, Research PaperMr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I should wish to do a slightly drawn-out statement on the topic of one aspect of the national defence of Canada.
. . . The authorities has carefully examined and reexamined the likely demand for the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine known as the CF-105. . . .
The decision arrived at is that the development of the Arrow aircraft and Iroquois engine should be terminated now. Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker,1Black Friday, February 20, 1959 Until late, high-performance aircraft were non committed to production until after flight testing of one or more paradigms. .
. . The Arrow programme is unusual in Canada in that even the first winging theoretical account has been built on production tooling. Avro News, October 4, 19572 Avro Canada was created in December 1945. After WWII, Avro Canada designed a figure of aircraft ; the CF-100 & # 8220 ; Canuck & # 8221 ; a transonic straight-wing all-weather combatant was the most successful one.
In 1954 Avro Canada went under authorities control. This split it into an aircraft division and an engine division, which become Orenda engines. Avro Canada tried to plan a replacing for the CF-100. These designs resembled CF-100s with swept wings and high public presentation. In April 1953, when the Royal Canadian Air Force ( RCAF ) announced it wanted a twin-engine, two-seat interceptor with a radius of action of at least 1000km, a ferry scope of no less than 6000 maritime stat mis ( 11000km ) and a maximum velocity of more than Mach 1.5. A demand for 600 such aircraft was foremost seen.
No such aircraft was available elsewhere, and the RCAF was unwilling to except anything less so what they wanted. A new type would hold to be designed. The penchant for twin-engine aircraft may hold been based on the premise that these are safer for long patrol flights over the big unpeopled parts of Canada. The armament of the new combatant was to be all-missile stored in an internal missile bay. This was to protect them for the environment and decreased drag.
A shoulder flying constellation was used to do care entree easier. The chosen wing was a big, really thin delta wing. This design was submitted to the RCAF in 1953, it was accepted without hold. Trials with rocket-powered graduated table theoretical accounts and weave tunnel trials produced favourable consequences. Engine pick was to be a job. First up was Rolls Royce RB106 engine, but it would non be available. The Wright J67 was chosen following, but this engine was cancelled in 1955.
It was eventually decided to utilize a domestic engine, the Orenda PS-13 Iroquois. This engine would non be available for the first prototypes.Avro Canada decided to utilize the Pratt & A ; Whitney J75 to power the Mark 1 paradigms. The push of the J75-P-3 with full afterburner was 8390kg, tantamount to the maximum prohibitionist ( no afterburner ) push of the Iroquois. The Arrow Mk.2 would hold the Orenda engines.
The Mk.2A would hold redesigned jet consumptions and more fuel. The concluding Mk.3 version, with uprated engines, would be able to wing at Mach 2.5. During the development of the CF-105, political alterations changed its intended function. The NORAD understanding signed in 1954 created a cooperation between the USA and Canada in the air defence of the North American continent.
This was supposed to do it easier to sell the CF-105 to the Unites Stated Air Force ( USAF ) , but this was improbable to go on, because the Americans fancied developing their ain aircraft. In 1957, the conservativists replaced the progressives in authorities. They and the new Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, were much less supportive of the CF-105 undertaking. The order for the CF-105 was reduced to 100, for a monetary value of 781 million dollars. Inflation, holds and development jobs increased the unit monetary value of the CF-105. The public disfavor against the expensive interceptor increased. The imperativeness published every job with the CF-105 at length. An of import job was that the enemy that the Arrow had been designed to halt, the high-flying supersonic or transsonic bomber, was perceived by many to be on its manner out.
The IM-99B Bomarc B surface-to-air missile had been ordered to reenforce the air defence. Bomarc B was more an remote-controlled interceptor aircraft than a missile in common sense: It was 13.3 metre long, weighed 7260kg, and had a scope of 710km. Although Bomarc could non officially replace the Arrow, it did lend to the attitude that the Arrow was excess. The cancellation was, of class, purely a cabinet determination. We know from Erik Neilson & # 8217 ; s book, The House is non a Home, that there was no argument or treatment in caucus.
3 They were merely told that the determination had been made. The Hon. Donald Fleming, Finance Minister in the Diefenbaker Cabinet, goes into considerable item in his memoirs published in 1985.4 It is evident from these memoirs that Cabinet viewed the Arrow contract with concern in 1957, but because they were a minority authorities confronting an election in the close hereafter, Cabinet did non make bold to call off the Arrow so. 5 A bulk in the 1958 election made manner to call off the undertaking. The Government still needed to make conditions that would do the cancellation appetizing to the voting public. Cabinet was cognizant that the loss of 25000 occupations ( the figure estimated to be straight related to the Arrow undertaking ) would hold serious political and economic ramifications.
On August 28th, 1958 the Hon. George Pearkes, Minister of Defense, gave the Cabinet the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile proposal from the U.S. This was accepted as a possible replacement for the Arrow at a much lower cost to Canada. At this clip, Pearkes recommended the cancellation of the Arrow program.September of 1958, the authorities told the A. V.
Roe company to cut down the costs of the plan. The major economy was the canceling of the Astra fire control system and replacing it with an American & # 8220 ; off the shelf & # 8221 ; system. They were besides told at that clip that the plan was to be reviewed in March 1959.Sometime between July of 1958 and December of 1958, an understanding was reached with the U.S. that if the Arrow and its support systems were cancelled, there would be defence production sharing between Canada and the U.S. Senior Canadian Cabinet Ministers attended an international meeting in Paris in mid December of 1958.
During treatments at this meeting between the Canadians and the U.S. representatives, the U.S. refused to purchase the Arrow. The inquiry put by the Canadian deputation was & # 8220 ; will you purchase the aircraft & # 8221 ; , non & # 8220 ; will you help the Arrow undertaking & # 8221 ; . The choice of which inquiry to inquire was critical since in the autumn of 1958 an Avro executive had approached the U.
S. defence section with the latter inquiry and had received a committedness of aid for the undertaking. On December 22nd, 1958, the Cabinet was notified of the U.S.
refusal to purchase the aircraft. It was agreed at this clip that the cancellation and the defence production sharing understanding with the U.S. were to be announced together early in the New Year. This action was delayed until February 20th, 1959 because of other jobs. Prior to this day of the month, there were no treatments or arguments outside of Cabinet. The promised March 1959 plan reappraisal, which implied some kind of public treatment, was internally avoided.Fleming claimed it was the U.
S. refusal to purchase the aircraft in December that sealed the Arrow & # 8217 ; s destiny. The authorities must hold known from the start that the U.S.
would ne’er do an seaward purchase of an aircraft, the powerful U.S. aircraft industry would ne’er hold permitted this to go on. So why did the Government delay until December of 1958 to officially inquire the U.S.
if they would purchase the Arrow when they must hold known for some clip that the reply would be no? It is obvious that the purpose to call off existed early in the Diefenbaker government. All the Government needed was the right scene to minimise political harm. Credence of the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile as a inexpensive replacement for the Arrow provided the conditions the Government was looking for. The obvious decision is that the Government delayed inquiring the important inquiry of the U.
S. until the other conditions were in topographic point. It was asked early plenty so that the March reappraisal could be avoided. Cabinet paperss released under the thirty-year regulation, sparse as they are, by and large confirm this sequence of events. The paperss for 1958 reflect: Diefenbaker & # 8217 ; s choler with the A.V.
Roe & # 8220 ; lobby & # 8221 ; which he claimed was intense, concern over the cost of the plan ; the refusal of the Americans to back up the plan ; and the obsolescence of aircraft created by the Inter Continental Ballistic Missile ( ICBM ) . In 1959 Diefenbaker & # 8217 ; s chief concern was non with the cancellation of the Arrow, but with how to state the populace the intelligence of its decease sentence. The 1960 documents show a Diefenbaker agonizing over how to acknowledge to the populace that the authorities was sing purchasing a supersonic combatant, the CF101 Voodoo, from the U.S. The Hon. John Diefenbaker in his memoirs One Canada: the Old ages of Achievement 1956 to 1962, does non even advert the Arrow cancellation.
Before the cancellation there was no equivalent to a defence & # 8220 ; white paper & # 8221 ; that examined Canada & # 8217 ; s military function and hardware demands and that would hold allowed public debate.A. V. Roe had been told on a figure of occasions in 1958 that the pre-production order for 32 Mark 2 Arrows with the Iroquois engine was non in jeopardy.The cancellation was made on Feb. 20th, 1959, by Diefenbaker & # 8217 ; s proclamation in the House and the coincident notice to the company to discontinue all work. This left no room for a public argument. A figure of grounds for the cancellation were given after the fact.
With the Diefenbaker authorities & # 8217 ; s concerns about public dealingss, it is non surprising that a figure of them were aimed at discrediting A. V. Roe and the CF-105. Even with the information available at the clip, these & # 8220 ; grounds & # 8221 ; are non excessively hard to belie. There were het statements, but no arguments in the sense that the authorities was willing to alter its head. There were five major & # 8220 ; grounds & # 8221 ; given by the authorities: & # 8221 ; The plan was excessively costly. & # 8221 ; This appears to hold been the major alibi for the cancellation.
The Arrow was an economically efficient design. Diefenbaker & # 8217 ; s claim was that the Arrow plan would hold cost two billion dollars by 1964 for 169 aircraft or 12 million for each aircraft and that this was excessively much. To set this in position: in 1982 the CF18 which Canada purchased fromthe U.S. , was estimated to be 5.2 billion for 138 aircraft or 37.7 million each.6 Escalating Diefenbaker’s estimation for the Arrow from 1962 to 1982 brings his monetary value to 34.
3 million each, or 10 % less than the CF18. Diefenbaker’s estimated 12 million was extremely hyperbolic, at the same clip the company was offering a au naturel bones monetary value of 3.6 million. The existent cost was in between these two Numberss.
This would hold made the Arrow about half the cost of the CF18. The large thing was that most of the money spent on the Arrow stayed in Canada while most of the money spent on the CF18 has left the state. The subject running all through the cost statement was that Canada was excessively little and excessively hapless to set about such a undertaking as the Arrow without fiscal aid from our Big Brother to the South.The Diefenbaker authorities ne’er publically stated what the cost of cancellation was. There was a steadfast order for 32 Mk 2 Arrows with the Iroquois engine. All work completed and outstanding purchase orders for these aircraft had to be paid for along with cancellation punishments. One newsman suggested that cancellation costs were close to the cost of finishing 32 Mk 2s.7 The authorities & # 8217 ; s attack was to conceal the cost by distributing cancellation payments over several old ages so that the sum would non look on any one twelvemonth & # 8217 ; s budget.
The delaying maneuver used was to alter the claims procedure half manner through the procedure. Attempts to salve anything from the plan were suppressed by the authorities. This was particularly true of the Iroquois engine development, which was brought to an terminal while there still were possible clients for the engine. We will ne’er cognize how much this cost Canada. Another cost of the cancellation was the loss of close to 30,000 occupations across Canada, but largely in Ontario.8 More of import to the hereafter of the state was the motion of 100s, possibly 1000s, of skilled applied scientists and technicians to the U.S. This was a loss Canada could non afford.
Like the cancellation costs, these costs did non come into the Government & # 8217 ; s accounting. Another loss to Canada was that of the sum of research and development work and cognition that came from the Arrow plan. The devastation of the aircraft, engine, all the tooling, trial rigs, studies, drawings and computing machine plans made this work irrecoverable. Since many of these people left Canada, that cognition went with them. The Arrow cancellation was a blow to research and development in Canada. The RCAF & # 8217 ; s Institute of Aviation Medicine was to a great extent involved in the Arrow plan and had built up an international repute for excellence.
The cancellation of the Arrow earnestly decreased their work. The monetary value of Canadian sovereignty, what could hold been the cost benefits from the Arrow plan and the cost punishments associated with the cancellation do non look to hold been considered at all. & # 8221 ; The aircraft did non hold sufficient range. & # 8221 ; The RCAF specification AIR 7-3 called for a minimal high-velocity combat radius of 200 maritime stat mis. The Arrow non merely could run into this demand, but besides is quoted as holding had a & # 8220 ; full internal fuel & # 8221 ; radius for this mission of 436 maritime stat mis. A proposed hereafter alteration would hold increased the radius to about 650 maritime miles.9 & # 8220 ; The ICBM with a atomic payload had made bombers, and therefore combatant aircraft, obsolete.
& # 8221 ; This was a misconception. ICBMs with atomic payloads in the custodies of both the Soviet and the West introduced MAD ( Mutual Assured Destruction ) and a deadlock every bit far as atomic war was concerned. It did non prevent conventional war with its usage of bombers and combatant aircraft. Korea and the build-up of conventional arms in Europe under NATO prior to 1958 dullard informant to this. When the Arrow was cancelled, neither the West nor the Soviets stopped developing aircraft.
The present households of aircraft with their smart arms as used in the Gulf war are the end merchandise of this development. Canada stopped developing its ain aircraft, but continued to get them. Military combatant aircraft were a long manner from going disused when the Arrow was cancelled. & # 8220 ; An alternate arm, the Bomarc, could make the same occupation at a much lower cost to Canada. & # 8221 ; The Bomarc was a ground-launched, winged missile that homed in on a radio detection and ranging signal bounced off an entrance enemy. It was an anti- aircraft ; non an anti-missile arm as some members of Cabinet assumed it to be. Its scope and public presentation were approximately the same as the Arrow & # 8217 ; s.
The complete arms system consisted of the Bomarc with a atomic payload and a land radio detection and ranging and communications system. There was to be a line of establishing sites strung across North America near the Canadian-American boundary line. When Canada agreed to accept the Bomarc, two of these sites would be relocated into Canada: one at North Bay and one in northern Quebec. The system was a non a success and was bit by bit phased out by the U.S. Defense Minister Pearkes.
In the terminal, the Diefenbaker authorities embarrassed the Americans by take a firm standing on utilizing the Bomarc as a replacement for the Arrow after the U.S. was holding serious 2nd ideas about the plan. It had many mistakes.
It could be fired merely one time doing it instead hard to prove. It could non ; as with a manned aeroplane, see what the mark truly was before it blew up the mark. It was vulnerable to electronic counter-measures and it required a atomic payload to be effectual. & # 8220 ; Foreign gross revenues, particularly to the U.
S. , were unlikely. & # 8221 ; Foreign gross revenues were improbable unless the Canadian authorities bought the Arrow foremost and set it into service. With the aircraft in service and a success, there would ever be the possibility of foreign gross revenues. The exclusion would be gross revenues to the U.S. The powerful anterooms of the American aircraft industry could be expected to oppose efficaciously any U.S.
purchase of a complete aircraft. Carry throughing Canadian duties to NORAD and NATO would hold been adequate to do the Arrow plan worth while. Foreign gross revenues, while helpful, were non a requirement for the program.The sarcasm is that the two major plans the authorities used to back up cancellation of the Arrow, the Bomarc and defense mechanism production sharing, both turned out to be floating-point operations. In 1958, prior to the existent cancellation of the Arrow, the U.S.
planned to construct 40 Bomarc bases. The plan ran into problem and the figure was reduced to eighteen, so to twelve with the advocates of the Bomarc combat to salvage the plan. Canada was told in mid July of 1960, merely over a twelvemonth after the cancellation of the Arrow, of the plan & # 8217 ; s hold and work on the two bases in Canada was slowed down.The jobs with the Bomarc had serious effects. On February 4th, 1960, Cabinet was told that a supersonic combatant was needed to support Canada. The Commander in Chief of NORAD, General Kuter, was bespeaking the replacing of the CF100 with some up-to-date equipment.
The Canadian Chiefs of Staff recommended the purchase of 66 C101Bs ( the Voodoo ) from the U.S. These were 2nd manus aircraft bing less than the Arrow, but with much lower performance.The political deductions of this proposed purchase so shortly after the Arrow cancellation were obvious. On March 8th, 1960, Cabinet decided non to negociate it. The international state of affairs deteriorated and on July 4th a proposal was put earlier Cabinet to interchange 37 CL44s, bottoms built by Canadair in Montreal, for the 66 Voodoos.
Each bundle was valued at about 155 million. A trade was worked out and announced by Diefenbaker about a twelvemonth subsequently on June 12th, 1961. There is no record of any CL44s being sent to the USAF. This exchange fell through because it was an election twelvemonth in the U.S. and the disposal at that place did non desire to put on the line antagonizing the American aircraft industry.
The concluding trade was for Canada to adult male 16 Pinetree Line radio detection and ranging bases in exchange for the Voodoos. Obviously this concluding trade was non every bit much aid to Canadian industry as the original proposal would hold been, but so dickering with the U.S. has ne’er been easy. Not so good known is the fact that defense mechanism production sharing turned out to be a playing field in favor of the U.S. The purchasing process in the U.S.
followed the normal pattern of publishing a specification to those on the bidder & # 8217 ; s list in the U.S. and naming for stamps to be in by a certain due day of the month. An information meeting would be arranged by the bureau naming for stamps so that all the prospective bidders would hold a opportunity to inquire inquiries and acquire any unsure countries cleared up. When the specification was issued to U.S.
providers, it would besides travel to a joint U.S./Canadian commission who would make up one’s mind if Canadian providers could take portion in the command.
If the reply were yes, the specification would so be sent to the Canadian authorities, which would go around it to Canadian firms.With these built in holds, by the clip a Canadian house got the specification, the day of the month of the information meeting would be past and the due day of the month for stamps quickly nearing. There were even instances in which the petition for stamps arrived after the shutting day of the month. Bibliography Books: Pedan, Murray. Fall of an Arrow. Sittsville: Canada s Wings, 1978. Organ, Richard, Page, Ron, Watson, Don, Wilkinson, Les.
Avro Arrow: The Story of the Avro Arrow From Its Development To Its Extinction, Erin: THE BOSTON MILLS PRESS Campagna, Palmiro, Storms of Controversy. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Co. Limited, 1992. Stewart, Greig, Closing Down the National Dream, Whitby: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1997. Internet: Champion, Chris, The Arrow myth still flies hypertext transfer protocol: //diefenbaker.ottawa.
com/text/ar1.htm & gt ; Belleville Intelligencer, Search to get down for Avro Arrow Models hypertext transfer protocol: //diefenbaker.ottawa.
com/text/windsor1.htm & gt ; Zuk, Bill. The Roll-out of the Avro Arrow hypertext transfer protocol: //www.achq.dnd.
ca/roundel/jun96/rollout.htm & gt ; Notes: 1 ) House of Commons, Debates, 20 February 1959, 1221-24 ; J. B. McLin, Canada s Changing Defence Policy, 1957-1963 ( Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1967 ) .2 ) Avro News, Vol.
3, 4 October 1957. 3 ) Page 118 and 119 of The House is non a Home by Erik Neilson, Published by Macmillan, 1989.4 ) Page 9 to 19 of Vol. 2 of So Very Near by the Hon.
Donald Fleming. 5 ) Ibid. page 416 and 417 of Vol. 1 6 ) Pages 249 and 256 of There Never was an Arrow by E. K. Shaw7 ) Footnote on page 158 of Fall of an Arrow by Peden.8 ) Page 157 of Fall of an Arrow by Pedan.9 ) Page 155 of Avro Arrow by Organ et Al.