Can the Avro Arrow be saved?

[paperclipknight]

The best chance of the Arrow surviving is if it’s a joint project between Hawker Siddeley & Avro Canada from the outset as their F.155 entry & is then picked over the Lightning when the ‘57 white paper comes along. You then get the RCAF & RAF buying it - potentially to the Iranians, Japanese (over the F104) & Australia if Indonesia are more aggressive.

A quick wiki states it could carry 3 AIM-7 -Which seems like an odd number to me - and has a max take-off weight about ~12,000lbs more than its gross weight. So F4 it’s not but it can carry more than the Mirage III. No idea on the it’s ground attack ability but the French managed to turn the Mirage III into a highly effective multiple fighter with lesser avionics that what’s was proposed for the Arrow so its not out of the realms of possibility to see it becoming a sort of “Heavy Mirage”

 

[Sasza]

I was in a bit of a hurry with the 1970s. Realistically, Canada will not make another fighter as a successor because it will be expensive. Maybe the next program will be a proposal for an attack aircraft with a single Iroquois.

 

[DougM]

Some aircraft while looking great on paper of from the outside are just not destined to make it.
The Boing 2707 and Sonic Cruiser. The B-70. The F-23 the B-1 (original spec) the B-36, the the YF-12, the A-12, the Super Tomcat so many Army attack and or scout helicopters. The list goes on and on.
Yet, for some reason only a couple aircraft keep getting these “can we save them” posts. And the Arrow has to be at the top if not the top in this category of post. Not sure why. The Arrow looked nice, but it was not like someone was building a 5th generation equivalent in the time of 3rd generation or something. And when it was cancelled it still had a long way to go. Historically most ad fighters have a nasty teaching period where they go into production but need a lot of tweaks or out right rework. So odds are the Arrow was going to take another pretty large pile of money to get working and we are still not sure how it would have trully performed in its job as it was never at the point that it was tested doing its actual job. It seamed to fly well. But then a lot of that was reported by folks with a vested interest in saying it was the greatest thing ever so you have to be a bit cautious with what they reported.
And frankly the program was shut down before it got to the point that the problems would start showing up.
Note I am not saying it would have had huge issue i am just saying that we don’t know. Much like with JFKs reputation as a president being colored by his early assassination I think the Arrow and other aircraft that were canceled early in their flight testing or at least before initial service are often viewed in an exaggerated manor as any flaws have not had a chance to show up. And even the normal issues with getting an aircraft into service have not shown up yet either.

I think the YF-23 in the US gets this as well. It was a beautiful aircraft better looking than what we got. And while it had some things going for it that hindsight says may have been better for the USAF the reality is it never went into a true production aircraft so never had to deal with the real world issues that tarnished the F-22s reputation.
And frankly I think the Arrow is in much the same boat.

I also think that Canada but off more then it could chew with that project as it was much more complicated and expensive then things Canada had built before. More then one country stumbled in trying to build advanced aircraft like this at that time or shortly after as it is expensive.
Add in that I believe we were seeing the first hints of Canadas pulling back on defense commitments that ultimately lead to the Canada we have now that ends up with the US shooting down a balloon over Canada instead of say the Canadians shooting it down. And I don’t think anything short of the USSR sending in bombers over Canada would get the Canadians to continue with the Arrow.

I think they were looking for reasons to cancel it and as often happens if you look for reasons you can find them. Ask Cheney about the F-14. Or the Army about its various helicopters If you don’t believe me. Ir the limited production of B-2s or F-22s. Or on and on,

 

[Blue cat]

The best chance of the Arrow surviving is if it’s a joint project between Hawker Siddeley & Avro Canada from the outset as their F.155 entry & is then picked over the Lightning when the ‘57 white paper comes along. You then get the RCAF & RAF buying it - potentially to the Iranians, Japanese (over the F104) & Australia if Indonesia are more aggressive.

A quick wiki states it could carry 3 AIM-7 -Which seems like an odd number to me - and has a max take-off weight about ~12,000lbs more than its gross weight. So F4 it’s not but it can carry more than the Mirage III. No idea on the it’s ground attack ability but the French managed to turn the Mirage III into a highly effective multiple fighter with lesser avionics that what’s was proposed for the Arrow so its not out of the realms of possibility to see it becoming a sort of “Heavy Mirage”

Decades ago I recall reading that the Arrow had (or was intended to have ?) an internal weapons bay carrying both AAM's and unguided rockets as backup air to air weapons. I also recall reading of it being conceivable that bombs or Cannon could have been carried internally for other missions. Pictures of the Arrow seem to show what appears to be a weapons bay in the belly ?

Historically the RCAF carried out ground attack trials with their CF100's so if the Arrow had actually entered RCAF service it seems plausible that similar trials would have been carried out with the Arrow ?

From a practical perspective a reconnaissance role seems more plausible to me as an extra role for the Arrow than a ground attack role, but this is just pure speculation on my part.

For what it is worth, selling the Arrow as an alternative to the F104 seems a stretch to me (relatively small single engine air craft vs relatively large twin engine air craft..)

 

[Dalriadan Archangel 21]

I would love to have the time to write a TL that has a common Commonwealth Defence Procurement Policy.

Mainly because I would love to see the Arrow and the TSR2 in service with the RAF.

As a boy and beyond I attended the RAF At Home Days at RAF Leuchars in Fife.

What a thrill it would have been to see those two machines displaying in a clear blue sky on Scotland's East Coast

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Yet, for some reason only a couple aircraft keep getting these “can we save them” posts. And the Arrow has to be at the top if not the top in this category of post. Not sure why.

Because it's Canadian. The hype behind the Arrow seems to mostly be based on it being an unproven plane from a country not normally known for expensive military projects and on paper it's not terrible so they can get away with all sorts of hype and blaming the Americans for it not seeing success instead of looking at other reasons. I'm a little surprised at how tame this thread is, we used to get TLs about what amounts to basically a twin-engine Delta Dart being a superfighter that dominates the skies even into the 21st Century as the entire world gasps in awe at Canadian aerospace engineering and struggles to catch up.

 

[paperclipknight]

Decades ago I recall reading that the Arrow had (or was intended to have ?) an internal weapons bay carrying both AAM's and unguided rockets as backup air to air weapons. I also recall reading of it being conceivable that bombs or Cannon could have been carried internally for other missions. Pictures of the Arrow seem to show what appears to be a weapons bay in the belly ?

Historically the RCAF carried out ground attack trials with their CF100's so if the Arrow had actually entered RCAF service it seems plausible that similar trials would have been carried out with the Arrow ?

From a practical perspective a reconnaissance role seems more plausible to me as an extra role for the Arrow than a ground attack role, but this is just pure speculation on my part.

For what it is worth, selling the Arrow as an alternative to the F104 seems a stretch to me (relatively small single engine air craft vs relatively large twin engine air craft..)

From what my (admittedly limited knowledge) on the Arrow the weapons bay was internal - I got the details on its max take off weight as well as missiles it carried from Wiki - mind you if it ever got to service, only being able to carry 3 missiles seems bizarre, would think 4 would be the minimum given the scale of the plane.

Japan picking up the Arrow is mainly me looking at their purchase of the F-15 & expediting that requirement by ~20 years (actually pondering a timeline where they pick up the P.8 lightning & Tornadish ADV over the American offerings but that’s another story) over any sense of real requirements at the time

 

[StormRyder]

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?

Well, a "multi-role" might be hard. The budget problem is the poor cockpit(canopy mostly) design and the lack of an internal gun.

Well, I'm 99% sure it would have gained a gun(as I don't think we can use gun pods on it) if it went into service anyways.

Depending on its range it could make an ok long-range fighter for Europe if it became a fighter-interceptor much like the CF-100.

 

[LoftonHenderson]

Well, a "multi-role" might be hard. The budget problem is the poor cockpit(canopy mostly) design and the lack of an internal gun.

Well, I'm 99% sure it would have gained a gun(as I don't think we can use gun pods on it) if it went into service anyways.

Depending on its range it could make an ok long-range fighter for Europe if it became a fighter-interceptor much like the CF-100.

Wasn't it basically intended to replace the CF-100 anyway? As designed I mean

 

[StormRyder]

Yet, for some reason only a couple aircraft keep getting these “can we save them” posts. And the Arrow has to be at the top if not the top in this category of post. Not sure why.

Because Canada lost more than just the Arrow when it was cancelled. It has lost not only Avro Canadian but a good chunk of its R&D for aviation and defence. Along with the loss of manpower in said fields. Save it and you can save Canada's domestic aviation industry.

That and it looks nice. (even if I'm a fan of other wing types instead)

 

[StormRyder]

Wasn't it basically intended to replace the CF-100 anyway? As designed I mean

Making a replacement for the CF-100 led to the Arrow yes. But I have a feeling it wouldn't replace the CF-100s with how it was going in OTL.

As the CF-100s were interceptors at home but were night fighters in Europe. To me, the Arrow doesn't feel like an aircraft that could do the night fighter role which is why I think a long-range fighter is probably the best we could get out of it making it a dual-role aircraft.

---

Wait 1950 was the first flight of the CF-100 with it entering service in 1952. The Arrow's first flight was in 1958 I'd say 1961 or 61 was when it would enter service.
Maybe a 1970s Arrow replacement isn't as farfetched as we think.

 

[Blue cat]

From what my (admittedly limited knowledge) on the Arrow the weapons bay was internal - I got the details on its max take off weight as well as missiles it carried from Wiki - mind you if it ever got to service, only being able to carry 3 missiles seems bizarre, would think 4 would be the minimum given the scale of the plane.

Japan picking up the Arrow is mainly me looking at their purchase of the F-15 & expediting that requirement by ~20 years (actually pondering a timeline where they pick up the P.8 lightning & Tornadish ADV over the American offerings but that’s another story) over any sense of real requirements at the time

Perhaps the Canadians didn't want to mess with figuring out folding fin arrangements for internally stowed AAM's ? Perhaps more Falcon AAM's could have been carried than Sparrow 2's ?

I seem to recall that the final air to armament of the Canadian CF100 was two pods of air to air rockets that were expected to be fired in a single salvo, so in that context replacing the CF100 with the CF105 with AAM's (and I seem to recall reading of Air to Air rockets also being carried as a backup) was probably seen as a significant upgrade ?

I also recall reading that in the CF100 era the Canadians expected (hoped ?) to be vectoring multiple fighters against individual bombers so the concept of powerful but more or less single shot or single salvo armament may still have been part of the CF105 concept ? I suspect these concepts (if they were in play for the CF105) would not have been of much interest to many other potential customers.

 

[Blue cat]

Making a replacement for the CF-100 led to the Arrow yes. But I have a feeling it wouldn't replace the CF-100s with how it was going in OTL.

As the CF-100s were interceptors at home but were night fighters in Europe. To me, the Arrow doesn't feel like an aircraft that could do the night fighter role which is why I think a long-range fighter is probably the best we could get out of it making it a dual-role aircraft.

---

Wait 1950 was the first flight of the CF-100 with it entering service in 1952. The Arrow's first flight was in 1958 I'd say 1961 or 61 was when it would enter service.
Maybe a 1970s Arrow replacement isn't as farfetched as we think.

I can't see why a fully developed and functional CF105 could not have replaced the CF100 in any air to air role that Canada actually used their CF100 fleet for ? That being said I seem to recall there were at least three variants of the CF100 that entered squadron Service (the Mark3, Mark4 and Mark5 ?) I have my doubts that Canada would have been willing to fund several successive production variants of CF105's ? By the time the CF105 was coming of age it was likely becoming clear that long range ballistic missiles could simply by pass the air defense systems. In the CF100 era successive investments in incremental upgrades made much more sense in my view as shooting down manned bombers was something the RCAF could credibly be expected to do.

 

[paperclipknight]

Perhaps the Canadians didn't want to mess with figuring out folding fin arrangements for internally stowed AAM's ? Perhaps more Falcon AAM's could have been carried than Sparrow 2's ?

I seem to recall that the final air to armament of the Canadian CF100 was two pods of air to air rockets that were expected to be fired in a single salvo, so in that context replacing the CF100 with the CF105 with AAM's (and I seem to recall reading of Air to Air rockets also being carried as a backup) was probably seen as a significant upgrade ?

I also recall reading that in the CF100 era the Canadians expected (hoped ?) to be vectoring multiple fighters against individual bombers so the concept of powerful but more or less single shot or single salvo armament may still have been part of the CF105 concept ? I suspect these concepts (if they were in play for the CF105) would not have been of much interest to many other potential customers.

Wiki states it could hold 8 Falcons or 2 Genie unguided nuclear rockets - probably why the odd number sparrows was accepted on; they likely weren’t going to be carrying them.

 

[Blue cat]

Because it's Canadian. The hype behind the Arrow seems to mostly be based on it being an unproven plane from a country not normally known for expensive military projects and on paper it's not terrible so they can get away with all sorts of hype and blaming the Americans for it not seeing success instead of looking at other reasons. I'm a little surprised at how tame this thread is, we used to get TLs about what amounts to basically a twin-engine Delta Dart being a superfighter that dominates the skies even into the 21st Century as the entire world gasps in awe at Canadian aerospace engineering and struggles to catch up.

I was under the impression that the F106 was considered a fairly good interceptor.. Given enough money and access to US components (ie missiles and fire control systems..) it doesn't seem implausible to me that Canada in the 1950's and 1960's could have produced a Canadian equivalent (that might have been better in some respects ?) The usefulness and "value for money" of such a project seems debatable to me once ICBM's became a thing.

 

[Blue cat]

Wiki states it could hold 8 Falcons or 2 Genie unguided nuclear rockets - probably why the odd number sparrows was accepted on; they likely weren’t going to be carrying them.

One can speculate endlessly