• 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
1,005
Reaction score
329
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
979
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
949
Reaction score
170
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
589
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
979
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
949
Reaction score
170
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,710
Reaction score
1,266
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.
 
Top