 'one size fits all' boondoggle, history has shown it is almost always cheaper and more effective to build aircraft for specific purposes, not try for the 'hat trick' . Even the most successful 'multirole' aircraft of the modern era, the Phantom II, started out as a fleet defense fighter, period.

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:42:43 PM PDT

  •  F35/JSF is pants in a lot of ways. (9+ / 0-)

    Canada shouldn't use it.  Too expensive, unreliable thus far, tries to do too many things and winds up doing none well.

    If we're talking about planes that should have been and weren't... not to steal the narrative from the Arrow, but I've just got to give a shout for my favorite glorious beast, the YF23.  Rumors of its superiority over the YF22 aside, YF23 was a beautiful, powerful platform with tons of potential.  Its relatively unique visual profile only endears it to me more.

    Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

    by Jon Sitzman on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:43:09 PM PDT

    •  I met someone who worked on the YF23 project (7+ / 0-)

      Take this for what it's worth:

      I was told that the specifications were changed late in the game to favor the YF22. The YF23 better met the original specification but the powers that be wanted Lockheed to get the contract.

      The way he described it, the moment the revised spec came down he knew the fix was in.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:47:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  By pretty much all accounts, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar, JeffW, JayBat, FarWestGirl

        the YF23 was faster, stealthier, and had longer combat range than the YF22.  The YF22 was more maneuverable due to 2D thrust vectoring.  Supposedly this key dogfighting element was crucial to its selection as winner.

        I don't really buy that 100%, as according to its test pilots the YF23 was an absolute joy to fly, and was exceedingly capable in dogfight maneuvering, even at high speeds (possibly due the large, unconventional wing shape).

        Thanks for the anecdote, Major Kong.  That isn't the first account I've heard of the YF22 essentially being given the win on a silver platter despite the YF23 being effectively the better aircraft.  So I do believe your acquaintance who worked on YF23, and I think its being passed over was a monumental mistake on the part of the Pentagon.

        If NOTHING else, there was a CATOBAR variant of YF23 scoped out and essentially specced out, if what I've read is correct.  Why the deuce they didn't use that for the naval role rather than trying to shoehorn F35 into that role as well is utterly baffling to me.

        I for one wonder if we will ever see actual functional F35s in fighting service.  I almost doubt it.

        Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

        by Jon Sitzman on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Power To Ya.... (5+ / 0-)

      Here in Murica we are destined to ride the F-35 all the way to the scene of the crash...

      Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney cleverly set up this shovel ready jobs program that was never meant to fly with subcontractors in every congressional district in the country so it will never be cancelled!

      It is a complete remake of the TFX program with a one size fits all design resulting in a much less capable aircraft than the F-111 that eventually saw service in a limited mission in the USAF. The F-111 became a star as a Tactical Strike Aircraft and in the 1st Gulf War put more tons of bombs on target than the F-117...

      The F-35 is truly a Jack of All... Master of None...

      Get out while you still can like your economy depends on it!

      The only records the F-35 will set will be the size of the cost overruns!

      "Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
      I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
      ~John F. Kennedy~

      -7.5,-5.8

      by Oldestsonofasailor on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Title needs an "eh?" at the end, no? Heh (5+ / 0-)
    6th generation air superiority, modern avionics, integral canards and vectored thrust, Mach 3 capabilities with stealth features, impressive weapons load...
    Try to cram all of that into one aircraft, and it'll be just as much of a boondoggle as the F-35 is.

    In all likelihood, the CF-105 would have been a great plane for its day. As the TSR-2, which met a similar tragic fate in the same era, would have been for the UK. But it's an obsolete design now, and there wouldn't really be a cost savings to using it for the start of a modern plane. There are quite a few choices of "4½"-generation fighters already available from Europe—Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen—and otherwise might as well go with a clean-sheet design, if they're gonna throw money at war machines.

    I'm surprised you didn't mention, at least in passing, allegations of nefarious international shenanigans regarding American aerospace industry supremacy. Again, similar to rumblings about what happened with the TSR-2...

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:44:19 PM PDT

    •  Didn't want to be accused of being a hoser (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Simplify, Bluefin

      Too close to the Great White North here as it is.

      As for allegations about the U.S. killing the Arrow, the CBC documentary at the end concludes it didn't, and didn't need to - the Canadians did it all by themselves.

      It's interesting, to say the least, to see a hardcore conservative like Harper getting heat for not buying Canadian, and spending money on U.S. planes. News stories I've seen suggest he's a typical conservative reactionary.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 08:58:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting documentary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar, Bluefin, JeffW

        Was frustrated, as is often the case, that they skipped the design portion of the story entirely. What were the requirements, and what configuration and technology decisions did the designers make? That's the stuff that makes a great aircraft versus a boring one or a failure. Also, apparently they had the same jet engine sound effect as the old Wings series from the Discovery Channel.

        The news report video is interesting, but gotta say, the last two videos look like amateur-hour fanboy stuff. Among other things, five seconds into the third video, you see an Arrow with "flaps" down. That doesn't work on a tailless delta—it would put the nose straight into the dirt.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:21:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also, about what planes Canada could buy, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xaxnar, Bluefin, JeffW

        the obvious geographic similarity to Russia means the best choices would be things like the MiG-31 and Su-34, not that such a transaction is feasible. What other long-range interceptors are there out there? I suppose the USA never offered the F-22 for export. What the heck is a short-range, slow, single-engine kite like the F-35 going to do for Canada?

        Maybe the next closest thing would be to weaponize a supersonic business jet, like the proposed Aerion.

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:28:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why should Canada waste its resources (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Bluefin

    on aircraft that won't see battle for a generation at least? No one uses the latest and greatest in an actual war, for fear that the enemy will down one and acquire the technology. And where is the credible threat that would require such a craft?

    No new Arrow, and no F-35s either. Pride alone is insufficient reason for such a massive expense. The money should go to infrastructure instead. How about a hundred billion dollars of wind turbines?

  •  This brings back sad memories. I can (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, xaxnar, jessical, Bluefin

    vaguely remember the huge headlines when the Avro cancellation was announced.  And I've paid a bit of attention to its history since then.  

    John Diefenbaker was the new Conservative Prime Minister and he had an almost visceral hatred for it.  Not only did he cancel the program, he also ordered the complete destruction of everything connected with it - from research files to the planes themselves.  

    A few years ago, we visited the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa.  They have on display the nose section from one of the planes.  You can see the welding (or blowtorch?) marks from where it was dismembered.  

    I guess it's the prerogative of a new government to make a decision to cancel a program.  But Diefenbaker's malevolent destruction was barbaric.  

    There are still stories floating around that someone connected with the Avro program managed to fly one of the planes off into the wild blue yonder and save it from destruction.  It makes a nice daydream.  :)

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:16:59 PM PDT

    •  The CBC documentary says... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical, Bluefin, JeffW

      The RAF asked for one (plus spares) for flight testing experiments a few weeks before they were all demolished. It was suggested once RAF testing revealed how good the design was, the cancellation would have blown up in Diefenbaker's face, so the request was withdrawn upon consultation with the Canadian government.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:25:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I preferred the Boeing F-32... Many advantages (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan, Bluefin

    of a delta wing, and of someone who could stay on budget.

    Oh well.  The cost overruns in the competition are continuing to repeat themselves.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 09:42:31 PM PDT

    •  Strange That You Might Mention the F-32 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bluefin, polecat, JeffW, JayBat

      The fly boys hated the F-32 because it didn't look like it had the "right stuff."  It did have a problem with the vertical take-off portion of the face off against the F-35.  As it turns out, the F-35 suffered massive weight overruns when it was modified to the same concept as the F-32 and failed its initial vertical take-off tests just as surely.  By then, the fly boys had invested too much in the F-35 and they've just continued to modify the contract to enable Lockheed to build something which will pass some sort of specification and allow LM to make a profit.  It's defense graft at its very finest.  That big bat wing the F-32 sported would have seemingly offered the same sort of stealth the old AVRO Vulcan bombers did along with massive lifting capacity.  Real jumps in technology always scare the less gifted.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 10:52:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does it have a point? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar, Greyhound, Bluefin

  •  It depends what the mission is (6+ / 0-)

    If the primary mission is to defend Canadian airspace then something like the Arrow would actually be a better choice than the F-35.

    Canada has a lot of real estate to cover plus two engines adds a margin of safety when operating over remote areas.

    I suspect, however, that the Harper government wants the F-35 for other reasons.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:04:29 AM PDT

  •  Arrow was an interceptor. F35 is a fighter. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluefin, JeffW

    In terms of building a new arrow:  most of the folks in Canada who worked on the Arrow are dead and the information on the design is lost.  

    When it comes to politics, one has to do as one [does] at sea with a sailing ship... reach one's course having regard to prevailing winds. - William Lyon MacKenzie King

    by Johnny Nucleo on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:09:42 AM PDT

    •  Of course it would have to be a new design. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, JeffW, FarWestGirl

      If the Arrow's brought back, it'll be nothing like the original.  Different times/environment/mission/technology will affect the design paradigm.

      The "6th Generation" concept looks workable, with sculpted lines to lower the radar signature.  And it'd be a positive boon to the Canadian economy.

      The F-22 and F-35 still keep trying to kill their pilots.

  •  caught your comment above (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar, JeffW, PrahaPartizan, FarWestGirl

    ...and to be sure, military spending has all sorts of complicated tradeoffs.  And I know the diary is about one specific plane...

    But it still makes me wonder...Canada is now rolling in petrodollars, the northwest passage is about to become a thing, and Canada may be on the edge of a few generations of the prosperity the US once enjoyed.  It will be interesting to see what (if any) of our vast boondoggles are taken as object lessons.  

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 03:45:21 AM PDT

  •  Those 'reborn Arrows' share not a single bolt... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    midnight lurker, JeffW

    with the original design.

    Not gonna happen in a million years, for many good reasons.

    The original CF-105 Arrow was designed for a very specific and ultimately pointless task: high mach speed at altitude to permit interception of supersonic Soviet bombers that were never built. It had limited transonic agility and would bleed airspeed instantly in any turns, like all delta designs. It had a barn-door radar cross section with all those sharp angles and slab sides.

    Turning it into a worthwhile modern stealthy fighter reminds me of what aviation writer Bill Gunston said about turning the giant Avro Vulcan bomber into a low altitude penetrator: "It would be possible....if you started with a completely different airplane".

  •  Canadian aerospace (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xaxnar

    Still lives.  DeHaviland, later Bombardier, aircraft have been widely used.  The Bombardier Q400 turboprop is more efficient than a jet on shorter routes, flies reasonably fast, and with its high wing and powerful engines (9000 HP coupled to monster 6-bladed props) works well in shorter fields.  They are in use all over the world.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site