[Mustang1]

Freaker,

Disagree – the comparison of the YF-12 and the Arrow is historically valid for a number of reasons:

1.Both aircraft were historical/temporal contemporaries

2.Both aircraft were developed under the similar operational requirements: interceptors – again comparison warranted

3.YF-12 was a specialized aircraft? Relevance? Wasn’t the Arrow? Did it not possess a mission specific requirement? Its intended tactical use was hardly multi-role. In fact is was analogous to the YF-12’s

4.YF-12 was not intended as a large batch aircraft. Point? Either was the Arrow at the end of its development stage either (due to significant cost overruns). This still doesn’t adequately address the notion that the planes are poor comparisons

5.XF-108 – true, it was cancelled before it achieved prototype status (thus rendering its performance theoretical), BUT the F-106 did match or exceed most of the Arrow Mk.1’s performance statistics (Iroquois engine insertion was never achieved – much like the XF-108’s prototype development – and its estimated performance numbers are not relevant). Your point, therefore, that the Arrow “the best flying aircraft of its type in the world” is not historically valid (see YF-12, F-106).


Why was it cancelled? Diefenbaker, as you assume? Well, yes, but wasn’t he advised to cancel it? Was the strategic environment conducive to interceptor development and operation? Was the plane’s outrageous cost hindering its feasibility as an operational aircraft? Didn’t Avro share some blame for blatant corporate mismanagement? What about Gordon? Diefenbaker made the right decision. Don’t get me wrong – I’m truly proud of the Canada’s great technological contribution (it was indeed remarkable) to aviation history, but the Arrow’s reputation is currently the victim of the “orgy of mytholization” as Bliss correctly identified. We idolize the Arrow (sometimes disregarding its proper historical milieu) and in the process we overshadow other successes like the CF-100. In essence, the Arrow was the wrong plane, at the wrong time and at the wrong cost.

[Mustang1]

Where is the verifiable, tangible and irrefutable historical evidence that suggests the Americans played a significant role in the Arrow’s cancellation? Why haven’t legitimate scholars (like Bliss, Granatstein and Chaikin) made any reference to the alleged nefarious acts of Americans in the plane’s termination? What exactly would be the American’s motive? They possessed contemporary aircraft that exceeded the Arrow’s performance (F-106 and YF-12) and why would they care if we put an interceptor into operation when they were cancelling a significantly superior counterpart (the F-108) due to strategic shifts in defence tactics?

[dgthe3]

That's what i was getting at. It doesn't really matter what story you believe, all evidence points back to the US as part of the termination of the program. Whether it was the US saying 'Can it! Or else....' or the threat from the ICBM's, thus making bombers obsolete (oops). In either case, the US wouldn't buy the planes making a continuation of the project impractical, unless they were sold to the rest of the western world. However, all was not lost from the project. Many of the Avro engineers that lost their jobs quickly got jobs at NASA, who landed on the moon 10 years later.

[Mustang1]

dgthe3,

I’m not sure what evidence you are suggesting “points to the US as part of the termination of the program.” Again, there are a myriad of internal pressures that influenced Diefenbaker’s final decision (cost, Gordon’ belligerent demeanour, CDN military insistence) that were not related to the United States. Secondly, Howe, St. Laurent and Pearson (if elected) also had made the decision to terminate the Arrow’s full production before Diefenbaker’s electoral victory. Again, where is the U.S. connection?

Lastly, it’s not the American’s role to act as our market place for Cold War weapons. The United States had a well-established history of developing its own domestic weapons in the late 1950s and it was our responsibility to be acutely aware of this reality. Whether or not the Arrow found a home in the American arsenal doesn’t overshadow the plane’s enormous costs or its poor timing in light of the emerging ICBM era. Again, the Arrow was the victim, like the F-108 and TSR-2, of unlucky timing and circumstances. Sometimes we look too closely conspiracies – the historical record simply doesn’t produce any tangible, irrefutable and accessible information that suggests the U.S. was a primary contributor to the Arrow’s fateful termination.

[Telkwa]

The Arrow wasn't just cancelled, it was destroyed! Why? Why the total destruction? What was gained by shredding everything?

[Mustang1]

Telkwa,

Why was it unceremoniously destroyed? Why not save some planes for posterity? Some historians have suggested that Diefenbaker –due in large part to his difficult decision, especially the optics – had to physically remove the plane from the public consciousness. The unpopular decisions (one that was actually supported by many influential and learned individuals) could come back to haunt the Prime Minister, so the best strategy was to gut the entire project – that included the finished products as well.

Personally, I disagree with the final acts of the Arrow’s termination (although the actual verdict was the correct one). The planes should have been donated to museums and saved for our collective historical record. They’re important and Canadian history was forever sullied by the vicious act of destruction. The Prime Minister’s judgement was politically, economically and militarily sound, but his actions should have been tempered with compassion and a desire to preserve important components of our past. For that utter disregard for our history, his reputation will forever be justifiably tarnished.

[Telkwa]

For that utter disregard for our history, as you call it, the destruction of the Arrow will forever be locked in the realm of conspiracy theories. I, for one, cannot believe that the destruction was the result of a hissy fit. There had to be more to it than thae scenario which you describe. My suspicion includes American fears that the plans might leak into the hands of communists and Canadian fears that the plans might leak to the Americans.

[Mustang1]

Telkwa Telkwa:

[i] There had to be more to it than thae scenario which you describe. My suspicion includes American fears that the plans might leak into the hands of communists and Canadian fears that the plans might leak to the Americans.

Like what? What tangible, accessible and irrefutable evidence exists in the historical record that suggests the Americans wanted parts/plans from the Arrow – such an intense desire - that the hardware/plans had to be actually destroyed in order to prevent the Americans from acquiring it. Makes little sense. What parts? What technology? What did a tactically obsolete interceptor possess that the Americans (with the YF-12, F-106 and the potential XF-108) would even need? They, like Canada and the British, were entering the ICBM era (albeit a short-lived tactical period as manned fighters would continue to see development and production), so what exactly about the Arrow would have piqued their interest as they were in the process of cancelling a domestic Mach 3 interceptor themselves. Don’t see a motive.

[Telkwa]

So, give me a better reason for the total destruction of the Arrow than you have given. As you said, even saving them as museum pieces makes more sense than what Dief did.

[Streaker]

Mustang1:

Disagree - the comparison of the YF-12 and the Arrow is historically invalid for a number of reasons:

1- YF-12 came along a few years after the Arrow, so it is arguable that they were historical/temporal contemporaries. I concede that I may be splitting hairs here, but at the time the pace of technological progress in the field was very rapid: a few years could make a big difference.

2- Both may have been initially conceived as interceptors, but the YF-12 was never put into service for such a purpose: it was simply too big and too expensive to equip a sufficient number of squadrons - it was overkill for that purpose. On the other hand, it proved very useful as a recon plane (SR-71).

3- There were plans to develop various versions of the Arrow to suit various mission profiles. These plans were of course aborted.

4- The per unit cost of the Arrow would certainly have been a fraction of the SR-71. The SR-71 was made largely of titanium - a material which is hardly conducive to large production runs. In comparison, the Arrow utilised more conventional techniques and could have been produced in large numbers had Diefenbaker (and yes, his advisors) not been so myopic.

5- The F-106 was a fine plane but not at all suited to Canadian operating conditions. Performancewise it was indeed similar to the Arrow but had only a single engine, much smaller weapons-carrying capacity and shorter range/radius of action. Apples and oranges... A plane which might be more comparable to the Arrow would be the F-4 Phantom.

The Arrow's cost was very high, no doubt about it, but the lion's share of the development costs had already been incurred at the time of the Arrow's cancellation. I do agree however that Crawford Gordon and Avro mismanaged the programme to some degree and there does seem to be a concensus that Gordon and Dief were not on the best terms. But if the Chief canned the programme in part because he harboured some personal animus towards Gordon (entirely plausible although we will never know for sure) then he failed the test of leadership. Diefenbaker made the wrong decision at the wrong time and at an ultimately very high cost to Canada. So we ended up with the F-101 (an okay plane) and a turkey that went by the name of Bomarc. A turkey which came back to bite Dief squarely on his petty little ass!

I do agree about the "orgy of mythologisation" however. Remember the Dan Aykroyd movie? It was a lot of fun to watch but man it sure played loose with the facts!

[Mustang1]

Telkwa Telkwa:

So, give me a better reason for the total destruction of the Arrow than you have given. As you said, even saving them as museum pieces makes more sense than what Dief did.

Firstly, don’t tell me what to do; I’m not your monkey. Secondly, why do I have to provide you with a palatable or acceptable theory that somehow needs you endorsement for legitimacy, when you failed to address my salient questions?

I provided a theory in which you failed to adequately challenge. You countered with American conspiracy theories, and when pressed to qualify that assertion with historical evidence or address the evidence to the contrary, you simply dodged.

The Arrow was cancelled because of economics and Cold War strategic shifts. There was no conspiracy, there wasn’t a nefarious order issued by some ultra secret American cabal and Diefenbaker’s final act of destruction (although crude) was merely one that lacked historical perspective. It would seem that William of Ockham’s philosophical contribution still applies to contemporary questions.

[Mustang1]

Freaker,

Sorry, your assertions still don’t hold water

1. YF-12 – first flight was 4 years after the Arrow’s. That clearly establishes it as a contemporary. Whether a few years makes significant technological difference is immaterial to the salient point which was the establishing the plane’s temporal similarities. Anything else is needling the point

2. Both were conceived as interceptors. That was my point. Again it’s largely irrelevant as to potential future operational variants because both planes were cancelled (in large part to their obsolete operation roles = interceptors). I merely claimed that they were comparable pieces of military hardware and you erroneously suggested it was “like comparing apples and oranges.” That point has yet to be satisfactorily proven

3. Potential variants are pure speculation and are not valid in historical discourse. The Arrow WAS an interceptor – anything else is conjecture.

4. Arrow’s cost was astronomical and its development comprised a significant component of the entire defence budget. The per/plane numbers were significant as Pearkes had suggested it was almost $8 million per plane (he would later state $9-10 million per/plane for 60 planes (NOT including development/pre-production costs!). That’s unacceptable numbers for an aircraft designed to intercept strategic bombers in the ICBM era (although this stringent strategic shift would lessen in the 1960s). Besides, you aren’t seriously suggesting that one should compare the Cold War military budgetary allotments of Canada to the United States (which is truly extraneous)? Now that is a definite example of comparing apples and oranges

5. F-106 was comparable. It was a contemporary interceptor that matched performance numbers of the Arrow. Did it meet the RCAF’s original operational requirements? No, but that wasn’t your initial supposition. The F-4 Phantom? True comparison as well, I agree, but doesn’t that hinder your argumentative thrust as you initially claimed, “the Arrow as being the best flying aircraft of its type in the world at the time of its cancellation.” It would seem that history is slowly eroding that argument

Diefenbaker cancelled the Arrow due to escalating costs, a temporary Cold-War strategic shift, and blatant pre-production mismanagement (Stewart’s treatment of Gordon clearly established Gordon’s managerial incompetence) by Avro and RCAF. This is hardly debatable as scholarly works from Bliss, McLin, Chaikin, Granatstein and others have all concluded this was indeed the wrong plane (interceptor), at the wrong price ($3.5 to $12 million per plane –dependent upon batch size and calculation method), at the wrong time (ICBM era).

[Telkwa]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Diefenbaker cancelled the Arrow due to escalating costs, a temporary Cold-War strategic shift, and blatant pre-production mismanagement . . .

I understand the cancelling. What I don't understand is the total destruction. Nothing you have offered is the least bit convincing for the destruction. I just do not accept the Dief had a tantrum theory; or even the petty politics theory. You do not have to provide me with an answer if you don't want to. I don't need monkeys, as you put it.

[Mustang1]

Telkwa,

Yet another dodge! At the very least, you are consistent.

I merely offered a speculative theory – one that has some semblance of believability. Why you don’t seem to grasp is that I wasn’t trying to persuade you, nor does your endorsement matter a wit in terms of establishing its authenticity.

You don’t buy the “petty politics”? Who suggested it was indeed “petty”? I’ve yet to see any realistic alternative theories presented by you other than the prosaic, clichéd American conspiracy nonsense (of which you have offered ZERO evidence in support) – all you seem to do is unilaterally dismiss suppositions while simultaneously offering none as alternatives.

Furthermore, I never suggested Diefenbaker had a tantrum – don’t ascribe ideas to me that we never specifically presented – it’s a disingenuous tactic. If you think he had some sort of “tantrum” then that’s your prerogative, but don’t assign its origins to me and then go about questioning their accuracy. Again, you’ve employed another questionable argumentative tactic – I hope this isn’t indicative of an overall strategy.

You can disagree all you like, but so far I haven’t seen ONE piece evidence presented that substantiates your points (American influence?). Hmm…I wonder why this indeed the case?

[norad]

Mustang1:

I do think their was American influence in there. Just because it's not in some history book, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are things such as secure lines between Ottawa and Washington. What goes on behind closed doors, especially when it involves government, rarely leaks out. Do you agree with that assessment, Mustang1?