tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2294633106424298888.post9216631918472272351..comments2023-10-01T02:18:51.690-07:00Comments on Never Was An Arrow: THE ARROW isn't coming back, folks…Never Was An Arrow IIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16888305762281631968noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2294633106424298888.post-45467401146982672502012-07-05T08:16:32.970-07:002012-07-05T08:16:32.970-07:00Even though some have said that it was little more...Even though some have said that it was little more than a twin-engined F-106, I imagine that there are many who wonder what might have been if the CF-105 had entered full production. If not for that stupidly short-sighted 1957 Defence White Paper, the U.K. may have decided to purchase some as a long-range counterpart to the English Electric Lightning, and Australia/New Zealand definitely could have utilised several with their massive land and sea areas to patrol. It's a sure thing that the Snowbirds and their aerial demonstration unit sorely need an awe-inspiring mount like the Arrow to truly impress their audiences, because the current trainer-type aircraft just don't "cut any ice", so to speak. <br /><br />Who can say if perhaps the 1967 Shag Harbour Incident would have ended differently if Arrows had been there to attempt a shoot-down, maybe with an AIR-2 Genie or AIM-26A Nuclear Falcon? Remember, there is no such thing as overkill when dealing with those tricky little U.F.O.s, as can be seen in the 1976 Tehran F-4 and 1980 Peruvian Su-22 cases. Like the early Phantom II models, it's a shame that a capable autocannon like the 30mm ADEN or Oerlikon 304RK/KCA were not included in the design, though the Aussies likely would have stipulated some type of gun armament. Even today, the RCAF could have an updated, modern CF-105 fitted with two NK-32 engines (the most powerful high-speed military turbofans in the world) for much less than those ridiculously expensive, unsightly F-35s.Cindi Andersennoreply@blogger.com