After the Arrow

[Pangur]

How about the Mirage 111 with some degree of customisation to get it to fit in with SAGE? May well be possible that some, most maybe to manufactured in Canada

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by simssss

In hindsight f-4 would have been a better choice, but early f-4s had problems.

F-106 could have been another choice, but weapons on it were kinda bad.

Draken, mirage iii or english electric lightning maybe, but politcally not sure they would buy an european plane.

After I logged off last night I thought about the Draken. It might have made a good choice. I'll admit to having a bias against British jets. After watching the RAF support Buccaneers at Red Flag in August of 1977 (23 hours to change an engine!!) and stories I heard from other US Air Force flightline troops who had worked beside them in NATO exercises of the time they do not seem to build easy to maintain aircraft. While the USAF and manufacturers publish 'hours to maintain per flight hour data' that information was held under the Official Secrets act in the UK but understood by ramp rats to be several multiples of similar era American aircraft. The design of the Lightning always intrigued me and after working on F-15s and watching the Buccaneer engine change I've always wondered how you actually service the top engine on a Lightning.

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by bsmart111

After I logged off last night I thought about the Draken. It might have made a good choice. I'll admit to having a bias against British jets. After watching the RAF support Buccaneers at Red Flag in August of 1977 (23 hours to change an engine!!) and stories I heard from other US Air Force flightline troops who had worked beside them in NATO exercises of the time they do not seem to build easy to maintain aircraft. While the USAF and manufacturers publish 'hours to maintain per flight hour data' that information was held under the Official Secrets act in the UK but understood by ramp rats to be several multiples of similar era American aircraft. The design of the Lightning always intrigued me and after working on F-15s and watching the Buccaneer engine change I've always wondered how you actually service the top engine on a Lightning.

How long would you need to change an engine on an f-15? On a related matter I keep coming across references to the number of hours maintaince to hours of flight. I think I read somewhere that its at best 4 hours to 1 hour. Is that true or a selective interpretation of the data?

[bsmart111]

Originally Posted by Pangur

How long would you need to change an engine on an f-15? On a related matter I keep coming across references to the number of hours maintaince to hours of flight. I think I read somewhere that its at best 4 hours to 1 hour. Is that true or a selective interpretation of the data?

an average enginchange took 30-40 minutes with 6 people A good engine crew that was used to working together and was on a roll could do one in under 20. And we did them outside all the time. The Brits had to get hanger space and a crane because they had to lift the engine up and forward. Oh they had something like 15 people for a couple steps of the process. They did a series of lift, pull forward at an angle, brace, unf=rig the cable from the crane, rerig the cable, repeat process several times. With an F-15 it was open a half dozen belly panels, roll the transfer cart behind the engine line the rails on teh cart with the rails in the airplane pin the two together undo the main fuel lines (4" in diameter) disconnect a couple wiring connectors and (I think) two cables. unbolt the engine roll it back onto the transfer cart. disconnect the transfer cart from the rails in the plane and push it away. If the new engine was on it's own transfer cart you just pushed it in place and reversed the process. If you didn't have two transfer carts you had to put the carrying frame on the engine and move it to a seperate engine trailor. then the new engine had to be positioned on the transfer cart and the carrying frame removed before it could be slid into the plane.

Note - I was an avionics troop and it was a long time ago. I'm hazy on the transfer from the transfer cart to the carrying frame (I can see it in my minds eye but can't remember assisting on that task very often but I did help push engines in and out of airplanes regularly) The engine troops had special names for the transfer cart the carrying trailor that I don't remember. but the times I know are good. and I remember the Brits watching us change an engine a couple days after they did one. later they actually wanted to help us do one! One of their people said we could change an engine faster than they could load bombs in the rotary bombay the Buccaneer had.

[Pangur]

Thanks for your reply, cripes the British did some really pure engineering it would seem.

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by Mig114

When I saw this thread, I thought it was a WI or something on what aircraft would succeed the Arrow if it did enter service

A super-Arrow obviously. Although more realistically, it'd be something smaller, and more capable.
The Orenda PS.13 Iroquois would have been a thirsty beast in service, while an F100 or F110 would be cheaper to fuel, about the same size (they're only about 11-12cm wider) and would provide about the same amount of power in both modes of operation.

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Interesting question, but not really one that you can come up with anything solid on. You're looking at a program happening in the late seventies and early eighties but beyond that a lot depends on the Arrow's in service reputation and what kind of butterflies are attached to the aircraft. Canada certainly has the capacity to keep building it's own aircraft, but I think that there is a very big question mark over whether we actually do or not.

Yeah. You'd probably be looking at something Equivalent to the F-14, F-15, Tornado, or Flanker at the top end, and at the low end, an updated F-5 Tiger, the F-CK-1 Ching-kuo or F/A-18 Hornet. Either way, it'd need to be a capable multi-role design, since it would not be operating purely as an interceptor. They'd probably push for a sturdy, lower-maintenance design as well, capable of handling operations in the arctic pretty well, so ending up with some twin engine design is IMO Guaranteed.

This is of course, assuming they don't do something insane like building a monster of an aircraft around a low-bypass Turbofan derivative of the Iroquois, (which would probably be around the size of a Kuznetzov NK-25 or NK-32/321, so ~1,500mm by ~6,000mm, and produce something like 30,000lbs of thrust dry, and 50-55,000lbs with the afterburner.)

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

It does strike me that if the Arrow did enter service, and especially if there is a domestic replacement there is a very good chance that the F-35 could become a truly international program (actually, methinks however that aircraft shakes out in service we'll being seeing a LOT of TLs about different versions of it in coming years).

Honestly, I'm kinda looking forward to those ATLs.

[bsmart111]

You have to be careful when looking at maintenance hours per flight hour. There are several categories.

There is 'Direct maintenance' which is the time prepping for flight, fueling loading bombs, ammo then after the flight doing postflight, maintenance debriefing and dirctly repairing anything to make the aircraft FMC (fully Mission Capable) for the next flight. With a modern aircraft like an F-15 that could be swapping a bad engine, replacing a radio box or HUD (Heads up display) with a spare one.

Then there is Indirect maintenance That would be repairing the bad Engine, radio or HUD.

There is also a way to figure in support troops like the PMEL shop (Precision Measurement Equipment Lab) - the people who calibrated the torque wrenches and test equipment, etc; The Fuel farm who managed the big Tanks of Jet Fuel. At Langley we received our fuel on barges from refineries around the Chesepeake bay Our usual source was the Amoco refnery at Yorktown. Other bases had pipelines direct to the base

4 hours per flight hour may cover basic direct maintenance but I wonder if it is in man hours. FOr example that 30 minute engine change with 6 people would 3 manhours of effort then there was the 1/2 hour the maintenance debriefer spent with the pilot gettig it written up the crew chief and his Line chief making sure the forms were up to date, the QA guy chacking on everyone. If it was decided they needed an engine run at the trim pad (sound suppressor) there were 4-6 guys to tow it over there the trim pad crew to run it and another 4-6 guys to tow it back (hopefully the engine had been tested on the sperate test stand before install and we didn't have to trim it)

It has been more than a few years since I looked at any solid data. The Air Force tried to track it very closely. We reported all our tasks on paper forms (I don't remember the form number but if someone said it I would probably say 'Oh yea thats it!') The system was known as MMICS (Maintenance Management Information Collection System) supervisors were rated on how complete their teams time reporting was. It was a standing joke that they expected such complete time justification that the only way we could fight a war was by going on 12 hour shifts since there was no free time in our usual 8 hour day to shoot anyone.

[Pangur]

Originally Posted by bsmart111

You have to be careful when looking at maintenance hours per flight hour. There are several categories.

There is 'Direct maintenance' which is the time prepping for flight, fueling loading bombs, ammo then after the flight doing postflight, maintenance debriefing and dirctly repairing anything to make the aircraft FMC (fully Mission Capable) for the next flight. With a modern aircraft like an F-15 that could be swapping a bad engine, replacing a radio box or HUD (Heads up display) with a spare one.

Then there is Indirect maintenance That would be repairing the bad Engine, radio or HUD.

There is also a way to figure in support troops like the PMEL shop (Precision Measurement Equipment Lab) - the people who calibrated the torque wrenches and test equipment, etc; The Fuel farm who managed the big Tanks of Jet Fuel. At Langley we received our fuel on barges from refineries around the Chesepeake bay Our usual source was the Amoco refnery at Yorktown. Other bases had pipelines direct to the base

4 hours per flight hour may cover basic direct maintenance but I wonder if it is in man hours. FOr example that 30 minute engine change with 6 people would 3 manhours of effort then there was the 1/2 hour the maintenance debriefer spent with the pilot gettig it written up the crew chief and his Line chief making sure the forms were up to date, the QA guy chacking on everyone. If it was decided they needed an engine run at the trim pad (sound suppressor) there were 4-6 guys to tow it over there the trim pad crew to run it and another 4-6 guys to tow it back (hopefully the engine had been tested on the sperate test stand before install and we didn't have to trim it)

It has been more than a few years since I looked at any solid data. The Air Force tried to track it very closely. We reported all our tasks on paper forms (I don't remember the form number but if someone said it I would probably say 'Oh yea thats it!') The system was known as MMICS (Maintenance Management Information Collection System) supervisors were rated on how complete their teams time reporting was. It was a standing joke that they expected such complete time justification that the only way we could fight a war was by going on 12 hour shifts since there was no free time in our usual 8 hour day to shoot anyone.

Now that you mention it I am pretty sure it was man hours so your point about factoring in the number of people now helps me make sense of what I read. Thanks for explaining how it really works

[Archibald]

The real killer was the overly complex fire control/missile system Avro insisted on developing. This sucked up millions of dollars and effectively led to the project delays and ballooning costs that caused Diefenbaker to kill the project

Excellent point here. In the CF-100 days Avro used the F-89 radar, and that was fine.
Early in the Arrow development they thought about using the F-106 system, but soon embarked on the very ambitious Sparrow II - an atempt to build the AMRAAM in the 50's, without any chance of success.
Sure it was the Sparrow II that doomed the Arrow project. I tend to think that, had the Arrow used the F-106 radar, it would have been easier to integrate in SAGE and NORAD, and perhaps that would have help...

How about the Mirage III with some degree of customisation to get it to fit in with SAGE?

The Swiss Mirage III-S might be an answer - they were highly modified, notably with some Hughes radar.

Vectorsite, as usual, is my friend. http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir3_1.html

As mentioned, the Swiss (...) went on to produce 36 "Mirage IIIS" interceptors, with strengthened wings, airframe, and undercarriage. Avionics differed as well, with the most prominent difference being that the Thompson-CSF Cyrano II radar was replaced by the Hughes TARAN-18 system, giving the Mirage IIIS compatibility with the Hughes Falcon AAM.

And yes, the CF-105 was an absolutely formidable machine, well ahead of its time.
Beside Diefenbaker, another bad luck was that the first prototype roll-out happened on October 4, 1957 - day of the Sputnik. Sputnik meant that nuclear deterrent now belonged to ballistic missiles, and not the supersonic bombers the Arrow was to kill...

[Just Leo]

Another airframe suitable to the task woulda been the Mirage IV. Two seats, two engines, viable fuel fraction. It was always a bridesmaid, even as a bomber, for foreign orders, but it's performance was better than it's order book would indicate. Of course, it was French.

[TheMann]

The Arrow's completion would have likely had political effects, let's not forget. The big cost of the program would mean that Canada would go lobbying hard for foreign orders. The USAF isn't gonna bite, but I can really see the RAF and RAAF seriously thinking about it, which would probably make for an Arrow with RR engines for the RAF. The EE Lightning would probably get butterflied here (or at least reduced in its role), or English Electric might just get the job of building the UK Arrows under license from Avro.

The Canadian Air Force felt some budget cuts in the 1960s that they may or may not feel here. The stronger aerospace industry would mean that governments that relied on the support of Ontario (as Pearson did) would be less likely to cut into the military. Between Canadair and Avro, they may well decide to go big and start building an airliner design in the late 60s, perhaps teaming up with somebody in Europe to do so. Either way, the unification of the Canadian Forces would probably happen and Trudeau being butterflied away is unlikely, but the Canadian Armed Forces will retain much of their abilities.

A big potential change from this one is what happens with the Lockheed L-1011. Rolls-Royce's bankruptcy in the middle of its development forced Lockheed to scramble to get the RB211 engines the L-1011 relied on built - and in OTL, Orenda was contacted about building the RB211 engines or Lockheed. I can see that actually happening here, in large part because by now Orenda's awesome Iroquois engines have proven their worth. Hence, the Rolls-Royce/Orenda RB211 engines allows the L-1011 to stay on time, and results in greater numbers of L-1011s to be built. I'm even thinking that this might lead to alliances between Avro, Canadair and Lockheed and Rolls-Royce and Orenda, resulting in Orenda being a major supplier or engine parts to Rolls-Royce and Canadian license-building a bunch of L-1011s for Air Canada and the predecessors to Canadian Airlines. This might also lead to a bunch of TriStar tankers for the RCAF, too.

The RCAF was working at the same time as the Arrow on a replacement for its Canadair F-86s, but I think the Arrow's costs would probably hold this off a few years, resulting it not happening until the mid to late 1960s, which would probably result in the airplanes for that role not arriving until 1968 or 1969. By now, lots of F-105s were being retired by the USAF and F-4s were rolling off the lines at fast rates, and I'm thinking that the result here is a bunch of F-4 airframes being built with Orenda engines and many Canadian improvements, with the F-4 entering the RCAF in 1967 and staying there for a long time. The CF-105/CF-4 pair is the RCAF/Air Command's fighter aircraft set from then for a while to come, with the Arrow butterflying the Voodoo and Starfighter and replacing the CF-100 Canuck, while the F-4 replaces the Canadair Sabre and butterflying the CF-5. Many of the CF-4s would be deployed to Europe in the 1970s.

The NFA program probably would have come a few years later than OTL in this world, in the early to mid 80s being the program and aircraft delivered from about 1985 onward, namely to replace the now-old Arrow airframes. Whether the CF would continue with the pair is a good question. The idea I ran with in Canadian Power might work here, that being the program is just beginning when the Iranian Revolution happens, and Canada buys Iran's F-14s for a big discount, and allows these to complement the CF-105s and eventually replace them as they are improved by the Canadians, finally retiring the CF-105 by the early 1990s. The program would almost certainly want to get a lightweight fighter to complement the CF-105/CF-14 pair, with a light or mediumweight fighter to replace the F-4 coming out later, with the best contender being the CF-18, as OTL. As the USAF and USN would probably be happy as pigs in shit to see Canada buy a fleet of America's best interceptor from a country the US traded shots with several times in the 1980s, Canada would undoubtedly get all of the goodies that USN F-14s got, and a nice fat supply of AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.

The last CF-4s leave the RCAF in the late 1980s, the last Arrows in the early 1990s. With Canada's aerospace industry, the CF-18s would almost certainly have been a license-build arrangement by Canadair/Bombardier, with 15-20 being made by McDonnell Douglas and Northrop and the other 120 or so being made in Canada, with Orenda-built turbofans, improved versions of the Turbo-Union RB199, because of Orenda's alliance with Rolls-Royce. The CF-14/CF-18 set is a good pairing. Most are brought home from Europe in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, but the fleet of CF-14s would be complemented by ex-USN examples as a result of the post-war draw down of the US Navy.

[Some Bloke]

Hmm the English Electric Arrow, that's almost alliterative.

[Riain]

Originally Posted by TheMann

To answer the original question of what happens after the Arrow, one should wonder how long the (fairly antiquated) electronics of the CF-105 would have lasted, and if and when replacements had been in order.

Assuming the full production run had been ordered and no major delays, the RCAF would have its first Arrow squadron in late 1962 or early 1963, with the full fleet being there by the end of 1965. Assuming the RCAF makes up six Arrow squadrons, that's about 80 aircraft produced. The Arrow was such a high performer that I would imagine that foreign sales would be nearly inevitable, but they would have to make upgrades to account for improving missile and electronic technology. I would imagine most CF-105As being rebuilt to later standards in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make use of Sparrow missiles. Thus equipped and rebuilt, many CF-105s would probably stay active until the early 1990s.

The Arrow would have been one of the first planes which could have a 20+ service life. By the early 60s aircraft performance had plateued and eletronic were coming to the fore as the main decider of capability. I`d think that 10 years after the Arrows introduction its users would look around and see what else was on the horizon and decide to undertake a major mid life upgrade. I think the mid 60s Arrows, suitably upgraded, would not get replaced until the late 80s.

[Some Bloke]

So if we've got the RAF and RAAF on board how does that affect procurement for those countries? With greater investment in the aviation industry isn't there a chance of a locally designed successor in the 90s?

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

So if we've got the RAF and RAAF on board how does that affect procurement for those countries? With greater investment in the aviation industry isn't there a chance of a locally designed successor in the 90s?

I thought about that possibility, but the problem there is money. Modern fighters are notoriously expensive, and Canada's huge airspace tends to favor very large, twin-engine complex aircraft with a long range, which tend to be very expensive to develop, as well. I thought about the idea of a Commonwealth (Britain-Canada-Australia) fighter project for this, with each nation making their fighters in their own factories, but decided against it on the grounds of cost. Might be wrong, though.

[Riain]

Ausrtalias model has been to buy a good medium fighter/bomber, the Arrow doesn`t fit this bill. It would have been pretty cool in a hot Konfrontasi though.

[Archibald]

The Arrow would have been one of the first planes which could have a 20+ service life. By the early 60s aircraft performance had plateued and eletronic were coming to the fore as the main decider of capability. I`d think that 10 years after the Arrows introduction its users would look around and see what else was on the horizon and decide to undertake a major mid life upgrade. I think the mid 60s Arrows, suitably upgraded, would not get replaced until the late 80s.

Totally agree. Most of the first Mach 2 machines had very, very long careers spanning up to the 2000s. The Drakken lived long enough to meet the Grippen.
The Mirage IV-A makes for an interesting comparison. Flown June 1959, upgraded in the 80's to the IV-P standard. Last withdrawn: 2005, because it was rather irreplaceable in its niche - long range reconnaissance.
The way I see it, I can see the Arrow persisting into the 2000s for peculiar missions like reconnaissance or SEAD.

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by Riain

Ausrtalias model has been to buy a good medium fighter/bomber, the Arrow doesn`t fit this bill. It would have been pretty cool in a hot Konfrontasi though.

True, but I was thinking that the RAAF might see the problems with Indonesia and its deployments in the 1960s and decide to have some of the world's best air-defense aircraft. I am having visions of the RAAF Arrows being deployed to Vietnam to prove their worth (with the fire control system for the AIM-7 Sparrow) and cleaning up against VPAF MiGs. But I agree that the RAAF tends to not buy such large aircraft, but I think if Avro was really pushing, I think the RAAF may well go for the idea.

The RAF, however, has real possibilities. The EE Lightning was a fabulous aerodynamic performer, but antiquated in electronics from the start and had very short legs - the Arrow also didn't have the problems with the problems with control at high speeds (early Lightnings were very bad here) and the Arrow would be better at the job of interception than early Lightnings. I can really see lots of RAF Arrows, because of the need to have a good interceptor forces. Arrows rebuilt with better fuel-efficiency and electronics would easily enough butterfly the Tornado ADV entirely, as the Arrow would be a bit shorter-legged but much quicker to altitude and much faster at high speeds.

Originally Posted by Archibald

Totally agree. Most of the first Mach 2 machines had very, very long careers spanning up to the 2000s. The Drakken lived long enough to meet the Grippen.
The Mirage IV-A makes for an interesting comparison. Flown June 1959, upgraded in the 80's to the IV-P standard. Last withdrawn: 2005, because it was rather irreplaceable in its niche - long range reconnaissance.
The way I see it, I can see the Arrow persisting into the 2000s for peculiar missions like reconnaissance or SEAD.

I'm not sure about the 2000s, but I agree about the 1990s. One idea here might be in the 1970s replacing the Arrow's old Iroquois engines with newer engines (The PS.13 Iroquois is almost identical in dimensions to the GE F110 or Pratt and Whitney F100, so replacing the engines, with the massive improvement in fuel economy at lower speeds) and its electronics. I'm having the idea of an Arrow with the AWG-9/AIM-54 Phoenix system from the F-14 and the F100 engines from the F-15. That would be a very, very capable aircraft indeed....

As far as SEAD roles, the Arrow is designed for high-speed running, which is not a good base for a SEAD plane. Reconnaissance I can see being an idea. The Arrow might also be good as a strike plane, being a large two-seater, using much the same idea as how the F-15D Eagle evolved into the F-15E Strike Eagle.

[LostCosmonaut]

Originally Posted by TheMann

As far as SEAD roles, the Arrow is designed for high-speed running, which is not a good base for a SEAD plane. Reconnaissance I can see being an idea. The Arrow might also be good as a strike plane, being a large two-seater, using much the same idea as how the F-15D Eagle evolved into the F-15E Strike Eagle.

According to Western doctrine, yes. However, the Soviet's / Russians mainly used aircraft such as the MiG-25BM to attack enemy air defenses using standoff weapons from long range. While the RCAF would most likely use American/British doctrine as the basis of its SEAD tactics, using the Arrow in the SEAD role might not be that bad of an idea, provided you also had a good enough weapon system (larger, longer range AGM-45/88, or a western counterpart to the Kh-58). Of course, you also have to take into account that the MiG-25 has somewhat superior speed and altitude abilities to the bog-standard CF-105.

[DD951]

Originally Posted by LostCosmonaut

According to Western doctrine, yes. However, the Soviet's / Russians mainly used aircraft such as the MiG-25BM to attack enemy air defenses using standoff weapons from long range. While the RCAF would most likely use American/British doctrine as the basis of its SEAD tactics, using the Arrow in the SEAD role might not be that bad of an idea, provided you also had a good enough weapon system (larger, longer range AGM-45/88, or a western counterpart to the Kh-58). Of course, you also have to take into account that the MiG-25 has somewhat superior speed and altitude abilities to the bog-standard CF-105.

Hmm, if a Wild Weasel version of the Arrow was developed in the 1960s-70s, perhaps it could utilize the AGM-78 Standard ARM as one of its weapons. The AGM-78 was a SM-1 SAM converted into an air-launched, anti-radiation missile, which was used by the F-105 & A-6 IOTL, and was in service between 1968-88, before being replaced by the AGM-88, which was a more compact missile with a better seeker & 1 more mile of range than the AGM-78. It was introduced because of the limitations in the range, speed & seeker capabilities of the Shrike, as well as having a warhead that was 100 lbs larger.

The AGM-45 had a range of between 10-25 nm at Mach 2 depending on the version, the AGM-78 had a range of 56 nm at Mach 2.5, & the AGM-88 57 nm at a speed in excess of Mach 2.