[MarkBsnr]

Let's get serious about fighter aircraft. The AVRO Arrow was crushed by the American defense industry. Politically. Not by technical merits. Let us rectify the situation. Imagine a Mach 5.1 aircraft. With full armaments and a full set of hardpoints. Nobody else is taking on the SU-35. The F-35 is going to lose 2-1 or worse every single time.

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[MarkBsnr]

FYI

[Ramius]

A Mach 5.1 fighter? I’m sensing a problem already with the specification...

[JRandomFreeper]

The Arrow was a great aircraft, and it was crushed by the US administration. I think it good for Canada to have an organic fighter capablility.

/johnny

[yarddog]

The Arrow was an advanced fighter and the U.S. did ask the Canadians to scrap it because the company was absolutely full of Russian Spies.

I think the Mig 25 was probably built on the same general lines as the Arrow. It turned out to not be very practical despite it’s incredible speed.

[Sirius Lee]

She has a 17m wing span and is designed for a multi-role platform. She is an interceptor first, fighter/bomber second and is also designed for close air support for our troops on the ground.

I'm getting deja vu.

[RitchieAprile]

I think it was crushed by program cost. CDN is not that rich in defense spending, governments being loathe to
table expensive systems (like the nuke subs that never happened, instead they acquired HMS ‘Ronson’)..

[tophat9000]

Mach 5.1 with full hardpoints?

You dreaming. .you know the drag that would produce? If your talking interal stores maybe

[lavaroise]

Your concept is too complicated. Would be a nightmare to design and maintain and probably cost 5 billion a peace.

An aircraft is part of a war fighting system. Canada would have to sell a lot of oil to make it happen and probably take over half of the world and destroy the UN agenda 21 single handedly. (Which is a reason why, by the way, taking over the world and true environmentalism are a pipe dream full of bs.

[Notary Sojac]

The Arrow was a lovely aircraft and would have been great for its designed mission. Unfortunately that mission was evaporating.

By the mid sixties, the only interception target operating in the 50,000 foot, Mach 2 environment was the B-58, and the Hustler was not long for service.

Of course, some Arrowphiles might admit that they would have liked to have a defense against the USAF, especially if you talked to them on their way to piss on Diefenbaker's grave.

[Lazamataz]

Imagine a Mach 5.1 aircraft.

Okay.

Okay, done imagining. Next?

[taildragger]

Interesting airplane, the love child of the Arvo and the YF-23 :-).

What I see....

* A Low Aspect Delta with LEX blended in the Forward Fuselage.
* Dog-tooth Leading Edges instead of Continuous Conical Camber Wing, maybe Stealthy, their was a F-117A where it was tried.
* Canard Augmented, nothing new here, aka the Cheetha, Kfir, SU-35, Stealth questions, might be great for STOL or Carrier Variant.
* A Delta with V-Tails, hmmmm, that is more clever that people see. The YF-23 did it and no one noticed the brilliance of it, real aero-heads need to think about it a while, too much maybe for this audience. However IMHO they are not so much in High Alfa, but they would they shine in landing. I.E., not to change the camber of the wing which has it own issues, and use the RudderVators for Pitch Control in that phase, + the Canard.

Interesting bird. Mach 5? I don't know, maybe a nice Gen 3.5 or 4.5 Fighter, not Gen 5 or 6 IMHO, but then again your Mileage may vary :-)...

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

This site exists to inspire all Canadians that given how much money we spend on taxes that we should mandate that if we as Canadians are going to spend tens of billions of dollars for new aircraft to patrol the blue sky of Canada, then we should build them here.

Was this written by a 6th grader?