Sun, Sep 9: The Harper Conservatives quietly dismissed a Canadian company's plan to revive a national legend as an alternative to the plagued F-35 program.
@juscurious Your comment has a number of issues: why would you bring the shooting down of ICBM"s into the assessment of a fighter/bomber aircraft, it's not even considered for the most advanced military aircraft with today's technology so it's a moot point. The U.S. pressured the Canadian government to cancel the Arrow program and then pressured Canada into purchasing and deploying 60 Bomarc nuclear armed surface to air missiles which were obsolete within a couple of years and cost Canada, in 2020 dollars, $650,000,000. Canada began decommissioning them in the mid 1960's so they had just a few years of service and ended up being used as drones for SAM target practice. On top of this debacle Canada still required fighter/attack aircraft so by scrapping the Arrow, we ended up becoming beholden to U.S. defense contractors for future military aircraft. The Arrow was not a myth whatsoever and like any developmental aircraft there were bugs to be ironed out but it was pretty much a sure bet. Avro had the best aircraft engineers in the world and after the program was ended, they were all scooped up by American companies including NASA and went on to help keep the U.S. on the cutting edge of military aircraft development. The Americans used the fear of this advanced technology ending up in Soviet hands as one part of the reason Canada should scrap the project. Our neighbours real concern was that we would eclipse them on the world stage of military aircraft development and they just couldn't have that. And to cap all of this madness off, the Bomarc missile was based on captured V1 weapons developed by the Nazis so even they weren't of their making. The Bomarc was a SAM missile designed to bring down Soviet bombers and weren't intended for ICBM's anyway. It was a major blunder by the Canadian government and if left to Avro to finish the project, it's possible that today Canada would be an aerospace mecca of sorts. One last point, I wouldn't feel comfortable having a nuclear tipped missile shooting down a Soviet bomber full of nuclear missiles above any portion of Canada's land or sea territory.
@@veritasetutilitas5432 I am quite convinced that since our engenuity in planes was so great at the time I really believe, Canada, would have made the space shuttle, with the US putting there US Arm on Our space shuttle. And, we could have been the first on the Moon. We got screwed, Royaly, as always. Canada used to be great with so many solid patents. Now we get screwed every year and only have a handful of foundational patents like Blackberry and Nortel. Obviously Nortel is Lost. We shouldn't have allowed Huwai, into Canada.
@@veritasetutilitas5432 name one thing the USA actually designed with just American talent. Everything the USA built after world war 2 was never from within there own country. Not even nuclear Science came from within.
It's not a matter of 'letting' them, they control the whole show. Weapons design and manufacture (or procurement from other countries) and deployment is entirely dependent on the decisions of politicians. The citizens of the country can vote for different representatives, but they have no say in what military hardware their government chooses to make use of.
What you are looking at is a ''Socialist Mind-set'' that the Politicians have,,, If the Arrow were revived, it would be an embarrassment of epic proportion because it would expose the corruption that ditched the first Arrow,,
you forget one little thing that the deif left us saddled with .. a signed treaty that says we as a country wont take up military aircraft design and development ... the joys of the failed bomarc and the dew line treaty that cancelled the arrow and killed the countries spirit
Daniel Groulx tu l'as dit ,c'est de la politique,combien les states ont payé pour que les plans disparaissent , on n'en saura jamais rien ,mais on devra toujours faire ce que les Etats-Unis nous dictent,malheureusement c'est eux qui bossent donc oublie le Arrow
Daniel Groulx sorry your name sound french,as you said,it's only politic,how much the u.s. paid so that the plans disappear,we will never know, but unfortunately we must alway make what the U.S. dictate to us.That worked like that in the 50s and and it not really change since.
The "Avro" is not the name for the aircraft at all... It is the name of the manufacturer of many aircraft such as the Avro Lancaster which the aircraft in this case is the Avro Arrow. An example is how Ford makes the F150 and also the mustang.
Yes. Please. Save the U.S. a whole lot of time and money dragging Canada along. Again. And then when that flying piece of shit turns out to be exactly what it was and always will be - a failure, the world will laugh at you for worshipping junk for 50 years.
I can't believe the Canadians dropped the plan to develop such an awesome plane back in 1950's. Canada would have been ruling the fighter jets industry by now had they continued with avro arrow project.
There is much more to the death of Avro Arrow program termination than has been released in Canada. The AVRO corporation was deeply infiltrated by agents of the Soviet GRU, so says RCMP documents made public. Apparently security was so lax around this innovative fighter/interceptor that security was all but non-existent at the building site and in the engineering design section. The PM of Canada at the time hid behind a cover story of needing to use the money for schools and agriculture. What the heck? Was he going to go on the air and say Canada's premier defense industry has been utterly and devastatingly compromised by Soviet intelligence, per his briefings with the RCMP. No. It was a great plane. A lot of American USAF brass wanted it, but they did not want to go up against the same thing in the air if the Soviets had the same thing. Anyway, two years later the Avro Arrow did fly again. Except this one had a red star and had been built as the MiG-25 Foxbat. Take a look at the Arrow and the Foxbat. You can barely tell the difference between the two. If Avro had better industrial site protection that worked closely with the RCMP and ID badges that said which section you worked in and if found outside of your area, deadly force was authorized to cancel the wandering spy.
Excellent interview. Building and testing a few up-to-date Arrows would in the long run prove to be one of the most prudent decisions Canada ever made.
I say,"Hell Yes!" Go for it! Another aircraft that I think was unwisely cancelled was the XB-70 Valkyrie, should have been built in small numbers at least.
There is a group that are building an arrow based on the old blue prints and schematics. It was supposed to fly in 2009 but is still under construction. They say they are still building and have certification to build a flying jet. I hope they do eventually finish her. May the arrow soar once more
That sounds like Peter Zuuring's project, which died long ago. A scaled down flying replica is being built in Alberta, powered by turbines from a Learjet; that is as near as we will see to a flying Arrow...
The B52 still is the main bomber force in the USA so maybe 1950s tech is not so bad. It's still flying and projected to still be in service 100 years after it was first designed. The U2 still is in service outlasting the stealth fighters that were supposed to replace it. All the flashy stealth planes are gone and retired and yet the U2 is still relevant and in service.
U.S. PATRIOT, You're absolutely right and good to hear you tell it like it is!!! That's a fact and much appreciated from your neighbour North of the 49th Parallel. We're working on it, Thanks!!!
@@johnmulligan5261 whos working on what...??? there i no work going on with anything to do with an Arrow...except a mybe flying replica...but nothing serious to be put into actual service
Stealth may be important but if you have the ability to fly much higher, faster, and further than your enemy, you have a tremendous tactical advantage. Look at the track record of the SR-71 as a good example of the advantage of altitude and speed against a hostile target.
You have to fly higher, faster and further than a missile if you don't have stealth. With " over the horizon" missiles these days stealth is pretty important.
Well of course, it's a major decision that will affect their air force for decades. Nonetheless, childish fantasies of Avro Arrow revival don't deserve any credibility.
***** Yes, childish fantasies. The Arrow was a product of a different time and was left behind long ago. No amount of nostalgia will make its design any more relevant to the present day.
***** It is a stretch. A lot has changed in aerospace tech since the days of the Arrow. It's hopelessly out of date and would not form even a starting point in trying to avoid a completely clean sheet design.
***** I wouldn't get too worked up about the Bourdeau proposal. It doesn't appear to be overly credible and comes from a mysterious "organization" that doesn't appear to have any experience in engineering or producing aircraft. Producing CGI of a "mk3 Arrow" is altogether different than the multibillion dollar engineering/development effort that would be required. With all the advances in construction and materials since the late-'50s, the whole thing would need to be re-engineered from the ground up, making the form on an Arrow a pointless (and unwanted) design constraint.
As I was watching this interesting program, I began to wonder to what extent the Canadian government is ... Canadian. This question popped into my mind before I realized what was happening. Also, as Nazgul LOTR points out below, imagine indeed where the world of aviation would be today if the Avro Arrow program had been allowed to continue! Perhaps in this "imagining" can be found at least a partial answer to the brutally stupid decision to shut down the program and to the vile attempt to destroy it for ever. The good news is that there are still genuinely good Canadian people like, for instance, General MacKenzie interviewed in this program, who are not afraid to speak the plain truth.
Long live the Avro Arrow. This aircraft was a one in a million design success that would fit Canada's defense strategies for many years. The United States with its influence over NATO automatically figures that Canada should immediately fall in line and approve what the United States considers as being the ultimate military solution for Canada's defense strategy, the F-35. I, as a US citizen, personally think that Canada needs to rethink all recommendations and go with a MK III or even a MK IV Arrow. For some reason I feel that this aircraft is Canada's answer to its needs. Canada's defense officials need to listen to Canadians for its defensive needs. The Arrow keeps resurfacing for a reason, maybe we should pay some attention , It may not be just for nostalgic reasons.
William Charles The arrow was hugely expensive and had hardly been through any testing. It’s new engines didn’t even fit. The Air Force didn’t even want it. Canada simply couldn’t afford to build a fighter nobody wanted.
@@yakidin63 If Canada is such a Security Risk to the US, do you really think they will actually sell us decent technology? Most members of NATO are NOT buying the Crap 35 and the main reason the UK bought US fighter aircraft for their two(2) new Aircraft Carriers is because the plane they are buying has VTOL capabilities like their old fighters did. Those old fighters proved their worth in the Falklands and that is what they need for the HMS Queen Elizabeth which is in sea trials and the HMS Prince of Wales which is supposed to be ready for sea trials in 2020.
Canada needs a long range cruiser not a short range sports car. If a plane can't even make it from one base to the next inside its borders that's not a very good plane. I bet the f35 can't even make it from Trenton to moose jaw or dundurn without a fuel stop
Yes they were this plane pioneered all the current Delta planes like the sr71 and even the stealth bomber delta shape. If the USA is still flying the b52 and the U2 just being designed in the 50s dose not mean they were stupid and not smart.
@@arricammarques1955 You're right, but it was the "BOMARC" SAM missiles which had a Max range of 440 miles with solid fuel and as a proximity weapon, they were useless without the Nuclear Tips which we only had in Canada for a short time and the BOMARC's were only in Canada for a decade and as Canada was buying them, the USA was decommissioning theirs. "On August 28th, 1958 the Hon. George Pearkes, Minister of Defence, presented Cabinet with the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile proposal from the U.S." After cancelling the Avro Arrow Program, we also bought 66 second hand F-101 Voodoos which our RCAF turned down years earlier because they were uncapable of completing Canadian missions. The F-35 First Strike Ground Assault jet is only capable of completing 10% of the original Avro Arrow SOR "Statement of Requirements" RCAF Specification AIR 7-3 in April 1953. "AIR 7-3 called specifically for a two crew, twin engine, aircraft with a range of 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nmi (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission. It also specified operation from a 6,000 ft (1,830 m) runway; a Mach 1.5 cruising speed at an altitude of 70,000 ft (21,000 m); and manoeuvrability for 2 g turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft. The specification required five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching 50,000 ft altitude and Mach 1.5. It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes.[23] An RCAF team led by Ray Foottit visited US aircraft producers and surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these requirements." A 21rst Century Evolutionary design from the MK1 and MK2 Avro Arrows would fly at Max Speed of Mach 3.5 + and 80,000 + Altitude It would have a 30 % "Look Down / Shoot Down" Advantage over fighter jets below that. Avionics and Weapons Suite will be fully modernized. The F-35 Max Speed is Mach 1.61 achieved once in a Full Throttle Steep 50 Degree dive after completing preliminary maneuvers. After that, the engine needs to be replaced for damage and air frame and communications and Stealth Antenna on the rear will be damaged. It Fly's between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 with damage above those speeds. Max Altitude is 50,000 feet. When the UK "Tempest" is produced, the F-35's will be Obsolete. Russian Bombers fly above 50,000 feet and faster then Mach 2 like the newest TU-160 M2 with afterburners Service Ceiling of 52,000 feet and Max Speed of Mach 2.05 and their Fighter Jet Escorts fly higher altitudes and faster. The F-35 is incapable of catching All Enemy Fighter Jets and All Enemy Bombers.
The Foxbat had a fair amount in common with the Arrow, yes; so did the Phantom and a number of others such as the Vigilante and its roundabout descendant the Eagle, which was Canada's first choice as Voodoo replacement...high performance aircraft design did not go on anywhere in a vacuum, advances made in one program were sure to get plagiarized elsewhere! The Americans had their own Arrow-like design, the F-108, which, interestingly, was cancelled before being built. And by the way, the Foxbat (MiG-25), like the Arrow, was very much dedicated to one role, and thus it never did see very extensive service nor was it built in large numbers. That didn't matter in a dictatorship like the USSR, but Canada could simply not afford a tailor-made, unmarketable aircraft like the Arrow...
in a burst not in a steady cruise and the arrow never had all its equipment installed,but it is worth a redesign with,modern materials and electronics,would make a potential world beater better
cartmanrlsusall Definitely! I don't think materials and design would be a problem for a redesign. All it would need is, like you mentioned, new electronics and weapons. The original air-frame and engine design would still be the best even today. Essentially the CF105 is a fighter jet on crack. Canadian crack.
Canada The libertarian Party of Canada agrees with you mostly. We don't hate the government, we just recognize that it has trouble running a vending machine filled with water, in a desert, with thirsty customers wanting to pay in gold bars.
Canada it's that we say since 1980 but everybody said we are the evil quebecker who want destroy the canada,the decisions of Ottawa are just for $$$ and not for the people
+Canada I hate pretty much every government that Canada had except McKenzie King's Goverment, Louis Saint-Laurent's Government (the one that initiated the Avro Arrow), Bennett's government, Laurier's Government and that's about it.
Please please please bring the aero back! Rebuild our aeronautics industry in this country and let our engineers design and build so we have not to rely another nations for planes. Also build an industry where are engineers can produce and have jobs and we don’t have to export our great engineers to other countries. The nostalgia and the sense of pride by building this plane will give our country such a boost in such a difficult time! Come on politicians do this for our future generation of our country. Canada can!
The original Arrow was an amazing piece of aeronautical engineering, far ahead of its time and would still compete very handily against current aircraft designs. An updated engine design and electronics would put us on par with almost any other aircraft flown today. Why spend billions more for planes built and designed by other countries when the obvious financial benefits to Canada far outweigh any detriment. Job creation, advancement of our aero-space industry and the many obvious spin off jobs are just what we need in this economy. Why do we allow our current class of political buffoons to call judgement on an issue with such far reaching economical benefits without so much as a cursory examination by an independent body as suggested by Ret. Gen MacKenzie.
+Steve T : Big slab-sided interceptors like the Arrow fell out of favor decades ago. New engines and avionics would be akin to dropping a crate engine and new sound system in a '58 Chrysler 300, then trying to compete with a 2016 Cadillac CTS. No contest. This bird would've been obsolete (like every other interceptor) by the mid-eighties.
Steve T If you re-engineer the original CF-105 to match contemporary fighters, the product would no longer be an Arrow. It would be an entirely different aircraft. This 'plan' is ludicrous.
Steve T Canada hasn't built an indigenous fighter since the 1950's. Advanced as it was for the day, the design is sixty years old - and the technology essentially useless. Lockheed Martin and the US government have spent 20 years and over one TRILLION dollars on the F-35 program. To put it in perspective, a modern mid-sized airliner like the Boeing 737 costs ~$100m (USD) today - for Canada to develop a modern generation 5 fighter from the ground up would cost tens (if not hundreds) of $billions at minimum. The end product would have an off-the-shelf price tag likely well in excess of the already ridiculous F-35. Canada's leading aerospace giant, Bombardier, still relies on government handouts to stay afloat, even while maintaining it's position as one of the world's largest aircraft manufacturers. Canada is $700B in the hole. Quebec is broke. Ontario holds the highest sub-national debt on the globe. Canada needs an effective, cost-efficient, off-the-shelf combat aircraft - not fanciful folly like this pipe dream.
So many great things Canada could create. We have to start with the Avro Arrow. Approve it! Build it! USE IT WITH PRIDE! I'm terrified of heights but I swear, if they ressurect Avro Arrow, I will try to get into the airforce just to fly it, and I will serve proudly, because I've always wanted to be in the army.
You Go Canadians! I fully support all of our allies military industrial complexes building their own aircraft if possible. It's nice to have competition it helps keep are Industries on their toes.
Maybe scaled down to be a drone long range intercept and communications relay. If it's mostly composites, it would be relatively stealthy and besides, stealth is for attacks not defense. The question is does the government have the stomach and the pockets to rebuild it's military industrial base?
No, not correct at all. The delta wing dates back to the designs of Alexander Lippisch (Germnany), and was incorporated on several designs that predated the Arrow, most notably by Convair (USA) with their F-102, B-58, and F-106 aircraft. As well, the SR-71 (more correctly the A-12), was designed by Lockheed's Clarence Johnson and Ben Rich, niether of whom were Canadian. Man, you guys are completely and embarrassingly clueless.
why not build a long-range jet fighter made in Canada? We have aeronautic companies in Canada, The government, already invested in Bombardier and other technology in the aerospace industries. We have the people and the technology to build it. Just hope the lobbyist don't make us buy the jet fighter nobody wants. F35. We are a proud people and we should have something that is our own.
I would also like to add that it's time for Canada to stand on its own two legs when it comes to the fighter program or long-range interceptor and Canada could use the money the people need this and other allies need competition to build better faster and stronger planes come on Canada let's go
It's time we stood on two legs about lots of things like why Alberta oil goes to Texas to be refined into gasoline and then we buy it back and pay .70 a liter more then the USA.
THAT WAS SUCH A SHOCK TO ALL OF US AT AVRO TO BE SHUT DOWN WITH NO NOTICE WHAT SO EVER. TOLD WE WERE ALL LAID OFF BY THE LOUD SPEAKER ,TALK ABOUT SO MANY PEOPLE 1,500 JUST LIKE THAT WE WERE ALL LAID OFF THANKS TO DEFENBAKER
I am an American... however, if the Arrow... flies again... I would be totally thrilled. The Avro Arrow has ALWAYS been the top of my favorite five aircraft.
Maneuverability will surpass the F35 and even with a bit backdated avionics and weapons system it can be at par with the Mirage. The Brits were interested to test these back in the days prior to its cancellation, just shows how much potential this warbird has. Plus not to forget the F35 program might leave the Canadian navy and army starving for cash. ATB to avro, beautiful bird, would definitely like to see it in farnborough air show.
the defense budget of Canada back then and now are of different proportion, plus The F35 might be a JSF but it lacks alot in different fields of capabilities, first of all its not an interceptor, it lack maneuverability, it lacks extra fuel capacity, and its payload is limited due to its internal weapons bay(lacks number of AAMRAMs), due to flaws in its maneuverability and AAM it will require constant cover by other fighters during flying into missions that will further the burden on RCAF on logistics and maintenance of operating 2 types of fighters. Plus the F35 cant stay in the area of mission for more then 2 hours due to it fuel capacity, same as the F18 hornets but the hornet still surpass the 35 in many aspects let alone the super hornets. Plus the 35 still is facing alot of setbacks like weapons firing systems and VTOL engines whereas the Avro passed these test with flying colors(literally) blueprints are still there from which one can make further improvements, DD wings can provide ample space for fuel(extra) off course maneuverability and is more economical in fuel consumption than the 35 all of this at a lower price tag than the 35. All it needs is up to date weaponry avionics and jamming systems. the 35 can be a good platform against foes that have no air defense. But against in symmetrical war, i doubt 35 will see any action, 1 cause its too freaking expensive to operate and maintain 2 cause the manufacturers wouldn't want to risk their ultra sensitive fighter to fall in the hands of their foe. plus after every sorties it will take a staggering time to rearm and refuel the 35 if compared to a conventional SU 30mki, hour against mins. and to be honest stealth is just simply overrated, the army that brought u the 35 is also working on hardwares to takeout the 35 and that includes Russians, Chinese even Iranians(yea u heard that right sire) so by the time majority of the countries are involved into the JSF project induct their fleet in to their AF contingencies for anti stealth would already be in place. Why deliberately buy something that one know is not really upto the mark and cant fly as good as conventional fighters and requires constant cover from conventional fighter, how is this 35 the "fighter of the future". Some aspects are definitely but not the whole package.
Couple of quick points: The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, equally capable of A2A interception/combat as dropping bombs. The CF-105 was purely an interceptor. The F-35 would likely turn circles around the big Avro. The Arrow's long-delta planform was optimized for linear mach 2 flight at 40,000' and above. It would bleed energy rapidly during hard maneuvers and would incur huge drag at lower altitudes, burning even more fuel & further limiting an already tight combat radius. The Arrow had a combat radius of ~300nm. The F-18 and F-35 enjoy a combat radius of nearly double that. The Arrow was never designed with loiter time in mind - it was to intercept, engage, then RTB. The F-35 has both internal weapons storage and multiple under-wing external hardpoints. The Arrow was limited to what it could carry in its interchangeable armament pack. The Arrow was never tested to the point of "passing with flying colors". It never fired a shot. It couldn't, as it was never fitted with a weapons system or radar. During its brief test phase, the armament pack carried flight test equipment only. The F-35A (what Canada is vetting) is not VTOL capable. That is the F-35B. Finally, re-tooling a six-decade old fighter would be simply foolish. Even upgraded, interceptors like the Arrow were phased out of service thirty years ago. To build a new, indigenous, multi-role fighter from scratch would make the F-35 seem like a bargain. Cheers.
Asif Aziz The Arrow was not a fighter. It was fast but not that manoeuverable. With a Delta wing you don't get low altitude, lower speed agility. This was the problem with all late designs and spawned compromises such as moveable wing. It would probably necessitate vectored thrust. What is needed is a tandem fighter which always is accompanied by another bird which watches its back. It could twin itself or birth a smaller drone or piloted nimble mosquito which defends the larger, less agile craft.
Maybe it was readers digest I read but the article said Canada was the first to have a jet and it scared people by its power so disappointed it was cancelled what a story.
this entire conversation was ridiculous. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor, it would be a disaster as a fighter. And today, Missiles are faster and more accurate as an interceptor. The fact this even made the news, is embarrassing.
Great idea to bring back the Avro Arrow, it was and still is one of the best designs. The F-35 is the worst flying brick ever developed or stuffed up. The F-35 is and always will be a dead duck in the air and far too costly to maintain.
The step of destroying all the documents and airframes was also taken (except one airframe survives) for the British TSR2 when the US persuaded them to buy the Rockwell B1 instead. Same ear, same tactic (though the politicians suggest there was no US pressure, there clearly was).
+zuiderzee1973 America wanted the British to buy the F-111, not the B-1 when the British cancelled the TSR2 in 1964. The Australians loved the F-111 so much they flew the fighter- bomber longer than the Americans.
Bullshittt !!! get your facts straight you stupid fuck.. TSR.2 was an engineering disaster, years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications ! Another example of painfully slow and agonizing death of the brit aero industry.
F-111 was massively superior the TSR.2 it flew faster, farther and delivered 40% more payload.. TRS-2 was a paper plane. Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems ! Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper. Another British myth.. .King Arthur pulling Excalibur from stone !!!
Any idea why Brits didn't buy the F-111?? The Americans then offered the F-111 with it's stand- off bomb as a package cheaper than the TSR2. Unfortunately after the British had ordered the F-111 the American stand-off bomb project was cancelled making the F-111 surplus to British requirements.
Canadian Made is one of the greatest thing Canada has done for it's National Defence and Patriotism,all Canadians voters vote for all Canadian made defence systems etc,and do not ever listen to other Countries say,defend your own Country,and do not worry about costs etc as your lives are much more important than dollars hihi.
The ONLY way for this proposal to get ANY attention would be for the company to build (on it's OWN DIME) a flying prototype. Building a couple flying units will show whether this project is doable or not. Just remember, Interceptors is a dead bread in the Modern Jet era of Generation 5 fighters. This guy is selling the plane out of his yahoo. Stealth is not dead, stealth is not some magic bullet it's a tactical advantage that gives Gen 5 fighters a kill first ability before an opposing pilot can recognize them in the battle space. This design is 50 plus years old, it's beyond dated and would require BILLIONS to just get started upgrading it. Not to mention creating Stealth tech that doesn't exist in Canada. Just too many hurdles to overcome.
3800 kph is a bit faster than the highest official speed for the SR-71. The original Arrow never reached Mach 2. No way it's going to sustain Mach 3 for 2000 miles. Maybe this scheme failed because the performance numbers were o farfetched.
Okay people... The Avro Arrow cannot replace the F-35, nor can an upgraded Arrow. The Arrow was designed with *one* purpose-being a high-speed interceptor, capable of catching Soviet bombers above the Arctic Circle before they could reach their targets. In this role, being very fast in a straight line can be useful. On a modern battlefield, it is almost completely pointless. Unless something utterly bonkers has happened, modern aerial combat generally takes place at beyond visual range, and is decided with air-to-air missiles. Those missiles fly at mach 3+, so the actual plane's speed isn't very important once the payload's away. Moreover, aerial combat in the modern era is... Weird. Like, stupidly-rare. The overwhelming majority of actual combat seen by aircraft are strikes on ground targets (missiles, bombs, take your pick). The Avro Arrow was designed to do NEITHER of these things. The Arrow would require a total, ground-up redesign-it wouldn't be remotely similar to the original Arrow anymore. So no, a shelved Canadian early cold war interceptor is not suitable for the roles of a 5th generation multirole stealth fighter. That's not to say the F-35 is perfect (oh dear lord no), but it is, in fact, a modern multirole jet fighter. The arrow is not. It never was. It never will be.
The Avro Arrow, a Canadian jet, a faded Canadian legend. The Arrow is still one of the most advanced jets that exist. The Arrow is only a 4th generation fighter, but not many countries have the capability to build 4th gen fighters. The Avro Arrow is one of the best choices for the RCAF and is one of the best interceptor aircraft on the world today. Mark 1 and Mark 2 are both still one of the best interceptors in the world, the improved Arrow mark 3, which would fly almost as high as an SR-71 Blackbird, and would be truly impossible to shoot down, and the aircraft would have hypersonic features which then again provides the Avro Arrow with an advantage, being able to outrun and outmanoeuvre missiles.
It's now June 2020 and I would love to see an update on this issue. Canadians can provide the best solution for Canada's security and Canada's economy. If there is a silver lining to the COVID-19 pandemic, I hope it will be a lesson to Canada to rely on itself rather than others. Canada has the skills and the resources. The pandemic has proven that reliance on others is extremely dangerous and that security of sovereignty and economy can not be trusted to others.
You know, I think everyone could be a little happier if even 1 single Arrow was produced. Now bear with me because this sounds very farfetched. If we built the 1, we could steadily upgrade it into mark 2 and so on. And why? Because it would fill us all with that good old National pride, and we can say, "We finally finished it!" Is there, in all honesty, anyone who would not like to get that feeling when you achieve the absolute impossible regarding the Arrow. I just want them to see this through once and for all, even if it ends up being the star of an air-show if need be. It is very sad that the Arrow never took off, figuratively speaking of course because it did fly.
ask a pilot for what he want the most : power or stealth... he will always choose power ! when you got visual... there's nothing stealth can do for you... power can !
The F-35 doesn't lack in the power department, it has plenty of thrust. It's the outrageous cost that makes it an iffy matter, not its flight performance, which will be very good.
Thoughts and verbal good will only? Wind tunnel testing for the Arrow was performed stateside at several facilities, J-75 engines for the first 5 Arrows were supplied by Pratt & Whitney (USA) , the proposed Hughes fire control system & associated missile hardware was American-made. As well, the USAF loaned the RCAF a B-47 bomber for dynamic testing of the ps.13 Iroquois engine. Hardly the oligopolistic 'evil' US military-industrial boogeyman Canadians love to hate.
with all the money wasted on stupidity, the cost to bring a new arrow to reality can be brought to life easily redirect the wasted money to something good for a change
IF THE US DIDNT GO AROUND THE WORLD LOOKING FOR TROUBLE JUST TO KEEP THEIR PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN BUILDING WAR SUPPLIES AND TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT THE US IS WE WOULDNT BE IN THE POSITION WHERE WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY TO KILL PEOPLE.
And yes, you are correct in that Gen. MacKenzie is army, and I did get it wrong, but you don't have to be in the military to know that without an effective understanding of all arms of the Canadian military, you don't get to be a senior officer. He may be army, but in order to be in command you need to understand the capabilities of all units in a theatre of operations.
The Canadians continually beat the American Flyers in the mini war games have done so since the 50's, only thing is your military does not publish this, how a country with less than 200 fighters in the air have better flyers, better training, make due with less, the us just put numbers up in the air and this is how they win!!
shows what you know about the arrow, the actual top speed was above mach 2 and it could be outfitted with any kind of amunition weither it was guns missiles they could do it and its faster and goes higher then anything in the skies today your argument is invalid !
CHRIS STARKILLER The Chrysler turbine car was decades ahead of its time. the idea was scrapped, they could bring it back and have it drive circles around the mclearan f1... but they wont.... the Canadian government blew billions on the arrow program with limited/no results let it go and move on.
Nostalgia.......hey, let's build the Brabazon again. I see no downside to Canada developing aerospace technology. I see the cost of this project expanding to the stratosphere. An airframe is the cheapest part of an advanced fighter jet. The jet engine they had developed (for the original Arrow project) was the best part of the program. I hope they can build this Arrow again so Canadians will be happy for once, and quit whining about the freedom they haven't had to fight for since WW2.
Putting the Arrow into the modern battle arena is like taking a GP motorcycle and putting it on a motocross course. No one plane can do everything excellent. There is always a compromise. You need different planes for different applications if you are looking for perfection. No way around it.
What the hell is this? The Arrow was designed to be a long-range interceptor, and the F-35 is a short/med range multirole fighter. Completely different missions. Someone is just using the Arrow name to further their agenda. We should buy superhornets and license build them in Canada.
heres what i would have them do if they were to in fact revamp the avro arrow i would have them both bring the aircraft to modern specs and improve the overall design of said aircraft with multiple choices for build and or type for instance an attack/strike aircraft possibly with stealth capabilities which might I add is just a new kind of load out for said vehicle. Improvement on the wing design could help possibly add a more modern radar suite so on and so forth.
As a proud Canadian Engineer, I would love to see our Nation take this option of re-developing the Arrow seriously. The risk here is not to take the risk. We could be leaders rather than followers.
If Sweden can build the Saab Viggen fighter, we can build a modern day Avro Arrow. Even tiny Israel customizes their aircraft themselves, and makes their own tanks. We'll be able to customize the new Arrow plane for Canada's needs.
The new Avro designs allow it to fly farther using less fuel, thus making it more applicable to Canada's needs, it is less expensive to build, and it can be built in Canada, giving Canadians more jobs. Stimulating the economy and meeting our defense needs at the same time is a no brainer.
Russia still uses interceptors and are further developing them. They have a similar geography so I think we should take a lesson from them. US doesn't require them, because they have so many airbases, they can just mass their strong fighters. Plus its a beautiful plane!
The Man they are currently developing the MIG - 41. They also have several hundred MiG - 31s, which serves more roles than simply intercepting bombers. They can intercept missiles, as well as provide control over areas that ground and other air forces cannot reach. They are also equipped with air to ground capabilities. It’s not like the old scrapyard F-18s from Australia are going to do any better in modern arial warfare. Those planes are literally Jet Fighter Trainer Planes.
Being a dictatorship (not technically communist anymore but don't tell Vlad that), Russia does not need to consider pesky factors like cost. That was what killed the Arrow, and that is one of the many reasons it will stay dead.
Canada has to have its own defence aircraft built in Canada, and how better to start than reviving a Canadian legend.
@juscurious Your comment has a number of issues: why would you bring the shooting down of ICBM"s into the assessment of a fighter/bomber aircraft, it's not even considered for the most advanced military aircraft with today's technology so it's a moot point. The U.S. pressured the Canadian government to cancel the Arrow program and then pressured Canada into purchasing and deploying 60 Bomarc nuclear armed surface to air missiles which were obsolete within a couple of years and cost Canada, in 2020 dollars, $650,000,000. Canada began decommissioning them in the mid 1960's so they had just a few years of service and ended up being used as drones for SAM target practice. On top of this debacle Canada still required fighter/attack aircraft so by scrapping the Arrow, we ended up becoming beholden to U.S. defense contractors for future military aircraft. The Arrow was not a myth whatsoever and like any developmental aircraft there were bugs to be ironed out but it was pretty much a sure bet. Avro had the best aircraft engineers in the world and after the program was ended, they were all scooped up by American companies including NASA and went on to help keep the U.S. on the cutting edge of military aircraft development. The Americans used the fear of this advanced technology ending up in Soviet hands as one part of the reason Canada should scrap the project. Our neighbours real concern was that we would eclipse them on the world stage of military aircraft development and they just couldn't have that. And to cap all of this madness off, the Bomarc missile was based on captured V1 weapons developed by the Nazis so even they weren't of their making. The Bomarc was a SAM missile designed to bring down Soviet bombers and weren't intended for ICBM's anyway. It was a major blunder by the Canadian government and if left to Avro to finish the project, it's possible that today Canada would be an aerospace mecca of sorts. One last point, I wouldn't feel comfortable having a nuclear tipped missile shooting down a Soviet bomber full of nuclear missiles above any portion of Canada's land or sea territory.
@@veritasetutilitas5432 I am quite convinced that since our engenuity in planes was so great at the time I really believe, Canada, would have made the space shuttle, with the US putting there US Arm on Our space shuttle. And, we could have been the first on the Moon. We got screwed, Royaly, as always. Canada used to be great with so many solid patents. Now we get screwed every year and only have a handful of foundational patents like Blackberry and Nortel. Obviously Nortel is Lost. We shouldn't have allowed Huwai, into Canada.
Canada needs to stop giving all our money away to other countries and getting nothing back that we can't build better.
@@veritasetutilitas5432 name one thing the USA actually designed with just American talent. Everything the USA built after world war 2 was never from within there own country. Not even nuclear Science came from within.
unfortunatrly...cheaper to buy form the states.
Go for it Canadians. Do not let some politicians shoot it down again.
It's not a matter of 'letting' them, they control the whole show. Weapons design and manufacture (or procurement from other countries) and deployment is entirely dependent on the decisions of politicians.
The citizens of the country can vote for different representatives, but they have no say in what military hardware their government chooses to make use of.
What you are looking at is a ''Socialist Mind-set'' that the Politicians have,,, If the Arrow were revived, it would be an embarrassment of epic proportion because it would expose the corruption that ditched the first Arrow,,
you forget one little thing that the deif left us saddled with .. a signed treaty that says we as a country wont take up military aircraft design and development ... the joys of the failed bomarc and the dew line treaty that cancelled the arrow and killed the countries spirit
It’s too old, they are like 60 years old, the CF-18s are incapable and they are only 30 years old!
Canadian built, Canadian jobs and with a few updates it would be great !!! Make Canada Greater Again !!!
I can't 'trump' that comment
As a "Yank", I say BUILD IT! If only to stick it to Lockheed. They already own my nation.
As long as Canada is Socialist, Canada wiil see problems like this..
@@ainemairead4542 A conservative Prime Minister cancelled the Arrow Program not Liberals.
@juscurious lol, any competition reduces profits because lack of competition.allows insane profits.
Time Canada built the best Aircraft for our defense needs rather than buying an over priced make do aircraft.
Damn politics! Build the Arrow!!
Daniel Groulx tu l'as dit ,c'est de la politique,combien les states ont payé pour que les plans disparaissent , on n'en saura jamais rien ,mais on devra toujours faire ce que les Etats-Unis nous dictent,malheureusement c'est eux qui bossent donc oublie le Arrow
Etienne Duchaine thanks for replying. If you could write this in english, I could understand it. :-)
Daniel Groulx sorry your name sound french,as you said,it's only politic,how much the u.s. paid so that the plans disappear,we will never know, but unfortunately we must alway make what the U.S. dictate to us.That worked like that in the 50s and and it not really change since.
The "Avro" is not the name for the aircraft at all... It is the name of the manufacturer of many aircraft such as the Avro Lancaster which the aircraft in this case is the Avro Arrow. An example is how Ford makes the F150 and also the mustang.
Yes. Please. Save the U.S. a whole lot of time and money dragging Canada along. Again. And then when that flying piece of shit turns out to be exactly what it was and always will be - a failure, the world will laugh at you for worshipping junk for 50 years.
Imagine the Snowbirds doing air shows in Avro Arrows
It would be one hell of a sight, but I think the arrow is a bit too big for an air stunt squadron 😂
Milky how about if the Thunderbirds showed up in SR-71’s and the Blue Angels in A-12’s
Too big and too fast for stunts.
The Sopwith Camel beats them all.
terry waller I was on Nuclear submarines we don’t always tell the whole story
I can't believe the Canadians dropped the plan to develop such an awesome plane back in 1950's. Canada would have been ruling the fighter jets industry by now had they continued with avro arrow project.
The English did the same with TSR-2 Politics, USA want to be No. 1
not gonna happen but if it did that would be the best thing ever
We needed two-man interceptors in the 50s, and we still do. As they said in the spot, it’s an upgraded/modernized version of a very solid airframe.
There is much more to the death of Avro Arrow program termination than has been released in Canada. The AVRO corporation was deeply infiltrated by agents of the Soviet GRU, so says RCMP documents made public. Apparently security was so lax around this innovative fighter/interceptor that security was all but non-existent at the building site and in the engineering design section. The PM of Canada at the time hid behind a cover story of needing to use the money for schools and agriculture. What the heck? Was he going to go on the air and say Canada's premier defense industry has been utterly and devastatingly compromised by Soviet intelligence, per his briefings with the RCMP. No. It was a great plane. A lot of American USAF brass wanted it, but they did not want to go up against the same thing in the air if the Soviets had the same thing. Anyway, two years later the Avro Arrow did fly again. Except this one had a red star and had been built as the MiG-25 Foxbat. Take a look at the Arrow and the Foxbat. You can barely tell the difference between the two. If Avro had better industrial site protection that worked closely with the RCMP and ID badges that said which section you worked in and if found outside of your area, deadly force was authorized to cancel the wandering spy.
oh man lego....are u canadian?
@@Skywalker8562 Was that the case with the TSR II as well? Virtually the same story all aircraft & plans ordered to be destroyed.
You canadians are still living in a dream. What else have you got?
Excellent interview. Building and testing a few up-to-date Arrows would in the long run prove to be one of the most prudent decisions Canada ever made.
The ARROW should be built again
bulit iTtwith sweden and SAAB
I say,"Hell Yes!" Go for it! Another aircraft that I think was unwisely cancelled was the XB-70 Valkyrie, should have been built in small numbers at least.
There is a group that are building an arrow based on the old blue prints and schematics. It was supposed to fly in 2009 but is still under construction. They say they are still building and have certification to build a flying jet. I hope they do eventually finish her. May the arrow soar once more
That sounds like Peter Zuuring's project, which died long ago.
A scaled down flying replica is being built in Alberta, powered by turbines from a Learjet; that is as near as we will see to a flying Arrow...
@@StudeSteve62 what killed the project? I want an Arrow!
The Arrow was so advanced that it would still be relevant today.
@juscurious 😂😂😂😂😂😂
It's like us Brits with the TSR 2
If it was upgraded who knows it whould be second to f22
The B52 still is the main bomber force in the USA so maybe 1950s tech is not so bad. It's still flying and projected to still be in service 100 years after it was first designed. The U2 still is in service outlasting the stealth fighters that were supposed to replace it. All the flashy stealth planes are gone and retired and yet the U2 is still relevant and in service.
@@stevenplaskett7728 the u-2 is a reconnaissance aircraft and wouldn't be replaced by a fighter
Bring it back, newly designed and more advanced. Make Bombardier build it and turn them into a defense contractor!
But Canada can't make planes
Bombardier would turn it into either a rail car no one is happy with, or subcontract to an American subsidiary.....then ask the feds for a bailout.
Screw those idiots at Bombardier, they can't even design a subway car properly.
Build that mighty legend with modern upgrades Canada. Far more PROS than CONS!🙏🇺🇸💪
U.S. PATRIOT, You're absolutely right and good to hear you tell it like it is!!! That's a fact and much appreciated from your neighbour North of the 49th Parallel. We're working on it, Thanks!!!
@@johnmulligan5261 whos working on what...??? there i no work going on with anything to do with an Arrow...except a mybe flying replica...but nothing serious to be put into actual service
Stealth may be important but if you have the ability to fly much higher, faster, and further than your enemy, you have a tremendous tactical advantage. Look at the track record of the SR-71 as a good example of the advantage of altitude and speed against a hostile target.
You have to fly higher, faster and further than a missile if you don't have stealth. With " over the horizon" missiles these days stealth is pretty important.
The Mosquito flew faster WW II
I don't blame the Canadians for having second thoughts about the F35.
Well of course, it's a major decision that will affect their air force for decades.
Nonetheless, childish fantasies of Avro Arrow revival don't deserve any credibility.
***** Yes, childish fantasies. The Arrow was a product of a different time and was left behind long ago. No amount of nostalgia will make its design any more relevant to the present day.
***** It is a stretch. A lot has changed in aerospace tech since the days of the Arrow. It's hopelessly out of date and would not form even a starting point in trying to avoid a completely clean sheet design.
***** I wouldn't get too worked up about the Bourdeau proposal. It doesn't appear to be overly credible and comes from a mysterious "organization" that doesn't appear to have any experience in engineering or producing aircraft.
Producing CGI of a "mk3 Arrow" is altogether different than the multibillion dollar engineering/development effort that would be required. With all the advances in construction and materials since the late-'50s, the whole thing would need to be re-engineered from the ground up, making the form on an Arrow a pointless (and unwanted) design constraint.
***** And you're right that alternatives to the F-35 ought to be genuinely explored.
We build tons of planes here in Canada and should do our own thing. xxxx the states military complex
Lovely Brad...
As I was watching this interesting program, I began to wonder to what extent the Canadian government is ... Canadian. This question popped into my mind before I realized what was happening. Also, as Nazgul LOTR points out below, imagine indeed where the world of aviation would be today if the Avro Arrow program had been allowed to continue! Perhaps in this "imagining" can be found at least a partial answer to the brutally stupid decision to shut down the program and to the vile attempt to destroy it for ever. The good news is that there are still genuinely good Canadian people like, for instance, General MacKenzie interviewed in this program, who are not afraid to speak the plain truth.
It would be too risky not to consider!
Long live the Avro Arrow. This aircraft was a one in a million design success that would fit Canada's defense strategies for many years. The United States with its influence over NATO automatically figures that Canada should immediately fall in line and approve what the United States considers as being the ultimate military solution for Canada's defense strategy, the F-35. I, as a US citizen, personally think that Canada needs to rethink all recommendations and go with a MK III or even a MK IV Arrow. For some reason I feel that this aircraft is Canada's answer to its needs. Canada's defense officials need to listen to Canadians for its defensive needs. The Arrow keeps resurfacing for a reason, maybe we should pay some attention , It may not be just for nostalgic reasons.
William Charles The arrow was hugely expensive and had hardly been through any testing. It’s new engines didn’t even fit. The Air Force didn’t even want it. Canada simply couldn’t afford to build a fighter nobody wanted.
@@yakidin63 If Canada is such a Security Risk to the US, do you really think they will actually sell us decent technology? Most members of NATO are NOT buying the Crap 35 and the main reason the UK bought US fighter aircraft for their two(2) new Aircraft Carriers is because the plane they are buying has VTOL capabilities like their old fighters did. Those old fighters proved their worth in the Falklands and that is what they need for the HMS Queen Elizabeth which is in sea trials and the HMS Prince of Wales which is supposed to be ready for sea trials in 2020.
Canada needs a long range cruiser not a short range sports car. If a plane can't even make it from one base to the next inside its borders that's not a very good plane. I bet the f35 can't even make it from Trenton to moose jaw or dundurn without a fuel stop
@@yakidin63 300 million for a complete plane and engine from scratch was such a bargain.
I'd love to see it happen!
I would like them to build at least 1.
Just like Canadians... So far ahead we have to wait 50 years for the rest to catch up!
so funny!
Is that why C.R.U.D is named for a Canadian plant and we sent a President to help although not our best President but not bad as an ex-President
Time to dust it off and kick the tires and light the fires! 🔥 🔥🇨🇦
CF-105 Avro Arrow Mark 3-4 would be an ideal upgrade for a canadian
jet interceptor. The Avro design team was decades ahead.
I mean while we are at it, might as well upgrade with Sopwith Camels
Yes they were this plane pioneered all the current Delta planes like the sr71 and even the stealth bomber delta shape. If the USA is still flying the b52 and the U2 just being designed in the 50s dose not mean they were stupid and not smart.
Arrow was Canada's chance to shine if Conservatives didn't scrap the project. For tomahawk missiles.
@@arricammarques1955 You're right, but it was the "BOMARC" SAM missiles which had a Max range of 440 miles with solid fuel and as a proximity weapon, they were useless without the Nuclear Tips which we only had in Canada for a short time and the BOMARC's were only in Canada for a decade and as Canada was buying them, the USA was decommissioning theirs.
"On August 28th, 1958 the Hon. George Pearkes, Minister of Defence, presented Cabinet with the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile proposal from the U.S."
After cancelling the Avro Arrow Program, we also bought 66 second hand F-101 Voodoos which our RCAF turned down years earlier because they were uncapable of completing Canadian missions.
The F-35 First Strike Ground Assault jet is only capable of completing 10% of the original Avro Arrow SOR "Statement of Requirements" RCAF Specification AIR 7-3 in April 1953.
"AIR 7-3 called specifically for a two crew, twin engine, aircraft with a range of 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nmi (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission. It also specified operation from a 6,000 ft (1,830 m) runway; a Mach 1.5 cruising speed at an altitude of 70,000 ft (21,000 m); and manoeuvrability for 2 g turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft. The specification required five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching 50,000 ft altitude and Mach 1.5. It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes.[23] An RCAF team led by Ray Foottit visited US aircraft producers and surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these requirements."
A 21rst Century Evolutionary design from the MK1 and MK2 Avro Arrows would fly at Max Speed of Mach 3.5 + and 80,000 + Altitude It would have a 30 % "Look Down / Shoot Down" Advantage over fighter jets below that. Avionics and Weapons Suite will be fully modernized.
The F-35 Max Speed is Mach 1.61 achieved once in a Full Throttle Steep 50 Degree dive after completing preliminary maneuvers. After that, the engine needs to be replaced for damage and air frame and communications and Stealth Antenna on the rear will be damaged. It Fly's between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 with damage above those speeds. Max Altitude is 50,000 feet.
When the UK "Tempest" is produced, the F-35's will be Obsolete.
Russian Bombers fly above 50,000 feet and faster then Mach 2 like the newest TU-160 M2 with afterburners Service Ceiling of 52,000 feet and Max Speed of Mach 2.05 and their Fighter Jet Escorts fly higher altitudes and faster. The F-35 is incapable of catching All Enemy Fighter Jets and All Enemy Bombers.
@@stevenplaskett7728 the arrow had nothing to do with the Sr 71 or the b-2
The Avro Arrow is flying to this day. It looks slightly different to when it was first designed - it now has 2 tails and it has the label MiG25
lol
The Foxbat had a fair amount in common with the Arrow, yes; so did the Phantom and a number of others such as the Vigilante and its roundabout descendant the Eagle, which was Canada's first choice as Voodoo replacement...high performance aircraft design did not go on anywhere in a vacuum, advances made in one program were sure to get plagiarized elsewhere! The Americans had their own Arrow-like design, the F-108, which, interestingly, was cancelled before being built. And by the way, the Foxbat (MiG-25), like the Arrow, was very much dedicated to one role, and thus it never did see very extensive service nor was it built in large numbers. That didn't matter in a dictatorship like the USSR, but Canada could simply not afford a tailor-made, unmarketable aircraft like the Arrow...
not even close...lol
Who knew. I never heard of this before. 2020 Anything is possible.
Why would someone be concerned about stealth when the Arrow would outrun pretty much any missile?!? That thing has a Mach 3 potential and capability!
in a burst not in a steady cruise and the arrow never had all its equipment installed,but it is worth a redesign with,modern materials and electronics,would make a potential world beater better
cartmanrlsusall
Definitely! I don't think materials and design would be a problem for a redesign. All it would need is, like you mentioned, new electronics and weapons. The original air-frame and engine design would still be the best even today. Essentially the CF105 is a fighter jet on crack. Canadian crack.
Missile technology is not stagnant. Hypersonic missiles do exist.
@@cartmanrlsusall ...and with modern countermeasures installed....
Light speed as well .
I hate the government....
Canada The libertarian Party of Canada agrees with you mostly. We don't hate the government, we just recognize that it has trouble running a vending machine filled with water, in a desert, with thirsty customers wanting to pay in gold bars.
Furthermore, this project would be extremely expensive as soon as the Unions got involved. Unions ruin everything now.
Canada That was helpful !
Canada it's that we say since 1980 but everybody said we are the evil quebecker who want destroy the canada,the decisions of Ottawa are just for $$$ and not for the people
+Canada I hate pretty much every government that Canada had except McKenzie King's Goverment, Louis Saint-Laurent's Government (the one that initiated the Avro Arrow), Bennett's government, Laurier's Government and that's about it.
Please please please bring the aero back!
Rebuild our aeronautics industry in this country and let our engineers design and build so we have not to rely another nations for planes. Also build an industry where are engineers can produce and have jobs and we don’t have to export our great engineers to other countries.
The nostalgia and the sense of pride by building this plane will give our country such a boost in such a difficult time!
Come on politicians do this for our future generation of our country. Canada can!
The Arrow was killed by lack of promotion and later shame when the RAF asked to buy the 5 prototypes of the cancelled plane, not the U.S.
The original Arrow was an amazing piece of aeronautical engineering, far ahead of its time and would still compete very handily against current aircraft designs. An updated engine design and electronics would put us on par with almost any other aircraft flown today. Why spend billions more for planes built and designed by other countries when the obvious financial benefits to Canada far outweigh any detriment. Job creation, advancement of our aero-space industry and the many obvious spin off jobs are just what we need in this economy. Why do we allow our current class of political buffoons to call judgement on an issue with such far reaching economical benefits without so much as a cursory examination by an independent body as suggested by Ret. Gen MacKenzie.
+Steve T : Big slab-sided interceptors like the Arrow fell out of favor decades ago. New engines and avionics would be akin to dropping a crate engine and new sound system in a '58 Chrysler 300, then trying to compete with a 2016 Cadillac CTS. No contest. This bird would've been obsolete (like every other interceptor) by the mid-eighties.
+Raynus 1 You misjudge the purpose of re-engineering. Your analogy has nothing to do with the current plan.
Steve T If you re-engineer the original CF-105 to match contemporary fighters, the product would no longer be an Arrow. It would be an entirely different aircraft. This 'plan' is ludicrous.
Raynus 1
You're concentrating on a name instead of the possibilities. What makes you think the plan is ludicrous? Simply saying so doesn't make it so.
Steve T Canada hasn't built an indigenous fighter since the 1950's. Advanced as it was for the day, the design is sixty years old - and the technology essentially useless. Lockheed Martin and the US government have spent 20 years and over one TRILLION dollars on the F-35 program. To put it in perspective, a modern mid-sized airliner like the Boeing 737 costs ~$100m (USD) today - for Canada to develop a modern generation 5 fighter from the ground up would cost tens (if not hundreds) of $billions at minimum. The end product would have an off-the-shelf price tag likely well in excess of the already ridiculous F-35. Canada's leading aerospace giant, Bombardier, still relies on government handouts to stay afloat, even while maintaining it's position as one of the world's largest aircraft manufacturers. Canada is $700B in the hole. Quebec is broke. Ontario holds the highest sub-national debt on the globe. Canada needs an effective, cost-efficient, off-the-shelf combat aircraft - not fanciful folly like this pipe dream.
So many great things Canada could create. We have to start with the Avro Arrow. Approve it! Build it! USE IT WITH PRIDE! I'm terrified of heights but I swear, if they ressurect Avro Arrow, I will try to get into the airforce just to fly it, and I will serve proudly, because I've always wanted to be in the army.
It makes more sense to build our own aircraft. The Arrow program should be revived. Bombardier already has the expertise to do it.
You Go Canadians! I fully support all of our allies military industrial complexes building their own aircraft if possible. It's nice to have competition it helps keep are Industries on their toes.
Maybe scaled down to be a drone long range intercept and communications relay. If it's mostly composites, it would be relatively stealthy and besides, stealth is for attacks not defense. The question is does the government have the stomach and the pockets to rebuild it's military industrial base?
Yes things have changed and you upgrade the avionics.radar etc. The airframes is relevent. Its tough and its fast. Weponry can be updated. Go for it.
Go Canada! Get this plane built!! It was a marvel in it's time! Don't let any one stop you this time!!
I as an American would love to see the avro Arrow take to the skies. Canada needs an intercepter like the Arrow. Hope they get it .
I'm an American and I believe that Canada should build the Arrow=P
I second that.
I already have one. Uses a lot of gas though so I usually go out in the Renault.
No, not correct at all. The delta wing dates back to the designs of Alexander Lippisch (Germnany), and was incorporated on several designs that predated the Arrow, most notably by Convair (USA) with their F-102, B-58, and F-106 aircraft. As well, the SR-71 (more correctly the A-12), was designed by Lockheed's Clarence Johnson and Ben Rich, niether of whom were Canadian. Man, you guys are completely and embarrassingly clueless.
Think what a next generation Arrow could be.....
As a USA citizen , I say go for it !
We're still flying 50 year old B-52s....
why not build a long-range jet fighter made in Canada? We have aeronautic companies in Canada, The government, already invested in Bombardier and other technology in the aerospace industries. We have the people and the technology to build it. Just hope the lobbyist don't make us buy the jet fighter nobody wants. F35. We are a proud people and we should have something that is our own.
I would also like to add that it's time for Canada to stand on its own two legs when it comes to the fighter program or long-range interceptor and Canada could use the money the people need this and other allies need competition to build better faster and stronger planes come on Canada let's go
It's time we stood on two legs about lots of things like why Alberta oil goes to Texas to be refined into gasoline and then we buy it back and pay .70 a liter more then the USA.
THAT WAS SUCH A SHOCK TO ALL OF US AT AVRO TO BE SHUT DOWN WITH NO NOTICE WHAT SO EVER. TOLD WE WERE ALL LAID OFF BY THE LOUD SPEAKER ,TALK ABOUT SO MANY PEOPLE 1,500 JUST LIKE THAT WE WERE ALL LAID OFF THANKS TO DEFENBAKER
I am an American... however, if the Arrow... flies again... I would be totally thrilled. The Avro Arrow has ALWAYS been the top of my favorite five aircraft.
Maneuverability will surpass the F35 and even with a bit backdated avionics and weapons system it can be at par with the Mirage. The Brits were interested to test these back in the days prior to its cancellation, just shows how much potential this warbird has. Plus not to forget the F35 program might leave the Canadian navy and army starving for cash. ATB to avro, beautiful bird, would definitely like to see it in farnborough air show.
The original Arrow's development left the Army and Navy starving for cash - resurrecting this antique would do the same today.
the defense budget of Canada back then and now are of different proportion, plus The F35 might be a JSF but it lacks alot in different fields of capabilities, first of all its not an interceptor, it lack maneuverability, it lacks extra fuel capacity, and its payload is limited due to its internal weapons bay(lacks number of AAMRAMs), due to flaws in its maneuverability and AAM it will require constant cover by other fighters during flying into missions that will further the burden on RCAF on logistics and maintenance of operating 2 types of fighters. Plus the F35 cant stay in the area of mission for more then 2 hours due to it fuel capacity, same as the F18 hornets but the hornet still surpass the 35 in many aspects let alone the super hornets. Plus the 35 still is facing alot of setbacks like weapons firing systems and VTOL engines whereas the Avro passed these test with flying colors(literally) blueprints are still there from which one can make further improvements, DD wings can provide ample space for fuel(extra) off course maneuverability and is more economical in fuel consumption than the 35 all of this at a lower price tag than the 35. All it needs is up to date weaponry avionics and jamming systems. the 35 can be a good platform against foes that have no air defense. But against in symmetrical war, i doubt 35 will see any action, 1 cause its too freaking expensive to operate and maintain 2 cause the manufacturers wouldn't want to risk their ultra sensitive fighter to fall in the hands of their foe. plus after every sorties it will take a staggering time to rearm and refuel the 35 if compared to a conventional SU 30mki, hour against mins. and to be honest stealth is just simply overrated, the army that brought u the 35 is also working on hardwares to takeout the 35 and that includes Russians, Chinese even Iranians(yea u heard that right sire) so by the time majority of the countries are involved into the JSF project induct their fleet in to their AF contingencies for anti stealth would already be in place. Why deliberately buy something that one know is not really upto the mark and cant fly as good as conventional fighters and requires constant cover from conventional fighter, how is this 35 the "fighter of the future". Some aspects are definitely but not the whole package.
Couple of quick points:
The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, equally capable of A2A interception/combat as dropping bombs. The CF-105 was purely an interceptor.
The F-35 would likely turn circles around the big Avro. The Arrow's long-delta planform was optimized for linear mach 2 flight at 40,000' and above. It would bleed energy rapidly during hard maneuvers and would incur huge drag at lower altitudes, burning even more fuel & further limiting an already tight combat radius.
The Arrow had a combat radius of ~300nm. The F-18 and F-35 enjoy a combat radius of nearly double that. The Arrow was never designed with loiter time in mind - it was to intercept, engage, then RTB.
The F-35 has both internal weapons storage and multiple under-wing external hardpoints. The Arrow was limited to what it could carry in its interchangeable armament pack.
The Arrow was never tested to the point of "passing with flying colors". It never fired a shot. It couldn't, as it was never fitted with a weapons system or radar. During its brief test phase, the armament pack carried flight test equipment only.
The F-35A (what Canada is vetting) is not VTOL capable. That is the F-35B.
Finally, re-tooling a six-decade old fighter would be simply foolish. Even upgraded, interceptors like the Arrow were phased out of service thirty years ago. To build a new, indigenous, multi-role fighter from scratch would make the F-35 seem like a bargain.
Cheers.
*****
Suggest you re-read my last post (Feb 4), as it addresses your claims about range, VTOL, maneuverability, etc.
Asif Aziz The Arrow was not a fighter. It was fast but not that manoeuverable. With a Delta wing you don't get low altitude, lower speed agility. This was the problem with all late designs and spawned compromises such as moveable wing. It would probably necessitate vectored thrust. What is needed is a tandem fighter which always is accompanied by another bird which watches its back. It could twin itself or birth a smaller drone or piloted nimble mosquito which defends the larger, less agile craft.
Build it!!
J.T. Doesn't care about defense, he invites the enemy in through the front door and gives them anything they want.
The Americans not only convinced them to scrap the plane, but also grabbed up the engineers.
We don't need the F-35's. Most of the Canadians who post online on this subject agree. The Avro Arrow is, by far, a better choice for Canada.
60 years ago loool
CANADA NEEDS TO QUIT BUilding TOASTERS AND kids toys and build the Arrow. Canada's aircraft
Maybe it was readers digest I read but the article said Canada was the first to have a jet and it scared people by its power so disappointed it was cancelled what a story.
this entire conversation was ridiculous. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor, it would be a disaster as a fighter. And today, Missiles are faster and more accurate as an interceptor. The fact this even made the news, is embarrassing.
Great idea to bring back the Avro Arrow, it was and still is one of the best designs. The F-35 is the worst flying brick ever developed or stuffed up. The F-35 is and always will be a dead duck in the air and far too costly to maintain.
The step of destroying all the documents and airframes was also taken (except one airframe survives) for the British TSR2 when the US persuaded them to buy the Rockwell B1 instead. Same ear, same tactic (though the politicians suggest there was no US pressure, there clearly was).
+zuiderzee1973 America wanted the British to buy the F-111, not the B-1 when the British cancelled the TSR2 in 1964. The Australians loved the F-111 so much they flew the fighter- bomber longer than the Americans.
And to that, the British never did buy the F-111 - the TSR-2's intended role was filled by the Buccaneer.
Bullshittt !!! get your facts straight you stupid fuck.. TSR.2 was an engineering disaster, years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications ! Another example of painfully slow and agonizing death of the brit aero industry.
F-111 was massively superior the TSR.2 it flew faster, farther and delivered 40% more payload.. TRS-2 was a paper plane. Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems ! Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper. Another British myth.. .King Arthur pulling Excalibur from stone !!!
Any idea why Brits didn't buy the F-111?? The Americans then offered the F-111 with it's stand- off bomb as a package cheaper than the TSR2. Unfortunately after the British had ordered the F-111 the American stand-off bomb project was cancelled making the F-111 surplus to British requirements.
Canadian Made is one of the greatest thing Canada has done for it's National Defence and Patriotism,all Canadians voters vote for all Canadian made defence systems etc,and do not ever listen to other Countries say,defend your own Country,and do not worry about costs etc as your lives are much more important than dollars hihi.
Wait ... it was made in the 50's !!! This plane looks way ahead of its time ! The speed is insane for back then.
Deifenbaker stopped that program, after a USA influence.
Will fly again? I hope so.
I wish arrow back. We should not begging to United State.
I hope all Canadian support our arrow
its about time to bring pride back to the canadian military lets make all our own ....tanks,planes,subs ,and and and ....
YES. Canada needs this jet(ARROW)
Better than F35
Dagnabbit,... Wish this had made news DownUnder - we're stuck in an F-35 deal too.
The ONLY way for this proposal to get ANY attention would be for the company to build (on it's OWN DIME) a flying prototype. Building a couple flying units will show whether this project is doable or not. Just remember, Interceptors is a dead bread in the Modern Jet era of Generation 5 fighters.
This guy is selling the plane out of his yahoo. Stealth is not dead, stealth is not some magic bullet it's a tactical advantage that gives Gen 5 fighters a kill first ability before an opposing pilot can recognize them in the battle space. This design is 50 plus years old, it's beyond dated and would require BILLIONS to just get started upgrading it. Not to mention creating Stealth tech that doesn't exist in Canada. Just too many hurdles to overcome.
Would be nice to have a link to the next video in the series. Some have the link, some don't. You toob cant find some of them.
well i will help redisign it
3800 kph is a bit faster than the highest official speed for the SR-71. The original Arrow never reached Mach 2. No way it's going to sustain Mach 3 for 2000 miles. Maybe this scheme failed because the performance numbers were o farfetched.
Okay people... The Avro Arrow cannot replace the F-35, nor can an upgraded Arrow. The Arrow was designed with *one* purpose-being a high-speed interceptor, capable of catching Soviet bombers above the Arctic Circle before they could reach their targets. In this role, being very fast in a straight line can be useful. On a modern battlefield, it is almost completely pointless.
Unless something utterly bonkers has happened, modern aerial combat generally takes place at beyond visual range, and is decided with air-to-air missiles. Those missiles fly at mach 3+, so the actual plane's speed isn't very important once the payload's away.
Moreover, aerial combat in the modern era is... Weird. Like, stupidly-rare. The overwhelming majority of actual combat seen by aircraft are strikes on ground targets (missiles, bombs, take your pick). The Avro Arrow was designed to do NEITHER of these things. The Arrow would require a total, ground-up redesign-it wouldn't be remotely similar to the original Arrow anymore.
So no, a shelved Canadian early cold war interceptor is not suitable for the roles of a 5th generation multirole stealth fighter. That's not to say the F-35 is perfect (oh dear lord no), but it is, in fact, a modern multirole jet fighter. The arrow is not. It never was. It never will be.
The Avro Arrow, a Canadian jet, a faded Canadian legend. The Arrow is still one of the most advanced jets that exist. The Arrow is only a 4th generation fighter, but not many countries have the capability to build 4th gen fighters. The Avro Arrow is one of the best choices for the RCAF and is one of the best interceptor aircraft on the world today. Mark 1 and Mark 2 are both still one of the best interceptors in the world, the improved Arrow mark 3, which would fly almost as high as an SR-71 Blackbird, and would be truly impossible to shoot down, and the aircraft would have hypersonic features which then again provides the Avro Arrow with an advantage, being able to outrun and outmanoeuvre missiles.
ha lol the US is soo jealous
Yes made in canada ;-)
It's now June 2020 and I would love to see an update on this issue. Canadians can provide the best solution for Canada's security and Canada's economy. If there is a silver lining to the COVID-19 pandemic, I hope it will be a lesson to Canada to rely on itself rather than others. Canada has the skills and the resources. The pandemic has proven that reliance on others is extremely dangerous and that security of sovereignty and economy can not be trusted to others.
This notion fizzled out. It was just too quixotic. Whether the F-35 will be the choice or not to replace our Hornets...an updated Arrow will not be!
You know, I think everyone could be a little happier if even 1 single Arrow was produced. Now bear with me because this sounds very farfetched.
If we built the 1, we could steadily upgrade it into mark 2 and so on. And why? Because it would fill us all with that good old National pride, and we can say, "We finally finished it!" Is there, in all honesty, anyone who would not like to get that feeling when you achieve the absolute impossible regarding the Arrow.
I just want them to see this through once and for all, even if it ends up being the star of an air-show if need be. It is very sad that the Arrow never took off, figuratively speaking of course because it did fly.
ask a pilot for what he want the most : power or stealth... he will always choose power ! when you got visual... there's nothing stealth can do for you... power can !
The F-35 doesn't lack in the power department, it has plenty of thrust. It's the outrageous cost that makes it an iffy matter, not its flight performance, which will be very good.
Claudy_Focan Stealth is not the F35s main weapon. Information is the key today. Not speed. Says fighter pilots.
a 50s era plane would beat our new planes!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
It would.
If upgraded with today's tech.
It would easily blow anything out there out of the water.
Thoughts and verbal good will only? Wind tunnel testing for the Arrow was performed stateside at several facilities, J-75 engines for the first 5 Arrows were supplied by Pratt & Whitney (USA) , the proposed Hughes fire control system & associated missile hardware was American-made. As well, the USAF loaned the RCAF a B-47 bomber for dynamic testing of the ps.13 Iroquois engine. Hardly the oligopolistic 'evil' US military-industrial boogeyman Canadians love to hate.
with all the money wasted on stupidity, the cost to bring a new arrow to reality can be brought to life easily
redirect the wasted money to something good for a change
We do not need a stealth aircraft.
Too bad without USA you would actually have to pay for your own defense
fk -off goof
IF THE US DIDNT GO AROUND THE WORLD LOOKING FOR TROUBLE JUST TO KEEP THEIR PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN BUILDING WAR SUPPLIES AND TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT THE US IS WE WOULDNT BE IN THE POSITION WHERE WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY TO KILL PEOPLE.
lets build -it
And yes, you are correct in that Gen. MacKenzie is army, and I did get it wrong, but you don't have to be in the military to know that without an effective understanding of all arms of the Canadian military, you don't get to be a senior officer. He may be army, but in order to be in command you need to understand the capabilities of all units in a theatre of operations.
Canadian are much better quality than American period
Kishan Sri
Stupid comment
There are so many things the Canadians and Brits almost did.
The Canadians continually beat the American Flyers in the mini war games have done so since the 50's, only thing is your military does not publish this, how a country with less than 200 fighters in the air have better flyers, better training, make due with less, the us just put numbers up in the air and this is how they win!!
This is nonsencical. The Avro Arrow was a Mach 2 point and shoot aircraft designed for a threat from supersonic bombers that never materialized.
shows what you know about the arrow, the actual top speed was above mach 2 and it could be outfitted with any kind of amunition weither it was guns missiles they could do it and its faster and goes higher then anything in the skies today your argument is invalid !
CHRIS STARKILLER The Chrysler turbine car was decades ahead of its time. the idea was scrapped, they could bring it back and have it drive circles around the mclearan f1... but they wont.... the Canadian government blew billions on the arrow program with limited/no results let it go and move on.
Nostalgia.......hey, let's build the Brabazon again. I see no downside to Canada developing aerospace technology. I see the cost of this project expanding to the stratosphere. An airframe is the cheapest part of an advanced fighter jet. The jet engine they had developed (for the original Arrow project) was the best part of the program. I hope they can build this Arrow again so Canadians will be happy for once, and quit whining about the freedom they haven't had to fight for since WW2.
Putting the Arrow into the modern battle arena is like taking a GP motorcycle and putting it on a motocross course. No one plane can do everything excellent. There is always a compromise. You need different planes for different applications if you are looking for perfection. No way around it.
I'm British and I'd rather see the Avro Arrow than an F35 flying
We have a government afraid to allow our aircraft industry to surpass all others as they had at one time
What the hell is this? The Arrow was designed to be a long-range interceptor, and the F-35 is a short/med range multirole fighter. Completely different missions. Someone is just using the Arrow name to further their agenda. We should buy superhornets and license build them in Canada.
heres what i would have them do if they were to in fact revamp the avro arrow i would have them both bring the aircraft to modern specs and improve the overall design of said aircraft with multiple choices for build and or type for instance an attack/strike aircraft possibly with stealth capabilities which might I add is just a new kind of load out for said vehicle. Improvement on the wing design could help possibly add a more modern radar suite so on and so forth.
1959 plane and it still beats f35? Build it.
I love the f-35 and think it will become a great combat aircraft but please please build the arrow it should of never been scrapped
As a proud Canadian Engineer, I would love to see our Nation take this option of re-developing the Arrow seriously. The risk here is not to take the risk. We could be leaders rather than followers.
With Justin no, to busy giving money away to nonsense non Canadians.With Conservatives , along shot maybe??????
If Sweden can build the Saab Viggen fighter, we can build a modern day Avro Arrow. Even tiny Israel customizes their aircraft themselves, and makes their own tanks. We'll be able to customize the new Arrow plane for Canada's needs.
What an aircraft, that still outperforms anything out there! Go for it Canada!!!
SAAB are using a jet that has been in service 40 years only improved every few years.
The new Avro designs allow it to fly farther using less fuel, thus making it more applicable to Canada's needs, it is less expensive to build, and it can be built in Canada, giving Canadians more jobs. Stimulating the economy and meeting our defense needs at the same time is a no brainer.
Russia still uses interceptors and are further developing them. They have a similar geography so I think we should take a lesson from them. US doesn't require them, because they have so many airbases, they can just mass their strong fighters.
Plus its a beautiful plane!
The Man they are currently developing the MIG - 41. They also have several hundred MiG - 31s, which serves more roles than simply intercepting bombers. They can intercept missiles, as well as provide control over areas that ground and other air forces cannot reach. They are also equipped with air to ground capabilities. It’s not like the old scrapyard F-18s from Australia are going to do any better in modern arial warfare. Those planes are literally Jet Fighter Trainer Planes.
Being a dictatorship (not technically communist anymore but don't tell Vlad that), Russia does not need to consider pesky factors like cost. That was what killed the Arrow, and that is one of the many reasons it will stay dead.