The Avro Arrow

Jerry J. Fortin · January 7, 2009

and keeping the Arrow program going would have cost the taxpayers even more. We would have ended up with planes we'd have no use for. Spending tax payer dollars to build things people don't need is a BAD strategy. Yes it can make sure jobs are kept but in the end the average tax payer is not better off.
Jerry please look a bit more into this very simple question. It's all I ask of you:

IF it was just an idiotic and vindictive decision on Dief's part then why on Earth did the vast majority of the world's militaries (including the United States, the world's premier military power) cancel all similar projects?

If the role is still needed, why are no militaries develloping pure long range bomber interceptors?

The bottom line here is that with the coming of ICBM's the threat of giant long range bomber fleets crossing the ocean dissapeared. There wasn't going to be any defence anymore against nuclear attack and MAD led to the mexican standoff of the Cold War. Nobody with the capability to send long range bombers across the ocean was going to attack North America and this is still the case today.

The world's militaries decided that it was smarter and more cost effective to build multi-purpose fighters that could fulfill limited high altitude and high speed interception roles along with dog fighting or air to ground support rolls instead of a pure interceptor. Since the Arrow was so far along when it was cancelled and because there was no way to turn the airframe into something altogether different.

Let me put it this way. With nukes, all other weapons pale in comparison. Yet we have no nukes! All of this fancy military hardware are expensive toys, that I will grant you. Sure we are better off spending tax dollars on social programs and improving the human condition for our citizens, there is no question of that. All I am saying is that the decision to cancel the project cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs. The project itself was successful but the implementation of it as a procurement method failed for political reasons. There was nothing wrong with the plane. The proof is in the pudding in as much as the "proper solution" as many advocate, that we were advised to undertake by the Americans was the purchase of much cheaper Bormac missiles. How good of a solution it was is born out in the cancellation of that little program in favour of manned aircraft within mere months of the deployment of these obsolete weapons. The point being that we created something that was in fact every little bit as good as the American product, and that scared a lot of people. People with money, people with power, and people both inside and outside of this nation with interests beyond that of the average citizen had the influence to prevent our emergence as a world leader in a field of endeavour that only a very select few were able to undertake. Our puny little nation had done what only far more massive economies could do, and we did it in a manner that literally threatened them.

It was not about the bird, it was about the man. It was politics, nothing more and nothing less. That is why the legend won't die, because it was something we did in spite of ourselves. It isn't so much the plane itself as much as the utter incompetence of government that would waste so much money for no realizable benefit to the citizens. The program was an enigma.

Moonbox · January 7, 2009

Jerry I understand what you're saying. It's a nice story to know Canada had the capability to develop its own defence systems. The problem was that it was terribly implemented. Yes, we ended up with an excellent design and good technology. The problem was there was no demand for that technology and that's something that the Canadian government should probably have examined a fair bit further before proceeding with the project in the first place.

I realize it cost the tax payers money and jobs to cancel the program and that the Bomarc missile system ended up being a bust itself. Having said that the US wanted nothing to do with the Arrow and the Canadian military was pressured into integrating continental missile defense with that of the US.

Like you said, the Canada was a small player. Unless you can get foreign countries to buy a small nation's weapons, developers are NOT going to survive. Because of the huge costs of R&D and infrastructure you need to sell enough units to make a project worthwhile. When no western powers indicated any interest in the Arrow, Avro officially had too small a market.

It was a total cluster**** of mistakes and I can easily grant you that, but the whole myth of government conspiracy and vindictiveness is tinfoil hat talk. If Avro had designed a cutting edge air-air superiority fighter the US and Britain etc I'm sure would have bought on. Instead, they designed a plane whose role was no longer needed. That was the SINGLE most important mistake of the whole debacle and it counted for EVERYTHING.

Wilber · January 7, 2009

It was not about the bird, it was about the man. It was politics, nothing more and nothing less. That is why the legend won't die, because it was something we did in spite of ourselves. It isn't so much the plane itself as much as the utter incompetence of government that would waste so much money for no realizable benefit to the citizens. The program was an enigma.

That's right, the legend exists because of the politics involved and how the deed was done, not the merits of the aircraft or the need for it to be built. Politics and ideology trump both of those things therefore the legend persists. Facts and legends generally have little in common. The time for purpose built supersonic long range interceptors had pretty much come and gone as it was being developed. A similar thing happened to SST's and the Concorde but they built it anyway. Only 14 saw service and only with the two government owned airlines of the developing countries. When you factor in development costs and convert it to todays dollars, the per aircraft cost to French and British taxpayers was probably greater than the B2 was to American taxpayers. Wonderful aircraft, great prestige but no need for it. Something like the Arrow.

If you want to point fingers at the governments involved for wasting money, who should you chose, the one which commissioned it or the one which canceled it? Depends whether you believe in the legend or not.

M.Dancer · January 7, 2009

On the otherhand we did end up developing the Turbo and Mirabelle airport...

Wilber · January 7, 2009

On the otherhand we did end up developing the Turbo and Mirabelle airport...

Ah. Mirabelle. Very nice terminal for the time, long runways with no obstacles or noise issues. The PTV's could be an adventure when it was slippery but that never happens in Montreal. Too bad they built it so far out of the city that no one wanted to use it. An hour commute from Dorval to make a domestic to international connection. Stupid. Might as well have been in Siberia and sometimes felt like it on a winters night out on the ramp.

Wild Bill · January 7, 2009

Jerry I understand what you're saying. It's a nice story to know Canada had the capability to develop its own defence systems. The problem was that it was terribly implemented. Yes, we ended up with an excellent design and good technology. The problem was there was no demand for that technology and that's something that the Canadian government should probably have examined a fair bit further before proceeding with the project in the first place.
I realize it cost the tax payers money and jobs to cancel the program and that the Bomarc missile system ended up being a bust itself. Having said that the US wanted nothing to do with the Arrow and the Canadian military was pressured into integrating continental missile defense with that of the US.

Like you said, the Canada was a small player. Unless you can get foreign countries to buy a small nation's weapons, developers are NOT going to survive. Because of the huge costs of R&D and infrastructure you need to sell enough units to make a project worthwhile. When no western powers indicated any interest in the Arrow, Avro officially had too small a market.

It was a total cluster**** of mistakes and I can easily grant you that, but the whole myth of government conspiracy and vindictiveness is tinfoil hat talk. If Avro had designed a cutting edge air-air superiority fighter the US and Britain etc I'm sure would have bought on. Instead, they designed a plane whose role was no longer needed. That was the SINGLE most important mistake of the whole debacle and it counted for EVERYTHING.

Perhaps you are not seeing the entire picture. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that no one wanted the Arrow (which doesn't fit the facts but as I said, for the sake of argument) that was not all that Dief's party canceled

They destroyed our entire chance of becoming a major player in that industry! We had won world interest and respect. We had produced the world's first jet airliner. Airlines were clamouring for it. Howard Hughes took personal possession of the prototype and put money on the table for orders. A V Roe was forced by the then Liberal government to turn orders down. They wanted production capacity allocated to a Canadian jet fighter. Then they canceled the orders for the fighter.

If you could produce an Arrow you could produce airplanes for any other application. When your company not only took a hit but was hammered into the ground you couldn't produce a box kite!

Dief's government had the option of changing the numbers on the order. Or giving a new one for a different jet. Or anything that could have at least kept the company alive. That's what a rational observer would have suspected. How many countries in the world would have let things go that far and then completely kill an industry? We were left with a few branch plants of the Americans.

It was a perfect storm of negative factors, but the real tragedy was not just canceling the Arrow. We had shown that we could compete with the big players and then we wussed out in lame-ass fashion. The expertise that developed the Arrow could have given us other planes or if we didn't want to support a domestic industry we could have swung royalty/leasing deals with the US, Britain or France, making our money on the engineering.

We are Canadian! We sell what we grow or what we dig out of the ground!

Just like every other third world country, I guess. We now compete with our natural resources and buy them back as finished goods from other countries. We have a few auto branch plants and a lot of warehouses for goods imported from those other countries. Even Spar Aerospace and the Canadarm has been sold.

Leave us alone as we brag about the Arrow. What the hell else have we got today to brag about? We sell nice logs or pretty barrels of oil?

Edited January 7, 2009 by Wild Bill

madmax · January 7, 2009

We are Canadian! We sell what we grow or what we dig out of the ground!
Just like every other third world country,

What the hell else have we got today to brag about? We sell nice logs or pretty barrels of oil?

We can brag that we pay public servants super wages, pensions and benefits... for our warehouse, resource based, tech free country.

I have read all the problems on the fiscal side of the Arrow..... but it is still a unique chapter of our history. It is a sense of national pride for a plane that never made production. It was our "going to moon" vision that a man named Kennedy set his sights on.

We are all allowed our dreams..... just as the chief is allowed to kill them.

Wilber · January 7, 2009

Even Spar Aerospace and the Canadarm has been sold.

Now part of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, a Canadian Richmond BC based company, the sale of which to a US company was blocked by the government last May. Relax the CANADARM is still Canadian, as long as you still consider BC part of Canada.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 7, 2009

You know what folks? I would rather toss 4 billion into rebuilding the Arrow than hand over that money to auto companies going bust!

Alta4ever · January 8, 2009

You know what folks? I would rather toss 4 billion into rebuilding the Arrow than hand over that money to auto companies going bust!

And what would that accomplish? It would be a total and complete waste of taxpayers funds. the auto industry is just a waste of funds.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 8, 2009

Well for the 4 billion dollars I figure we could get one good bird in the air. Then we could point at it and say, I told you so!

Wilber · January 8, 2009

Well for the 4 billion dollars I figure we could get one good bird in the air. Then we could point at it and say, I told you so!

4 billion to replicate a 50 year old design? Surely we could do better than that.

Moonbox · January 8, 2009

Perhaps you are not seeing the entire picture. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that no one wanted the Arrow (which doesn't fit the facts but as I said, for the sake of argument) that was not all that Dief's party canceled

How does it not fix the facts? If someone wanted the Arrow they could have kept the company in business by putting deposits down for orders! That's how these sorts of things work! You like to argue by cold hard facts and the ones we have are that the company went out of business. Nobody put money up to keep the business running in anticipation for buying the Arrow. The US military did not develop a similar interceptor of its own and has not since. This is simple reality.

They destroyed our entire chance of becoming a major player in that industry! We had won world interest and respect. We had produced the world's first jet airliner. Airlines were clamouring for it. Howard Hughes took personal possession of the prototype and put money on the table for orders. A V Roe was forced by the then Liberal government to turn orders down. They wanted production capacity allocated to a Canadian jet fighter. Then they canceled the orders for the fighter.

Okay....so you have a company successfully building and selling airliners and they're forced to discontinue production for an ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor by the previous Liberal government. How is Dief responsible for that?

If you could produce an Arrow you could produce airplanes for any other application. When your company not only took a hit but was hammered into the ground you couldn't produce a box kite!
Dief's government had the option of changing the numbers on the order. Or giving a new one for a different jet. Or anything that could have at least kept the company alive. That's what a rational observer would have suspected. How many countries in the world would have let things go that far and then completely kill an industry? We were left with a few branch plants of the Americans.

It would have been the same as propping up the auto industry...it would have cost the same amount of money but would have saved a WAY smaller industry and provided a useless final product or (should they have started again from scratch on a new plane) an unknown product with no guarantee of success.

madmax · January 8, 2009

And what would that accomplish? It would be a total and complete waste of taxpayers funds. the auto industry is just a waste of funds.

If the bird flies, we could go for rides. I would ask Jerry drop by my airport and pick me up, then we head over to Alberta, take you for a ride (that would be two...the first is the money spent building it), and the three of us would enjoy life like an MP, without a care in the world.

Heck, we could even fly right passed those corporate auto exec jets and give them the finger....

Wild Bill · January 8, 2009

How does it not fix the facts? If someone wanted the Arrow they could have kept the company in business by putting deposits down for orders! That's how these sorts of things work! You like to argue by cold hard facts and the ones we have are that the company went out of business. Nobody put money up to keep the business running in anticipation for buying the Arrow. The US military did not develop a similar interceptor of its own and has not since. This is simple reality.
Okay....so you have a company successfully building and selling airliners and they're forced to discontinue production for an ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor by the previous Liberal government. How is Dief responsible for that?

It would have been the same as propping up the auto industry...it would have cost the same amount of money but would have saved a WAY smaller industry and provided a useless final product or (should they have started again from scratch on a new plane) an unknown product with no guarantee of success.

Yeah, I guess you're right. We should stick to being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our peer countries should be other third world resource economies.

We should know better than to ever even think of becoming a world leader in something high tech like aerospace or whatever! We're just Canadians, after all.

We should sit around reading "Luddite News" and wait for the cod to come back.

Sorry I brought it up.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 8, 2009

I am glad you brought it up. It is a matter of our heritage. We accomplished something very great, on our own. They said it could not be done, but we did it anyways. It proves that we can do things, very difficult things. The way the cards were played we lost our little dream in fact, but in reality the dream will never die. We know we can do these kind of things, and someday we will again. Maybe not a plane, maybe something else, but it proves that we can lead, not just follow. It proves that we can innovate not just copy or piggy back on the work of others.

Some folks think Avro had to stop building airliners and be forced into building the Arrow;

Okay....so you have a company successfully building and selling airliners and they're forced to discontinue production for an ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor by the previous Liberal government. How is Dief responsible for that?

Poor fools no not what they are talking about. Avro did build one passenger jet, but because of its UK roots it was prevented from flying it until after the UK company took the first flight. Avro never produced a single production passenger jet. The ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor exceeded its design specifications with only the smaller less powerful American engines, the big engines in RL206 never say the air, they cut it up before it flew, and those engine would have taken RL206 beyond mach 2.25 without question. It was not the fault of the plane or the design team that the project was cancelled. It was a very political decision made by the government of the day. That was Dief the Chief.

M.Dancer · January 8, 2009

We should know better than to ever even think of becoming a world leader in something high tech like aerospace or whatever! We're just Canadians, after all.

We are already leaders in aeropsace and whatever.

Waterbombers and mid range commuter aircraft as well as rubber wheeled subways.

Alta4ever · January 8, 2009

We are already leaders in aeropsace and whatever.
Waterbombers and mid range commuter aircraft as well as rubber wheeled subways.

Hey don't forget communication. RIMM is a world leader.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 8, 2009

We have gone forward, we have got over it. Yet still, it hurt us. Perhaps one of the things that has become known as a lesson learned from this tragedy, was that our government is far less likely to become involved in something itself, we are now wise enough to let private enterprise lead the way and take the risks. Long live the memory of the Arrow.

BigAl · January 8, 2009

.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...gn-pledges.aspx

Well, the above is why Conservatives and a Liberal Senator blame the Liberals for the current state of the military. Please elaborate on "throughout Canadian History" and explain how it has affected the status quo.

I'm sure the Soviet Union would have been shaking in their Russian boots. Canada bringing a knife to a gun fight.

With our defense budget we have to be cost-effective. Secondly, spending billions to bring back dated technology would be one of the dumbest things in history. Please don't ever run for office.

As unfortunate as it sounds, you're absolutely right. There is no feasible reason to bring back the Arrow program at this point in time, partially due to the dated technology involved (though it could be argued we might re-start the program using updated tech) but mostly because the political landscape of the world has changed to the point that a fleet of mid-range fighter/interceptors would be limited in its usefulness for a country dedicated to peacekeeping operations and has little to fear in the way of conventional assault on our soil. Nice idea, and I agree the Diefenbaker administration dropped the ball in a big way back in the day, but it's a bit too late for the woolly mammoth.

Moonbox · January 9, 2009

Some folks think Avro had to stop building airliners and be forced into building the Arrow;
Poor fools no not what they are talking about. Avro did build one passenger jet, but because of its UK roots it was prevented from flying it until after the UK company took the first flight. Avro never produced a single production passenger jet.

I was responding to Wild Bill's claim that the company built the world's first airliner and was forced to shelve the project by the Canadian government.

The ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor exceeded its design specifications with only the smaller less powerful American engines, the big engines in RL206 never say the air, they cut it up before it flew, and those engine would have taken RL206 beyond mach 2.25 without question.

There was nothing wrong with the PLANE. It was a good plane for what it was intended to do. The problem with concept and implementation was the ROLE the plane was intended to do. You could design a Mach 2.5 bicycle and it could have the best technology in the world put into it. It would be remarkable but it would also be useless. The Arrow project died for the same reason soldiers don't carry shields into battle anymore. Soldiers are worried about bullets and shrapnel now, not getting their arms chopped by a zweihander. Similarly, modern militaries count ICBM's as the biggest trans-continental threat, not fleets of prohibitively expensive bombers flying across the ocean to drop bombs.

My beef with the Arrow project was how BAD an idea it was to design THAT PARTICULAR type of plane in the first place.

It was not the fault of the plane or the design team that the project was cancelled. It was a very political decision made by the government of the day. That was Dief the Chief.

I'll agree it wasn't the design team's fault. They did a good job. The blame lies on whoever specified WHAT was to be built. That wasn't Dief.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 9, 2009

I was responding to Wild Bill's claim that the company built the world's first airliner and was forced to shelve the project by the Canadian government.
There was nothing wrong with the PLANE. It was a good plane for what it was intended to do. The problem with concept and implementation was the ROLE the plane was intended to do. You could design a Mach 2.5 bicycle and it could have the best technology in the world put into it. It would be remarkable but it would also be useless. The Arrow project died for the same reason soldiers don't carry shields into battle anymore. Soldiers are worried about bullets and shrapnel now, not getting their arms chopped by a zweihander. Similarly, modern militaries count ICBM's as the biggest trans-continental threat, not fleets of prohibitively expensive bombers flying across the ocean to drop bombs.

My beef with the Arrow project was how BAD an idea it was to design THAT PARTICULAR type of plane in the first place.

I'll agree it wasn't the design team's fault. They did a good job. The blame lies on whoever specified WHAT was to be built. That wasn't Dief.

That would be the RCAF. The Liberal government bought into the project at the request of the air force. The Conservative government canceled the project with the objection of the air force. The customer got screwed.

Moonbox · January 9, 2009

That would be the RCAF. The Liberal government bought into the project at the request of the air force. The Conservative government canceled the project with the objection of the air force. The customer got screwed.

A lot of people had their heads in their asses. The project was ill-conceived, regardless of how well designed it was. That's my main problem with all the Arrow worshipers out there. It was a nice shiny piece of useless aircraft that history has proven to be have been obsolete on the drawing board.

Yes, it killed our military aerospace industry and maybe there was a better way of doing it. With that said, the Arrow project needed to be killed.

When people start talking about how we have nothing but a resource economy, I can come up with dozens of big companies manufacturing and researching interesting things. Bombardier is still making planes and is basically on top of rail car transportation right now. RIM is a world leader in communication technology. Ottawa and KW are giant hubs of high tech industry and research. We STILL have the know-how and capability to build and design ANYTHING here in Canada. The question is do we have the economies of scale and government support to do so? Not at all and no Canadian government has stepped forward to offer it.

Wilber · January 9, 2009

Bombardier is the third largest airframe manufacturer in the world. There has been no shortage of public money put into that company by all governments but at least they sell most of their products to other countries. If we want a military aerospace industry, it will have to be done primarily as an export industry as Bombardier is. Like our airlines, our armed forces are just not large enough to justify the expense of developing home grown products solely for our own use. Neither as government supported projects or as a private enterprise.