Avro CF-105 Arrow

[elmayerle]

Thanks backing my idea...what I don't understand with the CF-105 is the weapon system. Was it
- the MG-10 / Falcon of the F-106
- the ASTRA / Sparrow
- the AN/ASG-18/ AIM-47
Or another thing ?
In every case, would the Falcon AIM-4 (with the MG-10) been able to catch a MiG-25?  
I just love the AIM-47 / Arrow combo : the best fighter with the best weapon ystem, Ie the Tomcat of its time
The 318th FIS was based in Mc Chord AFB near Seattle  (not very sure of that)
On the other side of the frontier was Comox RCAF base... just imagine F-15 and Arrow facing each others...

As I understand it, the initial build spec was the MG-10/Falcon simply to get aircraft operational that could go after the bombers of the period.  They'd planned to follow that as soon as possible with ASTRA/Sparrow II but that came a cropper (based on Randall Whitcomb's work, I'd say the problems were more with Sparrow II - note that 20 years later, a similar-sized and tasked missile, AMRAAM took a good while to bring to a full service standard even with all the tech improvements over that time).  I could easily see that being replaced with AN/ASG-18/AIM-47B or a derivative of the equipment fit on the F6D-1 and single-stage missile derived from the final stage of the AA-N-10 Eagle (basically the AWG-9/AIM-54 fit of the F-111B/F-14).  

As to bring back, with that internal weapons bay, I'd expect that it could bring back what it could carry.  Also, given that the Sparrow II, AIM-47B, and AIM-54 have very similar overall volume envelope sizes, I'd imagine it could carry and return with three of any of them.

George C, my guess is that any initial British build might use AI-23/23B radars to get some aircraft operational, but the full-up version would likely need either what the Canadian-built ones used for radar/fire control or they'd need an equivalent development of the AI-23.  I can see some Firestreak/Red Top carriage externally, but for internal carriage I can see Blue Dolphin, a semi-active version of Red Top, being used initially until a full-active version could be developed.

Now, developed aircraft might could carry missiles underwing, too.  The Mk.4 wouldn't always need its underwing drop tanks. *chuckle* Imagine a couple, or more, AIM-47 or AIM-54 derived equivalents of the AA-N-10 in addition to what was in the weapons bay.

[GeorgeC]

I have been doing a little more reading into this - I didn't know a lot about internally-carried AAMs! It would seem that the carriage systems of the F102 and 106 allowed IR missiles to be 'protruded' out of the bay until the seeker heads acquired their targets so I assume that the Arrow could do the same with Falcon IR / Firestreak / Red Top.  

I imagine the Canadians would have continued Arrow development with MG10/Falcon system and had as much problem with its operation as the F106 had.  RAF versions might well have carried Firestreak then Red Top internally, with Blue Dolphin to be added when available.

No doubt both air forces would have been unimpressed by their weapons systems serviceability and perhaps a common solution for a late 60s upgrade would have been based on the AN/AWG11/12 of the F4, with 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder carried internally (it works for the F22!).

Regards

GeorgeC      

[Archibald]

Very interesting infos!!!

AN/AWG11/12 of the F4, with 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder carried internally

I thought, too about a Phantom weapon system, to change the Arrow into a multirole plane...

[elmayerle]

F-102/F-106 internal carriage relies on "snap-on" doors that allow just enough time to extend the missile, get lock-on, and fire.  The weapons bay pallets of the CF-105 used a bit more sophisticated approach to do much the same thing.  As, for that matter, the F-22 and F-35 do for their IR-AAMs.

If memory serves me correctly, the MG-10 would've been debugged by the time the first Mk.2 Arrows would've been operational but I can it perhaps being replaced by the AN/AWG-11/12 in the late 60s for multi-role aircraft (there were studies of an Arrow variant for at least the high-altitude strike portion of the RAF's needs so something like that may already have been considered by Avro-Canada).

For straight-out interceptors, the AN/ASG-18 & AIM-47B combo would be hard to beat in the time frame (I keep wanting to see a rendering of NORAD-assigned Arrows and F-108s flying in formation) with subsequent upgrading along the lines of the AWG-9 & AIM-54.  There might be another "Go To War" role here as a strike version of the AIM-47, the AGM-76, was carried to at least the flight test stage and suitable air-to-ground modes added to the AN/ASG-18.

The adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.

[Archibald]

To my mind, the Arrow had no rivals until the F-14 and F-15. Maybe the Tu-128 or the Su-15 could have threatened it? what do you think about that?  

[MartG]

The adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.

Would there have been room in the Arrow for the AWG-9 - from what I remember it used up an awful lot of volume, not to mention the large diameter nose needed to house the scanner dish. Maybe the Arrow would have had to wait for the APG-71 to get Phoenix capability

[GeorgeC]

The mention of multi-role capability is interesting.  Leaving aside the 'Marylin Monroe' factor - it's better to go when you are young, beautiful and still full of promise and before the going gets tough - the Arrow certainly seemed to be and outstanding aircraft.  No doubt its performance was paid for in size (its huge!) and in complexity (no doubt the linies would have been working long into the night to keep it flying).  

However, unlike other 60s super jets, it also had a reasonable wing and might have been a bit more amenable to roles other than a straight line intercept or high-level bombing run?  Would it have made a reasonable air superiority fighter (Mirage/F4 standard) rather than just an interceptor (F104/106)?  Could you hang lots of MERs and bombs off it without it becoming a brick (F105)?  I have seen its low wing loading (sounds good for air combat manouvering) cited as a problem in the low-level strike role but it doesn't seem to hurt the F15E, although i am told the ride in a low-level Strike Eagle is a bit 'sporty'.

Grateful for your always well-informed views

Regards

GeorgeC          

[elmayerle]

The adoption of the AWG-9 would likely offer multi-role capability since an air-to-ground capability was demonstrated by the prototype F-14s during their flight test career.

Would there have been room in the Arrow for the AWG-9 - from what I remember it used up an awful lot of volume, not to mention the large diameter nose needed to house the scanner dish. Maybe the Arrow would have had to wait for the APG-71 to get Phoenix capability

Have you seen the revised nose contours planned for the ASTRA installation?  There's room for the AWG-9's antenna there and I seriously doubt that the AWG-9 requires any more volume than they would've had to set aside for ASTRA or for the AN/ASG-18.

Archibald, all things considered, I'd rate the Arrow a bit above the Tu-28 and Su-15 simply because the enclosed weapons carriage allows better performance while it still was a long-range interceptor.

In my book, one of the multirole advantages of the Arrow is that interchangeable weapons bay pod that would allow you to change tasking fairly simply.  I intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods.  One strike option for the RAF used a scaled-down, ramjet-powered version of Blue Steel.  I'm sure the wing could take some stores, the proposed Mk.4 primarily differed from the proposed Mk.3 in that it had provisions for 1000-gallon under-wing tanks and these could likely be adapted to carry other items.  I will have to post some suitable images by Randall Whitcomb.

[Zen]

RAF looked at a UK Arrow with Gyron or RB.106 engines, AI.18 radar and Red Hebe.

[Gary]

I intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods.

Dang it, I had the Viggie reccie pod saved for the next one I get. I was also gonna do a set of conformal tanks on the after belly, similar but smoother than the Javelin's.

[GeorgeC]

I intend to model at least one Arrow as a recce bird using a clone of the RF-111 recce pod blended into one of those interchangeable pods.

Dang it, I had the Viggie reccie pod saved for the next one I get. I was also gonna do a set of conformal tanks on the after belly, similar but smoother than the Javelin's.

Think bigger, gentlemen!

A clear candidate to replace the Canberra PR9, a strat recce version should be fitted with something like the HIAC-1 camera system - essentially a spy satellite camera.  A similar arrangement was intended for the F4

(see http://www.vogue-web.ch/f4/f4_29.html)

and the developing series of cameras fitted to RB57, Canberra and U2 platforms.

This could have been installed in a nose mounting, in place of the radar systems, leaving the weapons bay for a panoramic camera suite or sideway looking radar.  Best, perhaps to mount it on the starboard side to get the pictures on the ingress to target up the Baltic or along the the Kola Peninsula before the PVO arrive!  An air refuelling probe and some drop tanks should complete the mark.  No doubt this mark would have been as popular and long lasting as the PR9, which only now has 'days to do' in service.    

Regards

GeorgeC

[elmayerle]

Nose installation would be one way, but I prefer to preserve the multi-role capability and use it as part of a new weapons bay pod with a bulge on the centerline like the HIAC-1 pod that was developed for use on the RF-4 for the USAF.

[Archibald]

I would see the CF-105 like this
- a big, internal bomb bay ala F-111 (allowing extraodinary multirole capabilities just by changing the packs)
- a powerfull weapon system ala F-14
- performances quite similar to the F-15
- FBW system roughly similat to the F-16

This plane is a kind of synthesis of "what-is-good" in other planes...
In an era (spring 1958) when the best fighter was the Phantom...

Other think : Avro Canada created this plane in only five years, whithout "serious" flaws or flight test problems, whithout a single cost overrun (!). Experience of the company just lied on the CF-100, quite different from the Arrow!!
This was an oustanding achievement!!
concerning the Camberra PR-9 : the last Mirage IVP was withdrawn only in june 2005...it had flew in June 1959, 15 month after the CF-105, and the planes have interesting similarities...
so yes, long life to the CF-105 (RF-105 over Afghanistan in march 2002 )  

[Daryl J.]

Are there any major pitfalls with the new tool kit from a whiffers point of view?   Which engine suite is kitted?

TIA,
Daryl J.  

[kitnut617]

Here is a site that has loads of aftermarket goodies just for the Hobbycraft kit:

http://www.mastercasters.co.uk/