Avro Arrow was never a thing

you're god damned right, the arrow was overhyped communist bullshit that was obsolete by the time it left the drawing board

Attached: raper.png (1584x1084, 1.16M)

The weapon system designed for it didn't work, its range was pitiful and most importantly, the USSR was moving away from massed bomber formations for strategic strikes against North America and investing heavily in ICBMs for the role while leaving bombers for Europe and eventually maritime strike. The Soviets correct move towards ICBMs for strategic strikes on North America made the idea of a heavy dedicated interceptor obsolete overnight.

This is what brainlets actually believe. The US canned the XF-108 which was a vastly superior aircraft that had already had more money sunk into it than the Arrow when they came to the same conclusion that a land based heavy interceptor was worthless.

TSR-2 recon mission was effectively canned once the US began sharing intelligence data with the UK. There's little reason to build a recon bird when the US already had sunk all the money and time into the SR-71, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? It's strike role was then considered of little value as the F-111 was supposed to be more than capable of doing everything it was meant for while again having the benefit of someone else having put all the money into it. The lack of its adoption was due to internal politics of job making, withdrawal of forces worldwide, the decline of the pound and squabbles between the RN and RAF for budgetary reasons.

El goblino...

TSR2 was a massive turd. We ultimately ended up with the best planes but then buggered them up by fitting Speys.

Attached: Phantom-FG.1-of-43-Squadron-intercepting-a-Soviet-Bear-circa-1972-678x260.jpg (678x260, 23K)

Better stop mistaking Australians for Americans or you won't get another fix of 2nd hand hornet

the guided missile meme killed it nore than anything

it was shut down due to KGB infiltrating the plant where it was made.

The Arrow was pure sex after seeing this plane I actually liked Canadians for a short time.

Looks kinda like that new proposed RAF aircraft.
Canadian-UK cooperation on Project Tempest when?

Attached: Team_tempest.jpg (379x263, 10K)

>compromised by a bunch of commies
They didn't shut down Boeing and Lockheed.

>The Soviets correct move towards ICBMs for strategic strikes on North America
So the Arrow was cancelled and replaced with the Bomarc missile. Which didn't work against ICBMs either.

On the other hand, supersonic interceptors make good ASAT and ABM launch platforms. Much more flexible to deploy across a large airspace (Canada) than fixed launchers. Except that industry doesn't like air launched weapons like this. Most of the big money is in the launch platforms. So you get Nike and Bomarc.

It was shit

True. I'm of the opinion that there where many reasons why the avro got canned.

Bomarcs were substantially cheaper, the US already paid for everything and they fulfilled the role of taking out anything that got through the interceptors already in service. They were meant as a stopgap and they did that adequately.

>On the other hand, supersonic interceptors make good ASAT and ABM launch platforms.

Good luck with that in the late 50s.

>Much more flexible to deploy across a large airspace (Canada) than fixed launchers.

The Arrows range was anemic at best, only mythical proposed redesigns actually fixed its range issues and still did nothing about the catastrophe that was the Sparrow II program.

>Except that industry doesn't like air launched weapons like this. Most of the big money is in the launch platforms. So you get Nike and Bomarc.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

overhyped or not it was wrong for america to fuck an ally like thay

tell us how the burgers 'fucked' a program that was already dead

>You have no idea what you're talking about.
I worked in that industry. You have no idea what bullshit it sells to the DoD.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZQiKY3EXdnU

Ironic considering they have an entire division Pratt and Whitney all to themselves. PW makes some of the most badass engines and PWC has turned out some of the most-reliable and most-produced turbine engines in history.

t. My dad works at microsoft

>t. My dad works at
My dad worked on the ANP program.
And I'm retired from Boeing.

It was a thing ... as the MiG-25

>I worked in that industry
I hate how faggots like you pop up every time someone mentions the avro arrow. quit telling fibs on the internet

Sure you are, and you're still a retard. If you were right then why did the US go so heavy into nuclear air to air missiles or any fucking guided missile instead of just making more and more ballistic missiles? You're a moron.

You don't even need to compare it to the F-108, the Arrow Mk.2 would have been inferior in most respects to the F-106 and E.E. Lightning.

>make good ASAT and ABM launch platforms
The (relatively) small weapons bay on the Arrow would have made ASAT launches (or any other ancillary uses) unlikely had it served into the 80's when such technology began to mature, and by then there would have been no reason to use it over any other relatively modern combat aircraft

>and still did nothing about the catastrophe that was the Sparrow II program.
Which is why the Arrow Mk.2 was fitted with a Hughes fire control system to launch Falcon missiles, which were pretty fucking shit in their own right. Eventual adoption of the AIM-26's might have helped a bit but would have severely reduced the Arrow's weapon load to the point of uselessness compared to contemporary fighters like the F-4.

>nuclear air to air missiles or any fucking guided missile instead of just making more and more ballistic missiles

You do understand that these have completely different applications? Nuclear air-to-air are for anti aircraft or ABM use. Ballistic missiles are for hitting an adversaries facilities, including launch facilities. The USSR made extensive use of mobile ICBM launchers, which are harder to target. So we had to go with terminal defense ABM systems. Nuclear, because hit-to-kill wasn't feasible until recently.

>would have severely reduced the Arrow's weapon load to the point of uselessness

We don't know that. The Arrow was being developed with a flexible modular weapons bay, to accommodate an as-yet unknown weapons system (thanks USA manufacturers).

>The Arrow was being developed with a flexible modular weapons bay, to accommodate an as-yet unknown weapons system (thanks USA manufacturers).
The fuselage of the aircraft just wasn't wide enough to fit more than 3 Sparrows (or similarly girthy BVR missiles like AIM-47's) internally. Additional carriage would require either underwing pylons and the associated loss of performance required by strengthening the wings and aerodynamic issues or a complete redesign of the underside of the airplane to accommodate either a deeper or longer weapons bay.

This.