It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadians apparently dream of building a better MIG 31

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Seems there is a nostalgic move to bring back a modernized Avro Arrow. While that would be interesting to see, and in the massive Canadian airspace it probably would be good to have something like this, I really can't see an airforce composed entirely of MIG 31 type aircraft. Seems very single mission. The comment section is definitely a fun read.

I wonder who would win the F-35 / Avro flyoff? :-)

www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Good for them!!

I'd love to see the Canadian aero-space industry rebound. It's time and past.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I would love to see that as well. No reason for international monopolies.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Look at the cost of the 35's. They have a point, and with the problems of procurement for the 35's they maybe on the right track.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Here is the deal, the Avro was built with one mission in mind. It was to blast Soviet era bombers out of the sky as they traversed the vast tundra to reach Toronto and Montreal. They were not meant for point defense, air to ground, nor any other mission that I can think of.

Seeing as how that is no longer a realistic threat to Canada, I do not see any rationale for building a Mach 3 high altitude fighter. No matter how cool it is.

They'd be better off going the route of Sweden and developing something similar to the SAAB Gripen. It is within their wheelhouse to do so and would benefit their military needs much better.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I would love to see this. Was a shame the original was canceled, it was an amazing aircraft.

~Winter



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

One thought is they can try to sell some to the USAF as air to air missile trucks.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools Being that the F-35 can solve all jet needs being CAS and the later IMO not getting them would be a bad decision. The F-35 is a great choice giving it's multiple role capabilities.




posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The F-35A is cheaper than many upgraded 4th Gen platforms, the B is coming down and will continue to drop, though it won't get as low as the A.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Exactly, I can't see developing that airframe to anything more than what it was supposed to do when it was designed. I realize that there is a good advantage to single mission aircraft, but to rebuild the Arrow would be total overkill. It could not do much more than it was designed to do, even with flexible nozzles. I also noticed an odd delta design screw up in the video. I am not saying I KNOW, just saying I thought that what they showed as the possible design would cause far mor problems than solutions.

PS. I know, I was the guy that daydreamed about the Vought F-7, but I did realize that was a dream better regulated to RC.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Like this?


www.youtube.com...
edit on 25-11-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   
The Arrow was incredible for its time, people often forget that latter part. It was a huge (seriously, go compare the dimensions against the F-35 or even F/A-18), absurdly powerful interceptor designed to carve up Soviet strategic bombers at Mach 2+. But that's all it could do. Now, I'm not saying that capability is useless, but a single-purpose fighter like that would never work in today's political environment, let alone the practical issues. The basic fact of it is we need more bomb trucks than interceptors, and the budget just isn't there to procure two different systems, which is what would be necessary if the Arrow/Foxbat/Foxbat concept were put back into service.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The AVRO Arrow was possibly the best plane of its day. The US killed it while it was a baby.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Disclaimer: I am a sucker for cool looking aircraft. I can't say no. I have no will power. Concept or physical.

The Super Arrow looks awesome!



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Why waste the money?
Just buy some Soviet S400 batteries.
Everybody is so damn convinced they can shoot everything down in the sky.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: Fools

The AVRO Arrow was possibly the best plane of its day. The US killed it while it was a baby.


Ya and 90% off the engineer and technology went down south
to build the SR 71



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Trillium

The SR-71 was an offshoot of the A-12, which was already selected by the CIA in 1959, which was the same year the Arrow was cancelled.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Why would they develop anything when a Saab, Dassault, Eurofighter etc. can be bought?
7.8 billion buys you a 100 Dassault Rafale that do the job pretty good I suppose.
And I'm sure France wouldn't oppose to that deal.
edit on 25-11-2017 by Daalder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

"The engine was tested in 1959 and 1960," said Sipe. "And it surpassed all of their expectations. Actually, that engine ran flawlessly." The Iroquois set performance records that wouldn't be broken until the United States introduced the SR-71 Blackbird in the mid-sixties.


The Arrow program

Arrow

WiKi

Still looking for a ATS thread about it



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Trillium

The SR-71 was an offshoot of the A-12, which was already selected by the CIA in 1959, which was the same year the Arrow was cancelled.


Ya that because all of the supersonic testing was done in the us only place that had them


The J75 had a dry thrust of 76.5 kN (7,800 kgp / 17,200 lbf) and an afterburning thrust of 109 kN (11,110 kgp / 24,500 lbf). The Iroquois was the most powerful engine in North America, with a dry thrust of 82.4 kN (8,400 kgp / 18,500 lbf) and an afterburning thrust of 115.8 kN (11,800 kgp / 26,000 lbf). It had an unprecedented 5:1 thrust-to-weight ratio, achieved partly by extensive use of titanium. The Iroquois was ground-tested in 1955. In 1957, the US Air Force loaned a B-47E Stratojet bomber to the Canadians for a flight-test platform. The engine was bolted to the side of the aircraft, near the tail; the lopsided bomber was apparently something of a handful to fly. Some snags were encountered in testing, but in general the engine development effort went well. The Iroquois was removed from the B-47E after the completion of trials, and the bomber was returned to the United States. However, apparently its airframe had been warped by the asymmetric thrust of the Iroquois, and the aircraft was scrapped. Interestingly, this particular B-47E was the only American strategic jet bomber that was ever operated by a foreign country.


airvectors.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Airvetors.net

edit on 25-11-2017 by Trillium because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join