Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:23 pm
I am posting link here for the latest news in Canada about our new fighter procurement. http://www.globaltoronto.com/feds+reject+bid+to+revive+avro+arrow/6442711404/story.html
This certainly makes me go hummmm...... there may be some real common sense here. The Arrow (MKIII) will not be the 1950s technology but an aircraft of the new millennium. The increase in efficiencies, materials and lower costs not to mention the jobs aspect the aircraft would be the best replacement for the CF-18 Air to Air role (but not for the Air to ground). I believe that you could have an Air to ground buy (F-18 E/F) and 100 CF-105s would be the perfect low risk solution with high returns. Just my humble opinion. I think the Govt and RCAF have tunnel vision - "when all you got is a hammer - everything looks like a nail!"
This certainly makes me go hummmm...... there may be some real common sense here. The Arrow (MKIII) will not be the 1950s technology but an aircraft of the new millennium. The increase in efficiencies, materials and lower costs not to mention the jobs aspect the aircraft would be the best replacement for the CF-18 Air to Air role (but not for the Air to ground). I believe that you could have an Air to ground buy (F-18 E/F) and 100 CF-105s would be the perfect low risk solution with high returns. Just my humble opinion. I think the Govt and RCAF have tunnel vision - "when all you got is a hammer - everything looks like a nail!"
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:33 pm
Is it April the 1st again? 
Are you suggesting making a New Arrow that looks like the old aircraft...or a new aircraft with an old name?
If you mean the former... it's said all the tech data was destroyed along with tooling.
It was an interceptor....and optomized as such.
If you're thinking of the latter....the R&D cost would be awfuly high and then you'd be fighting the Americans, UK-Italy, French and the Swedes for international sales.
Are you suggesting making a New Arrow that looks like the old aircraft...or a new aircraft with an old name?
If you mean the former... it's said all the tech data was destroyed along with tooling.
It was an interceptor....and optomized as such.
If you're thinking of the latter....the R&D cost would be awfuly high and then you'd be fighting the Americans, UK-Italy, French and the Swedes for international sales.
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:45 pm
Oh my...
The revived RCAF may indeed acquire something other than the Lightning II (IMO we should be getting Super Hornets, and that may ultimately happen). Whatever next-gen fighter Canada obtains, though, it will not be a revived Arrow. This whole story--though it appears those in authority have taken it seriously up to a point--smacks of April Fool's Day in the wrong season. (At least Mr Zuuring, with his abortive 1990s attempts to gather support for a rebuild of an Arrow 2 as a historical/educational artifact, didn't think a 30-ton Cold War long range interceptor would be viable as a Hornet replacement in the 21st century!)
I love the romanticism this story shows. But really, what an absolutely daft idea. Even in 1959 the cancellation of the Arrow programme wasn't the colossal mistake it's been painted to be by Canucks who (like me) are mad keen on airplanes, though the way the termination was handled was beneath contempt, and the cancellation of the Iroquois engine was a monster gaffe...trying to revive an advanced variant of the same aircraft half a century later is simply quixotic. (It does, though, speak to the excellent work done on the original. No one can argue the CF-105 wasn't state-of-the-art in 1958-59--and had there been limitless funding, some variant or other would likely still serve, somewhere, in some capacity. But that egg can't be unscrambled now.)
S.
The revived RCAF may indeed acquire something other than the Lightning II (IMO we should be getting Super Hornets, and that may ultimately happen). Whatever next-gen fighter Canada obtains, though, it will not be a revived Arrow. This whole story--though it appears those in authority have taken it seriously up to a point--smacks of April Fool's Day in the wrong season. (At least Mr Zuuring, with his abortive 1990s attempts to gather support for a rebuild of an Arrow 2 as a historical/educational artifact, didn't think a 30-ton Cold War long range interceptor would be viable as a Hornet replacement in the 21st century!)
I love the romanticism this story shows. But really, what an absolutely daft idea. Even in 1959 the cancellation of the Arrow programme wasn't the colossal mistake it's been painted to be by Canucks who (like me) are mad keen on airplanes, though the way the termination was handled was beneath contempt, and the cancellation of the Iroquois engine was a monster gaffe...trying to revive an advanced variant of the same aircraft half a century later is simply quixotic. (It does, though, speak to the excellent work done on the original. No one can argue the CF-105 wasn't state-of-the-art in 1958-59--and had there been limitless funding, some variant or other would likely still serve, somewhere, in some capacity. But that egg can't be unscrambled now.)
S.
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:14 pm
JohnB wrote:Is it April the 1st again?
If you mean the former... it's said all the tech data was destroyed along with tooling
Correct about the tooling being all destroyed but there is tons of technical data and a huge amount of airframe parts and a few engines still existing, I was looking at a front windscreen the other day
Approx enough to build 2/3rds of the aircraft
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:39 pm
So here are my genuine thoughts on the matter 
. The `Canadian (PC) government will never bring back any form of the Arrow (they (conservative govt) were the ones that tried to wipe it from memory). Furthermore the infrastructure needed and the experienced skill set required is genuinely not there - how do I know? Cause if anyone at bombardier tries to distract the team from working on the C series jet ... well lets say it is not favourable - Bombardier is genuinely hurting for (experienced) engineers. In addition, the Canadian aerospace industry is developed in the civil market because Canada does not have a military aircraft (tactical fighter) business to attract and retain the required people. However the civil business has been kind to Canada - Twin Otter, Buffalo, Cl-415 etc.....
Don't get me wrong if the Arrow Idea ever started to take off I would be on board that flight no problem - but here are some stoppers - It would take some serious brass ones to say to the USA machine - sorry we are going our own way and we are no longer interested in the F-35. The only reason you would do that is because you need, jobs? independence? or a fantastic interceptor - Interceptor? really? do we need one? I have to assume the F-18 does fine in an intercept role when required for NORAD or what have you, and can with out problem convert to air to ground. In my previous post I suggested a mixed fleet but that says we need two parts and logistics and oh yes training streams when we are already recruiting former RAF pilots cause we do not have enough kids to fill the CF-18 seats. (noted that the RCAF are currently looking for are those with experience : Harrier, Tornado etc...)
The CF-18 "CAN" (E/F+) are IMHO the best solution to our nations challenges.
1) Twin Engine - safety and reliability ( yes it comes with some extra costs)
2) Stealth options (See the offer to india) http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-india-video-boeing-reveals-advanced-super-hornet-options-352926/
3) Known Aircraft to US military and has the interop proven due to the fact it is in USN service and still in production for said.
4) has a tail hook - for our shorter CND runways and the North
5) Performance = to or greater than F-35 ??? ( this depends on whos eyes you look through)
6) True Multi Role Config ( the F-35 is assumed to be a compromised aircraft for all the participating nations )
7) Possible Canadian Production ?
Cost - lower than F-35 including maintenance because of the coatings etc..
9) In production and offered to other nations such as Denmark and Brazil
10) Available Now
There is a reason the F-18G is flying in Australia ... the Growler was a replacement for the F-111 and the F-18 C/D were to be replaced by the F-35 - Depending on the timing I would suggest that if I were running the political system in AUS - It would be easy to say the F-35 is too much and too late so....lets do cost savings and get the best bang for our buck and get the latest and greatest F-18 E/F as it streamlines training/parts etc...?
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada
For discussion
. The `Canadian (PC) government will never bring back any form of the Arrow (they (conservative govt) were the ones that tried to wipe it from memory). Furthermore the infrastructure needed and the experienced skill set required is genuinely not there - how do I know? Cause if anyone at bombardier tries to distract the team from working on the C series jet ... well lets say it is not favourable - Bombardier is genuinely hurting for (experienced) engineers. In addition, the Canadian aerospace industry is developed in the civil market because Canada does not have a military aircraft (tactical fighter) business to attract and retain the required people. However the civil business has been kind to Canada - Twin Otter, Buffalo, Cl-415 etc.....Don't get me wrong if the Arrow Idea ever started to take off I would be on board that flight no problem - but here are some stoppers - It would take some serious brass ones to say to the USA machine - sorry we are going our own way and we are no longer interested in the F-35. The only reason you would do that is because you need, jobs? independence? or a fantastic interceptor - Interceptor? really? do we need one? I have to assume the F-18 does fine in an intercept role when required for NORAD or what have you, and can with out problem convert to air to ground. In my previous post I suggested a mixed fleet but that says we need two parts and logistics and oh yes training streams when we are already recruiting former RAF pilots cause we do not have enough kids to fill the CF-18 seats. (noted that the RCAF are currently looking for are those with experience : Harrier, Tornado etc...)
The CF-18 "CAN" (E/F+) are IMHO the best solution to our nations challenges.
1) Twin Engine - safety and reliability ( yes it comes with some extra costs)
2) Stealth options (See the offer to india) http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-india-video-boeing-reveals-advanced-super-hornet-options-352926/
3) Known Aircraft to US military and has the interop proven due to the fact it is in USN service and still in production for said.
4) has a tail hook - for our shorter CND runways and the North
5) Performance = to or greater than F-35 ??? ( this depends on whos eyes you look through)
6) True Multi Role Config ( the F-35 is assumed to be a compromised aircraft for all the participating nations )
7) Possible Canadian Production ?
Cost - lower than F-35 including maintenance because of the coatings etc..9) In production and offered to other nations such as Denmark and Brazil
10) Available Now
There is a reason the F-18G is flying in Australia ... the Growler was a replacement for the F-111 and the F-18 C/D were to be replaced by the F-35 - Depending on the timing I would suggest that if I were running the political system in AUS - It would be easy to say the F-35 is too much and too late so....lets do cost savings and get the best bang for our buck and get the latest and greatest F-18 E/F as it streamlines training/parts etc...?
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canada
For discussion
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:23 pm
Paging Bob Diemert.
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:30 am
JFS61 wrote:Paging Bob Diemert.
^^^Well done.
Of course, if it weren't for the dreamers, many of our favorite warbirds wouldn't be flying!
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:58 am
So has this concept had its five minutes of fame with no further discussion on the matter?
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:09 am
Thats great...
Thanx for sharing this nice post.
Thanx for sharing this nice post.
Re: Avro Arrow (version two)for the RCAF - not the F-35?
Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:11 am
Rgardless of the F-35 decision, I think they should still bring back an up to date version of the Arrow.
That would be way to cool!
That would be way to cool!