A new Avro Arrow (or Super Arrow) instead of the F-35 (Merged thread)

[AlexanderM]

Sorry.  I would have thought that multi-role is always implied when it comes to fighters these days, as in, I wouldn't imagine building a fighter for only one purpose.  In a fantasy world, I would see us purchasing a 5th generation, stealth, supercruise, multi-role aircraft, with an exceptional range, that is kick-ass in an air-superiority role, but this has nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Loachman]

Roger.

 

[Journeyman]

Are you aware that between Russia and China they plan on building 10-16 new carrier battle groups over the next 20 years or so?

Do you have a source for that?

I ask only because the Chinese have been running into snags with the Liaoning (ex-Varyag), and I've heard claims -- unsubstantiated so far -- that Russia intends only to have one aircraft carrier in the Pacific by 2017. That leaves a bit of a delta between 2 and 10-16, and I've heard of nothing that significant out to "20 years or so."

 

[AlexanderM]

Do you have a source for that?

I ask only because the Chinese have been running into snags with the Liaoning (ex-Varyag), and I've heard claims -- unsubstantiated so far -- that Russia intends only to have one aircraft carrier in the Pacific by 2017. That leaves a bit of a delta between 2 and 10-16, and I've heard of nothing that significant out to "20 years or so."

There was one specific article for this but goes back a couple years now, may be difficult to find, but will try.  In meantime, here are some others,

http://wareye.com/china-will-build-four-aircraft-carrier-battle-groups-in-two-stages

another one,

http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html


http://strikefighterconsultinginc.com/blog/sharing-the-pacific-with-russian-chinese-indian-aircraft-carriers/

I believe these articles account for 6 Russian and 4 Chinese carrier groups.  I read in another article I'm having trouble finding that it may be expanded down the road.

This is from the one article alone,

Russia is planning to build six new aircraft carriers after 2020. Russian naval planners foresee at least one Russian Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), comprising 15 vessels supporting the aircraft carrier will be deployed in the Pacific Ocean by 2017.

 

[Journeyman]

I believe these articles account for 6 Russian and 4 Chinese carrier groups.  I read in another article I'm having trouble finding that it may be expanded down the road.

I hope you can find the "one specific article," because these links do little to support your premise. 

They reaffirm that Russia intends to deploy one carrier to the Pacific, with the other one going to the Northern Fleet; any others, if built, remain unaccounted for -- it cannot be assumed that unless otherwise stated, everything is going to the Pacific.  The links for China, (beyond keeping my filters busy, blocking sites for "Dating Chinese Women"  :  ) actually paint a gloomier picture for the near- to medium-future of Chinese carrier aviation.  India presents a greater carrier capability than China appears able to, anytime soon.

I believe changes in the Pacific CV/CVN threat remain a dubious factor in justifying any Canadian defence planning.

 

[AlexanderM]

http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html

This is from the one article alone, funny I don't see it at being the least bit dubious.

Russia is planning to build six new aircraft carriers after 2020. Russian naval planners foresee at least one Russian Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), comprising 15 vessels supporting the aircraft carrier will be deployed in the Pacific Ocean by 2017.

 

[Journeyman]

http://defense-update.com/20121008_toward-a-new-age-of-carriers-in-asia-pacific.html

Yes. That's your second link, already posted above.

You could probably keep posting it, but it will continue to say that of Russia's intention to build six new carriers, only one is specifically earmarked for the Pacific.  Of China, it says that its one carrier is now to be used only as a test lab for future carriers, of unspecified numbers or capabilities.

Again, still nothing to justify Canadian defence expenditures.  Sorry.

 

[AlexanderM]

Yes. That's your second link, already posted above.

You could probably keep posting it, but it will continue to say that of Russia's intention to build six new carriers, only one is specifically earmarked for the Pacific.  Of China, it says that its one carrier is now to be used only as a test lab for future carriers, of unspecified numbers or capabilities.

Again, still nothing to justify Canadian defence expenditures.  Sorry.

You do realize that carriers can be moved around right?  It isn't a issue, at all, that they have , so far, only stated one for the Pacific.  It is an issue that they will have that capability, which can potentially be present in any location, including the pacific and the north sea.  Russia has one, will build six more, that's seven, China has one, will build four more, that's five, adds up to 12.  I'm also of the opinion that once China starts building carriers they may not stop at four, we'll see.

The idea that all of this should not be a part of the equation for future Canadian military planning is completely ridiculous, and I hope that those making the decisions are not in agreement with you.  Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Loachman]

I remain skeptical.

I have seen many, many overestimates of Soviet/Russian capabilities throughout my career.

What they say and what they do/can do are not necessarily the same.

 

[OldSolduer]

Alexander you are a ballsy one.

So what do you base all this on? I'll read your links and make up my own mind.

Gotta warn you though, Journeyman can be......well keep it up and you'll see.

Just a heads up. Oh and Alexander, your profile is pretty empty.

 

[Good2Golf]

You do realize that carriers can be moved around right?  It isn't a issue, at all, that they have , so far, only stated one for the Pacific.  It is an issue that they will have that capability, which can potentially be present in any location, including the pacific and the north sea.  Russia has one, will build six more, that's seven, China has one, will build four more, that's five, adds up to 12.  I'm also of the opinion that once China starts building carriers they may not stop at four, we'll see.

The idea that all of this should not be a part of the equation for future Canadian military planning is completely ridiculous, and I hope that those making the decisions are not in agreement with you.  Just my opinion, of course.

How does your analysis of Russia's economy and its ability to expand significantly its Navy link up with those linked articles?  As those who are familiar with capital programmatics will tell you, "follow the money!"  Do you think Russian money flow supports the claims?

 

[HB_Pencil]

I remain skeptical.

I have seen many, many overestimates of Soviet/Russian capabilities throughout my career.

What they say and what they do/can do are not necessarily the same.

Personally I agree. I doubt we will see more than one more Russian Carrier... if that. The long term fundamentals of the Russian Economy are not great, and there are so many areas where they need to recapitalize their capabilities.

Nevertheless there is a need for an effective ability to defend the north. With the arctic becoming increasingly accessible due to global warming and Russia searching for new oil resources, there is a risk that needs to be acknowledge. PErsonally, I wouldn't be worried about their carrier fleet, real or imagined. Equipped with Su-33s with relatively limited systems (no ASMs or any guided ground weapons) they aren't really a threat. However all Russian surface combatants are equipped with some very effective systems, and there are a lot of them. The northern fleet consists of the Adm. Kuznetzov (CV), the Kirov (CGN), Slava (CG), eight destroyers and 40 submarines.

Pound for pound, these are very effective ships. First their anti-ship missiles are some of the best in the world with the Granit and Moskit systems; our navy is completely outclassed here. Furthermore their Air defence systems are extremely effective and would need to be rolled back with an extensive air effort. They also have a large port on the arctic, where we don't. So while we might not face a dramatic threat like carrier groups, the Russians can easily deploy quite a potent surface capability that we can't currently match.

 

[a_majoor]

Economics, geography and demographics are against the Russians building massive fleets of Carrier battle groups. They have only just launched their first nuclear submarine in almost two decades (it was actually laid down in 1996, but essentially abandoned because there was no money to complete it). With many competing military and civilian projects competing for limited funds, carriers will have a hard fight to be built. Falling oil and gas prices will only make Russia's economic position worse.

Geographically, Russia has few outlets to the open oceans, and as a land power, sees much greater threats on its land borders. Russia has traditionally focused the bulk of its military power there, and for good reason.

Demographically, Russia faces a potential population crash of epic proportions, with some estimates suggesting Russia will lose half its population by 2035. Who will man these ships and aircraft, when the land borders and factory floors still need people?

China may be in the grips of similar problems for any putative carrier fleet, since China needs to focus its economic energy on keeping a huge population happy and prosperous enough to maintain the legitimacy of the current ruling class.

The "First Island Chain" also provides a potent barrier to any Chines attempts to build and pass a blue water fleet into the Pacific, these are essentially unsinkable aircraft carriers for launching offensive strikes, and have choke points between them to channelize any Chinese ships and ideally block them with mines and submarines.

China's decades old "one child" policy has set up a situation with the potential to increase social instability, and China as a whole is in a demographic race to "Get rich before it becomes old".

As for what sort of RCAF aircraft that might be required to deal with these putative threats, we would need long range aircraft with the ability to carry multiple anti ship weapons to flood the potential defense zones. I would think a B-1 Lancer might do the trick, or a B-2 Spirit if we are really serious. The possible 2 seater spinoff of the YF-23 might make an attractive third choice, although you would need many more. You could also do the unexpected; the Martin Seamaster was a jet powered seaplane with the size and performance similar to a B-52, so long range strikes or mine laying are available options, with a very extended loiter time and the ability to appear from unexpected locations. Of course if you are willing to wait a bit, a developed Boeing ABL would be able to zap seaborne targets with a megawatt laser array, or we could develop a satellite that deorbits on command and falls on the enemy ship at near reentry speed.

So saying we "need" plane X is really limiting your thinking; there are many ways to do the job, once the job has been clearly defined. Given the possibility of large concentrations of enemy carriers is low, the need for special capabilities by the RCAF to counter them is also low.

 

[AlexanderM]

How does your analysis of Russia's economy and its ability to expand significantly its Navy link up with those linked articles?  As those who are familiar with capital programmatics will tell you, "follow the money!"  Do you think Russian money flow supports the claims?

I think it is an entirely different equation, that being the need for resources, which is only going to increase.  There are those who believe that wars over water could begin by 2025, and it remains to be seen what conflicts might occur over the resources in the north.  Russia and China have both stated that they are going to build carriers, I have no problem if people are skeptical over their ability to deliver, but the possibility of that threat certainly needs to be in the equation regarding our future planning.  What if Russia is only able to build 3, China 2, they still represent a threat, and it has been pointed out that they have plenty of other threats. 

If countries feel that certain resources are critical, they may indeed find a way to make good on their plans.  At some point countries are going to, at the very least, percieve resources as becoming scarce, and when that happens conflict may very well occur.  This needs to be in the equation regarding our future military planning otherwise our northern sovereignty may at some point be at risk.

 

[AlexanderM]

So saying we "need" plane X is really limiting your thinking; there are many ways to do the job, once the job has been clearly defined. Given the possibility of large concentrations of enemy carriers is low, the need for special capabilities by the RCAF to counter them is also low.

OK, agreed!  All that really matters is that we have things covered, to whatever extent is possible, given our own resources.  So, if a plan or strategy will work, then great. 

 

[Good2Golf]

I think it is an entirely different equation, that being the need for resources, which is only going to increase.  There are those who believe that wars over water could begin by 2025, and it remains to be seen what conflicts might occur over the resources in the north...

So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?

 

[AlexanderM]

So the Russians will build carriers with the money that they wont have until after they have built the carriers and taken natural resources by force, then selling the resources, taking the money then jumping into a time machine and coming back to the beginning of the cycle to buy the carriers (and start research on a time machine with an IOC of 2025)?

I can find articles that say they can't do it and some that say they can.  Here is an article saying the money has already been budgeted.  I do not believe that you can say what Russia can and cannot accomplish.  We need to wait and see, but the possiblity of conflict in the north is very real.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120726/174788498.html

 

[Good2Golf]

I can find articles that say they can't do it and some that say they can.  Here is an article saying the money has already been budgeted.  I do not believe that you can say what Russia can and cannot accomplish.  We need to wait and see, but the possiblity of conflict in the north is very real.

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20120726/174788498.html

You are certainly a cup-half-full type when it comes to Russia.  I take from that article that they sold one of their two carriers to India, the remaining carrier built almost three decades ago is overdue for an overhaul and money that was unavailable for any hull starts in November 2011 is now, 14 months later, available.  All very specious at best.

Perhaps the Russians may build 10 carrier groups (about 80-100 ships in total) as you foresee.  Perhaps not.  In either case, the potential increase in a Norther maritime menace seems but a minor factor in the need for Canada's new generation fighter jet.

Returning to the topic thread, having studied much of the Arrow's history (not just the rah, rah, sis boom bah, of the revive the great days of the post WW II arms race), I am highly sceptical that any attempt to re-engineer and produce a small fleet of Arrow 2s would do anything other than bankrupt the country...kind of like the Arrow '1' could have done back in the 50's had the program continued.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Sporadic E]

Yes, it was a shame that the Arrow was destroyed, but contrary to what many people think, the Arrow was not the "most advanced fighter" of its  time. The American's were testing the F-4 Phantom at the same time and it flew just as high and fast as the Arrow, plus it had an air-to-air refueling capability. 

The idea of resurrecting the Arrow is just so dumb.

Interestingly that after the cancellation of the Arrow. Mario Pesando went on to head design and manufacture at McDonnell Douglas. Further, the F4 went through major design overalls. Ever notice how similar the intake geometry of the F4 is to the Arrow?

 

[Sporadic E]

I've known Lew for more than 40 years (we met on Combat Team Commanders Course 7201) and today was the first time he did not make sense. He was interviewed on the morning show on CFRA  and said things like:

the AVRO engineers all took plans home with them and still have them;

the Arrow doesn't need stealth technology as it flies at 90,000 feet;

what we are talking about is the Arrow Mk III and IV. The ones scrapped in the 1950s were earlier models; and

there is no such thing as precision bombing [I guess he never heard of smart munitions].

I'll leave it at that other than to suggest he was fed some really bad talking poits.

yeah, well... I had family member that worked at Avro so I am pretty opinionated. However, lets get our facts right! The MK 2 would have done 78K ft at best (which is still pretty remarkable). There were design study that were being considered that would have greatly increased the service ceiling. Nevertheless, they were design studies like the PS-2 anti ICBM Arrow. However, they never got further than paper!

I once asked Jim Floyd what his thought were on the Arrow being a ground attack/low level attack aircraft; He said that if the Arrow were employed in a nape of the earth concept, the pilot and WO would have had a punishing ride! The Arrow was meant to intercept and destroy incoming aircraft with extreme prejudice. The concept back then was to loiter above the unsuspecting invading aircraft and  swoop down killing everything it saw! All this crap about intercepting an enemy aircraft and preforming a break Judy on them came much later.

There was no Mk 4 on paper. Beyond the Mk 3 there was only design studies... PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 etc.

Some cool things that I was privy to (and saw the documentation) was Avro was well aware how much the BOMARC was a lemon. I saw Jim Floyd personal notes on the documentation on how there was potential of the enemy jamming, and turning the missiles around and flying them back at us. Further, the Astra guidance system was shaping up to be freakishly remarkable!

Can the Arrow be brought back? I don't know... If someone was to build it today would it REALLY be an Avro Arrow? The company died in 1962! There are several professional engineers out there that like to point out that the drawings and blueprints are based on 1950's tooling's, metallurgy, manufacturing methods and materials. If you were to embark on manufacturing an aircraft using those drawings as a benchmark you would have to use the methods of the 1950's! Current methods would require complete recalculation!

I am a fan of the Arrow, however I choose to remember it for what it was, a remarkable aircraft for it's day. Would it still be around today? Damn right! We would have flown that bad boy into the ground! Just look at all the other kit the CF has.

Oddly enough, the Arrow had such a specific combat role tailored to Canada's needs that it would still be relevant today!