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

[Old Sweat]

I think we should dust off the specs and drawings for the old 3/4 ton Dodge Army Truck, re jig it with a Hemi engine and drive train, upgrade the heaters etc.....

As someone who has travelled several thousand kilometres in the vehicle, it had very many strong points, not least of which was a dearth of over-engineering.

 

[Loachman]

This should porbably be in the CF135 thread,

What's a "CF135"?

The CH135 was the Twin Huey.

but more and more I see something such as this as the future:
-Larger 2 seater Interceptor/Smaller bomb truck/UAV operating platform capable of controlling a mix of
        -Fast and manoeuvrable Air to air drones
        -Air to ground drones
        -EW/Wild weasel Drones

Why do we need a pure interceptor?

Why do we need a small "bomb truck"?

When will this airborne "UAV operating platform appear"?

When will these various fancy "drones" appear?

Note: A "drone" is a variety of UAV, which is pre-programmed prior to launch. Anything that is remotely piloted is not a "drone".

-A light prop driven CAS platform.

Why? What for?

Way out of my lane,

Yeah.

 

[Journeyman]

This should porbably be in the CF135 thread Mess/Chatter....

...especially if the overarching technical requirement is that "it looks pretty."  :nod:

 

[Dissident]

What's a "CF135"?

The CH135 was the Twin Huey.

Why do we need a pure interceptor?

Why do we need a small "bomb truck"?

When will this airborne "UAV operating platform appear"?

When will these various fancy "drones" appear?

Note: A "drone" is a variety of UAV, which is pre-programmed prior to launch. Anything that is remotely piloted is not a "drone".

Why? What for?

Yeah.

F35, my bad.

I am not familiar at all with the exact terminology, so let me expand:

Interceptor: Something fast that can patrol/meet an unknown contact or threat, airborne or maritime, for further identification or termination. Thinking mostly of encroaching ships and (Russian?) aircraft "in the North".
Bomb truck: Something to carry air to ground ordinance since it is what we the Airforce seems to be involved in the most while on combat operations with NATO.
It could be a larger 2 seater/2 engines which could be considered a large fighter/interceptor and be at the same time a bomb truck of small proportions (smaller than an F111?).

Drones/UAV: Not exactly sure of the terminology again, but I imagine something in between. A back seater would likely only be able to pilot one UAV at a time, right? So a back seater operating 2-5 "drones" would be task managing the drones, not directly piloting them.

Yes, it is my idea "for the future" and they are WAG. However, I am willing to bet a fine bottle of your choice that we will see something like the above developed in the next 20 years (before I release.)

The light prop CAS is just something I would always like to be available when I am on the ground. As to why, I would refer you to the CAS thread, all 22 pages of it:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-342409.html#msg342409

 

[AlexanderM]

This is the type of aircraft I wish we were buying, but there's no way it would fit within our budget.  A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Or a B24 liberator up armored and used as a ground support aircraft.

 

[OldSolduer]

Or a B24 liberator up armored and used as a ground support aircraft.

I prefer the Sopwith Camel. We can up engine those babies, new tech the airframe and wings and voila!  ;D

 

[armyvern]

Why should we build our own aircraft instead of outsource to another country?

1:  Economy.  Canadian jobs.  Need I say more?  Look at the Naval contract to the Irving Shipyard. That has created many job opportunities. 
...

Yep, and look how many troops have trashed feet, ankles, knees, hips and backs due to your Number 1 being applied to footwear.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Yep, and look how many troops have trashed feet, ankles, knees, hips and backs due to your Number 1 being applied to footwear.

Vern,Vern. Please don't bring  reality into this . If you do that this thread could  just end  before it got really entertaining .Like how we 're suppose to pay for this Super -Arrow ?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Vern,Vern. Please don't bring  reality into this . If you do that this thread could  just end  before it got really entertaining .Like how we 're suppose to pay for this Super -Arrow ?

Borrow it from Chief Spence??

 

[GAP]

Borrow it from Chief Spence??

That would make it like Disney Land....oh, wait, they have shares in them too!!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Borrow it from Chief Spence??

You'll need a pot some bones and chicken blood in order to find where that money is hidden now.

 

[Loachman]

A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.

Why?

What is the threat that that you envisage a pure interceptor having to counter?

 

[AlexanderM]

Why?

What is the threat that that you envisage a pure interceptor having to counter?

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?  Anyone can say that the resources in the north will be peacefully divided up by the UN, but this remains to be seen.  As time goes on those resources will only become more and more valuable and our sovereignty, especially in the north, more and more important.  Having a fighter that can cover the real estate simply seems prudent to me.

 

[Loachman]

Interceptor: Something fast that can patrol/meet an unknown contact or threat, airborne or maritime, for further identification or termination. Thinking mostly of encroaching ships and (Russian?) aircraft "in the North".

Why buy a pure interceptor rather than a multi-role fighter that is not limited to just one job, ie F35?

Can you find an example of anybody building a pure interceptor these days? Why not?

Ships don't generally need anything particularly fast to deal with them. We have Aurorae for them.

Bomb truck: Something to carry air to ground ordinance since it is what we the Airforce seems to be involved in the most while on combat operations with NATO.

Why buy a "bomb truck" rather than a multi-role fighter that is not limited to just one job, ie F35?

It could be a larger 2 seater/2 engines which could be considered a large fighter/interceptor and be at the same time a bomb truck of small proportions (smaller than an F111?).

Why buy something big with two seats and two engines if something with one seat and one engine (that is more reliable than two and simpler to maintain) can carry an adequate load, ie F35?

Unless you have delusions of ACSO grandeur...

Drones/UAV: Not exactly sure of the terminology again, but I imagine something in between. A back seater would likely only be able to pilot one UAV at a time, right? So a back seater operating 2-5 "drones" would be task managing the drones, not directly piloting them.

I am not aware of any "drones" currently in production, or planned. Current UAVs are the Remotely Piloted Vehicle variety. Most, if not all, with any useful range and payload have crews of at least two.

Why not control them from ground stations via satellite link as is done now? What advantage do you see being gained by having an airborne control station?

Via what means do you propose to control them? Remote control and video links require directional antennae and a fair amount of power. Y'ain't going to fit that into any fighter-type aircraft.

quote author=NinerSix link=topic=107407/post-1201624#msg1201624 date=1358266309]
Yes, it is my idea "for the future" and they are WAG. However, I am willing to bet a fine bottle of your choice that we will see something like the above developed in the next 20 years (before I release.)[/quote]

I can be patient.

The light prop CAS is just something I would always like to be available when I am on the ground. As to why, I would refer you to the CAS thread, all 22 pages of it:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40352/post-342409.html#msg342409

I believe that I've posted in that thread. I believe that I've said, at least once, why this suggestion has no merit.

I want to see your reasons, though.

And examples of any other military organizations of any real significance that also think that this is a good idea.

 

[Loachman]

Having a fighter that can cover the real estate simply seems prudent to me.

Did I ask why we should have a fighter, or did I ask why we should have a pure interceptor as you specified?

 

[AlexanderM]

Did I ask why we should have a fighter, or did I ask why we should have a pure interceptor as you specified?

Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.

That's not quite correct. The original F-15 (A/C/J) were air superiority fighters with no A2G abilities (except its Cannon). The current F-15s (E/I/SG/K/SE) are for all intents and purposes multi-role long range strike aircraft. The latter was weighed down with conformal fuel tanks, is a twin seater and more avionics... which the F-15C does not need for its air superiority role.

 

[AlexanderM]

That's not quite correct. The original F-15 (A/C/J) were air superiority fighters with no A2G abilities (except its Cannon). The current F-15s (E/I/SG/K/SE) are for all intents and purposes multi-role long range strike aircraft. The latter was weighed down with conformal fuel tanks, is a twin seater and more avionics... which the F-15C does not need for its air superiority role.

But, of course, these days one would expect any fighter to be multi-role, even if one was best suited to an air-superiority role. 

 

[Loachman]

Your the one who's adding the word "pure," which does not appear in my post.  I would prefer that the aircraft we purchase is most capable in an air-superiority role, but this would not mean that it could not do anything else.  Your reading too much into my post.  The F-15 was for years the best air superiority fighter around, but it is multi-role.

"Pure" was added for emphasis.

A fast, long range interceptor is what we really need to cover all the real estate in this country.

You specified "interceptor". An interceptor intercepts. That's all that it does.

I react to what is written, not what you may, or may, not have meant.

If you want a multi-role fighter that can conduct interceptions and air-superiority missions and whatever else, then please say so.