Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Ed Majden" ) writes:
"Darrell A. Larose"
A.V. Roe Canada CF-105 Avro Arrow, a long range interceptor that only had
a 700 nm range. The is bearly enough to fly from CFB Cold Lake to
Whitehorse, Yukon. The concept as a interceptor that would meet a wave of
Soviet bombers over the high Arctic, but didn't have the legs to get
there!

The replacement was the IM99B Bomarc SAM complete with nuclear warhead.
Range of that was in the 200-400 miles bracket, a great place to have a
nuclear weapon go off and scatter radiation over Canadian cities and towns.
I guess the yanks didn't consider that when they gave them to us! Good
thing they were never used, eh! Only good thing about the Bomarc was to be
assigned to the debriefing, parking and turn around crews. ;-)

The Arrow's replacement was the CF-101 Voodoo, complete with nuclear
tipped Genie missles.

"Erik Pfeister" wrote in message
...

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
altitude.


Jeez, now you've done it.....Kramer will have your ass for that one. (^-^)))

George Z.

"Darrell A. Larose
Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
have air-to-air refueling capacity.

Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site
was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type
missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have
come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign
of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability
was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had
ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two
hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement!

Subject: Aircraft that never lived up to their promise
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 12/1/03 5:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Erik Pfeister" wrote in message
...

(ArtKramr) wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

Obvious, the Martin Marauder (B-26), no load, no range, no speed, no
altitude.


Jeez, now you've done it.....Kramer will have your ass for that one. (^-^)))

George Z.





Not worth bothering with.

Regards,




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:GUHyb.534554$6C4.421467@pd7tw1no...

The Bomarc hard site was useless as it would have been taken out by an
ICBM or cruise type missile long before they got one off the ground.


Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers
reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the accuracy
to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service?

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no...

What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar
detection.
Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!


The Bomarc entered service in 1959, I believe ground-hugging became the
penetration tactic of choice some years after that.

ArtKramr wrote:

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

The successful failu the F-16.

Successful (in filling the unneeded slot of the F-5: small
and nimble, with a good self defense capability and light-
weight severely-limited bombing capability).

Ultimately successful, too, (though still limited) when
weapons came along which didn't depend upon the launching
aurcraft to be accurate: AMRAAM, and the pod-installed
capability for shooting HARMS, and for guiding LGBs.

Failure, though, in filling the shoes of F-4s, too-rapidly
retired to make room for the stripped little sportscar of
the skies.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in message .. .

The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.


I can't think of the reference right now, but I remember reading that
one of the purposes of the P-75 program was to give GM(?) a reason to
stay out of the B-29 program - so the Eagle was not entirely a
failure!

Eugene Styer

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:05:26 GMT, "Ed Majden" wrote:


"Darrell A. Larose
Except there were no forward bases to deploy the Arrow from, nor did it
have air-to-air refueling capacity.

Bases no, but runways yes at various locations. The Bomarc hard site
was useless as it would have been taken out by an ICBM or cruise type
missile long before they got one off the ground. The bombers would have
come in as a clean up some time after the first strike. At the first sign
of trouble fighters would be scattered all over the country so survivability
was much better. I seem to have read somewhere that the airforce had
ordered or wanted 700 CF-105s. They were replaced by 66 old Voodoos and two
hard Bomarc sites after cancellation. Some replacement!

A few notes:

1. What cruise missiles are you referring to (in the1950's and 60's)??

2. What ICBM had the accuracy to target a missile site?

3. How were the CF-105's going to be fueled at these "runways"?.

4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have huge holes in
your coverage.

Al Minyard

"Steven P. McNicoll"
Hmmm, isn't the idea to launch the interceptor missile BEFORE the bombers
reach their targets? What Soviet ICBMs and cruise missiles had the
accuracy
to destroy hard targets when Bomarc enterd service?

Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as
bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for. Long
before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have
been ICBMs in any event, not bombers.