A genuine Canuck’s view

[ft.niagara]

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/...tes-of-america/

Even though we are neighbours, Americans do not tend to think of Canada much. As a Canadian, I’ve been treated like a discovered distant relative with whom you have more in common than you could possibly imagine. Often I am told that I am, for all intents and purposes, one of you. Yet in spite of all the goodwill between our two countries, there is also much that divides us bitterly. Anti-Americanism is endemic in Canada:.....

This fellow has a chinese name, goes to the U of Chicago, but is a genuine Canuck. It basicly sounds as though the US should not act as world policeman, even though it has been a force for good, Hummm. Also, Anti-Americanism is endemic in Canada, Hummm

[guyser]

Its a shame he had to repeat that diatribe again and again.

Anti-americanism is NOT rampant in any way where I am concerned.

Perhaps anti Govt , but not American.

[jbg]

Its a shame he had to repeat that diatribe again and again.

Anti-americanism is NOT rampant in any way where I am concerned.

Perhaps anti Govt , but not American.

The Loyalists? Not much has changed since 1784.

[ft.niagara]

Its a shame he had to repeat that diatribe again and again.

Anti-americanism is NOT rampant in any way where I am concerned.

Perhaps anti Govt , but not American.

The anti-americanism transcends administrations. Trudeau was anti-american in some of his policies. Didn't he have a ten percent tax on American purchase of property?

[August1991]

I found the article to be boilerplate. It repeats the standard arguments without any particular insight or originality. It finishes with the bland, useless advice:

As American hard power declines, the United States needs to act less like a bullying world policeman and more like the charismatic leader it can and should be. If it can recognize what people find admirable about it and cultivate that goodwill rather than squander or exploit it, both Americans and the world’s citizens would be much better off.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If the US president "cultivates goodwill", everyone will love America?

Anti-americanism is NOT rampant in any way where I am concerned.

Perhaps anti Govt , but not American.

That's a cop-out. "I like Americans but I don't like the US government." The whole idea of the US is that government should reflect the wishes of the people. "By the people, of the people, for the people".

I'm not saying that everything the US government does has the entire approval of every American. But you will not find many countries in the world, let alone a superpower, where government is so firmly circumscribed and under the control of ordinary people.

[Proud Canuck]

:angry:

"Unfortunately, we have many more legitimate reasons for feeling a little petulant toward the United States.

1 - The United States government put political pressure on the Canadian Government to cancel the AVRO Arrow in the 1960's. The Americans wanted to put Bomarc Intercontinental Ballistics missles (read NUKES) on Canadian soil. If the Arrow was built then there would be no need for the missles. The Arrow was so advanced that the U.S. Air Force was willing to buy the Arrow! Unfortunatel they were overruled by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

2 - In the 1960's, The CIA used a hospital in Montreal to conduct LSD experiments on psyciatric patients.

3 - In the 1990's the US film industry unions tried to get movie companies to stop making movies in Canada! The reason they gave was that the unionized Canadian crews were working cheaper than unionized crews in the United States. They managed to convince the US congress to try to get Canada to stop subsidizing film and television projects. So far, this has failed.

[ft.niagara]

:angry:

"Unfortunately, we have many more legitimate reasons for feeling a little petulant toward the United States.

Yep, they are good reasons to feel petulant about. But what about Hillary's report? NYS is right next door to Ontario, and this report is still current, not about somethings that never happened like Nukes in Canada, missles never placed, and the subsidized Canadian film industry. BTW, should Canada be subsidizing private industry to circumvent union wages in the US? :angry: :angry:

[jbg]

If the US didn't buy the AVRO wasn't it a bit pricey?

[Remiel]

We did build two BOMARC missile sites, but we only ever had the conventional warheads, not the nuclear ones. The US was pressuring us to take the nuclear ones, but we decided we wanted no part of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the subsequent government put on the nuclear warheads, but the whole program was later scrapped by Trudeau, ending in 1971.

The Arrows would of been useful, and actually used, far past 1971. We could of made a lot of money from them, instead of spending money on those useless missiles.

If Americans wanted to cry about the state of Canada's military, they shouldn't of screwed us out of one of our greatest achievements in military technology. We'd probably have spent more money on the military if we had had a success to follow up on.

[jdobbin]

If the US didn't buy the AVRO wasn't it a bit pricey?

Many in the U.S. and Britain did want to buy the fighter but were vetoed higher up. Many high performance jets were on the chopping block at the time.

The U.S. told Canada they should cut their aircraft program and the U.S. would protect Canada. There was a lot of force brought on Canada to completely integrate into U.S. defence. The Conservatives complied with that and it led to cancellation of the Arrow and Canada became dependent on U.S. protection and equipment.

[crazymf]

Two sayings come to mind:

When the USA farts, we smell it.

Even a dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds it.

Our society is completely integrated already with American society. Thank God too so I don't have to watch the cheesey cop dramas filmed in Vancouver all the time. The almighty Ameribuck certainly has a lot to do with good times here in Oilberta. I hope things carry on for some time to come, at least until I retire because I have too much money.

[ft.niagara]

We did build two BOMARC missile sites, but (we) the missles only (ever) had (the) conventional warheads, not the nuclear ones. The US (was pressuring) pressured us to take the nuclear ones, but we decided we wanted no part of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the subsequent government (put on the nuclear warheads) put the nuclear warheads on the missles, but the whole program was later scrapped by Trudeau, ending in 1971.

The Arrows would (of) have been useful, and actually used, far past 1971. We could (of) have made a lot of money from them, instead of spending money on those useless missiles.

If Americans want(ed) to cry about the state of Canada's military, they shouldn't (of) have screwed us out of one of our greatest achievements in military technology. (We'd) We would probably have spent more money on the military if we had (had) a success to follow up on.

[Wilber]

We did build two BOMARC missile sites, but we only ever had the conventional warheads, not the nuclear ones. The US was pressuring us to take the nuclear ones, but we decided we wanted no part of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the subsequent government put on the nuclear warheads, but the whole program was later scrapped by Trudeau, ending in 1971.

The Arrows would of been useful, and actually used, far past 1971. We could of made a lot of money from them, instead of spending money on those useless missiles.

If Americans wanted to cry about the state of Canada's military, they shouldn't of screwed us out of one of our greatest achievements in military technology. We'd probably have spent more money on the military if we had had a success to follow up on.

Bomarcs were designed to intercept manned bomber formations. They weren't much use without nuclear warheads. I could never understand the muddle headed thinking that we should try to defend ourselves against aircraft carrying nuclear weapons by only using conventional weapons as a matter of principle. Seems like a death wish.

Nukes were only discarded after manned bombers were no longer seen as a big threat. The Arrow was also designed as a bomber interceptor, not as an air superiority fighter and it would have been most effective in its design role carrying missiles with nuclear warheads. It was far too expensive a project and would have sucked up money that should have been going to other military projects. Considering the way Trudeau and other Liberal governments emasculated the military, to say that keeping the Arrow program going would have resulted in more military spending is laughable. The Arrow was certainly at the leading edge for its time (first fly by wire aircraft etc) but if the Americans hadn't bought it in great numbers it would have been a huge money looser. Why would they, they had plenty of bomber interceptors of their own, all armed with nukes. F101, F102, F104 etc. all dedicated bomber interceptors, soon to be made obsolete by ballistic missiles.

[Remiel]

That would almost be funny, Ft. Niagara, were it not so pathetic.

Wilber - Perhaps, but I would have rather wasted money on something we made than had almost no use than something the Americans made that had completely no use. Knowledge that the Arrow and other bomber interceptors would become obsolete would have required prescient knowledge they did not have at the time of the cancellation, or none of those four planes would have ever been commissioned in the first place, no? You probably right that my other conclusions were ill conceived, but the truth is the Arrow was a major achievement in aeronautical technology, not just a superior interceptor. Innovations in its design were likely used in many other later aircraft.

One thing I don't understand though, is why would you make an interception system based on nuclear technology, whether it be ballistic missile, or bomber interceptor? Why wouldn't conventional missiles be able to destroy something that is incoming? Why in God's name would exploding even a small nuclear weapon in the open air be a desirable method of intercepting *anything*?

[Wilber]

That would almost be funny, Ft. Niagara, were it not so pathetic.

Wilber - Perhaps, but I would have rather wasted money on something we made than had almost no use than something the Americans made that had completely no use. Knowledge that the Arrow and other bomber interceptors would become obsolete would have required prescient knowledge they did not have at the time of the cancellation, or none of those four planes would have ever been commissioned in the first place, no? You probably right that my other conclusions were ill conceived, but the truth is the Arrow was a major achievement in aeronautical technology, not just a superior interceptor. Innovations in its design were likely used in many other later aircraft.

One thing I don't understand though, is why would you make an interception system based on nuclear technology, whether it be ballistic missile, or bomber interceptor? Why wouldn't conventional missiles be able to destroy something that is incoming? Why in God's name would exploding even a small nuclear weapon in the open air be a desirable method of intercepting *anything*?

Where would you have liked that money spent? I was a mistake to build it even if it was a major achievement. The Concorde was a major achievement in aviation but was also overtaken by world events (oil prices). The countries that built it pressed on and took a major financial bath because they could not sell it to anyone other than their national carriers. It is not up to the Americans or anyone else to support our aviation industry. True the Arrow was also a major achievement in aviation but you have to build things people want to buy whether they are a technical tour de force or not. It is nonsense to blame the Americans for the demise of the Arrow. It was a Canadian decision to build it and a Canadian decision to kill it.

The idea of nuclear armed interceptors was to destroy a bunch of aircraft with one warhead. We are talking about 1950's technology, missiles were not as accurate or reliable as they are now. The Cold War was at its height and nuclear war was considered a real possibility. The idea was that destroying the bombers with a few very small nukes was preferable to the bombers destroying a bunch of cities with a bunch of much bigger nukes.

[Leafless]

Its a shame he had to repeat that diatribe again and again.

Anti-americanism is NOT rampant in any way where I am concerned.

Perhaps anti Govt , but not American.

The Loyalists? Not much has changed since 1784.

Maybe Canadians (loyalist) can view Americans as TRAITORS to Great Britain. Yes?

Hate can be viewed both ways, not only viewed through American eyes and perspectives.

http://www.multied.com/revolt/causes.html

[White Doors]

The 'Arro' was a good plane a could have been converted to an air superiority aircraft without too much trouble at all.

The reason they cancelled the Arro was because it was too expensive and because the era of the bomber was coming to an end. It was designed to intercept russian bombers and they probably felt that converting them to air superiority aircraft would have cost too much money. Not the American's fault that the era of the bomber was ending and the era of the ICBM was coming. tragic loss as almost all of those talented engineers went and started workign with Boeing, Lockheed etc.

[Higgly]

Yep, they are good reasons to feel petulant about. But what about Hillary's report?

Hilary who? Is she one of ours?

NYS is right next door to Ontario

I love it. Can we move it to Alberta?

... and the subsidized Canadian film industry. BTW, should Canada be subsidizing private industry to circumvent union wages in the US?

Of course Arnold Shwartzeluggie does nothing for Hollywood...

[Higgly]

Trudeau was anti-american in some of his policies. Didn't he have a ten percent tax on American purchase of property?

Link please?

[Higgly]

If the US didn't buy the AVRO wasn't it a bit pricey?

Link?

[Higgly]

The 'Arro' was a good plane a could have been converted to an air superiority aircraft without too much trouble at all.

The reason they cancelled the Arro was because it was too expensive and because the era of the bomber was coming to an end. It was designed to intercept russian bombers and they probably felt that converting them to air superiority aircraft would have cost too much money. Not the American's fault that the era of the bomber was ending and the era of the ICBM was coming. tragic loss as almost all of those talented engineers went and started workign with Boeing, Lockheed etc.

I guess I am wondering why the only market was seen to be American. There would have been lots of buyers for the Avro. This didn't stop the Israelis, America's 'Best Friend'.

[Wilber]

A might have been

For all purposes, the Avro Arrow had remained one of the greatest 'night have beens' of the aviation industry, competing only with the BAC TSR.2 strike aircraft. Despite being a considerable technical achievement, the Arrow failed to reach the production stage because of problems with the project management and political support.

It would be unfair to blame only the governement that cancelled the Arrow. The RCAF itself was probably unwise in putting its demands so high. Everything it demanded was technically achievable, as was proven by the existence of the Arrow itself. However, it should have been clear from the start that such an expensive aircraft was not affordable, except in the unlikely case that there would be large export orders. The simultaneous development of aircraft, engines, radar system and missiles was a high-risk affair, with a large probability that at least one of these programmes would be a failure. The Sparrow II project may have been the least well-advised of all, because the missile had already been abandoned by the US Navy. A less ambitious project, with more off-the-shelf parts, would have been more realistic. For example Sweden developed several generations of excellent fighter aircraft, but always used derivatives of existing engines.

The RCAF can also be blamed for being too inflexible in planning. The Arrow was hailed as the definitive interceptor, and the projected future versions were intended to fly faster and higher, to carry even more expensive electronics, and to be more effective in killing bombers. One could compare this to the career of the F-101: Derived from a long-range escort fighter, the F-101 evolved into a fighter-bomber with nuclear weapons, an interceptor and a reconnaissance aircraft. Such changing requirements were an inevitable consequence of the longer development time of more complex aircraft. Some of the money spent on the development of radar and armament could have been used better to make the Arrow more flexible and more cost- effective. As an air superiority fighter, the Arrow had the disadvantage of being a very large aircraft, but because of its large wing area and powerful engines it could have been effective. Because of its high performance, the Arrow would probably also have been an good reconnaissance platform. Because of its large bomb bay, generous wing area and ample ground clearance it could also have been an effective fighter bomber. On the other hand, its enormous wing area was a disadvantage for operations at very low altitude. The main problem of the Arrow was its size. Almost any job, except that of a long range interceptor, could have been done more effectively by a smaller aircraft. If the RCAF had accepted external missile carriage, and had taken into account the development of in-flight refuelling, even that task could have been undertaken by a smaller aircraft.

From a pretty good history of the Arrow.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baug...ther/arrow.html

It had an empty weight of 44,000 and a gross weight of nearly 81,000 lbs which is huge for an air superiority aircraft. That's 20,000 lbs heavier than the gross weight of an F14, one of the biggest fighters ever built and it needed variable sweep wings to make it maneuverable enough to mix it up with other fighter aircraft.

[ft.niagara]

The Arrow sounds similar to the F4 Phantom. The Phantom also was a big airplane, with many reincarnations. I saw the Phantom used by the Thunderbirds in their airshow. The planes they fly today in their airshow are much smaller.

[White Doors]

The 'Arro' was a good plane a could have been converted to an air superiority aircraft without too much trouble at all.

The reason they cancelled the Arro was because it was too expensive and because the era of the bomber was coming to an end. It was designed to intercept russian bombers and they probably felt that converting them to air superiority aircraft would have cost too much money. Not the American's fault that the era of the bomber was ending and the era of the ICBM was coming. tragic loss as almost all of those talented engineers went and started workign with Boeing, Lockheed etc.

I guess I am wondering why the only market was seen to be American. There would have been lots of buyers for the Avro. This didn't stop the Israelis, America's 'Best Friend'.

huh? Where did I say anything about any customer's?

And I thought Canada was America's best friend? Or are you just getting warmed up for an anti-semetic tirade?

[Wilber]

The Arrow sounds similar to the F4 Phantom. The Phantom also was a big airplane, with many reincarnations. I saw the Phantom used by the Thunderbirds in their airshow. The planes they fly today in their airshow are much smaller.

Another large machine to be sure which couldn't match the Arrow for speed or altitude capability but more versatile because It didn't put such a premium on it. Also another reason for the US not to be interested in the Arrow. At the same time it was developing what would become the most successful jet fighter and fighter bomber yet built. The F4 was also designed to fly off of aircraft carriers, the Arrow was not.

In many ways the Arrow was the era's technological B2 or Concorde. A complete system, airframe, engines, avionics and weapons. First aircraft to be built using CNC machining, first to use digital computers, fly by wire, digital data link, 4000 psi hydraulics among others, using the most powerful engines yet built. An incredibly expensive project for a country the size of Canada. Major European countries can't even afford to do it and collaborate with others on most new major aviation projects. It was designed as a high speed, high altitude, long range interceptor and in that role its performance matched anything built since. Unfortunately, by the time it flew, it was becoming apparent the future need would be for multi role aircraft that could survive in a SAM environment, often at low altitude.

I also saw the Thunderbirds flying the F4 at our airshow. A great smoky noisy beast, spectacular on its own but not a great formation aerobatic aircraft. It took so much area to get turned around, it used to disappear for a few minutes between passes. The switch to the F16 makes for a better show. They were the only ones to use the F4 as the Blues Angels stuck with the smaller more agile A4 during that period and most other display teams use jet trainers for the same reason.