For the Canadian aviation industry, and for Avro Canada in particular, the traumatic story of the Avro Canada
CF-105 was paralleled by that of the contemporary British Aircraft Corporation TSR.2 in the UK. Both were destroyed by politicians who,.in 1957, were convinced that missile technology had advanced to a stage when manned interceptor aircraft would no longer be needed. The first stages of development of a new two-seat all-weather long-range interceptor for the RCAF began in early 1953, at the time when the RCAF was busy forming its first CF-100 squadron. This was not an action that represented dissatisfaction with the capability of the CF-100, but showed an appreciation of the fact that something like a decade was needed to get a new high-performance interceptor/weapons-system into squadron service. Avro's design team tackled the new and demanding task with great enthusiasm, with the result that by April 1954 the company was involved in the manufacture of the first five Arrow 1 prototypes. The name derived from the aircraft's delta wing, set high on the fuselage. This had a sharp needle-nose, widening just aft of the cockpit, where intakes on each side of the fuselage fed air to two turbojet engines mounted side by side within the fuselage. The Arrow 1s were powered by two Pratt & Whitney J75s, but it was intended that the following Arrow 2s would have engines of indigenous design and manufacture, in the form of PS-13 Iroquois turbojets, developed by Avro's Orenda engine division, each of which promised a thrust of 12700kg with maximum reheat.
The first of the Arrow 1 prototypes made its maiden flight on 25 March 1958, and all five of this version were being used for development and testing when the entire programme was cancelled on 20 February 1959. A final bitter edict was to ensure destruction of the five Arrow 1s, one unflown Arrow 2, and four almost complete Arrow 2s. Armament of this latter version was to have comprised eight Sparrow air-to-air missiles carried in an internal weapons bay.
Having published articles on government defense policy, I definitely encourage you to research & write on the nuclear air / ground warhead question. It was the salient issue, I believe, that caused Pearkes to resign as a Minister of Defense.
Feel free to quote my articles, which are on line. If you are published, Be sure to set your MS- mail settings to auto delete for selected URLs…With all deference to Barry Fortier, he did barrage me, & the Calgary Herald, with emails after my March 2008 editorial. Having read his on line debates, this inbound mail was auto deleted.Sorry, Barry- it wasn't personal.
Jack Lalonds's statement on the Arrow's proposed development into a nuclear strike bomber. is supported by Insinger's thesis. The Arrow program ended HALF A CENTURY ago. The sources are dimmed by the corridors of time- & there is no need to 'troll' anyone posting in here.
Weapons delivery systems in a democracy are constrained by budget to meet a specific foreseen threat. Hindsight is 20-20. I do advise anyone posting to , as a start, read both Insingers thesis,& Conant's "The Long Polar Watch". Then form your reply, & quote your sources.
thank you, Jack Lalonde. Perhaps Mr. 'Barry Fortier' has a supply of the 1963 federal election paper mache Arrowhead hats ,& he could mail one each to us,& Colin Olsen, as a peace offering?
The cancellation of the Arrow program was the castrastion of Canada by the Americans. We would still be making some variant of the Arrow and who knows what other types of aircraft. The next time you are passing through Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, stop by Diefenbaker's grave and relieve yourself---- you will feel a lot better.
Given that the Orenda engine produced more thrust "dry" than the P.W. in afterburner, does this mean that the Iroquois engined Arrow would have been capable of supercruise? This seems likely, or am I missing something?
Jacks very odd comments regarding the b-58 and Arrow, are almost as odd as the usual claims about the Arrow be too costly, short range etc. No relationship to the real world. The Hustler was a high speed bomber, would have had recon capability. The Arrow was a very long range interceptor, with amazing multi-role capability.
A great machine that the government, run by idiots as usual, destroyed for no good reason. Laughable claims about short range and extreme cost, made only by the guilty or those who cover for them, just don't stand up. No room for debate on it, but the guilty just WON'T knock it off.
Arrow was parallel developed with the B-58 Hustler which was nuclear capable and thereby the Arrow was not needed. The Hustler was "Operational" a year before the Arrow. I was at the rollout..
I was a young man, serving in the Canadian Army, when the news was announced the Government had cancelled the Arrow Program. Having followed as closely as possible the saga as it unfolded, I was extremely sad to see our Country abandon the dream of developing a World Class Interceptor. Today, I look at a Country like Sweden, with a military Aircraft Industry, and Canada without a Canadian designed fighter to its name, and I'm still sad for what Could Have Been.
If you didn't begin the exchange with an unsolicited email, and did not respond rudely and stupidly to my reply, then we can safely say that I never at any point in time emailed you, period. I wouldn't have bothered. You lose.
Going back through memories of the least intelligent comments ever made by ignorant people on the Arrow, I did receive some utter rubbish from someone, years ago, and cannot remember who it was. If it was you, the sequence was as follows:
I receive an unsolicited email from a ignorant soul, offering up unsubstantiated drivel re: the Arrow.
I reply that his comments were without merit, and no effort had been made or could be made to support them.
I receive a reply that my response was 'bizarre', which would be about your level of discourse, and reply that offering up noise without merit is NOT the best way to approach people.
The reply I receive is insulting, and reply with an insult.
End of it.
Was that name calling jackass you???
And I would suggest you not make attacks on peoples mental stability, as your own posts are incoherent enough to suggest serious drug problems on your part.
One wishes that ignorant and less than intelligent people would learn to keep their short-comings to themselves. You repeat the same ignorant and pathetic babblings, and seem amazed that you are not worshiped for it. Your comments on the Arrow and Voodoo are crap, to put it politely. Your efforts to pretend otherwise, are pathetic. I have sent you or no other pathetic party hack emails, in years, if ever. Why would I waste my time doing so, as you make it clear you lack the will or intellect to improve yourself.
Why would I waste my time emailing an individual who's level of knowledge and ability to think are as shabby as yours??
I love the way someone who panders to the memory of a long dead politician, tries to pretend that he actually has something bordering on fact to back him up. Referencing another dief die-hard (Insinger), hardly adds to your weak efforts.
Your laughable efforts to inflate the cost of the Arrow were shredded, to put it politely, in a rebuttal column in the Herald, which shouldn't have wasted space on your pathetic effort in the first place.
Your pitiable and repeated claims, in detail:
********* The Arrow had two fatal flaws. 1. Short range. At 300 radius, compared to the CF101 Voodoo's 1,200,********* Again, you demonstrate you know nothing about either the Arrow, or the Voodoo, or different mission types. The Arrow's original minimum radius for high speed intercept, was 200 nm. This does NOT mean that this was its ultimate range. Avro exceeded this requirement by a massive amount, a feat not duplicated until the SU-27 was created. And the Voodoo did NOT have a supersonic radius of 1200 k. Your inability to understand the difference between the two missions, is pathetic. You are obviously unqualified to comment on the subject... but that doesn't stop you. The Arrow was superior in both mission profiles.
****** the Arrow was optimised for hot interception, not for long range interdiction, a task at which the Voodoo excelled.******
The Arrow was uncommonly capable at supersonic intercepts, but this in no way would prevent it from a much longer, lower speed cruise. Most competitive aircraft of its generation, would only manage 100-150 nm radius in supersonic mode. And most were competitive with the Voodoo in subsonic missions. None could have matched the Arrow for performance while fully armed. And unlike the Voodoo, the Arrow would have been able to carry a very impressive range of other than ATA weapons.
****** Fro comparison, an Arrow launched from Cold Lake CFB has to turn back at Yellowknife. a Voodoo turns at the tip of Greenland.************
Again, this is so pitiable, it hurts to see you make such a fool out of yourself. The Arrow Mk2, based on drag data from the Mk1 flights, would have beaten the Voodoo in both supersonic, and subsonic missions. And no amount of lying about it, will change that. And your insistence on AGAIN comparing two different mission profiles, is pathetic. You are wrong, drop it.
************* 2. A huge price tag. The specs for the Arrow assumed a fast hot climb to 60,000 feet, then a spread of 4 unguided nuclear warheads to distroy a front of invading Soviet supersonic aircraft. Therefore, you had a 12 million dollar aircraft against the 1,590 million Voodoo, over six times as much.********
Most of this paragraph is not even coherent... The original specs and design for the Arrow, involved non-nuclear falcons and sparrows.... And repeating the fabrications of cost that you have already been refuted on the the Herald, really. Get a life.
************** The missle age left the mission behind.Stuff happens.******
No, the missile age did NOT leave the mission behind, the RAF still has tornado f3's, the ang has f-16.... You really are completely unqualified to comment on the Arrow, the Voodoo, aircraft performance in general, military missions, history in general, and pretty much anything else, in all likely-hood.
" Big,big mistake... Believing on technology so much resulted on a somewhat sad ending for many F-4s in Vietnam."
they were talking about nuclear interceptors. not conventional fighter interceptors. the arrow was hardly a dog fighter useful in vietnam. the mythology of canada being robbed with the arrows demise is a rather odd one. the arrow was obsolete almost as soon as it was completed. it was money poorly spent. several us supersonic projects were canceled for the same reasons. including the mach 3 xb-70 valkyrie bomber. i guess because there is no inferiority complex in the us these program cancelations do not have the same mythology.
hell recently the comanche stealth helicopter was canceled. its pretty cool looking, but it really serves no purpose for todays military.
Probably too late for your history class, Derrick, but it is true that many Avro engineers helped with NASA programs, both directly and as employees of U.S. contractors like McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, etc. My father left Avro shortly before the cancellation of the Arrow and secured a job at Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) working on Titan I and II ICBMs.
"Both were destroyed by politicians who,.in 1957, were convinced that missile technology had advanced to a stage when manned interceptor aircraft would no longer be needed."
Big,big mistake... Believing on technology so much resulted on a somewhat sad ending for many F-4s in Vietnam.
