Avro Arrow RL-206

[Spencer100]

The difference is that the Arrow was never going to be anything other then an interceptor. That style of aircraft (the design) wasn't going to practical for a multirole fighter, reconnaissance plane, strike fighter, etc. It was also not as competitive as other designs our allies were cooking up such as......

North American XF-108 Rapier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BAC TSR-2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The issue with the cancelation of the Arrow was that the workers had no other projects to fall into. This speaks to a bigger issue that Canada didn't have a lot of development going on after the Canuck. If the government of Canada was serious about keeping this industry then there would have been a fighter in development or even not had the Arrow at all. Interceptors of this size seem like a huge gamble to place most of your aerospace defence sector on.

You seem to be missing the point of the F4. People here keep bringing it up because it was a great design that was able to stay on the front lines of NATO until the end of the Cold War. A large interceptor such as the Arrow doesn't have a lot of appeal to Benelux countries and we everyone had their own industries to sustain/buy from. If you want a successful fighter program in Canada to survive that might only work by teaming up with the Brits or Dutch.

Even if Canada had been able to afford a few squadrons no one else was going to buy it. There would have been no follow on replacement. The Arrow would have served into the 70's and been retired. The RCAF would not been able to afford a upgrade path. What happen I would say was the best outcome for the Canadian aerospace indusrty as a whole. Companies here then concentrated on subsystems and solutions for the other aero giants.

I would also put it to you the death of Bombardier over the last few years is a large blow than the Arrow. Canada will never have a OEM prime again.

 

[childs56]

Even if Canada had been able to afford a few squadrons no one else was going to buy it.

The British were going to buy a few of them for the interim.

There would have been no follow on replacement.

How would you know? They never went into production, Nor did we follow up with any tech that was used.

The Arrow would have served into the 70's and been retired. The RCAF would not been able to afford a upgrade path.

That's your opinion. Had the jet of performed I am sure as things went along they would have improved the performance and design similar to many other manufactures.

What happen I would say was the best outcome for the Canadian aerospace indusrty as a whole. Companies here then concentrated on subsystems and solutions for the other aero giants.

I disagree, we could have had one heck of a aerospace industry, Right now we have one of the best tech sectors in aircraft integrations systems int he world.

I would also put it to you the death of Bombardier over the last few years is a large blow than the Arrow.

That was their own doing.

Canada will never have a OEM prime again.

I disagree. de Havilland seems to be doing pretty good. not to mention the companies on the following list.

https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-information.aerospace_product_and_parts_manufacturing.ca.html

 

[lenaitch]

The British were going to buy a few of them for the interim.

I have not read that, anywhere.

Even if it were true, unless it spurred other buyers, "a few" still wouldn't keep a line going.

One opportunity missed was failure to hive off Orenda Engines. The Iroquois was showing significant potential and is much more marketable internationally than a complete aircraft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have not read that, anywhere.

Even if it were true, unless it spurred other buyers, "a few" still wouldn't keep a line going.

One opportunity missed was failure to hive off Orenda Engines. The Iroquois was showing significant potential and is much more marketable internationally than a complete aircraft.

Even if they had paused/cancelled the program, but kept 6 going as testbeds, it would have done our aerospace industry a lot of good.

 

[WestIsle]

I have not read that, anywhere.

Even if it were true, unless it spurred other buyers, "a few" still wouldn't keep a line going.

One opportunity missed was failure to hive off Orenda Engines. The Iroquois was showing significant potential and is much more marketable internationally than a complete aircraft.

I actually just read about this the other day. The Brits were looking at potentially buying into the Avro Arrow however they quickly came to the conclusion that this wasnt the type of aircraft they would be needing in the near future. They cancelled their own planned interceptor and nearly killed the Lightning which itself was an interim fighter.

 

[WestIsle]

Even if they had paused/cancelled the program, but kept 6 going as testbeds, it would have done our aerospace industry a lot of good.

Again this kinda goes to the point that pursuing this program was the death knell of native fighter development. No one was going to buy a non native jet engine to put in their planes and with us knowing what we do now they would have just shut production of this new engine with the proceeding governments.

But a proper fighter in leu of the starfighter/voodoo and/or a joint F4 production line with the British..... lots of potential there. Which isn't suprising as we pretty much made the worse choice at every turn by having to get the starfighter and voodoos as well as later going with the F5 which was useless and the worst choice possible.

 

[NavyShooter]

As good as the Arrow had the potential to be, it was still, truly, an untested prototype system.

I love the Arrow. I'm fascinated by the group that is building a flying, scale representation of one out west. The concept of a 'made in Canada' fighter jet? Based on our wartime production experience? GREAT idea. In practice though, we need to look at what we actually 'made in Canada' during the war.

We built aircraft based on other nation's designs.

We built tanks - the Ram and Ram II - but in the end we used the Sherman, and after the war, we switched over to the Sherman instead of the Ram.

We certainly innovated - fly by wire technology, swappable belly-pack for weapons load out, new engines, new missiles, so much that makes it sound like a modern aircraft.

But.

It was a modern concept, with 1950's production and testing, and, if we look at how long-lived most aircraft from that era were, particularly the supersonic interceptors (see the US's Century Series) we have to face the fact that most of them didn't have a long life.

We can talk around the problem all we want, but hopes and dreams will not fix the reality.

The Arrow was damn expensive. Too expensive. It was still effectively a prototype, with undeveloped missiles, prototype engines, and an unproven airframe.

Canada could have continued in the path of the Hurricane, Lancaster and F-86, and gotten another nation's successful design into production.

We did not. We struck out on our own, and we struck out.

If we'd picked another nation's aircraft and started a production line (ie BAE Lightning or F-4 Phantom maybe) then we'd have had a great chance at success, and a great chance at maintaining a domestic military aircraft production capability.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

The British were going to buy a few of them for the interim.

How would you know? They never went into production, Nor did we follow up with any tech that was used.

That's your opinion. Had the jet of performed I am sure as things went along they would have improved the performance and design similar to many other manufactures.

I disagree, we could have had one heck of a aerospace industry, Right now we have one of the best tech sectors in aircraft integrations systems int he world.


That was their own doing.

I disagree. de Havilland seems to be doing pretty good. not to mention the companies on the following list.

https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-information.aerospace_product_and_parts_manufacturing.ca.html

de Haviland Canada was sold off to Viking Air of Victoria, they purchased the rights to the Chipmunk, the Beaver, the Otter, Caribou, Buffalo, Twin Otter and the Dash 7, Dash 8 models.

They are not building new designs or designing new aircraft, they are building from older designs. Only new aircraft is the improved version of the Canadair CL 415 , the fire fighting aircraft, the newer redesigned model is the DHC 515 firefighter.

The redesign is not cutting edge work, they had the plans from older models and updated them.

Even Bombardier is not making or designing newer aircraft.

Canada does not have a huge market or interest in designing new aircraft.

Yes we could of had a huge impact on the aerospace industry but Canadian designs seem to be a one hit wonder and limited need or requirement.

The Arrow, amazing for its time. The CanadaArm for the Space Shuttle and station. ( Shuttles are gone, no more needed there, space station is built and parts might be required for repairs, but not much of a market ).

No rockets launches from Canadian soil in decades.

Canadian companies, government and people in general have to stop living in the past and reliving past glories, much like past glories of hockey teams and start living in the present and realize what we did or had in the past is not end all be all, but they have to look to the future and plan for that and design for that. Either Canadians build it or sell it. But reliving a 1950s design and comparing it to the designs of today is like comparing the NHL stars from Canada to the stars of the NHL of the 1950s, the game has changed and the players of today kept pace with the changes in the game but our aerospace industry has not kept up with Canadian made products, but do produce parts of todays designs.


The Arrow is dead, would of been museum pieces now if they made it just like the F18s are already in museums in Canada and still flying

 

[lenaitch]

As good as the Arrow had the potential to be, it was still, truly, an untested prototype system.

I love the Arrow. I'm fascinated by the group that is building a flying, scale representation of one out west. The concept of a 'made in Canada' fighter jet? Based on our wartime production experience? GREAT idea. In practice though, we need to look at what we actually 'made in Canada' during the war.

We built aircraft based on other nation's designs.

We built tanks - the Ram and Ram II - but in the end we used the Sherman, and after the war, we switched over to the Sherman instead of the Ram.

We certainly innovated - fly by wire technology, swappable belly-pack for weapons load out, new engines, new missiles, so much that makes it sound like a modern aircraft.

But.

It was a modern concept, with 1950's production and testing, and, if we look at how long-lived most aircraft from that era were, particularly the supersonic interceptors (see the US's Century Series) we have to face the fact that most of them didn't have a long life.

We can talk around the problem all we want, but hopes and dreams will not fix the reality.

The Arrow was damn expensive. Too expensive. It was still effectively a prototype, with undeveloped missiles, prototype engines, and an unproven airframe.

Canada could have continued in the path of the Hurricane, Lancaster and F-86, and gotten another nation's successful design into production.

We did not. We struck out on our own, and we struck out.

If we'd picked another nation's aircraft and started a production line (ie BAE Lightning or F-4 Phantom maybe) then we'd have had a great chance at success, and a great chance at maintaining a domestic military aircraft production capability.

The main quibble I have is not that it was cancelled, but how it was cancelled. I am aware that there have been reports of Soviet infiltration, but we will never know. I remain convinced it was either out of spite because of animosity between Diefenbaker and Crawford Gordon or somehow influenced by the US (I have read that Dief and Eisenhower didn't get along) to kill, one and for all, any serious Canadian military aerospace industry.

Can you imagine a sitting government today killing tens of thousands of jobs, overnight, by the stroke of a pen? The closest I can think of was the 1990s Cod moratorium.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Can you imagine a sitting government today killing tens of thousands of jobs, overnight, by the stroke of a pen? The closest I can think of was the 1990s Cod moratorium.

And as I recall that the Government of the day practically had to be convinced at gun point to shut it down.
The fishery was that political to the point that they were willing to risk it's collapse. Probably a good thing they weren't too close to an election or I suspect that Cod would now be extinct.

 

[childs56]

de Haviland Canada was sold off to Viking Air of Victoria, they purchased the rights to the Chipmunk, the Beaver, the Otter, Caribou, Buffalo, Twin Otter and the Dash 7, Dash 8 models.

They are not building new designs or designing new aircraft, they are building from older designs. Only new aircraft is the improved version of the Canadair CL 415 , the fire fighting aircraft, the newer redesigned model is the DHC 515 firefighter.

Boeing 700 series aircraft, the F15, B52, F16 these are are old design given a new lease on life through out the years

The redesign is not cutting edge work, they had the plans from older models and updated them.

Updated cockpits that are NVG compatible, new engines, flight controls etc Makes for a similar looking aircraft with new designs, structurally.

Even Bombardier is not making or designing newer aircraft.

Bombardier well government funded failed company.

Canada does not have a huge market or interest in designing new aircraft.

I would say we don't have one right now. Had Bombardier actually listened to the customer I think they would be still in the game for many customers. Instead they built what they wanted and tried to create a market for their various products.

Yes we could of had a huge impact on the aerospace industry but Canadian designs seem to be a one hit wonder and limited need or requirement.

The Arrow, amazing for its time. The CanadaArm for the Space Shuttle and station. ( Shuttles are gone, no more needed there, space station is built and parts might be required for repairs, but not much of a market ).

Yes but Canada arm 1, 2 and 3 are valuable market additions that shows Canada can and still builds meaningful Aerospace products. Note Arm 2 and 3 are still active.

No rockets launches from Canadian soil in decades.

One does not need to launch rockets, those are the easy part. It is the mission load that is important. We have have developed and continue to develop various missions loads for ourselves and partners around the world.

Canadian companies, government and people in general have to stop living in the past and reliving past glories, much like past glories of hockey teams and start living in the present and realize what we did or had in the past is not end all be all, but they have to look to the future and plan for that and design for that. Either Canadians build it or sell it. But reliving a 1950s design and comparing it to the designs of today is like comparing the NHL stars from Canada to the stars of the NHL of the 1950s, the game has changed and the players of today kept pace with the changes in the game but our aerospace industry has not kept up with Canadian made products, but do produce parts of todays designs.

Funny, the Leopard 2 tank is a 1970s design, the F16, F15, Cobra helos, etc are all 1960-70s. But they have improved upon them. Canada has not improved upon the Arrow design, we scrapped the entire project, let the developers leave south of the border. There they went on to continue the various military and civilian equipment we now buy from them.
We essentially could have built a market here. I think we will see DE Havilland start to impress the world market once they get their new facility built.

The Arrow is dead, would of been museum pieces now if they made it just like the F18s are already in museums in Canada and still flying

F18 series are still front line F15s are still front line we don't own any, f16s are front line again we don't own any of those. They are in museums but also still flying.
The upgraded Arrow, or Arrow II or even III could have been a significant

Sweden has manufactured many Military Aircraft for their military over the years, and still do to this day. So any argument that we did not have a big enough market is simply justifying to yourself and others why we failed miserably at creating a specific industry to supply our needs.

The simple fact that closing down and dismantling the fighter program in Canada was a tragic moment in Canadian Aviation and industry along with taking away our autonomy and dependance on the US mainly for our protection. Politics played very well, we still reap the failure of the time from this today with our industries. " our to small of a market" is a ket phrase used by so many to justify selling ourselves out to the larger provider. US and China. We still do have many industries that are leading the way in tech and innovation. But think what we could have been a leading provider of large equipment.
We could have been designing, and building leading edge ships, Aircraft and other large equipment. Had we not given in to the "to small a market" that many hear keep saying.

 

[YZT580]

The main quibble I have is not that it was cancelled, but how it was cancelled. I am aware that there have been reports of Soviet infiltration, but we will never know. I remain convinced it was either out of spite because of animosity between Diefenbaker and Crawford Gordon or somehow influenced by the US (I have read that Dief and Eisenhower didn't get along) to kill, one and for all, any serious Canadian military aerospace industry.

Can you imagine a sitting government today killing tens of thousands of jobs, overnight, by the stroke of a pen? The closest I can think of was the 1990s Cod moratorium.

don't forget our current attempts to destroy the oil industry in Alberta. That will add up to thousands of jobs.

 

[lenaitch]

don't forget our current attempts to destroy the oil industry in Alberta. That will add up to thousands of jobs.

Not biting.

 

[FSTO]

(I have read that Dief and Eisenhower didn't get along

Dief and Ike got along well, it was Kennedy with whom he did not like at all.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Boeing 700 series aircraft, the F15, B52, F16 these are are old design given a new lease on life through out the years

Updated cockpits that are NVG compatible, new engines, flight controls etc Makes for a similar looking aircraft with new designs, structurally.

Bombardier well government funded failed company.

I would say we don't have one right now. Had Bombardier actually listened to the customer I think they would be still in the game for many customers. Instead they built what they wanted and tried to create a market for their various products.

Yes but Canada arm 1, 2 and 3 are valuable market additions that shows Canada can and still builds meaningful Aerospace products. Note Arm 2 and 3 are still active.

One does not need to launch rockets, those are the easy part. It is the mission load that is important. We have have developed and continue to develop various missions loads for ourselves and partners around the world.

Funny, the Leopard 2 tank is a 1970s design, the F16, F15, Cobra helos, etc are all 1960-70s. But they have improved upon them. Canada has not improved upon the Arrow design, we scrapped the entire project, let the developers leave south of the border. There they went on to continue the various military and civilian equipment we now buy from them.
We essentially could have built a market here. I think we will see DE Havilland start to impress the world market once they get their new facility built.

F18 series are still front line F15s are still front line we don't own any, f16s are front line again we don't own any of those. They are in museums but also still flying.
The upgraded Arrow, or Arrow II or even III could have been a significant

Sweden has manufactured many Military Aircraft for their military over the years, and still do to this day. So any argument that we did not have a big enough market is simply justifying to yourself and others why we failed miserably at creating a specific industry to supply our needs.

The simple fact that closing down and dismantling the fighter program in Canada was a tragic moment in Canadian Aviation and industry along with taking away our autonomy and dependance on the US mainly for our protection. Politics played very well, we still reap the failure of the time from this today with our industries. " our to small of a market" is a ket phrase used by so many to justify selling ourselves out to the larger provider. US and China. We still do have many industries that are leading the way in tech and innovation. But think what we could have been a leading provider of large equipment.
We could have been designing, and building leading edge ships, Aircraft and other large equipment. Had we not given in to the "to small a market" that many hear keep saying.

Biggest problem with Canada and military purchases , Canada does not buy new equipment every year, every decade or even every generation.
How does an in country industry survive from 1 generation to the next if there is no interest in new equipment, how does the company keep up to date on the changes if no one is funding them by buying their products?

There was no writing set in stone that the RCAF or the Canadian government was going to purchase the Arrow, and if they did would it be in big enough numbers to make the aircraft affordable. There were other air forces kicking the tires and checking it out but the RAF Air Marshal is not the one writing the cheque in the end. The UK government has 2 jobs when purchasing new equipment for their military, buy the best equipment they can afford and make the best efforts to support in country industries that build the equipment and employ the voters.


Yes the F18 is still a front line aircraft, but it is based on a 44 year old plan. Upgrades and Updates do not change the fact it is 44 year old frame. Not many other countries still fly the F18 A model. They have updated and redesigned it into the Super Hornet. But Canada did not buy into the newer version.

It is very hard to improve on an aircraft that never was anything beyond the test platform. As great as the numbers were, does not mean it was a done deal and had buyers lining up with suitcases or train car loads of cash to buy it.

Comparing Sweden and Canada is not exactly apples to apples. They both have air forces but Swedish airspace and Canada airspace are not even close in size.

Sweden has 70 fighters JAS 39C with E models on order. service start of 1996
Canada has 80 plus 18 models from RAAF service date of 1982
Sweden has AWAC type aircraft 2 in service, and 2 on order Canada has none,
Sweden has 1 Herc for refueling plus 5 for transport
Canada has 29 Hercs in various missions platforms
Sweden has 53 helicopters , 3 different models, UH 60, NH90 and AW109
Canada has 125 heilcopters various models
Sweden has 2 turbo props Saab 340s and 4 Gulfstreams for transport
Canada has 18 planes on order or flying for transport and refueling missions
Sweden has no heavy lift aircraft
Canada has 5
Sweden has almost 70 trainer aircraft, jet and prop driven.
Canada has 109 training aircraft, jet and prop driven
Sweden has 8 UAV
Canada has 18 various models in operation or on order

AS for Tanks, the mid 90s Canada was getting ready to get rid of the tank, watching the testing of the wheeled vehicles in the USA with a tank mount gun and the failures stopped Canada from removing the tank from the Battlefield. At least over the years the Canadian Government and the military saw the value in tank upgrades, but no new purchases till the war on terror. Canadian army took the beasts of war out and realized they were badly in need of something newer and leased and purchased newer models. ( Look at other posts here, the newer models are not updated but sitting awaiting updates and upgrades).


For Canadian Industry to manufacture anything for the military in Canada and live thru the dark periods of no business and then to restart 25, 30 or even 40 years later it is next to impossible to do and compete with outside companies and countries. How Sweden pays for the R&D for a fighter jet and manages to buy it and sell it on the world market. They need to come to Canada and how us how to do it.

 

[childs56]

Biggest problem with Canada and military purchases , Canada does not buy new equipment every year, every decade or even every generation.
How does an in country industry survive from 1 generation to the next if there is no interest in new equipment, how does the company keep up to date on the changes if no one is funding them by buying their products?

Neither does Sweden, but they build maintain and overhaul their equipment. We do the same. No excuse to not build here.

There was no writing set in stone that the RCAF or the Canadian government was going to purchase the Arrow, and if they did would it be in big enough numbers to make the aircraft affordable. There were other air forces kicking the tires and checking it out but the RAF Air Marshal is not the one writing the cheque in the end. The UK government has 2 jobs when purchasing new equipment for their military, buy the best equipment they can afford and make the best efforts to support in country industries that build the equipment and employ the voters.

The UK was getting engine build work from the Arrow, had their fighter program not been as quick as it was and had Canada of committed to building the Arrow then more then likely would have sold some airframes.

Yes the F18 is still a front line aircraft, but it is based on a 44 year old plan. Upgrades and Updates do not change the fact it is 44 year old frame. Not many other countries still fly the F18 A model. They have updated and redesigned it into the Super Hornet. But Canada did not buy into the newer version.

It is very hard to improve on an aircraft that never was anything beyond the test platform. As great as the numbers were, does not mean it was a done deal and had buyers lining up with suitcases or train car loads of cash to buy it.

Kind of similar to the US when we originally built the Lavs, I remember watching some trials in the US. The Soldiers seemed impressed. But the money strings said no. That was until the Lav deployed to Afghanistan and proved its worth. The US bought more then a few of them.

Comparing Sweden and Canada is not exactly apples to apples. They both have air forces but Swedish airspace and Canada airspace are not even close in size.

Why is it not comparing. In fact Canada should have more robust Aerospace Defense program then Sweden. Due to our airspace requirements. They should be Canadian Aircraft protecting our skies and and our Oceans.
Canada should have three to four times the size of Airforce as Sweden does, not only do we have a larger airspace to defend, monitor and protect. We also deploy forces around the world, should have direct support for those forces.

Sweden has 70 fighters JAS 39C with E models on order. service start of 1996
Canada has 80 plus 18 models from RAAF service date of 1982

We had 138.

Sweden has AWAC type aircraft 2 in service, and 2 on order Canada has none,
Sweden has 1 Herc for refueling plus 5 for transport
Canada has 29 Hercs in various missions platforms
Sweden has 53 helicopters , 3 different models, UH 60, NH90 and AW109
Canada has 125 heilcopters various models
Sweden has 2 turbo props Saab 340s and 4 Gulfstreams for transport
Canada has 18 planes on order or flying for transport and refueling missions
Sweden has no heavy lift aircraft
Canada has 5
Sweden has almost 70 trainer aircraft, jet and prop driven.
Canada has 109 training aircraft, jet and prop driven
Sweden has 8 UAV
Canada has 18 various models in operation or on order

AS for Tanks, the mid 90s Canada was getting ready to get rid of the tank, watching the testing of the wheeled vehicles in the USA with a tank mount gun and the failures stopped Canada from removing the tank from the Battlefield. At least over the years the Canadian Government and the military saw the value in tank upgrades, but no new purchases till the war on terror. Canadian army took the beasts of war out and realized they were badly in need of something newer and leased and purchased newer models. ( Look at other posts here, the newer models are not updated but sitting awaiting updates and upgrades).


For Canadian Industry to manufacture anything for the military in Canada and live thru the dark periods of no business and then to restart 25, 30 or even 40 years later it is next to impossible to do and compete with outside companies and countries. How Sweden pays for the R&D for a fighter jet and manages to buy it and sell it on the world market. They need to come to Canada and how us how to do it.

I would disagree with your last statement, GM Land Systems Canada is going strong building, upgrading, overhauling and repairing our Lav fleet.
L3 and IMP (two examples are/were/was/is busy looking after our aircraft. Doing overhaul, long term maintenance and research into retro fits. They also do work for other countries.

Any argument that Canada could not sustain a (aircraft) manufacturing facility here building fighters, tanks, artillery is simply ignoring the long term sustainment also required. That we provide those services not on for Canadian equipment but also our partners from around the world.

 

[lenaitch]

GM Land Systems Canada

Actually GD Land Systems Canada; General Dynamics, a subsidiary of a US company. To be completely fair, so were A V Roe Canada and DeHaviland; although I don't know the respective business relationships with their parents.

 

[childs56]

Actually GD Land Systems Canada; General Dynamics, a subsidiary of a US company. To be completely fair, so were A V Roe Canada and DeHaviland; although I don't know the respective business relationships with their parents.

AVRO and DE Havilland were both subsidiaries companies of British origin but built/ designed independent of the parent company. Similar to what GDLS Canada does.