Another Avro Arrow / CF 105 thread

Assume the Canadian government presses on with the Avrow Arrow and 100 (say 20 prototypes and 80 production aircraft) are built as RCAF interceptors for NORAD roles. Assume as well there is a modest increase in overall Canadian government revenues to pay for the R and D work and the production air craft.

Assume an off the shelf weapons and avionics package is integrated and the historical engine development is continued.

Assume the CF101's / Bomarc's are never purchased, the CF100's (perhaps with the addition of AAM's) are kept in service until the Arrows enter service. The CF104's and CF5's enter service as IOTL.

Assume the Arrow is never sold to anyone else.

Any thoughts about the likely impact of this on Canada ?
 
Not really seeing the need for the CF104's in this WI, the Arrows will take their place. Although i do wonder what will be deployed to Europe to fulfill the NATO commitment... The Cf-5, while a great little plane that I'm inordinately fond of really was outdated almost as soon as it rolled off the production line for first world militarys. For smaller forces it was perfect, but not really adiquite for a first rate military.
 
Not really seeing the need for the CF104's in this WI, the Arrows will take their place. Although i do wonder what will be deployed to Europe to fulfill the NATO commitment... The Cf-5, while a great little plane that I'm inordinately fond of really was outdated almost as soon as it rolled off the production line for first world militarys. For smaller forces it was perfect, but not really adiquite for a first rate military.
I thought about the CF104 acquisiton. IMHO if the Canadians still wanted a NATO nuclear strike role the CF104 would have been a better choice than buying more Arrow interceptors. The CF104's were also manufactured in Canada so there would still have been work for the Canadian Aerospace industry. Granted a strike version of the CF105 might have been developed but I'm not sure if the basic aerodynamic design of the CF105 was really suited for a low level nuclear strike role ? (but this is just speculation on my part.)

IMHO Changing the NATO role to interception vs strike would simplify deploying arrow interceptors to Europe in lieu of CF104's.

Re the CF5 my thoughts were that the government still wanted a simple tactical fighter for brush fire type settings and it was also made in Canada. That being said I suppose an expanded CF105 production run that resulted in a tactical fighter version (perhaps even capable of flying strike missions) might have happened. I'm also thinking that building the CF5 was likely to have been less expensive.
 
Last edited:
I thought about the CF104 acquisiton. IMHO if the Canadians still wanted a NATO nuclear strike role the CF104 would have been a better choice than buying more Arrow interceptors. The CF104's were also manufactured in Canada so there would still have been work for the Canadian Aerospace industry. Granted a strike version of the CF105 might have been developed but I'm not sure if the basic aerodynamic design of the CF105 was really suited for a low level nuclear strike role ? (but this is just speculation on my part.)

IMHO Changing the NATO role to interception vs strike would simplify deploying arrow interceptors to Europe in lieu of CF104's.

Re the CF5 my thoughts were that the government still wanted a simple tactical fighter for brush fire type settings and it was also made in Canada. That being said I suppose an expanded CF105 production run that resulted in a tactical fighter version (perhaps even capable of flying strike missions) might have happened. I'm also thinking that building the CF5 was likely to have been less expensive.

If the Canadians do go through with the Arrow then i doubt they would want a warmed over interceptor as their primary strike package, so my own guess would be they go with the preferred F-105 Thunderchief built in Canada and equipped with and Orenda Iroquis engine. That is a very good strike aircraft that had it not been shot out during vietnam could have lasted for a long time, much like the Buccaneer. Between the Arrow, Thunderchief, and the Freedom Fighter as a light weight day fighter you have a pretty solid high low mix air force that if updated can last until the mid nineties or the early aughts. The question of course is how do you pay for it... something i am not equipped to answer.
 
There is a point to be made that if NATO isn't interested in the Arrow, Canada could lose interest in making a commitment to a nuclear strike role, since Canadians hadn't really taken a shining to nuclear weapons. Without that role, Canadair would have to build other aircraft, and Orenda will be happy as clams just building the Iroquois engines for Arrows. It has not been stated that a successful Arrow that doesn't sell means a successful Iroquois that doesn't sell. As to CF-5 procurement, you would have to look into Paul Hellyer, the Minister of Defense who ordered it despite no one wanting it. No one.
 
If the Canadians do go through with the Arrow then i doubt they would want a warmed over interceptor as their primary strike package, so my own guess would be they go with the preferred F-105 Thunderchief built in Canada and equipped with and Orenda Iroquis engine. That is a very good strike aircraft that had it not been shot out during vietnam could have lasted for a long time, much like the Buccaneer. Between the Arrow, Thunderchief, and the Freedom Fighter as a light weight day fighter you have a pretty solid high low mix air force that if updated can last until the mid nineties or the early aughts. The question of course is how do you pay for it... something i am not equipped to answer.
Yes assuming this could have been paid for I believe that would have been a nice force structure for the Canadians.
 
There is a point to be made that if NATO isn't interested in the Arrow, Canada could lose interest in making a commitment to a nuclear strike role, since Canadians hadn't really taken a shining to nuclear weapons. Without that role, Canadair would have to build other aircraft, and Orenda will be happy as clams just building the Iroquois engines for Arrows. It has not been stated that a successful Arrow that doesn't sell means a successful Iroquois that doesn't sell. As to CF-5 procurement, you would have to look into Paul Hellyer, the Minister of Defense who ordered it despite no one wanting it. No one.
Good points re the Arrow and the Iroquois.

Re the CF5 while I agree it was less than perfect and not in the same league as other more capable aircraft, in a world where other NATO air forces operated the F5 or considered air craft such as the Alpha jet as viable attack air craft in a WW3 setting I'm thinking the CF5 doesn't seem all that out of place for a NATO Air Force that also operates more capeable air craft.
 
I think the Arrow was an excellent airplane, and unfortunately the reason it was not viable was that for Canada alone to operate it would be too costly for the Canadian government to bear. The pressure was on to sell it overseas, and unfortunately US firms with deeper pockets, including having a government with much deeper pockets than Canada's and willing to go to bat for US firms being preferred overseas, is what shut Avro Canada out of the running. And to be fair, one of Arrow's advantages was indeed the Iroquois engine, which was pretty advanced and therefore hard to fix in squadrons way over in Europe or Asia, far from the Orenda plant. Precisely because it was a superior engine, using high-temperature alloys that were much harder than previous generation compressor/turbine alloys, front-line mechanics could not fix them on site. The same would be true of any engine giving the same performance of course! But this is where the political advantage of companies based in a larger superpower, or competing designs made in Europe, especially French ones with Dassault's aggressive marketing again backed by a government that threw more weight around than Canada's did comes into play. For AC to sell it the company would have to be both willing and able to play the kind of hard ball Lockheed did with marketing the F-104--which in fact came down to criminal bribery. I don't know if partisans of Avro Canada want to suggest their admired company could get just as dirty as Lockheed did--at least they'd be stealing the sale of a superior airplane! But Lockheed could do what it did because its prime customer was the US Government with a vastly bigger procurement budget, and that same government was also a very influential lobbyist. AC just could not play that game and win; if merit did not sell the aircraft versus such considerations, they were sunk. And it remains my impression that without foreign sales, Canada alone could not reasonably afford to finance the Arrow for its own air force alone. So it was cancelled.

The idea that Orenda might manage to market the Iroquois engine independent of the Arrow is a little hopeful but I've already given the argument, whether it is overall well founded or specious, that would be put forward that the Orenda plant would be too distant and too small to keep up with repair orders, and that given the superior high-tech alloy composition only made to order repair parts would do, no front-line kludges would work. So again, the little vendor in the little country can make a superior product all right, but can't market it against the interests of big vendors based in big countries.
 
Avro Arrow was demanded by overt-ambitious RCAF generals who did not have a clue how much Canadian taxpayers were willing to pay.
Not that RCAF generals were the only greedy Canadian military officers. During the same time period, the RCN wasted millions of dollars on HMCS Brador - an experimental hydrofoil - and the Canadian Army prolonged development of the clumsy Bobcat APC.
In the end political goals overtook military ambitions. Ironically, political ambitions drove several defense purchases that kept the Canadian Armed Forces out of a shooting war: Quebec Separating
During the 1950s, both Quebec (T-33 trainers, CF-104 fighters, North Star transports, Yukon transports, Cosmopolitan transports, etc.) and Ontario (Otter, Twin Otter, Cariboo and Buffalo transports, etc.) got plenty of defence contracts, but when Quebec's Quiet Revolution started - during the 1950s - Ottawa realized that they needed to buy more votes in Quebec. This led Ottawa to pay Canadair (Quebec) to build CF-104 and CF-5 fighters.
CF-104s were pretty good interceptors, but with nowhere near enough range to protect all of Canada. As for the CF-104's nuclear strike role ..... that was priority last after all the other NATO air forces had filled all the other roles.

When Defence Minister Hellyer ordered CF-5s, he was merely buying votes in Quebec, because the RCAF never wanted CF-5s and struggled to find a role for them: interceptor, recce, light attack .... eventually CF-5s proved useful as lead-in trainers for supersonic fighters, but by the late 1980s most RCAF CF-5s were stored on blocks.
In the end CF-104 and CF-5 contracts fulfilled Ottawa's goals by buying so many votes in Quebec that they took the wind out of Quebec Separatists' sails.
 
given the superior high-tech alloy composition only made to order repair parts would do, no front-line kludges would work.
I'd like to know what jet engine is fixed by front line kludges. Bogus parts has been a problem, and people have died. The Orenda never realized full power, or production status, but I wouldn't suspect that servicing would be of great variance from any other engine of its ilk.
 
Big delta aircraft with low wing loading are not a good choice for low level flight. I saw a data table showing the number of 0.5G vertical accelerations at sea level for a Mirage III, a Buccaneer and TSR 2, The Mirage averaged some 50 per minute (imagine being dropped or punted up and down some 1.9 metres) the Bucc was around 7 and TSR 2 was 2.

The main advantages of CF104 was it's small visual and RCS signature from head on and it was stable at low level, it was also quite tough and the airframe could cope with the regime quite well.
 
Like Just Leo said: if new Orenda engines truly were too difficult to maintain in the field, the RCAF would be forced to buy more spare engines to keep the overhaul supply line primed.
 
Assume the Arrow is never sold to anyone else.
AFAIK the Arrow was intended to replace the Canuck and the sole export customer for that aircraft was Belgium which bought enough to equip 3 squadrons (Nos. 11, 349 and 350). It might help if the RCAF buys enough Arrows to re-equip the 4 Canuck squadrons that were based in Europe, which IOTL were disbanded in the early 1960s.
 
Firstly I think that if the RCAF gets the Arrow the Canadian Government is going to have to go balls-deep, no F101, F104, F5 or anything, it will be Arrows for air to air and air to ground.

Secondly I think the low level thing is overblown as few of the wars from 1960 onwards have required ultra-low level flights of more than an hour where gust response is unbearable. Even in a WW3 scenario an Arrow could transit to and from base at medium level, probably do part of the mission at 1-3000' and do the final run in at under 500' for less than 30 minutes. What's more as a 2 seater with a bomb bay the Arrow would be perfect for the PGM role with the likes of the Martel, AS30, Walleye, HOBOS, Shrike and LGBs of the late 60s, early 70s.

An all-Arrow fleet would provide niche capabilities that NATO would make use of and wouldn't miss a few extra F104s at all.
 
Try looking at the challenge from the finance Minister's perspective .....
During the Arrow's projected service, the threat of Quebec separating was far greater than the threat of Russian nuclear bombs. To that end, since 1960, large chunks of defence spending were primarily aimed at buying votes in Quebec.
To survive, the Avro Arrow would need to be built mostly in Quebec.

OTL the Velvet Glove air-to-air missiles was being developed at CARDE near Quebec City.
ATL subcontract much of the airframe fabrication to Canadair near Montreal.
Third, shift engine development to Pratt&Whitney near Montreal.
Finally, RCA Victor builds new labs in Quebec to develop the Astra fire-control system.

Perfecting the Arrow would keep Quebec industry gainfully-employed and eliminate the need for most other types of jets in the RCAF inventory.
OTL Canadair license-built CF-104s to fill the immediate need for a supersonic interceptor.
Canadair also built a few hundred CF-5s even though the RCAF never really found a mission for them.
OTL CF-101s were adopted to fill the long-range interceptor role. Fortunately, the USAF was retiring thier fleet in favour of dual-role F-4s to bomb North Viet Nam back into the Stone Age. In return, the RCAF loaned a bunch of instructor pilots who helped train USAF pilots for the Viet Nam War.

Think of defence spending as "politics by other means."
 
Top