Implausible - what pilot wants to live in the boonies when they could be flying a plane from a base near a city with attractive young women who might be impressed by a pilot?
My understanding is the “issues” pertaining to Canada having rapid access to U.S. nuclear air defence weapons were also easier to resolve with a smaller number of bases in Southern Canada.
 
Like it says on the tin. Can the CF-105 Arrow, a jet interceptor designed and built by Avro Canada in the 1950s, be saved from being canceled during its test phase in 1959? What led to the project being scrapped in the first place, and, should it be a success, would Avro Canada continue to exist ITTL?

Lastly, could this change give the Diefenbaker government a chance to keep a slim majority in parliament instead of losing it altogether in the 1962 election like IOTL? How would Canadian politics change with the Progressive Conservatives (what a weird name for a party to have...) staying in power for a few more years?
My $.02 worth…

-Pick a more or less off the shelf avionics and weapons package. (Most likely from the U.S. ?)

-Demonstrate a truly long range capability that might enable very long range intercepts ? (Ie. Fly from southern (ish) bases and intercept targets while they are still within coverage of the DEW line sites ?). That likely takes high speed as well as range. I suspect this performance would also be predicated on Supersonic interceptors intercepting sub sonic bombers.

-Revamp the DEW line, Mid Canada line and Pine tree line concepts so that actually destroying large numbers of air craft while they were within DEW line coverage was a priority.

-Maybe revisit the use of nuclear weapons by the RCAF air defence forces ? (To lessen the “issues” revolving around hosting U.S. supplied nuclear air defence weapons.)

-Have the U.S. and Canada conclude that supersonic Soviet bombers were not likely to threaten North America ?

In practice I suspect the RCAF would want something along the line of the U.S. Eagle or perhaps Aim 47 missiles for this role which might make choosing an off the shelf system problematic in our time line :)
 
Last edited:
Arrow was looked at for F.155, but the RAF were concerned with timing. All of the F155 proposals were monstrous aircraft, too full of new systems (the Fairey project had an engine that didn’t even exist on paper!) that would invariably have been delayed and cost even more. The most realistic submission, English Electric’s P.8, basically a slightly bigger area ruled Lightning, was rejected. The Air Staff wanted a prototype but the Treasury said there was no money. Basically, they wanted the moon on a stick, and nothing else would do.
 
I understood that France showed some interest in the engine that was to power the Arrow, the Iroquois. Perhaps some co-operation with the French on the engine and bring in the British on avionics or weapons.
 
Was it better though? And if so how much?

I know the FD.2 flew and was apparently quite impressive. Fairey said they could have some sort of FD.3 flying by 1960 at the latest IIRC

How would the two have compared?
The F. 155T requirement was quite conservative. Only the Saunders Roe P. 187 is in the same league as the Arrow. The rest are small and slow. The Arrow compares very well with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Requirement_F.155
 
Yeah Australia arguably has the geography and capacity, but its strategic environment and its perception of its role in the Cold War would disincline it from purchasing such a narrowly specialized plane.
Agreed. They'd need some significant bomber threat to make it a plausible purchase, and a more-capable Indonesia was about the only one I could come up with.
 
I remember watching a movie about the Arrow a long time ago (with Dan Aykroyd I think), and one of the uses that they talked about was launching satellites, basically a high altitude version of the Arrow would climb all the way up, flip over, and launch a rocket from it's weapons bay. Could the Arrow be attractive as a "cheap" small satellite launcher? Is it even feasible? Also the movie showed the arrow as being leaps ahead of other aircraft with the design team inventing area rule aerodynamics and fly by wire controls, that seems somewhat exaggerated to me but could the Arrow be attractive as a cutting edge aircraft for research purposes?
 
The Arrow was cancelled for three reasons. First, it was the single most expensive military development project in Canadian history, and the country hit a recession late in development. Second, avionics development was a gong show, with the planned avionics fit changing three times. Third, the development of the ICBM

The most plausible means I’ve seen to save the Arrow was to get rid of problem #2, making it further along and harder to cancel once a decision had to be made.
This assumes that politics played no role and if St Laurent and his Liberals had won another term they would have canceled the project which they had start and taken the political cost for wasting the public money for the past several years? When the public argument of Diefenbaker in the last election was that they wasting money left and right?
 
Implausible - what pilot wants to live in the boonies when they could be flying a plane from a base near a city with attractive young women who might be impressed by a pilot?
The idea here is "Forward Operating Location", an airfield that the fighter squadron (or a couple flights from) is deployed to temporarily (say 3-6 months), and then another squadron/half squadron rotates in, and so on. The units are actually based somewhere farther south, and from there can also be a second line of defence. The present-day RCAF does this all the time, basing the fighters out of Cold Lake and Bagotville, but half-squadrons get temporarily deployed to places like Inuvik, Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, or Iqaluit. An earlier, more developed (more air bases in central and southern Canada, more fighter, transport, and tanker squadrons in the RCAF, and more suitable airfields/airports up north) version of the would be interesting, as it would greatly enhance Canadian power projection in the far north.

Also the women who are 'impressed' by pilots (or more accurately, their paychecks), they tend to gravitate to wherever the pilots are based.
 
Last edited:
Delayed the destruction of the Arrow. You can keep 99% of events with the Arrow OTL and save it. (Or well this is how it looks to me with my research on Canadian milltary aircraft for a project for a game)

The Avro Arrow mk 2 which is said to be the production model had started production. And they had 5-6 airframes more the halfway along.

The main reasons for cancellation was NATO thought ICMBs and political infighting. (Remember at this time Canada was still pro-military or well far more then today). The some say Russia spy's might have also had a hand.

NATO would be proven wrong and Canada would buy the F-101B Voodoo for more then the Arrow. After it was realized they still needed intcepters.

So let's take the knowledge of the need for what the Arrow is and use it.


Invent a strike or a group that even by chance keeps Avro Canada and everything else lost with the Arrow around until the realization the Canadian still needs a aircraft with the Arrows role. (Basically stop the order for destroying everything to do with the Arrow and you can save it)

When Canada realizes it still needs intcepters everything needed for the Arrow still exist (bar weapons but it be better to turn foreign for those anyways). So instead of buy F-101s, Canada can restart Arrow production. Which would also save the domestic aviation industry (on the milltary side anyways).


TLDR: invent a thing that delay the Arrows destruction and you can save the Arrow as Canada can still go with that then the F-101B Voodoo.
 
Last edited:
How long could the Arrow be kept in active service, service life? 30 years, 1992 ? Most of the money spent on domestic military aircraft usually stays in the country but it does usually cost more per item as well. There should be a limited brain drain to NASA as well. In fact AVRO might get some research, joint, contracts for the space program.
 
How long could the Arrow be kept in active service, service life? 30 years, 1992 ?
Good question. I was going to say it replacement would happen in the 1970s due to Canada keeping its domestic aviation industry. But rethinking I'd say it will be pulled out of active service in the 1980s with its replacement and be completely retired by 2000. With the 70s having domestic things replacing the CF-104(Starfighter) and CF-116(Freedom Fighter).

I'd like to think more domestic vehicles would be able to enter production without the loss of Avro Canada and everything with it. I could see the CL-84 Dynavert being used by the US, UK, Australia and many Italy or Germany along with Canada.

My favourite question is when Canada makes an 80s-era fighter instead of getting the CF-188 Hornet they make a domestic craft (I call it the CF-188 Snowbrid myself) what "wing configuration" would it have?

There should be a limited brain drain to NASA as well. In fact AVRO might get some research, joint, contracts for the space program.
I do wonder about the moon mission most of the manpower lost went to NASA which helped said mission. It comes down to how willing the US is to work with others on its space program. Tho I do see Avro Canada becoming involved with Canada's domestic space program if it survived.
 
Last edited:
Arrow would fly until the mid-1970s. The choice here is rather narrow: F-14, F-15 or joining the EF2000 program.
 
Canada kept the Voodoo until the 90s, why not the Arrow? Ten years is a very short life cycle for a modern fighter.
 
Here's an interesting article on Canadian intelligence's circa 1957 assessment that the USSR was about to switch from manned bombers to ICBMs. Key point: although largely correct in broad strokes, the Canadians were dramatically overestimating how quick an ICBM force would be to build, and were therefore convinced that the Soviet bomber fleet would shrink much faster than USAF estimates (we now know that both intelligence staffs were overestimating the Soviet bomber fleet considerably, and that while the Canadians overestimated how quickly ICBMs would overtake manned bombers, the USAF were underestimating the advantages that ICBMs would have once fielded). Change the intelligence estimates of the threat, change the procurement decision-making process.
 
Seeing as Canada acquired 200 CF 104, 135 CF116 and 66 CF 101, it5 appears that Canada didn't need such an expensive interceptor. the earlier suggestion of having the Arrow fulfil the fighter/bomber role would seem to be a good choice.
Would it be possible to jointly develop an interceptor craft with GB and maybe even jointly developing the Arrow too. The Royal Airforce building the alt Arrow instead of buying the F4 might not be a bad idea.
 
Arrow would fly until the mid-1970s.
That feels to short of a life for a plane that would only start service in the 1960s. What I can see is that its replacement would start being designed in the mid-late 1970s(if there is one) with it entering service in the 1980s like I said before.
The choice here is rather narrow: F-14, F-15 or joining the EF2000 program.
Why go foreign? As I pointed out not losing the Arrow means Canada keeps Avro Canada (and would likely also keep Canadair) for being lost and instead Canada would still have a domestic (military) aviation industry. I think with an Arrow that is built we'd see more of the other export-likely things being produced and exported.

It's more likely Canada dose:

A. Builds a domestic aircraft
B. Joins a multinational program for an aircraft.

Would it be possible to jointly develop an interceptor craft with GB and maybe even jointly developing the Arrow too. The Royal Airforce building the alt Arrow instead of buying the F4 might not be a bad idea.
Wouldn't it be a different aircraft at that point? Wait no- keep it OTL well get things might be possible.

If I recall correctly one of the stories was that Canada turned to other nations to partner up as a last-ditch measure. Using that we could make the UK accept and then turn it into a joint project.
 
The Royal Airforce were gifted the F4s from the RN when they got rid of their large carriers. "Winkle" Brown talked the RN into purchasing them.
 
One of the nice features of the Arrow was that you could change out the weapon pack, bomb bay, easily. Smart weapons would make it a good bomb/missle truck. Continual avionics and airframe upgrades could keep the Arrow relevant for a long time.
 
How feasible would it be to turn the Arrow project into a multi-role fighter-bomber aircraft as is being described? Isn't the issue with delta-winged interceptors like these that they are huge, no maneuverable, and only really suited to that one role?

What kind of payload could it carry? Ground attack munitions, drop tanks, AAMs...etc. like the F4?
 
Top