CF 105 Avro Arrow 1

[dik]

New article... the beginning of Canada's decline...

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol32/iss2/1/

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

I once had the interesting job of seeing if I could stiffen up the chassis of a 1955 Ford Thunderbird, using FEA. I could, by making it heavier, which was not the intent. I commented on this to my then boss, and he said "Well what do you expect, the engineers on that were designing fighter planes 10 years earlier".


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Sparweb]

About the F-35...
Some lingering bitterness, I admit...
It wasn't long ago that Canada revisited the fighter/interceptor jet order with Lockheed for the F-35's. It was a political game from the start because the Conservatives placed the order without bidding, then the Liberals formed government and wanted to show off how transparent they are. They opened a competitive bid process for the jets. SAAB and Dassault proposed their top jets (Gripen and Rafale, respectively) and they did very well in the competition against Lockheed. Then Canada changed the rules, then Dassault gave up, later SAAB threw up their hands. The F-35 "won".

“It is impossible to sell the Rafale to the Five Eyes member countries [Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States – ed. note], not because it is not interoperable […] but because this network has set rules that they refuse to communicate to us and that aim to have their members work together,”

“Recent statements by the government indicated Canada is negotiating cost, delivery schedule, and economic benefits with our competitor. There should be no negotiation on these critical elements. These elements of the bidders’ response were to be committed to and then evaluated as part of the competitive process.”

This supposedly competitive bidding process is the kind of game that was born in the short-sighted attitude that was seen in the Arrow cancellation. The show is more important than the defense of the nation.

 

[drawoh]

Sparweb,

From the Times Colonist of Victoria BC [—] Commentary: Bring back the Avro Arrow, by Lewis MacKenzie. As you may be guessing, MacKenzie is/was an army general, not an air force general.

--
JHG

 

[rb1957]

oh, for goshes sake, please don't bring back the arrow. what a ridiculous concept. The design is something like 70 years old now. the F35 is designed for stealth (whether we need it or not is a different discussion); the arrow is probably as bright as a searchlight. And not much visibility from the rear. Internal weapons stowage ??

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

I wasn't advocating in bringing it back. The recent article just reminded me of a sad day in Canadian history.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[rb1957]

no, but drawoh's posts were ...

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[WKTaylor]

Hope this makes sense... Evolution moved away from CF-105 type aircraft due to the following 'factors' [a just a glimpse]...

I think the 'simplifying secret' for USAF was 'fielding' jet air-refueling aircraft... KC-135A, replacing piston engine KC-97, with an AR Boom and nozzle/receiver system for forced-pressure high-rate refueling... and large capacity external/jettisonable [drop] tanks for added range-extension in-between AR.

This combination [and other factors**] reduced the need for USAF Fighter-interceptors to carry a massive internal fuel load for scramble/dash/fight/land... Simply AR-top-off prior to the intercept run.... and AR-top-off for loiter... and AR-top-off on the long-return to base...

Air refueling tankers... KC-97 'piston-birds' [AvGas and 'kerosene'] early... and KC-135 'pure-jet' ['kerosene']... evolved to be a mainstay for USAF air warfare during the VN war... range/endurance extended 'indefinitely'. The limiting factors are aircrew fatigue and weapons.

** Likewise, in 'theaters'... not suitable for USAF 'global reach'... the USN has evolved forward deployed carriers with fighter-interceptors and high internal/external fuel capacity... and somewhat limited AR refueling [from specially designated fighter or attack jets]... using hose/probe system for lighter/compact deployment from ships. And these carriers... fighting relatively closer to adversaries... are accompanied by an awesome defensive array of surface combat ships, stealthy attack submarines, land/sea-based airborne ISR... etc... AND a little heralded re-supply and maintenance fleet to keep oceanic air-ops going indefinitely.

Interestingly, Israeli Fighters are modified with 'special-large/fixed' external tanks... and largest possible jettisonable tanks... and fly with with AR tanker support everywhere [not exactly provided/approved by US]. This combination assures extended combat range deep over surrounding Arab countries... flying/fighting at immense distance from their territorial boundaries. This 'long-range airpower' provide a 'force-multiplier' [and psychological] advantage for Israel

Enough, for now.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation, Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", HBA forum]
o Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand everything." -Anton Chekhov

 

[rb1957]

yes, the conformal tanks on the F16 are stunning.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[drawoh]

WKTaylor,

I can see aerial refuelling working when you are bombing some tinput third world country. Would they be able to survive up against a determined, ferocious and dangerous enemy? If the tanker is close enough to support your high performance, short ranged aircraft, the enemy's high performance, short ranged aircraft can reach back. I would not want to flying in a tanker and learning that the enemy has slid into my six o'clock.

--
JHG

 

[rb1957]

sure there is some short range that would place these refueling assets in danger but at least your fighters don't need to lug around all the fuel they need (even to return to base).

And of course there's refueling after take-off, so you can take-off at low weight (like VTOL of short TO from a carrier) and add fuel later.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.