Canadian Avro Arrow
- Thread starter Awang se
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
The Arrow is the first aircraft to incorporate onboard flight control computer system. It contain some of the best innovation of it's time. The engine is also the most powerfull in north america. What i don't get is the action taken by conservative government under Diefenbaker. They practically wipe out everything about the project to rumours and myth. Even if the project cost is to high, they could just scrap the fighter and fired some workers. but to destroy every plans and drawings and data connected to the aircraft is just beyond me.
IMHO the Arrow was better than anything the Americans ever built for that period. (and so was the TSR.2)
Avro built a number of planes that were ahead of their time.
Avro built a number of planes that were ahead of their time.
Avro Canada certainly believed so. They felt that they were pressured so that the F111 won the long distance strike role. The TSR2 was cancelled for the same reason.Awang se said:
Fortunately the F111 is a very capable platform. In fact at sea level it is still the fastest fighter/fighter-bomber in the world. It still has the longest range/payload/speed of any aircraft in the region. The Australian F111's are more modified versions of the origiunal US model.
A few years ago a RAAF pilot "killed" an F-16 in a war game scenario. Very embarrassing for the Viper driver...
The first YF-111A made it's maiden flight on 21st December 1964. Meant to be an "all can do" tactical attack fighter for the USAF(F-111A) and all weather fleet defence fighter for the Navy(F-111B).The B model was a disaster from the word go & was eventually replaced by the Tomcat after only 9 had been built.Australia ordered 24 F-111C attack fighters in 1968(these were delivered after 10 years in1978).The Australian version differs from the basic F-111A by having the longer span wing of the F-111B(this allowed 8 under wing store stations against the original 4)and strengthened landing gear.This is all I have on the C variant of the Ardvark.Maybe any of our Australian friends could post more about their F-111s. :australiaAwang se said:
The F111 was first conceptualised around the same time, it was delayed, blew out in costs, changed in design etc... before they got the design right.Awang se said:
Australia had to use F4 Phantoms while we were waiting for them to be ready
USAFAwang se said:
It was apparently a pretty satisfying "win" as the Viper drivers thought the F111's were flying targets..
the aust defence force is factoring getting other aircraft if the f35 is delayed.Awang se said:
indications are that australia will be high on the priority list to get planes earlier.
otherwise i would guess that fa-18e's would be made available to us.
there are currently 35 f111's in fleet, we are looking at retiring them by 2010.
all of our current combat elements are long range strike capable, so we wouldn't want to lose that tasking capability
personally i'd like to see eurofighters rather than hornets. the hornet is a far less capable platform than the f111 on a task for task basis. its just a pity that the airframe is getting old.
they are still faster than an Su-27 or Su-35 in the hilo strike role. As a long distance hitter they are better as well.
What about the F-16E/F(Block 60 F-16C/D) for the RAAF.On the whole the Falcon is better than the F-18 in all respects.Beats the F-15 in maneavureability, costs a fraction of the Eagle& the Tomcat.Great in closein dogfights, can carry a weapon load greater than the Hornet(all models),I mean 12 GBU12(Mk 82 LGB ) on any Falcon modelvs 8 on the SuperHornet.And with the CFTs it's range in the strike role rivals that of the F/A-18E/F and the StrikeEagle.What do u think guys? :smokingc:
Ever since the Mirage we've preferred twin engines (redundancy, power etc..) but it looks as though the JSF selection will send us back to single engines. :?
I know we looked at f-16's ages ago and they failed quite a bit of the criteria we set.
I'm not keen on f16-f18 platforms due to a number of issues, one being unrefueled range. We need aircraft to be able to go out unassisted without a carrier as far as possible.
this will be even more crtical with the purchase of the LHA's. (which in real terms are small STOL air craft carriers
Long range also gives adequate surface fleet CAP capability
I know we looked at f-16's ages ago and they failed quite a bit of the criteria we set.
I'm not keen on f16-f18 platforms due to a number of issues, one being unrefueled range. We need aircraft to be able to go out unassisted without a carrier as far as possible.
this will be even more crtical with the purchase of the LHA's. (which in real terms are small STOL air craft carriers
Long range also gives adequate surface fleet CAP capability
As much as there is a need for manned aircraft, I believe that in the case of Australia, we should be focussing on more space based, space controlled weapons systems, more unmanned integration.
We already have the infrastructure established and some of the components for an AntiBallistic Missile system.
We have already constructed future long range patrolling on a combination of MMA's Unmanned LRP's and our own version of the Aries platform.
Long range strike does not require a substantial investment in air power projection. There are numerous examples of the capability to kill enemy ships, aircraft and land formations without putting a pilot in harms way.
The current focus on massed platforms is very much last century, cold war type planning.
The future is precision weapons, hypervelocity weapons, space based control and unmanned solutions companioned into existing force structures.
We already have the infrastructure established and some of the components for an AntiBallistic Missile system.
We have already constructed future long range patrolling on a combination of MMA's Unmanned LRP's and our own version of the Aries platform.
Long range strike does not require a substantial investment in air power projection. There are numerous examples of the capability to kill enemy ships, aircraft and land formations without putting a pilot in harms way.
The current focus on massed platforms is very much last century, cold war type planning.
The future is precision weapons, hypervelocity weapons, space based control and unmanned solutions companioned into existing force structures.
I agree, but wouldn't such dramatic steps require a hugely expensive and large-scale R & D program such (poor example: Star Wars)? This would rely on breakthrough (F-117 Nighthawk) rather than evolutionary (F-18 Super Hornet) progress. If we continue evolutionarily, however, 'we' (as in leading country's research benefiting the human race) would probably be fully immersed in 'precision weapons, hypervelocity weapons, space based control and unmanned solutions' anyway in fifteen, twenty years from now (though of course, at a lesser stage of development). We are already in the first stages...gf0012 said:
:roll The future is in space.