Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "TSR.2 - The Plane Shot Down by its Own Government" video.

  1. Well there were so many self hating white liberals in Britain who blames themselves for much of the worlds problems. They figured if they could destroy Britain as a power than the world would be a better place.
    41
  2. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit. Show less REPLY
    17
  3. The modified F-101B which Canada acquired from the US had enough performance, it could hit MACH 1.8. They were able to get it for a FRACTION of the cost of the Arrow program. At the time of cancellation the Arrows cost had risen to 3x the price of a F-106 and it was not as good as the F-106. The Arrow was certainly innovative and was on the cutting edge of technology, the problem was that aviation technology was advancing so rapidly an aircraft that was cutting edge one moment was obsolete 5 years later. What hurt the Arrow is it was specifically designed for the interception mission, it could not do anything else. Interceptors became obsolete overnight with the introduction of ICBM's. The A-5 had the EXACT same role as the TSR-2 it was a high speed nuclear strike bomber. The A-5 may not have been quite as fast but it had a much better range. The A-5 was a adoption of many of the technologies of the F-108 program, from a technological standpoint it was more advanced than the TSR-2. The only part that I think is conspiracy bullshit is people thinking that these were some sort of super planes and the United States government put pressure on the respective governments to cancel them out of fear.
    13
  4. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit. Show less REPLY
    9
  5. LOL Sorry you would be incorrect. The Americans ALREADY had a better interceptor than the Arrow in the F-106 that flew almost two YEARS before the Arrow prototype did. The Americans already had the A-5 which was in SERVICE for THREE YEARS before the TSR-2 made it's first flight. The F-111 itself would grow into a far more capable aircraft than the TSR-2. It was faster 200 feet off the ground and at altitude.
    8
  6. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit.
    7
  7. Instead of just canceling the aircraft they should have had a replacement project on order to keep the Canadian aviation industry going. The Arrow was a AMAZING achievement and piece of engineering, especially if you look at the quantum leap forward in capability Avro achieved from the CF-100 to the CF-105. It was as if they skipped a full generation of aircraft. It's Achilles heel was it was so optimized for the interceptor role it could not fill other roles like air superiority or close air support. It had such a short combat range it could not fill the role of strike bomber either. I actually think the bigger loss was the engines, the Orenda Iroquois engine was the most advanced turbojet in the world at the time. Imagine where they would be if they keep developing cutting edge engine technology.
    6
  8. What I meant is that in the rush to develop high performance interceptors it was envisioned that the Russians would be flying huge formations of bombers carrying nuclear weapons in over the arctic circle and striking targets in the US. The Russians never developed a large strategic bomber force. They had a small token force not what was envisioned. The Russians switched to the ICBM and the SLBM as the main nuclear deterrent. There was no need to field a fleet of expensive high performance interceptors to counter a small fleet of TU-95 Bear subsonic bombers.
    4
  9. So the F-106 with flew almost TWO YEARS BEFORE the Arrow and the A-5 which was in SERVICE for three years before the TSR-2 even flew is a unfair comparison? I think not I am comparing aircraft that were OLDER than the Arrow or TSR-2 yet were better aircraft. Even if you look at the F-101B aircraft that Canada acquired to replace the Arrow was nearly equal in performance to the Arrow. It was not vastly inferior as you state.
    4
  10. If you HONESTLY believe that than you know ZERO about military aviation. Yes the Arrow could fly faster......BIG DEAL. The Arrow was NOT a fighter. It could NOT dogfight....it was designed to intercept large unmaneuvering targets. It could not turn for shit. A single F-35 could shoot down Arrows at will until it's ammunition ran out.
    3
  11. I was replying to someone else in the thread, not you sir. Sorry for the mix up.
    2
  12. The problem with the Arrow is that it was designed in a era where aviation technology was advancing so rapidly the Arrow became obsolete before it ever entered production. The American F-106 was a superior aircraft and it flew almost 2 YEARS before the Arrow. Because of the controversy of how the Arrow program was canceled the plane has had a huge amount of mythology built up around it. It was not a super plane, it was not the worlds best, not even close. It was canceled because it was obsolete.
    2
  13. Even the United States realized interceptors were obsolete. The F-106 program was cut from the planned 1000 aircraft down to 350 aircraft. They also did't spend a lot of money upgrading the F-106 to give it capabilities beyond the interceptor mission.
    2
  14. WRONG.....the Arrow was canceled because it was OBSOLETE not because of any US involvement. Why would the US need to have the Arrow canceled when they had a better interceptor in the F-106 that flew almost TWO YEARS before the Arrow?
    2
  15.  @bubba842  True, I don't know why Canada settled for the F-101B when they should have going with the F-106 which was much better than the Arrow or the Voodoo.
    1
  16. The F-111 was also faster at ANY altitude than the TSR-2.
    1
  17. World beater....ROFLMAO. Sorry the A-5 was already in SERVICE before the TSR-2 even flew. The F-111 was a far better aircraft than the TSR-2.
    1
  18. I don't know about "World Beater" it was a similar aircraft to the American A-5 with about the same performance.
    1
  19. The Arrows weapon system and armament were obsolete. The AIM-4 Falcon was a short range rear aspect missile, it had to be within 6 miles to launch. Sure they could have updated the avionics......which would cost money. They could update the weapons it fired.....which would have cost money. The weapons bay was too small to carry more than 3 AMRAAM's or sidewinders so the aircraft would have to be modified for external carriage of weapons.......which would cost money. Having weapons on external stores would rob performance from the Arrow through parasitic drag. Lastly the Arrow was a single mission aircraft, it could not do ANYTHING else. The CF-18 is a multirole aircraft that can do just about anything.
    1