BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow

Subject: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:14 AM

I find this very interesting ... is it a feasible solution to the new Canadian air war machine?

back to the future with the Avro Arrow

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:21 AM

I should point out that this article mentions that the project was scrapped before a single aircraft was built ... this is false as one was built and successfully flown, but later demolished when the government canned the project. Rumour has it the Avro Arrow project was shut down due to pressure from the U.S. government fearing Canada was too socialist in nature to have such an advance air fighting machine.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: bobad
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:21 AM

It makes sense on so many levels which is why the government won't likely go along with it.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 09:10 AM

bobad ... that was my initial reaction ... and since the government won't go along with that it would (sadly) put some roadblocks up for any private investment.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 09:55 AM

If someone called MacKenzie advocates this course of action, I am bound to agree ;)

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 11:01 AM

Hey, Canada!

Build yer own damn fighter! Gowan, let's see ya do it! Betcha can't! Probably be made of beaver fur and sticks, with a li'l ol' popgun for pertecshun! Then we'll sell ya a good one! HAW HAW HAW!

(Seriously, why not do it?)

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 05:13 PM

Avro Arrow technology is obsolete. Why revive a 50-year old design? Or is number 6 having us on?

Bombardier, etc., could be funded to design and build a new interceptor, but with integrated North American defense systems, any design would have to be mutually accepted.
Several are built in the EU and U.S. and can be had without the design, development and engineering costs of a new plane.

Drones or rockets seem to be the interceptors of the future in any case and will probably displace manned interceptors in any case.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 05:34 PM

why no flying cars?

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 06:29 PM

"The Arrow was an advanced, all-weather supersonic interceptor jet that was developed in the 1950s." And scrapped... well, not exactly. The project was bought out and the technology made a hefty profit.

Yer welcome Brits and Yanks. Yer aircraft have done well over the past 60 years thanks to Canuck engineers.

BTW... Canuck engineers are still at it but I am not allowed to post anyth

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 06:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= If it's not Scottish, it's CRAP!

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 07:01 PM

Another Canuck contribution! Thanks Hank.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 07:14 PM

No. A comment on all things not Scottish.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 07:15 PM

Why revive a 50-year old design?

Dunno. Ask Chrysler Corporation.

1970 Dodge Challenger

2011 Dodge Challenger

Not quite 50 years apart, but over 40.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 07:17 PM

I think they never should have messed with the Beetle.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:50 PM

Why revive a 50-year old design?

Wonder how old some Cdn ships and 'copters (aka Sea King's)are....ummmm?

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM

Why do they still make Les Paul guitars? Strats? Teles?
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 09:19 PM

hmmm ... 50 year old technology ... well, the B54 stratofortress which is still a valuable asset for the U.S military today

and

the jet plane ... which is basically 80 year old technology ... of course today's jet fighters have new technical wing dings and avionics added on along with bodies manufactured with high-tec composites.

and

how about the car's we all drive ... we're still using the internal combustion engine.

and

what Henry the cab driver posted above about quitars ... very good Henry .. ;)

so

Q and all you skeptics ... we aren't quite advanced as we like to believe.

and

as per the statement "having us on" ... no I'm not

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Leadfingers
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 10:32 PM

Another thread TOTALLY devalued by Crap from Henry Krinkle

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 10:43 PM

T... Hank only yanks his own crank.

SiX... "how about the car's we all drive ... we're still using the internal combustion engine." Yeah, but I can go from stop sign to stop sign in fuckall time haulingin winyer and be air conditioned and dry if it turns hot in summer and talk on my hands-free phone and have the GPS babe with the sexy voice... ain't all that complete shit? Fuck the furure. It's not living if it's too fast.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 10 Sep 12 - 11:05 PM

Well gnu ... I guess there is no future because we've forgotten about the past.

Anyway ... I think this Avro Arrow idea is rather fascinating and could be a feasible solution to the the $expensive$ F-35 proposal which our government still clings to ... even though those Lockheed Martin jetsters are proven to be not functioning to spec and are of poor and over rated quality.

but ... then again it's all about the $military war machine, as we still march into the future .. proving that we have not learned anything from the past.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:24 AM

I have something built to a 69year old design, that is still going strong, and in some respects is even better than it was when it was built.


John MacKenzie (Aged 69)

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:57 AM

The Avro Arrow was scrapped because its development costs were eating more than half the RCAF annual budget with no end in sight, and the Canadian aerospace industry as it then existed had no hope of sustaining an operational fleet of them throughout its service life.

Plus, it didn't fit into the nascent continental defence regime we now call NORAD.

There are days when I wonder if Lew MacKenzie just likes to stir the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:29 AM

With regard to "Old" Technology the engines that powered Concord were developed for the TSR2 which had been scrapped Eleven years before Concorde was built !!

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:47 AM

Jaguar used the same engine block from 1947, to 1987, with just external modifications, and varying bore sizes.
When something is well made, it lasts.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 01:01 PM

Neither the Concord nor the Jaguar are what the RCAF should be considering as exemplars of good operational hardware. Both were magnificent machines of their type, but notorious for the enormous amount of expert (and expensive!) technical effort required to keep them humming.

What we really, really need is the fast-air equivalent of a Volkswagen diesel station wagon. With stealth.

As a Canadian taxpayer, I'm just sayin'.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:20 PM

The 35 is very complicated and, I think, involves too many compromises. It is to replace the functionality of BOTH the Harrier and the F18 while satisfying local content rules in a number of NATO countries. I don't think that it is out of the question, that if an all weather interceptor is Canada's only need that the Arrow would be a better plane, especially if they can mount modern radars and other electronics. Then again more F18's would probably do.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:41 PM

The current U.S. F-22 fighter-interceptor is the modern equivalent, and has much better fighter maneuverability than the almost antique Arrow.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 04:19 PM

The F22 is
a. Not available for Canada to buy.
b. Much more expensive than the F35 was supposed to be when the deal was made.
c. Being cut back because the USAF doesn't think they need so many.

Also since the early 1970s when the F14 came on line the job of the high altitude interceptor has been to get to the general area and fire large air to air missiles from a hundred miles away. Maneuverability hardly matters when there is no "dogfight." Even the F22 relies on shooting first before the enemy can respond.

Face it Canada doesn't have a potential enemy to fight dogfights within Canadian airspace. To fly the sovereignty flag, the Arrow is plenty of plane if the Canadian government can buy sufficient air to air missiles with which to equip it.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 05:10 PM

Why not buy old MIGs from China?
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:27 PM

"Why not buy old MIGs from China?"

good grief !

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:16 PM

You buy everything else from China.
(:-( P)=

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Charmion
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM

Speak for yourself, Mr Krinkle.

LGen Paul Manson (ex Chief of the Air Staff) replied to Lew MacKenzie's original article with a letter to the Ottawa Citizen, in which he asserts that MacKenzie must be kidding. I wish I thought he was kidding, and in my darkest moments I fear that one day the Cabinet will toss all its expert advisors and jump into the arms of the craziest "stakeholders" out there -- among whom I count the proponents of this hare-brained scheme.

Anybody who sincerely believes that the aerospace technology of 1958 can be raised from the dead, pumped full of zombie juice, and sent out to fight for Canada in 2012 -- let alone, say, 2025 -- is smokin' dope.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 01:09 PM

" sent out to fight for Canada in 2012"

gotta love that line ... fight for Canada, such as that last RCAF expedition to Libya .... boy, did that backfire. How much did that cost us taxpayers? Let's face it there is no need for Canada to get involved in anymore such 'fights'. They are too expensive and all that effort was in vain. As for defending the country with sophisticated fighter/bomber aircraft, well, defend us from who?

Let's face it Canada's requirement for such an air farce is for show only. Do we need such extremely expensive high priced high tech aircraft that will basically be redundant the day they arrive in the hangers. Recycling the the old Avro Arrow without all the high tech wing dings will be less costly and serve our purposes as a show air farce on which is basically required. Having our own made in Canada by Canadian workers aircraft would serve to booster our national pride rather than drain our tax payer's money on some low quality over priced foreign made aircraft that is way beyond our needs.


biLL .... ;)

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: bobad
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 01:50 PM

The Avro Arrow vs. the F-35

Speed: The Arrow would fly twice as fast as the F-35 -- 3,887 km/h, or Mach 3.5, compared to the F-35's 1,854 km/h, or Mach 1.67.

Distance: The Arrow can fly as far as 3,000 kilometres before refueling. The F-35 flies 2,200 kilometres before doing the same.

Costs: The 20-year lifecycle cost for 100 Arrows would come in at $12 billion. That's less than half the price Canada is expected to pay for 65 F-35s.

Conditions: The Arrow is tailor-made to Canada's unique geography, with an eject pod that would help pilots survive in arctic conditions. The F-35 has a one-size-fits-all model for missions in countries across the globe.

Source: Bourdeau Industries


This is from Global News. The Company which made the proposal, Bourdeau Industries, doesn't have much of a presence on the internet which raises some questions in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM

200 Double-As plus change back or 65 F-35s?

Sounds simple but it ain't.

Old MIGs from China? Why not just outsource the F-35?

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:23 PM

outsourcing, (sadly) that's the Canadian approach these days gnuster ... the RCAF can outsource the the F35 to the Chinese or Indian military. Lay off all those expensive Canadian pilots and technicians.

Yup, the Harper way ... take the easy way out and sell us off.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:25 PM

Bluey riggin won't work... here's a quick read...

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/arriving-estimation-eng.asp

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

"Bluey riggin" ???? ... clarification please ... :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 08:34 PM

That riggin to the lower right of the post box.... Make a link ("blue clicky")

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Les from Hull
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 09:18 PM

Mach 3.5? You're having a laugh! The thing would melt.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 06:54 AM

The airframe was mostly aluminum with some titanium fasteners. Do the physics.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 07:07 AM

The Lockheed SR71 had to be made from titanium to withstand Mach 3+ temperatures. The figures quoted above seem at variance with figures quoted elsewhere. The Arrow was cancelled because the development costs were too high, much as the UK cancelled the TSR2.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: number 6
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 10:12 AM

Mach 1 would be suffice .... lets face it,is there a need to fly faster?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Les from Hull
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 02:08 PM

At the time there was a thought that you could outrun a missile. Thesedays you either convince the missile that you're not there (stealth) or going somewhere else (countermeasures). Both are expensive to develop.

Going really fast uses up a lot of fuel really quickly. It makes more sense to have fast missiles instead.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: gnu
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 03:22 PM

Fast and stealthy is already made. That's why the F-35 costs "so much". That's why the military pays $650 for a hammer or a toilet seat. It costs a lot of money to build weapons that cannot be publically displayed and financed. The money set aside for delivery of the F-35 does not go just to the F-35 program.

Conspiracy theories are food for thought at times.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 03:34 PM

Well the Canadian military never paid $650 for a toilet seat. Except when the exchange rate was bad.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Sep 12 - 05:20 PM

Oh, I dunno, Jack.

When you add up all the various incidentals involved in putting, say, an armoured trooper out on the gravelly desert of Kandahar Province where s/he has to squat alongside the tank to poop in a plastic bag (this is how they do it nowadays, folks -- it's tactical, dontcha know), I reckon that plastic bag could well be costed out at some astronomical sum.

And I don't even want to think about how much it cost to plunk Johnny-On-The-Spots into FOBs across Afghanistan and maintain them there. So let's talk about the great Poo Pond at Kandahar Airfield! The expensive engineer expertise that went into that is worthy of a Royal Commission.

....

You guys started it.

Subject: RE: BS: back to the future -- Avro Arrow
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 14 Sep 12 - 04:58 AM

Bring back the Lancaster!