Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The interceptor is a variation of a fighter aircraft.
The Arrow was designed to shut down bombers like a variation of the F-104 and the F-4 in its first iteration.
You could have the same plane in different variation to serve as an interceptor or a fighter. Another good example is the Mirage III which had different variations (electronic and armaments) to serve in either role.
The Arrow was NOT a fighter nor was it a multi-role aircraft. It was a long range interceptor. It was a massive airplane that would be useless in air to air combat.
The Arrow was NOT a fighter nor was it a multi-role aircraft. It was a long range interceptor. It was a massive airplane that would be useless in air to air combat.
According to the specs, the combat range of the Arrow was similar to the F-4 (which was a massive plane as well, similar in size) and also similar combat range of the F-104G which ended up being useless as a fighter as well. The Mirage III had actually a longer combat range (according to Wikipedia, so caution applies).
"Many of these engineers joined the brain-drain to the United States. The "Avro group" of 32 engineers playing critical roles in Nasa's Apollo programme, which – ironically – beat the Soviets in the race to land a man on the moon."
^ From article.
I remember reading about theses guys a number of years ago.
I'm sure the aviation industry would gets its revival, in Canada and other Western NATO nations, in the coming years. China's rapid militarization in the Pacific, along with the impending conflicts with the United States, pretty much guarantee that we will see defense budgets (and defense innovation that could spill over into civilian use) rise in the coming decades. We are entering a new cold war arms race, except that this time it will be on a more accelerated path and more multi-disciplinary, more subtle, and more cruel (economic/trade war fare + arms race + information warfare).
"Many of these engineers joined the brain-drain to the United States. The "Avro group" of 32 engineers playing critical roles in Nasa's Apollo programme, which – ironically – beat the Soviets in the race to land a man on the moon."
^ From article.
I remember reading about theses guys a number of years ago.
After more than 20 years I recently felt nostalgic recently and watched The Arrow on Youtube. I can tell I’ve been in the US a long time because I was more angry at the Canadian engineers’ naivety than the Americans (yes I realize it’s dramatic fiction )
Appreciate the article. I didn't mean to demean the contributions of the actual Canadians within the Group, they were as important as the British.
However, the British made up more than half of those involved, and most people have no idea of the part they played.
Keep in mind that until 1970 British citizens “ordinarily residing in Canada” could vote in Canadian elections. The definition of “who is a Canadian” was rather fluid for a long time.
Rumour is that the US President (no idea who that was) told Diefenbaker to destroy the plane and all related plans. There was some govt debate, but Diefenbaker was calling the shots. Did he have a majority government?
Diefenbaker did exactly that. He wiped out the most innovative aerospace industrial design project of the 20C and disrupted Canadian manufacturing for decades.
Yeah, I've heard this rumour too. I can't think of a reason to destroy all of the planes aside from trying not to compete with american aviation.
Yeah, I've heard this rumour too. I can't think of a reason to destroy all of the planes aside from trying not to compete with american aviation.
I hope this isn't true. Last I checked Canada is a proud, fully independent country, aside from borrowing a head of state that is. And frankly I think the U.S. should also borrow the head of state.
Canada was told in a high level and secret meeting in 1958 between a Canadian contingent comprised of Defence Minister Pearkes and the U.S secretary of Defence McElroy that it essentially had two choices either scrap the Arrow altogether and accept Bomarc bases in our northern regions OR persue the Arrow to completion with the result being the U.S. would build its Bomarc silos on the southern shores of the Great Lakes.
Realizing the Bomarc's effectiveness being contingent upon a nuclear warhead and only having a 250 mile range; this would result in an air war over the two most populated Provinces and areas within Canada, southern Ontario and Quebec; what choice did the government of the day really have when being thusly coerced?
Either scrap your plane and accept U.S. nuke missiles in your north or suffer nuclear destruction should Russia send it's Bears or missiles south to an intended target within the U.S.
So we scrapped the Arrow and the missiles were still never installed in northern Canada's silos built for the purpose.
We never learn and seem doomed to repeat the genuflecting ad-infinitum. Meng Wanzhou being just the latest example of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
