Avro CF-105 Arrow,—— an overestimated jetfighter

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by FredT

 

Still sounds reasonable to me. F-35s will cost around 30 billion including maintenance contracts, hence why Harper's government refused to disclose these costs to parliament.

Yes, but we are talking about a much different time. IMHO We are also talking about a bare bones interceptor versus a 3 variant stealthy strike fighter.

The Arrow to us back then was much more than the F-35 is to us now. It was top of the line AND Canadian made for Canadian forces.

In fact, it's even said that the Diefenbaker government lost power mostly due to the Arrow scandal. It's quite the interesting parallel considering Harper SHOULD HAVE lost power due to his secrecy regarding the F-35 contract (but didn't due to the sad state of modern Canadian politics).

Do you not see it as demoralizing to be flying another country's airframe because your government destroyed its own development and production capability?

It needs to be realized here that Canada was a major player after WWII. We ended that war as the 4th largest industrial power in the world with the world's largest naval fleet (be it the merchant navy that ran supply lines across the Atlantic/Pacific). We degraded only because our leadership warmed up to Washington in order to lose our image as being Britain's child, and ended up being America's whore in the process.

I should also mention that another country that ended WWII as a significant power was Argentina. I don't really know too much about them, but I do know that they were producing their own jet fighters in the 1940s. I guess they degraded due to poor leadership and strategic losses (Falklands).

May I ask, are you Canadian also?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


No I'm not Canadian

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


That's the biggest load of BS that's I've heard anyone say about the Arrow project.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I stand by my post - the CF-105 was more prestige than good sense.

The fact that you are Canadian explains your stance.

Waynos, I think this is the first time we have really disagreed on something

Originally posted by waynos

The Arrow, refitted with the Bristol Olympus engine, was also a preferred contender to the RAF's F.153D requirement, along with the Fairey Delta III, UK participation would have greatly mitigated any undue costs faced by Canada on this project, ultimately the Arrow was another victim of the 1957 Defence White Paper which resulted in the UK formally ending it's interest in the Programme. Many of the senior design and technical staff on the Arrow had transferred from the UK parent company and had worked on the Avro Vulcan and 707's development and were very experienced on tailless deltas. Similarly the chief test pilot had transferred from Gloster and had completed the testing of the Javelin.

And again it was something we couldn't afford.

This is disingenuous as the vast bulk of costs on TSR 2 were already spent and we ended up paying out far more in cancellation cost for the the TSR 2 and F-111 plus MRCA development than continuation of the TSR 2 would have cost, resulting in a more capable aircraft than both of it's successors.

While the majority of the development costs had been spent, the TSR-2 was still under development at the time the decision was made (and only one aircraft had flown - it was far from a finished project), so there were still development costs to undertake.

The cancellation costs of the F-111 and the development costs of the MRCA can only really be considered with hindsight, something that never exists when you actually have to make a decision - and in any case, cancellation of the TSR-2 with full intention to develop the MRCA a decade down the line may still have been the best decision, because even tho you waste the sunk costs of the TSR-2 development, they have already gone and you still have to find the money to buy the aircraft themselves.

A countries financial climate can change in a few short years, but you don't have that knowledge ahead of time - so saving the money now just to spend more later on down the line can still be a viable, good business decision.

Also, I have read that we paid practically nothing in F-111 cancellation costs, due to the aircraft being so late and under performing.

But it was still related to TSR 2 and some elements of it's design originated with that programme. In making Tornado smaller and lighter to appeal to our partners the RAF was forced to accept a much less capable aircraft into service in 1982 than they would have had at least a decade earlier.

But the RAF got an aircraft it could afford, and an aircraft the government would sign off on. And once again you totally ignore the fact that the financial situation facing the UK at the time was not conducive to a native development project - its no good going on about how the TSR-2 would have been the best thing in the world, how it out performed the Tornado etc etc etc if the country was not in a position at the time to actually buy it!

Not really true in either case, we didn't join MRCA so much as they joined us. The design of the Tornado was created as the UKVG after the withdrawal of Dassault from AFVG

The point being made was that we were not ever going to do the Tornado alone, it was always going to be a multinational project with shared resource and costs.

and there was indeed an air defence variant of the TSR 2 designed by BAC, if I can locate the drawings I will post one.

Yes, Ive seen that before, and I have also read that it was never seriously discussed as a potential buy - the RAF needed more capability than a point fighter at the time and the TSR-2 would never have given us that.

The Tornado ADV is a step up from what both would have given us, even though it left us without a decent dog fighter until the Eurofighter stepped up.

To some of us it is not an issue that the Arrow was cancelled.

It is how the Arrow was cancelled and what happened to all the technical expertise (employees) after.

Our government threw the baby out with the bath water in a fit of partisan stupidity.

Edit to add:

The partisan stupidity was not just on the part of our government. A.V. Roe's leadership (Gordon) can share just as much of the blame.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Waynos, I think this is the first time we have really disagreed on something

I think you could be right! Just shows there’s a first time for everything

And again it was something we couldn't afford.

And I disagree with this basic point. I don’t doubt we were told we couldn’t afford it, I don’t even doubt that some of those in power also thought it too, but continuing with TSR 2 would not have eaten up our entire defence budget for the next ten years as the scaremongers would have it, chief among them being Lord Mountbatten with his trick of laying down five pictures of Buccaneers and one of TSR 2 to ram his point home.

While the majority of the development costs had been spent, the TSR-2 was still under development at the time the decision was made (and only one aircraft had flown - it was far from a finished project), so there were still development costs to undertake.

People do think that when we scrapped the TSR 2 we scrapped a single prototype. One (XR219) had flown, while XR220, 221 and 222 were complete and ready for flight, and the next 40 production aircraft were in various stages of construction along the Warton production line. There is, in my opinion, no economic argument that makes any sense to cancel any aircraft programme that has reached that stage. The airframe design was finalised and settled (hence the production startup) the engines required some fine tuning (which was done with great success anyway – see Concorde) and the only real expense ahead of the programme was weapons integration and systems proving.
Given that the RAF ended up paying for this weapons integration on two separate strike aircraft, with the Buccaneer and F-4 Phantom taking on the TSR 2’s role between them, and many of the TSR 2’s systems turned up as pods to be carried by said Buccaneer and Phantom between 1969 and 1974, I dont see why they would have presented too much difficulty on the type they were actually designed for.

The cancellation costs of the F-111 and the development costs of the MRCA can only really be considered with hindsight, something that never exists when you actually have to make a decision

I don’t really believe hindsight was required to conclude that a complete new programme would be more expensive than continuing from where we were.

and in any case, cancellation of the TSR-2 with full intention to develop the MRCA a decade down the line may still have been the best decision, because even tho you waste the sunk costs of the TSR-2 development, they have already gone and you still have to find the money to buy the aircraft themselves.

Except there was no such intention, which would signal a long term plan, and we both know how silly that notion is.
Just to spell it out; We were looking at building two aircraft in partnership with France following the death of TSR 2, The ECAT (to become Jaguar) and the AFVG, which France was never really too interested in as they were developing the Mirage G extremely successfully all by themselves.
When they pulled out we were left marooned, and increasingly desperate to replace the Canberra.
UKVG was BAC’s private response to this. Even at this stage it was blindingly clear that we had goofed in binning the TSR 2, but there was no going back. The F-111 cancellation was made when (oh the irony!) the first two aircraft of the order were completed, these two airframes were delivered to the USAF instead.
When MRCA was launched it was jokingly referred to as Must Refurbish Canberra Again and was threatened with cancellation itself all the way through to service entry in 1982.

But the RAF got an aircraft it could afford, and an aircraft the government would sign off on. And once again you totally ignore the fact that the financial situation facing the UK at the time was not conducive to a native development project - its no good going on about how the TSR-2 would have been the best thing in the world, how it out performed the Tornado etc etc etc if the country was not in a position at the time to actually buy it!

As I said, I know thats the story, and I know we were strapped, don’t get me wrong, just that the notion that we could not possibly pay for the programme to continue is overplaying the situation somewhat. Remember those 40 aircraft already rolling down the line in April 1965. The RAF got an airfcaft that has half the range with the same weapon load and an inability to go supersonic with external stores, which is all the time as it has no internal capacity, unlike TSR 2.

Yes, Ive seen that before, and I have also read that it was never seriously discussed as a potential buy - the RAF needed more capability than a point fighter at the time and the TSR-2 would never have given us that.

The Tornado ADV is a step up from what both would have given us, even though it left us without a decent dog fighter until the Eurofighter stepped up.

I was going to do this as a new thread, but edited down, here are a few points for consideration;
English Electric first envisaged a fighter variant of the P.17 (note the actual TSR.2 was an amalgam of the English Electric P.17 and the Supermarine Type 571) but. Because the notion of a fighter was so toxic after the 1957 Defence White Paper, they gave it a separate designation of P.22. This was done to avoid a backlash against the bomber project and was needed because of political myopia rather than any deficiency of the design.
As the design progressed the wing of the TSR 2 became so highly specialised for the low level supersonic dash that it actually became unsuitable for use as a fighter unmodified anyway. The TSR 2, as flown, needed to be supersonic to maintain level flight above 38.000ft, and above 50,000ft, where any interceptor would need to be, even remaining airborne became a major challenge, never mind performing an interception. This was almost certainly the reason that the Canadians declined to pursue the TSR 2 as a fighter when it was proposed to them.
However, BAC had already made moves in this area having designed both an enlarged conventional wing, and a variable geometry wing for installation on the TSR 2 airframe. This was intended, following a comparison and selection of a single solution, to permit the development of a strategic bomber (equivalent to the FB-111) and an interceptor from the basic airframe that already existed and was, to a large degree, proven.
Yes. I cannot argue that this would require further expense and development, but the TSR 2 would not have been a mere point defence interceptor as you say, it would have had excellent loiter capability and one of the weapons optimistically proposed for consideration was the Hughes Phoenix.
Also, the development of the Tornado ADV was a UK only venture entirely at our own expense, so ultimately, what’s the difference?

reply to post by emile
Greetings from western Canada.

It seems that you have some misconceptions about the Avro Arrow.

First of all, the Avro Arrow was not just “an overestimated” aircraft but the most overestimated aircraft in history. No aircraft in has had its performance figures inflated as much as the Arrow’s.

It was the Canadian Government that was wasting money on the project and the RCAF had repeatedly tried to cancel the program. Even worse there was no process where other companies could tender a competing bid. For some reason the decision was made to purchase the aircraft from a single British-owned company without having any competing proposals.

Despite what the movie with Dan Aykroyd says the Arrow was straight-waisted and this gave higher drag than the smaller but similar wasp-waisted Delta Dart. Several aircraft of the late fifties could outperform the Arrow because their shapes were area-ruled to a greater extent.

Why my countrymen keep glorifying Sir Roy Dobson’s Arrow is a complete mystery to me.

reply to post by MurrayB


Wasp-waist is not the only way to "obey" the "area rule" - it was jsut one of het easiest to incorporate in teh 1950's and retrofit to existing airframes such as the F-102 when the original straight fuselage proved to be a problem, and keep with the "advanced F-102" that became the F-106.

The CF-105 followed the area rule without need for a wasp waist, as have many other a/c since - www.avroarrow.org...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MurrayB

 

Wasp-waist is not the only way to "obey" the "area rule" - it was jsut one of het easiest to incorporate in teh 1950's and retrofit to existing airframes such as the F-102 when the original straight fuselage proved to be a problem, and keep with the "advanced F-102" that became the F-106.

The CF-105 followed the area rule without need for a wasp waist, as have many other a/c since - www.avroarrow.org...

The Arrow's original design was done without knowledge of the area rule but it was altered after NACA told them about it. It is clear from the Arrow Mk. 1 brochure that the rule was only applied to the nose, engine inlets and tail but not to the waist. This means the Arrow had higher drag than other aircraft like the F-106 and this means it was slower with about 2/3 the range.

Sir Roy Dobson's Arrow set no performance records at all. If it had entered service it would have set a cost record at $9.7 million each compared to the F-106's $3.75 million. The Arrow was an aircraft with mediocre performance that cost more than twice as much as its most expensive competetor and it is not suprising that the military recommended cancellation.

reply to post by MurrayB


And how do your costs factor when you consider the jobs and engineers lost when the Arrows were cut up? It doesn't matter if the Arrow Mk1 was a bit off in design; they only had like 33 in production and the plane itself was developed quickly. Modified and cheaper versions of the Arrow would have come about after practical experience with its deployment. Most importantly, we would still have the industry and experience to build such domestic military hardware and to improve it. Instead, we gave it all up just so we can rely on buying weapons from political allies.

I don't see how cutting up the Arrows was a good thing in a nationalist sense, but I guess economics are more important than autonomy

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by MurrayB

 

And how do your costs factor when you consider the jobs and engineers lost when the Arrows were cut up? It doesn't matter if the Arrow Mk1 was a bit off in design; they only had like 33 in production and the plane itself was developed quickly. Modified and cheaper versions of the Arrow would have come about after practical experience with its deployment. Most importantly, we would still have the industry and experience to build such domestic military hardware and to improve it. Instead, we gave it all up just so we can rely on buying weapons from political allies.

I don't see how cutting up the Arrows was a good thing in a nationalist sense, but I guess economics are more important than autonomy

Where do you get your information? Avro Canada and Orenda were British-owned and most of the top people came from the U.K.

The Arrow’s straight waist was the wrong shape for its intended speed and that could not be easily fixed since the skin was already tight on the engines. They would have had to start over like Convair did with the F-102. At the time of cancellation the Government had already spent $308 million of a planned $2 billion. The Liberals decided to cancel the program in 1957 and the military advised Diefenbaker’s Cabinet to cancel it in 1958. Instead of buying $9.7 million Arrows the Government chose to buy Bomarc SAMs and $2 million Voodoos instead. That seems sensible to me.

It is hard to see how funding the development of a British-owned aircraft could possibly contribute to Canadian autonomy. Now maybe if they had not sold Victory Aircraft to Hawker Siddeley after the war then it might have been different. As it was the Arrow was very much Sir Roy Dobson’s aircraft.

reply to post by MurrayB


You are well informed, I'll give you that.

And yes, Avro was British in origin. However, Canada has always been a commonwealth nation. It was after WWII when our government chose to cut close ties with Britain, for autonomy's sake. However, the solution had geopolitical connotations and we went from close ties with Britain to close ties with the US. It was in the 50s when we started forming integrated defense agreements with the US, specifically in terms of the military industrial complex. In fact, it turned into nothing more than a free trade agreement between the Canadian and American defense industries.

From a political standpoint (which is where I stand, by the way), the Arrows were sacrificed to show Canadian commitment to the US for the sake of the Cold War. There is a much bigger picture involved here but it goes above the Arrow story itself.

I do not accept the destruction of the Arrows simply because of some design deficiencies. Even if this was true, why were they all cut to pieces by army mechanics because the engineers refused? The government claims that it was done in order to hide the Arrow from KGB spies- what a load of bull. It was done to crush the Canadian fighter industry.

I mean, really. We have hotter women than the Russians; should we cut them up too? No, we take pride in them, just as we do with the Arrow- which I personally think is a sexy aircraft despite its supposed aerodynamic deficiencies.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


It was the Liberals that were in favour of more ties to the U.S. Diefenbaker was trying to move closer to Britain.
Funding a British-owned aircraft does not increase Canadian autonomy and it is important to know the the U.K. also rejected the Arrow. This was because the English Electric Lightning flew faster and higher and cost a lot less money.
The Arrow was cancelled for cost and performance reasons. On August 28th 1958 Diefenbaker’s Cabinet was advised, “Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S.”
It was the Canadian Chiefs of Staff that were behind the cancellation and all the Government did was heed the council of their advisors. To do otherwise would have been scandalous.
As far as cutting up the aircraft it should be understood that the aircraft was classified and Avro just suddenly fired everyone for no good reason. Of course the military had to go in and destroy the aircraft since Avro no longer had the personnel to keep the thing secret. The destruction of plans and jigs and so on were done by Avro for some reason even though the RCAF recommended they be retained.

reply to post by MurrayB


And what of the CF-35 plans that will end up costing around $30 billion? Do you think our government is buying them because they are cheap but effective? If that were the case, we would be much better investing in Typhoons or Su-30MKIs to fill our interceptor role. This is purely political and not based on direct economics and capabilities of the craft.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And what of the CF-35 plans that will end up costing around $30 billion? Do you think our government is buying them because they are cheap but effective? If that were the case, we would be much better investing in Typhoons or Su-30MKIs to fill our interceptor role. This is purely political and not based on direct economics and capabilities of the craft.

It seems unlikely that we will ever see any CF-35s since continuation of the program depends on U.S. support and with all the budget cutting down there it looks like the whole program may be scrapped.

Our current government intends to buy the F-35 because current CAF aircraft are getting old and the Liberals had already signed us up for the JSF partnership. Of course an F-35 is not what the military really needs but they know better to ask for anything more expensive. The aircraft that would best meet their needs would be 120 or so enhanced F-22s but since they would cost about $450 million each that is not an option. Typhoons are good aircraft as far as I know but they are from the last generation and these F-35s are for use in the future. Russian aircraft are not really an option since their export versions are always less capable than the domestic ones and a change in political climate could make parts unavailable.

The Canadian military says they need CF-35s and I believe it because they have generally made sensible recommendations in the past.

reply to post by MurrayB


Im pretty sure that even if the US military doesn't buy F-35s, the plan is to still build them for export.

As for F-22s, they aren't for export. Yes, they would be a solid, albeit expensive, solution considering interoperability within NATO. There is a story where American NORAD commanders told us that we couldn't buy F-22s, but we should buy F-35s instead so we can provide support to American fighters intercepting enemies over Canada. Again, geopolitical decisions overcoming tactical necessities.

By the way, are you Bill Murray?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Dmitri, there is absolutely no chance of the F-35 being built for export if the US military pulls out of the project. I'm not even sure why you would think that's even a possibility? If the US ends it's own interest in the programme, it dies there and then.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Dmitri, there is absolutely no chance of the F-35 being built for export if the US military pulls out of the project. I'm not even sure why you would think that's even a possibility? If the US ends it's own interest in the programme, it dies there and then.

Um, because F-35 was an international development headed by a corporation. With all of the money invested into it, I doubt they are just going to scrap the whole project when they see $$$ profits.

And I'm pretty sure this was a point made back when the US government considered cancelling their order.

Is this exclusively America's fighter or something? I mean, they were just going to give dozens of them to Israel. What of other countries who put into the project, like Canada?

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviIm pretty sure that even if the US military doesn't buy F-35s, the plan is to still build them for export.

It would be great if they do but I still don’t see how they will recover their development cost with a few export units. We should know if the program will continue by the end of the year.

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviAs for F-22s, they aren't for export... There is a story where American NORAD commanders told us that we couldn't buy F-22s, but we should buy F-35s instead so we can provide support to American fighters intercepting enemies over Canada. Again, geopolitical decisions overcoming tactical necessities.

That is all a myth. I know a guy who knows a guy that can get you as many F-22s with ground attack capability as you want for only $450 million apiece. Seriously though, the U.S. senate has already cleared the F-22 for sale to Japan so Canada should have no problem buying them too.

Originally posted by Dimitri DzengalshleviBy the way, are you Bill Murray?

Anonymity is important to me so no comment.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Um at the beginning of your post condescendingly suggests a stating of the obvious is about to follow, and you are so completely wide of the mark on this it is I who ought be condescending to you, however I will resist.

What profits are you talking about? All the export orders combined are but a small fraction of the total planned US buy. Even the total forecast export sales over a 25 year cycle are less than the US buy. Without a US military order the programme is not viable for the corporation you so glibly mentioned to continue with as sales will not cover costs going forward, never mind the massive sunk costs they would have to write off. Maybe you are forgetting that the US defence budget is more than 35 times higher than it's nearest competitor on spending? The international partners cannot and will not fund the programme without America. Why on earth do you suppose that the well established, but expensive BAE ASTOVL fighter programme was binned in order to join the similar JSF? And remember this move resulted in the UK becoming the biggest shareholding partner and the only one at 'tier 1'.

No reason other than the USA was footing most of the bill for it. Like I said, when (if) this funding dries up the programme dies, don't delude yourself that 60 for Canada and 48 for Holland etc will in any way make up for the loss of four figure orders from the US services.