10 Billion for military equipment

ToadBrother · July 14, 2009

No. It's the loud minority of Toronto who scream for the nanny programs and get them constantly. Leaving the rest of us who work for a living to pick up the tab. Paying for services the majority of us don't use....really sad.
I do agree with your point about defined roles etc...of coarse that makes perfect sense. I would prefer we made all our weapons and armaments thus providing more jobs to Canadians, I've said this here before. Good points though JJF.

Poll after poll suggests that most Canadians do not want the social safety nets undermined. I'm afraid you'll just have to accept the will of the majority. This idea you have that somehow it's just Toronto is simply a sort of regionalist "they don't do what I want" argument. It's precisely the kind of claptrap Harper used to moan about it, which is one of a number of reasons why Manning finally grew tired of him.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 14, 2009

It seems that we forget that the mass of our citizens are well able to control our democracy with their votes. We can label them majorities or minorities but the truth is that public perception is gauged and followed by the governments of the day. Only during a general election are the citizens able to voice their approval or disapproval for governments with the results being returned as the will of the people. However in todays well split vote those results return minority governments that do not reflect a majority opinion but instead a fractional partisan position. So in many ways the will of the people is falsely expressed in the composition of Parliament.

These are the times when visionary politicians are able to once again enter the landscape and provide new concepts and ideologies to the public seeking a leadership based on the public need. The partisan leader that portrays this nation in a positive light and is able to inspire the citizens with a pathway to prosperity has a very good chance of motivating the public and acquiring political support that transcends partisan labels.

I maintain that the way to develop this nation in a manner that can provide both peace and prosperity is through a process of modern day nation building in our northern portion of this country. The military can and must be the spearhead of the effort. Only they can provide the opportunity to lay sovereign claim to those lands. Only they can defend them, and only they can provide the means of both employment and education in a world where the cost of labour determines potential investment capital. We must frame our efforts around that which will provide a return on internal investment, that means a military industrial complex. Within that framework much beneficial research and development yields civilian employment and production. Our productive capacity, once enhanced is able to finance all the social infrastructure we desire.

We need a road map and a navigator, and that means we need a visionary leader.

Machjo · July 14, 2009

I have no problem with our PM Stephan Harper spending money on our military. After all he's fixing it after Chretien and Martin destroyed it in the 13 years the Grits were in power. This is a fact and cannot be argued.

But I thought balancing the debt was supposed to be a conservatvie trait? Oh well, the military always provides a good excuse to spend like a drunken sailor.

DogOnPorch · July 14, 2009

Any investment in our military will be better than the wide sweeping cuts that Chretien and Martin lopped from the budget. Martin balanced the books by gutting the EI surplus and by gutting our military possibly costing lives...sad. Anyone who was involved in gutting of our military should be charged with treason.

Heck...there was a time when we had aircraft carriers. Some brilliant mind decided they weren't of much use to a landlocked country such as Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircr..._country#Canada

Craig1 · July 14, 2009

Heck...there was a time when we had aircraft carriers. Some brilliant mind decided they weren't of much use to a landlocked country such as Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircr..._country#Canada

\how about The cancellation of the Avro Arrow 50 years ago has been described as a Canadian tragedy.

For Alan Jackson, it was a personal one.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/...829/story.html

DogOnPorch · July 14, 2009

One of the rare times that Churchill ever attempted to directly intervene in the actions of commanders on the ground. It was a horrible humiliation for the Brits, and a very severe loss.

Not to mention the horrors of the Death Marches...

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

\how about The cancellation of the Avro Arrow 50 years ago has been described as a Canadian tragedy.
For Alan Jackson, it was a personal one.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/...829/story.html

I agree it was a bad day for Canadian aviation. Average Joe had a similar post.

Ok I read that and can't figure out who you think it was good for. The way I read it, it was a great day for Uncle Sam and the Space program when the Arrow was cancelled. Bad for us.

I had said there were good points to the Arrow being canceled and that was that the talented Canadians that would have been involved in a fairly redundant aviation program (the Arrow) got to participate in the greatest adventure humans have ever been involved in (the Space Race). Jim Chamberlin in particular shot to the near-top of the NASA ladder. Instrumental to all the major US programs up to the Shuttle.

But, I've always been a pretty cross-border sort-of-fellow...family here...family there...I think we both scored a goal with the Moon Shots rather than losing out to the "Yankee Devils" re: the brain drain. Many Canadians would differ...I understand.

Edited July 15, 2009 by DogOnPorch

Bonam · July 15, 2009

I agree it was a bad day for Canadian aviation. Average Joe had a similar post.
I had said there were good points to the Arrow being canceled and that was that the talented Canadians that would have been involved in a fairly redundant aviation program (the Arrow) got to participate in the greatest adventure humans have ever been involved in (the Space Race). Jim Chamberlin in particular shot to the near-top of the NASA ladder. Instrumental to all the major US programs up to the Shuttle.

But, I've always been a pretty cross-border sort-of-fellow...family here...family there...I think we both scored a goal with the Moon Shots rather than loosing out to the "Yankee Devils" re: the brain drain. Many Canadians would differ...I understand.

Well it's quite an unfortunate consequence that to this day those of us who want to work in the cutting edge of the aerospace industry have to immigrate to the US rather than staying in Canada. Add to that the extra impediment that the vast majority of the most interesting jobs in the American aerospace industry require US citizenship, which means spending a minimum of 5 years waiting for that.

While one can never predict what an alternative history may have looked like, I think it's a safe bet to say that had the Arrow not been scrapped, our domestic aerospace industry would have been significantly larger today.

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

Well it's quite an unfortunate consequence that to this day those of us who want to work in the cutting edge of the aerospace industry have to immigrate to the US rather than staying in Canada. Add to that the extra impediment that the vast majority of the most interesting jobs in the American aerospace industry require US citizenship, which means spending a minimum of 5 years waiting for that.
While one can never predict what an alternative history may have looked like, I think it's a safe bet to say that had the Arrow not been scrapped, our domestic aerospace industry would have been significantly larger today.

Perhaps it would be bigger & better...perhaps not...but, take a good look at the Arrow. It was comparable to the F-106 and had the same job ultimately...killing Tu-95 Bears and Mya-4 Bisons...at many times the cost. Its only job, really. Both designs were rather 'last ditch efforts' if you ask me, since they involved the nuclear tipped Genie missile going off over our heads en masse. Especially up around the Pine Tree Line where this interceptor vs bomber encounter was likely to occur.

By the time the Arrow even entered prototype, the US was already one generation ahead of the design with critters like the F-4 Phantom II...which was like the jack-of-all-trades super fighter-bomber of the 60s. The Arrow was obsolete before it even got to the drawing board. By 1962 when it was supposed to enter service, Soviet ICBM technology was already the newer greater threat as over-the-target nuclear bombers essentially became a thing of the past.

Third point: the Arrow was as big as a frickin' barn :lol: . Nice target or what? It was comparable to the Tu-28 Fiddler (nice pic) in that respect...huge. The Fiddler was more or less the Soviet version of the Arrow/F-106. Same job in reverse...shoot down B-52s and B-58s.

That being said, it was still a neat aircraft...just not the 'way ahead of its time' design it is often promoted to have been.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 15, 2009

Perhaps it would be bigger & better...perhaps not...but, take a good look at the Arrow. It was comparable to the F-106 and had the same job ultimately...killing Tu-95 Bears and Mya-4 Bisons...at many times the cost. Its only job, really. Both designs were rather 'last ditch efforts' if you ask me, since they involved the nuclear tipped Genie missile going off over our heads en masse. Especially up around the Pine Tree Line where this interceptor vs bomber encounter was likely to occur.
By the time the Arrow even entered prototype, the US was already one generation ahead of the design with critters like the F-4 Phantom II...which was like the jack-of-all-trades super fighter-bomber of the 60s. The Arrow was obsolete before it even got to the drawing board. By 1962 when it was supposed to enter service, Soviet ICBM technology was already the newer greater threat as over-the-target nuclear bombers essentially became a thing of the past.

Third point: the Arrow was as big as a frickin' barn . Nice target or what? It was comparable to the Tu-28 Fiddler (nice pic) in that respect...huge. The Fiddler was more or less the Soviet version of the Arrow/F-106. Same job in reverse...shoot down B-52s and B-58s.

That being said, it was still a neat aircraft...just not the 'way ahead of its time' design it is often promoted to have been.

First of all, there never was an Arrow prototype, it went from design to production which was the first of all of its "firsts".

Here is a nice little list of other firsts;

1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).

2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.

3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.

4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.

5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.

6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.

7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.

8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.

9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.

10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.

11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.

12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).

13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.

14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.

15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).

16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.

17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.

18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)

19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)

20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.

21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.

22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.

23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.

24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.

25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.

26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.

27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)

So you can see that it was innovative, so much so that it was a technological threat to other nations designing their own aircraft. Our government for whatever reason abandoned the program and in the process say 25000 jobs disappear overnight.

M.Dancer · July 15, 2009

19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)

This list is everywhere on all the arrow boards...yet this is the first time I have heard of ground mapping radar....I find it odd that a plane with such a short range (360 NM) would need such a thing. And given that it was from the start an interceptor, a strike capability seems pointless.

Bonam · July 15, 2009

Perhaps it would be bigger & better...perhaps not...but, take a good look at the Arrow. It was comparable to the F-106 and had the same job ultimately...killing Tu-95 Bears and Mya-4 Bisons...at many times the cost. Its only job, really. Both designs were rather 'last ditch efforts' if you ask me, since they involved the nuclear tipped Genie missile going off over our heads en masse. Especially up around the Pine Tree Line where this interceptor vs bomber encounter was likely to occur.
By the time the Arrow even entered prototype, the US was already one generation ahead of the design with critters like the F-4 Phantom II...which was like the jack-of-all-trades super fighter-bomber of the 60s. The Arrow was obsolete before it even got to the drawing board. By 1962 when it was supposed to enter service, Soviet ICBM technology was already the newer greater threat as over-the-target nuclear bombers essentially became a thing of the past.

Third point: the Arrow was as big as a frickin' barn . Nice target or what? It was comparable to the Tu-28 Fiddler (nice pic) in that respect...huge. The Fiddler was more or less the Soviet version of the Arrow/F-106. Same job in reverse...shoot down B-52s and B-58s.

That being said, it was still a neat aircraft...just not the 'way ahead of its time' design it is often promoted to have been.

The point isn't so much the Arrow's features, as the fact that we would have retained the capability to domestically develop and produce a jet fighter and many of its components. With that kind of industrial base in place, we could have continued to develop and build new aircraft as needed, rather than purchasing them from other countries.

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

The point isn't so much the Arrow's features, as the fact that we would have retained the capability to domestically develop and produce a jet fighter and many of its components. With that kind of industrial base in place, we could have continued to develop and build new aircraft as needed, rather than purchasing them from other countries.

But...no Moon Landings.

Jerry J. Fortin: First of all, there never was an Arrow prototype, it went from design to production which was the first of all of its "firsts".
Here is a nice little list of other firsts;

Well, the F-4 Phantom II blew the Arrow away. It had a lot of 'firsts' as well. Curious...where did this list come from?

M.Dancer · July 15, 2009

Well, the F-4 Phantom II blew the Arrow away. It had a lot of 'firsts' as well. Curious...where did this list come from?

Everywhere...it's copied word for word on every Arrow site I visited this morning

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

Everywhere...it's copied word for word on every Arrow site I visited this morning

Well, I'm sure the fellows at the Arrow site think all that is true (The Arrow a strike aircraft??). But, there were numerous aircraft that were much better and much more versitile which were either designed before the Arrow or came out at the same time. The Phantom in particular...which could do the Arrow's job plus a whole bunch of other tasks.

Edited July 15, 2009 by DogOnPorch

M.Dancer · July 15, 2009

My friend one spring was planting a vegetable garden. He showed me where his peas would be, the lettuce he was growing, zucchini, peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers....then he showed me the potato patch.

"Why on earth are you growing potatoes?" I asked "They cost 10 cents a pound....with the expense. time and effort, you're actually losing money on them."

I have no doubts that a completed Arrow project would have laid the ground work for a military aerospace programme in Canada. But that in itself isn't a good enough reason to invest in it. It (an aerospace programme) not only has to produce top line aircraft, it has to do it cheaper than buying equally good aircraft elsewhere.

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

My friend one spring was planting a vegetable garden. He showed me where his peas would be, the lettuce he was growing, zucchini, peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers....then he showed me the potato patch.
"Why on earth are you growing potatoes?" I asked "They cost 10 cents a pound....with the expense. time and effort, you're actually losing money on them."

I have no doubts that a completed Arrow project would have laid the ground work for a military aerospace programme in Canada. But that in itself isn't a good enough reason to invest in it. It (an aerospace programme) not only has to produce top line aircraft, it has to do it cheaper than buying equally good aircraft elsewhere.

I agree...and ideally the Arrow should have been able to have been sold to our allies to off-set the cost of the thing. Who whould have bought one? Seriously...I can't think of a nation that would have wanted one over their own design or a cheaper alternative.

Bonam · July 15, 2009

But...no Moon Landings.

Do you really think the Americans would have failed to make it to the Moon without some of the Arrow project members that moved down there and worked on it? They would have just found someone else, there were plenty of smart people in the US.

I have no doubts that a completed Arrow project would have laid the ground work for a military aerospace programme in Canada. But that in itself isn't a good enough reason to invest in it. It (an aerospace programme) not only has to produce top line aircraft, it has to do it cheaper than buying equally good aircraft elsewhere.

You discount the secondary benefits that having that type of program brings. It keeps experienced and ingenious minds that can design and develop these kinds of aircraft here in Canada. It allows us to maintain a higher level of national security, by having the precise design of our aircraft known only to Canadian companies. It allows us to make extra money through export, if we so desire. It allows us to custom design and develop aircraft that suit our specific needs, which may vary in different ways from what the US designs its aircraft for. It stimulates additional university programs and research facilities, along with associated services, creating more jobs, both high-tech and low-tech and in the services industry.

From the point of view of an air force procurement officer, sure, the only thing that counts is how good the aircraft are and how cheap you can buy them for. But from the point of view of a nation, there are vast benefits to having a functioning high tech research, development, and production program of any kind.

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

Do you really think the Americans would have failed to make it to the Moon without some of the Arrow project members that moved down there and worked on it? They would have just found someone else, there were plenty of smart people in the US.

Not before 1970. Jim Chamberlin was brilliant.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 15, 2009

Hey folks, the point is that we built it ourselves! It was in fact very advanced for its time and the fact that the American nation indeed convinced us to dump the Arrow in favour of unmanned missiles. They of course sold us the missiles which were obselete before we got them. The net effect was we gave up a fledgling aerospace industry and became totally dependent upon the Americans for defense and armaments. The exact thing that Avro needed to survive an export market, we literally gave to the Americans and helped make their industry more viable and profitable. Thanks to Dief the Chief.

A travesty of justice in my mind and something that has since held us back and contributed to the demise of our own armed forced. If you really want to put 10 billion to good use, blow the dust off the Arrow plans and update it to modern standards. Build the damned thing all over again.

bush_cheney2004 · July 15, 2009

Not before 1970. Jim Chamberlin was brilliant.

It was a difficult goal with or without Jim Chamberlain, and several setbacks eroded gains from the significant contributions of any one individual. The Apollo Program was about more than just rocket scientists and clever subsystem designs.....it challenged many aspects of the nation's capabilities and political will at a time of war and social unrest. In many respects the American manned missions were just a cover story for Cold War objectives and technologies (and far more sinister payloads).

As for the Avro Arrow, Canada lacked the critical infrastructure mass and budget to tolerate failure in the face of competing designs and changing mission profiles. It is telling that after all these years, the political will to take such a risk remains paralyzed by what could have been.

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

Hey folks, the point is that we built it ourselves! It was in fact very advanced for its time and the fact that the American nation indeed convinced us to dump the Arrow in favour of unmanned missiles. They of course sold us the missiles which were obselete before we got them. The net effect was we gave up a fledgling aerospace industry and became totally dependent upon the Americans for defense and armaments. The exact thing that Avro needed to survive an export market, we literally gave to the Americans and helped make their industry more viable and profitable. Thanks to Dief the Chief.
A travesty of justice in my mind and something that has since held us back and contributed to the demise of our own armed forced. If you really want to put 10 billion to good use, blow the dust off the Arrow plans and update it to modern standards. Build the damned thing all over again.

The Bomarc missile wasn't so much obsolete. Rather, the the non-stand-off nuclear bomber became obsolete. Plus the Bomarc was nuclear armed as the Arrow was to be...so neither were very subtle weapon systems by any means.

Re: the Arrow's export market...as I mentioned, who was going to buy them? They really only had one job...killing Soviet bombers with the Genie. It also wasn't THAT advanced for its time compared to the Phantom which was truely the next generation aircraft.

Re: using the Arrow today. Delta winged aircraft are obsolete...not to mention hard to fly and land.

Edited July 15, 2009 by DogOnPorch

bush_cheney2004 · July 15, 2009

... The net effect was we gave up a fledgling aerospace industry and became totally dependent upon the Americans for defense and armaments. The exact thing that Avro needed to survive an export market, we literally gave to the Americans and helped make their industry more viable and profitable. Thanks to Dief the Chief.

The American aerospace industry was already established.....in fact....the Americans helped Avro with:

1) Langley AFB wind tunnel testing

2) Interim PW engine

3) B-47 test bed for Iroquois engine development

4) Missile and fire control

Canada was trying to bite off more than it could chew, not because of the technical design, but because it lacked much of the mundane, unsexy things that make or break projects. Unlike the Americans, Canada couldn't afford to fail, so it cut its losses. Thanks Dief indeed!

A travesty of justice in my mind and something that has since held us back and contributed to the demise of our own armed forced. If you really want to put 10 billion to good use, blow the dust off the Arrow plans and update it to modern standards. Build the damned thing all over again.

I hope you mean in spirit, not the actual airframe. Time has moved on....the Arrow is where it belongs...in museums.

M.Dancer · July 15, 2009

You discount the secondary benefits that having that type of program brings. It keeps experienced and ingenious minds that can design and develop these kinds of aircraft here in Canada. It allows us to maintain a higher level of national security, by having the precise design of our aircraft known only to Canadian companies. It allows us to make extra money through export, if we so desire. It allows us to custom design and develop aircraft that suit our specific needs, which may vary in different ways from what the US designs its aircraft for. It stimulates additional university programs and research facilities, along with associated services, creating more jobs, both high-tech and low-tech and in the services industry.

That picture you paint is the most optimistic scenario possible. A more likely scenario would have been, after finding no foreign buyers for an aircraft whose mission was obsolete and whose unit cost was far greater than any other craft, and after pouring in 100s of millions of 1960s dollars to rejig the arrow for a new mission, the goverment could no longer defend the drain on the public purse and the project was cancelled.

...

DogOnPorch · July 15, 2009

It was a difficult goal with or without Jim Chamberlain, and several setbacks eroded gains from the significant contributions of any one individual. The Apollo Program was about more than just rocket scientists and clever subsystem designs.....it challenged many aspects of the nation's capabilities and political will at a time of war and social unrest. In many respects the American manned missions were just a cover story for Cold War objectives and technologies (and far more sinister payloads).
As for the Avro Arrow, Canada lacked the critical infrastructure mass and budget to tolerate failure in the face of competing designs and changing mission profiles. It is telling that after all these years, the political will to take such a risk remains paralyzed by what could have been.

Re: Chamberlin...as mentioned...brilliant. He was more than just the Apollo program. I doubt things would have proceeded as fast as they did without him. But, I agree re: the way Apollo/Saturn was designed. It had to be tested at the sub-system level rather than full-up due to time and cost constraints. You couldn't just lob-off another Saturn V to see if the modifications you made to the fuel pumps were a success.

I totally agree with your second point. We're like the Palestinians re: the Arrow. So much 'coulda-beens' rather than moving ahead.