cool. I can't wait for the TSR 2 to be brought back from the dead.

Bring it on.

Rgardless of the F-35 decision, I think they should still bring back an up to date version of the Arrow.

That would be way to cool!

Actually, it was never fitted with the origonal engines specified,and with those in place it certainly would be a SHORT takeoff.....!
This is a good idea but sadly its going to require a new airframe entirely to produce the capabilities people will want to hang on it.....
I supremely doubt well make this leap.....too much of Harper s heads up the POTUS arse.....

With newer, stronger engines and updated avionics, I think there are several retired aircraft out there that could easily outperform the F-35. Let's look at the Lightning's stats:

F-35 Lightning II
- Max Takeoff Weight: 70,000 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,200 mph (Mach 1.67)
- Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft (Theoretically. It's only been tested to 43,000 ft)
- Rate of Climb: Unknown
- (1) 20mm cannon w/ 180 rounds
- (6) external hardpoints
- (2) internal bays w/ 2 pylons each

Now let's look at some of the decommissioned competitors:

F-4 Phantom II
- Max Takeoff Weight: 61,795 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,472 mph (Mach 2.23)
- Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft
- Rate of Climb: 41,300 ft/min
- (9) external hardpoints

A slightly lower maximum weight, but capable of faster speeds and with a fully tested service ceiling. And no stealth capability.

F-14 Tomcat
- Max Takeoff Weight: 74,350 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,544 mph (Mach 2.34)
- Service Ceiling: 50,000 ft
- Rate of Climb: 45,000 ft/min
- (1) 20mm cannon w/ 675 rounds
- (10) external hardpoints

A higher takeoff weight, higher max speed. But lower service ceiling and no stealth capability.

F-111 Aardvark
- Max Takeoff Weight: 100,000 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,650 mph (Mach 2.5)
- Service Ceiling: 66,000 ft
- Climb Rate: 25,890 ft/min
- (1) internal bay w/ 2 pylons
- (8) external hardpoints

The F-111 outperforms the F-35 in every way except for stealth capability and maneuverability.

Originally posted by allenidaho
With newer, stronger engines and updated avionics, I think there are several retired aircraft out there that could easily outperform the F-35. Let's look at the Lightning's stats:

F-35 Lightning II
- Max Takeoff Weight: 70,000 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,200 mph (Mach 1.67)
- Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft (Theoretically. It's only been tested to 43,000 ft)
- Rate of Climb: Unknown
- (1) 20mm cannon w/ 180 rounds
- (6) external hardpoints
- (2) internal bays w/ 2 pylons each

Now let's look at some of the decommissioned competitors:

F-4 Phantom II
- Max Takeoff Weight: 61,795 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,472 mph (Mach 2.23)
- Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft
- Rate of Climb: 41,300 ft/min
- (9) external hardpoints

A slightly lower maximum weight, but capable of faster speeds and with a fully tested service ceiling. And no stealth capability.

F-14 Tomcat
- Max Takeoff Weight: 74,350 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,544 mph (Mach 2.34)
- Service Ceiling: 50,000 ft
- Rate of Climb: 45,000 ft/min
- (1) 20mm cannon w/ 675 rounds
- (10) external hardpoints

A higher takeoff weight, higher max speed. But lower service ceiling and no stealth capability.

F-111 Aardvark
- Max Takeoff Weight: 100,000 lbs
- Max Speed: 1,650 mph (Mach 2.5)
- Service Ceiling: 66,000 ft
- Climb Rate: 25,890 ft/min
- (1) internal bay w/ 2 pylons
- (8) external hardpoints

The F-111 outperforms the F-35 in every way except for stealth capability and maneuverability.

There are some very capable aircraft in that list,however,why "regenerate" a design from an earlier generation or two,when,despite it's teething troubles,the F-35 has been designed from the outset to embrace the mission profiles that ALL the above mentioned aircraft could perform? plus you state that the F-111 outperforms the F-35 in every way apart from stealth and maneuverability, with it's stealth and hovering/thrust vectoring capabilities,the F-35 surely does outperform the F-111? as outright speed and weapons carrying capability does not neccesarily equate to the optimum platform for certain mission profiles.


.

Disclaimer: I love the Avro Arrow. I had the wonderful opportunity to work as a restorer in the museum housed in what originally was the place where the Arrow was built in Toronto. I also dislike the F-35 as an aircraft, and believe that the Canadian plan to purchase them is full of holes large enough to sail an aircraft carrier through. I don't think it will do the job that the RCAF will likely need them for, and I think there are aircraft in the world far more suited to what we need. All that being said, I will be very frank about this plan to bring the Arrow back.

The Arrow was a wonderful airframe in its time. It had some truly revolutionary ideas in it to combat some of the enormous challenges that it faced. To a great degree it succeeded in these challenges. The problem it faced at the time was that it was at the trailing edge of the era where nations would use nuclear bombers, and the defense strategy rested on stopping them. Countries were moving forward into the era of guided, nuclear missiles which stood on the shoulders of the space race technologies. As missiles came in, interceptors became obsolete. As a result there is no modern niche which interceptors fit into. Interception has become a secondary mission profile for recent aircraft, and those airframes which were designed for interception in the Cold War have largely been converted to other roles (such as the MiG-31 which seems to be moving into reconnaissance and engagement of high-value airborne assets). If we commission even an improved-capability Arrow it will still be built for a purpose that doesn't really have a place in modern warfare. Effectively, this is going to hamstring it if you try and put it into roles it was never designed for, but which are required in the formula for effective combat.

The other problem is the difficulty of engineering modern techniques into an old airframe. The fact is that the Arrow and its systems were designed with a particular time frame in mind. Available materials, known techniques, and design methods. Half a century of improvements in aerospace are not something you can just stick onto an airplane like a drop tank. The inside of the poor aircraft would have to be completely torn out and redesigned with completely new techniques. Furthermore, I hate to rain on more parades, but the outside of the aircraft would not look the same. Advances in wing design, intake design, and aerodynamics in general would mean that the whole exterior. For those keeping a running tally, that's approximately the entire aircraft that would need a redesign. Let's not even mention the amount of things that would have to go into making sure that the aircraft gets a decrease in RCS.

The third, and potentially most important, of the issues is the who. Who will do the design? Who will build all of the parts? Who will pay for it all? The answers to these questions are not nearly as obvious as they may seem. For the purposes of making an all-Canadian aircraft our choices are few. We have Bombardier and Pratt and Whitney Canada as our aerospace presence. Unfortunately, neither of these companies is prepared or really qualified to head up such a program. Defense aircraft require specific parts which, themselves, require specific design. None of the companies we have in Canada are prepared to undertake designs like that (Bombardier and P&WC doing civil aerospace designs). The cost to get them the appropriate facilities and personnel to do so would make whoever paid for B-2 bombers break into tears.

Do I want to see a flying Avro Arrow? Yes. Do I think it could happen someday? Yes. Do I think the Arrow has a place in modern air combat? Not really. Sorry guys.

Even with the boondoggle that the F-35 program is, I can't imagine anyone in the defence world could seriously consider reviving a fifty year old design for use in today's environment. I do hope that this is a public means of shaming the Canadian government, industry and people, with the purpose of reminding us that Canada was once a proud and capable leader in the field of aeronautics. Perhaps this is just a not so subtle way of saying "Hey, we can do this ourselves and do it better too!" It's time Canada started doing things for itself once more.

Just a thought, but why are we assuming that they would be using the Arrow as prototyped originally?

Some of the technical designers on that project were well known for designing things well beyond the means of the materials available.

We have no idea how far they went on the drawing board.

The people that made the proposal, that have access to the archives, do.

Just something to think about.

Loved when I saw that news yesterday.. but I figure it's pretty unlikely. The Arrow could have been a genuinely revolutionary aircraft, if it were only given a chance. Updated and configured for today's needs, it could be every bit as revolutionary as it could have been when it was conceived.

Some of that old technology is awesome. We have strayed far from practicability with all this new expensive technology. It takes the fun out of flying. I flew a Cessna and a Cherokee when I took flying training and the simplicity of the planes was great. The pilots nowadays rely too much on technology and technology can be unreliable. It's like buying a car with all sorts of fancy crap on it, the more crap on it the more that can go wrong. I don't know what direction we are going in. I think it is the wrong direction. There is no computer out there that can reason like an intelligent man with common sense. I trust in the pilots more than the technology.