Forum: Program and politics

Last edited by popcorn on Sep 10, 2012 - 10:20 AM; edited 1 time in total

http://www.globalnews.ca/f-35+alternati ... story.html

I thought the F-111 lunacy Down Under would be hard to beat but apparently not if the Canadians had their way. Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

Maybe APA can take up the ARROW cause? Very Happy

The article claims the Arrow has Mach 3.5 capability? I guess that's no more preposterous than the rest of the article. Very Happy

Since a LOT of the original Arrow's work was done right here in Winnipeg, I for one would LOVE to see that bird, or any reincarnation of it, flying today. The dumb Cdn govt of the day listened to the yanks and shut it down. Build the new arrow for export use and let the $$$$ flow into Canada. I REALLY believe that Canada NEEDS the F-35, and probably even the F-22, but if they could make the new Arrow live up to its performance claims, then it would be suffice in place of a F22.

"I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit, and to mothball his opinions."

Bradley, Omar Nelson

slicktry wrote:

Since a LOT of the original Arrow's work was done right here in Winnipeg, I for one would LOVE to see that bird, or any reincarnation of it, flying today. The dumb Cdn govt of the day listened to the yanks and shut it down. Build the new arrow for export use and let the $$$$ flow into Canada. I REALLY believe that Canada NEEDS the F-35, and probably even the F-22, but if they could make the new Arrow live up to its performance claims, then it would be suffice in place of a F22.

This is the problem with the whole Arrow mythologizing; it flies in the face of reality. In order to make the original Arrow operational, it would have consumed the entire 1961 Canadian defence budget. That's right, all of it.

And for what? A fighter that was inferior to and 3 times more expensive than the F-4 Phantom II. Moreover nobody buys mach 3 interceptors now. The Russians and the Chinese are building analogues of sub mach 2 agile fighters.

And don't get me started about just how absurd this is from an industrial standpoint.

slicktry wrote:

... Build the new arrow for export use and let the $$$$ flow into Canada. ....

I understand your sentiments....consider another point of view....

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strate ... ft-makers/

yet another "Strategic Studies" group.... will they never end! Smile

- Europe's combat aircraft industry faces an uncertain future. While it still has several types of fighter aircraft in production, there is no new European-developed manned combat aircraft currently in prospect.
- Several European countries are already buying a next-generation combat aircraft, the American-made F-35 strike fighter.
- ...many European companies are suppliers to the F-35 programme, so it provides them with the potential security of large-scale production runs, particularly BAE Systems of the UK, which is manufacturing the rear section of the aircraft.
- New European developments are now focused on unmanned military aircraft.
- Future decisions on cooperation to develop new aircraft – unmanned or even manned – will be crucial for the future of Europe's defence industry.
- This – even when combined with supply contracts for American-built aircraft – is unlikely to sustain a European production base on the scale that currently exists.

...nose diving economies and defense budgets.

..more available at the jump! Wink

Major kudos for citing an Strategic Comments report.

And IISS is hardly "another strategic studies" group... it might not have the scale of Brookings or CFR, but its work is pretty impressive as anyone who have thumbed through a copy of survival can tell.

There's not even a slight chance that a modern M3.5 fighter would be more affordable than an F-35.

Less than half the price of the F35?
Quote: The 20-year lifecycle cost for 100 Arrows would come in at $12 billion. That's less than half the price Canada is expected to pay for 65 F-35s.

May I am wrong, but this is what I get.

Lifecycle cost Avro Arrow:
100 Arrows > 20 years: $12 billion
100 Arrows, per year: $600 million

Life cycle costs per Arrow per year: $6 million
o 180 hours: $33,333 per flying hour

A US F16C/D: cost per flying hours
o Per flying hour: US $23,557 (SAR)
o 180 hours: US $4.2 million per year
(220 hours: US $5.1 million per year)

F16MLU:
o Per flying hour: €20,000 (US $ 25,552)
o 180 hours: €3.6 million (US $4.6 million) per year

F35: US $30.000 – US $35,000 per flying hour
o 180 hours: US $5.4 million per flying hour
o 180 hours: US $6.3 million per flying hour

Bring back the Arrow, bring back the TSR, bring back the XB-70, heck bring back the 1965 T-bird. Get real the XB-70 in then year program costs was 1.5 billion, adjusted for current inflation rates would cost 10.2 billion for 2 development AC. Now put new engines, EW andsome degree of stealth, who thinks this is a good idea?

If we are getting silly, then let's get silly. The RS-71 nuclear bomber and the F-12 interceptor. They share common components so they are cheap right?

Just as an exercise in absurdity, let's see what you can do with OTS reincarnation:

ARROW 2020 BASIC CHARACTERISTICS:

Crew 2 (Pilot, Navigator)
Length (excluding probe) 76-78 ft
Height 21 ft 3.0 in
Main Wheel Tread 25 ft 5.66 in
Wheel Base 30 ft 1.0 in
True Wing Area 835 sq ft
Effective Wing Area 1,225 sq ft (includes fuselage lift)
Wing Span 50 ft
Wing Sweep 59.34º
Design Weight (empty) 44,000 pounds
Design Weight (max take-off) 62,500 pounds
Design Cruising Speed >700 mph (Mach 1.06)
Max Design Speed 1,312 mph (Mach 1.9 Cool

Max Design Climb 4 min 30 sec to 50,000 ft
Weapons Bay 4 ea. AIM-7
Powerplants 2 ea. ??? (replacement of Orenda Iroquois)

Maybe they can contract build the D30 engine from Russia. For a weapon system they have to go out of house, too.

Why the F would you use a Russia engine???

Either buy or Contract build F100/F414 engines or they could dream of buying F119 Smile

Forum: Program and politics

Canada's answer to the F-35