(Avro) Arrow as modern day alternative to F35??

[Beefitarian]

Yeah, my favorite Jeans for a while were blunotes. They seemed like the last ones made in Canada. Now they're made where ever the cost is lowest, last pair I had were made in Idonesia I think.

[Moose47]

Mig29 - I actually thought you were from Eastern Europe and had been a fighter pilot. I had a chance to sit in a back seat of Ukranian MiG 29 for a half hour in 1996. Huge honking control column, a real two fister to hold onto. There were large gaps between panels on the airframe. The thing smoked like crazy.

I learned Russian while hosting children from Belarus for 8 years. They were here on a health respite after suffering the effects of the Chernobyl reactor. Really sad story!

Cheers...Chris

[spaner]

"Keeping up with the Joneses"
is an idiom in many parts of the English-speaking world referring to the comparison to one's neighbor as a benchmark for social caste or the accumulation of material goods. To fail to "keep up with the Joneses" is perceived as demonstrating socio-economic or cultural inferiority.

Canada needs a long range interceptor for the north through 2030. We don't need a superiority fighter. The thing doesn't even need more than just a cannon. Like the GAU-8 would be more than is needed.
200 million vs 40 million for either the F-15 or the Mig-31 (NEW), whatever floats your boat.

Both have 3x the top interception speed, as well as long range point-to-point theater operation.

I agree with many here, newer is not better and I think that the 35 is just the latest "I-pod", with the related price tag. It's not what Canada needs. Perfect platform for operating in the Middle East, off a carrier...over-kill really...0-losses.
Seems obvious,

Fun thread though, Canada could probably scoop up all the 15's wanted for 20 million a piece; slightly used...with unlimited spares.

Or, we could send one of Canada's top aces down to fly this puppy back into Quebec, reverse engineer it and slap some Orenda Iroquois engines onto it....

[North Shore]

And while we are at it, lets revive the Concord as well!! Toss in new 21st century engines, avionics and few composite carbon-fiber materials,
..

Not a bad idea, actually - she's faster than both the -18 and -35, outranges both of them, and has a higher service ceiling than the -18. Not bad for a bird designed in the 60's...

[Mig29]

Chris,
I'd loooove to have a chance and fly even one circuit in a -29!!
ps. Noble thing what you have done with those kids! Hats off to you sir.

I agree with many here, newer is not better and I think that the 35 is just the latest "I-pod", with the related price tag. It's not what Canada needs. Perfect platform for operating in the Middle East, off a carrier...over-kill really...0-losses.

You hit the nail on the head spaner! Overrated iPod it is!

But I bet you guys that there is a tremendous lobbying going on in Ottawa to procure these F35! Huge pressure and sadly someone is going to get a fat check when the dust settles and our air force gets it's first deliveries...

Don't think for a second that Mr. Harper, Peter MacKay or his former Associate Minister of National Defense, Julian Fantino have even a slightest clue as to what makes airplanes fly through the air, let alone know the difference between F35s and a Piper Cub. That is a sad reality, but Canada is not the only "sheep" in this herd, as other NATO states are pushing the same agenda in the spotlight....

Back to humor then....Concord for the interceptor anyone????

[frosti]

This thread just hit full retard.

[Beefitarian]

You should have left the windows in that Concorde. You could fill it with 19 year old gangstas with glocks.

[Mig29]

frosti,

relax man, you need a bit of humor in life

The original title of this post has already decided the course of this thread....no harm in having little fun.

Beefitarian,

I have a disclaimer: I didn't paint this bird, just found it on the net

[Beefitarian]

Hay! You shouldn't have told him. He's not going to believe us next time.

[bmc]

This what we need:

[buck82]

If we want a fast interceptor why not go straight for a couple of SR-71's? The sonic boom alone would surely knock any invaders out of the sky.

[frosti]

frosti,

relax man, you need a bit of humor in life

Believe me, I'm involved with big enough circus as it is.

[iflyforpie]

What we really need is Bob Demarts Defender. The enemy simply wouldn't have enough bullets to shoot them all down.

It's a concept I call an 'aerial insurgency'.

[2R]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_730
If it has to be an Avro.The 730 was one of the first welded airplanes.The Avro company even developed welding procedures tha delayed the project.Eventually leading to its cancelation.But it was faster than the SR-71 .

[Beefitarian]

But it was faster than the SR-71 .

Which is typical that the 'mericans hide this fact in all the record books and stuff.

[Tom H]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_730
If it has to be an Avro.The 730 was one of the first welded airplanes.The Avro company even developed welding procedures tha delayed the project.Eventually leading to its cancelation.But it was faster than the SR-71 .

Except that according to the provided wiki link (and other material I have read over the years) it never flew.

SR-71 remains the air breathing, manned, speed king last I read or has someone got an update?

[2R]

The SR71 looks a lot like the Avro 730.Which was based on the Bristol 188 development programme.
My WAG is that the Aurora is based on a scram jet design Also an Avro concept,although i did not get a chance to speak with an old friend who first reported spotting the Aurora flying in the north sea in the early eighties.The best part is that design idea is over fifty years old.
The rumour is the aurora is fast enough ( Mach 13 )to get into low earth orbit,which would make its loiter capability a three or four diaper flight

[Instructor_Mike]

The thing doesn't even need more than just a cannon. Like the GAU-8 would be more than is needed.
200 million vs 40 million for either the F-15 or the Mig-31 (NEW), whatever floats your boat.

Officially I'm on the Super Hornet team (if we really need anything), but unofficially, I think the A-10 would be even better. A-10 can carry A to A missiles (ok well according to a book in the library about the plane), but more importantly it is a flying tank with a titanium bathtub for the pilot on CAS missions. As far as NATO is concerned, let the American carry out air supperiority and we can come in as CAS with one of these



When was the last time we (Canada) shot down an enemy aircraft in a time of war? Korea maybe?

[frosti]

When was the last time we (Canada) shot down an enemy aircraft in a time of war? Korea maybe?

So because it hasn't happened lately means it won't happen again. What else is in your crystal ball? A-10's intercepting TU-95's in the high Arctic? So many great suggestions.

[North Shore]

frosti, Moose, (Big Pistons too, if he can be lured out of retirement.. )

My understanding that Canada's NATO role in the hottest days of the cold war, and our specialty, was submarine hunting, so why is it that nowadays we have to have a military that can be all things to all people? Why don't can't we pick one or two specialties that are most applicable to our Canadian situation; spend money on, and excel at those areas of defence, and reduce our capabilities in other areas? And, at the same time, tie that capability into our NATO and other international obligations? Frosti is laughing at A10's intercepting Tu95's in the high Arctic, but if it's sovereignty there that is at issue, surely, that's a 'boots on the ground' and a means to get them there, rather than a fighter, problem, no?

Somewhat of a thread drift...

[Instructor_Mike]

When was the last time we (Canada) shot down an enemy aircraft in a time of war? Korea maybe?

So because it hasn't happened lately means it won't happen again. What else is in your crystal ball? A-10's intercepting TU-95's in the high Arctic? So many great suggestions.

My post was with a certain level of jest, but my point was more that we don't have wars with countries vs countries the same way we did up to Korea. We don't need squadrons of front line fighters to protect our precious bodily fluids . I'm not paranoid of the reds coming over the cap anymore. (I never really was since I'm too young but you get the point).

I was suggesting a support focus of CAS for our place in NATO, but like North Shore suggested, we could make that submarine hunting instead or as well and let the Americans worry about air superiority if they want to take over Iran or Pakistan or China or whatever the magic 8 ball picks next

[Beefitarian]

If we're going to play NATO's little helper can't we buy 4 bombers and 15 F-35s for escort?

Build something capable of doing some coastgarding at the same time.

Build Arrow replicas and use them for bombing whom ever it is that needs to be bombed next. F-35s can escort them. If the Arrow repicas are good enough then build more. If not build on that experience and keep making better planes until we can make something great.

My only concern with the F-35 is by the time we get them, we will only be able to afford part of a squadron and our airforce will just have taken another step toward, "We don't have enough planes to do the job, let's not bother having any airplanes."

[Old Dog Flying]

North Shore: Just to correct your misunderstanding of the RCAF role during the cold war...We not only had sub hunting squadrons on both coasts but our biggest role was in France and Germany. We had two bases in each country with 12 Sabre squadrons which later changed to 8 Sabre squadrons plus 4 CF-100 squadrons.

Starting in the winter of '62-'63 we started forming CF-104 squadrons which were meant to be used in the nuclear bombing role. The French would not allow the nukes so the squadrons at 1 and 2 Wings were used in the recce role until our French allies..yeh right..kick us out of France. We then took over the base a Lahr, Germany (a Frech pig sty) when King Charlie recalled his troops.

There is more to the story but I'll let Moose 47 give you another history lesson
Please don't take this the wrong way.
Barney

[Moose47]

G'day

To add to Barney's post.

The Canadian Army in Germany had Honest John Surface to Surface missles. They were fitted with a small tactical nuclear warhead. Five nautical miles from where I am based is the old SAM site. Any former Canadore aviation student will know what I'm talking about. The site was home to No. 446 Surface-to-Air Squadron which operated 28 CIM-10B Bomarc missiles with nuclear warheads. Each missle was installed in a seperate shelter known as a 'coffin'. The other unit (No. 447 SAM Squadron) was based in La Macaza, Quebec. The BOMARC was almost entirely built in Seattle, Washington except for the wings which were built in Montreal.

The five R.C.A.F. all-weather fighter squadrons operated CF-101 Voodoos equipped with the nuclear-tipped Genie air-to-air missle.

It is interesting to note that 'our' nukes actually belonged to the U.S. government. Detachments of the U.S.A.F.'s 425th Munitions Maintenance Squadron were located at each base where we had nukes in Canada. They were the custodians of the warheads.

Cheers...Chris

[North Shore]

D'oh - forgot about Lahr and the 104s

Still though, I think that my question/point about 'all things to everyone' is still valid. Comments on that?