The Avro Arrow

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's great...so not only did it take a UK firm, but a world war to boot. Then we can add the Cold War for making the Arrow even remotely necessary.

No matter...in the end....it was Canada that also chose not to get it done.

Of that there is no doubt. Dief the Chief killed the project and that resulted in the loss of 25000 jobs. At the time that was a lot of jobs. There were several companies that went under. The project was massive and it brought us to the absolute pinnacle of the aerospace industry, that is a fact. With the cancellation of the project we lost a hell of a lot of engineering expertise. Some stuck around to be sure, but the big names went elsewhere. That was the real tragedy of the Arrow.

That plane was on par with the best designs in the world at the time. It was the result of a fledgling military industrial complex in Canada. It was a bad idea to kill the plane, dollars had everything to do with it, that is true. Yet the reality is the number of jobs and the spinoffs from the effort would have taken us on a much different path.

[bush_cheney2004]

....That plane was on par with the best designs in the world at the time. It was the result of a fledgling military industrial complex in Canada. It was a bad idea to kill the plane, dollars had everything to do with it, that is true. Yet the reality is the number of jobs and the spinoffs from the effort would have taken us on a much different path.

It is not only design that wins the day, no matter how advanced. The project was mis-managed as was the small window of opportunity. There is a huge difference between development, low-rate, and full rate production. Nobody doubts the engineering skill of AVRO's staff, but that does not make for an industrial base and thousands of jobs.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is not only design that wins the day, no matter how advanced. The project was mis-managed as was the small window of opportunity. There is a huge difference between development, low-rate, and full rate production. Nobody doubts the engineering skill of AVRO's staff, but that does not make for an industrial base and thousands of jobs.

How was the project mismanaged?

The plane was the first to bypass the prototype stage and go straight to production. The low rate production you speak of was not able to be realized due to the Canadian content and all of the development costs of that content. The one exception was the missile system, that was an American system purchased by Avro because they could not get it to work, but we did.

Yes the project was the definition of cost overruns, yes it was very expensive, but it was in fact leading edge technology. That stuff is not cheap. Costs would have leveled off and produced an aircraft that was more than comparable to the American designs, in part because of the tax revenues created in Cnada and realized in Canada by both the employees and the company. This alone would have made it a viable and prudent fiscal choice. The reality is that the elected representative for the Malton area was a Conservative, who did not get along with either Crawford Gordon or the federal Liberal Government. That caused a little focus group that sought to eliminate the program and shift spending priorities to locations were Conservatives would benefit. It was political, and it was foolish.

The industrial base that was being created died that day. These things don't just appear, but they do just disappear.

[bush_cheney2004]

How was the project mismanaged?

The project was mismanaged for subsystem design availability, cost, and schedule. There were red flags all along the way, from dependence on a temporary American engine and other key elements. Risk analysis is not difficult, unless one chooses to skip that step. Critical design and project management reviews would have revealed the obvious, the most damning of which was assumptions about production export numbers. Whenever initial risks, assumptions, and opportunities change, so must the decision to go forward.

The plane was the first to bypass the prototype stage and go straight to production. The low rate production you speak of was not able to be realized due to the Canadian content and all of the development costs of that content. The one exception was the missile system, that was an American system purchased by Avro because they could not get it to work, but we did.

Huge mistake....LRIP exists specifically to bound program risk and satisfy qualification gates before full production. The zeal to get the Arrow into production should have been tempered by some low rate production realities.

...The reality is that the elected representative for the Malton area was a Conservative, who did not get along with either Crawford Gordon or the federal Liberal Government. That caused a little focus group that sought to eliminate the program and shift spending priorities to locations were Conservatives would benefit. It was political, and it was foolish.

But again, this is just part of the game. One cannot win the day with just clever engineers and slide rules. The entirety of the program must be considered, and that includes political support / defenders.

The industrial base that was being created died that day. These things don't just appear, but they do just disappear.

And hence, the Avro Arrow has become the poster child for Canada. With such thinking, it's no wonder another opportunity has not come along. The Americans have many more such failures...and the lessons learned.

Edited January 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Wild Bill]

The project was mismanaged for subsystem design availability, cost, and schedule. There were red flags all along the way, from dependence on a temporary American engine and other key elements. Risk analysis is not difficult, unless one chooses to skip that step. Critical design and project management reviews would have revealed the obvious, the most damning of which was assumptions about production export numbers. Whenever initial risks, assumptions, and opportunities change, so must the decision to go forward.

Huge mistake....LRIP exists specifically to bound program risk and satisfy qualification gates before full production. The zeal to get the Arrow into production should have been tempered by some low rate production realities.

But again, this is just part of the game. One cannot win the day with just clever engineers and slide rules. The entirety of the program must be considered, and that includes political support / defenders.

And hence, the Avro Arrow has become the poster child for Canada. With such thinking, it's no wonder another opportunity has not come along. The Americans have many more such failures...and the lessons learned.

Your view differs quite from what I've read over the years, and I've read a LOT about the Arrow!

As a matter of interest, here's one of a zillion sites brought up with a quick google;

http://www.avro-arrow.org/Arrow/written_history.html

If you poke around, you'll quickly see that the problem with production numbers came from a new government that almost immediately cut their order when things were already a long way down the pipe. Can't blame a production forecaster for that.

Anyhow, this site has some good history and perspective. I know it can be bad form sometimes to confuse an issue with facts but I just get tired of all the assumptions people pull out of their butts.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your view differs quite from what I've read over the years, and I've read a LOT about the Arrow!

As a matter of interest, here's one of a zillion sites brought up with a quick google;

http://www.avro-arrow.org/Arrow/written_history.html

We all have our favorite Arrow sites....I have posted at least three in the past two years in this MLW saga. But I like this part:

All this resulted in a smaller aircraft. The USAF adopted a two-stage development program, in which the F-106 was to be preceded by an interim model, the F-102. In this way the USAF limited the risks of the development process.

If you poke around, you'll quickly see that the problem with production numbers came from a new government that almost immediately cut their order when things were already a long way down the pipe. Can't blame a production forecaster for that.

I don't agree.....large programs are managed well when such risks are accounted for. The Arrow was not the first project to suffer a reduction in production numbers, up to and including cancellation. Which was the ultimate (and correct) decision.

I am sure you are very much aware how these platform development programs are born, managed, and terminated......mustn't just fall in love with a sexy design that will break the bank.

Anyhow, this site has some good history and perspective. I know it can be bad form sometimes to confuse an issue with facts but I just get tired of all the assumptions people pull out of their butts.

Good stuff for sure....too bad it was better understood after the fact. As I mentioned before, the Americans had a similar ill-fated nuclear bomber (A-5) for the US Navy, which was repurposed as an outstanding recon platform (RA-5C). Canada lacked the capacity to take advantage of the Arrow's strong attributes in another role.

Edited January 4, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You are comparing apples to oranges! The needs dictated by the RCAF to the government were achieved with the CF105 Avro Arrow. Trying to compare our needs with that of the USA and their procurement programs is an exercise in futility. The plane met or exceed all of its design expectations. The cuts to the program which started the slide to cancellation were smoke and mirrors. The Conservatives were determined to kill the Arrow while still in the opposition. That decision was made ONLY for political reasons. The economics did not play into the concept of cancellation at all.

The actions undertaken by the Canadian government were those taken as a vassal of the USA. Building our own military equipment would cost the American military industrial complex billions of dollars, and that is real money folks, especially back then. Now anybody who thinks that this would be of no interest to US policy makers is a fool. The Conservatives were and are little more than wannabe Americans.

Sadly for greed and power the decisions were made and the Arrow died.

Just in case anybody cares, we no longer have anything that went as fast.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are comparing apples to oranges! The needs dictated by the RCAF to the government were achieved with the CF105 Avro Arrow. Trying to compare our needs with that of the USA and their procurement programs is an exercise in futility.

Of course....I wonder why the author made such a comparison if Canada is so special, and immune from the rules that bound the rest of the world.

The plane met or exceed all of its design expectations. The cuts to the program which started the slide to cancellation were smoke and mirrors. The Conservatives were determined to kill the Arrow while still in the opposition. That decision was made ONLY for political reasons. The economics did not play into the concept of cancellation at all.

This is blurred hindsight. Politics had a role, just like any other government program, but the mission also went away. If you must blame somebody, blame the Soviets and ICBMs.

The actions undertaken by the Canadian government were those taken as a vassal of the USA. Building our own military equipment would cost the American military industrial complex billions of dollars, and that is real money folks, especially back then. Now anybody who thinks that this would be of no interest to US policy makers is a fool. The Conservatives were and are little more than wannabe Americans.

Ah yes...we always get to this point sooner or later. The Americans actually assisted in the Arrow's development with wind tunnel testing at Langely, a B-47 Stratojet test bed, missile, fire control, engine, etc.

Sadly for greed and power the decisions were made and the Arrow died.

The decisions were Canadian decisions, who must own them.

Just in case anybody cares, we no longer have anything that went as fast.

Fast is good...for a one trick pony.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It was a one trick pony design, and it worked. The facts are history, they cannot be changed. The reason the Arrow was canceled was political, it was not a military decision, the need still existed and still exists today for interceptors. The government was lead down the path of the American military industrial complex.

Canada was and is special as far as our air defense requirements go. Each nation has its own requirements, to believe otherwise is folly. The rules that bound the rest of the world which you refer to simply ignore the reality of building modern aircraft from scratch. We needed far more that a single plant to build the plans. We had to create specific technologies and apply them in ways never used before. Dozens of spinoff industries were needed and created to do the job. Meanwhile the mission never did go away, and long range bombers now represent the most expensive strategic air asset in both the US and Russian inventory, the only thing more expensive are naval assets. The B2 is about a billion dollars a copy.

Yes the USAF assisted, but that wasn't my point. Their industries and their political influence were part of the problem, the USAF assisted because they faced the same air frame problems and learned from the Canadian efforts. They were more than a little impressed with the Iroquois on the B47, all engines were shut down and the single Canadian engine provided massive thrust to the point of acceleration! The fire control issues you cite were another matter, as I said they could not get the Astra Missile system to work, but we did!

Yes the decision was Canadian and we do own it. The Conservatives killed the Arrow, and it was indeed folly. The plane did what it was supposed to do, the plane was not at fault. The company did what it was supposed to do, it was not at fault. The government shrank the number of planes then complained that the price was too high. Strangely enough the company was willing to take the loss and produce the planes, but then the government broke the contract and canceled the project altogether. It was the fault of the government, nobody else.

[Wilber]

Sheer speed is over rated. The top speed of the F-18E/F is quite a bit lower than that of the F-14 it replaces.

The B2 relies on stealth not performance for it's safety. It is subsonic. Catching it is no problem, if you can find it.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was a one trick pony design, and it worked. The facts are history, they cannot be changed. The reason the Arrow was canceled was political, it was not a military decision, the need still existed and still exists today for interceptors. The government was lead down the path of the American military industrial complex.

There would have been no Avro Arrow at all were it not for the "American military industrial complex".

Canada was and is special as far as our air defense requirements go. Each nation has its own requirements, to believe otherwise is folly. The rules that bound the rest of the world which you refer to simply ignore the reality of building modern aircraft from scratch.

A Canadian decision with Canadian consequences. Why so much self inflicted torture after all these years?

Meanwhile the mission never did go away, and long range bombers now represent the most expensive strategic air asset in both the US and Russian inventory, the only thing more expensive are naval assets. The B2 is about a billion dollars a copy.

America's bombers are now primarily tactical air assets. Strategic capabilities are now born far more by Trident boomers (very expensive). B-2 production was trimmed to only 21 units for the same kind of program dynamics that killed the Arrow...it happens...move on.

Yes the USAF assisted, but that wasn't my point. Their industries and their political influence were part of the problem, the USAF assisted because they faced the same air frame problems and learned from the Canadian efforts. They were more than a little impressed with the Iroquois on the B47, all engines were shut down and the single Canadian engine provided massive thrust to the point of acceleration! The fire control issues you cite were another matter, as I said they could not get the Astra Missile system to work, but we did!

You are talking in circles....in the end....it just didn't get done. It's as silly as me reminding you about what happened on a sand dune near Kitty Hawk, NC. Is this really about lost pride and bravado compared to those damn Yankees? If only they had purchased the Arrow....all would be well....and Canada would need a different poster child.

Yes the decision was Canadian and we do own it. The Conservatives killed the Arrow, and it was indeed folly. The plane did what it was supposed to do, the plane was not at fault. The company did what it was supposed to do, it was not at fault. The government shrank the number of planes then complained that the price was too high. Strangely enough the company was willing to take the loss and produce the planes, but then the government broke the contract and canceled the project altogether. It was the fault of the government, nobody else.

I think you are forgetting who the customer is/was. The "government" let the contract to begin with....it didn't owe Canada a very expensive white elephant with wings just to compete for a golden slide rule.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There would have been no Avro Arrow at all were it not for the "American military industrial complex".

You are going to have to explain this to me please.

A Canadian decision with Canadian consequences. Why so much self inflicted torture after all these years?

Because of the harm it caused us and the direction the nation has had to take as a result.

America's bombers are now primarily tactical air assets. Strategic capabilities are now born far more by Trident boomers (very expensive). B-2 production was trimmed to only 21 units for the same kind of program dynamics that killed the Arrow...it happens...move on.

You point was made based on a mission that changed and rendered the plane useless, therefore a political decision was made to end the project. In fact the mission did not change, the bomber programs continued for decades AFTER THE PROJECT CANCELLATION.

You are talking in circles....in the end....it just didn't get done. It's as silly as me reminding you about what happened on a sand dune near Kitty Hawk, NC. Is this really about lost pride and bravado compared to those damn Yankees? If only they had purchased the Arrow....all would be well....and Canada would need a different poster child.

I think you are forgetting who the customer is/was. The "government" let the contract to begin with....it didn't owe Canada a very expensive white elephant with wings just to compete for a golden slide rule.

You are the one running in circles! I have successfully disputed every point you have made.

[bush_cheney2004]

You are going to have to explain this to me please.

Simple....how would the Cold War circumstances (and Arrow mission) even exist were it not for the Americans / Soviets? Why was America considered the primary export customer? Where did the engine, missile, and fire control come from?

Because of the harm it caused us and the direction the nation has had to take as a result.

The nation chose butter (universal health care)....very popular decision I hear.

You point was made based on a mission that changed and rendered the plane useless, therefore a political decision was made to end the project. In fact the mission did not change, the bomber programs continued for decades AFTER THE PROJECT CANCELLATION.

The mission became obsolete in the face of unmanned missile interceptors. Cheaper....faster. On top of that, Canada lacked the resources (and mission) to re-purpose the airframe.

You are the one running in circles! I have successfully disputed every point you have made.

Of course you have....restart those machines.....the Arrow will live! Those stupid politicians...those damn American backstabbers....the Arrow was the best in the world....Canada could have ruled the world!!!!!

[punked]

The engine the Orenda Iroquois was a Canadian make.

[bush_cheney2004]

The engine the Orenda Iroquois was a Canadian make.

That's great..too bad it wasn't ready in time for the airframe. Instead, AVRO used the Pratt & Whitney J75 for development, after two other choices ceased production (Rolls-Royce RB106 and Curtiss-Wright J67).

This was just another example of a plane too far....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Simple....how would the Cold War circumstances (and Arrow mission) even exist were it not for the Americans / Soviets?

Interesting comment! Well, I suppose I could say thankyou then, but the reality is that the arms race started by the second world war did not end for many years.

Why was America considered the primary export customer?

Because we had a product that they were interested in. That is why they were providing test facilities and equipment.

Where did the engine, missile, and fire control come from?

The engine, Iroquois, was designed and built in Canada. The Missile and fire control systems were modified from the original American configuration.

The nation chose butter (universal health care)....very popular decision I hear.

The nation did not make the decision to kill the project, the government did.

The mission became obsolete in the face of unmanned missile interceptors. Cheaper....faster.

Really? Just what weapon are you refering to? The Bomarc?

On top of that, Canada lacked the resources (and mission) to re-purpose the airframe.

Canada had the resources as was evident in the status of the program at its cancellation. Further to that the airframe did not require the re-purposing you claim.

Of course you have....restart those machines.....the Arrow will live! Those stupid politicians...those damn American backstabbers....the Arrow was the best in the world....Canada could have ruled the world!!!!!

They were ordered to destroy the aircraft and all of the documentation. That leaves more questions than it provides answers.

[punked]

That's great..too bad it wasn't ready in time for the airframe. Instead, AVRO used the Pratt & Whitney J75 for development, after two other choices ceased production (Rolls-Royce RB106 and Curtiss-Wright J67).

This was just another example of a plane too far....

So you are right learn something new everyday.

I like health care better anyway

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you are right learn something new everyday.

I like health care better anyway

It wasn't a choice of one or the other. In fact the two were not even remotely related.

[punked]

It wasn't a choice of one or the other. In fact the two were not even remotely related.

He is right it is always guns or butter. I like butter.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's great..too bad it wasn't ready in time for the airframe. Instead, AVRO used the Pratt & Whitney J75 for development, after two other choices ceased production (Rolls-Royce RB106 and Curtiss-Wright J67).

This was just another example of a plane too far....

The Arrow was designed to use the RR engine, when its failure took place, Avro was compelled to add the Orenda engine. The plane was too far, in hindsight it appears that way. The truth is another story altogether.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

He is right it is always guns or butter. I like butter.

The choice was not there, period.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting comment! Well, I suppose I could say thankyou then, but the reality is that the arms race started by the second world war did not end for many years.

That's a different discussion....suffice to say that Canada didn't build the Arrow just for the hell of it.

Because we had a product that they were interested in. That is why they were providing test facilities and equipment.

Interest does not always translate into sales.

The engine, Iroquois, was designed and built in Canada. The Missile and fire control systems were modified from the original American configuration.

What engine was actually used for airframe development?

The nation did not make the decision to kill the project, the government did.

Don't people get to vote for government up there?

Really? Just what weapon are you refering to? The Bomarc?

Yes...one of many.

Canada had the resources as was evident in the status of the program at its cancellation. Further to that the airframe did not require the re-purposing you claim.

Not quite...even Canada's research application rejected the airframes because of missing spares and support (e.g. NRC). France bailed on the Iroquois engine. UK bailed on manned interceptors too. It was a complete collapse.

They were ordered to destroy the aircraft and all of the documentation. That leaves more questions than it provides answers.

I can't wait to read yet another book about what could have been.

[Wilber]

Probably the last pure interceptor was the English Electric Lightening developed around the same time as the Arrow and with similar performance. Top speed Mach 2.25 and a rate of climb that few if any of todays aircraft can match. Initial rate, 50,000 feet per minute and time to 36,000 feet 2.5 minutes. In trials it intercepted U2's at 65,000 feet. They were withdrawn from service in the late eighties. Every machine built since has been a multi roll aircraft. Top speeds have not increased with new aircraft such as the F-22 and Typhoon because maneuverability, stealth, the ability to cruise supersonic without afterburning (supercruise) and the capability of carrying out multiple rolls are regarded as more important.

[bush_cheney2004]

Probably the last pure interceptor was the English Electric Lightening developed around the same time as the Arrow and with similar performance.....

There are other types with similar performance....like the 1960's - 70's MiG-25, with a top speed of Mach 3.2. But such performance comes with other trade-offs, and as you say, multirole mission requirements are more desired today.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We can argue what could have been till the cows come home. The end result was a canceled program and billions of lost tax dollars and thousands of lost jobs because of a political decision by the CONSERVATIVE government. They, the Conservatives, have an excellent track record of pissing away tax dollars for political reasons. At this point, there are few options.

The only real alternative to shipping jobs and tax dollars out of the country would be to have Bombardier recruited to provide the next generation of military aircraft for Canada.