Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Again I'll state - the Arrow was a awesome aircraft in its day but in reality the program bit off more than what it can chew. Behind schedule and way over budget, the Diefenbaker's government was going to can it way before it was officially announced. Even in its planned format, it "would of" been able to perform one real function - shoot down Soviet bombers. Put it in a maneuvering conflict with even an F-4 and it "would of" been dead meat - the same holds true for the TSR2 - two extremely fast interceptors but by the late 70s, early 80s obsolete - and for the money that would of been pumped into both programs it would not of been worth its operational duration and ultimate obsolescence.
But with all that said, it did hurt the UK's and Canada's aerospace industry immensely when both programs were cancelled...
You are correct and I stand correctedI thought the TSR-2 was originally developed as a low-level tactical nuclear strike bomber? I didn't know they (the UK) had ever planned on developing it as an interceptor; that's what the Lightning was for.
Not at all - the Arrow had the visibility of a brick wall and needed miles to do a 180..
Maneuverability against an F-4?
Stupid statement.
The Arrow was a speculative conglomerations of "What ifs." It was never given the chance to mature in scenarios as I presented, but having flown in F-4s and reading about the Arrow, "would of and could of," even in the "Rhino Brick" its turn radius with the Arrow was comparing a bus to a sports car. The Arrow "would of" made a great interceptor if all the bugs "would of" been worked out of it and all the systems performed as advertised....
We never had an Arrow vs. Phantom duel.
Plus, like the Arrow, the Phantom was not originally fitted with a gun.
So want to discuss missile vs. missile ?
Or do you wish to discuss what could have been retrofitted?
Is the Arrow outdated?
Probably.
Was it capable of "holding its own" nowadays?
I believe so.
Is there better today?
A few.
Would of, could of should of - the first prototypes were over budget and some of the systems weren't functioning properly in the early stages - "Would of" the bugs been worked out? Maybe.....
As far as "one real function".
Wrong.
That is what the "interchangable weapons pack" was for.
And the sad thing was, I resurrected this thread just to show a bit of computer generated flight models and asked if a guy wanted to try it.
Regards,
NITE
Canada could of been #2 or better. Canadair? A bastion of government subsidies and continual bailouts, all the rest of the companies mentioned were/ are top notch....The Arrow was a pretty advanced airplane but we just didn't have the where withal to carry it out . i disagree that it ruined our industry we just changed focus . The DHC aircraft being an example and Canadair , Bombardier , CAE , Spar PWC and Bristol let us play with the big boys in aerospace as we are 4th or 5th worlds largest aviation nation.
It's not meant to. The facts are the facts, the Arrow wasn't built and the technology of the day would of quickly overtaken it - hard to swallow if you let nationalist pride get in the way....Well Sir, I've flown in a Panavia Tornado.
Your statement of flying an outdated phantom does not impress me.
Good - I hate it when sh!t splatters!I shall not be back, and no, I wont let the door hit me on the way out.
I know - I was there when Bombardier bought Canadair. They immediately fired all the former Trudeau cronies who had jobs for doing nothing. When I was at Canadair they had a VP of F-104 programs - years after the aircraft was retired from the CAF!!!! They also got rid of the government subsidized lunches and the barber.Canadair now belongs to Bombardier