Avro Arrow redesign pitched as alternative to F-35 fighter j
jeff744 @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:12 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
PJB PJB:
What I see here is Canada's biggest problem. We are a bunch of chicken-shits. We have all of the technology and capability to build aircraft on our own be we are too damn scared to do it! The AVRO Arrow was so far beyond anything that anyone could possibly consider yet we built it. Then along come our friends from down south saying 'wait a second, you can't do that." So our gutless government at the time stopped it. Canada is a on-going joke when it comes to any kind of military initiative. Let's design and build a home-grown aircraft that we need.
You know that'll cost a ton of cash right?
Only way to pay for it would be to get countries to help fund it or get a crap load of preorders once we got to some half decent stage. Possible if it was affordable enough to appeal to countries that don't need an entire airforce of top of the line stealth but most of the countries that would want it aren't ones we would want to have it.
Gunnair @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:16 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Gunnair Gunnair:
PJB PJB:
What I see here is Canada's biggest problem. We are a bunch of chicken-shits. We have all of the technology and capability to build aircraft on our own be we are too damn scared to do it! The AVRO Arrow was so far beyond anything that anyone could possibly consider yet we built it. Then along come our friends from down south saying 'wait a second, you can't do that." So our gutless government at the time stopped it. Canada is a on-going joke when it comes to any kind of military initiative. Let's design and build a home-grown aircraft that we need.
You know that'll cost a ton of cash right?
Only way to pay for it would be to get countries to help fund it or get a crap load of preorders once we got to some half decent stage. Possible if it was affordable enough to appeal to countries that don't need an entire airforce of top of the line stealth but most of the countries that would want it aren't ones we would want to have it.
Yeah. Go out and ask countries to help us start building fighters again after a 50 year hiatus.
They'll be flocking to that idea...
jeff744 @ Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:22 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Yeah. Go out and ask countries to help us start building fighters again after a 50 year hiatus.
They'll be flocking to that idea...
They'll be flocking to that idea...
To be fair about the only thins they would have in common would be general shape, some of the basic ideas, and their name. All the technology inside would be different. We also already produce aircraft and do have the ability to modify some. But you raise a valid point in the fact that we would really be doing almost everything from near complete scratch whereas many other countries have something to work from when they build their next aircraft. We would need to spend a crap load of cash just in startup costs like finding engineers, building/modifying factories, etc.
BeaverFever @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:05 pm
Also of note one of the original problems encoutered by Avro would still be an issue. The Brits, USA, EU, Russia, hell, even India and China are all in the military export business and this is a market dominated by regional and global powers. These governments put alot of diplomatic muscle into military salaes and a buying nation's refusal/accpetance of a particular product comes with all kinds of implicaitons for things like foreign loans and investment, debt forgiveness, international support/opposition for the buying country's pet causes, etc. Canada just can't provide the same incentives and disincentives as the others in this arena.
I think this all just goes to show how for some people, money is no object when they find a cool idea. The cost to develop our own fighter would be billions and billions more than buying one from another country. And for what? Sentimentality? What other programs will have to be done away with to make this a reality? How with this affect funding for the other branches of the Armed Forces?
sandorski @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:07 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Also of note one of the original problems encoutered by Avro would still be an issue. The Brits, USA, EU, Russia, hell, even India and China are all in the military export business and this is a market dominated by regional and global powers. These governments put alot of diplomatic muscle into military salaes and a buying nation's refusal/accpetance of a particular product comes with all kinds of implicaitons for things like foreign loans and investment, debt forgiveness, international support/opposition for the buying country's pet causes, etc. Canada just can't provide the same incentives and disincentives as the others in this arena.
I think this all just goes to show how for some people, money is no object when they find a cool idea. The cost to develop our own fighter would be billions and billions more than buying one from another country. And for what? Sentimentality? What other programs will have to be done away with to make this a reality? How with this affect funding for the other branches of the Armed Forces?
I think this all just goes to show how for some people, money is no object when they find a cool idea. The cost to develop our own fighter would be billions and billions more than buying one from another country. And for what? Sentimentality? What other programs will have to be done away with to make this a reality? How with this affect funding for the other branches of the Armed Forces?
Not according to the numbers offered.
BeaverFever @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:38 pm
I haven't seen where the numbers (or anything else from this plan) have been independently vetted or confirmed. Where are the factories and assembly lines to build these aircraft (and the countless unique parts and sub-combponents) going to come from? Is the Canadian government going to have to start its own state-run factories or are we going to expropriate domestic industries like we did WW2?
There is an entire infrastructure and network that goes into design and development of advanced aerospace technology that simply doesn't exist in Canada. If the number quoted has any basis in reality, it's probably just the purchase price of the jet, and does not include the costs for the government to actually set up the industry in the first place.
BeaverFever @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:42 pm
$1:
Time to shoot down wacky plan to rebuild Avro Arrow
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Time+shoot+down+wacky+plan+rebuild+Avro+Arrow/7221915/story.html#ixzz26gfB1CT6
Gunnair @ Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:01 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
Time to shoot down wacky plan to rebuild Avro Arrow
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Into the just plain wacky file we must consign this proposal to resurrect the Avro Arrow, designed in the 1950s, as Canada's new jet fighter for the 2020s and beyond. A resurrected Arrow would be about as much use in modern warfare as a Zeppelin.
Guffaws were muted only slightly by an endorsement from one of the most respected of Canadian military authorities. Promoting the crazy idea along with a group of so-called aviation experts is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. What could he be thinking of ? I'm just surprised that one of the big breweries isn't on board as a sponsor.
Proponents say they can deliver 120 new Arrows for $73 million apiece, which is not a bad price for a modern jet fighter. For a 1950s-vintage jet fighter that didn't make the grade back then, however, the price seems a bit high. And if the old Arrow is any indication, we can expect the actual cost to exceed the original estimate by more than six orders of magnitude. Had it proceeded, the Arrow would have devoured more than half of the country's defence budget. To throw open that bottomless money pit would verge on madness.
Yes, the Arrow was fast, faster even than today's jet fighters. Speed also is important on the battlefield, but no one is proposing that we replace our tanks with restored 1957 Studebakers because they're faster. In military aviation, speed is just one of many considerations. As with modern tanks, new multi-role fighters deliberately sacrifice speed for other capabilities such as reduced radar signature, heavier payloads, longer range, greater agility and so on. Without these things, superior speed is mostly useful for running away.
By today's standards, the Arrow is a one-trick pony. It was designed to Cold War specifications for one very particular mission - to intercept Russian nuclear bombers coming over the pole at high altitudes. What the Arrow was not meant to do was attack ground targets, evade enemy missiles or tangle with enemy fighters, standard requirements for a modern fighter. The one thing the Arrow can do is no longer required, ballistic missiles having largely replaced nuclear bombers, the Arrow's intended target.
Among the more obvious of its shortcomings is stealth. If aviation engineers deliberately designed an aircraft to light up enemy radar, it would look very much like the Arrow, enormous, with huge flying surfaces meeting the massive rectangular-section fuselage at sharp right angles. A missile magnet is what it would be. You might as well try to fly the Snowbirds through enemy defences, smoke on. Our allies in some future conflict might appreciate us drawing fire away from them, but our pilots probably would not.
There is also the little problem of resurrecting an aircraft design from the 1950s for which drawings and tooling no longer exists. There isn't even a surviving airframe. The whole thing would have to be redesigned more or less from scratch. This all but eliminates any savings from working off an existing design. In terms of production, at least, the new Arrow would be an entirely new aircraft. So why tie it to an obsolete design for an obsolete mission? Why not just build an entirely new aircraft to modern standards?
Because it's too expensive, that's why. Developing a new first-class fighter costs billions upon billions of dollars. Canadians have not the appetite for that kind of spending, never mind the resources. That's why we joined with the American F-35 project. The jets still will cost us a bundle, but they will easily shoot down anything like the new Avro Arrow. So which is the better bargain?
A beautiful and very capable aircraft for its time and its role, the Avro Arrow has become a Canadian legend. Arrow enthusiasts more than 50 years later still bitterly lament the project's cancellation. To explain why no other country wanted to buy it, they are reduced to conspiracy theories.
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/Time+shoot+down+wacky+plan+rebuild+Avro+Arrow/7221915/story.html#ixzz26gfB1CT6
$1:
The Arrow was a good airplane - in 1958 - but it wasn't good enough. In 2012, it is a relic. The only thing it could shoot down now is Lewis MacKenzie's credibility.
sandorski @ Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:05 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
I haven't seen where the numbers (or anything else from this plan) have been independently vetted or confirmed. Where are the factories and assembly lines to build these aircraft (and the countless unique parts and sub-combponents) going to come from? Is the Canadian government going to have to start its own state-run factories or are we going to expropriate domestic industries like we did WW2?
There is an entire infrastructure and network that goes into design and development of advanced aerospace technology that simply doesn't exist in Canada. If the number quoted has any basis in reality, it's probably just the purchase price of the jet, and does not include the costs for the government to actually set up the industry in the first place.
There is an entire infrastructure and network that goes into design and development of advanced aerospace technology that simply doesn't exist in Canada. If the number quoted has any basis in reality, it's probably just the purchase price of the jet, and does not include the costs for the government to actually set up the industry in the first place.
Bombardier has the Plants that can do final assembly. As for Components, there are plenty of existing Plants around the world where work can be contracted out. There is no need to expropriate anything during Peace time.
As for the numbers, ya, they need to be vetted for sure. If they are accurate though, it makes the idea reasonable.
Regina @ Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:15 pm
sandorski sandorski:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
I haven't seen where the numbers (or anything else from this plan) have been independently vetted or confirmed. Where are the factories and assembly lines to build these aircraft (and the countless unique parts and sub-combponents) going to come from? Is the Canadian government going to have to start its own state-run factories or are we going to expropriate domestic industries like we did WW2?
There is an entire infrastructure and network that goes into design and development of advanced aerospace technology that simply doesn't exist in Canada. If the number quoted has any basis in reality, it's probably just the purchase price of the jet, and does not include the costs for the government to actually set up the industry in the first place.
There is an entire infrastructure and network that goes into design and development of advanced aerospace technology that simply doesn't exist in Canada. If the number quoted has any basis in reality, it's probably just the purchase price of the jet, and does not include the costs for the government to actually set up the industry in the first place.
Bombardier has the Plants that can do final assembly. As for Components, there are plenty of existing Plants around the world where work can be contracted out. There is no need to expropriate anything during Peace time.
As for the numbers, ya, they need to be vetted for sure. If they are accurate though, it makes the idea reasonable.
Only if they are going to be aluminum skinned.......like the street cars and passenger planes they currently build. Way more to a modern fighter.
The whole idea is rather far fetched to begin with anyway. Pie in the sky.
BeaverFever @ Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:41 am
sandorski sandorski:
Bombardier has the Plants that can do final assembly. As for Components, there are plenty of existing Plants around the world where work can be contracted out. There is no need to expropriate anything during Peace time.
As for the numbers, ya, they need to be vetted for sure. If they are accurate though, it makes the idea reasonable.
As for the numbers, ya, they need to be vetted for sure. If they are accurate though, it makes the idea reasonable.
Those plants and workers are already busy producing other things that are of greater economic and industrial benefit to Canada and the company. Bombardier is already marshalling its new product development and production resources behind the C-Series medium-range airliner, which will allow it to break out of the regional airline market and crack the Airbus-Boeing duopoly. The production numbers for that aircraft type alone (already 138 confirmed orders as of June 30,2012) will far exceed any small, one-time contract from the RCAF.