Flight Life of the Arrow...

Al-Buraq

Banned
No, the RAF wanted P.1154 & TSR-2, The Royal Navy wanted CVA-01, a/k/a the Queen Elizabeth class "supercarrier", at all costs...
As a result of this, the "senior service" effectively sabotaged any programme that was not CVA-01, including P.1154 (which it had ever been built, would have been 2 almost completely different aircraft, with extremely limited communality, with each other's version), TSR-2, the "Thin Wing" improved Buccaneer, capable of Mach 1.2, & even a proposed avionics upgrade for Buccaneer, to ensure that CVA-01 would enter service...
Unfortunately for the Royal Navy, the economic crisis of late 1967-early 1968, ensured that CVA-01 was cancelled...

I think that you have that cart before the horse, or as this is a Navy matter, arse about face. Like their American cousins the British Armed forces were (and still are) more at war with each other than most foreign enemies. Both wanted to have a nuclear deterrent to prove their value ( and, let us not forget, provide the level of importance for very senior officers as far as progression to Chief of Defence Staff is concerned).
Dear Lord Mountbatten was quite prepared to destroy the RAF if he could take the salute from a big ship.
Yes, the RN wanted "real" carriers. They wanted to command "real" carrier strike groups (thus the type-82 destroyers)-- but they also needed something to fly off of it! There was no chance by the mid-1950s of any purpose designed and built naval aircraft and the requirement of multi-role would always provide a compromise. At the time of the CVA-1 planning there was extremely limited choice, apart from the Phantom, there was only the Mirage IIIM outside of the British aircraft industry and by the time the CVA-01s would have been in service, both aircraft, while not totally obsolete, would have been well into middle-age.
The "Super-Buccaneer", the Buccaneer 150 was actually a project for the RAF and a TSR-2 competitor. It was never intended as a Naval aircraft. The plan for an updated Naval Buccaneer never got beyond the back of a fag packet as the design was already considered long-in-the-tooth in the late 1960s, which is ironic in retrospect. You are right that the RNs mission requirements would have made the twin-seat P1154RN more or less a completely different aircraft and therefore financial non-viable fro the RN alone, but look to the eventual export sales of the Harrier/Sea Harrier. Remember the P1154 had won the "Pan-European" VTOL contest.
The choice of the Phantom was basically a choice of that craft or nothing for the RN. In the Naval role it was not the best strike aircraft, not really manouverable enough to be the best top-cover interceptor and considering the attrition of US versions in Vietnam to AA fire, one wonders how it would have performed in its designated RN role of a low-level strike aircraft against well defended targets. But it was better than nothing!
 
Could the plane have been made into a more polyvalent as time come ? And could there have used us aim7 sparrows, aim9 sidewinder or other nato weapons ?

What was the closest thing to it in term of performance ? Mirage 3 ? F4? F104?
 
Could the plane have been made into a more polyvalent as time come ? And could there have used us aim7 sparrows, aim9 sidewinder or other nato weapons ?

What was the closest thing to it in term of performance ? Mirage 3 ? F4? F104?

Arrow was intended to use the Sparrow II air to air missile system, as it's primary BVR missile armament...
The main difference to the Sparrow III family used by the U.S, was that Sparrow II was intend to be fully active, as opposed to Sparrow III's semi-active mode of operation...
However, given Sparrow's woefully unreliable electronics at the time, I suspect that it may have used Falcon missiles, as used by the F-106 Delta Dart interceptor, as a interim weapon, until Sparrow's electronics had been sorted out...
I suspect that Arrow may use Sidewinder as a Dogfight missile, but then again during this time frame, they might decide to use the version of Falcon, fitted with a infra-red seeker...
 
Last edited:
Wow. Thread Necromancy, anybody?

Anyways, the Sparrow III could have been used on the Arrow, which means that with suitable upgrades to avionics and store systems, it could have stayed useful in the air defense role into the the 1980s. And more to the point, the Arrow was a very good aerodynamic platform, which means upgrades later on could have fixed that.

The Commonwealth idea makes great sense, and gives a number of possible export customers, Britain and Australia being likely ones. The Arrow would have entered CF service in 1962-ish, probably in time to be on full alert during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, if we're talking Commonwealth alliances, the thing would have to be developed for British missiles, which means at first they would be using the Firestreak and Red Top, which are not bad, but the former is a big missile for something of its range, which means eventually the Skyflash would be fitted to the Arrow.

The development of the Iroquois engine and Orenda's skill at it has possibilities, too. When Rolls-Royce went broke in 1969, Lockheed looked at having the engines built by Orenda, and the company's work on engines in the 1950s and 1960s was exemplary, and thus there would be advancements.

The Arrow II enters service as an improvement on the original Arrow in 1968/69, using a Orenda-improved and built version of the Rolls-Royce Spey, which also ends up being used by the US Air Force. The Arrow II has underwing hardpoints for missiles, and most Arrow IIs are fitted with external tanks. They keep up with incremental improvements into the 1970s, and Canadian Arrows first sprout forward canards and conformal fuel tanks in the early 1970s. F-4s are bought by the Air Command in 1969, though the Canadian Rhinos use the improved Spey turbofans and are fitted with many improvements. In the 1970s, however, Canada comes under fire for their relatively aged equipment within NATO. Trudeau loses in 1974, and the Arrow III, which is first flown in 1975, shows off a considerably bigger wingspan and new Orenda turbofan engines, and Canada replaces its original Arrows with these in 1977-79, while also choosing a light fighter complement the Arrow, choosing the CF-18. All of the CF-18s are manufactured in Canada, and their GE F404 engines are built by Orenda, and improved versions of those are fitted in the 1990s.

By the mid-1980s, the Canadian fighter fleet is the Arrow for long-range and interceptor duties, the F-4CA for fighter-bomber work and the CF-18 for light fighter duties, though the CF-18 over time replaces the Rhino, with it retired from the CF in 1991. The interceptor duty ultimately fades away, but the Arrow doesn't. Avro builds an improved variant of the Arrow III for two-seat strike fighter duties in the 1980s, offering it to the United States as a competitor for the Enhanced Tactical Fighter program, teaming up with Boeing for the competition. It loses, but the Arrow IV is offered to other countries by Boeing and Avro Canada, and gets purchased by Singapore and South Korea in the 1990s, and Canada orders the Arrow IV to replace its aging fleet of Arrow IIIs in 2007.

Now, so that nobody thinks a 1950s design is being ordered in 2007, the Arrow IV shares pretty much nothing in common with the original save some of its original shape, but it is a case of evolution of a basic design that is highly effective to start with.
 
Right, let me get into some cover first of all.

All this talk of Israel, Germany, Japan and Australia buying the Arrow is rather fanciful.

1. Israel wanted a cheap ass fighter with reasonable ground pounder capability, capable to intercept high altitude bombers, engage in dog fights (as had dominated the Israeli-Arab air warfare) but also capable of bombing the shit out of anything on the ground.

Compared to the Arrow, the Mirage was a lesser interceptor but was vastly superior in terms of armament, range, maneuverability (the Arrow had a poor turning capability and limited G tolerances) and above all, cheap! Something that they wouldn't worry about loosing a few here and there. Israel, more than anyone goes by the maxim of "if it's too expensive to risk losing, don't buy it". Furthermore, Israel was more politically allied with Britain and France, with their military utilizing much equipment from these countries. Further, France was helping the Israeli's develop the their Nuclear Bomb at the time, adding to the pressure to buy French.

2. Germany was much like Israel, wanting a small, cheap interceptor with a good enough capability to be developed into a ground attack variant as well as a maritime strike variant. The SR. 177 was designed from the ground up to be so while the F-104 was barely able to do so, but did manage. Convincing them that they want an inflexible, costly massive interceptor that even by 1959 was looking to be obsolete very shortly in the wake of next generation purpose built fighter bombers. The Luftwaffe was relatively young, short on cash and dependant upon Britain and America for expertise and support, especially in pilot training at the time

3. Japan. No brainier, although in need of a good interceptor, they're still short on cash and totally dominated by the U.S. The Arrow's not getting sold there.

4. Australia? A country that faces little to no threat from high altitude bombers, is surrounded by a then friendly Indonesia and Netherlands is not going to want, nor never did want a high performance interceptor. The major conflict in it's regions were against poor, post colonial, third world nations armed with often obsolete fighters and waging a ground war. Australia went down the path of the Mirage III quite rightly - they needed a cheap (a small defense budget, after all) fighter that could support their troops on the ground as well as maintain air superiority.

5. S. Africa is a country in a similar position to Australia and lacks a high altitude bomber threat, but does have the risk of local nations waging low intensity ground wars (Angola, Congo, Rhodesia). Same as above.


However, that said, some option for sale are plausible.

1. Britain. At one stage a report here in the UK recommended buying up to 142 Arrows as an interim fighter but was passed over as by the time it would enter service (circa 1962) Britain’s own fighters would be ready for service. You would need to convince the British air staff earlier in the 50's the merits of a joint program (Britain was, after all developing the Arrows original engines). It may not be that hard, but you would have to overcome the major stumbling block of convincing the British that the uber expensive Arrow, with much undeveloped and untested technology will be a better option that the more conservative and tested technology of the EE Lightning (which was cheaper not just due to the numbers produced but because it was less risky) which produces much the same result. However, if you can overcome that hurdle (stranger things have happened, especially in Britain), then you should be in business.

2. Saudi Arabia is a definite possibility but also has a number of hurdles to get over. You again need to convince them that the more expensive Arrow is a better option compared to the Lightning or other international options. This shouldn't be a problem if Britain's onboard and the Lightning never existed. Secondly, the Arrow is a massively complicated beast and even OTL the more primitive Lightning stretched the Saudi's maintenance capability to the max. Lastly, the greater expense of the fighter will mean a reduction in numbers, probably between 20-30 aircraft, down from between 40 and 50. Given that, the Saudi's may choose to go with quantity of quality.

3. Iran is a maybe but remember that they lacked the money to buy such high end fighters until the late 60's, instead relying on old hand-me-downs from the U.S.A.F. and R.C.A.F. along with cheaper budget new builds. Canada will have to compete with the U.S., probably for a very small order.

Someone also mentioned a high altitude recce variant. It's an excellent possibility for both Canada and Britain. After the cancellation of the Avro 730 (Britain's mach 3 bomber/recce aircraft), the Arrow could help fulfill that role. It will never be as good as the SR-71, but good enough for smaller nations like Britain and Canada. Versions could be in service right until the present day.

Russell
 
Australia's relationship with Indonesia went sour at about the time the Arrow was lookin at the go-no go decision, the West Papua Crisis being the first issue. In the next few year Australia bought F111s off the drawing board, Charles F Adams DDGs, reversed an earlier decision and bought A4s for the Melbourne, Bloodhound SAMs and hundreds of M113s. It's not wholly unreasonable that Australia could consider the Arrow in 1961-3 if it was in production and service.
 
Australia's relationship with Indonesia went sour at about the time the Arrow was lookin at the go-no go decision, the West Papua Crisis being the first issue. In the next few year Australia bought F111s off the drawing board, Charles F Adams DDGs, reversed an earlier decision and bought A4s for the Melbourne, Bloodhound SAMs and hundreds of M113s. It's not wholly unreasonable that Australia could consider the Arrow in 1961-3 if it was in production and service.

True, but with the exception of the F-111, none of those buys were extremely costly or unproven when compared to other similar products on the market. Australia has always had a general prudence when it comes to the buying of it's military hardware. It would take a lot to convince the military to buy the more expensive, less flexible and more unproven technology of the Arrow over a proven and cheaper mulitrole design. Then again, they did buy the F-111. I would fear that an Arrow buy would end up even more disasterous - resulting in fewer aircraft affordable, poorer flexability and as a result of the latter, a short service life.

Russell
 

MacCaulay

Banned
True, but with the exception of the F-111, none of those buys were extremely costly or unproven when compared to other similar products on the market. Australia has always had a general prudence when it comes to the buying of it's military hardware. It would take a lot to convince the military to buy the more expensive, less flexible and more unproven technology of the Arrow over a proven and cheaper mulitrole design. Then again, they did buy the F-111. I would fear that an Arrow buy would end up even more disasterous - resulting in fewer aircraft affordable, poorer flexability and as a result of the latter, a short service life.

Russell

Like I've said before, the Mirage was an interceptor as well. People just seem to forget that because the Israelis and South Africans were dogfighting MiGs on a regular basis with it.

There's no reason to think you couldn't bend the Arrow to a similar role.
 
I don't have a problem with the Arrow in it's air to air role, it's strafing, rocketing and dumb bombing guerillas in S.E.A. who could get hold of 14.5-23mm AA guns that concerns me. We used the obsolescent Canberra in Vietnam after we had bought it's replacement off the drawing board, so losses to ground fire weren't catastrophic. But aa Arrow going down to a twin 14.5 machinegun would be a serious blow compared to the same happening to a Mirage.
 
Like I've said before, the Mirage was an interceptor as well. People just seem to forget that because the Israelis and South Africans were dogfighting MiGs on a regular basis with it.

There's no reason to think you couldn't bend the Arrow to a similar role.

Only thing is...the Arrow is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive than the Mirage. Not to mention far more complicated.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Mac, are you familiar with this? Arrowflight is a rather strange vintage comic: it's a dystopian FH story starring a magically sentient Avro Arrow. Yes, you read that right.
 
Earlier in the thread...

...I read arguments for a commercial aircraft carrier.

Revive Habakkuk! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

the Pykrete (ice/sawdust) million-ton displacement aircraft carrier, intended to sit in the shipping lanes and fly off landplanes as a counter to U-boats.

A Pykrete carrier could be all-Canadian, would use 8,000 tons of steel - and could take some decent aircraft. Slow 7-knot speed no problem - just for station-keeping. A nuke to sink it.

Thought you'd like the fun. Played with Pykrete at high school and found it as tough as a brick and remarkably heat-resistant under a blowtorch.
 
Top