Bring Back the Avro Arrow - Maybe not so crazy after all
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
They say the fly-by-wire F-22's maximum manoeuverability is beyond anything that a human body can withstand, even in a G-suit.
They also say that the next generation of military aircraft will be unmanned drones which aren't limited to human frailty.
Except at the end of the joy stick, unless you expect them all to be autonomous drone.
As you already stated, neither the F-18 nor the Super Hornet have the radar or missile to engage at ranges of 200+ Kilometers.
You can't have it both ways - either compromises have to be made, or you want a fighter capable of engaging at very long range, if it is the later then the Trudeau government made a serious mistake, if it is the former, than the F-35 should be perfectly fine.
Actually having a less homogenous mix would be the best as no one fighter does it all best.
Thank you for making the point regarding the wisdom of attempting to resurrect an over half a century old airframe.
I'm not sure what kind of argument you're trying to make here--that the F-35 would have been a better choice, had it been available to Trudeau at the time? Well sure.. compared to the planes of that era.... but the choice between the F18 and F14 was made on a cost basis. F18 met the requirements, and it was cheaper. I have no doubt that the F14 was a better plane, but it wasn't available at a reasonable price.
In the modern era the F-35 is phenomenally expensive and won't do the job as well as either the Typhoon or the SuperHornet. Presumably a revamped Arrow would serve as well. Note that I'm not knocking the F-35 here--for what the Americans want, it is a great plane. But we're looking for a defense purchase, not an overseas attack jet.
What he means is that drones are not limited to human-survivable g-forces in a dogfight, not necessarily that there would be no humans in the loop.
The point is that a human in a fighter jet cannot tolerate much more than about 9 g, maybe up to 12 g with those special suits and even then only for a few moments. A drone with no human onboard would only be limited by the airframe, and could pull gs until it ran out of fuel.
An interesting read on the topic of air-to-air drone combat is actually a test back in 1971 when both the US Navy and the Airforce wanted find out the potential of drones against human pilots. They rigged up a BQM-34A Firebee (a target drone) with a remote control system called MASTACS and put it up against 2 F-4 Phantoms piloted by experienced Vietnam veterans in a no-holds barred dogfight.
Basically, it ran rings around F4s and got on their tails with the F4 pilots unable to do anything but fire missiles without lock (and missing).
And this was back in 1971, before the microprocessor revolution, so you can imagine what modern computers and modern airframes would be capable of.
IMO, the main thing limiting the development and deployment of air-to-air UCAVs is that the military wants to maintain the prestige and cool factor of human-piloted flight programs. The space program was a bit like this too, from the 60's to the 80's it was very human-centric, but space exploration has been pretty much dominated by drones in the last decade (heck, the shuttle fleet was retired last year). In dangerous environments, computers, robotics and remote control have a lot going for them.
I just think that doesn't bode well for human piloted combat aircraft.
^^^ Good point.
Good point and probably part of the reason Canada is only looking to order 65 F35's. (When we ordered the F-18s under Trudeau, we ordered something like 130 of the damn things, and they have served us well as far as I'm aware.)
The problem is though one of timing. While drones may be the way to go, they are not currently on the market and probably will not be on the market for 10 to 20 years (maybe never, who knows.) We need the new fighter planes now as the F-18's we do have came out before the Commodore Vic 20 was even on the market.
Good point and probably part of the reason Canada is only looking to order 65 F35's. (When we ordered the F-18s under Trudeau, we ordered something like 130 of the damn things, and they have served us well as far as I'm aware.)
The problem is though one of timing. While drones may be the way to go, they are not currently on the market and probably will not be on the market for 10 to 20 years (maybe never, who knows.) We need the new fighter planes now as the F-18's we do have came out before the Commodore Vic 20 was even on the market.
Yeah, but they would be re-engineered. It's not like we would be looking to build a space ship to go to Mars - it's a fighter plane and we know how to do that.
The basic point that is being made is that Canada as a nation does not need stealth technology for its defence (if it even works, some would argue that it does not work at all and can easily be defeated) and if we're going to spend 35 billion taxpayer's dollars, we might as well spend them in Canada. I see NO SENSE in giving the Americans this money at all. Zero sense.
I meant the drones can sustain G forces that no human pilot can withstand but yes, subject to the human with hand on joystick.
Drones can also be shot down, without loss of life. Thus if an enemy plane fires a missile at them they can pursue and return fire , even if doing so guarantees the enemy missile will destroy the drone.
A human piloted plane would have to evade the incoming missile before returning fire. The drone, instead, can fly straight at the threat launching everything it has. It can also be transmitting targeting data to other drones.
Remember arctic engagements are likely to take place at greater distance. Not dog fights but detect and launch situations.
A human piloted plane would have to evade the incoming missile before returning fire. The drone, instead, can fly straight at the threat launching everything it has. It can also be transmitting targeting data to other drones.
Remember arctic engagements are likely to take place at greater distance. Not dog fights but detect and launch situations.
It would probably cost Canada a lot of money to resurrect the Avro Arrow with all the upgrades, etc. etc. FROM SCRATCH, and I doubt that it would be better than Boeing's Super Hornet, and no way better than the F-35.
The Americans have Lougheed and Boeing. Who would build our planes? Bombardier? I don't think they build fighter jets.
I also doubt that we can deliver a new Avro Arrow, even if it was an okay fighter jet, in time for use.
I wouldn't be ''from scratch' as it wouldn't be designing totally new radio, guidance, weapons systems. It could be more a case of taking what's on the market, much in Canada, and applying them to the new fighter.
If Canada had a sophisticated enough aircraft industry it could do the same thing as Japan where most military aircraft purchased from the U.S. are built under license in Japan.
For all you remotely piloted/drone aircraft people, have you thought of the logistics, as one gets closer to a pole now one needs many satellites in orbits that provide continuous coverage of the High Arctic (and with redundancy) rather than two or three satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
I'm not totally sure what you mean by that, maybe you mean GPS satellites?
GPS satellites are not geosynchonous; from any point on Earth (even at the poles) you will usually have line of sight of from 8 to 10 birds. This assumes you aren't low to the ground and have a building in the way, which usually isn't an issue for aircraft...unless you are flying really, really slow, but then you'd have other issues).
Check out this animation:
If you mean UAV command and control relay satellites, I believe that those satellites are military and their orbits are classified; if someone knows better they can correct me.
Yes, and Yes. However, presumably no one reading this is monumentally stupid including any agents of the SVR or GRU, particularly since they obviously have to deal with the same problem.
