It's not a matter of 'letting' them, they control the whole show. Weapons design and manufacture (or procurement from other countries) and deployment is entirely dependent on the decisions of politicians. The citizens of the country can vote for different representatives, but they have no say in what military hardware their government chooses to make use of.

What you are looking at is a ''Socialist Mind-set'' that the Politicians have,,, If the Arrow were revived, it would be an embarrassment of epic proportion because it would expose the corruption that ditched the first Arrow,,

you forget one little thing that the deif left us saddled with .. a signed treaty that says we as a country wont take up military aircraft design and development ... the joys of the failed bomarc and the dew line treaty that cancelled the arrow and killed the countries spirit

It’s too old, they are like 60 years old, the CF-18s are incapable and they are only 30 years old!

I can't 'trump' that comment

As a "Yank", I say BUILD IT! If only to stick it to Lockheed. They already own my nation.

As long as Canada is Socialist, Canada wiil see problems like this..

@@ainemairead4542 A conservative Prime Minister cancelled the Arrow Program not Liberals.

@juscurious lol, any competition reduces profits because lack of competition.allows insane profits.

@juscurious Your comment has a number of issues: why would you bring the shooting down of ICBM"s into the assessment of a fighter/bomber aircraft, it's not even considered for the most advanced military aircraft with today's technology so it's a moot point. The U.S. pressured the Canadian government to cancel the Arrow program and then pressured Canada into purchasing and deploying 60 Bomarc nuclear armed surface to air missiles which were obsolete within a couple of years and cost Canada, in 2020 dollars, $650,000,000. Canada began decommissioning them in the mid 1960's so they had just a few years of service and ended up being used as drones for SAM target practice. On top of this debacle Canada still required fighter/attack aircraft so by scrapping the Arrow, we ended up becoming beholden to U.S. defense contractors for future military aircraft. The Arrow was not a myth whatsoever and like any developmental aircraft there were bugs to be ironed out but it was pretty much a sure bet. Avro had the best aircraft engineers in the world and after the program was ended, they were all scooped up by American companies including NASA and went on to help keep the U.S. on the cutting edge of military aircraft development. The Americans used the fear of this advanced technology ending up in Soviet hands as one part of the reason Canada should scrap the project. Our neighbours real concern was that we would eclipse them on the world stage of military aircraft development and they just couldn't have that. And to cap all of this madness off, the Bomarc missile was based on captured V1 weapons developed by the Nazis so even they weren't of their making. The Bomarc was a SAM missile designed to bring down Soviet bombers and weren't intended for ICBM's anyway. It was a major blunder by the Canadian government and if left to Avro to finish the project, it's possible that today Canada would be an aerospace mecca of sorts. One last point, I wouldn't feel comfortable having a nuclear tipped missile shooting down a Soviet bomber full of nuclear missiles above any portion of Canada's land or sea territory.

@@veritasetutilitas5432 I am quite convinced that since our engenuity in planes was so great at the time I really believe, Canada, would have made the space shuttle, with the US putting there US Arm on Our space shuttle. And, we could have been the first on the Moon. We got screwed, Royaly, as always. Canada used to be great with so many solid patents. Now we get screwed every year and only have a handful of foundational patents like Blackberry and Nortel. Obviously Nortel is Lost. We shouldn't have allowed Huwai, into Canada.

Canada needs to stop giving all our money away to other countries and getting nothing back that we can't build better.

@@veritasetutilitas5432 name one thing the USA actually designed with just American talent. Everything the USA built after world war 2 was never from within there own country. Not even nuclear Science came from within.

unfortunatrly...cheaper to buy form the states.

Daniel Groulx tu l'as dit ,c'est de la politique,combien les states ont payé pour que les plans disparaissent , on n'en saura jamais rien ,mais on devra toujours faire ce que les Etats-Unis nous dictent,malheureusement c'est eux qui bossent donc oublie le Arrow

Etienne Duchaine thanks for replying. If you could write this in english, I could understand it. :-)

Daniel Groulx sorry your name sound french,as you said,it's only politic,how much the u.s. paid so that the plans disappear,we will never know, but unfortunately we must alway make what the U.S. dictate to us.That worked like that in the 50s and and it not really change since.

The "Avro" is not the name for the aircraft at all... It is the name of the manufacturer of many aircraft such as the Avro Lancaster which the aircraft in this case is the Avro Arrow. An example is how Ford makes the F150 and also the mustang.

Yes. Please. Save the U.S. a whole lot of time and money dragging Canada along. Again. And then when that flying piece of shit turns out to be exactly what it was and always will be - a failure, the world will laugh at you for worshipping junk for 50 years.

The English did the same with TSR-2 Politics, USA want to be No. 1

That sounds like Peter Zuuring's project, which died long ago. A scaled down flying replica is being built in Alberta, powered by turbines from a Learjet; that is as near as we will see to a flying Arrow...

@@StudeSteve62 what killed the project? I want an Arrow!

You have to fly higher, faster and further than a missile if you don't have stealth. With " over the horizon" missiles these days stealth is pretty important.

The Mosquito flew faster WW II

It would be one hell of a sight, but I think the arrow is a bit too big for an air stunt squadron 😂

Milky how about if the Thunderbirds showed up in SR-71’s and the Blue Angels in A-12’s

Too big and too fast for stunts.

The Sopwith Camel beats them all.

terry waller I was on Nuclear submarines we don’t always tell the whole story

U.S. PATRIOT, You're absolutely right and good to hear you tell it like it is!!! That's a fact and much appreciated from your neighbour North of the 49th Parallel. We're working on it, Thanks!!!

@@johnmulligan5261 whos working on what...??? there i no work going on with anything to do with an Arrow...except a mybe flying replica...but nothing serious to be put into actual service

bulit iTtwith sweden and SAAB

We needed two-man interceptors in the 50s, and we still do. As they said in the spot, it’s an upgraded/modernized version of a very solid airframe.

There is much more to the death of Avro Arrow program termination than has been released in Canada. The AVRO corporation was deeply infiltrated by agents of the Soviet GRU, so says RCMP documents made public. Apparently security was so lax around this innovative fighter/interceptor that security was all but non-existent at the building site and in the engineering design section. The PM of Canada at the time hid behind a cover story of needing to use the money for schools and agriculture. What the heck? Was he going to go on the air and say Canada's premier defense industry has been utterly and devastatingly compromised by Soviet intelligence, per his briefings with the RCMP. No. It was a great plane. A lot of American USAF brass wanted it, but they did not want to go up against the same thing in the air if the Soviets had the same thing. Anyway, two years later the Avro Arrow did fly again. Except this one had a red star and had been built as the MiG-25 Foxbat. Take a look at the Arrow and the Foxbat. You can barely tell the difference between the two. If Avro had better industrial site protection that worked closely with the RCMP and ID badges that said which section you worked in and if found outside of your area, deadly force was authorized to cancel the wandering spy.

oh man lego....are u canadian?

@@Skywalker8562 Was that the case with the TSR II as well? Virtually the same story all aircraft & plans ordered to be destroyed.

You canadians are still living in a dream. What else have you got?

@juscurious 😂😂😂😂😂😂

It's like us Brits with the TSR 2

If it was upgraded who knows it whould be second to f22

The B52 still is the main bomber force in the USA so maybe 1950s tech is not so bad. It's still flying and projected to still be in service 100 years after it was first designed. The U2 still is in service outlasting the stealth fighters that were supposed to replace it. All the flashy stealth planes are gone and retired and yet the U2 is still relevant and in service.

@@stevenplaskett7728 the u-2 is a reconnaissance aircraft and wouldn't be replaced by a fighter

Lovely Brad...

But Canada can't make planes

Bombardier would turn it into either a rail car no one is happy with, or subcontract to an American subsidiary.....then ask the feds for a bailout.

Screw those idiots at Bombardier, they can't even design a subway car properly.

William Charles The arrow was hugely expensive and had hardly been through any testing. It’s new engines didn’t even fit. The Air Force didn’t even want it. Canada simply couldn’t afford to build a fighter nobody wanted.

@@yakidin63 If Canada is such a Security Risk to the US, do you really think they will actually sell us decent technology? Most members of NATO are NOT buying the Crap 35 and the main reason the UK bought US fighter aircraft for their two(2) new Aircraft Carriers is because the plane they are buying has VTOL capabilities like their old fighters did. Those old fighters proved their worth in the Falklands and that is what they need for the HMS Queen Elizabeth which is in sea trials and the HMS Prince of Wales which is supposed to be ready for sea trials in 2020.

Canada needs a long range cruiser not a short range sports car. If a plane can't even make it from one base to the next inside its borders that's not a very good plane. I bet the f35 can't even make it from Trenton to moose jaw or dundurn without a fuel stop

@@yakidin63 300 million for a complete plane and engine from scratch was such a bargain.

lol

The Foxbat had a fair amount in common with the Arrow, yes; so did the Phantom and a number of others such as the Vigilante and its roundabout descendant the Eagle, which was Canada's first choice as Voodoo replacement...high performance aircraft design did not go on anywhere in a vacuum, advances made in one program were sure to get plagiarized elsewhere! The Americans had their own Arrow-like design, the F-108, which, interestingly, was cancelled before being built. And by the way, the Foxbat (MiG-25), like the Arrow, was very much dedicated to one role, and thus it never did see very extensive service nor was it built in large numbers. That didn't matter in a dictatorship like the USSR, but Canada could simply not afford a tailor-made, unmarketable aircraft like the Arrow...

not even close...lol

It's time we stood on two legs about lots of things like why Alberta oil goes to Texas to be refined into gasoline and then we buy it back and pay .70 a liter more then the USA.

Well of course, it's a major decision that will affect their air force for decades. Nonetheless, childish fantasies of Avro Arrow revival don't deserve any credibility.

***** Yes, childish fantasies. The Arrow was a product of a different time and was left behind long ago. No amount of nostalgia will make its design any more relevant to the present day.

***** It is a stretch. A lot has changed in aerospace tech since the days of the Arrow. It's hopelessly out of date and would not form even a starting point in trying to avoid a completely clean sheet design.

***** I wouldn't get too worked up about the Bourdeau proposal. It doesn't appear to be overly credible and comes from a mysterious "organization" that doesn't appear to have any experience in engineering or producing aircraft. Producing CGI of a "mk3 Arrow" is altogether different than the multibillion dollar engineering/development effort that would be required. With all the advances in construction and materials since the late-'50s, the whole thing would need to be re-engineered from the ground up, making the form on an Arrow a pointless (and unwanted) design constraint.

***** And you're right that alternatives to the F-35 ought to be genuinely explored.

I mean while we are at it, might as well upgrade with Sopwith Camels

Yes they were this plane pioneered all the current Delta planes like the sr71 and even the stealth bomber delta shape. If the USA is still flying the b52 and the U2 just being designed in the 50s dose not mean they were stupid and not smart.

Arrow was Canada's chance to shine if Conservatives didn't scrap the project. For tomahawk missiles.

@@arricammarques1955 You're right, but it was the "BOMARC" SAM missiles which had a Max range of 440 miles with solid fuel and as a proximity weapon, they were useless without the Nuclear Tips which we only had in Canada for a short time and the BOMARC's were only in Canada for a decade and as Canada was buying them, the USA was decommissioning theirs. "On August 28th, 1958 the Hon. George Pearkes, Minister of Defence, presented Cabinet with the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile proposal from the U.S." After cancelling the Avro Arrow Program, we also bought 66 second hand F-101 Voodoos which our RCAF turned down years earlier because they were uncapable of completing Canadian missions. The F-35 First Strike Ground Assault jet is only capable of completing 10% of the original Avro Arrow SOR "Statement of Requirements" RCAF Specification AIR 7-3 in April 1953. "AIR 7-3 called specifically for a two crew, twin engine, aircraft with a range of 300 nautical miles (556 km) for a normal low-speed mission, and 200 nmi (370 km) for a high-speed interception mission. It also specified operation from a 6,000 ft (1,830 m) runway; a Mach 1.5 cruising speed at an altitude of 70,000 ft (21,000 m); and manoeuvrability for 2 g turns with no loss of speed or altitude at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft. The specification required five minutes from starting the aircraft's engines to reaching 50,000 ft altitude and Mach 1.5. It was also to have turn-around time on the ground of less than 10 minutes.[23] An RCAF team led by Ray Foottit visited US aircraft producers and surveyed British and French manufacturers before concluding that no existing or planned aircraft could fulfill these requirements." A 21rst Century Evolutionary design from the MK1 and MK2 Avro Arrows would fly at Max Speed of Mach 3.5 + and 80,000 + Altitude It would have a 30 % "Look Down / Shoot Down" Advantage over fighter jets below that. Avionics and Weapons Suite will be fully modernized. The F-35 Max Speed is Mach 1.61 achieved once in a Full Throttle Steep 50 Degree dive after completing preliminary maneuvers. After that, the engine needs to be replaced for damage and air frame and communications and Stealth Antenna on the rear will be damaged. It Fly's between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 with damage above those speeds. Max Altitude is 50,000 feet. When the UK "Tempest" is produced, the F-35's will be Obsolete. Russian Bombers fly above 50,000 feet and faster then Mach 2 like the newest TU-160 M2 with afterburners Service Ceiling of 52,000 feet and Max Speed of Mach 2.05 and their Fighter Jet Escorts fly higher altitudes and faster. The F-35 is incapable of catching All Enemy Fighter Jets and All Enemy Bombers.

@@stevenplaskett7728 the arrow had nothing to do with the Sr 71 or the b-2

so funny!

Is that why C.R.U.D is named for a Canadian plant and we sent a President to help although not our best President but not bad as an ex-President

+Steve T : Big slab-sided interceptors like the Arrow fell out of favor decades ago. New engines and avionics would be akin to dropping a crate engine and new sound system in a '58 Chrysler 300, then trying to compete with a 2016 Cadillac CTS. No contest. This bird would've been obsolete (like every other interceptor) by the mid-eighties.

+Raynus 1 You misjudge the purpose of re-engineering. Your analogy has nothing to do with the current plan.

Steve T If you re-engineer the original CF-105 to match contemporary fighters, the product would no longer be an Arrow. It would be an entirely different aircraft. This 'plan' is ludicrous.

Raynus 1 You're concentrating on a name instead of the possibilities. What makes you think the plan is ludicrous? Simply saying so doesn't make it so.

Steve T Canada hasn't built an indigenous fighter since the 1950's. Advanced as it was for the day, the design is sixty years old - and the technology essentially useless. Lockheed Martin and the US government have spent 20 years and over one TRILLION dollars on the F-35 program. To put it in perspective, a modern mid-sized airliner like the Boeing 737 costs ~$100m (USD) today - for Canada to develop a modern generation 5 fighter from the ground up would cost tens (if not hundreds) of $billions at minimum. The end product would have an off-the-shelf price tag likely well in excess of the already ridiculous F-35. Canada's leading aerospace giant, Bombardier, still relies on government handouts to stay afloat, even while maintaining it's position as one of the world's largest aircraft manufacturers. Canada is $700B in the hole. Quebec is broke. Ontario holds the highest sub-national debt on the globe. Canada needs an effective, cost-efficient, off-the-shelf combat aircraft - not fanciful folly like this pipe dream.

Canada The libertarian Party of Canada agrees with you mostly. We don't hate the government, we just recognize that it has trouble running a vending machine filled with water, in a desert, with thirsty customers wanting to pay in gold bars.

Furthermore, this project would be extremely expensive as soon as the Unions got involved. Unions ruin everything now.

Canada That was helpful !

Canada it's that we say since 1980 but everybody said we are the evil quebecker who want destroy the canada,the decisions of Ottawa are just for $$$ and not for the people

+Canada I hate pretty much every government that Canada had except McKenzie King's Goverment, Louis Saint-Laurent's Government (the one that initiated the Avro Arrow), Bennett's government, Laurier's Government and that's about it.

I second that.

in a burst not in a steady cruise and the arrow never had all its equipment installed,but it is worth a redesign with,modern materials and electronics,would make a potential world beater better

cartmanrlsusall Definitely! I don't think materials and design would be a problem for a redesign. All it would need is, like you mentioned, new electronics and weapons. The original air-frame and engine design would still be the best even today. Essentially the CF105 is a fighter jet on crack. Canadian crack.

Missile technology is not stagnant. Hypersonic missiles do exist.

@@cartmanrlsusall ...and with modern countermeasures installed....

Light speed as well .

The original Arrow's development left the Army and Navy starving for cash - resurrecting this antique would do the same today.

the defense budget of Canada back then and now are of different proportion, plus The F35 might be a JSF but it lacks alot in different fields of capabilities, first of all its not an interceptor, it lack maneuverability, it lacks extra fuel capacity, and its payload is limited due to its internal weapons bay(lacks number of AAMRAMs), due to flaws in its maneuverability and AAM it will require constant cover by other fighters during flying into missions that will further the burden on RCAF on logistics and maintenance of operating 2 types of fighters. Plus the F35 cant stay in the area of mission for more then 2 hours due to it fuel capacity, same as the F18 hornets but the hornet still surpass the 35 in many aspects let alone the super hornets. Plus the 35 still is facing alot of setbacks like weapons firing systems and VTOL engines whereas the Avro passed these test with flying colors(literally) blueprints are still there from which one can make further improvements, DD wings can provide ample space for fuel(extra) off course maneuverability and is more economical in fuel consumption than the 35 all of this at a lower price tag than the 35. All it needs is up to date weaponry avionics and jamming systems. the 35 can be a good platform against foes that have no air defense. But against in symmetrical war, i doubt 35 will see any action, 1 cause its too freaking expensive to operate and maintain 2 cause the manufacturers wouldn't want to risk their ultra sensitive fighter to fall in the hands of their foe. plus after every sorties it will take a staggering time to rearm and refuel the 35 if compared to a conventional SU 30mki, hour against mins. and to be honest stealth is just simply overrated, the army that brought u the 35 is also working on hardwares to takeout the 35 and that includes Russians, Chinese even Iranians(yea u heard that right sire) so by the time majority of the countries are involved into the JSF project induct their fleet in to their AF contingencies for anti stealth would already be in place. Why deliberately buy something that one know is not really upto the mark and cant fly as good as conventional fighters and requires constant cover from conventional fighter, how is this 35 the "fighter of the future". Some aspects are definitely but not the whole package.

Couple of quick points: The F-35 is a multirole aircraft, equally capable of A2A interception/combat as dropping bombs. The CF-105 was purely an interceptor. The F-35 would likely turn circles around the big Avro. The Arrow's long-delta planform was optimized for linear mach 2 flight at 40,000' and above. It would bleed energy rapidly during hard maneuvers and would incur huge drag at lower altitudes, burning even more fuel & further limiting an already tight combat radius. The Arrow had a combat radius of ~300nm. The F-18 and F-35 enjoy a combat radius of nearly double that. The Arrow was never designed with loiter time in mind - it was to intercept, engage, then RTB. The F-35 has both internal weapons storage and multiple under-wing external hardpoints. The Arrow was limited to what it could carry in its interchangeable armament pack. The Arrow was never tested to the point of "passing with flying colors". It never fired a shot. It couldn't, as it was never fitted with a weapons system or radar. During its brief test phase, the armament pack carried flight test equipment only. The F-35A (what Canada is vetting) is not VTOL capable. That is the F-35B. Finally, re-tooling a six-decade old fighter would be simply foolish. Even upgraded, interceptors like the Arrow were phased out of service thirty years ago. To build a new, indigenous, multi-role fighter from scratch would make the F-35 seem like a bargain. Cheers.

***** Suggest you re-read my last post (Feb 4), as it addresses your claims about range, VTOL, maneuverability, etc.

Asif Aziz The Arrow was not a fighter. It was fast but not that manoeuverable. With a Delta wing you don't get low altitude, lower speed agility. This was the problem with all late designs and spawned compromises such as moveable wing. It would probably necessitate vectored thrust. What is needed is a tandem fighter which always is accompanied by another bird which watches its back. It could twin itself or birth a smaller drone or piloted nimble mosquito which defends the larger, less agile craft.

+zuiderzee1973 America wanted the British to buy the F-111, not the B-1 when the British cancelled the TSR2 in 1964. The Australians loved the F-111 so much they flew the fighter- bomber longer than the Americans.

And to that, the British never did buy the F-111 - the TSR-2's intended role was filled by the Buccaneer.

Bullshittt !!! get your facts straight you stupid fuck.. TSR.2 was an engineering disaster, years too late in conception, years too late in development vastly overbuget and then the shocking news that it would not even meet its design specifications ! Another example of painfully slow and agonizing death of the brit aero industry.

F-111 was massively superior the TSR.2 it flew faster, farther and delivered 40% more payload.. TRS-2 was a paper plane. Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems ! Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper. Another British myth.. .King Arthur pulling Excalibur from stone !!!

Any idea why Brits didn't buy the F-111?? The Americans then offered the F-111 with it's stand- off bomb as a package cheaper than the TSR2. Unfortunately after the British had ordered the F-111 the American stand-off bomb project was cancelled making the F-111 surplus to British requirements.

60 years ago loool

The F-35 doesn't lack in the power department, it has plenty of thrust. It's the outrageous cost that makes it an iffy matter, not its flight performance, which will be very good.

Claudy_Focan Stealth is not the F35s main weapon. Information is the key today. Not speed. Says fighter pilots.

fk -off goof

IF THE US DIDNT GO AROUND THE WORLD LOOKING FOR TROUBLE JUST TO KEEP THEIR PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN BUILDING WAR SUPPLIES AND TELLING EVERYONE HOW GREAT THE US IS WE WOULDNT BE IN THE POSITION WHERE WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY TO KILL PEOPLE.

For continuity with what we have now, I would prefer to see the Super Hornet chosen. The F-35 is still likeliest by far, though, the fix having been in for it for years...

It would. If upgraded with today's tech. It would easily blow anything out there out of the water.

Kishan Sri Stupid comment

There are so many things the Canadians and Brits almost did.

The Canadians continually beat the American Flyers in the mini war games have done so since the 50's, only thing is your military does not publish this, how a country with less than 200 fighters in the air have better flyers, better training, make due with less, the us just put numbers up in the air and this is how they win!!

shows what you know about the arrow, the actual top speed was above mach 2 and it could be outfitted with any kind of amunition weither it was guns missiles they could do it and its faster and goes higher then anything in the skies today your argument is invalid !

CHRIS STARKILLER The Chrysler turbine car was decades ahead of its time. the idea was scrapped, they could bring it back and have it drive circles around the mclearan f1... but they wont.... the Canadian government blew billions on the arrow program with limited/no results let it go and move on.