Faced with crushing development costs and the appealing alternative of a relatively inexpensive ramjet nuclear anti-aircraft missile known as the Bomarc, the government of the time canceled the program and ordered five test aircraft cut apart for scrap. More than 14,000 workers were terminated and many of the leading engineers went to work for NASA. One intact cockpit survives at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. Rumours persist that one of the test aircraft escaped the cutting torches and is hidden somewhere, a theory that was revived in 2011 with the discovery of an Arrow ejection seat in England.

Canadian Black Friday, sounds like your version of our TSR2 story.......

Matt

RAFSB wrote on Sep 14^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:


Im sorry but that is a highly generalized statement. Top speed yes is faster than the F-35 but that is because the design requirements of the F-35 did NOT state Mach 2 capability. Designing a plane for that regime is extremely demanding not to mention that it has been realized that there is no useful purpose for a fighter to go Mach 2+ today. You cannot maneuver at that speed because your turn rate is the size of Texas and you burn a huge amount of fuel getting there. However, there is no way a CF-105 could out fly a F-16, Mig-29, Su-27, F/A-18, Mirage 2000, etc...Im not even going to mention the 4.5 and 5gen fighters! The CF-105 was NOT designed for manueverability and it shows. It was an extremely large fighter which would have been a giant turkey in a dogfight. Its control system too was not as advanced as some say it was. The F-106/F-102 family had a sophisticated system and even the F-94s had the ability to be remotely controlled by GCI.

Now about the US gov't involvement. I would say the cancellation had more to do with the fact that the Soviets had infiltrated the CF-105 program and was siphoning data and specs from it to the Kremlin. In other words, development of the CF-105 at the time was not only advancing Canadian/Western fighter design but it also was advancing Soviet design technology as well. The US gov't involvement stems more from the REPLACEMENT of the canceled CF-105 program via the CF-101 Voodoo.

I should mention on the topic of speed that there is a wide variety of aircraft from the CF-105's era that were faster than most fighters today...but again, that stems from design requirements. Back then it was all about intercepting large formations of large bombers. Today it is about multi-role capability, efficiency, low-observability, and maneuvering capability, and serviceability. On almost all accounts the CF-105 is inferior to modern fighters. But again, that should be expected, the design is 60years old after all and is done around a 60 year old mission that does not exist any more.

In short this proposal is completely useless except say for giving the CF-105 a shot at military service for those die-hard fans of it. (which Im guessing you are)

Tailwinds,
Adam

RAFSB wrote on Sep 14^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:



The election of a new government 1965, the TSR-2 was cancelled due to rising costs, in favour of purchasing the General Dynamics F-111, an "off-the-shelf" decision that itself was later rescinded as costs and development times skyrocketed. The irony of the whole thing was the replacements included the Blackburn Buccaneer and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, both types being previously considered and rejected early in the TSR-2 procurement process. Eventually, the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado was developed and adopted by a European consortium to fulfil similar requirements to the TSR-2....................Now there are those who also believe that  Labour government scrapped it because the USA did not want very serious competition going up against the F111 and knowing how British politics functioned back then I think it is a very fair assumption............

Matt

Steve M wrote on Sep 14^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:

The Dog-Tooth in the Arrows wing... F-15E vertical stabilizer and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

expat wrote on Sep 15^th, 2012 at 4:54am:


Dont forget the British gov't thinking ICBMs and SAMs would replace manned aircraft 

What a dumb assumption that was! 

Steve M wrote on Sep 15^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:


They would have looked at it closer had the entire project not been so abruptly destroyed.

I should point out that the first fighter to sustain Mach 2+ was the F-104 designed by Kelly Johnson and his team at the Skunk Works ~4 years before the Arrow.

Some perspective, Black ace is right about the size difference, this being the arrow reproduction.


       



While the F-104 looked more like a dart with wing mounted engines, the Arrow air induction and the basic design is much more like todays fighters look. 

wahubna wrote on Sep 15^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:


Only 1 RCAF pilot flew it. Flight Lieutenant Jack Woodman. He also flew the CF-104 (http://va3kgb.ve3kbr.com/cf105/players/jack_woodman_bio.htm)  Yes, it might have been, however, it was an interceptor, not a dog-fighter, like the CF-86 or the CF-100 Canuk at the time.  Also, the Voodoo didn't replace the Arrow. The Bomarc missile replaced it.  Oh, and don't look at military... Concorde anyone

Steve M wrote on Sep 16^th, 2012 at 5:16pm:


Oh no, the F-104 was a clear weather POINT defense interceptor. The Arrow would have been the best interceptor had it entered service because it had dash speed, cruise speed, rate of climb, weapons load, weapons system, AND range all due to its size.

Unlike the F-104, I bet the Arrow would have been a long-term success in many roles. The F-104 was a controversial airplane and Ill leave it at that for now. I see a ton of potential in the Arrow: recon, interdiction, Elint, ECM, strike, and of course it could have stayed in the air defense game a while. It had a ton of growth potential. Lots of room for avionics and weapons system growth!

Steve M wrote on Sep 17^th, 2012 at 5:38pm:


That would be the "death spiral" of fighter design: you can afford only so many fighters so you make each one advanced...each fighter becomes expensive & complex, fewer qualified pilots...so you make even more advanced fighters...buy fewer...make them more advanced..and so on.

The theory goes that in a couple of decades an air war will consist of our 1 fighter taking off to meet 'their' 1 fighter in an epic dogfight to decide the war. The F-35 and F-22 vividly illustrate how real this is. So does the Arrow in that regard, never thought about the $ side of the Arrow to be honest.. ..money, the ever present enemy of aviation die-hards!
Thank the heavens for flight sims! (now off to fly the ALPHAsim CF-105  )
http://www.virtavia.com/Freeware/index.php

Quote:


Extreme Prototypes Arrow   everyting on it works. $15 USD

Extreme prototypes arrow looks fantastic, this isn't the payware board but here is a proper link.. Thanks Black Ace


http://arrow.xtremeprototypes.com/en/

wahubna wrote on Sep 18^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:


Hell yeah man!