> Prime Minister John Diefenbaker [ordered] all the completed planes (five plus a nearly finished sixth) to be chopped up and destroyed, along with all plans and blueprints so that the plane could never fly again.
Stopping the program was understandable, but the destruction is mysterious and the article doesn't say a word about why. Strange.
They are electric and have no trans.
Diefenbaker being "suckered" by the Americans is not what really happened (the CBC mini-series on the Arrow has some really cringey scenes about that angle, as well as portraying conservative party ineptitude and American arrogance). The more you read into Diefenbaker, the more he comes across as vain and susceptible to overreacting to slights (perceived or real), in over his head on the international stage, and ignorant of cold war realities (despite it being his government that had Canada form NORAD with the US).
It did set the stage for Canada's mercurial relationship with the United States, as Canada tended to over-react and over-compensate our opinions in both directions since then. This still continues to this day.
As far as I can tell they only kept part of the nose/cockpit.
Honestly asking, I might have missed it.
But still, wouldn't successful projects which were later decommissioned be more at risk of spies than an unsuccessful project? Yet successful projects do not have their blueprints and airframes routinely destroyed without a trace.
> Two airframes eventually survived: the complete XR220 at the Royal Air Force Museum Midlands [...]
So the destruction of the project's artifacts was less thorough.
Something similar happened to the RAF Nimrod: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12294766 , although I think the safety case was much stronger there after one caught fire in the air.
It's very Trumpian. Perhaps the steelman argument might be "if we leave this thing in limbo, people will continue to advocate spending more money on it". Sometimes institutions or individuals in them will have a pet project that they keep pushing beyond economic sense, and the only way to get them to stop is to shoot their pet.
Separately, the planes were all very old, and had been constructed over several years so were all slightly different. Projects that tried to do fleet upgrades usually went massively over-budget because each airframe had to be treated as a special case, even for things that you would expect to be standardised like the basic fuselage and wing dimensions.
[Edit] The Haddon-Cave review was exceptional in that it actually named and shamed those in the MOD and industry who helped develop the bodged safety case. People in the MOD and industry lost their jobs after the crash.
[0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I suspect it makes absolutely zero sense for Canada of the 50s to be designing and building its own fighter-bomber jets, but the mythos is strong.
And the vibe of the whole thing is very topical, of course, with the US basically demanding we spend more money subsidizing their defense industry by buying their overpriced armaments from them while at the same time key people in the administration openly musing about the elimination of our sovereignty.
The US: having it both ways ("be our subservient raw resource provider and nothing else" and "oh, but it costs so much to defend you") since forever.
The Avro Arrow was only proposed as an interceptor but neither a fighter nor bomber. There were spitball ideas of future bomber adaptations but they were never part of the project.
Surprised this doesn't get mentioned more.
If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex.
It's easy for America to complain about other countries not spending as much when it's the one that owns the market we all shop at.
We're about to find out if we want to. This is a major point in Carney's defence plan.
Sweden has one heck of a domestic defence industry, but it's tailor made for its requirements and expensive. The SAAB Gripen is one of the best planes in the world for what it was designed to do: operate dispersed off of regional roads when your main infrastructure is destroyed or unavailable. But its flyway cost is the same as an F-35 because hundreds have been built instead of thousands. And the Gripen's engine is still from General Electric.
The NLAW anti-tank weapon is a good example of export success. It was developed jointly with the British and has had a lot of exports and proven success in Ukraine.
On top of that, Canada's defence civil service is terrible at procurement. Even when we buy foreign, we manage to drive up the costs to the point where its rediculously price just to shove in some domestic "advantage", rather than focusing that money on stuff we are really good at (we tend to kick ass at sonar and anti-sub tech, for example).
You could remove "defence" from that and describe almost every large company or gov't in this country, too.
We need a moral and civil reform in this country, to really build again like we used to. Civic spirit revival.
Look at the joke of the Eglinton LRT, or even more so the Hamilton LRT. Even when we commit to building things, it turns into a swamp of mismanagement and a game of political hot potato.
Most embarassing thing about the Eglinton LRT is it sounds like its our (software) profession that is to blame for the latest series of dysfunctions. I'm disgusted.
Doing that is more expensive and means we get us less for more - and we'd almost still rely on other countries for components and resources. All being equal, it is better to buy foreign goods cheaper and then have money leftover to focus on investing what you're good at. Canada is too small to economically fully design and build a modern plane, engines, missiles, radar, etc to compete with the US, China, etc. We certainly can't afford to do that with everything else, as well.
There are absolutely overriding strategic and security reasons you may want to do some of this anyways, but as a general rule we'd be far better diversifying our defence alliances (eg buying a mix from France, Korea, Japan, US, UK, etc) plus having something really good to offer said allies so we can be interdependent. Countries (including the US as we're learning) are not more powerful when they go it alone.
Protected industries almost always get lazy and noncompetitive. Canada is building our own version of the Type 26 frigate for almost double the cost per boat of Australia and the UK (which already ate the design costs!) despite the fact that we're going to be building the most of them so we should in theory scale cheaper. There are some reasons for that (they will be the most capable type 26's afloat), but it's mostly just because the government wants to subsidize Irving and east coast shipbuilders and there's no real scale or expertise because they literally can't market their work outside of Canada.
This is hardly even a novel or controversial point. Any defense spending expert will tell you this. Even that trendy Perun guy that reddit loves has made this precise point.
But it is not because just “keeping a dollar in your country” chasing less productive work/goods causes productivity and competitive problems the more it happens and longer it goes on.
There are plenty of defense experts who’ll say the opposite of what you say they will (though they’re open to exceptions for security reasons).
It is better to buy cheaper/better stuff abroad and have others do the same for your competitive stuff.
You’re giving vague responses with no data to back it up, so that’s a rude statement.
> The argument is that you cannot make a apples-to-apples dollars-to-dollar price comparison to see how much it will cost your country to outsource production of hardware
Yes you can. The F-35 flyway costs ($82m) are similar to the Saab Gripen ($85m) despite the F-35 being superior in almost every way (the one notable exception being the Gripen is good at flying off of more rustic environments). The simple reason is scale. There are similar numbers for French planes and they’re finally giving up for their next-gen planes and working with the rest of Europe. Sweden is all but throwing in the towel going forwards, too.
You’re essentially saying Canada should pay more for less to support jobs and expertise that will produce less and cost more.
Canada has been a net contributor in the F-35 program (as have most of the other countries that have purchased it).
> With the benifit of hindsight, we know that Diefenbaker's decision spelled the death of Canada's aerospace industry
Canada has the third largest aerospace industry after the EU and USA (though we go toe to toe with Brazil). Your argument is invalid.
> The cost to Canada of buying American jets was considerably more than the sticker price of those jets
This is not true, though the numbers are fuzzy depending on if one includes R&D and number of planes built - so we could spend all day arguing on this. But the engines were languishing in development hell, so we ultimately didn’t know what the final bill would have been (the TV series show them as “this close” to being done, but that wasn’t the case in real life).
The Avro arrow was a really good long range interceptor, but that was about it. The CBC miniseries made it out to be this amazing plane that was better at everything, which it was not. The Voodoo that was bought instead was arguably inferior in policing Canada’s north, but was much better suited for all the other roles the Air Force participated in, especially European NATO commitments. We would have had to buy another plane anyways, but the one plane already stretched Canada’s resources. We’re just not big enough to do that.
> Their engineers moved to America or left their careers behind. The cost to Canada of buying American jets was considerably more than the sticker price of those jets
There absolutely was a brain drain to the US for many of the engineers. As I mentioned in another post, cancelling the Arrow was arguably the right decision for the wrong reasons, but because it was done for the wrong reasons there wasn’t any thought put through on focusing on another project. A huge chunk of the blame lies with the executives at avro canada, who over-extended trying to do everything (plane, engine, etc) and then got burned playing with politics.
And if they do so, it will look very foolish to have have pursued an aerospace program which provides less value for money.
If US politics and economics remains in this crisis state for an extended period of time, then I would see sticking with F-35 as a missed opportunity to realign Canada's economic-political-military relationships for the second half of the century.
The Gripen is wrong for Canada unless we actually do think we'll be invaded by the US and need to operate away from runways (and even then let's be honest, we will only repel an invasion from the United States if we go full-on gorilla warfare and insurgency). For the North we need planes with the range for expanses of the north and ideally two engines (though single engine planes are much more reliable enough now). We may want to consider acquiring AWACS capabilities, especially if China starts mucking around up there (they claim to be serious about doing that).
If money were no object and Trump wasn't ruining everything, ideally we'd have F-35s for force projection and a side order of new F-18 Super Hornets (and maybe a few F-18G Growlers - though the latest block of Gripens do have a respectable electronic warfare suite) to keep up patrols in the North.
The only practical alternatives are the Rafael and Eurofighter which are fine planes in their own right for their generations, but have supply lines across an ocean and have some compromises that are not ideal for Canada (the F-18 is larger and has a more powerful radar, which is better suited for long-range interception). Canada should seriously look at joining Europe's next-gen fighter project, though.
All of this is just for planes, too. We need to start taking the north seriously and that means more naval capability, which is a whole other story. At the time I thought Harper's announcements on it were a waste of time, but he was right - the tragedy is they were only paying it lip service failed to deliver.
That about sums up the last 25 years of Canadian economic/political/military "planning" generally.
It's time to get serious. I don't so much care about the military per-se, but industrial capacity, manufacturing, etc. generally.
And of course the problem with "taking the North seriously" in the context of what Harper was suggesting is what this was almost entirely purely about from an exploitative POV (military and resources) rather than recognizing that people live there (and lived there first) and that qualify of life for the people that live there needs to be improved.
A few mines, some pipelines, and a military base doesn't make that happen. Taking the north seriously also means providing services.
It's also going to mean several very hard decisions. There's going to need to be some choices between [tax cuts if you're from the right | social programs if you're from the left] and spending on these kinds of things. I also have some very nervous feelings about long-term planning with all the partisanship in the current environment.
Cost per flight hour (CPFH), which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational... (sourced from Janes)
is sligthly under 6.000US$ vs. anything between slightly over 25.000US$ to slightly under 40.000US$ depending on the type/model of F-35.
They also got rid of the 'clock shop', just look at that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#/media/File...
(in addition to HUD/HMD)
South Korea was already finding export success in Europe for general military equipment. Eastern Europe is paying big bucks to not be Ukraine 2. The market is ripe for new entrants.
Meanwhile NATO has been stuck with 80s equipment with a hundred upgrade packages for quite some time. It's a great time to offer brand new products. Specifically tanks and AFVs are an open market right now. Anti-Air is also an open market, since Russian units are all exploded in Ukraine so they don't exactly have any stock to export and the Patriot is good but expensive and from an untrustworthy partner.
Russia's exports have more cratered because they're focusing on domestic demand, but they still have a market for developing countries fighting amungst themselves that the west won't supply. The one exception is India, which will likely pivot to more western kit as they have border issues with China.
Korea already had a domestic industry for various strategic reasons with North Korea being next door (if a global war became hot, they could be cut off from artillery ammunition sources, so it makes sense for them to make sure they can manufacture their own, even if its more expensive), so they're in a position to capitalize. Canada's reasons to do the same (massive arctic defence) doesn't have much of an export market, though we are teaming up with the Scandinavian countries for icebreakers.
I personally would love to contribute in whatever way I could to homegrown manufacturing, tech, and maybe even defence sector, and am willing to put in the hours and even compensation cut to make things happen in this country.
I just hope there's investors out there willing to make things happen, and that the gov't doesn't just do its usual thing of protecting a few existing corporate buddies.
That doesn't mean no longer spending money at the altar of the military-industrial complex, it just means having your own altar. Which you're free to do, by the way. You don't have to buy our stuff.
Canadians seem to consistently ignore the effects that a strong military-industrial complex has had on the US (and UK, to a lesser extent), particularly on foreign policy. When major components of the TSX Composite need sales, they're going to start lobbying MPs to get them. It's not a coincidence that a lot of the defense industry is based in Northern Virginia.
As far as the sovereignty... I don't think you have to worry about that.
You should see what happens when we even make motions like we're not going to.
https://skiesmag.com/news/bombardier-concerned-about-u-s-ret...
a legit concern because:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/us-government-slaps-...
and then again
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-cseries-boeing-1...
I seem to recall this being tied to our review the F-35 programme last time, but I can't find a reference to it. In any case, not buying F35s will have huge consequences with the US, if it doesn't happen.
That's not a mortal threat to Canadian manufacturing and the country's defense sector. Unless, of course, Canada really is as reliant on American dollars as Trump makes the country out to be, which is why he feels he can be a pain in the ass and push tariffs higher.
Seriously though, those are decent paying jobs that glue together a manufacturing economy that often times is barely holding on in the face of the same kinds of forces that have decimated American manufacturing, too.
It's the same with the autosector here in Ontario.
It's not that it's "American dollars" holding Canada together, per se, it's that this is a continental-wide trading system developed by ruling classes in both countries since the 80s and it barely serves the interest of working people here or in the United States because the bulk of work has been exported to China in the the last few decades... and so what is remaining is absolutely critical to hold onto.
These are the facts Trudeau was trying to explain to Trump, who is too stupid and arrogant to grasp.
In the end working people in both countries have more in common than not. And face threats from overseas as well as our own political classes. (And no, that's not a call for the dissolution of our sovereignty.) As much as I despise my premier Doug Ford (he's a corrupt buffoon) he was right to emphasize a "fortress North America" alternative approach to Trump -- continent wide security and prosperity insured by cooperation. That line worked with Obama and Biden, and IMHO strengthened both countries, but Trump is deadset on burning it all down.
Which is certainly a way to see things, though not a particularly good one.
Honestly I see the treatment of Canada to be in the top three things that I er... "dislike"... him for. The other two are putting RFK Jr. in charge of HHS and the disrespect for court orders.
After this news broke there was, briefly, a campaign to convince the government to consider revisiting the Arrow, but it was rebuffed on the grounds that it was rather unstealthy: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/one-decade-ago-canada-alm...
The most likely reason for scrapping the program so thoroughly was to benefit the US aerospace industry; they wanted to ensure there was no chance of competition, and encouraged the notion that ICBMs had made interceptors obsolete, as an excuse: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-avro-arrow-jet-...
I'm sure there are security reasons, but it still seems so wasteful.