Really good old 1979 Avro Arrow documentary!

[Michel Lemieux]

Really good old 1979 Avro Arrow documentary!

It is 6 parts total! Being Canadian, I am soooo happy to have found this.

The archival footing and the commentaries are really good!

Cheers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwtsMOzVDU

[k5083]

I recall watching it when it aired! It's a bit biased and stretches a few of the political things, but very compelling.

August

[Michel Lemieux]

It's a bit biased and stretches a few of the political things

Agreed. Like all things it is a question of time and perspective.

But I found the archival footage more than enjoyable!

[JohnB]

Its proponents who see sinister forces at work on its cancellation never seem to point out that at the time of its cancellation, the days of manned interceptors were thought to be over.
Indeed, I'm not aware of any dedicated interceptor being fielded by the West after that time.
The then new F4H succeeded because of its multi mission capabilities, and the early interceptor F-104, became an export success only after becoming the multi mission "G" model.

The Duncan Sandys UK defense White Paper of 1957 meant the RAF's last interceptor would be the EE Lightning, which was deemed too far along to cancel.
In the U.S. F-106 buys were cut, and upgrades of it and the F-12 never saw service.
The UK paper said SAMs were the next big thing, so it is no wonder that the Canadians were offered and bought the state of the art BOMARCs.

So, logically, the the U.S. wouldn't have feared export sales of the Arrow since the US wasn't producing a competor, and the avionics suite was, if I'm not mistaken, an American designed unit. So, the US would have made some money in the type. I suspect other components or raw material came from South of the border as well.

Also, if America were really that afraid of competition, would the have given a relatively new strategic bomber, a B-47, to be used as an engine test bed? That was a pretty generous gift and the only U.S. strategic bomber to see foreign ownership (not counting the ex-SAC FB-111s which were later reworked and supplied to Australia to augment their earlier 111 purchase).
Despite being un-modified after the Arrow's cancellation, it was immediately sent to the boneyard.

Sometimes, like JFK and UFOs, there really isn't a vast conspiracy.
It was an expensive piece of machinery that international experts said would not be needed. And a new conservative PM was looking at ways to trim spending.

Like the B-70, the Arrow was a great looking aircraft whose mission was eclipsed by missiles...the same way future manned aircraft might be replaced by UAV/drones.

I suggest reading UK author Bill Gunston's Early Supersonic Fighters of the West.

Last edited by JohnB on Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Michel Lemieux]

From a Canadian perspective I totally get what you are saying. And you are right.

The sad part from my end is why scap everything? Prototypes, drawings, plans, tooling and all!!!!!

Were they afraid of some of the material to fall into enemy hands?

[Kyleb]

From a Canadian perspective I totally get what you are saying. And you are right.

The sad part from my end is why scap everything? Prototypes, drawings, plans, tooling and all!!!!!

Were they afraid of some of the material to fall into enemy hands?

I imagine they wanted to end the project and be done with it, so it wouldn't come up in discussions again and again for a decade. If you destroy the engineering and tooling, anyone who wants to restart the program has a much higher barrier to entry.

I'm not saying that is the right or wrong approach, but it is an approach when you want to put the issue to bed forever.

[Michel Lemieux]

Could have sold the IP!? There was a LOT of $ involved.

[dhfan]

Exactly the same thing happened with the TSR.2. Drawings, jigs and apparently data were all destroyed and the only aircraft to fly was sent to Foulness as a gunnery target. Two airframes survived against the odds, one of which was due to fly on the day of cancellation, and another which was incomplete.

[Michel Lemieux]

and the only aircraft to fly was sent to Foulness as a gunnery target

Does it count as combat experience?

At least you have an original surviving bird.

I am thankful that we do have lots of bits and parts at our national aviation museum and that 2 full size replicas exist.

This however....I cannot wait to see!!!! Should be interesting!

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=70886&p=624382&hilit=avro+arrow#p624382

https://www.avromuseum.com/

[Kyleb]

Could have sold the IP!? There was a LOT of $ involved.

IP only has value if there is a future use. As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the era of the manned interceptor was supposedly over, so who needed IP around building a bigger/better interceptor? Similarly, the IP was probably useless for a fast, high speed bomber, because missile technology was obsoleting that market too.

[k5083]

In more recent decades, the perspectives of Canadians and commentators have become much more sophisticated and nuanced than those voiced in "There Never Was an Arrow," and more so than JohnB's position above as well.

It is now more or less conceded that the 105 was not a good fit with its mission, with air combat doctrine of the moment (although it was a very brief moment), and with Canada's military budget. It is also acknowledged that the hoped-for savior of foreign sales would never have materialized because those are dictated 90% by geopolitics and 10% by the merits of the product. Nothing else (except outright bribery) explains why so many nations, Canada included, ever bought the F-104, for example.

So maybe the 105 needed to be cancelled, but there's cancelled and then there's cancelled. The United States has always had the good sense to remain staunchly socialist when it comes to the support of its aerospace industry, regardless of the outcome of any particular program. It does everything it can to safeguard the viability of the industry and as many players within it as it can. It sees this as a strategic matter, both economically and militarily.

The precise manner of the 105's cancellation, together with the Iroquois and Jetliner programs, effectively killed Canada's advanced aerospace capability in a way that the governments of the US, UK, France, Sweden, etc. would not have permitted. This is now understood to be the Big Mistake around the 105. It was certainly not ignored in order accounts like TNWAA, but it tended to take a back seat to arguments about the quality of the airplane.

August

[Michel Lemieux]

but there's cancelled and then there's cancelled

in a way that the governments of the US, UK, France, Sweden, etc. would not have permitted

August...spot on. I do understand that for large AC's it could be problematic.

But in many countries....prototypes and early test versions are still there to be studied and viewed.

Take the XC-99. It still exist dismantled and is available for reassemble when funds, time and or vision to do so is available.

Like August said. There is a difference between realizing we did not preserve history trough vision or foresight (Stirling, one offs, XF5U, etc...) or deliberately scrapping everything.

Yes you are 100% right August about the perspective that Canadian have evolved on the ''broken dream'' angle / perception.

Seeing those old videos are still very entertaining from multiple angles.

Cheers.

[JohnB]

In more recent decades, the perspectives of Canadians and commentators have become much more sophisticated and nuanced than those voiced in "There Never Was an Arrow," and more so than JohnB's position above as well.

It is now more or less conceded that the 105 was not a good fit with its mission, with air combat doctrine of the moment (although it was a very brief moment), and with Canada's military budget.

August

Please note my comments were not directed at the knowledgeable Canadian public, just the "popular" or "man in the street" audience that only knows the topic from the books, magazines and films which cast a conspiratorial light on events and tend to overlook the rational reasons for the cancellation.

As enthusiasts, we love new aircraft and hate to see something cancelled, but sometimes we have to admit that a project is simply not a "good fit" for technical, operational or fiscal reasons.

Now if I could get a similar reasoned response to my question as to whether the cancellation of the much discussed and much missed UK TSR-2 was a good long term decision. Would it have been a later day Canberra and adaptable to changes in doctrine or something just too specialized (and expensive) to enjoy a long operational career and production run? .

Last edited by JohnB on Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[dhfan]

The precise manner of the 105's cancellation, together with the Iroquois and Jetliner programs, effectively killed Canada's advanced aerospace capability in a way that the governments of the US, UK, France, Sweden, etc. would not have permitted. This is now understood to be the Big Mistake around the 105. It was certainly not ignored in order accounts like TNWAA, but it tended to take a back seat to arguments about the quality of the airplane.

August

The UK government certainly would have permitted it and they did many times under similar circumstances. I have a book called "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood and it causes me, and a couple of friends of similar age and viewpoints, to foam at the mouth whenever we read it.
What with the national airlines requesting airliners designed to their specific requirements and then saying they didn't want the resulting aircraft and various defence organisations pulling figures for their requirements out of thin air and Sandys - admittedly genuinely believed and sincere - White Paper and other political demands many things contributed to the shrinking, at least, of the UK aerospace industry.

JB, I downloaded a pdf about TSR.2 published by the RAF Historical Society 8 years or so going by the file date and it's still available from the RAF Museum.

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/ ... dsight.pdf

I haven't read it again since then but I think it basically said the decision was correct, however much people of my vintage complain and wail, much like the Avro Arrow.

Edit to add that people of my vintage include me. I've been complaining about the cancellation since 1965 so I'm unlikely to stop now.

[Dan Jones]

It's unfortunate that the Mk II Arrow with the Iroquois engines hadn't flown, because they could have broken the world's speed record, altitude record, and time-to-climb record on the airplane's initial test flight which, in all likelihood, the opportunity to do so will never come again. And that would have made it very difficult to outright cancel. They could have "accidentally" broken every window in Ottawa on that flight, too!