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

Here we go again: my own take at a surviving CF-105 Arrow timeline

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Back in 2001-2002 I had an Avro Arrow madness period. This aircraft blew my mind, although at the time the enthusiasm of the youth turned me in a groupie rather than a leveled alt historian. Since then maturity had come and helped a lot.

Basically, the crux of the matter is this (self quoting from another thread I don't want to derail further)

Had the RCAF been less stupid and not dropped the F-106 MX-1179 / MA-1 in 1955 to re-introduce it in September 1958, the Arrow might have survived for a simple reason. By the late 50's had started a trend that today had become dominant. That is, when building a combat aircraft, 70-80% of the development cost is the avionics / radar / weapons. Airframe and engines costs, in comparison, have shrunk to next to nothing. In the case of the Arrow, Orenda and Avro did some outstanding job on the engines and airframe. Alas, RCA Canada screwed the pooch with their ASTRA-1 system. Damn it, Sparrow II = AMRAAM in 1960. No way they achieved that. By 09/1958 with the writting on the wall they dropped the radar and missile for the F-106's, alas it was to late.

I always felt that, had the Arrow stick to the F-106 system, not only it would have saved a boatload of development costs, but the common radar and missiles... would have greatly helped in NORAD / SAGE integration beside the F-101, F-104, F-102 & F-106. what's more, that's EXACTLY what Canada did with the CF-100 MG-3 !
So let's figure the above happens. Instead of wasting a helluva of money, time, and political credibility working on an impossible AMRAAM-in-the-50's wonder weapon system, they stick with the F-106 radar and Falcon missiles right from 1955.

To make good figure we could add two PODs (fasten your seatbelts !)

Guess who was Crawford Gordon mother ? a survivor from... the Titanic ! Had she drowned, no Crawford Gordon. He was a loudmouth and a divise figure that angered too many people.

Another POD I understand better now is possible sale of Iroquois engines to France. First for a "French F-105" - the Mirage IVC - in 1957-58, and the next year, for a "French B-58" the huge Mirage IVB.
While none of these birds will ever fly, fact is that SNECMA was hunting for advanced engine technology to get out of the Atar dead-end and monoculture. Their "Super Atar" had failed miserably.
A case could also be made that the Arrow with its delta-wing and analog FBW ( = Mirage 2000, except 20 years in advance, to the day - March 1958 / March 1978 !) would fit Dassault like a glove.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
48
Like you I love the Arrow and have various books and models of it.
I enjoyed your thoughts above.
I always wondered why the Canadians ended up with F101 Voodoos instead of the F106 Delta Dart which would at least have been a standardisation with USAF.
I am not sure if France could have afforded yoursuggestions. Shortage of foreignexchange was certainly a factor for the UK.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
Doesn'tthis arc back that if the UK had funded the RB.106........because wasn't the Arrow supposed at one point to powered by that?
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Yes, the RB.106 "Thames". Also the J67, the US-build Olympus. Pretty unlucky on both cases, so they ended up creating their own engine, the Iroquois. A terrific engine.

Problem with my TL is that, according to Joe Baugher the MA-1 was a piece of junk that had to be uprated 60 times to work properly.
Maybe Avro would get an early batch of Arrows with the MA-1 and then switch to a better system.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
If the UK had funded to service the Thames, then we know that RR was talking about a licensing deal with a US engine producer. It doesn't take much to envision RR licensing to Orenda as well as SNECMA......and maybe Volvo too.

The Arrow nearly got licensed for a UK firm for the RAF.
No F155 and a potential basis for a Canberra successor albeit not to TSR.2 levels of performance.
If a French firm could strike the deal then this starts to steamroller NATO outside of the US into a common heavy fighter and medium bomber. Possibly drawing in the RAAF.
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
408
Reaction score
7
How does the Arrow as a TSR-2 substitute work? It was a high altitude aircraft, I can't see how it would be adopted to the mission profile. Now,, what happens to the Avro concept when the U-2 was shot down"
? In this timeframe, it sort of proves Duncan Sandys' point.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Fact is that the Mirage IV switched to low level with a fat delta wing (78 squared meters, the Arrow was 110+) and it just did not cared. Also ASMP stand off missiles later allowed a return to medium / high altitude. The Arrow also had internal carriage as per the TSR-2, to reduce drag. FBW even analog could help, somewhat.
The Arrow for F155T would be awesome but tony Butler made clear it did not matched the performance requirements and RAF interest was for an interim type after the Thin Wing Javelin failed. Of course we all know how F155T ended. Then it would be fun to have the Arrow sneaking into the TSR-2 procurement.

Basically I've seen two major trends about the Arrow
- either it remains a "Canada only white elephant" with only 100 build and nobody ever realizing the beast immense potential, FBW included
- or it manage to get out of the ghetto and is recognized as its time most advanced, awesome aircraft

Main problem with the Arrow is that the myth / legend has obscured the facts and truth. Whitcomb silly website got me back in 2002.

Beyond the myth and legend is this

In 1999 NASA acknowledged that the Arrow had, indeed, a Concorde (1969) / F-16 (1974) / Mirage 2000 (1978) analog FBW right from 1958. While analog FBW was a dead-end compared to digital, it remained a notable feat of engineering to pull that in 1958.

Note also that, while the F-16 switched from analog to digital in 1984 with the Block 30 / C/D, the Mirage 2000 stuck with analog, including the 2000D/N that flew at low level with a delta-wing. While the 2000 is smaller than the Arrow, it proves that FBW can help a delta-wing interceptor to switch to low-level nuclear delivery.
 
Last edited:

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Yes, the RB.106 "Thames". Also the J67, the US-build Olympus. Pretty unlucky on both cases, so they ended up creating their own engine, the Iroquois. A terrific engine.

Problem with my TL is that, according to Joe Baugher the MA-1 was a piece of junk that had to be uprated 60 times to work properly.
Maybe Avro would get an early batch of Arrows with the MA-1 and then switch to a better system.
The MA-1 was very complicated and a maintenance hog due to the technical base available. The Westinghouse APQ-72 / APQ-100 from the F-4 is a better choice along with its Sparrow missiles. F-4 vs F-106 tests gave the radar detection edge to the F-4. Plus APQ-100 was more useful for air-to-ground missions.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Thank you Overscan. Yes, from the Joe Baugher site says the same thing - MA-1 was a complete dog. Well, I need it for at least a handful of production Arrows between 1955 and 1959 just to save the program.
After the first batches of Arrow mk.2 enter service with the MA-1, the system big flaws become all too obvious. At least the Arrow program is safe, and integrated to SAGE and NORAD.
By 1961 that first batch of Arrow mk.2, perhaps cut to 30-40 machines, has rolled out of the production line.
Now the government has to decide to stop the program or keep it running with a different radar.
Without Crawford Gordon at the helm (he never existed in the first place) the Avro PR machine runs smoother. They decide to send an Arrow to Le Bourget airshow - in June 1959 they missed the deadline due to the near cancellation turmoil. The Arrow will fly to Paris by itself, hoping across the Atlantic via Gander, Newfoundland, Thulé AFB, Shannon in Ireland. The flight and the aircraft arrival makes a huge impression on the British, the Americans, the French...

By this point I'm tempted to connect Avro and most importantly, Orenda, with SNECMA and Dassault. For the reasons mentionned above.


French Iroquois.png

I don't know who is James Dow, but he is the one and only who got the Arrow - Mirage IV connection RIGHT.

Most Arrow groupies and authors says that Dassault wanted the Iroquois for the Mirage IV - and of course everybody thinks of the existing Mirage IV, the IV-A.
But that's completely stupid: the Atar 9K-50 was half the size, weight and thrust of the Iroquois. No way to shoehorn an Iroquois into the engine bays.
The real story, as show above, is that Dassault wanted the Iroquois for two "intermediate" Mirage IV that never were.
- in 1957 for the Mirage IV-C, essentially a F-105 class aircraft right between a Mirage IIIE and a Mirage IVA
- in 1959 for the Mirage IV-B, a B-58 size aircraft
In both case the Iroquois makes sense: the F-105 actually had a single J75, and a twin engine B-58 would also need a pair of J75.

I think it is very important to set that Arrow - Dassault connection clear, because that siliness had percolated through a large number of Arrow biographies / hagiographies.
Making people think the Mirage IVA, as flown, could have been given a pair of Iroquois. No it could not. The airframe would burst at the seams.

Have a look there

Wrong, wrong, more wrong.

As for 300 engines - IDK. That's Orenda most optimistic estimation. What is sure is that the Mirage IVB production numbers never got higher than 100, more than the actual 62 Mirage IVA build because an EA-6B like, Mirage IV ECM platform / jammer was to be build as a companion to the bomber. It never happened and stock Mirage IVA were given ECM and jamming pods instead.
100 Mirage, two engine per Mirage plus plenty of spares, sounds that matches Orenda estimations. If they could get SNECMA onboard, more Iroquois could find their way into future Mirages. The way it worked OTL in the60's - Mirage III-V, then Mirage F, Mirage G/ G4 / G8, ACF, 2000/4000.
VSTOL > swept wing > VG wing > return to swept wing > return to delta.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
More on this
Sans titre.png

Whoa whoa whoa.

This would never work.

SNECMA wanted licence-building to get their hands on advanced technologies (to get out of the Atar ghetto, we need help !). That what they did with Pratt, for the J75 and later for the TF306.
As for the De Gaulle, same reaction "no way. At least we have complete control over the Atar. But this ? no way, not for a nuclear bomber."
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Best hope for Iroquois french connection is to give SNECMA a licence. Even if none of the 1958 Mirages are build, later in the mid-60's, many others will be.
Next step: send an Arrow to Le Bourget 1961 and renew that connection with Dassault. Eventually provide Cyrano II doppler radar from the Mirage IIIE, the all weather ground attack variant of the Mirage. Also analog FBW long before the 2000...
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Best hope for Iroquois french connection is to give SNECMA a licence. Even if none of the 1958 Mirages are build, later in the mid-60's, many others will be.
Next step: send an Arrow to Le Bourget 1961 and renew that connection with Dassault. Eventually provide Cyrano II doppler radar from the Mirage IIIE, the all weather ground attack variant of the Mirage. Also analog FBW long before the 2000...
Cyrano II was a bit of a dog actually, and not pulse-doppler. It might be more reliable than MA-1 at a stretch but APQ-100 is a better overall radar. Cyrano II is comparable to AI.23 from the Lightning at best.

RDM (Cyrano 5 / Cyrano 500) was the first French fighter pulse-doppler radar.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
846
Reaction score
40
The Westinghouse APQ-72 / APQ-100 from the F-4 is a better choice along with its Sparrow missiles.
How does it go for weight and space within the aircraft? IIRC, the advantage of the Hughes system is that you can store the Falcons in the internal bay. How many Sparrows can you put in there, if Sparrows are all you are carrying and you don't want to hang them off the wings and force a performance compromise?

The irony is that IRL the Canadians eventually went with a fighter (F-101) that used Falcons and an associated FCS anyway.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
The Westinghouse APQ-72 / APQ-100 from the F-4 is a better choice along with its Sparrow missiles.
How does it go for weight and space within the aircraft? IIRC, the advantage of the Hughes system is that you can store the Falcons in the internal bay. How many Sparrows can you put in there, if Sparrows are all you are carrying and you don't want to hang them off the wings and force a performance compromise?

The irony is that IRL the Canadians eventually went with a fighter (F-101) that used Falcons and an associated FCS anyway.
The internal bay could accommodate 8 Falcons or 4 Sparrow IIs, 4 Sparrow IIIs should be fine. APQ-100 minus the complex SAGE datalinks and computers would be lighter than MA-1, I'm pretty sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Ok so we can imagine that
a) either RCA randomly solves the idiotic problem with the MA-1 Overscan dug out
but
b) frustrated with such sloppy workmanship, the canadians turns toward the F-4 radar for a second batch. If they considered, even briefly, the impossible Sparrow II system (that sunk the arrow OTL but never happened ITTL) a case could be make the Sparrow partially restores the lost capability - SARH of course, not AMRAAM. Then again Phantoms, F-15s and Tomcats made good use of the SARH Sparrow III.

I would say that the APQ-72 Arrows would be called mk.3.

Arrow mk.1 > J75 prototypes (5 build: 201, 202, 203, 204, 205)
Arrow mk.2 > MA-1 (20 aircraft)
Arrow mk.3 > APQ-72 (the last 80 birds)

And that would be it, at least initially. Since the Canadian reservists could not fly Arrows, no way 692 of them are build to replace all the CF-100s. That was also one of the major reasons why costs ballooned...

Even if the production is curtailed, provided some Arrows stick their neck out of Canada at Le Bourget or Farnborough, they should make some big impression worlwide.

There is the possibility of Avro passing the Arrow to Canadair in place of the CF-104, and Canadair was tied to General-Dynamics / Convair since 1952. And since OTL Convair got a contract to turn one of their B-58s into an YF-12 radar tested (Snoopy)...


Count on the Soviets to accelerate the MiG-25, for a start.

Maybe - maybe - the YF-12 fate could be different, although McNamara...

Even if the F155 and TSR-2 goes nowhere as per OTL, through Great Britain the Arrow experience with analog FBW may impact Concorde, considering the broad similarities between the two...
For the TSR-2 however, FBW would make the beast even more expensive, not sure if it is a blessing or a curse.

Then if Dassault get their hands on the system, some kind of Mirage IIING / Mirage 2000 hybrid could fly long before 1978.
Whether SNECMA would get their hands on the Iroquois, and what would they do with it, is anybody guess. Note that the Mirage III airframe swallowed something as big as a TF30 IOTL, although it was an extremely tight fit.

Guess what the impact would be on the space program, too. 25 canadians top engineers that worked on Gemini would not go to Langley or Johnson STG, although Unlce Sam has plenty of talented people to replace them.

Specifications (TF30-P-100)
Data from The Engines of Pratt & Whitney: A Technical History.[9]
General characteristics
  • Type: Turbofan
  • Length: 241.7 in. (6.139 m)
  • Diameter: 48.9 in. (1.24 m)
  • Dry weight: 3,985 lb. (1807 kg)
Specifications (Iroquois 2)
Data from Flight.[6]
General characteristics
  • Type: Twin-spool turbojet
  • Length: 231 in (590 cm)
  • Diameter: 42 in (110 cm)
  • Dry weight: 4,650 lb (2,110 kg)
mirage3t-1.jpg

It may fit, eventually... but the III-T really pushed the boundaries. Iroquois would have two advantages: it is a turbojet rather than a turbofan, and its diameter is smaller, matching the Spey at 1.10 m.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
I can see Dassault and the French government using SNECMA as a trojan horse to get access to the Arrow advanced technologies.

The "bait" would be SNECMA asking for a licence to build Iroquois, plus flying a Mirage III powered by an Iroquois as a testbed.
Could bid that in place of Canadair CF-104 for NATO or at least the RCAF. They tried OTL with an Iroquois powered F-105 Thunderchief. The Mirage IIIE was similar - it was France closest thing, ever, from a F-105. Including the low level nav system... that overloaded the pilot. A Mirage IIIE with an Iroquois would be a terrific hot road, although it would be at the expense of range - the Iroquois must sip a crapload of kerosene, plus it needs room in the fuselage at the expense of some tanks.

Also invite an Arrow to Le Bourget airshow in June 1959 and 1961.

Next step is to loan an Arrow as a flying testbed for the Mirage IV, notably the advanced FBW system. From there, imagine if Canada become a partner in Concorde...

There is also this

Specifications (Spey Mk 202)

General characteristics
  • Type: Low bypass turbofan
  • Length: 204.9 in (5204.4 mm)
  • Diameter: 43.0 in (1092.2 mm)
  • Dry weight: 4,093 lb (1856 kg)
Specifications (Atar 9C)
  • Type: Afterburning turbojet
  • Length: 5,900 mm (232 in)
  • Diameter: 1,000 mm (39 in)
  • Dry weight: 1,456 kg (3,210 lb)
Specifications (Iroquois 2)
Data from Flight.[6]

General characteristics
  • Type: Twin-spool turbojet
  • Length: 231 in (590 cm)
  • Diameter: 42 in (110 cm)
  • Dry weight: 4,650 lb (2,110 kg)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
I have to contradict myself a little. In the sense that Atar and Iroquois are a little closer in size I thought. Which says two things - how backward was the Atar (after all, the ultimately development of the Me-262 engine) and how advanced the Iroquois was.
I didn't thought a Mirage III or IV could stick an Iroquois into their... rear ends, but the OTL TF30 and Spey (Mirage III-T and Mirage IV-K) proves me wrong.
although size is not the end of all things. When the Israelis stuck a J79 into a Mirage V airframe, they had to add an intake at the base of the fin. TF30 was cooler because it was a turbofan, but Iroquois might heat like crazy.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
Errrrr the J79 was I think 35" Diameter.....?
However I thought the Spey was 37 or 38", and it was the reheat chamber that was 43"?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Yes be careful with engine diameters - there's inlet diameter, maximum engine diameter, afterburner diameter. J79 inlet diameter is 35" and afterburner diameter is 38".
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Yes be careful with engine diameters - there's inlet diameter, maximum engine diameter, afterburner diameter. J79 inlet diameter is 35" and afterburner diameter is 38".
that's probably where Wikipedia I quote, fails...
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
The TL brief chronology so far

April 1912: Crawford gordon mother is a victim of the titanic disaster
Fast forward to the 50's

1955: The RCAF see the light, and decides to stick with the MX-1179 and Falcons from the F-102B / F-106. RCA will build MX-1179 / MA-1 radars from a Hughes licence. Canadair is tasked, not with the Sparrow II as per OTL, but with the Falcons.

1957: RCA MA-1 works fine, Hughes MA-1 are unreliable. See Overscan thread for the reason.

1957-59: SNECMA and Orenda discuss a possible licence of the Iroquois, first for the Mirage IVC (not build) then for the Mirage IVB (not build either) and finally, for a Mirage III testbed; Later that aircraft is pitted against the F-104 for NATO (G) and the RCAF (CF-104) in the nuclear delivery role.
An atempt to sell the aircraft to the United States fails, because F-106 and because F-108 Rapier, too.
Atempts to sell the aircraft to the RAF for either F155T or OR339 fail, too.

1958, March 25: RL-201 takes flight but the program is in jeopardy at the political level. Avro CEO (not Crawford Gordon...) successfully argues of a) good progress with the MA-1, with RCA licence-build being more reliable than Hughes (!) and b) French interest in the Iroquois. Both successes greatly cut into the radar/ missile and engine respective costs. The airframe thus represents the lion share of the expense, but the worst has passed with the Mk.1 now flying. Mk.2 is barely different.
Another political argument against the Arrow - SAGE / PINE TREE / NORAD sheer costs - is partially defeated by the MA-1 and Falcon that are exactly similar to the F-106.
Still Avro has to accept curtailing production to 120 aircraft, as the RCAF Auxiliary air force just can't fly such a complex aircraft as the Arrow (they could barely adapt to the CF-100).

1959,
March 25: RL-206 first flight.
By late May the aircraft anihilates both speed and height world records: mach 2.5 / 1500 mph, and 105 000 ft.
In June the Arrow RL-203 is ferried across the Atlantic, hopping from Malton to Gander to Thulé AFB to Shannon to Le Bourget airshow. With the Mirage IV-01 making a fly past over the airshow, SNECMA is used as a trojan horse by the French to gain access to the Arrow advanced technologies. While a Mirage III got an Iroquois, a prototype Mirage IV could get the FBW system.

1963 With early talks about Concorde, Canada is invited as a junior partner, if only because of their advance in FBW technology. some technologies from the Iroquois may find their ways into the Olympus. Avro dust off their old supersonic bizjet design.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
And then there is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-104_Starfighter

I was wondering if the Arrow could be adapted to that role. Where it get really interesting is that it would drag RCAF nuclear strike toward TSR-2 / Mirage IV - light bomber rather than fighter-bomber. I wonder if they could afford such expense, the Arrow would be a little overkill, and expensive, no way they buy a similar number than OTL CF-104s. Plus that big delta-wing... although that may push to improving the FBW system with the addition of canards.
And of course there is Canadair, Valcartier, Quebec... could an aditional batch of Arrows be handled to Canadair, in the name of employment ?

Also this

RCAF procurement seem to never had recovered from the arrow disaster... and the F-105 Thunderchief was considered TWICE ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164

I was wondering, which one of these countries could eventually succumb to the Arrow ?
Australia and Iran, Israel: best chance.
Spain ? why not ? they mixed Mirages with american types, and had a very complete collection of 60's fighter-bombers: Phantom and F-104G and F-5 and Mirage III and Mirage F1 ! Must have been an expensive Air Force for Franco.
Egypt, Greece, Turkey > too poor.
Japan, South Korea, Germany > Hard if not impossible to displace Uncle Sam. Although Germany showed interest in the Arrow...
United Kingdom: nope. F155T: no, TSR-2: no, RN Phantom: no way. RAF Phantoms stemmed from RN Phantoms, so no way either.


 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
If the production line is open after the failure of the AFVG, then the Arrow stands a possible chance of a limited number to replace the Canberra in high altitude tasks for the RAF.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
That's the reason why I want to connect it to Dassault and the Mirage IV. To push it toward the light bomber role. I was wondering about Australia circa 1963. They very seriously considered the Vigilante. The Vigilante that was dismissed as bomber by the USN and had no proper bomb bay, only a tube through which a bomb slided. Then again, the Mirage IV had no weapon bay either. I think the Arrow would have been considered as much as the Vigilante was. It had a massive weapon bay but I wonder if a 1200 - 1500 nm range would be enough to threaten Jakarta... a crucial argument during "Konfrontasi".
Main pronlem i currently have is the following.
I want to turn the Arrow into a nuclear strike aircraft in place of the CF-104s but I can't figure any terrain following / ground attack radar outside the United States. I need independance from Uncle Sam to compete with phantoms, Vigilante / F-111 later in Australia. The Cyrano II might have been mediocre, at least considering the respective sizes of a Mirage IIIE and Arrow radome, it must have fitted with plenty of space. And the lighter the Arrow, the better the range.

Which bring us back to the MA-1 / Falcon VS ASTRA /Sparrow II. Looks like dropping the later for the former drastically improved the Arrow range, by as much as 150 nautic miles ! Must have been one hell of a heavy radar, or maybe the avionics were gargantuan. Then again - "AMRAAM in 1960" - you know.
Alas, by late 1958 it was too late. I'm wondering if sticking with MA-1 right from the beginning (1954-55) might result in a 5% - 10% smaller Arrow three years down the road. Lower cost airframe = not a bad thing.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
That's the reason why I want to connect it to Dassault and the Mirage IV. To push it toward the light bomber role. I was wondering about Australia circa 1963. They very seriously considered the Vigilante. The Vigilante that was dismissed as bomber by the USN and had no proper bomb bay, only a tube through which a bomb slided. Then again, the Mirage IV had no weapon bay either. I think the Arrow would have been considered as much as the Vigilante was. It had a massive weapon bay but I wonder if a 1200 - 1500 nm range would be enough to threaten Jakarta... a crucial argument during "Konfrontasi".
Main pronlem i currently have is the following.
I want to turn the Arrow into a nuclear strike aircraft in place of the CF-104s but I can't figure any terrain following / ground attack radar outside the United States. I need independance from Uncle Sam to compete with phantoms, Vigilante / F-111 later in Australia. The Cyrano II might have been mediocre, at least considering the respective sizes of a Mirage IIIE and Arrow radome, it must have fitted with plenty of space. And the lighter the Arrow, the better the range.

Which bring us back to the MA-1 / Falcon VS ASTRA /Sparrow II. Looks like dropping the later for the former drastically improved the Arrow range, by as much as 150 nautic miles ! Must have been one hell of a heavy radar, or maybe the avionics were gargantuan. Then again - "AMRAAM in 1960" - you know.
Alas, by late 1958 it was too late. I'm wondering if sticking with MA-1 right from the beginning (1954-55) might result in a 5% - 10% smaller Arrow three years down the road. Lower cost airframe = not a bad thing.
UK had it's TFR set and a second system.
Earlier it had Blue Parrot, which had upgrades on the Buccaneer.

It's not the same sort of performance as a radar needed for strike operations. So for a strike and bomber capability, a change of radar and sone other avionics is needed.
Something like this high speed and high altitude aircraft might also want a tachymetric bombsight as well.

So a strike bomber should be different to the fighter.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
I don't think that, as long as the TSR-2 follows his unfortunate course, GB would be willing to share its advanced radar & avionic with a foreign competitor. Once the TSR-2 dead, however... how about a CF-105* / CF-105K instead of the Mirage IV-Spey ? Imagine an Anglo-French-Canadian proposal in place of the AFVG / UKVG/ Tornado ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
995
Reaction score
29
It gets better since the Arrow could offload the high altitude and high speed requirements, leaving only the low level strike elements. That argument would be going on all through OR.339 decision processes prior to selection of a winning design. In fact it wouldn't stop there either, as it could reduce the costs as the full system spirals upwards.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Hey, you could even got Germany onboard, post F-104G, to screw the Phantom.

Fact was that the 60's were packed with all kind of cooperative projects, mostly in Europe but also across the Atlantic - that least known AVS Republic-German thing.
It is a shame Canada had sunk their combat aircraft industry (well, Canadair only licence-build designs). Imagine if Avro and their Arrow had survived into the 60's and jumped into that bandwagon... Dassault could be their "guiding light" first (around 1960-61, since the Arrow would fit right between the Mirage III and IV) and then the devastated British try to recover after the TSR-2 fiasco, so after 1965. Canada had the potential to become another major "pole" of combat aircraft, right between Europe and the United States.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
D'oh ! I thought about the AVS, but I forgot that Canada was one of the early partners in what become the Tornado, dropping out all The Netherlands in 1968-69. Of course it was because of the F-104 consortium, won't happen ITTL.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Incidentally, this document is really a load of conspirationist horse manure. http://www.avro-canada.ca/download/Cancellation.pdf

Where it is funny is that it got things exactly backwards. APQ-64 was APQ-50 modified for Sparrow II, but APQ-72, too, was a derivative of APQ-50.
Then if RCA Victor and Canadair took the program "off the shelves" by 1956, it is no surprise that Astra-1 looked similar to APQ-64, and in turn, to APQ-50 and APQ-72 !!!

 
Last edited:

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Don't forget the complex geopolitical history of Avro Canada. Formerly the Victory Aircraft Limited, a state-owned company set up to build Avro Ansons and Lancasters during WW2. Hawker Siddeley Group (the UK company) bought the plant in 1945 with a view to designing and building jetliners for the Canadian and American market, hence the C-102 project, and then as the Cold War started in earnest moving on to designing and building the CF-100, leading to the development of the Arrow.

A lot of Hawker Siddeley company money was invested in Avro Canada and a lot of Canadian tax dollars too - Hawker Aircraft engineers who visited Avro Canada were agog at the brand new state of the art equipment they had in comparison to their facilities back in the UK. Canada had attracted some highly skilled engineers, quite a few from Britain, including many former Powerjets engineers at Orenda.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Incidentally, this document is really a load of conspirationist horse manure. http://www.avro-canada.ca/download/Cancellation.pdf

Where it is funny is that it got things exactly backwards. APQ-64 was APQ-50 modified for Sparrow II, but APQ-72, too, was a derivative of APQ-50.
Then if RCA Victor and Canadair took the program "off the shelves" by 1956, it is no surprise that Astra-1 looked similar to APQ-64, and in turn, to APQ-50 and APQ-72 !!!

That's based on the batshit-crazy Randall Whitcomb book.

It is pretty clear that APQ-50, 64, 72 are all Westinghouse radars for the Navy. APQ-72 only took a year because it was a straightforward evolution of APQ-50. No conspiracy needed here. I'm not seeing any connection to ASTRA yet. If RCA were building the Hughes MG3 and MG10 under license, that makes a lot of sense Canada gave them the Astra contract - Hughes refused to discuss combining their radars with anything other than Falcon, and Canada wanted Hughes radars with Sparrow II instead. But then ASTRA would be conceptually derived from Hughes radars not Westinghouse.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
It seems like RCA won a contract to develop a radar for the LRI-X in June 1956 in opposition to Hughes AN/ASG-18, after lack of progress from Sperry (previously the competitor to Hughes on this). This MUST tie into ASTRA, and makes sense of the ASTRA-2 being a hugely ambitious pulse doppler radar.

Note RCA is not Canadian, it was based in New Jersey. Their Missile and Surface Radar division designed the AEGIS.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
So you mean that Astra was probably a MG-3 or MG-10 + Sparrow II capability. Not a revamped APQ-64. This one died with the Skylancer, and the Arrow took over only Sparrow II, combining it with a new radar.

the batshit-crazy Randall Whitcomb book.
My point exactly. and the idiot intoxicated me back in 2002-2003 - I was fresh on the Internet, younger, more naive...

Other people were under Whitcomb B.S influence, aparently https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/an-asg-18-radar.995/

Note that the AN/ASG-18 rumor, I saw it in a far serious publication: Le Fana de l'aviation mentionned it briefly in their Arrow series circa 1992.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Don't forget the complex geopolitical history of Avro Canada.

Formerly the Victory Aircraft Limited, a state-owned company set up to build Avro Ansons and Lancasters during WW2.

Hawker Siddeley Group (the UK company) bought the plant in 1945 with a view to designing and building jetliners for the Canadian and American market, hence the C-102 project, and then as the Cold War started in earnest moving on to designing and building the CF-100, leading to the development of the Arrow.

A lot of Hawker Siddeley company money was invested in Avro Canada and a lot of Canadian tax dollars too - Hawker Aircraft engineers who visited Avro Canada were agog at the brand new state of the art equipment they had in comparison to their facilities back in the UK. Canada had attracted some highly skilled engineers, quite a few from Britain, including many former Powerjets engineers at Orenda.
It explains a lot of things. never quite understood how such an advanced turbojet like the Iroquois could have been bench-tested in a mere two and a half years - 1954-1956. All this while the RB.106 and J67 were the preferred options.

And at some point the Candian government, growing more and more indepandant from GB and Commonwealth, nationalized the plant and used for the CF-100, in 1951 or so.
What is a pity is that the British Hawker could not take over the Arrow, one way or another, after its demise. But it had grown into an independant entity into a different, separated country...

Strange story, really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
And at some point the Candian government, growing more and more indepandant from GB and Commonwealth, nationalized the plant and used for the CF-100, in 1951 or so.
What is a pity is that the British Hawker could not take over the Arrow, one way or another, after its demise. But it had grown into an independant entity into a different, separated country...

Strange story, really.
I've never heard about Avro Canada being nationalised in 1951.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,398
Reaction score
164
Well, I meant, at some point or another, the plant come under control of Canada to produce CF-100s for the RCAF. Not nationalized admittedly so what happened ?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
768
Avro Canada submitted a bid to a Canadian requirement, like any other aviation company. They had a lot of irons in the fire. The company expanded aggressively, with all profits reinvested in Canada.
 
Top