No the Thin Wing Javelin was killed off by Avro's Arrow and that was in turn abandoned in favour of the F155T winner Faireys Delta III which was moved
forward instead.
MiG-19 vs. the Best European Fighters of 1956
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3463 (24-Apr-2008 00:06:52) |
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 382 (24-Apr-2008 00:41:47) |
That one's a new one to me. I understood that Britain had no interest in purchasing the Arrow when it was offered to them, and that was after the thin wing
Javelin was rejected.
|
||
|
Red Admiral |
|||
|
Posts: 1857 (24-Apr-2008 10:33:48) |
I understood that Britain had no interest in purchasing the Arrow when it was offered to them, and that was after the thin wing Javelin was rejected.It depends on timescale. The Arrow was considered only briefly as a stopgap between the Javelin and F.155, in effect doing the same role as the thin wing Javelin but with better performance. It soon dawned on the RAF that the Arrow was going to be crippling expensive and not available until 1962, when F.155 would be available in 1963. A stopgap was needed for 1958-63 that Arrow couldn't fulfill, but thin-wing Javelin couldn't. |
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4496 (25-Apr-2008 05:31:14) |
If the main target for the Javelin was to be Bear-type bombers, was supersonic performance so necessary? I would have thought that the thick-wing original
Javelin would be sufficient for the task, especially if endurance for the thick winged bird was good.
|
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3473 (26-Apr-2008 00:09:28) |
I think they where worried about higher flying and faster bombers than the Bear at the time, which is why the Thin Wing Javelin was to have been equipped with
Red Dean. Which is perhaps another point, since that missile was dropped in favour of something far more high performance, Red Hebe.
Endurance actualy was'nt its "thang" it had quite good climbing performance and was to intercept a bomber I think at 150nm from take off. As bomber speeds where expected to rise that distance would fall unless the fighter was faster or had longer range AAMs. |
||
|
briandpayne |
|||
|
Posts: 115 (28-Apr-2008 06:35:55) |
Four CF-100 squadrons were based in Europe with 1 Air Division from 1956-1962. The Mk 4B version had more powerful Orenda 11s. The nose housed the much larger
APG-40 radar. These aircraft were armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns and wingtip pods each containing up to 30 Mighty Mouse FFAR (folding fin aerial
rockets) in addition to the guns. ceiling was 45,000ft and it was capable of 552 mph. OR I could hope that the fight would be a year later in 1957 when the
Arrow rolls off the assy line. After seeing the mismatch between my choice and the Mig I'd rather hope the Arrow would be allowed. LOL
Edited for spelling and punctuation. Take Care Brian Payne
Last Edited By: briandpayne
28-Apr-2008 06:39:23.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4501 (28-Apr-2008 14:49:39) |
Keeping on topic, I wouldn't want to be in an Arrow facing the MiG-19. My only chance would be a long range missile hit or a speedy escape before the MiG
got into gun range. IIRC, the Arrow wasn't going to have a gun.
|
||
|
briandpayne |
|||
|
Posts: 116 (28-Apr-2008 18:29:24) |
if the arrow had the sparrow 2's with the standard nuclear warhead i don't think you'd need a gun... I recall reading somewhere once (Can't
remember where) but I remember reading that provisions had been made for a gun... (I could be wrong on this point though..)
Take Care Brian Payne |
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4509 (29-Apr-2008 23:38:07) |
If you look at the Arrow's canopy design, it wouldn't seem like a gun sight was possible. It's got that supporting pillar right up the middle.
|
||
|
briandpayne |
|||
|
Posts: 117 (30-Apr-2008 18:11:09) |
Um. I have to admit I was wrong about the Arrow having provision for a gun. I asked somebody who know's more on the subject than I do and was informed
that the "Idea of fitting a gun was tossed around during the design phase but there wasn't an appropriate weapon available so the Idea was tossed..
and who would have thought you'd need a gun when your armed with 4 nuclear tipped missles?
Anyway, I apologise for misleading the discussion with errant information. Take Care, Brian Payne Edited to correct an greivous error.
Last Edited By: briandpayne
1-May-2008 06:36:24.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4514 ( 1-May-2008 15:42:34) |
What impressed me about the mock-up full size Arrow at the Toronto Aerospace Museum was the integral weapons bay, much like the F-22 today.
|
||
|
briandpayne |
|||
|
Posts: 118 ( 1-May-2008 18:12:02) |
My hydraulics instructor in college worked on the Hydraulics aspect for opening the weapons bay. The arrow used a 4000 psi Hydraulic system and the First
time they fully opened the weapons bay using the hydraulics it opened it so fast that it pulled the end caps off the cylinders. LOL he told that story numerous
times in class...
Take Care, Brian Payne Edited out wrong number in the Hydraulic pressure.
Last Edited By: briandpayne
2-May-2008 09:50:03.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2916 ( 2-May-2008 19:13:11) |
Admiral Beez wrote: And the F-102, F-105, F-106, F-111, and Buccaneer. OK, I'll stop.
|
||
|
Admiral Beez |
|||
|
Posts: 4517 ( 3-May-2008 04:04:56) |
Well, I'll give you the F-102 and F-106, as it's certainly impressive to envision AAMs dropping from the hull and rocketing off. However, IIRC the
integral weapon's bay on the F-105, F-111 and Buc was for bombs or ASuW guided weapons, not AAMs. Having bomb bays on fighter-bombers was innovative for
the de Haviland Mosquito et al, but less impressive on a F-105 Thunderchief 30 years later.
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
"innovative for the de Haviland Mosquito..." | ||
|
Posts: 1474 ( 8-May-2008 22:01:17) |
I thought the concept of an internal bomb bay on a twin engine bomber was not new ground plowed by the Mosquito. Which was to start, a bomber. That the fighter
Mossie had a bomb bay was incidental. The F-105 was (1) a fighter from the start and (2) a single engine fighter at that. There may well have been operational
internal bomb bay fighters before the Thud with these characteristics, but others will have to tell me what they were.
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 389 ( 9-May-2008 02:19:18) |
The F-105 was never really a fighter though, was it...
|
||
|
jlyons97 |
f-105 as a fighter..... | ||
|
Posts: 1478 ( 9-May-2008 23:54:16) |
Getz wrote: Hmmm. Those F-105 air-to-air kills were done by merely frightened the NVA to death?
|
||
|
Getz |
|||
|
Posts: 390 (10-May-2008 01:11:24) |
B17's managed to shoot down German fighters... Didn't stop them being bombers...
|
||
 taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4221 (10-May-2008 01:11:30) |
jlyons97 wrote: Be fair here. The F-105 was designed from the outset as a tactical nuclear bomber; it certainly was never meant to seek out combat with other aircraft.
Yes, it had some air-to-air kills (27 by Air Force counts) but the exchange rate was not good -- no better than 2:1 and possibly as bad as 1:1 depending on the
causes of some unknown F-105 losses.
Heck, there are A-1Ds and A-4s with MiG kills; does this make them fighters too?
|
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4222 (10-May-2008 01:36:03) |
jlyons97 wrote: The F-102, which beat the F-105 into service by a couple of years. And was a real fighter, designed from the outset to attack other aircraft. That the
F-105 carried the F-for-fighter designation was a quirk of the USAF's designation system of the day that made any tactical combat aircraft with even a
secondary air-to-air role into a "fighter."
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
