Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

After watching the Global interview there is one point retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie brings up is the the F35 is a stealth product and the Arrow is an interceptor. Stealth isn't what we need anyway and we are paying a high price for obsolescent tech anyway. This plane will be in service for decades and already there are countermeasures that make the plane detectable so what is the point? Also, as a interceptor it would be more useful for what we use it for and we wouldn't have to worry about our pilots dying from lack of oxygen. It would be more fuel efficient as well and all the design of the plane is already sound anyway all we need to do is equip it with modern electronic suite and it will go just fine.

I think Harper would do well to at least consider the idea.

   

Yet Japan has managed quite nicely without significant natural resources, haven't they?

   

What does that have to do with Herbie and the town he lives in?

   

   

That's not an answer.

   

As Bart points out, we wouldn't just have to build the plane, but we would have to build the factories and testing facilities and everything else in the infrastructure that's needed as well. And then hire the engineers and experts to come work on this one-time project, with no repeat order for another 30 years. When you're hungry for a burger, you don't buy a farm and start raising your own cattle. This would cost a ridiculous amount, on the scale of a Depression-era make-work program or JFK's race to the Moon.

I also don't see how a 1950's design can be considered relevant in the modern era (let alone the next 30 years the plane would be expected to serve). Far from a little design 'tweaking' the end product to meet our needs for the modern battlespace would probably share nothing in common with original Arrow, except for the name. Plus the Arrow is HUGE, today it would just be a big fat target for a hungry SAM.

   

Yay!

You know there is going to be a CBC sequel now...

   

its a dated airframe design now. There is/was almost nothing left of the original design so it would mean starting from scratch anyway.

   

It's sort of a punk-ass type of nationalism that causes ideas like this to be put forth every once in a while. Why there's so many Canadians that remain butt-hurt over the Arrow fifty years after the project was scrapped is puzzling to me, but then again I don't live my daily life in a sinkhole of anti-American resentment. Does anyone anywhere even make a pure interception fighter anymore? It seems deeply counter-intuitive to think that there aren't multiple weapons systems available today that long ago superceded the Arrow in all significant terms.

Yeah, it would have been a great plane for it's time, and yeah, there was probably a lot of aerospace/government/corporate chicanery going on that led to it being scrapped. But get over it already because that's the way business goes most of the time. The precedent of Canada being a user of major military equipment from other countries was well-established by the beginning of World War 2. We flew Spitfires, SeaFuries, and Mosquitos from the British because we didn't have a domestic alternative available. We used Sherman tanks and Staghound armoured cars from the Americans because our own contribution, the Ram tank (that basically used the same suspension system as the Sherman anyway) wasn't good for much beyond training purposes or for a very limited reconnaisance role. That's the way it is because we never had, and never will, have the same massive industrial capacity to be able to provide these things for ourselves. At least not without widespread and deep government subsidies that almost always become corrupted over time and become a significant drain on fiscal resources that are far more burdensome than whatever limited value in terms of employment or product that they produce. Aerospace isn't too far different from the automoblie industry anyway. Where there were once dozens of manufacturers, over time they've been reduced to a few. The same happened in aerospace and the makers of the Arrow would have most likely gone out of business by now or have been gobbled up in a merger/acquisition by an American or British firm a long time ago.

Canadians are awesome. The rest of the world should be a lot more like us. But we certainly have a tendency to linger over things and pick at the old wounds that we more logically should have gotten over a long, long time ago.

   

Bombardier likely has all the facilities and expertise needed to actually manufacture it. There are numerous European or American companies that could be tempted to be involved in various ways, possibly even some Asian(Japan/South Korea)companies as well. Whether other Nations would be interested in purchasing any is another issue entirely. Canada has needs that are rather unique amongst our Allies.

That said, if the Cost estimates are accurate and the end Cost of R&D + Production comes out around the same as going with the less appropriate F-35. The benefit of having the Expertise, the Manufacturing Jobs, keeping most(I assume)of the Cost within the Domestic Economy, and possible future Products in R&D/Production because of going forth with this is, IMO, a very worthwhile idea to at least explore.

There is no downside in considering it. If the numbers hold up, there is no downside in Producing it.

   

Here's an interesting development:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/134 ... r-to-court

   

Very interesting indeed. Seems to me that the Auditor General's duties would prevent such a thing being possible. It certainly would render the office moot to have the House simply muzzle it at will.

   

*If* the intention would be for Canada to produce an all new generation of air superiority fighter or a more modest and marketable fighter for the emerging economies then the effort would be well worth doing. The yield would be a Canadian economy with an enhanced technical manufacturing capability that could be a ripple multiplier into other industries like energy, medicine, and etc.

If the goal was to produce a mere competitor for the F-22 or the Typhoon then it'd be a waste as you just don't have the economy of scale to do that.

But where Israel can produce highly effective fighters and other defense equipment there's really no reason why a much more robust country like Canada could not do the same or better.

   

More or less my thoughts on the matter as well.

It would help if we could actually get a set of requirements for the hornet's replacement.

I don't think we need to project power anywhere.

We have a vast area over a harsh climate that needs patroling. That's a given. What else will they be used for?

You simplify the machine for what WE need, and I'm thinking it becomes affordable...

   

Dead issue with this. No political will.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next