Where could European aviation be today had political agendas not prevented such an aviation industry arising in the 60's

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay - so 30? F-35's presently active with European forces would be able to do a job with credibility - great, then we can chuck away the remaining 2500 combat aircraft's
and safe loads of money. But aside from that, I do not consider a Saab37 last produced in 1989/90 and upgraded in 2000 to be a 3rd generation aircraft, but a 4th generation equivalent, if a Eurofighter or Rafael is considered to be a 4/5 generation aircraft.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Yeah, I was talking about the capability of the airframes, not the numbers produced. It'd be nice if you didn't stick words in my mouth either; that's a common courtesy I expect and if you won't honor that then I don't see the point of entertaining your points any more either. (To wit, I never wrote that the F-35 would be an entire fleet-replacement). Thanks in advance quitting this strawman stuff.

If you could actually address the point being made, that would be great. What can the Saab do as well as the F-35?

 

[GrauGeist]

It's basically boiling down to this:

SAAB - European = good
F-35 - American = bad

 

[WARSPITER]

It's basically boiling down to this:

SAAB - European = good
F-35 - American = bad

Cool. I was hoping someone would clear that up for the rest of us.

 

[SaparotRob]

So we're back to applying balkenkreuz to improve F-35 performance? That could be why the LW is getting them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't think that at the time anyone from Europe (besides maybe the UK) would have entered an enterprise with a Canadian aviation company.

The Arrow is nearly as much British as it is Canadian. For starters, both Avro Canada and Orenda Engines were wholly owned subsidiaries of Britain's Hawker Siddeley. The Arrow's chief designer was Manchester's James Floyd, who worked under designers Roy Chadwick and Sydney Camm at Hawker Siddeley before moving to Canada in 1946. Britain certainly considered the Arrow.

Arrow aside, two things I'd like to see is something supersonic from Hawker, like the P.1121 and a British designed radar-equipped, two-seat, supersonic fighter for the FAA.

 

[Jagdflieger]

The Arrow is nearly as much British as it is Canadian. For starters, both Avro Canada and Orenda Engines were wholly owned subsidiaries of Britain's Hawker Siddeley. Britain certainly considered the Arrow.

Arrow aside, two things I'd like to see is something supersonic from Hawker, like the P.1121 and a British designed radar-equipped, two-seat, supersonic fighter for the FAA.

There are quite a few promising developments from the 50's and the P.1121 is certainly one of them.

Actually a British acquaintance of mine had worked on the P.1121 project and I was totally amazed when he told me about it in my youth.

I placed this thread into the timeline of the very early 60's due to the imminent purchase of the F-104 by NATO members. There was a factual great demand for such an aircraft and
not much time (maximum 1-2 years) to acquire or respectively develop a European alternative to the F-104.
Therefore the only 2 aircraft's I can identify to suit such a basic requirement were to my knowledge only the TSR.2 and the Saab 37.

If a European aerospace consortium would have been shaped around those two aircraft's in 1960 - I find it very feasible that the following generation aircraft would have considerably
profited from previous British design and development studies and also those by the French.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think the P.1121 would have been good for Canada as well in both the NORAD and ETO roles. Even better for NORAD would have been whatever long range radar equipped interceptor is developed for the FAA.

 

[special ed]

As I pointed out waaaay up thread, the Avro Arrow was a lost opportunity. From readings long ago, the US was instrumental in the cancellation because of USSR agents in the program to learn about using titanium forging. Many years after, when declassification of A-12/SR-71 construction using massive titanium forgings was known, the link became a possible reason.

 

[Jagdflieger]

As I pointed out waaaay up thread, the Avro Arrow was a lost opportunity. From readings long ago, the US was instrumental in the cancellation because of USSR agents in the program to learn about using titanium forging. Many years after, when declassification of A-12/SR-71 construction using massive titanium forgings was known, the link became a possible reason.

This might have played a part in it, but from the little I know the main reason to abandon all kind of promising aircraft developments at the time were the believes of Britain and it's associated countries, that the future belongs to AA missiles - especially towards the favored Bloodhound implementation.

BTW are there any feasible accounts in regards to the Bloodhounds performance?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As I pointed out waaaay up thread, the Avro Arrow was a lost opportunity. From readings long ago, the US was instrumental in the cancellation because of USSR agents in the program to learn about using titanium forging. Many years after, when declassification of A-12/SR-71 construction using massive titanium forgings was known, the link became a possible reason.

I read this as well and IMO there were never any hard fact backing this up (if anyone can find the de-classified documents, please post). In the book "Skunk Works," Ben Rich goes into great detail how titanium was acquired by Lockheed and nothing is mentioned about the Arrow,

According to a Wiki reference, "Story, Donald C. and Russel Isinger. "The origins of the cancellation of Canada's Avro CF-105 arrow fighter program: A failure of strategy," Arrow development was questioned as far back as 1953. "The chiefs of staff of the army and navy were both strongly opposed to the Arrow, since "substantial funds were being diverted to the air force," from the same reference.

From Wiki -

"11 August 1958,George Pearkes (Minister of National Defense) requested cancellation of the Arrow, but the Cabinet Defence Committee (CDC) refused. Pearkes tabled it again in September and recommended installation of the Bomarc missile system. The latter was accepted, but again the CDC refused to cancel the entire Arrow program. The CDC wanted to wait until a major review on 31 March 1959. They cancelled the Sparrow/Astra system in September 1958. Efforts to continue the program through cost-sharing with other countries were then explored. In 1959, Pearkes would say the ballistic missile was the greater threat, and Canada purchased Bomarc "in lieu of more airplanes".

The Arrow was a great aircraft in it's day but many forget it was designed as an interceptor and tend to make more of the aircraft than what it really was. North American was developing the F-108 which showed even greater promise than the Arrow, but that program too was cancelled.

 

[special ed]

Regarding the future tactical use of the Arrow, all interceptors eventually carry bombs. The p-40, P-38, P-39, F-104, F-102 and as the Arrow would have aged, it also would have grown bomb racks.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Regarding the future tactical use of the Arrow, all interceptors eventually carry bombs. The p-40, P-38, P-39, F-104, F-102 and as the Arrow would have aged, it also would have grown bomb racks.

That's pure speculation! Had the Arrow been built no telling what the RCAF would have done with it, especially as it approached obsolescence. No attempt was made to put bombs on their CF-101s and that aircraft more or less took up what the Arrow was planned for.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Regarding the future tactical use of the Arrow, all interceptors eventually carry bombs. The p-40, P-38, P-39, F-104, F-102 and as the Arrow would have aged, it also would have grown bomb racks.

Hawker Siddeley and its Avro Canada subsidiary should have made a F-4 Phantom II competitor. That would have been ideal for both the NORAD and ETO tactical use the RCAF needed. And Britain could have built it (at Hawker UK) instead of buying the Phantom for both the FAA and RAF.

Avro Canada made the plane the government asked for, but not the plane the market and changing environment wanted. Otherwise Canada would have bought a dedicated interceptor like the F-102 and F-106 instead of the F-101 fighter-bomber/recon aircraft. McDonnell read those tea leaves properly and saw that multirole (initially for the USN) was what the 1960s and beyond needed, and made the Phantom to suit. With 5,195 Phantoms made and having served with a dozen countries, they had it right.

Build a multirole supersonic, radar-equipped fighter in cooperation between Britain and Canada (and Australia too) and you have a competitor to the Phantom. A merger of Hawker-Siddeley's Arrow and P.1121 seems a good place to start.

 

[Shortround6]

In some cases the "multi-role" was only made possible by changes in electronics that were only a gleam in some designers eye when the airframe structure was pretty much completed.

The F-104 became a nuclear strike aircraft only after they came up with an inertial navigation system.

LN-3 inertial navigation system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Found some figures for electronic component density from a book by Bill Gunston. take them as you will

Fighter radar.........................number of electronic components per cubic ft.
AI IV.............................................198
SCR-720......................................600?
AI-IX.............................................3300
Hughes E-1............................60,000
MG-10.....................................330,000
MA-1.................................nearly 1 million
AWG-9...................................3 million
APQ-63..................................7 million.

Book was published in 1976.
It is part of the rapidly increasing capability in electronics in the same size (and power consumption?) that has allowed many older airframes to remain in service or be adapted to new roles.

edit google says that an I-phone 12 has 11.8 billion transistors.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Hawker Siddeley and its Avro Canada subsidiary should have made a F-4 Phantom II competitor. That would have been ideal for both the NORAD and ETO tactical use the RCAF needed. And Britain could have built it (at Hawker UK) instead of buying the Phantom for both the FAA and RAF.

Avro Canada made the plane the government asked for, but not the plane the market and changing environment wanted. Otherwise Canada would have bought a dedicated interceptor like the F-102 and F-106 instead of the F-101 fighter-bomber/recon aircraft. McDonnell read those tea leaves properly and saw that multirole (initially for the USN) was what the 1960s and beyond needed, and made the Phantom to suit. With 5,195 Phantoms made and having served with a dozen countries, they had it right.

Build a multirole supersonic, radar-equipped fighter in cooperation between Britain and Canada (and Australia too) and you have a competitor to the Phantom. A merger of Hawker-Siddeley's Arrow and P.1121 seems a good place to start.

Basically I agree to your idea - BUT, that would only solve a momentary purchase issue for those three countries you mentioned.
E.g. a F-4 alternative in 1965 would have had no impact onto the rest of the worlds purchasers since they already committed themselves to F-104's or Mig 21's. in 1960-62. or other
indigenous developments.
The actual big buying time for the F-4 only got underway in the 70's.
IMO if there would be no European (incl.Canada) aerospace industry by 1960-62 - the vast majority of NATO and other countries would just as they have, opted for US made F-4's or Russian aircraft's instead of a Britain/Can/Aus aircraft.

If e.g. a BAC Lightning (I think Britains version of the F-104) would have been a great aircraft then why did Canada never buy them or Australia opt for the Mirage III.?

 

[Admiral Beez]

If e.g. a BAC Lightning would have been a great aircraft then why did Canada never buy them?

This might be why…it's a big country.

I doubt one could fly the notoriously short ranged Lightning from Cold Lake to the DEW line and back.

 

[Admiral Beez]

No attempt was made to put bombs on their CF-101s and that aircraft more or less took up what the Arrow was planned for.

The CF-101 was a fighter-bomber. No attempt is necessary, but the role was NORAD. I do like the CF-100 with bombs. Send these to Korea.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The CF-101 was a fighter-bomber. No attempt is necessary, but the role was NORAD. I do like the CF-100 with bombs. Send these to Korea.

View attachment 666191

CF-101? The Canuck was the CF-100. This is the CF-101 I'm talking about!

 

[Admiral Beez]

CF-101? The Canuck was the CF-100. This is the CF-101 I'm talking about!

View attachment 666197

I know, the F-101 was a fighter bomber by design. I threw in the Canuck as one of my faves.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I know, the F-101 was a fighter bomber by design. I threw in the Canuck as one of my faves.

OK got ya but the CF-101 was never used in that role. The CF-101 never carried any air to ground weapons AFAIK - if I'm wrong, please enlighten me!