MigBuster 2,884 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) - might make a What If http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/10/avro_arrow_takes_flight_again_in_dream_plan_for_new_air_force_fighter.html Edited January 17, 2015 by MigBuster 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 10,235 Posted January 17, 2015 only beef is the mach 3+ capable intakes. wouldnt go that fast with all the things sticking out on the outside. otherwise a verrry interesting proposition Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+dtmdragon 2,703 Posted January 17, 2015 It would make a very cool 'what if' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted January 17, 2015 we have the 3D model from FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ext 52 Posted January 17, 2015 Having every book and video produced on the Arrow that is very impressive !!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 18, 2015 I was having a discussion with a Canadian politician about the issue of the F-35 just last week. Though the concept of a CF-105 reborn is interesting, like the article pointed out, you are basically building a new aircraft from the ground up...it is hopelessly naive to think you can build a triple-sonic fighter with advanced 5th generation avionics, thrust vectoring, internal and external weapons points, for 90 million dollars per aircraft (which includes the R&D cost). Check this article out: http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/modern-aircraft-flyaway-costs/ F-22 - 273 million USDF-35C - 236 million USDF-35B - 292 million USDF-35A -184 million USDF-15C - 126 million USDF-15A - 43 million USDEF2000 T2 - 138 million USDRafale M - 83 million USDRafale C - 75 million USDF-16C - 70 million USDF-16A - 30 million USDGripen E - 85 million USDGripen C - 44 million USDHarrier II Plus - 50 million USDGripen A - 36 million USD Note the author doesn't include VAT on some aircraft which causes the cost to significantly jump. Also note that pretty much the only large twin-engine aircraft that make it under the 100 million dollar mark is the old F-15A. That's important to note...the CF-105 would be a large fighter, similar in size and weight to the F-22, F-15, EF2000, etc. My personal opinion is that when Canada is ready to replace their Hornets, they should get a version of the Super Hornet. Transition training would be minimal, some logistics are already in place, and the R&D is already paid for. Pretty much they could get it at the per airframe cost to make. FC 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted January 18, 2015 And the M3.5 speed? good luck sorting out the friction issues guys - may as well redo the XF-108 Canada going by themselves to produce a very expensive jet that no one else would likely buy - wont happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smokey799 1 Posted January 20, 2015 Great. Another round of "The CF-105 is, was, and will be the bestest fighter evar!!!!!". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 20, 2015 Wrong figures. Flyaway cost of the final F-22 built was $140m, it was in the public defense budget that year, and if they'd kept building them they likely would've kept a similar price range. Unless of course they are using costs of R&D, EMD, lifecycle etc, and then dividing by units produced, which is no longer flyaway cost. The F-35 is still in LRIP, so full production flyaway costs aren't yet finalized. Some of those planes ended production literally decades ago, the F-15A and F-16A prices are irrelevant. When the F-15C ended production in 1987 or so there was no way we were paying $126m each when B-1Bs were around that price! NO fighters cost over $200m flyaway right now, not one. I despise "creative accounting" for political purposes, and that site is just perpetuating bad numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted January 21, 2015 There are so many figures flying around - and a lot seem to suggest figures are this and that flyaway etc without really knowing what they actually refer to or if they are accurate - or considering other factors like economies of scale, inflation blah - I generally take no notice. The author Picard is a you tube commenter with demonstrably poor subject matter knowledge on most things aviation judging by the posts and blogs I have read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 21, 2015 Okay, if the author has issues, then I'll take his article with a grain of salt. However, by the CF-105 article, the proposal is for 100 CF-105s at 9 billion total dollars...that's $90 million per aircraft when you roll R&D costs into it. Does anyone REALLY think you can build that class of aircraft for that little money? FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 23, 2015 Not in the West, no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 24, 2015 Ladder telescopquie? I wonder if anyone knows what I am referring to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shotdown 8 Posted January 27, 2015 That's important to note...the CF-105 would be a large fighter, similar in size and weight to the F-22, F-15, EF2000, etc. EF2000 is not a large fighter. Its size/weight is similar to that of the F-16/F-35/Rafale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 27, 2015 EF2000 is not a large fighter. Its size/weight is similar to that of the F-16/F-35/Rafale. Huh...I always thought it was a bit bigger than that...guess not now that I look at it's specs. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tirak 4 Posted January 29, 2015 Ladder telescopquie? I wonder if anyone knows what I am referring to? Going out on a limb, The Adventures of Bill and John? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted January 29, 2015 Going out on a limb, The Adventures of Bill and John? You sir are correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 4, 2015 The reason there's a Typhoon and a Rafale is that the two groups couldn't agree on the size of the fighter. France wanted smaller, the rest wanted larger. To say they should've just compromised is an understatement given how similar the two are. 35' wide, 50' long, 21k lbs vs 36' wide and 52' long and 24k lbs...except the Rafale actually has a higher max TO weight despite being slightly smaller. A 35.5' wide, 51' long, 22.5k lbs plane should've been ideal for both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeanba 1,920 Posted February 5, 2015 The reason there's a Typhoon and a Rafale is that the two groups couldn't agree on the size of the fighter. France wanted smaller, the rest wanted larger.Not really (or not according to the French) : The french wanted an attack plane to replace the Jaguar, for Air superiority, they had the "2000" The rest of Europe basically had the Tornado for A/G and wanted a new Air Superiority fighter. Hence the disagreement. In 30 years, things changed but the design of both aircraft still refects this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fallenphoenix1986 603 Posted February 5, 2015 There is also the fact the French wanted a naval version that noone else needed. Craig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
