HOME | DD

BlacktailFA In reply to toby4700 [2015-04-21 05:39:58 +0000 UTC]

Indeed, but it also compares favorably(?) to the DuPont DP-2. The presentation I did on that whopper essentially foresaged the Warplane Disasters series. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to thormemeson [2015-04-21 02:49:54 +0000 UTC]

It figures. First they cancel the CF-105 Arrow which they put a king's ransom of funding and superhuman effort into developing, then they cancelled it in favor of nuclear-armed Bomarc SAMs that would have fried their own territory --- but ended up with missiles loaded with sandbags instead.

Then they bought the miserable CF-101 Voodoo, only to replace it with the disastrous CF-104 Starfighter. The CF-5 Tiger II was effective enough, but Canada never bought enough of them --- and the bloated, ultra-expensive CF-18 Hornet that replaced it had half the range.

Now they're gearing up to replace the CF-18 with the F-35. Apparently, Ottowa has forgotten what happened with the LAST single-engine fighter they bought from LockMart (half of the CF-104s got scattered across the landscape).

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

xenoorb In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-24 09:57:53 +0000 UTC]

From what I know they were pressured into giving the Arrow up by our government in favor of the Bomarc. We didn't want them having a fighter that could match or exceed our own.

If Canada was smart they would put the money into developing their own fighter instead of buying the F-35. I can't wait until you do the F-22 and F-35 as part of this series. And don't forget the B-2 and F-117. The F-117 was a case of Lockheed over selling stealth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to xenoorb [2015-04-24 19:57:15 +0000 UTC]

That makes perfect sense, because the US aeronautical industry would have regarded the Arrow as a threat to export sales.

As for the F-35, it seems there's a push to resurrect the Arrow as a substitute;
www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07…

That will never happen. All of the records, documentation, tooling, and even components of the Arrow program were destroyed. Nothing of it remains except for a few stray parts. It was almost as methodical as East Germany's purge of all evidence of the mere *existence* of their failed Baade 152 airliner program.

That doesn't mean Canada can't make an aircraft that looks and performs LIKE the Arrow, however. It depends entirely on whether Ottawa has the guts to fund it (don't hold your breath).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

xenoorb In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-26 00:17:45 +0000 UTC]

Honestly, I like the idea of resurrecting the Arrow, but at the same time I know Canada won't. The world could use a true Fifth generation fighter, that is, one that has been put into service and not disregarded (such as the YF-23). After the F-22 and F-35 both fail, then we can actually maybe field a Fifth gen fighter!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

thormemeson In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-21 02:53:01 +0000 UTC]

fun times in defense contracting hey what did you think of the North American XF-108

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to thormemeson [2015-04-23 23:58:25 +0000 UTC]

The XF-108 Rapier looks totally awesome, but since it never flew, I can't compare the promises to what the results would have been. It *does* look like a better design than the competing Lockheed XF-12, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

thormemeson In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-24 00:12:56 +0000 UTC]

I was just wondering I mean wasn't it well sort of in line with the F-4Phantom? Its was a century series bird which was a good line for the most part.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to thormemeson [2015-04-24 19:35:45 +0000 UTC]

The F-108 Rapier was designed to perform a similar set of missions, but it was a very different machine.

It was 66% heavier at empty weight than the F-4, but also had overwhelmingly greater thrust and wing area. Missiles and other external stores were primarily carried in an internal bay (not semi-recessed bays, as on the F-4), and it was armed with guns, the AIM-4 Falcon, and the AIM-47 Falcon. The only external weapon stations were two pylons under the wings, reportedly with a 2000lb capacity each, and these were intended to carry droptanks. It carried a lot more fuel than the F-4, allowing a range on internal fuel alone that was three times greater.

The biggest difference, however, was the F-108's 80000ft service ceiling and Mach 3.2 top speed.  XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

thormemeson In reply to BlacktailFA [2015-04-24 20:22:09 +0000 UTC]

Ah so it would not be very cost effective in use?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0