Staff Weenie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 156
- Points
- 630
I wonder how much it would cost to genetically engineer humans with big wings.....
A new Avro Arrow (or Super Arrow) instead of the F-35 (Merged thread)
- Thread starter Retired AF Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I would take everything being reported with a grain of salt, and here's why.
The Arrow program was shrouded in secrecy with a lot of the true accomplishments never being kept on the official record. One can make assumptions about what performance levels it did hit, but the only people who know the true details of how the plane flew have all passed away. We can make comparisons to other aircraft developed at the time, including the -106, but as we've seen through the progression of airframes and the roles that they play, the design, role, and not to mention the construction materials have changed the way the aircraft are built.
Another facet of this project, which nobody has spoken about in detail, is what type of original documents actually exist. On top of that, even if the original blueprints do actually exist somewhere, can you imagine how much it would take in development dollars to get this thing moving? It'd make what is being spent on the F-35 (which is nothing, by the way) seem miniscule. Think about how much in then dollars of the defence budget it cost to develop the Arrow and then wonder how much such a proposition would impact the Forces today.
While the notion of an all Canadian fighter is something that we as a country could take pride in, the reality of actually making it happen would hurt this country greatly, especially when we could have easily purchased aircraft either in development or already developed for a lesser amount which have significant capabilities that would more than meet our needs.
The Arrow program was shrouded in secrecy with a lot of the true accomplishments never being kept on the official record. One can make assumptions about what performance levels it did hit, but the only people who know the true details of how the plane flew have all passed away. We can make comparisons to other aircraft developed at the time, including the -106, but as we've seen through the progression of airframes and the roles that they play, the design, role, and not to mention the construction materials have changed the way the aircraft are built.
Another facet of this project, which nobody has spoken about in detail, is what type of original documents actually exist. On top of that, even if the original blueprints do actually exist somewhere, can you imagine how much it would take in development dollars to get this thing moving? It'd make what is being spent on the F-35 (which is nothing, by the way) seem miniscule. Think about how much in then dollars of the defence budget it cost to develop the Arrow and then wonder how much such a proposition would impact the Forces today.
While the notion of an all Canadian fighter is something that we as a country could take pride in, the reality of actually making it happen would hurt this country greatly, especially when we could have easily purchased aircraft either in development or already developed for a lesser amount which have significant capabilities that would more than meet our needs.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Pfft, all it takes is to send you down South or into the sandbox for a time. You'll end up with a case of bat wings in the daytime, guarenteed. Least for us guys...Staff Weenie said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
You're right, me and my new eyeglass Rx. I thought he wrote "bat wings" not "big wings". Doh. :-[Crantor said:
I find it somewhat humorous is how Boudreau and large segments of the public think that this would be more of a benefit for Canadian industries than the F-35 program. Maybe its a symptom of just how bad the discussion surrounding this program has become. First off, there is no way Canada could develop all of the fighter's components indigenously, without spending tens or even a hundred billion on development.
Certain equipment like Radars, avionics and engine components would need to be sourced out to American companies. There just are no firms in Canada that could develop and produce a modern useful radar without recourse to foreign technology or spending obscene amounts of money. The only firm that comes to mind is MDA, however I suspect getting them to do so would run into the billions under the most optimistic of estimates. Avionics alone cost over 50% of most aircrafts' value... and this is the area Canada is weakest industrially.
By comparison Canada will likely gain a positive return on investment, over and above the procurement and development costs for the F-35. Now the Arrow might eventually result in more money in aggregate being invested in Canada, for no other reason than the staggering amounts of funding it would require to get such a project off the ground.
I think you have the wrong emphasis here. There aren't any hard estimates for what this fighter can do because they don't exist. This attempt was completely based on some nationalist/business effort to undertake this work in Canada and get out of the F-35 program. This submission was very weak concerning the hard capabilities of a Boudreau Arrow, which the fantastical performance claims illustrate extremely well. It was their thought that they would modify the design to meet whatever defence needs the government required. This is why you see them asking for a grant to "study" the issue.
In a way its the very same problem that afflicted the first Arrow; we will finish it no matter the cost.
Certain equipment like Radars, avionics and engine components would need to be sourced out to American companies. There just are no firms in Canada that could develop and produce a modern useful radar without recourse to foreign technology or spending obscene amounts of money. The only firm that comes to mind is MDA, however I suspect getting them to do so would run into the billions under the most optimistic of estimates. Avionics alone cost over 50% of most aircrafts' value... and this is the area Canada is weakest industrially.
By comparison Canada will likely gain a positive return on investment, over and above the procurement and development costs for the F-35. Now the Arrow might eventually result in more money in aggregate being invested in Canada, for no other reason than the staggering amounts of funding it would require to get such a project off the ground.
Shrek1985 said:
I think you have the wrong emphasis here. There aren't any hard estimates for what this fighter can do because they don't exist. This attempt was completely based on some nationalist/business effort to undertake this work in Canada and get out of the F-35 program. This submission was very weak concerning the hard capabilities of a Boudreau Arrow, which the fantastical performance claims illustrate extremely well. It was their thought that they would modify the design to meet whatever defence needs the government required. This is why you see them asking for a grant to "study" the issue.
In a way its the very same problem that afflicted the first Arrow; we will finish it no matter the cost.
The first glimmer of sanity (on this matter) in the mainstream media:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Time+shoot+down+wacky+plan+rebuild+Avro+Arrow/7221915/story.html
Time to shoot down wacky plan to rebuild Avro Arrow
By Les MacPherson, The StarPhoenix September 11, 2012
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Time+shoot+down+wacky+plan+rebuild+Avro+Arrow/7221915/story.html
Time to shoot down wacky plan to rebuild Avro Arrow
By Les MacPherson, The StarPhoenix September 11, 2012
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Hard to believe that a former Army General would endorse an aircraft with no air to ground cape, mind boggling really. Never would have thought Lou would be that naive.
- Reaction score
- 27,099
- Points
- 1,090
Lew should go back to racing - an area where he has some knowledge and experience - and stay away from aircraft, where having been a passenger does not make you an aeronautical engineer.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
dapaterson said:Lew should go back to racing - an area where he has some knowledge and experience - and stay away from aircraft, "but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express" does not make you an aeronautical engineer.
If Canada is seriously looking at alternatives to F-35A, I suppose that any reasonable options should be investigated. As mentioned, it may be impossible to get Super Hornet or F-22 at this point, but perhaps the F-15SE Silent Eagle could be an option. Or even life-extending the F-18 fleet until F/A-XX is ready.
CF-105 would not be a reasonable option. We'd be better off buying Mig-31 -- that would also give us an obselete high-altitude interceptor, but at a reasonable pricetag and we wouldn't even have to build a billion-dollar factory - Russia delivers!
CF-105 would not be a reasonable option. We'd be better off buying Mig-31 -- that would also give us an obselete high-altitude interceptor, but at a reasonable pricetag and we wouldn't even have to build a billion-dollar factory - Russia delivers!
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
Good observation on the J-20, Edward, yet another single-role aircraft, but with the opposite problem from that of the Arrow -- J-20 is supposed to be a stealthy light bomber (a poor man's F-117?) with minimal/no air-to-air capability. Might be just the thing to suppress Taiwan's air defences, but not really suited for intercepting Bears over the Beaufort Sea.
Canada has stated, repeatedly, that we want a multi-role aircraft. LGen Deschamps has publicly stated that he does not want the air force to have multiple fighter types. From that, can I infer that the RCAF's institutional memory of the CF-5/CF-101/CF-104 days are not happy ones? If we were to go with a mixed fleet, that opens up all kinds of options, but I don't see that in the cards.
Canada has stated, repeatedly, that we want a multi-role aircraft. LGen Deschamps has publicly stated that he does not want the air force to have multiple fighter types. From that, can I infer that the RCAF's institutional memory of the CF-5/CF-101/CF-104 days are not happy ones? If we were to go with a mixed fleet, that opens up all kinds of options, but I don't see that in the cards.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
What about looking to Europe? Typhoon, Rafael? Does it have to be towards the US?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I guess the argument can be made that we're once again taking a step back when it comes to trying to get a 5th generation fighter, as the above choices are 4th generation.jollyjacktar said:
I personally am a big fan of the super-hornet, mostly due to cost, capability and training/support. But again as has been said in previous posts the production of the SH will end soon and we will still be with a 4 (maybe 4.5) generation fighter.
A
aesop081
Guest
Ostrozac said:
No, you can not. The trouble is the reality today, mostly the $$$ reality, is that multiple fleets create more problems for the RCAF than benefits. More training courses for air and ground crews, more OTUs, more specialized systems to maintain (just look at the mess of different DEWS we have)..........
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,711
- Points
- 1,160
The argument against the Rafael is that we either adopt the europeon weapon systems or spend money configuring it to take the US based weapons we use. Hard to say what industrial benefits we would get out of the deal, likely not as many as the F-35. Going by wiki, Rafael wins on the range both cruise and combat, which would be useful for Canada. Cost cited is 90-120million USD (2010) Rafael has 14 hardpoints to mount stuff on, F-35 has 10 (4 internal)
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
No easy answers, and I'm afraid it's not my part ship. I can usually identify a airplane from a bird 9 times out of 10. It's a shame that politics will no doubt raise it's massive/ugly head into this procurement and cost us all lots of time, money and frustration. Which thought came to me as I watched a Cormorant come by my window to drop off a customer and all I could think of is "if Jean Chretien had been more of a man and less of a politician we'd (RCAF/RCN) not still be waiting for new choppers almost 20 years later...
not saying wiki is possibly incorrect, but the data on range for the Rafale vs F 35 might be in error.
Based on a basic Fuel Fraction calculation, the F-35 is better on range
Max weight
F-35A = 31,800kg Rafale = 24,500kg
Internal fuel
F-35A = 8,300kg Rafale = 4,250kg
Fuel fraction
F-35 = 0.26 Rafale = 0.17
Arm both aircraft with 2 x 1000lb bombs and 2 x AAM and the equation really changes. The F-35 flies that mission without external stores. The Rafale flies all its armaments externally (except its gun) and the resultant parasitic drag requires the Rafale to carry at least a couple of external fuel tanks - I don't have the figures at hand right now but memory says the Rafale needs to add two external fuel tanks to do the same mission as the F-35 does on internal fuel & weapons but even then the Rafale still can't match the F-35 range.
The other problem is the Rafale, while being a wonderful plane , is getting long in the tooth . . . same vintage as the F-18. First flights were mid 1980's. It has been upgraded and improved but it is very long in its development cycle, with very little improvement space left. Same for the Typhoon.
Based on a basic Fuel Fraction calculation, the F-35 is better on range
Max weight
F-35A = 31,800kg Rafale = 24,500kg
Internal fuel
F-35A = 8,300kg Rafale = 4,250kg
Fuel fraction
F-35 = 0.26 Rafale = 0.17
Arm both aircraft with 2 x 1000lb bombs and 2 x AAM and the equation really changes. The F-35 flies that mission without external stores. The Rafale flies all its armaments externally (except its gun) and the resultant parasitic drag requires the Rafale to carry at least a couple of external fuel tanks - I don't have the figures at hand right now but memory says the Rafale needs to add two external fuel tanks to do the same mission as the F-35 does on internal fuel & weapons but even then the Rafale still can't match the F-35 range.
The other problem is the Rafale, while being a wonderful plane , is getting long in the tooth . . . same vintage as the F-18. First flights were mid 1980's. It has been upgraded and improved but it is very long in its development cycle, with very little improvement space left. Same for the Typhoon.
Similar threads
