http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010- ... =obnetwork
The lines are coming together for SSTO. A little luck in the Polywell arena, and we may have a winner.
This also seems to be a good use for rockets...
One of the few good uses for solid rocket motors
*cough*
But if the Soviets had attacked in force, even with massed Tu-95s, we would definitely have benefitted from having a long-range supercruise interceptor with 8 guided missiles and 2 nuclear rockets (the CF-101 carried either 2+2 or 4+0), capable of tight maneuvering at supersonic combat conditions (and thus able to engage multiple targets effectively).
Also, the Soviets may have been a bit late with the high-speed jet bomber force, but they did manage to field one. And yes, it did enter service a full ten years before our CF-101s and CF-104s were finally considered obsolete and replaced. (A CF-18 pilot once remarked that the Arrow would actually have been a significantly better interceptor than the Hornet.)
In peacetime, it has historically been basically unheard-of for any country to buy a foreign fighter that isn't even in service in the country of origin. (A notable exception is the F-111, which decision the RAAF lived to regret...) The interest in the Arrow (and its engines) was unusually high. Everyone outside of Canada, possibly aside from certain special interests in the U.S., thought the Arrow was the bee's knees. (Same with the C102 a decade earlier - everyone except the Canadian media praised it to the skies, including Howard Hughes, who tried very hard to buy a fleet of them).
France in particular wanted the engine, and it's very unlikely they would have been the only customer. But they got wind of the impending cancellation and bailed...
Would you rather have just let the Russians probe our airspace and find no resistance?
My grandfather was in the Air Force. Not a pilot, though; he was stationed on the DEW Line. Everything he said about the Arrow was positive...
The Arrow wasn't ridiculously expensive; I believe I've established that. Cancelling it torpedoed a world-class Canadian aerospace company and finalized the mistake made several years earlier, when the highly-acclaimed, world-beating and non-explodey C102 Jetliner was cancelled by the government (what business did they have cancelling a civilian airliner project anyway?) in favour of Avro concentrating on the CF-100.
This is a matter of record. Yes, even the "political embarrassment" part.
It was much later (more than two years later) that the government managed to obtain those 66 F-101s without looking too ridiculous...
Also, since it was a relaxed-stability design with low wing loading and a very high T/W ratio (~1 at combat weight), it could have been useful for other stuff too - after all, even the F-106 proved surprisingly maneuverable and was retrofitted with a gun...
That's called the "historian's mistake". Plainly we didn't need the Arrow, since we didn't have it and we're still here.choff wrote:So, we needed a mach 2.5 interceptor to catch a turboprop bomber,
But if the Soviets had attacked in force, even with massed Tu-95s, we would definitely have benefitted from having a long-range supercruise interceptor with 8 guided missiles and 2 nuclear rockets (the CF-101 carried either 2+2 or 4+0), capable of tight maneuvering at supersonic combat conditions (and thus able to engage multiple targets effectively).
Also, the Soviets may have been a bit late with the high-speed jet bomber force, but they did manage to field one. And yes, it did enter service a full ten years before our CF-101s and CF-104s were finally considered obsolete and replaced. (A CF-18 pilot once remarked that the Arrow would actually have been a significantly better interceptor than the Hornet.)
I never said that. Though I believe there was interest from other countries (not everyone was building their own interceptors at the time), and even some interest from south of the border...and other countries that wanted to export their aircraft would just scrap production and buy ours.
In peacetime, it has historically been basically unheard-of for any country to buy a foreign fighter that isn't even in service in the country of origin. (A notable exception is the F-111, which decision the RAAF lived to regret...) The interest in the Arrow (and its engines) was unusually high. Everyone outside of Canada, possibly aside from certain special interests in the U.S., thought the Arrow was the bee's knees. (Same with the C102 a decade earlier - everyone except the Canadian media praised it to the skies, including Howard Hughes, who tried very hard to buy a fleet of them).
France in particular wanted the engine, and it's very unlikely they would have been the only customer. But they got wind of the impending cancellation and bailed...
No, that was the government being cheap. Our national debt didn't start ballooning until later, and it wasn't for military reasons. Not that I'm against conserving paper...I've talked to guys in the service in the 60's who told me they had to make sure too use up both sides of writing paper to control stationery costs. That was the legacy of expensive projects.
Would you rather have just let the Russians probe our airspace and find no resistance?
My grandfather was in the Air Force. Not a pilot, though; he was stationed on the DEW Line. Everything he said about the Arrow was positive...
What's that got to do with the Arrow?Another boondoggle was the CANDU reactor exports, practically bribing other countries to purchase nuclear plants and build up market share. That's one of the reasons India and Pakistan are in a nuke standoff.
I know this very well; I'm from Alberta. How is it relevant to the question of whether or not the Arrow was a good idea? It's not like there was a Saskatoon-based aeronautics firm with a superior bid...Ontario and Quebec believed in a model of Canada where the other 8 provinces were the hinterland, providing the raw material and captive home market while they kept the big ticket manufacturing jobs and created a huge high tech market for themselves overseas, it was a crock.
The Arrow wasn't ridiculously expensive; I believe I've established that. Cancelling it torpedoed a world-class Canadian aerospace company and finalized the mistake made several years earlier, when the highly-acclaimed, world-beating and non-explodey C102 Jetliner was cancelled by the government (what business did they have cancelling a civilian airliner project anyway?) in favour of Avro concentrating on the CF-100.
No, the Canadian government was convinced at the time that the age of missiles was upon us, and that manned interceptors were about to become entirely obsolete. Immediately after cancelling the Arrow, they found out that this wasn't true, and that the defence of Canada required interceptors - but nothing was done at that time, in order to avoid political embarrassment.choff wrote:About ten years ago a major magazine ran an article on declassified U2 recon photo's. Only 20 people in the U.S. including Eisenhower had access to these photos in the late 50's early 60's, and what they showed is that the Soviet bomber threat was a colossal bluff. That's why XF106 Rapier got nixed, and that's probably why the CF105 got the axe after Eisenhower went on a fishing trip with then Canadian prime minister Diefenbaker.
This is a matter of record. Yes, even the "political embarrassment" part.
It was much later (more than two years later) that the government managed to obtain those 66 F-101s without looking too ridiculous...
The Arrow was designed for long-range supersonic interception missions (hence the supercruise) and supersonic combat with bombers; hence the stringent maneuverability requirement of 2 gees at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft while maintaining speed and altitude (<12 km turning radius IMCAC, or obviously a lot less if you were willing to trade speed and/or altitude; note that neither the Tu-95 nor the Tu-22M could fly as high as the Arrow). You didn't have to do a flyby and show the bomber crew a centerfold if there were hundreds of the things headed straight for your bases and major cities....As pointed out, pilots can't dogfight at mach 2.5 because they can't see each other to do it.
Also, since it was a relaxed-stability design with low wing loading and a very high T/W ratio (~1 at combat weight), it could have been useful for other stuff too - after all, even the F-106 proved surprisingly maneuverable and was retrofitted with a gun...
-
kunkmiester
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Cruise missiles can have a range of well over a thousand miles, and generally at least 500 for the big ones. You generally want to get to the bomber BEFORE it launches, so you only have to use a couple of missiles to blow up the bomber, and not dozens to shoot down the 12+ missiles after they've been launched.
So you want enough speed to get out, blow up the bomber, come back and rearm to catch the next wave or shoot down some missiles or something. You need a lot of range and speed to make that possible, even with a turboprop bomber.
So you want enough speed to get out, blow up the bomber, come back and rearm to catch the next wave or shoot down some missiles or something. You need a lot of range and speed to make that possible, even with a turboprop bomber.
Evil is evil, no matter how small
The ALCM (AGM-86A) and Tomahawk have ranges of 1500 nautical miles. The Stealth ALCM (AGM-129A) has a range of 2000 nautical miles. There are shorter range models that perform specific missions, like conventional warhead bunkerbusting, etc.kunkmiester wrote:Cruise missiles can have a range of well over a thousand miles, and generally at least 500 for the big ones. You generally want to get to the bomber BEFORE it launches, so you only have to use a couple of missiles to blow up the bomber, and not dozens to shoot down the 12+ missiles after they've been launched.
So you want enough speed to get out, blow up the bomber, come back and rearm to catch the next wave or shoot down some missiles or something. You need a lot of range and speed to make that possible, even with a turboprop bomber.
US cruise missiles physically are smaller than foreign counterparts, although the Chinese have essentially cloned the Tomahawk after they stole plans for the Williams International turbine used in it, and received plans from Wen Ho Lee on the W-80 variable yield warhead.
Soviet cruise missiles were generally large, akin to the BOMARC or larger, and supersonic flying at normal altitudes, while US missiles flew nape of the earth with advanced terrain following radar and digital mapping computers. Despite their greater size, soviet cruise missiles are much shorter range than American models.
Not all of them...IntLibber wrote:Despite their greater size, soviet cruise missiles are much shorter range than American models.
It was Chuchill who said that in wartime truth must be protected by a bodyguard of lies. Until the last decade everybody believed it was radar that won the battle of Britain. It was Enigma, the British new the when and where of German raids, it gave the enemy the impression they were far stronger than in reality.
Now consider, Eisenhower and less than 20 people had access to the U2 photos, they knew the Soviet bomber threat was a bluff, they knew the actual Soviet aircraft production capability. They don't want the Soviets to know that they knew, especially since they probably had informers in the Soviet Air Ministry to protect as well as the U2 photos.
They don't cancel the Arrow and say its because the bomber threat is all bluff and bluster, that's a dead giveaway. They say it's because missles are the new threat, bombers are obsolete. Of course, it's much better if the Soviets try to ramp up bomber production, since it costs a whole lot more than missles, and especially since its sooo... much easier to shoot them down.
So, you act confused about Soviet capability, you say you made a mistake to cancel the Arrow, that encourages them to ramp up bomber production and helps conceal your sources. How easy is it to shoot down the Soviet bombers, well, if you know the Soviet codes a la Enigma, your fighters can be VooDoo's, not Arrows.
Another thing to consider, fighter pilots are chosen for their exceptionally acute vision, quite often in the top ten thousandths percentile of the general population. But fighter pilots hear the Bears long before they see them, loud as all hell, hiding in a cloud bank won't work for those suckers.
This isn't to say that they won't be more capable in the future. I'm quite in favour of upgrading the F18's to F35's, because the F18's are getting on and we don't want to watch them crashing one per month like the VooDoo's and Starfighters. Plus we need to show we're serious about arctic sovereignty.
Now consider, Eisenhower and less than 20 people had access to the U2 photos, they knew the Soviet bomber threat was a bluff, they knew the actual Soviet aircraft production capability. They don't want the Soviets to know that they knew, especially since they probably had informers in the Soviet Air Ministry to protect as well as the U2 photos.
They don't cancel the Arrow and say its because the bomber threat is all bluff and bluster, that's a dead giveaway. They say it's because missles are the new threat, bombers are obsolete. Of course, it's much better if the Soviets try to ramp up bomber production, since it costs a whole lot more than missles, and especially since its sooo... much easier to shoot them down.
So, you act confused about Soviet capability, you say you made a mistake to cancel the Arrow, that encourages them to ramp up bomber production and helps conceal your sources. How easy is it to shoot down the Soviet bombers, well, if you know the Soviet codes a la Enigma, your fighters can be VooDoo's, not Arrows.
Another thing to consider, fighter pilots are chosen for their exceptionally acute vision, quite often in the top ten thousandths percentile of the general population. But fighter pilots hear the Bears long before they see them, loud as all hell, hiding in a cloud bank won't work for those suckers.
This isn't to say that they won't be more capable in the future. I'm quite in favour of upgrading the F18's to F35's, because the F18's are getting on and we don't want to watch them crashing one per month like the VooDoo's and Starfighters. Plus we need to show we're serious about arctic sovereignty.
CHoff
Yeah, thats the Tomahawk clone, or near clone. Another good example (along with the F-15/Mig-25) of how similar mission parameters result in nearly identical design solutions.93143 wrote:Not all of them...IntLibber wrote:Despite their greater size, soviet cruise missiles are much shorter range than American models.
Really? I thought is was called espionage and "reverse engineering"! Can you say "Concordski"? "Shuttleski"?IntLibber wrote: Yeah, thats the Tomahawk clone, or near clone. Another good example (along with the F-15/Mig-25) of how similar mission parameters result in nearly identical design solutions.
@choff:
Have you seen the documents in Appendix I of Storms of Controversy? As far as I can tell, the evidence says that the Canadian government was misled (deliberately or otherwise) and really believed that interceptors would be unnecessary. After the cancellation, the U.S. got really interested in selling us their interceptors...
There actually was (in 1958) an alternative plan that involved purchasing 100 F-106 Delta Darts, in addition to SAGE/Bomarc. Obviously it was not pursued.
The Voodoo deal wasn't even suggested until about a year after the cancellation...
The CF-104 was an unrelated development. It was stationed in Europe and its primary task was tactical nuclear strike (no, seriously)... Amusingly, it appears from Wikipedia's article on the subject that the RCAF wanted to use F-105 Thunderchiefs (presumably redesignated something resembling CF-105) equipped with PS-13 Iroquois engines...
A couple of examples:
[quote="Cabinet minutes, Feb. 4 or later, year not given, presumably 1960, document marked "SECRET""][Diefenbaker] thought the public had been convinced of the wisdom of the government's decision to cancel the Arrow. To obtain other aircraft now in the face of statements that the threat of the manned bomber was diminishing and that the day of the interceptor would soon be over would be most embarrassing unless a reasonable explanation could be given. Additional BOMARCs in Canada might be an alternative. ...
...even though a logical, reasoned case might be made for obtaining the F-101B's, such a decision could not be explained to the public. The repercussions of telling CINCNORAD that Canada was not prepared to re-equip the CF-100 squadrons would not be too great.[/quote]
[quote="Ministers' meeting minutes, July 1960, document marked "TOP SECRET""][Mr. Pearkes] said we did not cancel the F105 because there was no bomber threat but because there was a lesser bomber threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this. Now, he said perhaps the expectation of two years ago that the bomber threat was lessening has not been fulfilled. At the same time he said we expected Bomarcs to cover the whole country. These had been reduced...
[document goes on to discuss the Voodoo deal][/quote]
Have you seen the documents in Appendix I of Storms of Controversy? As far as I can tell, the evidence says that the Canadian government was misled (deliberately or otherwise) and really believed that interceptors would be unnecessary. After the cancellation, the U.S. got really interested in selling us their interceptors...
There actually was (in 1958) an alternative plan that involved purchasing 100 F-106 Delta Darts, in addition to SAGE/Bomarc. Obviously it was not pursued.
The Voodoo deal wasn't even suggested until about a year after the cancellation...
The CF-104 was an unrelated development. It was stationed in Europe and its primary task was tactical nuclear strike (no, seriously)... Amusingly, it appears from Wikipedia's article on the subject that the RCAF wanted to use F-105 Thunderchiefs (presumably redesignated something resembling CF-105) equipped with PS-13 Iroquois engines...
A couple of examples:
[quote="Cabinet minutes, Feb. 4 or later, year not given, presumably 1960, document marked "SECRET""][Diefenbaker] thought the public had been convinced of the wisdom of the government's decision to cancel the Arrow. To obtain other aircraft now in the face of statements that the threat of the manned bomber was diminishing and that the day of the interceptor would soon be over would be most embarrassing unless a reasonable explanation could be given. Additional BOMARCs in Canada might be an alternative. ...
...even though a logical, reasoned case might be made for obtaining the F-101B's, such a decision could not be explained to the public. The repercussions of telling CINCNORAD that Canada was not prepared to re-equip the CF-100 squadrons would not be too great.[/quote]
[quote="Ministers' meeting minutes, July 1960, document marked "TOP SECRET""][Mr. Pearkes] said we did not cancel the F105 because there was no bomber threat but because there was a lesser bomber threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this. Now, he said perhaps the expectation of two years ago that the bomber threat was lessening has not been fulfilled. At the same time he said we expected Bomarcs to cover the whole country. These had been reduced...
[document goes on to discuss the Voodoo deal][/quote]
I haven't read it but I remember one documentary about Eisenhower, he was resisting runaway military expansion in the States, held back production of expensive high performance interceptors because he knew the threat was greatly exagerrated.
That's why Arrow development had a huge lead over U.S. designs, and the American companies were mad at him because they were being held back, while a foreign company was moving full speed ahead.
If the American companies had been encouraged to pursue their designs the Arrow would have been just another high performance interceptor, competing against at least one and possibly three equal U.S. planes. All against the overated bomber threat, still a boondoggle.
That's why Arrow development had a huge lead over U.S. designs, and the American companies were mad at him because they were being held back, while a foreign company was moving full speed ahead.
If the American companies had been encouraged to pursue their designs the Arrow would have been just another high performance interceptor, competing against at least one and possibly three equal U.S. planes. All against the overated bomber threat, still a boondoggle.
CHoff
The Arrow was to Canada what the Delta Dart was to the United States. The differences in requirements were due to geography (density of bases, density of population, etc.) rather than threat perception.
They even cost about the same. The Arrow wasn't an expensive super-interceptor - it was about the same price as the Delta Dart. (This was helped by the fact that the Canadian aeronautical industry had a proven record of license-building aircraft for less than the original company could...)
The Arrow's main advantage wasn't that it was expensive (it wasn't). It was that it was innovative. Take the bleed air/exhaust management system, for instance. Or the electronic control and stability augmentation system. The engines were really quite nice for the time. I think you're underestimating just how good this design team really was.
(Some sources indicate that an extended-range Arrow Mark IIIa could potentially have matched or exceeded the F-108's range, along with having comparable top speed and substantially superior maneuverability and T/W... but as you say, there was probably no need to do this...)
Also remember that cancelling the CF-105 and PS-13 killed a world-class Canadian aircraft company and a world-class Canadian engine company at a single stroke.
Of course, the engineers didn't just take up jobs as taxi drivers - they went elsewhere. Apollo benefitted greatly from their experience and knowledge. It's been rumoured that the Olympus engines that powered the Concorde were basically outsize Iroquois. But there wasn't a lot for them to do in Canada - so they left.
...
Besides, the F-108 was cancelled several months after the Arrow...
Now, it could well be that U.S. interests were working against the Arrow; there's considerable evidence for it. But that's not the same thing as Canada being suckered by a devious Soviet ploy that the Americans didn't fall for...
They even cost about the same. The Arrow wasn't an expensive super-interceptor - it was about the same price as the Delta Dart. (This was helped by the fact that the Canadian aeronautical industry had a proven record of license-building aircraft for less than the original company could...)
The Arrow's main advantage wasn't that it was expensive (it wasn't). It was that it was innovative. Take the bleed air/exhaust management system, for instance. Or the electronic control and stability augmentation system. The engines were really quite nice for the time. I think you're underestimating just how good this design team really was.
(Some sources indicate that an extended-range Arrow Mark IIIa could potentially have matched or exceeded the F-108's range, along with having comparable top speed and substantially superior maneuverability and T/W... but as you say, there was probably no need to do this...)
Also remember that cancelling the CF-105 and PS-13 killed a world-class Canadian aircraft company and a world-class Canadian engine company at a single stroke.
Of course, the engineers didn't just take up jobs as taxi drivers - they went elsewhere. Apollo benefitted greatly from their experience and knowledge. It's been rumoured that the Olympus engines that powered the Concorde were basically outsize Iroquois. But there wasn't a lot for them to do in Canada - so they left.
...
Besides, the F-108 was cancelled several months after the Arrow...
Now, it could well be that U.S. interests were working against the Arrow; there's considerable evidence for it. But that's not the same thing as Canada being suckered by a devious Soviet ploy that the Americans didn't fall for...