Bring Back the Avro Arrow - Maybe not so crazy after all

[sarg]

Bring back the Arrow. Why just stop there. Why not bring back the Sherman tank but upgrade it and add new technology, after all it was the greatest tank of it's day. Not the most complex but by far was the tank that helped win several wars.

As somebody that has been on the other side of the military wall, the Avro lacks several things.

1. It's not capable of ground attack. (that means killing enemy troops on the ground). Any soldier can tell you that it's boots on the ground that seize and hold ground not a A/C burning fuel at the edge of space. If you can't kill troops on the ground, just go home.

2. It lacks stealth ability. Up to and including the Arab spring, stealth (lower detectability) has played a major role in every air campaign since the end of WW I. from color of the air frame (german condor legion during the spanish civil war) to low radar signature (German HO IX that was capable of hitting british targets before stand by aircraft could be scrambled on it's detection (it was just introduced to late), F117 that took out the CC network in Kosovo and Iraq), if it's harder to detect, it's harder to hit.

3. Longer range is a moot point due to in air refueling.

4. Supposed speed gains are not a factor because even if the Avro gets there first, there is nowhere to land troops that is worth holding or capable of launching a ground advance from. If you are going to shoot an A/C down, why burn more fuel to get to do it closer to international lines. Do it clearly in your own territory and nobody can say they only strayed a little way over the line. Canada has lots of uninhabited space to use as a buffer over the top.

You need to remember that every major fighter ever purchased was "a bad idea" from the Spitfire, to the Mustang, to the F 18.

 

[fuji]

1. We're going to be executing ground attacks on Back River?

2. Low detectability only matters when you are sneaking in to the other guy's territory, active electronics are better on patrol (and not possible on a stealthed plane)

3. Canada has had SIGNIFICANT problems with air to air refueling in the arctic, it is HARD, and if you get it wrong, planes crash

4. We're going to be executing a major infantry advance on Back River? If that's a concern... maybe we should start out by replacing the WW2 era Lee-Enfield rifles the Rangers have, before spending zillions on air support?

The point those of us who are against the F-35 make is that it is an attack jet, meant for overseas operations. It's a boatload of money for something that we don't believe Canada should even be doing.

For arctic patrol, enforcing our sovereignty there, we just don't need it. It may not be the best idea to revamp the Arrow, but the F-35 is not about enforcing our sovereignty, it's about military adventurism, and we just don't need it. We could go with a much cheaper platform like the Typhoon or the SuperHornet, put a lot of active electronics on it, and have an effective counter to stealthed aircraft trying to overfly our territory.

 

[blackrock13]

Bring back the Arrow. Why just stop there. Why not bring back the Sherman tank but upgrade it and add new technology, after all it was the greatest tank of it's day. Not the most complex but by far was the tank that helped win several wars.

As somebody that has been on the other side of the military wall, the Avro lacks several things.

1. It's not capable of ground attack. (that means killing enemy troops on the ground). Any soldier can tell you that it's boots on the ground that seize and hold ground not a A/C burning fuel at the edge of space. If you can't kill troops on the ground, just go home.

2. It lacks stealth ability. Up to and including the Arab spring, stealth (lower detectability) has played a major role in every air campaign since the end of WW I. from color of the air frame (german condor legion during the spanish civil war) to low radar signature (German HO IX that was capable of hitting british targets before stand by aircraft could be scrambled on it's detection (it was just introduced to late), F117 that took out the CC network in Kosovo and Iraq), if it's harder to detect, it's harder to hit.

3. Longer range is a moot point due to in air refueling.

4. Supposed speed gains are not a factor because even if the Avro gets there first, there is nowhere to land troops that is worth holding or capable of launching a ground advance from. If you are going to shoot an A/C down, why burn more fuel to get to do it closer to international lines. Do it clearly in your own territory and nobody can say they only strayed a little way over the line. Canada has lots of uninhabited space to use as a buffer over the top.

You need to remember that every major fighter ever purchased was "a bad idea" from the Spitfire, to the Mustang, to the F 18.

The Avro wasn't able to conduct ground attack with the munitions of the day. Today there munitions that weren't even thought of in the 50's.

Very few aircraft have true stealth. Event e F-35 was stealth capable with only certain weapon configurations on board.


Air refueling is not that easy, especially during combat, .

If I could understand point four, I've little doubt I could counter it as well.

As for you last point, I don't remember that observation ever being mentioned. Perhaps you could point us in direction of where you get it from.

 

[buttercup]

Challenges to Canadian sovereignty in the arctic will likely arise in the coming years.

But you can't establish sovereignty with squadrons of aircraft, no matter what their capabilities and sophistication. In fact, there's hardly anything we could spend huge dollars on, that would be even less use than fighter jets for establishing our flag in the arctic. (A fleet of submarines would be even less use. Thank god Canada isn't considering that!)

There's only one way to establish sovereignty over the arctic, and that's with settlements and installations and patrols. If we're gonna spend large dollars on this exercise, the need is for vehicles that can transport people over the arctic environment - land, sea, and ice. Nothing wrong with having military versions of those vehicles, but not essential.

What are we going to do if e.g Russia sets up some ground stations on what we regard as our bit. It starts out as a joint scientific program, of course - nothing threatening there - but then time goes by, and we find they're regarding our bit, now, as their bit.

How do we counter that? A start would be fleets of arctic go-anywhere surface vehicles, with people in them.

Ask yourself - right now, who more than Canada has the capability to design /make /deploy such fleets? If we don't do it, we'll be beaten out of it.

 

[blackrock13]

Challenges to Canadian sovereignty in the arctic will likely arise in the coming years.

But you can't establish sovereignty with squadrons of aircraft, no matter what their capabilities and sophistication. In fact, there's hardly anything we could spend huge dollars on, that would be even less use than fighter jets for establishing our flag in the arctic. (A fleet of submarines would be even less use. Thank god Canada isn't considering that!)

There's only one way to establish sovereignty over the arctic, and that's with settlements and installations and patrols. If we're gonna spend large dollars on this exercise, the need is for vehicles that can transport people over the arctic environment - land, sea, and ice. Nothing wrong with having military versions of those vehicles, but not essential.

What are we going to do if e.g Russia sets up some ground stations on what we regard as our bit. It starts out as a joint scientific program, of course - nothing threatening there - but then time goes by, and we find they're regarding our bit, now, as their bit.

How do we counter that? A start would be fleets of arctic go-anywhere surface vehicles, with people in them.

Ask yourself - right now, who more than Canada has the capability to design /make /deploy such fleets? If we don't do it, we'll be beaten out of it.

If it wasn't for the idiot submarine purchase we'd be well on our way to active sovereignty. It doesn't take much to clam same. Denmark does the same with special forces Sirius 2 man dog sled patrols in the dead of winter in Greenland. Talk about old school.

 

[james t kirk]

Bring back the Arrow. Why just stop there. Why not bring back the Sherman tank but upgrade it and add new technology, after all it was the greatest tank of it's day. Not the most complex but by far was the tank that helped win several wars..

The Sherman was not the greatest tank of its day. Not even close. The British nick-named it "Ronson" (lights up the first time).

The only thing that the Sherman had going for it was that there were lots of them. Cheap and fast to make.

One German tank commander I saw being interviewed said, "with the Sherman you could knock out 9 of them, but the 10'th one would get you"

The best tanks in WW2 were German and from what I have read, it was the Panther that was the best tank of WW2.

 

[blackrock13]

The Sherman was not the greatest tank of its day. Not even close. The British nick-named it "Ronson" (lights up the first time).

The only thing that the Sherman had going for it was that there were lots of them. Cheap and fast to make.

One German tank commander I saw being interviewed said, "with the Sherman you could knock out 9 of them, but the 10'th one would get you"

The best tanks in WW2 were German and from what I have read, it was the Panther that was the best tank of WW2.

The facts you raise about the Sherman are all true, especially the early editions. As for the best tank, I know of a couple Germans who served on the eastern front who would disagree, but this is about the Aero and it'd suitability, with upgrades for modern service. There are a number of delta wing aircraft doing very useful service in a number of armed forces.