• 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

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
485
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.

The British had already assessed and rejected the Arrow as a candidate interceptor to F.155T. Even assuming it survived, rejigging the design to accept attack avionics, radar, TFR and weapons might be more trouble than it's worth. The superficial similarities between Arrow and TSR.2 are striking, but under the skin it might not be so easy.

In fairness to Archibald don’t think he’s suggesting an Arrow variant as a direct substitute for the TSR2 in it’s principle low altitude strike role.
The Arrow airframe would have been horribly mis-matched to that role even if you assume carried over TSR2 avionics or equivalents. Likely short on payload/range and with horrible ride/ gust response in the low altitude strike role. A late 50’s high altitude interceptor is inevitably not going to be a good fit for completely different requirements.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
I have been enjoying reading Arrow stuff but as we are in the land of what-if, perhaps the answer is for the Soviet Union to have a B52 analogue posing a serious threat to North America instead of a small number of Bears and Bison. And then for the Bounder to be a successful bomber.
I think then both Arrow and YF12 might have been seen in a more urgent light.
Of course this was as likely as Arrow meeting the TSR2 OR
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
I never really knew if the Arrow could be a low-level attack platform. Surely the delta wing had colossal wing area but the Mirage IVA had 80 m2 (vs 115 m2 for the Arrow) and moved to low level in the 70's without much trouble. Plus the Arrow had FBW, evn if analog, so maybe this could help taming low-level flight. The closest analog being the Mirage 2000N; two seater for nuclear strike, analog FBW, delta-wing.

As for Arrow and F-155T, the RAF was a spoiled child on the brink to be severely punished by Sandys white paper. While the Arrow did not fit F-155T OR, this very one was unrealisticin at many levels.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
293
the RAF was a spoiled child on the brink

The RAF cannot be criticised for wanting an interceptor that could catch and kill its worst nightmare in bomber terms. Where you are right is in claiming that the best was the enemy of good enough. If the British had bought the Arrow as the nearest best thing, an aircraft that had actually BEEN BUILT IN STEEL as opposed to on paper, the project might have survived. In addition, there would have been incentive to proceed with a mid-size (Sparrow-equivalent) SARH missile, whether Sparrow itself or an integrated AI-18-Radar Red Top.

It might later have provided a springboard for TSR.2, bypassing at least part of the R&D load and making the low-level strike-attack outgrowth affordable in its turn.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
1,091
Here's a pondering thought.....
Early on the Arrow was to have RB.106 engines.
And certainly the RAF assessed the use of AI.18 and Red Hebe in the airframe.

Canada had to fund it's own advanced turbojet instead......

Surely the logical case is that had the UK given higher funding priority to RB.106 and Red Hebe then Canada could have afforded the Arrow?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
From my reading of Tony Butler, Red Hebe / Red Dean were monster AAMs that made F-155T bidders lives a misery. Huge drag penalties. In this context the Arrow had a major ace on its sleeeve: that HUGE weapon bay. Put the two Red Dean / Red Hebe there, and their enormous drag goes away. And with that drag gone, the Arrow can kick a F-155T ass.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Well I checked... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dean

16 ft long - the Arrow bay was 17 ft so IT WOULD FIT. Incidentally, Red Dean was for Thin Wing Javelin which was slained by the CF-105 Arrow as an interim type before F-155T. Red Hebe for F-155T would have been smaller... yet all F-155T designs could only carry it externally, when the Arrow would have put it in its payload bay. And THIS could make quite a difference.
For example, the (fantastic looking) Vickers 559 had to place the monster missiles at this weird location that ultimately doomed the design. Same for the AW or Fairey designs.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
In an alternate world somewhere in the multiverse, the RB-106 was not canned and the Arrow got it. Then it easily slained the Thin Wing Javelin as an interim type for F-155T; And then the Arrow pulled an AH-1 Cobra vs AH-56 Cheyenne: the stopgap become permanent when Sandys canned F-155T...
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
I think the key would have been the US Canadian NORAD requirement. The F106 Delta Dart met this until the 80s when F4 and F15 squadrons took over.
The Arrow might have been a contender vs the F108 Rapier and F12 if Avro had worked with suitable US partners. The awful Falcon missiles led to the Phoenix.
However, you need the long range Soviet bomber force to pose a serious threat.
Canada also needed a strike fighter for its NATO commitments. Arrow rather than F104?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Well to me the trick for the Arrow to survive like the F-106 is to get the same radar and AAM. On top of that
- the CF-100 had a Hughes radar similar to the F-89 and F-102.
- Plus early plans for the Arrow (1955) were similar, F-106 radar and AAM. Then come the huge mistake that screwed the program: Astra and Sparrow II.
- And the final irony, in september 1958 that idea returned, but too late !
The Arrow airframe and engines by contrast worked well and were under budget control. I recently searched what was wrong with Sparrow II. I found things like a pathetic range of 5 miles, also doesn't work in rain and clouds !
What's the point of fire-and-forget with such limitations ??!!
AMRAAM development was aparently a PITA for 1980 USA, no chance in hell Canada pulled it out in the late 50's...
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Of course the F-106 AIM-4 proved to be a piece of junk. Well so were the AIM-7B and AIM-9B. More generally until 1982 (Falklands / Bekkaa / Iran-Iraq) most AAMs were pretty shitty as far as reliability and hitting a target went. French British Soviet or Israeli were no better.
What matters is to get F106 missiles, not for their (absent) goodness but for the sake of NORAD commonality...
Incidentally with its huge and squarred intakes it would be pretty easy to stick a pair of 30 mm DEFA guns on the Arrow, Mirage style. Or better, a PACK of 30 mm guns in that huge weapon bay. Enough firepower to turn a bomber into chards of metals. The CF-100 had a pack of ventral machine guns like that.
 

pathology_doc

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
293
Of course the F-106 AIM-4 proved to be a piece of junk.

It proved to be a piece of junk in the dogfight environment in a humid country with possibly not the best servicing, and with serious ROE restrictions. What's interesting, though, is I remember reading that out of about 45 missiles that actually left the rail and tracked, they recorded 4 kills and a fifth that needed a finisher WITH A MISSILE THAT REQUIRED A DIRECT HIT TO FUNCTION. While the absolute kill rate is about the same as for Sparrow or Sidewinder, you can bet that at least some of those AIM-9 and AIM-7 kills were from proximity detonations.

That's against fighters which can pull high G and against which the engagement envelope is unpredictable. The intercept the AIM-4 and its weapon systems were originally designed for had none of those disadvantages - by the time you've steered your fighter into shooting position (or SAGE has done it for you), the missiles are already warmed up and ready to go, and there's none of that hard, high-G jinking and waiting for an envelope shot that will run the IR seekers' coolant out.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
How the Arrow ended as an (interim) MiG-25 killer in the 1967-78 era.

It all started late 1958. By this point the Arrow was flying superbly, and cost were under tight control (hint: because the POD is, screw Astra and Sparrow II,go for F-106 MA-1 right from 1955, and never change that. Also Crawford Gordon mother did not survived Titanic encounter with that iceberg, in 1912...)

An agreement had been found in september 1958 to integrate the Arrow among others NORAD interceptors through SAGE (greatly helped by the fact, once again, that MA-1 was the exact same for CF-105 and F-106).

Still, many among the Arrow supporters were overtly saying MA-1 was a piece of junk not good enough for the Arrow (blissfully unaware it was in fact a necessary evil). Whatever, a small team from Avro Canada and RCA had toured america, looking for a better radar. The Phantom APQ or APG seemed obvious choices, but they wanted better. And since collaboration with Hughes had been pretty good in the past, there, they were told about the ultimate system: the ASG-18 / AIM-47 Falcon planned for the (threatened) F-108 Rapier.

Avro Canada and RCA lost no time forging a case to put that on the Arrow: it would make their Mk.3 bird "F-108 compatible" just like Mk.2 was presently, "F-106 friendly", NORAD and SAGE included.

That happened to be twice a blessing for the F-108, as sharing its radar cost burden plus US national pride, ensured it barely escaped cancellation in September 1959, even if production number was cut to 93 machines (hint: YF-12 & McNamara 1968, also F-22 187 airframes).

Main difference between CF-105 and F-108 was the former having a three years headstart. Late 1959 an agreement was found to try and test the ASG-18 and AIM-47 in a Mk.2 Arrow rather than OTL B-58 Snoopy. Flight testing started late 1960 and lasted five years, joined by F-108 prototypes ASAP.

Fast forward to 1967 and the "Domodedovo panick" triggered by Mig-23 and most importantly, MiG-25.

Four more years, in 1971, MiG-25R insolently thundered above Iranian and Israeli Phantoms trying to destroy them with AIM-7 Sparrow.
By this point McNamara had phased out the expensive and scarce F-108s, the idiot. Israel being, Israel, and the Shah being the Shah, these two lost no time requesting a handful of second-hand Arrows Mk.3 from the RCAF. Unlike USAF paltry of F-108 build, to the RCAF the Mk.3 Arrow were an integral part of the larger fleet of Arrow Mk.2 (with Mk.4 in the pipeline, despite an uncertain future at as of 1971).
And that's how the year 1974 saw two MiG-25R blown out of the sky - one by IDF/AF over the Sinai, and another one near the Iranian - Soviet border...

 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Oh geez, I just had a freakkin' exciting idea. toying with the rocket equation is pretty fun, when you understand how staging works...

Remember X-15 - Blue scout proposal ?
The scout was essentially cut of its most heavy stage, the Algol stage 1. The X-15 couldn't haul it and it didn't needed it, being so fast by itself.
End result was a Scout stage 2 - 3 - 4.

How about Canada first satellite (s) Alouette 1 and 2 ? mass, 145 kg, not much of a weight...

Well... take that cut-down Scout from the X-15. Strap it to a CF-105 belly. It works: light, short, narrow enough.

Fly the CF-105 at its max speed and height: mach 2.5 and 65 000 ft. Get the nose 30 degree above the horizon, and drop the rocket. This is optimal air-launch, and would provide a whopping 2000 m/s boost to the cut-down Scout.

End result ? Alouette 1 and 2 go into orbit with ample margin.

see the attached calculation sheet... (Astronautix)

That would have made Crawford Gordon and Gerald Bull so happy... also John H. Chapman... Arrow scout.png
 

Attachments

  • Arrow scout.png
    Arrow scout.png
    71.2 KB · Views: 4

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
A valuable point, certainly. Note that the Scout had a small diameter of 1 m (for a rocket - the joy of solid-fuel high density), - but there is the pylon drag also.
Even cut of its first stage the whole thing is 12 m long, probably too much to carry it semi-recessed under the fuselage.

Half the overall length of the aircraft, and a tight fit between the nosewheel and airbrakes. The PS-13 was 1.1 m in diameter (just like the Scout) so we can get a approximation looking at the exhausts.

803688_3_orig.gif


The missile bay was 18 feet long, 5.5 m, so the rocket booster would be a little more than twice the length.

The booster would stretch from the nosewheel to the jet engine exhausts (give or take).
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
This weekend I got bored and got a weird idea.

How about the Arrow pulling a Harrier / F-35B, the following way ?

Take a pair of downsized Pegasus compressors. not the full engine - just the fan. And yes, a bit like the F-35B fan. With some differences. The fans would be near the air intakes or inside the former weapon bay. They would be driven by a couple of gear boxes bolted on the PS.13 Iroquois.
Basically I want to use the big missile bay and power of the Iroquois. To drive a couple of "cold air fans" with exhausts very similar to the Harrier.

Meanwhile the Iroquois nozzles on the rear of the aircraft are modified, a bit like that Su-27 variant and also F-35B and Convair 200. That is, they can swiwel downwards by 60 degree.

Just for the fun of it, I measured my three 1/72 scale Harriers with a couple of Hobbycrap CF-105 I build a decade ago. And frack, the dimensions matches perfectly.
It would be possible to butcher an AV-8B behind the air intakes and graft the swivelling cold-air nozzles inside the Arrow bay, or on the side of the air intakes.
(hint: somewhere near the RL-roundels-201 on the above post drawing)
Next step, borrow a couple of exhausts from Italeri old X-35 model...

The end result ? a STOL CF-105. Not VTOL - it would be a bridge too far. It can't be VTOL but only with a little load of internal fuel.
The end result ? In your face, XVF-12 and Convair 200, F-35B and Hawker P.1154. A supersonic VSTOL interceptor.

Fun, fun, fun.

I also discovered that a Blue Scout or Agena D in the weapon bay could allow a CF-105 to orbit the Alouette satellites.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
All this is part of a broader story I'm writting - and thanks to Galgot for reminding me of Dan Cooper recently.

Yamamoto survives, I-400s with Walter peroxide AIP system start shuttling between Japan and nazi Germany by going below the north pole ice caps. In 1944 Hitler is more badly hurt in Valkyrie, enough that he is less a control freak over his generals.
End result: no Wacht dem Rhein, end of WWII delayed by some weeks in Europe. Nazis go "werewolf", first in Norway, then in remote Svalbard, where they find coal. They build an undersea base there, wait for a decade and by 1955 start playing havoc with Cold War, attacking sea and air traffic.

End result: a tech pornfest in the second half of the 50's. Missiles, bombers, interceptors, big ships...

Dan Cooper and the Arrow, of course, are part of the fest.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Some speculation just for the fun of it... part of the Arrow myth / madness / siliness / conspiracy bullshit has the aircraft winning the Air War over North Vietnam all by itself - where those pesky Phantoms miserably failed and lost 900 of them to the SAMs.

This said - how about subverting that B.S with some real-world facts ?

Compared to a Vietnam era Phantom the "ideal Arrow" (the wank, where everything works perfectly thanks to some fairy dust) had two important systems

- an analog FBW system not unlike a 1975 YF-16, except in 1958

- Sparrow II "fire-and-forget-Sparrow" that is: an early AMRAAM (with all the caveats)

Soooo... let's suppose that the RCAF - not the Australians as per OTL - got dragged into the Vietnam air war along the Americans. And of course ITTL the Arrow survived.

Maybe Canadair managed to solve the Sparrow II program major glitches, and that sinister Maurice Duplessis had a secret agreement with Diefenbaker, and Canadair swallowed Avro Canada circa 1959.

What could Arrows achieve over Vietnam, with their two advanced bits of hardware: Sparrow II & FBW ?
 
Last edited:

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
1,269
Keep in mind that, in 1959, the owner of Canadair was still General Dynamics. Would that US parent firm see the Arrow as unwelcome competition for Convair products? Not sure. But I am sure that Canada as a combatant in the Vietnam War would have been a political non-starter.

In any case, I don't know how this notion emerged of a perfect Vietnam warrior being created out of a dedicated strategic bomber interceptor. The outcome of Arrows contending with lightweight Soviet fighters over North Vietnam is fairly easy to predict. If forced to use them, probably better to load the Arrows up like F-105 bomb-trucks. Of course, that also assume that the USAF can be convinced to take on the Arrows. The Canadian Armed Forces couldn't meet its NATO obligations let alone convince the Canadian citizenry of the need to deploy to Vietnam.

Nor do I buy the idea of an agreement between Dief and Duplessis. The latter had absolutely no interest in 'urban' industries like aerospace. I could imagine Duplessis' more sophisticated successor, Jean Lesage (elected June 1960), being interested. And Diefenbaker might have enjoyed making mischief between Lesage's Parti libéral du Québec and the federal Liberal Party of Canada (from which the PLQ had been estranged for decades). But would any such deal survive the 1963 election of Lester B. Pearson?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
Agree very much with the above,

but why then did Canada end up with F101 Voodoos instead of F102/F106 and then F4s like the US.

The US even had an F102 sqn in Netherlands.

The RAF should have had Arrows instead of Javelins. The Lightnings replaced most Javs but not all (Javs carried 4 Firestreaks). Javs served well into the 60s (some even went to Zambia to defend the Copper Belt interests against Ian Smith's rogue Rhodesia).

A sensible Arrow programme in place in 1957 would have been a lot harder for Sandys to cut than the baroque F155T. After all he didnt get rid of the Javs as Ian Smith found out.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
According to Tony Buttler the Arrow was considered as a stopgap between Javelin and F-155T. It actually slained a thin-wing Javelin trying to fill that same gap. P.356 to P.376 large beasts of interceptors.

Apophenia: thanks for the informations. I'm working my way through Quebec history and politics.
Duplessis was really a weird guy. It had vibes of Ireland, Franco and Petain catholic agrarian conservatism, kind of.
 
Last edited:

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,416
Reaction score
838
... but why then did Canada end up with F101 Voodoos instead of F102/F106 and then F4s like the US. ...

After cancelling the Arrow and realizing that Bomark misisles were duds, the RCAF still needed long range interceptors. Since the USAF was phasing out single-mission F-101 Voodoos, it was an inexpensive choice. The deal allowed the RCAF to buy decent interceptors without interfering with F4 deliveries to the USAF and USN. The RCAF further sweetened the deal by loaning a bunch of RCAF flying instructors to help the the USAF train Vietnam-era pilots in Texas.

The USAF replaced their F-101 inceptors with multi-role F-4 Phantoms. F4s may not have been the best close-support aircraft, but they were supersonic and the USAF wanted as many supersonic airplanes as possible.

As for assigning CF-104 Starfighters to a low-altitude nuclear-bombing role in West Germany ... Remember that CF-104 production in Quebec was an attempt at buying votes away from Separatist politicians. CF-104 was originally intended to be a high-altitude interceptor, but when the RCAF realized what a short range it had, they reluctantly re-assigned it to a NATO nuclear bomber role.

Similarly, CF5 Freedom Fighter production in Quebec was sold to the public as more interceptors and later ground attack aircraft. Politicians quietly forgot to mention that CF-5 was so short-legged that it could barely carry a full load of bombs to the end of its own runway! After struggling to find a combat role, The RCAF relegated CF-5s as lead-in trainers for more expensive supersonic fighters: CF-101 Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-18 Hornet. Much of the RACF's CF-5 fleet spent their service life on blocks at Mountainview Airport, nera Trenton.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
What is really impressive is how many advanced and remarquable canadian aircraft flew over a very short period of time - the late 50's.
It was as if DHC Canadair and even Bristol Aerospace tried to fill in for Avro demise.
- DHC-5 Buffalo
- CL-41 Tutor, CL-44 Yukon
- Black Brant sounding rocket
- And the Arrow itself.
They all flew in the 1958-1961 era. Kind of "Golden age" for Canadian aerospace.

Add Gerald Bull and CARDE advanced researches on top of that, and Canada really was kind of aerospace powerhouse.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
... but why then did Canada end up with F101 Voodoos instead of F102/F106 and then F4s like the US. ...

After cancelling the Arrow and realizing that Bomark misisles were duds, the RCAF still needed long range interceptors. Since the USAF was phasing out single-mission F-101 Voodoos, it was an inexpensive choice. The deal allowed the RCAF to buy decent interceptors without interfering with F4 deliveries to the USAF and USN. The RCAF further sweetened the deal by loaning a bunch of RCAF flying instructors to help the the USAF train Vietnam-era pilots in Texas.

The USAF replaced their F-101 inceptors with multi-role F-4 Phantoms. F4s may not have been the best close-support aircraft, but they were supersonic and the USAF wanted as many supersonic airplanes as possible.

As for assigning CF-104 Starfighters to a low-altitude nuclear-bombing role in West Germany ... Remember that CF-104 production in Quebec was an attempt at buying votes away from Separatist politicians. CF-104 was originally intended to be a high-altitude interceptor, but when the RCAF realized what a short range it had, they reluctantly re-assigned it to a NATO nuclear bomber role.

Similarly, CF5 Freedom Fighter production in Quebec was sold to the public as more interceptors and later ground attack aircraft. Politicians quietly forgot to mention that CF-5 was so short-legged that it could barely carry a full load of bombs to the end of its own runway! After struggling to find a combat role, The RCAF relegated CF-5s as lead-in trainers for more expensive supersonic fighters: CF-101 Voodoo, CF-104 Starfighter and CF-18 Hornet. Much of the RACF's CF-5 fleet spent their service life on blocks at Mountainview Airport, nera Trenton.

The CF-5 story seems criminally stupid.

As for the CF-101s, I've heard they were traded for RCAF & NATO CF-104 but there was another sweetener: there were hopes the all powerful USAF MATS (transport service) bought 232 CL-44s.
Instead they bought C-135 cargoes, then C-141 starlifters.

 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
2,013
A bit of a departure from the Arrow, but in board wargames featuring NATO operations in Norway the CF5s were always part of the Canadian component. They took part in exercises with Boeing tankers. Would they have contributed anything in a shooting war (the Dutch and Norwegians used them as well)?
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,543
Reaction score
1,044
... but why then did Canada end up with F101 Voodoos instead of F102/F106 and then F4s like the US. ...
As for assigning CF-104 Starfighters to a low-altitude nuclear-bombing role in West Germany ... Remember that CF-104 production in Quebec was an attempt at buying votes away from Separatist politicians. CF-104 was originally intended to be a high-altitude interceptor, but when the RCAF realized what a short range it had, they reluctantly re-assigned it to a NATO nuclear bomber role.

The Canadian's ran a competition specifically for a CF-86 replacement, that aircraft then being the primary component of the RCAF NATO contribution in Europe. The competition included the Republic F-105 (apparently with an Iroquois engine) and the ultimately selected CF-105 had A2G only avionics. It definitely seems to have had an A2G bias from the outset, in line with then NATO strategy to deliver tactical nuclear weapons. I have always wondered whether Canadian industry ever penned an indigenous CF-86 replacement, perhaps an Arrow derivative? James Floyd told The Aeroplane in 1958 that the type had potential as a long range strike aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Most people think the giganormous delta-wing area (113 square meter) would have been bad for low level strike.

I use to mention the Mirage IVA to IVP shift to low level as a counter-example. The Mirage had 80 square meter and did not seemed to care.

Even more interesting: with its analog FBW, two-seats, and delta-wing, the Arrow looked like... a scaled-up Mirage 2000 D/N. The Mirage 2000 was build first and foremost as a single seat interceptor. The FBW system certainly helped during low level strike, so why not put the Arrow similar system to good use ?

The TSR-2 guaranted a smooth low-level ride thanks to its adapted aerodynamics: shoulder-mounted small surface wing. But it had hydraulics controls.

Another useful asset for low level strike would be that colossal weapon bay. I once checked, the Arrow could have internally carried every single A2G US missile minus the big cruise missiles - Hound Dog and Tomahawk.
All the way from Bullpup to SRAM included Shrike, Standard, Harpoon, and the kitchen sink.
That weapon bay was HUGE - frack, it was larger than a B-29's !

Crucially, circa 1960 the RCAF shifted the bulk of its strength (in both Canada and NATO-Europe) from air defense Canadair Sabres and CF-100s to low-level nuclear strike with CF-104s.
The Arrow replacement was a mix of BOMARC and second-hands CF-101s.

On industrial grounds however, Canadair CF-104s certainly replaced the lost Arrow. But not mission-wise. It took me a very long time to understand that. Even more since the F-104, just like the F-101B and Arrow, was an interceptor. The salient differences are
- F-104A/B/C/D were daylight interceptors, not all-weather like the other two
(weaker radar, single-seater, single-engine, lacked range)
- CF-104 & F-104G shifted to nuclear strike

I found tantalizing bits that the RCAF considered the F-106 all the way from 1954 to 1961 but never got it. I still wonder if "Canadair GD-Convair connection" would have been used... would have made some sense.

"Canadair CF-106" anybody ?
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
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.

Eurekaaa ! I know where does the APQ-64 rumor comes... it was the radar of the
F-5D Skylancer, which was to use the Sparrow II.
A missile the RCAF, Canadair and CEPE tookover in 1956 for the Arrow.
But they did not took the radar which was a Westinghouse, as you said. The canadians discussed with Hughes and RCA but not with Westinghouse.
The Sparrow II was to be married, not with a Westinghouse APQ-something but with the RCA Astra-1.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
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.

Now that's interesting. I will cross-post it to the Astra thread I created.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Bendix Eagle dimensions right here. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/aam-n-10.html

Once again, at less than 17 feet it matches the Arrow weapon bay ! Probably two side by side.


This (downloadable) document is a treasure trove.

BOMARC-A active seeker derived from the Banshee APQ-41 radar. The Royal Canadian Navy bought Banshees for Bonaventure.

As for BOMARC-B, its DPN-53 pulse doppler active seeker went to the Bendix Eagle. Note that the CF-100 Mk.8 (desperate, post Arrow proposal in June 1959) was to have Bendix Eagle on the wingtips.

Bendix also worked along Canadair Douglas and Avro on the Sparrow II, another active seeker AAM...
 

Maury Markowitz

From the Great White North!
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
114
Reaction score
42
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.
But that assumes ASTRA-II was a real project. I do not believe that is the case.

The only references I can find to it are bogus ones about Mach 3 Arrows and so forth. I can't find a single reference to such a device anywhere reasonable.

BTW, this was RCA Canada, 1001 Rue Lenoir, right downtown Montreal.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
There were RCA Canada and RCA America, and Westinghouse was similar.

Probably Canadian sister companies of the american ones ?
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,771
Reaction score
1,269
There were RCA Canada and RCA America, and Westinghouse was similar.

Probably Canadian sister companies of the american ones ?

Not so much 'sister companies' as US-owned subsidiaries.

RCA Canada Ltd began as Berliner Gramophone. RCA (then New York-based and a subsidiary of General Electric) bought out Berliner Gramophone in 1929. This created RCA Victor Canada Limited. The 'Victor' was later dropped, leading to RCA Canada Ltd - which would later play a part in the construction of Canada’s first satellite - the Alouette I. In 1974, RCA Canada became EMS Technologies Canada Ltd (a subsidiary Of Honeywell after 2011, then the Montreal division of SPAR Aerospace).
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
In passing, one idea I have for my (sprawling) meta-TL...

How about making Douglas F5D Skylancer the Arrow lost half-brother ?

Let me explain... OTL, the former passed the Sparrow II missile to the later. Eactly in 1956: Canadair tookover the program with the help of Douglas and Bendix.

Now just for the fun of it, whatif Canadair took, not only the Sparrow II, but also the radar to guide it and the Skylancer to carry both ?

Beyond the Sparrow II these two birds have a lot in common...

- The Skylancer looks like a baby Arrow, canopy included

- Its APQ-64 radar obviously was made to guide the missile (so why bother re-inventing the wheel with RCA Astra-1 at horrible cost) ?

- The APQ-64 is a Sparrow II derivative of the Skyray APQ-50, both Westinghouse. Both 24-inch antenna.
-Now, Canadian Westinghouse was part of the Sparrow II program, but there is more.
-US Westinghouse also had a Sparrow III variant of the APQ-50 with a 32-inch antenna. Sounds familiar ? standard F-4 Phantom radar up the 1966 F-4J !

- so by getting the APQ-64 with Sparrow II, they also earn a "backup plan" in the shape of the APQ-72 with Sparrow III. With the Arrow (and skylancer) now linked to the Phantom development(s).

-A 100% Canadian Sparrow IV could be created by putting a Velvet Glove SARH seeker into the Sparrow II airframe.

- any RCAF interest for the Skylancer when the Arrow is eating all the budget ?
Maybe. How about replacing the First Air Division Sabres 6 and CF-100s in Europe ? that is, the Skylancer screw OTL CF-104s ?
Note that
- the RCAF nearly bought another USN orphan OTL: the Super Tiger. That is was an orphan and a naval fighter did not seemed to bother the RCAF.

- the Skylancer APQ radar can do the former and the new First Air Division mission: from air defence to nuclear strike.

- Canadair could build Skylancers under licence: by 1959, 200 in place of CF-104 and by 1966, 240 more in place of the idiotic CF-5. Boom, 440 aircraft.

- the Skylancer being a miniature clone of the Arrow (mini me !) it would be feasible to apply CF-105 advanced tech to its smaller brother.

-The Iroquois, for a start: Skylancer had a Pratt J57, the first five Arrow had Pratt J75s, Iroquois could swap for both.

- Also the analog FBW. If applied to the Skylancer (perhaps with relaxed stability) the end result would be akin to a Mirage 2000C RDM 25 years in advance (1959 to 1984)

- applying Arrow tech on a little brother build in very large numbers should help driving cost of the Arrow down and perhaps allow for 100, 66, or 37 (pre-production) to be build past 1959 and replace OTL second-hand F-101B. Even more if Astra-1 is strangled in the craddle right from 1956.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
Meanwhile on the C-102 Jetliner front... circa 1953 Howard Hughes had asked Convair to build some of them for TWA. He pointed they could replace the CV-440 series. A move that would not disrupt the company many military programs. That was the breakthrough the Jetliner needed. And Convair, too, who needed fresh ideas for its airliner division (note: ding dong the CV-880 is dead, OTL Hughes started this fiasco in april 1956).
Military and civilian orders started flowing like crazy.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
4,007
I've learned that a) Canadian Westinghouse worked on the Sparrow II seeker with Bendix help; and b) US Westinghouse was a contender for Astra along RCA after Hughes threw the towel.

Shame nobody could whisper them "bid for the Arrow radar and screw RCA !"
 
Top