The Arrow making a comeback?

[Chogy]

I'm liking that F-15SE. Stealth, by definition, requires internal weapons' carriage. And that means greatly reduced drag. Stealth airframes are going to accelerate like a mother, and bleed less energy in maneuvering. During 1 V 1 BFM, even a single centerline fuel tank on one jet makes a huge difference vs. a slick aircraft. Technically they are "drop" tanks, but they don't get dropped much; they are too expensive. During GW1, I believe a few were dropped, but more often they were retained.

This is just one of many reasons the F-22 is a such a beast. Not only is it extremely clean aerodynamically, it also has huge engines, advanced nozzles, and highly refined flight controls.

[GGTharos]

Stealth... yeah... by the time the F-35 really comes into service, I'm willing to bet it's stealth will be near obsolete...

Good thing you're not betting actual money, because the peeps in the know are betting quite heavily against you ... in several countries no less.

And the french are ofering tech transfer and local support to everyone. Why would they deny this to Canada, specially since it would mean snatching a new client?

I doubt they'd be able to match the F-35 programme one way or another. The F-35 is generally a superior aircraft in many aspects, and the supply lines for Canada are rather close by for that aircraft. There's no point in buying second best when we won't be doing replacements for decades; hopefuly the price at which the aircraft is purchased includes yearly updates.

[bfng3569]

Where to begin? It might be different if 500 Arrows were placed into long-term storage, ready to re-engine and upgrade, but they are talking about producing a jet that has seen only testing, and from what I've read, that testing stopped at a very early point.

The jet is a typical 1950's interceptor, designed to fly very high, very fast, and shoot missiles at other aircraft, particularly Tupolevs and Myasishchevs. There is nothing wrong with the basic design. In fact, it would probably have compared brilliantly to the F-101, 102, 106. But not much else. Anything from the F-4 onward would provide a superior platform for not only interceptor duties, but for attack, CAS, and air superiority.

This statement:


is patently ridiculous and borderline criminal, and casts doubt on anything else the man would say.

This "effort" makes me thing of groups of fans who want to see the SR-71 fly again, carrying missiles and being the king-kong of the skies. There's nothing wrong with that, but emotion gets in the way of logic, and while the SR-71 has some amazing capabilities, they are very one-dimensional - go high, go fast, not much else there.

If Canada wants a native fighter (and I think that'd be great), it'd best start from scratch with modern subsystems and materials. If they want a high-performance multi-role fighter for cheap, regardless of the source, there are hundreds of F-15's in the Davis-Monthan bone yard that would stomp the Arrow into the dirt.

All of that said, I am genuinely saddened at the decline of GB and Canadian aerospace capabilities. Apparently, like so much else in big business, it became almost impossible to compete against giants like Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, General Dynamics, and others; and there is a stiff dose of NATO politics in there as well.

i thoght there was something in the movie based on the Company (Avro, Dan Akyroid (sp))? or maybe something that i had read in reguards to Avro having very little security and that informaton about alot of the hi tech and cutting edge technology that Avro was developing at the time for the Arrow being stolen by the soviets? I thought i also read somewhere that the basic design of the engines showed up in a soviet design not long after the company/program was closed?

[jlvfr]

aka, stealth, even when "Obsolete" will still provide an unmatched advantage against those without simply by the way Stealth work.

Tell that to the F-117...

[FJV]

Stealth, by definition, requires internal weapons' carriage.

Theoretically stealth does not require any weapons carriage, because a stealth platform does not have to be the one firing the weapons.

Why compromise the position of a stealth platform, when you can just as easily designate a target for an UAV to fire on?

The stealth platform remains undetected without giving a hint of it's whereabouts and the enemy retaliation can only target the UAV.

Assuming stealth works as advertised of course.:pari:

[Chunder]

I see Koppian fantasies are not the sole purview of Australian nutjobs.....

[Chunder]

I'm liking that F-15SE. Stealth, by definition, requires internal weapons' carriage.

There is some merit to podding weapons on weapon stations... it's just that the way the platforms are likely to be used means it doesn't appear necessary as yet.

Back when the F-22 was developed, ATG was almost an afterthought, Area of probability was (larger) and miniaturisation of systems although well established hadn't reached a stage where concepts were available to be built into ideas. Small Diameter bombs, for instance are a really good demonstrator of the strike potential of just (1, very expensive) platform tripling if not quadrupling all internally. Point being that what the pleb interprets as what he is seeing is only based on what he knows.

[Chogy]

Assuming stealth works as advertised of course.:pari:

Your joking, right? The trillions spent on the technology is simply a smokescreen, a giant subterfuge? ;)

[Chunder]

No he's not, it's obvious that you'd throw away trillions of dollars on a concept you couldn't prove. Besides, the Russians are coming and as we well know, everything the Russians do is better.

Courtesy of our well informed professionals at ..... jeez I forgot their name and I was just there!

Oh- that's right, Air Power Australia.


(image credits go to Air Power Australia)


Clearly the F-35 is obviously inferior!

[Jimmy]

What are they going up against anyways? Smugglers and terrorists using civilian aircraft?

Russia still routinely toys with NORAD. Canada takes a share of the intercepts.

Tell that to the F-117...

Is that a snarky reference to the one shootdown in almost 3 decades of active service? The one where it flew the same profile, day after day at exactly the same time, almost directly over the top of the SAM operators?

The F-117 was a ROUSING success in every possible way.

[Doktor]

No he's not, it's obvious that you'd throw away trillions of dollars on a concept you couldn't prove. Besides, the Russians are coming and as we well know, everything the Russians do is better.

Wanna try Russian food, or drive Lada for a week?

[jlvfr]

Is that a snarky reference to the one shootdown in almost 3 decades of active service? The one where it flew the same profile, day after day at exactly the same time, almost directly over the top of the SAM operators?

The F-117 was a ROUSING success in every possible way.

I know it was a success... but then it was replaced by other aircraft with better stealth. So, just being "stealth" isn't enough. It has to be improved. And my point is: is the extra expense of it worth it for Canada? Specially considering how long it will be before it is operacional?

[Doktor]

Why the Canadians are even bothering to spend their own money, when they can do it like the Europeans, waiting the Americans to close the gaps?

:red:

[jlvfr]

Why the Canadians are even bothering to spend their own money, when they can do it like the Europeans, waiting the Americans to close the gaps?

:red:

[Doktor]

It was a rant, but not far from the reality.

All the European countries shrank military budgets (before the crisis), because they felt no imminent threat, and because the big brother will come to rescue (again) if needed.