• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Avro Arrow Bourdeau Industries CF-105 MK3

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,164
Reaction score
154
Avro Arrow Bourdeau Industries CF-105 MK3, a 5th Gen supersonic fighter concept.
The Mk3 is a direct descendant of the original Avro Arrow MK1/MK2 of 1956-59 which was arbitrarily cancelled by the Government of Canada in February 1959.


This 21st Century platform incorporates "next gen" avionics, electronics, materials, manufacturing and assembly processes and is NOT limited to the technologies of its predecessor. The airframe achieved aerodynamic performance during testing in 1958-59 significantly exceeding original MK1 objectives and was to be further developed over several generations to realize its full potential.


The MK3 also incorporates battle tested weaponry (i.e. 30mm Gatling gun, IR targeting pod, etc.) as well as the next generation BVR/WVR air to air (AAM) missiles. The 5th Gen electronics (AESA, QWIP/IRST, data links, etc.) suite ensures 21st century interoperability with allies latest technologies but possesses aerodynamic performance far in excess of current and near future opponents.


The CF105 was designed to specifically meet the future all-weather air defense sovereignty requirements of Canada's homeland territories with 21st century Iroquois lll propulsion (once again a generational 30% improvement over the Iroquois ll), the Mach 3.5 MK3 is also a multi-role platform capable of full ground attack bombing missions.


It has been re-engineered to deliver air dominance performance specific to Canada's air defense requirements.


This Made in Canada weapons system has, to date, been specifically excluded from the selection process restricted to 4 foreign manufacturers invited exclusively to be evaluated by PWGSC procurement.


A dedicated team at Bourdeau Industries continues to develop and position this platform with the expectation of competing at some point in the not too distant future.


See Facebook at "Avro Arrow Bourdeau Industries - (Official)" for more detailed information.
http://youtu.be/1UmDYc8s3YY
Code:
http://youtu.be/1UmDYc8s3YY

Cool, but I would prefer, that the advanced long to medium AA missiles should be stored internal in the weapons bay. :)
 

beachhead1973

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
That cool and all, but seriously?

This must be in some way farcical. Do these people know where they live?
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,421
Reaction score
282
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Hey, neat! It features a CLEAR canopy. Unlike those cheapass opaque ones. Though being a Canadian product, I expected it to have frosted canopy.

(See what I did there?)
 

Attachments

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
It is an interesting idea - using a third generation jet design philosophy with modern technology. The premise appears to be using superior kinetic performance to pick the engagement and next-generation sensors to allow acquisition at range. In some ways it is remarkably competitive for what it is.

It is hard to hide fast-moving aircraft, and reduced observability may force engagements well within the ballistic range of missiles.
I'd have misgivings in any situation where even a modern integrated sensor suite isn't able to acquire the target at extreme range and where the enemy has a 700 kg RVV-BD (with a tremendous ZNE).
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
22
No internal bay for BVR missiles
No VLO airframe

It thinks it will pick the engagement criteria due to first look?

not :)
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
50
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Oh god, its another one of these Avro Arrow Con Schemes is it... ;D
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
215
Give it Chinese markings and show it as the just discovered contender to the, say, JH-7
(just one or two prototypes built, but rejected and so on..) and you can make it "real" in the
world of lots of aviation fans !
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
50
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Jemiba said:
Give it Chinese markings and show it as the just discovered contender to the, say, JH-7
(just one or two prototypes built, but rejected and so on..) and you can make it "real" in the
world of lots of aviation fans !

I like your thinking - that makes more sense than trying t put it forward as some sort of modern day solution for the Canadian Military. ;D
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,023
Reaction score
215
GTX said:
that makes more sense than trying t put it forward as some sort of modern day solution for the Canadian Military. ;D
It would just serve more widespread prejudices, so it would sound more plausible, I think. Maybe it was the
paint scheme, that remebered me more to a Chinese, than to a Canadian jet.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
22
I'd love to hear how a plane that is MUCH bigger than the F-35, built in MUCH smaller numbers, and has two VL engines could ever be "Much less expensive" than the F-35.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
17
Yes, I'd worry about the cost of engine development. It is possible to come out below the F-35 unit cost with some compromises though - lots of aircraft designed in poorer nations manage it.

The really dispiriting thing is that the resurrected third rate fighter is probably no less flawed than the F-35 is for Canadian use. The F-35 is too slow to pick its engagements and is fielded in too small numbers to gain superiority if we operate it independently. That aside from dubious cold weather performance, short legs and a single engine.

This Mk3 beast is not only fuel hungry, it is almost certainly a relatively easy kill for any low-observable opponent with high energy missiles (i.e. prevents acquisition until 50 km away and then fires an RVV-BD with a tremendous ZNE).


IMHO, operating a cheap light fighter-trainer to maintain our infrastructure/training capabilities and investing in a 6th generation subsonic platform would be the smart move. I wonder if we could buy the rights to produce the Hongdu L-15 with our own avionics?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
50
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Avimimus said:
The F-35 is too slow to pick its engagements and is fielded in too small numbers to gain superiority if we operate it independently. That aside from dubious cold weather performance, short legs and a single engine.

:eek:
 

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
205
Reaction score
33
I've seen a combination of F-22s and AAM-carrying "B-1R's" proposed as a means of making up for the shortfall in F-22 numbers. The F-22s use their stealth, advanced sensors and networking to designate targets in a mass formation, avoiding direct engagement while the B-1Rs release gazillions of AAMs and then the F-22s mop up the remnants.

Now I know that the B-1R is even less likely to be built than the Silent Eagle, but I have a few questions:

It would require both advanced and robust networking - feasible in real-world combat?
Could B-1Bs be given some aspects of B-1R capability reasonably economically? It doesn't seem too unlikely considering what was achieved at least by the last Nimrods, which would have been formidable aircraft had Cameron not scrapped them (cost overruns were largely due to the fact that the original airframes predated CAD, consequently varied in dimensions and thus each rebuild had to be bespoke).
Is it reasonable to assume such strategies make sense? Superficially it might seem so as the enemy would know that their only superiority was numerical.

In any case, it seems to make more sense than restarting production in heavily modified form of an aircraft for which there remains no tooling, no airframes, no existing plans suitable for modern manufacturing.

Thoughts?
 

J.A.W.

"Keep on Truckin'.."
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
That plan view makes it kinda look like it is.. in the shadow of a Bomarc..

Oh the irony..
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
859
Reaction score
47
"Canadian Secret Projects" will no doubt come out one day, following the "accidental" posting to the internet of millions of hoarded documents, and we will find out they'd actually planned to build all this eventually.


Take the basic Arrow platform (whose construction methods are established and understood, and which was a damn fine aircraft aerodynamically), fill it with proven modern off-the-shelf electronics and high-thrust afterburning turbofans and cut it loose? You could do a whole lot worse.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
220
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Avro Arrow cheaper and better than F-35"

Published on Sep 10, 2012

Sun, Sep 9: Retired Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie exclusively told the West Block with Tom Clark that the 50-year-old -- and defunct -- Avro Arrow would have made a better fighter jet for Canada than the F-35 currently being contemplated by the Conservative government. Shirlee Engel reports.
https://youtu.be/S74zf0YZX20
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
220
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Should the Avro Arrow be resurrected?"

Published on Sep 11, 2012

Mon, Sep 10: Reaction is pouring in after Global's exclusive story about a possible plan to revive and update a supersonic jet from the 1950's. Shirlee Engel reports.
https://youtu.be/T869HRj0rCg
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
421
Reaction score
7
"better and cheaper" is different than "better fighter jet for Canada" the F-35 is a multipurpose aircraft that comes in three flavors. The Arrow was a high speed high altitude long range interceptor.

 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
402
Reaction score
40
The real question is whether the Russian Air Force still intends to invade Canada via the Arctic. Preventing that invasion still requires a supersonic, long-range interceptor like the Avro Arrow. Too bad no-one is building that class of airplane.
After the Arrow's cancellation, the RCAF diddled with Bomarc missiles, but never bothered to tell the Canadian public about their nuclear warheads. Then the RCAF bought votes in Quebec by building a batch of CF-5s in Montreal. CF-5s were great lead-in trainers for supersonic fighters and had a secondary role as ground-attack bombers, but lacked the payload to deliver a full bomb-load beyond the end of their own runways!
Hah!
Hah!
Canadair also bought more votes when they built CF-104 Starfighters which proved to be great short-range interceptors, but again lacked the range to cover all of Canadian airspace. CF-104 also packed the avionics and second set of eyeballs to intercept Russian bombers over the high Arctic. Eventually, the RCAF "found" a NATO role for Starfighters as low-altitude, nuclear strike. But I always saw the last CF-104 role as pounding existing hardware to fit a NATO role.

After lengthy negotiations the RCAF finally bought CF-101 Voodos for the long-range interceptor role. CF-101 were single-mission interceptors equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles. Again, the RCAF failed to tell the Canadian public about all those nuclear missiles based on Canadian soil. The political ridge was that the missiles were guarded by USAF Air Police on tiny patches of "American soil" contained within triple fences at RCAF bomb dumps, within RCAF air bases.
The CF-101 purchase was brilliantly timed - for the USAF because it allowed them to trade old airplanes for pilots. During the 1960s, the USAF was retiring its F-101 interceptors and replacing them with multi-role F-4 Phantoms needed to bomb the Viet Cong back into the Stone Age/ the USAF also suffered a shortage of polite as they ramped up to fight the Viet Nam War. Many RCAF exchange officers passed the Viet Nam War training young USAF pilots in Texas.
CF-101 defended Canadian air space for more than 20 years until replaced by 3rd generation CF-18s. CF-18s have proved expensive to keep in the air for more than 30 years. Much of that expense is paying retail for the latest software upgrades that allow CF-18s to collaborate with allies as they bomb bad guts in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. helping bomb had guys buys Canada a seat at G7 summits.

During the 2015 federal election, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau promised to re-open bidding for the F-35 contract. We wonder if Trudeau will serious consider buying CF-18Fs to replace their older siblings???? We also know that Swedish, French, Russian, Chinese, Indian etc. fighter planes will only receive lip-service during international trade talks (e.g. Trans Pacific Trade talks in 2015).

Sounds like Trudeau is trying to beat the record set by previous Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Does young Trudeau plan to repeat Jean Chretien's expensive debacle when he cancelled the Sea King replacement contract?
Cancellation costs were almost expensive as buying a handful of EH-101 helicopters.
A few years later, the RCAF bought EH-101 helicopters for search and rescue, then they bought a batch of CH-47 heavy-lift helicopters for the army and most recently bought a batch of S-92 sub-hunting helicopters for the RCN.
30 years after the Canadian Forces asked for replacements for their cracked and corroded Sea Kings, Sikorsky S-92s may be flying in RCAF service, but are still years away from fielding operational ASW software.

Weapons systems are so frightfully expensive that the mission often becomes priority last, with political objectives moving to the forefront. RCAF spending eventually bought (CF-104, CF-5, CF-18 overhaul, etc.) so many votes in Quebec, that the (separatist) Parti Quebecois fizzled.
Meanwhile, CF-18 strikes overseas buy Canada credibility at the G7, NATO and United Nations.
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
535
Reaction score
33
rr #21: "the mission often becomes priority last, with political objectives moving to the forefront". What a post: half a century of Can mil/tech. politics. Well... welcome onboard where UK has been since 1947. PQ did a marvellous job of gorging at the Federal pot, playing on Anglo guilt/fear of secession, to put high-tech jobs there, not Ontario: Bombardier, Lavalin...inward investors inc. Bell Helicopter, GD (Canadair)...UK's comparable was Short's (N.Ireland) and, now, Naval jobs in Scotland.

Pols have immense difficulty with Defence: must buy credibility, must be seen by friend and potential foe to be doing enough (!?) ...yet cost and time are grotesque. You chopped Arrow, UK chopped TSR.2 for the same reason - vast resources, to duplicate cheaper, proven US comparables. Neither Canada nor UK can (or choose to try to) cover all military roles, so must task-share with Allies. You, I, can regret that pet scheme A (example today in UK is Maritime Patrol) has been orphaned, or that Latest Generation kit has been passed over for an inadequate retread (so maybe F-35 for Must Refurbish Hornet Again....and again). But it's all about priorities, where taxpayers feel the squeeze.
 
Top