It is commoningly assumed that the US post-WWII was the premier power in the world in terms of hi-tech military toys. But that is not entirely true during the period of 1955-1965 the thunder had been stolen from the US by two allies, Canada and the UK. Both nations had produced what are arguably the best fighters and strike aircraft post-WWII in the west. In Canada Avro which was the Canadian aircraft manufacturing company developed what is arguably the most graceful, sophisticated, and deadly weapons that the West produced in the Cold War; the Avro Arrow: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It was powerful, and it was better then anything the US or the USSR had for that matter. It was designed for interception of Soviet bombers over the Canadian Arctic. The aircraft was sadly canceled by the Canadian government due to costs, and due to the idiotic idea that the future of war would be with missiles and the interceptor was no longer necessary. Canadians have never really forgotten what could have been, and how we lost out to American pressure, and forfeited our only real chance to be number one. http://www.maverick2.com/arrowmain.htm The other nation at the time that had usurped the US in terms of technology was the UK. The UK has been known for her expertise and their breakthroughs in aviation technology. For the British their premier aircraft was the TSR.2, like the Arrow fast, efficient, and deadly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The TSR.2 was also cancelled by the British government for reasons not unlike that of the Arrow. The aircraft was so advanced that she had a flight control system that had no match in the world, terrain following radar, and it was the first British aircraft to be fitted with an in-flight refueling probe. Sadly the TSR.2 was cancelled and the British government didn’t even order the F-111 which the Americans offered due to costs. The death knell for the TSR.2 was Australia’s choice to pick the F-111 instead of the TSR.2. http://www.vectorsite.net/avtsr2.html There is no doubt in my mind that these aircraft would have been in service well into the 90’s with those nations and surely with nations outside Canada and the UK. I wouldn’t have been surprised if the US ordered the Arrow as an interim fighter until the F-15 came along. I would not have been surprised if European nations like Germany, and the UK ordered the Arrow and even Japan. Arguably even Iran, and India imo would have bought the aircraft. The TSR.2 would have also had export success Canada, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Germany; Argentina could have all bought the aircraft. The short sighted decisions of those governments destroyed what could have been…
Hey Undecided, Canada chose correctly. The US toys are all but obsolete, used as deterent and a heavy cost in treasure. The flawed politics of neoubercolonialism shows us that the citizen/soldier-freedom fighter using guerilla tactics on a non-existant budget can tie up an entire worldpowers military and win(or at least not lose). -see Chechnia,Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq, Palastine etc. When you lament what could have been, are you missing the projeted revenue from the fleecing of the 3rd world? Insanely Elite
Canada chose correctly. The US toys are all but obsolete, used as deterent and a heavy cost in treasure. The US exports those toys to nations like Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, European nations for billions. Canada lost out big time. The flawed politics of neoubercolonialism shows us that the citizen/soldier-freedom fighter using guerilla tactics on a non-existant budget can tie up an entire worldpowers military and win(or at least not lose). -see Chechnia,Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq, Palastine etc. Yes but do you think Canada cares about that? It’s Canada I should know! When you lament what could have been, are you missing the projeted revenue from the fleecing of the 3rd world? The 3rd world decides what she wants…if her governments are stupid enough to buy the plane so be it.
The aircraft was sadly canceled by the Canadian government due to costs, and due to the idiotic idea that the future of war would be with missiles and the interceptor was no longer necessary. Canadians have never really forgotten what could have been, and how we lost out to American pressure, and forfeited our only real chance to be number one. So, the idiocy of the Canadian government has what to do with the US?
And how is that one of the darkest days in Canadian history Black Friday relates to undermining the status of the US? Shouldn't the title read something more like: "Why Canada could never be #1."
So, the idiocy of the Canadian government has what to do with the US? US pressure was evident to scrap the Arrow, the Americans were offering Canada a missile tipped with nuclear weapons instead of the Arrow (forgot the missiles name). Canada said well ok…the same thing essentially happened in the 1980’s with the Israeli Lavi fighter. But it is largely Canada's fault and I don't blame the Americans.
Didnt the UK government cancel most succesful projects and then just give the information to the americans? The ammount of stuff we gave the yanks was crimminal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are you forgetting lend/lease? Most past great countries hit the wall after ww2. Building and maintaining a superpower needs a populous country with diverse resources. The EU is ,at least in part, a realization of this fact. UK decided quite a while ago that her fate and that of the 'yanks' is inexorably intertwined.
Just as a side note, there was actually a two-part mini-series about the Arrow, I believe for Canadia TV, starring Dan Akroyd. I'm afraid it's not listed as available on DVD or VHS, but a friend of mine mentioned a few weeks ago to me that he'd seen it recently on American television, so you might keep an eye out for it. Tivo/PVR owners may be able to set a watch list by keywords or title. IMDB entry: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118641/ Just thought I'd mention it. Be forwarned -- I've read that it's somewhat over-dramatized. But it might still be fun to watch. As Undecided points out, the "kill shot" for the CF-105 was the Canadian government. Cover-ups and down-playing are fairly well documented in various places, as mentioned above. The friend I mentioned above (who writes for Aviation Week magazine) has told me in the past that the plane had airframe development problems as well, but nothing that was really unusual for a test program in those pre-fully-computerized days. It was easily the highest-performing fighter of its time. I'm afraid I have to disagree with Undecided on one thing, however. It is one UGLY airplane! I think I actually might even like the F/A-18 Hornet better, and that's saying a lot. (grin)
Pangloss Yes I think most Canadians have watched the Arrow TV movie, a Canadian classic. I know I did… It was easily the highest-performing fighter of its time. It would have been the highest performing aircraft in the world until the introduction of the F-15, and SU-27 in the 70’s and 80’s. The aircraft was the best thing that could have happened to Canada, we had the CF-100 Canuck, which was unorthodox for the era in its design: http://www.rcafmuseum.on.ca/ac_cf100.htm. Twice Canada gave up her lead in aerospace, first it was with the Avro jetliner program: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Americans were not the first ones to build a civilian jetliner it was Canada. Canada lost out big time… I'm afraid I have to disagree with Undecided on one thing, however. It is one UGLY airplane! I think I actually might even like the F/A-18 Hornet better, and that's saying a lot. (grin) How can you say that was an ugly plane? http://www.spitcrazy.com/Avro_Arrow.jpg Look at that majestic aerodynamic surface!
Well of the planes that were around at that time, it's one of the more attractive ones, with a business-like demeanor that demands attention, much like the F-104 Starfighter or F-105 Thunderchief. Planes of that era all tend to follow a certain set of design characteristics which are fairly abrupt and stern in general. Blame it on less-advanced materials and lack of computer-aided design and (perhaps more importantly) trans/super-sonic wind simulation. It's certainly no Fishbed. I wouldn't kick it out of bed like an cheap F-4 Phantom with bad makeup. (Um, let's not analyze that sentence too closely, eh?) Of delta-wing craft, the one-of-a-kind YB-70 Valkyrie is a personal fave. (A program which met a fate similar to that of the Arrow, ironically.)
By the way, Canadian (and British) aircraft designers were strongly influential in the visual design of many American aircraft, and are part of the reason why companies like Boeing, McDonald-Douglas, Lockheed and others went on to make such attractive aircraft, both in the military and civilian sectors. It certainly wasn't their most important contribution, but it's worth noting. Compare with the ugly beasts the Soviets were cranking out all during the cold war, and it's not hard to see what might have been.
good point Undecided, but America will never (as long as it is capable) allow any country to become advanced to much in any way espeically in arms and combat. America will never allow that to happen for as long as it capable of preventing it especially in a place such as Canada which is so close to America.
^^ Yeah, the Comet was the first. Good old self-opening sardine cans that they were. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you look at the chines around the Arrow's canopy you can see a vague resemblance between that and the canopy of other famous high performance aircraft like the SR-71 and other noteable airframes like the space shuttle. It's a good example of how technology of one discipline propagates and can often transcend national and political boundaries. A lot of the ex-Avro engineers migrated south to the US and went to work for Lockheed after the Arrow programme was shitcanned. In the later 1950s the US decided to forego further development of supersonic bombers in favor of larger, heavier subsonic bombers with more payload capacity for standoff weapons, like the B-52. Heavy bombers could ostensibly penetrate far enough into Soviet airspace to launch their cruise missiles, and the cruise missiles would subsequently make the sprint to their targets alone. That's the primary reason why we opted out of the SST concept after the B-58 Hustler (until the early-1970s revived that line of thinking). Standoff weapons give aircrews the luxury of not having to face as many enemy air defenses, since most of the run to the target through thick AAW would be accomplished by the supersonic missile rather than the bomber itself. So, its accomplishments are twofold: 1) better force protection; aircrews exposed to less danger and 2) supersonic ALCMs are more effective than high speed bombers anyway. Like I hinted at above, this didn't last forever: by the later 1960s we were back at the drawing board with the Valkyrie and the early B-1A variants. Standoff profiles never left our doctrine though. Also, anybody who says the Arrow is an ugly aircraft has their head screwed on sideways. You're probably thinking of the AGM-28 Hound Dog, which incidentally was the first supersonic ALCM. The Hound Dog fit the bill and was one of the reasons we never leapt at the SST penetration concept until a few decades later.
The F-4 Phantom covered most of the years mentioned and went on for another 30+: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/
The F-4 Phantom is a great aircraft no question about that, she has more then proved herself in service. But I don’t consider it the prettiest of the bunch. Although the Phantom will forever be compared to the Soviet MiG-21 who also is one of the most practical, and best interceptor/fighters in the world. Compare with the ugly beasts the Soviets were cranking out all during the cold war, and it's not hard to see what might have been. Are you serious? The Soviets did have their…aesthetic problems with some aircraft. But aesthetically speaking the Su-27 is much better looking then the F-15. Also the M-G29SMT is one hot bitch…also let’s not forget the S-42 Berkut…move over F-22.
