Wings of the Free World: What If The Avro Arrow entered service?

[Russell]

Well, ideally Avro well learn from this mistake - the Arrow probably wouldn't sell well internationally. The Unit cost, even with the advent of sales would remain high and put off potential buyers, as would the lack of flexibility and extraordinarily high maintenance costs (the Arrow was after the world’s most advance combat aircraft and would require considerable service support in terms of spare components, expertise and the facilities needs to operate both of thee above). The only country I can see taking it would be Britain and only if the 57 defence paper doesn't go through (and the Lightning, which in any event did the job just as well).

Avro should cut its losses with the Arrow, maybe trying to break even. It should then develop a vastly smaller and more flexible platform. A single engine fighter, as opposed to a twin engine interceptor. Think a Canadian Mirage.

Russell

 

[phx1138]

What concerns me is your acceptance of the necessity of the Iroquois. As I recall, that was an expensive undertaking, which delayed the project when France demanded changes not compatible with the C.105. If the aim is to get her flying soonest, what about a J75-powered Mk1?

 

[Ming777]

The thing was, it is a damn good engine, and it wasn't the main reason why the Arrow was axed. The main issues were related to the indecision over the choice of weapons and radar. If they had just stuck with the original proposal of using the Falcon Missile and associated Radar, the costs for R&D would be much smaller (avionics is among the most expensive parts of an aircraft)

The original 5 Mark Is ITTL also had the heavier, less powerful J57s. All subsequent aircraft were fitted with the PS.13 Iroquois Engine.

 

[phx1138]

The thing was, it is a damn good engine, and it wasn't the main reason why the Arrow was axed. The main issues were related to the indecision over the choice of weapons and radar. If they had just stuck with the original proposal of using the Falcon Missile and associated Radar, the costs for R&D would be much smaller (avionics is among the most expensive parts of an aircraft)

The original 5 Mark Is ITTL also had the heavier, less powerful J57s. All subsequent aircraft were fitted with the PS.13 Iroquois Engine.

I'll confess ignorance. It appears you've got it well in hand anyhow.

Orenda producing a better engine for the F-5 was sort of what I had in mind.

I picture something like an Orenda-powered F-20, here.


Also, thinking of customers, what about Oz & NZ?

Arrow potential evolution

I don't know if in your TL the F-108 Rapier is cancelled or not in September 1959.
That interceptor very powerful radar and missiles (AN/ASG-18 and AIM-47 Falcon) ended on a B-58 testbed, then on the YF-12.

I'd like to see an Arrow replacing that B-58 as testbed for that very powerful radar and missiles.

Then, when in 1967 the Mig-25 would be seen at that Domodedovo airshow, the Arrow would be the only interceptor able to shoot it.
Israeli and Iranian Phantoms could not shot Mig-25, that's why they bought Tomcat and Eagle in the late 70's.
Perhaps they could buy CF-105 right from 1969 ?

Agreed, a need to intercept MiG-25s might produce other sales.

This makes me wonder a couple of things: could there be a dedicated PR Arrow comparable to the RS-71? (The projected Mach 3 variant...?) And could Avro develop (or need...) an equivalent to the AIM-54? My thought is, they might use the Falcon airframe with new motors & electronics, in the fashion of Aspide.

The Israelis will also help Avro Canada in turning the interceptor into a more multirole plane, just before the Six-Day War.

I'm wondering if there are export issues with the Orenda & some of the electronics. I picture IAF stuffing an Arrow airframe with J79s & local electronics, & later fitting canards, like the Kfir (? Nesher?), which feeds back into Avro Canada's production/design.

As for the testbed, the USAF will lease at least one Arrow for such a purpose. The tests will lead to Avro Canada fitting the AIM-47 and later the AIM-54 in future Marks of the Arrow.

I see you beat me to it.

While IDK the exact timing, is there a chance the Golden Hawks get Arrows, instead of the Snowbirds & CT-114s, & give the Blue Angels & Thunderbirds a run for their money? (I've always loved that color scheme.

BTW, as a Canadian, I can't resist a TL where the Arrow flies. Nice work.

 

[Pyeknu494]

BTW, as a Canadian, I can't resist a TL where the Arrow flies. Nice work.

Who wouldn't?

 

[phx1138]

McDonnell Douglas will want to improve its chief fighter offering of the time (F-4 Phantom II) to match the Arrow's capabilities.

Actually, I was thinking the FH-1 would be a very different type, if the Arrow fills the interceptor/BVRM niche, which could encourage the choice of a gun-equipped dogfighter closer to the F8U. Might even mean the FH loses the competition.

 

[Just Leo]

There's a couple inconsistancies. The J-57 was lighter than the Iroquois. The OTL J-75 was slightly heavier.

The Iroqois never achieved more than 60% power without failure. The solution was hopefully at hand at the time of cancellation. The engine's lack of success was indeed why the aircraft never broke any speed/altitude records. The company didn't want any records broken before the definitive engine was installed. They didn't want a J-75 Arrow.

The Arrow was never fitted with weapons. There is no room in the nose or anywhere else for cannons without a bulge in the airplane somewhere. Drooping the nose lower would allow placement of 2 cannon athwart the nosegear, altering appearance and aerodynamics. The weapons-bay is quite long at almost 16 feet, but quite shallow. Falcons fit but Sparrows would have been semi-recessed. I noted an article stating that the bomb-bay was bigger than a Lancaster's. In fact, 6 or 8 of the Arrow's weapons modules wound have fit in the Lanc's belly. The wing was capable of mounting two stations, one per side, for long-range tanks, once the production vehicle was achieved. These could be envisioned as weapon stations.

Conformal fuel tanks could have only been added above the fuselage (ugly) or below the engines, Lightning-style.

The airframe was not suitable for high speed low altitude over land, due to the large wing area. Any modification to enable it to do so would have impaired it's primary role. I can whip something up on the MS Paint program, but it's not the same as real life. ( I think I did.)

 

[Ehran]

While IDK the exact timing, is there a chance the Golden Hawks get Arrows, instead of the Snowbirds & CT-114s, & give the Blue Angels & Thunderbirds a run for their money? (I've always loved that color scheme.

arrows would not have been what an aerobatic team would want to fly.
the class acts in the world today for aerobatic teams are the snowbirds and the british team. the test is how many aircraft they fly at a time in formation and the sheer power of the jets they fly. the thunderbirds and blue angels simply fly fewer in formation and use more powerful jets than the brits or canadians do which puts them lower on the totem pole.

 

[Ming777]

It's BACK

1964

The year began with Avro Canada continuing its deliveries of aircraft, with Late February seeing the first set of four Arrows delivered to 432 Squadron at RCAF Bagotville. With a massive backlog, Canadair and DeHavilland Canada were contracted to supply major parts for the aircraft, with final assembly still performed at Avro Canada's facility in Malton.

March saw Canada begin a decade long peacekeeping mission in Cyprus under the UN Flag. In order to support the mission, Canada received permission from Britain to base aircraft at RAF Nicosia. 419 Squadron was deployed in its entirety along with a detachment of 422 Squadron's Canadair Sabres, with the 419 to handover their planes to the Israelis next year before returning to RCAF Station Baden-Soellingen to receive their new CF-105B Arrows. Also in March, one George Stanley first describes and draws a proposal for a new National flag, inspired by the red and white flag of the Royal Military College.

In April, the last of 423 Squadron's Arrows were delivered to RCAF Station Cold Lake. Avro Canada was now starting work on a new variant of the Arrow, that would be produced a decade from now. Most of the initial focus was on improving the design's flight range and improving the combat capabilities and capacity for munitions. The fuel tank hardpoints were to be adapted to be able to carry and fire missiles or drop bombs. some called for additional weapon mounts on the fuselage, and the debate continued for years. There would be a sub-variant created for high speed reconnaissance missions, taking advantage of the flight characteristics of the Arrows, which were optimized for fast, straight flying.

June 15, 1964 became the next major headline as Prime Minister Pearson officially announces plans to adopt a new national flag to replace the Red Ensign, the de facto flag of Canada, sparking fierce debate in Ottawa. Pearson supported the "Pearson Pennant," while John F Diefenbaker viciously defended the Red Ensign. The bitter debate would late for six months until closure was enacted. In the end the Canada adopted a modifed version of George Stanley's proposal, with a stylized 11-point maple leaf in the center of what became known as the Canadian pale. The bill adopting the flag was passed on December 16. Among the first to carry the new flag were the Arrows of RCAF Uplands, who flew over the Capital on New Years Eve proudly carrying the flag on their tail fins.

In November, Hughes Aircraft received their two stripped down Arrows, with the firm's engineers soon tearing inside and replacing the rudimentary radar with their own ASG-18 radar system, and had the weapons bay adapted to fire the AIM-47 Falcon.

By the end of the year, the first of the RAAF's Arrows are being produced, and Avro Aircraft in Britain is now running at full speed to produce Arrow F.2A (CF-105B variant) aircraft for the Royal Air Force. All of Japan's Canadian built Arrows are delivered, with Mitsubishi buying the tools to build more aircraft for the JASDF.

 

[Just Leo]

There would be a sub-variant created for high speed reconnaissance missions, taking advantage of the flight characteristics of the Arrows, which were optimized for fast, straight flying.

The Arrow specification called for supersonic powers of manoeuver far beyond any other aircraft. These specifications were met, and it wasn't easy, or cheap.

 

[FgenLuke]

It's BACK

1964

~SNIP~

Yeeeeessssss!

Keep um coming, Ming!

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Regarding the Arrow and the Foxbat

Of course, the Soviets are going to be very interested in the Arrow and its capabilities,and will likely have some detailed espionage on it. As a result, the Arrow and its development process are going to impact the development of the MiG-25 in some way.

I can see one of two things happening with the Foxbat:

1. The Soviets rush to get an aircraft they perceive as superior to the Arrow into service. The MiG-25 makes its first flight sometime in 1963-1964, and enters service around 1968-1969. However, its performance is inferior to the OTL MiG-25 (lets say it can only reach around Mach 2.6 at 20000m, compared to 2.83 at 23000m OTL). The west finds out about its performance (after brief hysteria as in OTL) and sees that it can be intercepted by a skillfully flown Phantom or Arrow. Slightly uprated versions of the F-4 and CF-105 enter service, and a MiG-25 successor (similar to MiG-31) appears in the late 70s.

2. The Soviets realize that the Arrow is a seriously capable aircraft, and decide to make absolutely sure they have something that can beat it. As a result, the Foxbat doesn't enter service until around 1972 or 1973. However, it is improved in multiple ways: more reliable engines (possibly not derived from a drone powerplant?), greater usage of titanium and similar materials in construction, as well as overall greater refinement in construction and design. As a result, the Russians end up with an interceptor that can hit mach 3-3.2 at 27000 meters without shredding its engines on every flight, that actually has useful range and at least marginal maneuverability. Basically, what the Americans thought the Foxbat was before Belenko defected in 1976.


The Canadians are most likely going to see this and come up with a new, radically improved version of the Arrow, possibly with Mach 3 capability. The Americans are going to do one of two things:

a. Push forward development of this timeline's F-15 analogue, with a greater emphasis on pure straight line speed and climb ability, rather than making it an all-around fighter as in OTL.

b. Somebody has a brainwave, realize that the US already has a Mach 3 interceptor design, and phones the Skunk Works. In a few years, we see modernized F-12s intercepting MiG-25s. <--- personal preference


Just my input on the situation (the MiG-25 and CF-105 are both in my personal top 5 of favorite interceptors, so I find this situation to be quite interesting, to say the least).

 

[AdA]

MiG25 interception

To intercept the MiG25 what was needed was not a faster aircraft, but a better missile. The AIM54 could take down a MiG25. According to soviet tests the MiG25PD and it's R40 missiles could take down an SR71, so the counter to more speed would be bigger missiles, not a speed race.

 

[bsmart111]

If you look at its history, it was in fact designed as a carrier-based interceptor. It was only after it's introduction into service that the multirole potential of the aircraft was developed. Hence why it has the maneuverability of a flying bathtub.

Actually the Phantom was initially designed as a heavy attack aircraft (AH-1) it was only after that requirement was suddenly changed to be a fleet defense interceptor that it became the F4H.

 

[Just Leo]

Actually the Phantom was initially designed as a heavy attack aircraft (AH-1) it was only after that requirement was suddenly changed to be a fleet defense interceptor that it became the F4H.

The requirement didn't change. The contract was lost, and in the scramble to recover, the F4H was born.

Much of the technology that went into the F4H's radar/fire control was paid for by Canadian taxpayers. So it goes.

 

[Just Leo]

While IDK the exact timing, is there a chance the Golden Hawks get Arrows, instead of the Snowbirds & CT-114s, & give the Blue Angels & Thunderbirds a run for their money? (I've always loved that color scheme.

They might look good.

 

[SactoMan101]

I kind of hate to be a killjoy in all this, but I think the Avro Arrow would have started to leave active service by the early 1980's, replaced by--the equivalent of the F-15C Eagle. And given McDonell-Douglas had designed the F-15 with considerable growth potential as ground attack plane, F-15 variants would have replaced the Arrow in the service of many air forces that had been operating the Arrow by the late 1980's.

 

[NothingNow]

Of course, the Soviets are going to be very interested in the Arrow and its capabilities,and will likely have some detailed espionage on it. As a result, the Arrow and its development process are going to impact the development of the MiG-25 in some way.

I can see one of two things happening with the Foxbat:

1. The Soviets rush to get an aircraft they perceive as superior to the Arrow into service. The MiG-25 makes its first flight sometime in 1963-1964, and enters service around 1968-1969. However, its performance is inferior to the OTL MiG-25 (lets say it can only reach around Mach 2.6 at 20000m, compared to 2.83 at 23000m OTL). The west finds out about its performance (after brief hysteria as in OTL) and sees that it can be intercepted by a skillfully flown Phantom or Arrow. Slightly uprated versions of the F-4 and CF-105 enter service, and a MiG-25 successor (similar to MiG-31) appears in the late 70s.

Said MiG-25 successor better be sturdier and have much more powerful engines, like the Kuznetzov NK-25 or NK-32, which are about the same size (within a couple of centimeters both in diameter and length) as the Tumansky R-15, and capable of much higher thrust across the whole spectrum. Modify them to a proper Variable Cycle engine design, like the GE YF120, and build everything strong enough (Likely using Titanium alloys in much of the engines and airframe, with Superalloys filling out most of the remainder, as IOTL the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are mostly limited to +/-5G maneuvers at speed, while IIRC, the only time anyone pulled off a +11G maneuver in a MiG-25 the airframe was a total writeoff.

Such a MiG-25 Sucessor would need to be very much designed to not only keep up with the Arrow, and the SR-71, but to exceed them to a large extent, and to minimize any weaknesses comparatively. Improve it's Maneuverability, and fuel consumption, and then give it better electronics, including HOTAS controls and a counterpart to the ZSh-5 / Shchel-3UM on the MiG-29 and Su-27, and a replacement for the MiG-25 would be a monster, especially if it gained thrust vectoring (which on an aircraft with a >1.0 thrust to weight ratio could be easily done.) The Problem is, with that, you start running into the limitations of what a human is honestly capable of surviving, even with a G-suit.

Just for a quick comparison here's a comparison chart between the Tumansky R-15, Soloviev D-30F6, Kuznetzov NK-25 and Kuznetzov NK-32, which could provide a decent base-line.

To intercept the MiG25 what was needed was not a faster aircraft, but a better missile. The AIM54 could take down a MiG25. According to soviet tests the MiG25PD and it's R40 missiles could take down an SR71, so the counter to more speed would be bigger missiles, not a speed race.

Well, better Maneuverability would be useful as well, considering how weak the MiG-25 is at speed, but yeah speed and missiles would be necessary. A derivative of the AIM-54 with thrust vectoring to improve maneuverability at the top-end, and possibly Ramjet-powered to improve it's range (and maybe lighten it a bit) would give the Arrow or whatever's tasked with intercepting a MiG-25 or MiG-31 a decent edge, provided it could get the jump on said aircraft. Hell, maybe the Lenticular Attack Missile could see another shot at development.

 

[Riain]

I kind of hate to be a killjoy in all this, but I think the Avro Arrow would have started to leave active service by the early 1980's, replaced by--the equivalent of the F-15C Eagle. And given McDonell-Douglas had designed the F-15 with considerable growth potential as ground attack plane, F-15 variants would have replaced the Arrow in the service of many air forces that had been operating the Arrow by the late 1980's.

I have to disagree with you, the proof being the longevity of the Phantom. Britain was the first export customer for the Phantom and it didn`t start to replace them until the Tornado F2/3 came along in the mid/late 80s. other operators were using large Phantom fleets well into the 90s.

The fleet replacement model of the US is very different to the rest of the world, it is a strategic decision on their part to make their planes last about 25 years, whereas other countries without a robust aerospace industry squeeze another 5+ years out of their airframes.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Looking at the info you provided, as well as other stuff I managed to find, the NK-25 looks like a damn good choice for our MiG-25 successor: about double the thrust of the R-15, reasonably close to the same size, and good fuel efficiency (it powers the Tu-22M OTL). Also, the Backfire had its first flight in 1969, with entry into service in 1972. Assuming that development for the Backfire proceeds roughly OTL, you could actually end up sticking the NK-25 into the super-Foxbat I postulated in option 2. Assuming an empty weight of around 22-23000 kg (slightly larger than the MiG-31), my calculations give a maximum T/W ratio of 1.26. Which is damn good for the early 70s (as well as being superior to the F-15C). The main issue I can see is how the NK-25 will perform at high mach numbers, considering that the airframe its designed for (Backfire) only goes up to around Mach 2. This can probably gotten around with clever intake design though, to get the incoming air down to subsonic before it enters the compressor section.


I'm not entirely sure that thrust vectoring capabilities are entirely within the capabilities of Soviet aircraft design in the late 60s/early 70s. Besides, I'm not entirely sure they'd even be necessary. This hypothetical MiG-25 variant (25X?) isn't going to be screwing around down low shooting R-60s at A-4s and F-16s, it's going to sit at high altitude 50+ km off, shooting long range SARH missiles at B-52s, B-1s, and the like. Although I do agree that it would need more turning ability than the Foxbat has in OTL, at least to be able to get out of dodge if it gets jumped by a couple of Phantoms or Falcons at low altitude. I think that can be covered under using better materials and making some improvements to general construction practices (when examining the MiG-25 in 1976, it was found that the aircraft was hand-welded and had exposed rivet heads in some areas).

With regards to using a better missile rather than a faster aircraft, I agree with the sentiment that a better missile is going to be extremely useful, however putting the firing aircraft at a higher speed and altitude is going to provide an advantage. To put it simply, the more kinetic energy the launching aircraft gives a missile, the less the missile has to spend catching up to the target and climbing toward it. As a result, the missile is going to be able to maneuver better, as well as engage at a longer range. Conversely, an aircraft with better speed and altitude capabilities is going to be harder to hit, especially in a tail chase situation.