It is commoningly assumed that the US post-WWII was the premier power in the world in terms of hi-tech military toys. But that is not entirely true during the period of 1955-1965 the thunder had been stolen from the US by two allies, Canada and the UK. Both nations had produced what are arguably the best fighters and strike aircraft post-WWII in the west. In Canada Avro which was the Canadian aircraft manufacturing company developed what is arguably the most graceful, sophisticated, and deadly weapons that the West produced in the Cold War; the Avro Arrow:

http://images.evalu8.org/images/avro-arrow.jpg

It was powerful, and it was better then anything the US or the USSR had for that matter. It was designed for interception of Soviet bombers over the Canadian Arctic. The aircraft was sadly canceled by the Canadian government due to costs, and due to the idiotic idea that the future of war would be with missiles and the interceptor was no longer necessary. Canadians have never really forgotten what could have been, and how we lost out to American pressure, and forfeited our only real chance to be number one.

http://www.maverick2.com/arrowmain.htm

The other nation at the time that had usurped the US in terms of technology was the UK. The UK has been known for her expertise and their breakthroughs in aviation technology. For the British their premier aircraft was the TSR.2, like the Arrow fast, efficient, and deadly.

http://unrealaircraft.com/classics/images/tsr2_1.jpeg

The TSR.2 was also cancelled by the British government for reasons not unlike that of the Arrow. The aircraft was so advanced that she had a flight control system that had no match in the world, terrain following radar, and it was the first British aircraft to be fitted with an in-flight refueling probe. Sadly the TSR.2 was cancelled and the British government didn’t even order the F-111 which the Americans offered due to costs. The death knell for the TSR.2 was Australia’s choice to pick the F-111 instead of the TSR.2.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avtsr2.html

There is no doubt in my mind that these aircraft would have been in service well into the 90’s with those nations and surely with nations outside Canada and the UK. I wouldn’t have been surprised if the US ordered the Arrow as an interim fighter until the F-15 came along. I would not have been surprised if European nations like Germany, and the UK ordered the Arrow and even Japan. Arguably even Iran, and India imo would have bought the aircraft. The TSR.2 would have also had export success Canada, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Germany; Argentina could have all bought the aircraft. The short sighted decisions of those governments destroyed what could have been…

Hey Undecided,

Canada chose correctly. The US toys are all but obsolete, used as deterent and a heavy cost in treasure. The flawed politics of neoubercolonialism shows us that the citizen/soldier-freedom fighter using guerilla tactics on a non-existant budget can tie up an entire worldpowers military and win(or at least not lose). -see Chechnia,Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq, Palastine etc.

When you lament what could have been, are you missing the projeted revenue from the fleecing of the 3rd world?

Insanely Elite

Canada chose correctly. The US toys are all but obsolete, used as deterent and a heavy cost in treasure.

The US exports those toys to nations like Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, European nations for billions. Canada lost out big time.

The flawed politics of neoubercolonialism shows us that the citizen/soldier-freedom fighter using guerilla tactics on a non-existant budget can tie up an entire worldpowers military and win(or at least not lose). -see Chechnia,Viet Nam, Afganistan, Iraq, Palastine etc.

Yes but do you think Canada cares about that? It’s Canada I should know!

When you lament what could have been, are you missing the projeted revenue from the fleecing of the 3rd world?

The 3rd world decides what she wants…if her governments are stupid enough to buy the plane so be it.

The aircraft was sadly canceled by the Canadian government due to costs, and due to the idiotic idea that the future of war would be with missiles and the interceptor was no longer necessary. Canadians have never really forgotten what could have been, and how we lost out to American pressure, and forfeited our only real chance to be number one.

So, the idiocy of the Canadian government has what to do with the US?

And how is that one of the darkest days in Canadian history Black Friday relates to undermining the status of the US?

Shouldn't the title read something more like:

"Why Canada could never be #1."

So, the idiocy of the Canadian government has what to do with the US?

US pressure was evident to scrap the Arrow, the Americans were offering Canada a missile tipped with nuclear weapons instead of the Arrow (forgot the missiles name). Canada said well ok…the same thing essentially happened in the 1980’s with the Israeli Lavi fighter. But it is largely Canada's fault and I don't blame the Americans.

But it is largely Canada's fault and I don't blame the Americans.

It was ENTIRELY Canada's fault.

Like I said I don't blame the Americans...

Didnt the UK government cancel most succesful projects and then just give the information to the americans?

The ammount of stuff we gave the yanks was crimminal :rolleyes:

Didnt the UK government cancel most succesful projects and then just give the information to the americans?
The ammount of stuff we gave the yanks was crimminal :rolleyes:

Are you forgetting lend/lease?

Most past great countries hit the wall after ww2. Building and maintaining a superpower needs a populous country with diverse resources. The EU is ,at least in part, a realization of this fact. UK decided quite a while ago that her fate and that of the 'yanks' is inexorably intertwined.

Just as a side note, there was actually a two-part mini-series about the Arrow, I believe for Canadia TV, starring Dan Akroyd. I'm afraid it's not listed as available on DVD or VHS, but a friend of mine mentioned a few weeks ago to me that he'd seen it recently on American television, so you might keep an eye out for it. Tivo/PVR owners may be able to set a watch list by keywords or title.

IMDB entry:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118641/

Just thought I'd mention it. Be forwarned -- I've read that it's somewhat over-dramatized. But it might still be fun to watch.


As Undecided points out, the "kill shot" for the CF-105 was the Canadian government. Cover-ups and down-playing are fairly well documented in various places, as mentioned above.

The friend I mentioned above (who writes for Aviation Week magazine) has told me in the past that the plane had airframe development problems as well, but nothing that was really unusual for a test program in those pre-fully-computerized days. It was easily the highest-performing fighter of its time.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Undecided on one thing, however. It is one UGLY airplane! I think I actually might even like the F/A-18 Hornet better, and that's saying a lot. (grin)

Pangloss

Yes I think most Canadians have watched the Arrow TV movie, a Canadian classic. I know I did…

It was easily the highest-performing fighter of its time.

It would have been the highest performing aircraft in the world until the introduction of the F-15, and SU-27 in the 70’s and 80’s. The aircraft was the best thing that could have happened to Canada, we had the CF-100 Canuck, which was unorthodox for the era in its design: http://www.rcafmuseum.on.ca/ac_cf100.htm. Twice Canada gave up her lead in aerospace, first it was with the Avro jetliner program:

http://www.arrow-alliance.com/arrowmania/JETLINERM.jpg

The Americans were not the first ones to build a civilian jetliner it was Canada. Canada lost out big time…

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Undecided on one thing, however. It is one UGLY airplane! I think I actually might even like the F/A-18 Hornet better, and that's saying a lot. (grin)

How can you say that was an ugly plane?

http://www.spitcrazy.com/Avro_Arrow.jpg

Look at that majestic aerodynamic surface!

Well of the planes that were around at that time, it's one of the more attractive ones, with a business-like demeanor that demands attention, much like the F-104 Starfighter or F-105 Thunderchief. Planes of that era all tend to follow a certain set of design characteristics which are fairly abrupt and stern in general. Blame it on less-advanced materials and lack of computer-aided design and (perhaps more importantly) trans/super-sonic wind simulation.

It's certainly no Fishbed. I wouldn't kick it out of bed like an cheap F-4 Phantom with bad makeup. (Um, let's not analyze that sentence too closely, eh?)

Of delta-wing craft, the one-of-a-kind YB-70 Valkyrie is a personal fave. (A program which met a fate similar to that of the Arrow, ironically.)

By the way, Canadian (and British) aircraft designers were strongly influential in the visual design of many American aircraft, and are part of the reason why companies like Boeing, McDonald-Douglas, Lockheed and others went on to make such attractive aircraft, both in the military and civilian sectors. It certainly wasn't their most important contribution, but it's worth noting. Compare with the ugly beasts the Soviets were cranking out all during the cold war, and it's not hard to see what might have been.

good point Undecided, but America will never (as long as it is capable) allow any country to become advanced to much in any way espeically in arms and combat. America will never allow that to happen for as long as it capable of preventing it especially in a place such as Canada which is so close to America.

We da man.

I thought the Comet was the first jet airliner.

Definetly the most sexiest at least

^^ Yeah, the Comet was the first. Good old self-opening sardine cans that they were. :P

If you look at the chines around the Arrow's canopy you can see a vague resemblance between that and the canopy of other famous high performance aircraft like the SR-71 and other noteable airframes like the space shuttle.

It's a good example of how technology of one discipline propagates and can often transcend national and political boundaries. A lot of the ex-Avro engineers migrated south to the US and went to work for Lockheed after the Arrow programme was shitcanned.

In the later 1950s the US decided to forego further development of supersonic bombers in favor of larger, heavier subsonic bombers with more payload capacity for standoff weapons, like the B-52. Heavy bombers could ostensibly penetrate far enough into Soviet airspace to launch their cruise missiles, and the cruise missiles would subsequently make the sprint to their targets alone. That's the primary reason why we opted out of the SST concept after the B-58 Hustler (until the early-1970s revived that line of thinking). Standoff weapons give aircrews the luxury of not having to face as many enemy air defenses, since most of the run to the target through thick AAW would be accomplished by the supersonic missile rather than the bomber itself. So, its accomplishments are twofold: 1) better force protection; aircrews exposed to less danger and 2) supersonic ALCMs are more effective than high speed bombers anyway.

Like I hinted at above, this didn't last forever: by the later 1960s we were back at the drawing board with the Valkyrie and the early B-1A variants. Standoff profiles never left our doctrine though.

Also, anybody who says the Arrow is an ugly aircraft has their head screwed on sideways.


the Americans were offering Canada a missile tipped with nuclear weapons instead of the Arrow (forgot the missiles name).
You're probably thinking of the AGM-28 Hound Dog, which incidentally was the first supersonic ALCM. The Hound Dog fit the bill and was one of the reasons we never leapt at the SST penetration concept until a few decades later.

It is commoningly assumed that the US post-WWII was the premier power in the world in terms of hi-tech military toys. But that is not entirely true during the period of 1955-1965 the thunder had been stolen from the US by two allies, Canada and the UK…

The F-4 Phantom covered most of the years mentioned and went on for another 30+:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/

The F-4 Phantom is a great aircraft no question about that, she has more then proved herself in service. But I don’t consider it the prettiest of the bunch. Although the Phantom will forever be compared to the Soviet MiG-21 who also is one of the most practical, and best interceptor/fighters in the world.

Compare with the ugly beasts the Soviets were cranking out all during the cold war, and it's not hard to see what might have been.

Are you serious? The Soviets did have their…aesthetic problems with some aircraft. But aesthetically speaking the Su-27 is much better looking then the F-15. Also the M-G29SMT is one hot bitch…also let’s not forget the S-42 Berkut…move over F-22.

i was just wondering what company makes fighter planes or is it the individual country trhat makes it

Many companies make fighter jets, in many different countries.

Not that many. In the uK, theres, umm, BAE making bits and bobs, not many others. They all amalgamated under financial pressures. Many more projects, such as the Tornado, are weird cross country collaborations that also involve companies.

Anyone heard of the Lightning? I dont have anything much to hand, but hers a wee link:
http://www.rampantscotland.com/visit/blvisit_museum06.htm
It was effectively a large jet engine with a pilot sitting on top.

Then the UK was leading the world in nuclear reactors in the 50's. CAlder hall for example.

I have heard of various areas where the Uk led the world, thanks mainly to some eccentric genius's and a long history of innovation. But that was also coupled with one of the most restrictive financial and industrial set ups in the world. I believe the USA got a fair bit of its aircraft expertise from the USA, and have vague memories of several occaisions where the USA was gifted years of valuable research because they were our friends, only a few y ears later, when the British asked how the americans were getting on, they were given the brush off.

Basically, the problem all the time was money. The UK was in hock to the USA after WW2, and trying to pay off its war debts, which meant large amounts of money being taken out of circulation. Moreover UK industry was being used as a cash cow, as usual, whereas Germany etc were able to retool with better equipment, and began to take over UK markets.

The F-4 Phantom is a great aircraft no question about that, she has more then proved herself in service. But I don’t consider it the prettiest of the bunch.

Sorry – I didn’t know that the discussion was based on esthetics – I thought it was based on performance.

What's it matter if Canadia had some good planes? We wold have invaded them with 10,000s of tanks. Our armor was way superior to whatever they had.

What's it matter if Canadia had some good planes? We wold have invaded them with 10,000s of tanks. Our armor was way superior to whatever they had.
Gotta love it how military hardware threads draw the jingos out of the woodwork. Your post is retarded.

The Phantom was by far the preeminent fighter/interceptor from 1963-1975, at least, so the title of this thread is wrong. But that shouldn't prevent us from marveling at some great aircraft that never were.

And also at the way "defence" research is one of the trickiest in the world.
For example, the TSR2, it looks like the specs were way too optimistic, a common problem in this situation. Is there any evidence the all singing/ dancing terrain avoidance etc stuff actually worked? And furthermore, an important consideration in warfare is reliability and replaceability (dammit, i'm almost soundign like I know what i'm talking about) in that its no use taking 2 years to build the thing, or teh resources of a small country, when your enemy is throwing hundreds of cheaper places at you they can replace in hours. The Hurricane (WW2 aircraft) used wood and took about I think a third the time and expense to build than the Spitfire, so outproduced it and did more work. But the SPitfire is sexier and always got more press.
So to sum it up, its no use having the worlds best radar and engine if it takes a small specialised group of people with fiddly and highly advanced manufacturing capabilities to manufacture said bits of equipment, therefore limiting output and yet draining your war effort of resources.

The Phantom was by far the preeminent fighter/interceptor from 1963-1975

No one denied this, so why bring it up?

at least, so the title of this thread is wrong.

How so if the period in time which is being discussed is from 1955-1962? Please stop uttering nonsense.

guthrie

I think when the TSR.2 went into mass production things would have gotten better, and the tweaks would have been dealt with. Also there could have been exports to other nations so the burden wouldn’t have been so ominous. The UK could have stopped the Harrier for all the same reasons…but then we would be calling it the Malvina’s now.

Hey nico, I was trying to take your side for once. Apparently in your frothing desire to disagree with me you missed that, heh.

Lighten up kiddo.

I happen to think the Eurofighter Typhoon eclipses the majority of US military aircraft for both performance and aesthetics. Problem is, it should have been in use 10 years ago and is barely phasing in now.

"I think when the TSR.2 went into mass production things would have gotten better, and the tweaks would have been dealt with."

Maybe. the problem is partly the cost, and also the difficulties of technological development. I mean if they managed to get the engine more powerful than any other, that suggests to me some very finicky turbine structure and blade development, which in the days before supercomputers and several decades of experience of single crystal growth, (let alone multimple phase composties, ie about 3 different structures all in one blade) would be quite hard to reliably and cheaply replicate.


"The UK could have stopped the Harrier for all the same reasons…but then we would be calling it the Malvina’s now."
Ahh, the possible myth of the harrier. Its a while since Ive read anythign about it, but basically, the navy goofed a buit with regards to air defence, Argentina almost won, even with the harriers, they had various limitations. Anyway, I recall some people with opinions saying the harrier wasnt so good after all, you seem to have more spare time than I, so perhaps you could put together arguments for and against both sides.

Ahh, the possible myth of the harrier. Its a while since Ive read anythign about it, but basically, the navy goofed a buit with regards to air defence, Argentina almost won, even with the harriers, they had various limitations.

I don’t see how Argentina almost won the air war, she was decimated by the harriers, and Argentina compared to the UK was a paper tiger. Without the Harrier how could the UK even hope to defend the islands without getting the Vulcan’s to actually physically attack the Air bases in Argentina, and even then they would have had to hope that Argentino interceptors didn’t come up and destroy them. Argentina would have easily won the war against the UK without the Harrier.

I doubt that Britain today could assemble a task force comparable to the one which retook the Falklands - even with the Eurofighter. The token air power we maintain in the Falklands themselves wouldn't slow down an invasion for long.

Well, last I knew, the Argentinian airforce wasnt that badly decimated by the HArriers, though I think the harriers were badly outnumbered. All it would have taken was a couple more hits by exocets or air launched anti- ship missiles and the UK taskforce would have been buggered. Quite literally. HMS Sheffield was destroyed, so were several other ships. They were not properly equipped for the actual mission, the UK navy at that point was configured for the defense of the UK during war with Russia, and keeping the sea lanes open by killing submarines. Not invading small islands thousands of miles away. The Vulcan thing, I believe was partly a ruse. They got one to drop a line of non explosive bombs across an airfield, and for some reason the ARgentinians were rather scared.

Well, last I knew, the Argentinian airforce wasnt that badly decimated by the HArriers, though I think the harriers were badly outnumbered.

Numbers mean little when you had the American’s giving you AIM-9’s to shoot down the Argentinean Mirages, or Super Etendard’s. The British had superior training, superior avionics, and the like. Although there is no question that the Argentineans could have destroyed the British’s AC’s, that was stopped because of the Harriers.

All it would have taken was a couple more hits by exocets or air launched anti- ship missiles and the UK taskforce would have been buggered. Quite literally.

Argentina had a very small amount of exocet’s at her disposal she used most of them up by the end of the war, and only the Super Entendard was capable of even carrying the missile. Should Argentina have brought out her 25 de Mayo carrier, things would have been more interesting. Although Argentina was scared of the British’s subs.

The Vulcan thing, I believe was partly a ruse. They got one to drop a line of non explosive bombs across an airfield, and for some reason the ARgentinians were rather scared.

I don’t know if it was a ruse, we know that the Vulcan’s did attack the Falklands, the relevant part in war is not the actual damage done, but the psychological damage. It would have been feasible that the UK could have bombed much of coastal Argentina.

Ahhh, but I see youve been reading up on it. Either way, it was a close run thing. Without the harriers, the Uk would ahve been sunk, but even with them, it was very close. If things had gone according to plan, the marines wouldnt have had to have yomped all the way across the island and engaged in hand to hand combat on mount whatsitsname. Certainly the Argentinians werent as well equipped as some might have thought, but its not like the british gvt knew beforehand about what equipment they had. In warfare you have to plan for the worst, and assume your enemy wont make any stupid mistakes.

If things had gone according to plan, the marines wouldnt have had to have yomped all the way across the island and engaged in hand to hand combat on mount whatsitsname. Certainly the Argentinians werent as well equipped as some might have thought,..

Mount Longdon. I've been there. You're right that the Argentines were not well-equipped: in fact, they weren't even prepared for the climate, and lost a few men to hypothermia before our marines even arrived. They had been encamped on that treeless, frigid height for 6 weeks, and had to walk 5 miles or so into Port Stanley if they wanted a shower or a hot meal.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3315&stc=1

They put up a parlous defence, even so.
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3314&stc=1

The Americans were not the first ones to build a civilian jetliner it was Canada. Canada lost out big time
!

I think you will find it was the DeHavilland "Comet" . British. Oh and the jet engine, that was British as well ;)

I think you will find it was the DeHavilland "Comet" . British. Oh and the jet engine, that was British as well ;)
You mean the self-opening sardine cans?

Just kidding. The Comet was kickin' rad.

You mean the self-opening sardine cans?

Just kidding. The Comet was kickin' rad.

Yup, shame about the square windows. Thats where the stress fractures started, that made them fall apart. ;)

What's it matter if Canadia had some good planes? We wold have invaded them with 10,000s of tanks. Our armor was way superior to whatever they had.
I think you'll find that your supierior armour is yet another British invention called Choban armour. So named after the town in Surrey where the military have a big R& D place.

And I'd like to know what Chobham is and how it works, but nobody who knows will say.

I think you will find it was the DeHavilland "Comet" . British. Oh and the jet engine, that was British as well

Actually no the Canadians had the first civilian jet plane in 1949, the UK was the first to put into service...I'm pretty sure.

And I'd like to know what Chobham is and how it works, but nobody who knows will say.
No idea why you're asking in this thread, but whatever. You don't hear much about it because most of it is still classified, but I'll tell you what I can. Chobham armor consists of three layers: A foundation layer of rolled homogeneous steel armor plate about two inches thick, which provides foundation for absorption of kinetic energy, and keeps the vehicle structurally strong A honeycomb lattice of alloy, the cells of which are filled with a ceramic compound about three inches thick. This lattice breaks up the plasma jet from HEAT warheads, lowering the pressure and path of the jet so that it doesn't penetrate the steel foundation A superficial layer of steel half an inch thick or so, which protects the ceramic substrate from small stuff like rifle fire and such.
Additionally, the M1-HA tanks replace the steel exterior with an inch or so of depleted Uranium plating, which is incredibly dense and strong, but also very heavy - adding eight tons to vehicle weight total. We don't have many HA's fitted though, because of the weight, and also because Chobham has proven to be damn near indestructible on the battlefield.

I use the M1 Abrams as an example here, but this applies equally to the British Challenger, since Chobham is a British creation (and a hearty thanks be to the Germans for the unmatched Rheinmetall M256 smoothbore 120mm cannon too).

I think you will find it was the DeHavilland "Comet" . British. Oh and the jet engine, that was British as well

Actually no the Canadians had the first civilian jet plane in 1949, the UK was the first to put into service...I'm pretty sure.

So by saying its a cilvilian jet is implying that it was in service in 1949 then?
The Comets first flight was 27 july 1949, and its first commercial flight was on 2 may 1952. ( london to Jo'burg) Any idea what the Canadian plane was? :confused:

Wow, thanks stokes! Thats all very interesting. I didnt realise it was that thick though.

But it is largely Canada's fault and I don't blame the Americans.

It was ENTIRELY Canada's fault.
You have no idea what you are talking about the USA government were being a bunch of pigs(sort of like how they are today) I hope I'm not offending you because only an American would stand up for the Americans. The USA had a lot of influence over the Canadian government. The Us even went as far as blackmailing Canada saying "if we you dont buy the BOMARK missile then we will install them just south of your border and shoot Thr Russian bombers down over your cities". you see what I mean? like what kind of morons say somethinglike that?

The USA had a lot of influence over the Canadian government.

If so much influence, why then did Canada refuse to join the US in Iraq? Why will Canada not join in missile defence?

The list goes on and on...

I should think Canada just sees the US as a big friendly giant next door... Canada itself has the real beauty, culture and character, the neighbours just have the money & the power...

Gotta love it how military hardware threads draw the jingos out of the woodwork. Your post is retarded.

The Phantom was by far the preeminent fighter/interceptor from 1963-1975, at least, so the title of this thread is wrong. But that shouldn't prevent us from marveling at some great aircraft that never were.


The Phantom sucked,

If you want to talk interceptors The Mig 25 Foxbat appeared in 1965. and was much more advanced (aerodynamically) than the Avro arrow... and than the F-111. Not to mention being completely superior to the phantom in any characteristic... the mig 25's would make runs over israel to piss off the radar stations and cruise back to base at mach 2.6+ while the phantom lagged behind barely pulling to mach 2.1 and needing engine repair appon landing.

although the mig 25's radar system was less developed at the time, it still could rape any western interceptor of the time, and was most deffinately the dominant aircraft of it's day.
and it was one good looking plane

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25-DNSN8809538_JPG.jpg



F111: max speed: mach 2.5 , Ceiling: about 18000 meters.

Mig 25: max speed: mach 3.2 , Ceiling about 35000 meters. (in 4 minutes)

Phantom f4: max speed: mach 2.1, Ceiling about 16500 meters.

Avro arrow 1 max speed: mach 1.5, ceiling about 16500 meters.

Avro arrow 3 max speed: mach 2.5 , ceiling about 18000 meters.



And Im not even mentioning the soviet bomber capable of mach 2.8 in 1950:

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/T_4/T-4_predni_spodni_ukovskij_small.jpg.jpg

The S100 was never mass manufactured but several copies exist, the nose drops down for landing and retracts again during super sonic flight.

Stokes isnt the T 90 fitted with somthing similar to chobham armor... I think instead of DU its tungsten and titanium alloy though... but ye chobham is amazing stuff.

No wonder it wasn't mass produced.It is huge and probably seems expensive.

Anyone heard of the British TSR-2 (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/tsr2/history.html)? That was an entirely indigenous, cutting-edge supersonic fighter-bomber developed for the RAF in the 1960s - then scrapped to save money after only 2 prototypes were completed. There's still controversy about that. If it had gone into mass production, some TSR-2s might still be flying operationally today.

The S100 was half the size of its american equivalent the B70 ... which did not meet its requirements and was scraped by the americans. as for price it was very cheap compared to any of its ocunterparts, and due to a socialist government price would not be a big problem, I suspect the reason it was scrapped is that it was very hard to fly at the time... but its development led to the Tu-160 blackjack which is a very good present indeed.

the british TSR 2 was a very nice plane, not particularly due to speed as it had a top speed of mach 2.25, and a relatively low ceiling, what made it out standing was the electronics. the radar was atleast 10 years ahead of its time, and the missile launch and piloting machinery was atleast 5 years ahead. even today I would prefer one to the harrier any day, even though the tsr 2 was a high speed interceptor/bomber, due to the slanted wing edges it could still manouver very well.

I still prefer the mig 25 though...

Also to give the americans some credit... in 1965 when the tsr2 was being canceled, the americans were testing the XB 70 , which acheived mach2.8 the paint came off in high stress areas though... Funny thing is its still around.. and is being encorporated by nasa.. only now as a mach 3 version.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/XB-70/Small/EC68-2101.jpg

It was/is used to test Compression lift to this day... and I love the wingtips which fold down up to 65 degrees... :D

Canada itself has the real beauty, culture and character...

Don't you mean a complete lack of culture and character?

Canada defines the word, 'bland.'

Perhaps in places like Hamilton.

Visit the remote areas, where hockey is still a religion. Or Vancouver, where travelling through the different districts is like visiting countries thousands of miles apart, with completely unique customs and cultures. And scenery to boot.....

Or Vancouver, where travelling through the different districts is like visiting countries thousands of miles apart, with completely unique customs and cultures.

Those are not cultures inherent to Canada but cultures from other countries.

Canada has no culture.

Dont argue about culture on a history of aviation thread, take it somwhere else.

I think you will find it was the DeHavilland "Comet" . British. Oh and the jet engine, that was British as well

Actually no the Canadians had the first civilian jet plane in 1949, the UK was the first to put into service...I'm pretty sure.

i think he meant that the British invented the jet engine.. RAF apprentice Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. A German chappie called Dr. Hans von Ohain built the first one and they are generally credited together.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm