6 ms·
Sixty Years On, We Still Dream of the Arrow (2021)
- UncleSlacky 2y agoSee also the TSR-2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2
- cf100clunk 2y agoAvro Canada pitched the Arrow to the British as either a frontline RAF interceptor or as a placeholder for the TSR-2 until it could be brought into service.
- NikkiA 2y agoArrow was a high altitude intercepter, TSR was a low level nuclear interdictor. I can't see any way that there was ANY mission cross over.
- cf100clunk 2y agoAvro was pitching the Arrow to the UK in a bit of desperation, I think, but the interest from the RAF was said to be quite high, especially given the familial linkage of Avro Canada to the original Avro. WWII was only still recent, and Avro Canada had joined in Lancaster bomber production back then, so there were optimistic visions of British sales. You mentioned the TSR-2's role as a low-level nuclear interdictor - this same role was taken up by RCAF CF-104 Starfighters(!) stationed in Germany carrying U.S. made free fall nuclear bombs on planned routes into Poland and further.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoHrm. The german F-104G were planned for the same 'drop that thing high, and get the hell away from there!' Meaning when reaching the target, leaving low-level flight, and letting the eggs fall while curving up, so the eggs 'fly' for a while in a parabolic arc, longer than actual free fall. So plane and pilot would have (more) time to escape the blast. Was described in much detail in the 'Reibert' for the Luftwaffe from the 80ies. ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Reibert https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Reibert )
- NikkiA 2y agoThe TSR-2 was doomed by progress, by the time it made it to prototype stage britains nuclear bombs had shrunk to the point that they didn't need, nor benefitted from, a giant interdictor. In the end the tiny jaguar could carry 4 WE177s just fine.
- rubayeet 2y agoCanadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) produced a 4 episode TV mini series dramatizing the birth and death of the Avro Arrow plane (can be found on YouTube) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrow_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrow_(miniseries)
- cyberpunk2066 2y ago[flagged]
- cyberpunk2066 2y ago[flagged]
- kleiba 2y agoOT: I hate that I cannot scroll the pictures on the left the way I want to.
- the_af 2y agoWhy were all prototypes and blueprints destroyed so thoroughly? Why not keep one for a museum? And why the blueprints? I'm sure there are security reasons, but it still seems so wasteful.
- cmrdporcupine 2y agoI'm sure the answer is probably fairly mundane, but it's birthed a whole lineage of nationalist semi-conspirational explanations (US colonial masters chewed Diefenbaker out, demanded the total cessation and destruction of the project, etc.) I suspect it makes absolutely zero sense for Canada of the 50s to be designing and building its own fighter-bomber jets, but the mythos is strong. And the vibe of the whole thing is very topical, of course, with the US basically demanding we spend more money subsidizing their defense industry by buying their overpriced armaments from them while at the same time key people in the administration openly musing about the elimination of our sovereignty. The US: having it both ways ("be our subservient raw resource provider and nothing else" and "oh, but it costs so much to defend you") since forever.
- preommr 2y ago> And the vibe of the whole thing is very topical, of course, with the US basically demanding we spend more money subsidizing their defense industry by buying their overpriced armaments from them while at the same time key people in the administration openly musing about the elimination of our sovereignty. Surprised this doesn't get mentioned more. If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex. It's easy for America to complain about other countries not spending as much when it's the one that owns the market we all shop at.
- multiplegeorges 2y ago> If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex. We're about to find out if we want to. This is a major point in Carney's defence plan.
- init7 2y agoFoxbat/MiG 25 was another classic aircraft - For pure speed, they notched 1,852 mph. They could climb to 98,425 feet in four minutes and 3.86 seconds and ultimately reached an absolute altitude record of 123,520 feet. https://www.historynet.com/mig-25/ https://www.historynet.com/mig-25/
- ge96 2y agonow that's a 0-60 time damn edit: it's cheating but the Starfighter with a JATO had an insane climb rate too
- willvarfar 2y agoIf you could choose, pick a Lightning instead :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Climb_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning#Cli...
- cf100clunk 2y agoBack to the OP topic, the Arrow's thrust to weight ratio meant that it was theoretically the first aircraft capable of accelerating directly upwards in an arc immediately after reaching the end of the runway. Hot stuff.
- NikkiA 2y agoIf you really want to cheat with the starfighter, you need to be using the ZEL version of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoThat top speed would need a complete overhaul, if not replacement of the turbines afterwards. The somehow derivative (only by the looks, innards not so much) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31 can do that on a more regular basis. (Allegedly)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- evnp 2y agoGreat read, fascinating piece of Canadian history. For anyone on mobile (android/chrome at least) select "Desktop Site" under browser settings to see five historical images. They don't show up for me at all in the default mobile view.
- yabones 2y agoThe reality is that as great of an interceptor as it was (and possibly the best dedicated interceptor jet ever made), by the time it was ready it was already obsolete. With the introduction of ICBMs, there was simply no need to have jets purpose built for shooting down TU-95's over the Arctic when the new threat was impossible to shoot down.
- cf100clunk 2y agoAnd yet the reality is that within a very short time after cancelling the Arrow the need for an interceptor was not, as you say, obsolete. That requirement meant that the Canadian government bought ex-USAF CF101-B Voodoo jets to replace the truly obsolescent CF-100 that the Arrow was meant to do. The development of interceptor aircraft similar to the Arrow continued on in various countries for decades.
- speedbird 2y agoSame old story of US military-industrial complex flexing its muscles to crush competition.
- lupusreal 2y agoCanada bought over a hundred Voodoo interceptors from America and kept them in service until the 80s. Missiles making interceptors obsolete is very simplistic, not in line with reality. Even today, intercepting Tu-95s, now armed with long range cruise missiles, is relevant to NATOs defense. Canada's not least of all considering Russia's ambition to own the Artic Ocean.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lupusreal 2y agoDiefenbaker canceled the arrow saying that interceptors were no longer needed (Canada subsequently bought interceptors from America, because they did in fact remain relevant.). At the same time he was digging out a massive bunker outside of Ottawa so that the Canadian government could survive the rest of Canada being vaporized. Some real Doctor Strangelove shit IMHO. The so called "Deifenbunker" is now a museum open to the public. Pretty interesting, being in it feels like being in a ship.
- RegnisGnaw 2y agoWe bought fighter jets with secondary role of interceptor. The Arrow was a dedicated interceptor which was pointless.
- cf100clunk 2y agoThe RCAF used its CF-101B Voodoo jets only in NORAD interceptor roles and never in fighter scenarios, at which they were unsuitable.
- speed_spread 2y agoPointless? It made perfect sense back when the main vector of nuclear delivery was heavy long range bombers.
- mrguyorama 2y agoThe R7 ICBM was operationally deployed to northern Russia on February 9th, 1959. The Arrow was canceled on February 20th, 1959. The Arrow was pointless before it finished development. Canada correctly figured out that further investment into dedicated super-interceptors was a bad choice. They DID buy US interceptors to replace their old ones because 1) You usually hedge your bets when you can in defense spending and 2) Governments were not excited to say "We stopped building these planes because we literally cannot protect you from nuclear weapons now" The US spent decades continuing down interceptor development and saw exactly zero payoff for it. We retired the Delta Dart in 1986 after never using the garbage machine, which likely wouldn't even have been good at it's job. Consider that the primary armament of the interceptor Canada bought to replace the Arrow was a fucking unguided nuclear rocket. Because that was literally the only interception weapon that provided even a snowballs chance in hell of being effective. The Detla Dart was built to sit in a shed in the plains of Canada, waiting for a truly terrible day. When SAGE radars saw the wave of bombers, an alarm would sound and the pilot would jump in the plane and turn it on. The plane, automated entirely by SAGE, would rocket up to intercept altitude and be guided to the intercept. Closing rates were in excess of Mach 4. You only had a single pass at the target and if you didn't get them, you would not be able to catch up and eliminate the threat. Missing meant nukes dropping on US cities. Because of this terrible engagement profile, the entire weapons system was automated. You had a screen between your lap that you interacted with like a Vectrex video game to line up with a circle. The actual weapon firing was automated because that's how tight the tolerances were. Early models even had stupid dumbfire WW2 style rockets. One of the first times this interception process and fire control was tested, they blew up the plane towing the target drone. That's just how poor ground based interception was. We are talking like 50% interception rates on a good day. The Arrow would have been similarly worthless. The only thing these programs succeeded at was stressing out pilots.
- MarkusWandel 2y agoAn equally sad, but much less mentioned story is the Avro Jetliner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner The sole surviving XB70, another super cool plane that was obsolete by the time it was ready, is a valued museum piece. These planes should have been.
- rkagerer 2y agoThey also built a flying saucer: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar I recall hearing how the US Air Force was investigating reports of UFO's, and was surprised to find a 'real' one closer to home. Highly unstable more than a few feet off the ground, it never proved viable. Unfortunately nobody at the time realized they might have been onto something if they'd pivoted to inventing the hovercraft.
- MarkusWandel 2y agoBut that was an experimental toy, whereas the Jetliner was fully debugged and production ready and had an eager market.
- hermitcrab 2y ago"To protect our turf, and the Americans to the south, Canada decided to build a high-flying supersonic interceptor to meet and knock down invading Soviet bombers." Different times. Canadians are now possibly now more worried about the US than Russia.
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]
- AcerbicZero 2y agoEh....cancelling a not very good design in 1959, well before most countries realized ground controlled interceptors were kind of a bad idea might be the real story here. The US (and the Soviets to a hilarious degree) went down the other path for many more years, at high cost; the USAF (Fighter side) didn't truly recover from those choices until the late 70's - early 80's IMO. (Vietnam being the real tutor here) If you're interested in the subject, look up the performance of the beam riding missiles in use, and the limitations for deployment of the AIM-9B - those do a good job highlighting the extremely limited envelope in which these weapons could be deployed, and the difficulty in getting the aircraft in that envelope.
- sandworm101 2y agoNo mention of the spies. No mention of how the overall design of the arrow is eerrily similar to the later mig-25, a unique design in soviet aviation. There is a reason the foxbat and foxhound dont look like any other soviet aircraft, but do look very similar to the arrow and f-15. Arrow was cancelled because america saw what was happening. For those who dont see it: the arrow has a rectangular "box" body, so do the mig25/31 and f-15. Most multiengine fighters have cigar shapes (f18, f111) or "tunnels" such as the su-27/35/34/57, f-14 and even the sr-71. The box shape was new in the arrow but can arguably be seen today in the US 22 and 35. Article with a good pic showing the design consideration is still a thing today: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/102446/why-doesnt-su-57-blend-the-engine-nacelles-with-the-fuselage-like-other-5th-ge https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/102446/why-does...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tyler111 2y ago[flagged]