A new Avro Arrow (or Super Arrow) instead of the F-35 (Merged thread)

[Edward Campbell]

...
Oddly enough, the Arrow had such a specific combat role tailored to Canada's needs that it would still be relevant today!

Would it? Who do we think is sending fleets of manned bombers over the pole with the aim of attacking either 1) the fixed, land based component of America's strategic nuclear arsenal, or 2) North American cities?

Our CF-18s do, now and again, escort a nuclear/cruise missile capable TU-95 Bear bomber out of our airspace, but how much manned bomber/stand off platform capability do the Russians have?

CF-18 intercepts in Russian Bear in an undated photo


Edit: typo

 

[Journeyman]

Gotta warn you though, Journeyman can be......well keep it up and you'll see.

Nahhh.... adding value to a discussion takes more than simply repeating a flawed premise over and over, despite several people pointing out the absence of credible sources.

He's already been added to the <ignore> pile.  :boring:

 

[AlexanderM]

So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?

Just back to the topic of money for a moment they have plenty of money.

Not the best source, but this is from Wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces#Budget

The recent steps towards modernisation of the Armed Forces have been made possible by Russia's economic resurgence based on oil and gas revenues as well a strengthening of its own domestic market. Currently, the military is in the middle of a major equipment upgrade, with the government in the process of spending about $200 billion (what equals to about $400 billion in PPP dollars) on development and production of military equipment between 2006-2015 under the State Armament Programme for 2007-2015 (GPV - госпрограмма вооружения).[45] Mainly as a result of lessons learned during the August War, the State Armament Programme for 2011-2020 was launched in December 2010. Prime Minister Putin announced that 20-21.5 trillion roubles (over $650 billion) will be allocated to purchase new hardware in the next 10 years. The aim is to have a growth of 30% of modern equipment in the army, navy and air force by 2015, and of 70% by 2020. In some categories, the proportion of new weapon systems will reach 80% or even 100%.

Russia to boost defence spending.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121017/176690593.html

and,

http://www.examiner.com/article/russia-to-triple-military-spending


There are many articles about this, they have money, coming from oil, gas and an economy that is improving.  Go ahead, follow the money, they have it.

 

[Loachman]

Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.

 

[observor 69]

Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.

"Always two there are, a master and an apprentice"  Yoda 

 

[Good2Golf]

Once you've seen a few of those over a number of years, and can match claim and posturing to actual result, you, too, may be somewhat more discerning.

Do you mean discerning, as in looking at the quoted article then thinking to yourself, "hey...when the article notes that:"

Russia’s 2012 defense budget was $30.7 billion

"...that means that Russia will spend a whole 50% more than Canada does on defence.  Wow!  Those carrier battle groups will just be streaming out of Russian shipyards in no time." ?

:nod:

 

[Edward Campbell]

And if anyone thinks Russia is rich then please tell us why are they selling Backfire C bombers at fire-sale prices? Hint: Russia is a rich country with a poor, fiscally inept government.

 

[George Wallace]

Info page on the www:

http://www.hooler.com/superarrow/about.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Isn't the niche already filled by the F-22?

 

[Privateer]

With an augmented fuel system, where she can carry liquefied air, the Super Arrow can, we think anyway, fly as high as 250 000 feet and with a booster rocket attached underneath, we believe the Super Arrow could become a sub-orbital vehicle.

Hell, ya!  ;D

 

[Haletown]

The SuperArrow project  an excellent Friday Funny!  . . .  proof that there are always folks who need to switch up their meds.

 

[Danjanou]

with the credentials of the designer I cannot sse any issue with us turning out a couple of squadrons of these badboys within a few months and well uinder budget.  :

Joe Green is a professional Canadian artist and designer and proud to be an honorary member of the Third Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. He is a graduate of the prestigious Emily Carr University and hold a Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts with a speciality in 3D Computer Animation, Visual Effects, Motion Capture and Fine Arts Painting. The flag featured in the video unveiling the Super Arrow is an 8'x4' oil on canvas painting dedicated to the late Jack Layton for his service to Canada and now hangs in the House of Commons controlled Offices of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Green's presented 158 of those prints on the 30th Anniversary of the signing of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms to 3 PPCLI in honour of 158 soldiers lost in Afghanistan, along with 65 to the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, Team Canada, various Olympians and other stellar Canadians as a way to acknowledge and inspire them.

Joe Green is a proud patriot and his work hangs in various locations ranging from the Canadian Space Agency, Third Battalion RHQ to various other locations across Canada. Green counts many soldiers has his close friends and as such, took into consideration their needs directly as front line troops into the design and weapon systems of the Super Arrow. Pictured to the right, Green is getting applause for completing a 7 year project in which he produced a 1000+ page military anthology titled "April 17th, In the Name of Canada", a memorial book, 2.5 years in the making, dedicated to the first four Canadian soldiers lost in Afghanistan on Operation Apollo and where a camp flag of 3 PPCLI was presented to him, which Green made available to the Canadian Space Agency where it flew on STS-115/12A.

 

[a_majoor]

Ah, the '50's were such a great time for aerospace dreamers. Liquid Air Cycle Engines (LACE) that would convert from jets to rockets, ramjet powered "Super Hustlers" that would penetrate Soviet airspace at Mach 4 and even real life projections of evolved CF-105 "Arrows" that would use rocket boosters, ramjets or other combinations to accelerate to the edge of the atmosphere and attempt to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles (although these were mostly paper studies on the backs of napkins).

Of course the real world is not a pretty place, although some very small bench engines using the LACE principle were run in the early 60's, the state of the art still has not matured, SKYLON is even today building a prototype "bench" LACE engine and I doubt a flyable one will arrive soon. Despite decades of research, hypersonic flight is still a rarity, although it may emerge from the "Black world" near the end of the decade.

As for what sort of airplane *we* need, I could probably make a strong case for the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly as a CAS and forward observer platform, or a B-1 to project power (from Canada to Libya or Afghanistan in the very recent past as good examples), or look ahead to large transport sized aircraft that can carry high energy laser weapons or railguns to attack targets on the ground and in the air.

The Arrow was built for a particular mission that made sense in that time and place; that time and mission has passed into history.

edit to add:

Given the very few viable choices that would actually meet the needs of the RCAF and still be cost effective, perhaps this is one of the few alternatives to the CF-35:

http://www.warbirdradio.com/2013/09/fa-18-super-hornet-prototype-featuring-conformal-fuel-tanks-takes-flight/

F/A-18 Super Hornet Prototype Featuring Conformal Fuel Tanks Takes Flight
Posted by Staff Writer on September 2, 2013 · Leave a Comment

WARBIRD RADIO – According to a recent news release The first flight of an F/A-18 Advanced Super Hornet prototype featuring conformal fuel tanks (CFT) designed and built by Northrop Grumman Corporation, took place earlier this month.
The design and assembly of the tanks were completed in less than 10 months, ahead of schedule, due to rapid prototyping processes. The conformal fuel tanks and other new Advanced Super Hornet features allow flexibility for longer range and/or low-observable missions.

“We invested in conformal fuel tank research and development so we could offer our domestic and international customers the most capable and sophisticated F/A-18 possible,” said John Murnane, F/A-18 program manager, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. “Given the challenge of developing the CFT in a short period of time, the success of the first prototype flight is an incredible achievement for our team.”

Both the F/A-18 and its electronic attack variant, the EA-18G, will benefit from the conformal fuel tanks. The tanks, which are added to the upper fuselage of the aircraft, accommodate up to 3,500 pounds of additional fuel. For a typical strike mission, a Super Hornet or Growler with CFT can increase its unrefueled radius by up to 130 nautical miles or increase its station time by more than 30 minutes. For the EA-18G aircraft, the tanks also provide enhanced capabilities when operating from an aircraft carrier by reducing overall weight.

CFTs are an example of practical modernization of a reliable, proven airframe. The tanks provide new capabilities to the warfighter and can be included on new aircraft or retrofitted to the 600-plus aircraft already operating worldwide.

In addition to conformal fuel tanks, the prototype aircraft features an enclosed weapons pod designed and built by Boeing, the prime contractor for the F/A-18. Other key members of the F/A-18 industry team have also developed upgrades for the Advanced Super Hornet.

The first flight of the Advanced Super Hornet prototype took place Aug. 5 in St. Louis as part of a demanding flight test demonstration program. Several flight tests have also taken place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. These flight tests will provide the F/A-18 industry team with valuable data on flying qualities, drag and signature levels.

Northrop Grumman produces about 40 percent of the work content for F/A-18 and about 50 percent for the EA-18G. The company manufactures the center/aft fuselage and vertical tails for both aircraft, as well as the airborne electronic attack subsystem for the EA-18G.

 

[thunderchild]

Why not have stealth avenger drones for "first night" operations.  We can then buy another platform at less cost for multi role uses, IE the JAS-39e/f.  Then we have time(20-30years) if we choose to develop our own fighter, possably with countries like Australia or the UK. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lord Black of Crossharbour seems to share the Arrow nostalgia and has lost his capitalist/economic mind:

...Instead of deferring $3.1-billion in defence spending...the government should get on with it...and channel economic stimulus through defense research and development...should work With Bombardier and others to rebuild the Canadian Aerospace industry, which is still recovering from Diefenbaker’s cancellation of the Avro Arrow in 1959...
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/15/conrad-black-a-boring-budget-from-an-unpopular-government/  [about half-way through]

How's this Bombardier effort working out for him?

Investors flee after Bombardier posts results, bumps up cost of CSeries
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/aerospace/Investors+flee+after+Bombardier+posts+results+bumps/9505802/story.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[WingsofFury]

Why not have stealth avenger drones for "first night" operations.  We can then buy another platform at less cost for multi role uses, IE the JAS-39e/f.  Then we have time(20-30years) if we choose to develop our own fighter, possably with countries like Australia or the UK.

Why have 2 platforms when 1 can do it all in the F-35?

Canada will never develop its own fighter capability, nor will countries like Australia and the UK partner with us, as they are both invested in the F-35 program.

As well, why would we only want a platform for 20-30 years when the operational life of most of our assets approaches 40 years or more?

 

[AirDet]

Lord Black of Crossharbour seems to share the Arrow nostalgia and has lost his capitalist/economic mind:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/15/conrad-black-a-boring-budget-from-an-unpopular-government/  [about half-way through]

How's this Bombardier effort working out for him?

Mark
Ottawa

You know Mark, I quite enjoyed that article. While there was some tongue-in-cheek he did make some interesting points. I'm not saying we need to rebuild the Arrow, but I do like the idea of investing in Canadian industry.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[a_majoor]

Investing in Canadian industry only makes sense when the industry builds something that people actually want. London has Diamond Aricraft, which is still sitting with its hand out hoping for a Government loan to build a light jet aircraft. The fact that potential customers are not beating a path to the door suggests that perhaps this is another one of those loans that never, ever gets repaid.

The auto industry in Canada serves as a great example of a huge money sink, with several levels of government sinking billions of dollars into the industry (even before the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler). The net result was simply to prop up the company balance sheets even as the car industry in Canada has gradually shrunk. While there are a few exceptions to the rule (think Toyota), they are indeed exceptions, and we certainly don't see the economic growth or job creation that billions of dollars of investment should have produced.

As for "stealth" drones or UCAVs, for a nation with Canada's level of military resource commitment, cruise missiles make more sense from a cost/benefit perspective.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Still I would have liked the completed Arrows to have been used as test aircraft instead of scrap. Typical political response to a fiscal, technical issue.

 

[MilEME09]

Still I would have liked the completed Arrows to have been used as test aircraft instead of scrap. Typical political response to a fiscal, technical issue.

I'd like to see that done with the Super Arrow project, I probably could never get the backing for a production aircraft, but maybe as a technology demonstration aircraft or even a recce aircraft I think it could work out. Apparently its gotten the attention of some people high up in the airforce like Lt.General Yvan Blondin who said in an interview if he would consider the super arrow said it would be great if one could appear in competition.