You are not logged in.
RobertDyck,
You keep posting stuff.
I'm patiently waiting for a response demonstrating basic understanding of aerospace design tradeoffs.
Even back in the 1970s people said Canada needs to diversify trade.
Why didn't Canada, France, and the United Kingdom pool their design and manufacturing resources, post-WWII?
There seems to be very limited economic trade value, even today, most of it defense-related.
Why doesn't the UK buy metal ores from Canada, for example?
Then developed the CF-105 Arrow.
CF-105 was a remarkably good airframe design, but Iroquois was a remarkably inefficient engine design, even for the late 1950s. By the time the CF-105 flew, the J58 was accelerating 40% less air mass while producing 14-25% more dry thrust and 13% more thrust in burner. If that's not indicative of a fundamental engine design problem, then I don't know what qualifies.
America doesn't have any issue with purchasing foreign weapons, despite spurious claims to the contrary, but when your design can't meet key performance metrics, it doesn't get purchased. Engines need reasonable-for-their-time fuel economy when compared with similar American engine designs, not simple thrust output. When we evaluated how poorly Iroquois engines did on fuel economy, they weren't worth further investment. We already had more fuel efficient engines with similar thrust output (J58 or J93). If we were going to design a combat jet around an engine, as all of them are, then we would expect a foreign design to demonstrate parity with American engine designs, and preferably an improvement over existing American engines. Iroquois was not an improvement, so it was never considered a worthwhile foreign defense engineering project for our government to fund.
If Iroquois was able to demonstrate J58 / J93 thrust output with improved TSFC, I would bet almost anything that we'd fund further development, regardless of what the Canadian government did with their Arrow program. Throughout the Cold War, the most notable design detail pertaining to British, Canadian, and French fighter jet engine designs was how fuel-inefficient they were, relative to American engines, which is why we rarely bought any. Now you see quite a few British engines powering American combat aircraft, because they are actual improvements relative to contemporary American engine designs and, beyond geopolitical considerations, that's why we purchased them.
America's Air Force really liked the CF-105 as a platform and concept, but in practice none of the weapon systems or electronics to enable it to function as a self-directed BVR interceptor were remotely close to being ready for combat use. Nobody had a reliable and operationally usable BVR radar and air intercept missile combination until the 1980s. For the F-106s that America did purchase in limited numbers, more than a few were lost to accidents, but none of them were used in combat to perform interception missions. The only combat jet designed in the 1950s which was not well on its way to the bone yard by the 1980s was the B-52, so America would've purchased fewer CF-105s vs F-106s for that same role and then had a more expensive F-106 with nearly identical actual vs envisioned capabilities.
There might have been orders for 180 aircraft for America and 40-60 from Canada, so 100 fewer tails than actual F-106 production. What actual good would that have done for America or Canada? The British had already abandoned the dedicated interceptor role by the 1960s when they realized before Americans did, just as Canadian military leaders did, that radar and missile tech was nowhere near good enough.
Performance for Iroquois is remarkably close.
The F135 engine has almost as much dry thrust (28,000lbf) as the Iroquois has in full afterburner (30,000lbf). In full afterburner, the F135 (43,000lbf) has 43% greater thrust than the Iroquois. F135 OPR is 28:1, 324lbm/sec mass flow rate. Iroquois OPR is 8:1, 420lbm/sec mass flow rate. That means the F135 will have significantly better fuel economy at any power setting. There's nothing "remarkably close" about them.
Mass flow rates for American fighter jet engines only vary between 140lbm/sec (J52) and 325lbm/sec (F135), from the mid-1950s to the present day, with the tiny J85 that powered the F-5 and T-38 being the only outlier. This covers J52, J58, J75, J79, J93, TF30, TF41, F101, F110, F404, F414, F119, and F135. Higher mass flow rates without significant thrust increases are always indicative of inefficient designs.
The closest Iroquois size and weight analogs were the J75s, but J75s still have 12.5:1 OPRs and 260lbm/sec mass flow rates, with maximum thrust being 29,500lbf (J75-P5A) vs 30,000lbf (Iroquois). OPR is a major factor in jet engine fuel efficiency, so at max dry thrust the Iroquois was burning an additional 4,050lbs/hr (596gph) at sea level. For equal thrust, Iroquois was still burning an additional 1,925lbs/hr (283gph). Afterburning TSFC figures between J75 and Iroquois are quite similar. This is unsurprising since thrust is also nearly equal.
Any engine ingesting 60% more air mass to achieve the same max thrust output will be fair to terrible in terms of TSFC. The minor thrust improvement of the Iroquois engine over the J75 was accompanied by a significant fuel burn increase. That was why Iroquois was never installed in any other fighter jets. Iroquois was an obsolete design by 1958. It's a scaled-up J79 in terms of fuel burn rate, except that a scaled-up J79 would have J75 fuel burn rates. The J58 turbojets that powered the SR-71 were also more efficient, and capable of producing more dry (25,000lbf) and wet (34,000lbf) thrust, at reduced fuel burn rates, when the air intake was appropriately sized. The SR-71's intake design limited installed thrust because it was deliberately designed for Mach 3 flight speeds at 70,000ft, which meant most of the intake area was "blocked" by its variable geometry inlet. Despite the dramatic loss of thrust at speeds below Mach 2 for the installed J58 engines, the increase efficiency and suppression of compressor surge at Mach 3 flight speeds was worth the tradeoff for a recon plane flying straight and level at 70,000ft at Mach 3. Nobody wanting better takeoff to Mach 2.5 thrust and acceleration would ever design their engine inlets the way the SR-71's inlets were designed.
Offline
Like button can go here
Why didn't Canada, France, and the United Kingdom pool their design and manufacturing resources, post-WWII?
Would be nice, but national rivalries get in the way. The Eurofighter program initially included France. But France wanted carrier variant, and heavier bomb load. Germany and UK wanted an air superiority fighter that could clearly defeat Russia's best fighter. Spain and Italy were part of the program, but I don't know their position on the dispute. Dassault split from Eurofighter consortium, the Rafale is the result. And that's without Canada's involvement.
Why doesn't the UK buy metal ores from Canada, for example?
Canada is trying. But Canada wants to sell finished metals, not just ores. Canada has aluminum smelters, mostly in Quebec. And iron smelters, mostly in Ontario. Current trade negotiations by Prime Minister Carney are diversifying trade. Canada does sell iron ore, but tries to sell smelted iron & steel. Canada also sells copper and gold. Canada has the 3rd largest deposit of nickel after South Africa and Siberia, and does sell some, but most of that goes to steel alloys.
A Canadian government website: Canada’s Top Mineral & Metal Exports by Country (2024)
CF-105 was a remarkably good airframe design, but Iroquois was a remarkably inefficient engine design, even for the late 1950s.
The Iroquois engine was developed from the Rolls-Royce RB.106. That Rolls-Royce engine was initially selected, but both it and the backup engine were cancelled before development of the Arrow was completed. So the Canadian jet engine company Orenda developed Iroquois. It had higher efficiency and more thrust than the Rolls-Royce engine. Remember development of the Arrow began in 1953. First run of the Iroquois engine in a test stand was in December 1954.
Wikipedia: Orenda PS.13 Iroquois
In overall design terms, the PS.13 was similar to the RB.106, using a "two-spool" layout with low-pressure and high-pressure sections of the compressor for added efficiency. It differed slightly in being somewhat more powerful, especially in afterburner. The design also incorporated a number of new design features intended to improve simplicity and lightness. With this in mind, Orenda pioneered work in the use of titanium in engines, with 20% by weight of the Iroquois (mainly the compressor rotor blades) consisting of this metal. Titanium has light weight, high strength and good temperature and corrosion resistance. It was estimated that the engine would be 850 pounds (386 kg) lighter than if steel had been used. During the early 1950s, this material was in short supply, and the lack of knowledge of its physical properties and fabrication techniques created problems which had to be overcome. It was also very expensive relative to the more common materials such as steel and aluminum.
It was recognized that if the engine parts could be designed with titanium, then the supporting structure could also be lightened due to reduced forces within the engine, with an overall saving in weight. Other parts, such as gearbox casings were made with a magnesium alloy. Inconel was used to make the blades in the low pressure turbine assembly and the metal insulation blanket found at the rear of the engine. This heat resistant nickel-chrome alloy retains its strength at high temperatures and resists oxidation and corrosion. The primary reason for using these advanced metals was to save weight and improve performance, creating an engine with a 5:1 thrust to weight ratio that could produce a sea level dry thrust of 19,250 lb (26,000 lb with afterburner).
America's Air Force really liked the CF-105 as a platform and concept, but in practice none of the weapon systems or electronics to enable it to function as a self-directed BVR interceptor were remotely close to being ready for combat use. Nobody had a reliable and operationally usable BVR radar and air intercept missile combination until the 1980s. For the F-106s that America did purchase in limited numbers, more than a few were lost to accidents, but none of them were used in combat to perform interception missions. The only combat jet designed in the 1950s which was not well on its way to the bone yard by the 1980s was the B-52, so America would've purchased fewer CF-105s vs F-106s for that same role and then had a more expensive F-106 with nearly identical actual vs envisioned capabilities.
The BVR radar for Arrow was already being tested on the Mark 1 prototype. Although the Mark 1 was primarily used to test the airframe. American Douglas corporation developed the AIM-7 Sparrow missile. Sparrow required the fighter pilot to use a remote control to "fly" the missile into the target. In 1950 Douglas tried to develop a self-guided version called Sparrow II, the previous retroactively called Sparrow I. But they had trouble getting it to work, so they quit. Canadair was selected to complete development of a radar guidance system for AIM-7 Sparrow II. Yes, they were well on their way to getting it to work. And yes, they would have sold them to the US. Development was cancelled when Arrow was cancelled.
Could Sparrow II fire BVR? I don't know. It was designed to "fire-and-forget", meaning self-guidance. It was a radar guidance system. The radar onboard the Arrow was BVR, but I don't know if the radar onboard the missile could.
Raytheon began work on semi-active radar-homing version called Sparrow III in 1951. Yes, that's before Arrow development began. They got it to work. Sparrow III entered service in 1958. It went through further developments.
Wikipedia: AIM-7 Sparrow
There might have been orders for 180 aircraft for America and 40-60 from Canada, so 100 fewer tails than actual F-106 production. What actual good would that have done for America or Canada? The British had already abandoned the dedicated interceptor role by the 1960s when they realized before Americans did, just as Canadian military leaders did, that radar and missile tech was nowhere near good enough.
American politicians didn't like the fast Canada was developing the best fighter jet in the world. As I have said before, Canada intended to sell Arrow to the US, Australia, New Zealand, and all NATO allies. That was in the 1950s, when only western European countries were part of NATO. Canada would not sell the India or Pakistan, even though they were members of the British Commonwealth, because they had ties to the Soviet Union. Too great a chance Arrow technology would be given to the Soviets. Arrow was purpose built to intercept and shoot down Russian bombers, so any chance of Russia (Soviets) getting Arrow technology would defeat the point. But US politicians pressured all those countries to not purchase Arrow. The cost of Arrow became a major political issue within Canada. If those allies purchased it, then cost was justified. But if Canada had to pay for the whole thing itself, a major state-of-the-art best-in-the-world fighter jet, then it was too expensive. Yes, there was a last-minute attempt by the US air force to save Arrow by placing a purchase order for one full squadron of Arrows. But it was too late. By that time Arrow was cancelled.
Many Americans don't want to take the blame for cancellation of Arrow. But if Canada received purchase orders before it was cancelled, that would have prevented cancellation. And yes, France did place an order for Iroquois engines, to upgrade their Mirage fighters. Yes, Iroquois was a good engine for the 1950s. But again, too little too late.
The closest Iroquois size and weight analogs were the J75s, but J75s still have 12.5:1 OPRs and 260lbm/sec mass flow rates, with maximum thrust being 29,500lbf (J75-P5A) vs 30,000lbf (Iroquois).
Ironic you say that. The Avro Arrow mark 1 was the airframe test prototype. It used a pair of Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 afterburning turbojet engines. Orenda Iroquois was the upgrade. Analysis by modern engineers claim Arrow mark 1 could supercruise at mach 0.91 at 36,000 feet, max speed with afterburner recorded mach 1.98 at 50,000 feet. It is speculated that it could have exceeded mach 2 with afterburner, but just barely, and it was cancelled before that test could be performed. Arrow mark 2 was supposed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Canadair was selected to complete development of a radar guidance system for AIM-7 Sparrow II. Yes, they were well on their way to getting it to work. And yes, they would have sold them to the US. Development was cancelled when Arrow was cancelled.
Russia had a minimally functional air-launched BVR radar-guided missile using analog electronics. Those missiles were as large as the AIM-54 and only suitable for use against bombers flying at altitude. The 1980s was when full solid state electronics delivered the compute power to create a missile guidance system sophisticated enough to guide itself over more than the last few miles to a target, meaning somewhere between 10 and 20 miles the missile's onboard radar completes terminal guidance. Your assertion that Canadair was "well on their way to getting it to work" is pure ego-driven belief backed by nothing. No Sparrow-sized missile was suitable when limited to tube-based electronics. As it was, the entire front-half of that missile was tube-based electronics. Show me a document wherein 50% or better successful hits were recorded against chaff-launching bombers.
A highly scripted test involving a B-17 o B-29 target drone flying straight and level using a missile wheeled directly out of the factory before being loaded onto the launching aircraft doesn't count. 612 AIM-7D/E/E2 missiles were fired during the Viet Nam War and 56 to 59 kills were achieved. 452 AIM-9s were also fired. Only 80 Sidewinders hit anything. 137 confirmed kills were achieved by both types. No other nation has fired anywhere near as many missiles in combat as America has. The British made a lot of claims about how effective Rapier was, and then the Falklands War happened. When the shooting starts, all those rosy Pk estimates are shown to be what they are- malarkey. You'll have to pardon me if I question the hell out of anything about Cold War era missile effectiveness, but that's because I know better.
The radar onboard the Arrow was BVR, but I don't know if the radar onboard the missile could.
That was always the problem. We've been over this before. Simpler tech that was workable using then-available analog electronics was successful only 10-15% of the time under actual combat conditions during the Viet Nam War, even when the targeted aircraft was flying exactly like those B-17 drone and completely unaware of any inbound missile fired at it. Actual BVR engagement distances were well under 20 miles. The AIM-54C and later variants of the long range missiles fired by MiG-25s and MiG-31s were coin tosses in terms of effectiveness.
They got it to work.
Define "working".
American politicians didn't like the fast Canada was developing the best fighter jet in the world.
1950s American politicians never knew enough about fighter jets to have any way of knowing if a fighter jet was or was not "the best in the world", so your ego-driven assertion falls flat once again. Name off one American politician from the early to mid 1950s who was a jet fighter pilot who saw combat in war involving missiles. I bet you can't because fighter jets and guided missiles were so new at the time that anyone involved in their development or use would still be in the military or working for a defense contractor.
Canada intended to sell Arrow to the US, Australia, New Zealand, and all NATO allies.
Intentions only matter when backed by actions. Your government killed the Arrow program.
Arrow was purpose built to intercept and shoot down Russian bombers, so any chance of Russia (Soviets) getting Arrow technology would defeat the point.
Would it?
The MiG-25 actually could do BVR interceptions, as evidence by multiple shoot-downs of Iranian aircraft during the Iran-Iraq War, and it did that without the benefit of western electronics tech, with the caveat that their missiles were as large as the AIM-54 and range was never very impressive for something so big. That means they were just beyond a merge when they fired.
Many Americans don't want to take the blame for cancellation of Arrow.
America and Americans are not even tangentially responsible for the actions of your own government, which canceled the Arrow for the reasons stated in their own classified internal documents, subsequently released to the public many decades later. We now know their reasoning had nothing whatsoever to do with America or American politicians and everything to do with the fact that Canada's military leaders thought this:
1. The primary Soviet nuclear threat would come from ICBMs, not long range missiles fired by Soviet bombers.
2. Soviet political leadership lost interest in manned bombers as a nuclear weapons delivery method the moment they figured out that their ICBMs were next to impossible to intercept and could be launched from mobile launchers inside Russia and submarines, providing mere minutes of warning of an impending attack.
3. The Arrow as a concept was unworkable using air-to-air missile tech of that era.
History proved Canada's military leaders were correct on all counts. Your assertions about their decisions remains factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest. I posted that document to this forum. It's yet another example of your ego-driven beliefs being at-odds with factual historical information recorded by your own government.
The Bomarc missiles Canada did purchase and field were the size of small fighter jets and carried small fighter jet radars behind their nosecones, which meant they had at least some chance of effecting a successful interception against both bomber and large missiles. Even those weapons were primitive compared to modern solid state electronics, and probably carried nothing more than a coin toss chance of achieving a kill. Thankfully, nobody involved on either side of the Cold War placed much faith in BVR missile interceptors.
Orenda Iroquois was the upgrade.
The Iroquois engine wasn't the only engine being improved in 1958, but you'd need to study history in greater detail, as I have, in order to know that. I don't care about speculation. I only care about demonstrated performance. Arrow's combat radius was already pitiful with J75s and would've been even worse with the Orenda Iroquois engines.
Fuel burn math is real math. It won't change for anyone.
Offline
Like button can go here
kbd512, I'll give you an assignment. Find the detailed technical specs of radar "RCA Astra-1". Developed by RCA between early 1956 and September 1958. That's the BVR radar for Arrow. Before 1956, they had considered MX-1179 / MA-1, the radar used on F-106 Delta Dart. So much time has passed that RCA Astra-1 should be declassified by now, but a quick Google does not reveal details. Since you're so concerned with BVR, you look up capabilities and report back.
The basis of your last post is, America didn't have anything as good as Arrow, so therefor Arrow couldn't exist. Do you seriously not understand how incredibly insulting that is? I completely disregard your entire argument. Report back when you find specs for RCA Astra-1.
Offline
Like button can go here
RobertDyck,
Find the detailed technical specs of radar "RCA Astra-1".
...
So much time has passed that RCA Astra-1 should be declassified by now, but a quick Google does not reveal details.
...
Report back when you find specs for RCA Astra-1.
You're the one making claims about a system that never once flew aboard the Arrow, so do that yourself. If you can't find anything, then all you have left is pure belief-driven speculation.
I completely disregard your entire argument.
I've provided independently verifiable facts and evidence based upon publicly released historical data. Every assertion you've made thus far has been refuted by available evidence. Whether or not history offends your sensibilities is not my concern.
The basis of my last post is, nobody had a functional BVR missile and fire control system in 1958, therefore your claims about how good Arrow / Astra / Sparrow could've been are emotionally-driven and evidence-free. Your feelings towards the Arrow override your ability to do basic math, recognize faults in your logic, admit when historical evidence disagrees with your assertions, and view the Arrow program as the developmental failure that it would've become, had Canada pursued it to the point of complete failure.
America did pursue a Mach 3 interceptor to the point of complete program failure. YF-12A was a true Mach 3 interceptor by recorded flight speed data, but was never an operational system specifically because its radar and missile technologies were far too immature. All the same radio electronics companies were involved in the development of Astra, ASG-18, and GAR-9 / AIM-47 programs. What should a rational and logical person make of that?
SN 60-6935, the only surviving YF-12A, was flown to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 17 November, 1979.
My take is that the tech simply wasn't ready for operational use, and no amount of speculative belief will ever change that. It just barely worked when maintenance time was irrelevant and every test was scripted to the last detail. When the AIM-54A was used in more realistic tests 10 to 20 years later, the significant limitations of missiles using tube-based radar electronics were plainly evident to all involved. This may not sit well with F-14 and Phoenix missile enthusiasts, either, but that was ugly operational reality. When such weapons did work under combat-like conditions, they never hit their assigned targets more than 50% of the time. If you fired a pair of Phoenix missiles at a target, then you'd get a kill more often than not. Unless you're here to claim that 1950s tube-based electronics were more reliable and functional than the mostly solid state AWG-9 and AIM-54A, then any counter-factual line of argumentation is pointless.
I cannot find any recorded historical evidence that RCA's Astra-1 ever flew aboard a test aircraft, so any claims about what it could achieve do not appear to be based upon recorded test results. RCA lost the ASG-18 contract to Hughes in the spring of 1957 for lack of progress. Arrow enthusiasts would have picked up on this and added it to their Arrow lore if it did.
The MA-1 radar and fire control system, which was installed on every production F-106 airframe, weighed in at 2,520lbs. It could lock-up a B-52 at about 40 miles, subsequently extended to about 69 miles following electronics upgrades that came many years later. In clear skies, the IRST system had a longer tracking range than the radar ever did, and was used as secondary confirmation against radar-located targets.
I can tell you that back in America, Sperry was replaced by RCA in 1956, then RCA was replaced by Hughes in 1957. RCA was replaced in 1957 because their radar could not meet radar detection range targets of 100+ miles and insufficient progress was made for continued funding. Why it is that the RCAF thought they eventually would is beyond my understanding. Hughes was finally able to hit their contractually obligated radar detection range targets. Development work continued until 1966 when the F-12B was canceled by the USAF. In short, nothing remotely approaching a "ready-to-use" radar and fire control system existed until long after the Arrow was cancelled. ASG-18 was designed to fit inside a 40 inch diameter nose, which both the Arrow and YF-12A shared, and both employed a weapons system officer to operate their radar / fire control equipment and launch missiles. The ASG-18 radar alone weighed 2,100lbs. As with RCA, Hughes also posted significantly greater theoretical detection and tracking distances, but in operational practice it could lock-up bomber-sized target around 100 miles- same max range as the missiles it was paired with.
Edit:
I should have stated that the ASG-18's 40 inch diameter radar dish was designed to fit in the Arrow and YF-12A nose. ASG-18 and GAR-9 were first tested aboard a modified B-58 Hustler, and subsequently installed in the YF-12A. There was some talk of putting ASG-18s in F-4s after the F-12B was canceled, but the largest diameter dish for radars installed in F-4s were the 32-inch dishes associated with the APQ-72 and later partially (AWG-10) or fully digital (AWG-14) equipment. I don't think a 40 inch dish would fit in the F-4's nose without significant modification and aerodynamic penalties. AWG-9 radars fitted to F-14s had 36 inch diameter dishes. I remember seeing those aboard the carriers I served aboard. AWG-9 was the most powerful radar fitted to an American fighter aircraft until the F-22's APG-77 entered service around 2005, but APG-71 radars fitted to F-15s were likely even more capable, not due to peak power output, but vastly improved digital signal processing capabilities. I do know that AWG-9 was about 15X more capable of volume search than the most capable F-4 radars.
MTBF for many thousands of discrete electronic components was about 150 hours, so constant maintenance in operation was a near-guarantee. IIRC, certain radar components required liquid cooling systems, same as the AIM-54A. From what I understood, the specialized thermal batteries and liquid cooling systems were what limited availability and reliability of Iranian purchased F-14s and AIM-54As.
My pure speculation is that had the advanced flight control features of the Arrow and ASG-18 become part of an operational system, total system weight would fall somewhere between 2,500-3,000lbs. That means every bit of the engine mass savings provided by the Iroquois engines would've been consumed by the new digital fly-by-wire flight control system, radar, and fire control systems. Worse than that, AIM-47 was about twice as heavy as Sparrow II, so Arrow would've carried 2 of those missiles at most to remain at MTOW with full internal fuel. If AIM-54A performance was any indication, that means each Arrow could nominally shoot down a single bomber under combat conditions when equipped with 2X AIM-47A missiles. If Arrow was equipped with 3X AIM-7E, which also didn't exist until many years later, then it could statistically shoot down zero bombers. If equipped with 6X AIM-7E, then Pk = 0.48, so perhaps every other Arrow would manage to kill one bomber after a pair of Arrows expended 6-9 missiles per bomber, or maybe not.
Is that really what you wanted to bet the continued existence of your cities on?
America "bet", if you will, that we could build enough early warning radars with integrated GCI for use in conjunction with simplified interceptors to close to within visual range of a bomber and shoot them down using heat-seeking missiles, rockets with small nuclear warheads, or cannon fire, because that was the extent of what 1950s electronics could accomplish with any degree of reliability. This system, as limited and flawed as it was, also conferred the unintentional benefit of actually knowing what you were shooting at.
Last edited by kbd512 (2026-01-12 19:40:26)
Offline
Like button can go here