A new Avro Arrow (or Super Arrow) instead of the F-35 (Merged thread)
- Thread starter Retired AF Guy
- Start date
Journeyman said:
Note "with an aircraft this expensive".
Do you know the term quantitative incompetance? It's when it no longer matter how good what you have is, because you don't have remotely enough to do the job. Think Tiger IIs, vs T-34s. or in our case simply too damn few aircraft for the price. Go the other way around, determine how many airframes you need and how much you have to spend, then, taking into account it has to last 30+ years and survive canadian weather and have absurd range; find the aircraft types that fit that set of requirements. if you are smart you ignore politics at this stage. Dare to dream with me now.
NOT; we need a super-advanced american-style stealth fighter, so we don't look backward.
As opposed to the roles the arbitrarily dismissed by the F-35, such as home defence (range) and soverignty preservation (numbers). It can do, we think, everything else we do right now. Note the forshadowing; what we do right now.
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Shrek1985 said:
Don't bother, the National Post gave us a "ready reckoner:"
The F-35 outclasses the CF-105 in pretty much everything except speed, for which, as Journeyman
said, it was specifically designed as an interceptor.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,557
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
Point to note, IMHO the Mosquito was actually the first Stealth aircraft. Low observable on radar, fast, manouverable. My favorite aircraft of all time!
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
For those of us old enough there was the guy who was proposing "The Defender" ultralight aircraft for the Air Force back when the CF-18 was but a gleam in a pilot's eye. Think of how many of these combat baby's we could get for $16 B.
http://www.combatreform.org/combatultralights.htm
http://www.combatreform.org/combatultralights.htm
E.R. Campbell said:Don't bother, the National Post gave us a "ready reckoner:"
The F-35 outclasses the CF-105 in pretty much everything except speed, for which, as Journeyman
said, it was specifically designed as an interceptor.
no, really I don't mind.
As representative; a thrust to weight ratio comparison.
Lockheed F-12B 48,000lbs dry thrust, 64,000lbs with afterburners, .69-1 thrust to weight ratio
North American F-108 Rapier same thrust, .8-1 thrust to weight
Arrow Mk 3 (the globe needs to distinguish mark and engines, those are Mk1, pre-porduction stats with American pratt and whitney engines) 39,700lbs dry, 53,300lbs with AB, .81-1
Arrow Mk 4 as above with 118,156lbs with AB and ramjets.
Mk2 arrow; mach 2.3 in tests
E-Model F-4 (mid-60s) mach 2.25, approx 24,000lbs thrust.
Again; comparison is off; the F-4E is a mid-60s bird, while by that time, the Mk3 and 4 arrows could have been flying. But also; role, the F-4 was developed into a multirole craft, the arrow had a more limited scope; interceptor, recce, strike.
Info from the afore mentioned book, as well as The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.
I am not arguing for a new arrow, i'd be shocked if you told me our gelded aerospace industry could produce such a thing in anything like a useful time frame. But better aircraft in more appropriate roles could be had in greater numbers for our money, but we'd have to divorce politics from procurement first.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
There seems to be a lot of conflicting information being put forward in this proposal. The previous post had info from the National Post, which greatly differs from that stated by a spokesperson (not Gen Mackenzie) from the consortium as to the capabilities of the aircraft. The figures I heard on CTV interview had the Arrow flying higher, faster, and longer range than the F-35. I would be curious to see how these figures are going to change over the next few days/month/weeks/year (?).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
George Wallace said:
Yeah I was kind of shocked to read the spec comparison to the F-35 listed considering the differences in reports too. What the heck is real, or are we getting two totally bias reports to try and persuade people to support their proposed jet? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle in terms of Arrow capabilities?
armyguy1 said:
This is becoming sickening more and more common in all weapons literature. With the decline of respectable dead-tree sources, the rise of internet sensationalism and sock-puppet magazines, it is becoming extremely difficult to determine the true capabilities of new weapons systems.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Ultralights are much easier to learn how to fly than a fast mover. You'd be able to crank out the new intrepid birdmen/women at a far faster pace. Hell they did it in a matter of hours back when aircraft were not so much more sophisticated. In college I took ultralight lessons and had my first solo in a very short timeframe.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What was it like to fly around the time of the Wright Brothers?jollyjacktar said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Wilbur was very patient as an instructor, but Snoopy kept trying to hot dog all the time which drove Orville nuts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
That crazy Snoopy.
I truly don't understand where this discussion is coming from at a time of budget reduction and fiscal penny pinching. Even if the Avro Arrow in it's newest incarnation was the absolute best choice hands down in every way, and could be delivered at a cost of less than $100 million per aircraft, there are still numerous costs that would drive the money spent into the absurd range. Just building the infrastructure alone to make this project work would take billions of additional funding that the government does not have. Even to use an existing airframe manufacturer that has factories and warehouses in Canada, we would need to sink gobs of money into making them ready to roll a useable proto-type off the line.
And timeframe? Wow, we're probably talking a decade until we would see full scale production taking place.
This is me a humble dirt eater sitting on the sidelines. Just wow.
I truly don't understand where this discussion is coming from at a time of budget reduction and fiscal penny pinching. Even if the Avro Arrow in it's newest incarnation was the absolute best choice hands down in every way, and could be delivered at a cost of less than $100 million per aircraft, there are still numerous costs that would drive the money spent into the absurd range. Just building the infrastructure alone to make this project work would take billions of additional funding that the government does not have. Even to use an existing airframe manufacturer that has factories and warehouses in Canada, we would need to sink gobs of money into making them ready to roll a useable proto-type off the line.
And timeframe? Wow, we're probably talking a decade until we would see full scale production taking place.
This is me a humble dirt eater sitting on the sidelines. Just wow.
Similar threads
