# Canadian Company Pitching Upgrades to Arrow Design



## Catch22 (Sep 10, 2012)

OTTAWA — A Canadian company is seeking to go back in time to help fly Canada’s air force into the future.

Documents obtained by the Global News program “The West Block” indicate an update to the storied CF-105 Avro Arrow was put forward as an alternative to the purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets.

And among the project’s champions is one of Canada’s top soldiers, retired Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.

The Arrow was an advanced, all-weather supersonic interceptor jet that was developed in the 1950s. Several prototypes were built and flight tests were conducted, but the project was abruptly shut down in 1959 and the aircraft never went into production.

But MacKenzie told the “The West Block” that the Arrow’s basic design and platform still exceed any current fighter jet and it is perfect for Canada’s needs.

“It’s an attack aircraft. It’s designed for attacking ground targets and its stealth is most effective against short range radar, protecting ground targets,” MacKenzie said.

“What we need in Canada is something that can go to the edge of our airspace, from a sovereignty point of view, and be able to catch up with intruders.”

The plan to build an updated Arrow in Canada instead of buying into an international deal for a fleet of F-35s was originally put before the Harper Conservatives in 2010 by a company called Bourdeau Industries, which has offices in the U.K. and Canada.

The proposal, which was updated in 2012, suggested the plane could fly 20,000 feet higher than the F-35, soar twice as fast and would cost less.

For example, the proposal said that the total cost of the Arrow program would be $11.73 billion, compared to the $16-billion the federal government says the F-35 program will cost.

That figure has been disputed by the auditor general and parliamentary budget officer, who peg the true cost of the new stealth fighters at closer to $25-billion.


FilesThe first man to fly an Arrow: Polish-born Jan Zurakowski was at the controls on the Arrow's maiden flight on March 25, 1958. He told reporters he didn't try to take the plane up to its maximum speed, estimated at 1,200 miles an hour.
The Arrow project would also create a made-in-Canada plane and an industry that would add thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the Canadian economy, the proposal’s author wrote.

“The government of Canada is in a position to project foreign policy initiatives within the global community while simultaneously leading Canada’s socio-economic capabilities to rise to real security, defence and industrial policy challenges at home and abroad,” the proposal said.

But in June, the government rejected the plan, saying too much money and time was required to execute it and the plane didn’t meet the technical specifications required.

“Unfortunately, what is propose is not a viable option for Canada’s next generation fighter,” said a letter from Julian Fantino, who was then Canada’s associate minister for national defence.

Meanwhile, the plans for the F-35s remain on hold.

Last spring the auditor general tore a strip off the government, accusing the Department of National Defence of hiding $10 billion in continuing costs for the fighter and the Public Works department of not doing enough homework to justify the purchase.

Conservatives responded with a seven-point action plan that took responsibility for the plane away from defence, giving it to a secretariat at Public Works.

Last week the government announced it has hired the accounting firm KPMG to crunch the numbers on the program.

Avro Arrow redesign pitched as alternative to F-35 fighter jets | Canada | News | National Post



Personally, I can't see this in any way being viable, but it may be of interest.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Sep 10, 2012)

Funky!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2012)

This is a folly. The Arrow in its day had the potential to be a world class interceptor, but it wasn't a cure all and it was being developed at a time where technology was catching up to it. North American was developing the F-108 which, at least on paper, had superior performance to the Arrow and that was cancelled as well. The Arrow was designed as an interceptor and I question any other role it might have been placed in, especially in a medium and close range air-to-air scenario. To resurrect a 50 year old design in its original format is someone's fantasy although I would love to see Canada at least attempt to address the possibility of developing its own indigenous combat aircraft.


----------



## Catch22 (Sep 10, 2012)

Those are my thoughts exactly Joe. I can't see that design functioning in a fighter to fighter role properly. I WOULD love for us to start up some indigenous work but I can't ever see it happening sadly, at least not in a front line combat aircraft role.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 10, 2012)

"... This is a folly."

Exactly. 

Proud Canadian


----------



## Crimea_River (Sep 10, 2012)

When I heard the news on CBC this morning, I thought about checking the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 10, 2012)

Had it been built, the Arrow, like it's stable-mate the CF-100, would have been a rugged, powerful, physically robust all-weather interceptor. When equipped with it's Orenda Iroquois engines it would have been on benchmark for speed and rate-of-climb.

But it's mission was very, very narrowly defined. Nuclear tipped anti-bomber missiles, carried internally in a long bomb-bay. The bomb bay would have prolonged the Arrow's working life, long after the anti-bomber missile swarm strategy had been abandoned for SAM's and Nike's.

But the Arrow (as envisioned) wasn't particularly long-legged and Canada had no in-flight refueling capability at that time.

The Arrow was no dog-fighter -- if it had lasted till Gulf War 1, (haha) it would have been a great stand-off missile carrier.

But a lot of great aviation engineering has transpired since the Arrow first flew --- and that has produced much more complicated and capable avionics. 

No computer was needed to fly the Arrow -- maybe that's why Canadians love her so. 

*Great video* - the voice is of test pilot and Polish-Canadian hero, Jan Jurokowski. [Jump in :30" to skip the 'preamble' ]


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8lTGTPQlDE_

MM

I remember seeing this B-47 test-bed for the Iroquois engine parked by the road at Malton where the Avro plant was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't see why you would to do this. The design is limited and past its prime.

I guess they just can't get over the fact that it was a "should have, could have, would have, didn't..." aircraft.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 10, 2012)

I suggest to you that - knowing the political impact of military procurement in_ any _democracy; and, knowing the political impact of aircraft production in [jobs] Quebec, Canada; under a Liberal Government, *if the Arrow had been built in Montreal, Quebec*, and not Anglo Saxon Toronto, the government of the day [albeit Conservative] would not have dared cancel the Arrow program.

But - Quebec aerospace [Canadair] was building _other people's airplanes_ [T-33's, F-86 Sabre, CF-104, CF-5's] under licence. There was no lasting _political_ penalty in the cancelation.

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 10, 2012)

I was a customer rep for Lockheed at Canadair 1983-86. There was a CF-104 program manager there long after the last 104s were retired! There was even a barber shop there!


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 10, 2012)

retards...the military guy they mention is pongoe the closest he ever got to a dighter was in the ramp as he walked towards a 130 or maybe in his case a Yukon or Comet


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 10, 2012)

It was the comment about the Arrow's "stealth" that had me chortling into my pecan praline ice cream (yes, that's really what I was doing when I first read this thread!)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 11, 2012)

This from today's national Post:


----------



## Catch22 (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks for posting Michael.

I don't know what the best way to fix mid to close range air-to-air would be. Adding canards? Might not even be remotely possible, I'm no expert on that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2012)

A delta wing looses airspeed rapidly when it starts turning. I see a complete airframe re-design here. The Arrow's whole platform was based on speed, nothing else. I think to address the short range scenario, it was planned to arm the Arrow with Velvet Glove missiles.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 11, 2012)

Ultimate Lawn Dart ...... 

MM


----------



## johnbr (Sep 11, 2012)

Harper government officially grounds Avro Arrow relaunch proposal






Josh Visser | Sep 11, 2012 1:31 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 11, 2012 2:05 PM ET
More from Josh Visser | @joshvisser
.


.















. 

The Harper government has publicly rejected a proposal backed by a high-profile former soldier to revive the legendary Avro Arrow interceptor program to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

An update to the Arrow, which was scrapped by former prime minister John Diefenbaker in 1959, was quietly proposed to Ottawa as a made in Canada alternative to the controversial F-35. Among its champions was retired Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.

The Arrow program still generates great interest from the Canadian public, and the Harper government issued a response that addressed its continued popularity.

“While we appreciate the sentimental value of the Avro Arrow, which was cancelled 53 years ago, analysts looked at the proposal and determined that this is not a realistic option,” Associate Minister of National Defence Bernard Valcourt said in a statement to the National Post.

“The proposal to develop, test and manufacture what would effectively be a brand new aircraft is risky, and would take too long and cost too much to meet Canada’s needs.

“Our Government will not proceed with a purchase until our seven point plan is completed, including an independent verification of costs.”


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 13, 2012)

Stealth? You wouldn't need radar to see the Arrow coming over the horizon.

Geo


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 14, 2012)

It's dead already. Lordy please give up with the fantasies regarding this historical flop. The plane has moved from "legendary" to "mythical".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> It's dead already. Lordy please give up with the fantasies regarding this historical flop. The plane has moved from "legendary" to "mythical".



It is only legendary in the eyes of the few people that think it would have been the greatest thing since sliced bread and butter.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 14, 2012)

Yeah I get the continued interest. Just as I get the interest in the XB-70. Way cool, but...

To think resurrecting the XB-70 technology nowadays as being leading edge, economical, maintainable and mission efficient? Phhht. It was an amalgamation of high technology that was obsolete when it was built. Perhaps not the same situation with the Arrow for the time, but certainly a very close analogy.


----------



## R Pope (Sep 16, 2012)

I think he was just pricking some overinflated stuffed shirts with his suggestion, and of course the sensation-seeking press jumped on it. No military leader, however much out of touch with current technology, would ever seriously advocate re-introducing a weapon from over half a century ago into the modern battlefield.
However good it was in 1959, and it looked like a world-beater, it's dead and buried.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 16, 2012)

My favorite urban legend about the Lawn Dart is how "the Americans" didn't want it to reach production ..... hahahah.

Check this out for fun .... it was happening at the same AVRO Canada factory in Toronto -- on Uncle Sam's dime ...

A.V. Roe (AVRO) Ltd. Flying Saucer designed in Toronto, Canada


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 17, 2012)

Yeah and we all know that turned out to be a world beater!


----------

