Warbird Information Exchange

A bit more news on the Venga proposal.

Hey BLR.... what is next?

Seems like a smart idea, but what is taking this so long?
Does anyone know?

Although I love the 9 plane Tutors, they seem like a Chevette compared to the CORVETTE (HAWK). It kinda begs the question ..... will the team continue to be 9 or will they reduce the numbers to save costs even more, but justify by higher performance aircraft?

Vulture.

why would the US government have say on a british product?

I beleave it's Boeing/M.D. produce the T-45 Goshawk for the US Navy that might be why the Dept. of State has it's hand in the cookie jar on this deal.

Mike
woofaero

wouldnt canada buy direct from BAe be ALOT cheaper?

Is that release also available in English?

I wonder if corporate press offices and government don't care or don't realise the garbage they put out in the form of a press release. The 'legal' jargon excuse is just that. Legalese is possible and better in comprehensibe English too.

Sheesh.

Can we make a model one in Snowbirds colours then?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Since when did Canada, Canadian businesses, or canadian/foreign business partners require "approval" from the U.S. State Department for something that is a Canadian domestic affair and frankly none of their business? Wasn't their killing of our Avro Arrow enough for them?

One step closer to the accursed NAU.

N.

_________________
"Live to Fly; Fly to Live"

Wait a minute, Neil ! US killed the Arrow ? If everything I've ever seen or read about the Arrow program is true, the Arrow was killed by the Prime Minister of CANADA. It was CANADIAN officials who went in and tried to destroy everything relating to the Arrow. ( And very nearly did ) Would you care to enlighten us on the details ?

The Arrow program cancellation was handled much like the Flying Wing program down here in the lower 48. I don't think anyone ever blamed Canada for that though !

Hey Vulture,

Dunno...sometimes what looks to be a good idea isn't that obvious the government. Newer jets, within current budget, provides jobs to Canadians, sounds pretty good to me. It looks better than what DND is recommending and it seems about the only option that will see the team survive long term.

Ya... the Tutors are great but they're old and getting difficult/expensive to maintain and operate. They certianly don't represent a new, rejuvinated CAF or modern Canadian military. Keeping them going for another 5 - 10 years is possible but my guess is that you'd see a toned down show to reduce stress on the airframes and extend their flying life.

Whether you agree or not with replacing the Tutors with Hawks, it is good to see industry step up to the plate with a possible solution to this. Other than buying new planes, its about the best option available right now. Maybe now that Onex is talking about buying Raytheon, maybe they'll give DND a deal on some Beechcraft T-6's for the team. God..I hope not!



The Hawk may have US technology in it and if so would require the approval.

Brian....

Hi Rick;

Yes, it's true that the Diefenbaker government ultimately holds the responsibility of cancelling the Arrow project and destroying all of the prototype aircraft, tooling, parts, engineering drawings, test equipment, and putting some 14,000 highly skilled workers out of their jobs overnight, but there is also considerable evidence that the U.S. government at the time under pressure from the Pentagon and American aerospace industry exerted undue influence on both Canada and potential foreign buyers of the Arrow's airframe and engine technoloiges to kill the project. While it could be argued the the overall costs of the the Arrow project are what killed it, the American influence on the outcome was very real.

Cheers,

N.

_________________
"Live to Fly; Fly to Live"

Oh here we go. I think someone just stirred up a hornets nest on this one.

Rick in answer to your question there has been some literature written (not to mention the CBC mini-series on the Arrow) that suggest pressure from the US government was a factor when Prime Minister Diefenbaker cancelled the project.

To be a little more specific in "Storms of Controversy" by Palmiro Campagna, and elsewhere the claim is made that the Arrow was the only aircraft of the time with a ceiling in the same range as the U-2. As a result some argue that authorities in the US may have perceived the Arrow as a threat to the security of the U-2 program. Why an ally of the US posessing the ability to expose the U-2 is a problem I've never understood. Can't see any motivation for Canadians at the time wanting to do that to their partners in the Cold War.

Another frequent claim (again made in the mini-series and in the literature) is that if the Canadian Gov't didn't buy bomarcs and install them in North Bay/Northern Quebec as they ultimately did, then the US would install them just south of the Great Lakes. An unacceptable option for Canadians because they would then be intercepting Soviet bombers over the most densely populates parts of Canada. The argument continues that the Canadian Gov't couldn't afford both (almost the whole defence budget was going in to the Arrow/Iroquois/Sparrow II programs as it was), and since there were (mistaken) signs that the day of the interceptor was over and the missile was here... might as well buy the Bomarcs. Of course the necessary post-script to that is that not long after they realized they were wrong, and bought National Guard Voodoos.

In any case, it’s a bit of a messy subject and because there is such devotion from Avroites (I suppose myself included - the Arrow is what got me into aviation when I was younger) up here people can get a bit emotional on the subject. As a result, arguments associated with the CF-105 can often be less than sound.

Unfortunately much of the literature available is either technical in nature with off hand personal comments regarding the politics, or is more of a "popular history" than most historians approve of. As such, please don’t' take the substance of this post as my perspective. I'm just trying to give a sense of the historiography behind "ThinkingManNeil"s comment "Wasn't their killing of our Avro Arrow enough for them?"

Cheers

Edward

I was under the impression that in some cases the USAF helped AVRO with proving the technology.

I reference the B-47 with the Iroquois mounted on the side to do operational flight testing. Didn't the Arrows that flew originally, fly with American engines until the Iroquois was ready ? Wasn't the USAF looking at the Arrow for a possible buy until it was nixed on a buy American platform ?

Yup, there was a fair bit of co-operation. The B-47 test bed is a great example, as are the J-75s that the first 5 aircraft flew with.

The nitty gritty of whether the US were going to buy them isn't quite clear. Although I believe one version of events has an offer from the US to buy them and essentially give them back to the RCAF in order to keep the project alive.

I think an objective look at things will show that both the US and Canada had things to gain through keeping the project and Avro Canada alive.

By the same token the aerospace industry in the UK and US as well as NASA did benefit from the subsequent "brain drain" of former Avro engineers/employees who left after being laid off on Black Friday.

It can be spun either way, but as I said earlier I think people up here can get a little overly defensive on the subject.

Also if I'm not mistaken much of the gov't papers are still unavailable from the period. So the whole story can't really be told until they're available to historians.

There's prolly a lot of truths and half-truths on both sides, and I recgnise that, but I think that the "buy American" policy is only half right since the USAF had invested in licence-built B-57 Canberras. The potential performance figures for the Arrow and whatever may have followed it, had such a severe blow to the Canadian aviation industry not been dealt,
I think intimidated the sales departments of Lockheed, McD-D, GE, and P & W. To think they'd sit idly by with merely feigned, professional interest, even if the Arrow wasn't able to deliver on performance, while potential foreign buyers like France and Britain for the Orenda Iroquois engine lined up and not ask Washington to do something to impede, if not stop outright, all Arrow sales would be naive at best.

I think it could be argued that the US was interested in the Arrow for it's technological innovations and be willing to aid the program as long as technological benefits for it's own industries could be harvested, but at the same time be prepared to stop it's further development if it proved a threat to it's own aircraft sales. I doubt the aerospace big-boys would willing cede their ground to Canada if there was any chance at all of the Arrow becoming a genuine success.

N.

_________________
"Live to Fly; Fly to Live"

I think that BAe and Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) build this as a joint venture. I suspect that both countries, the UK and US, require government approval for foreign sales.

Personally I would prefer a 9-ship C-17 display team, but I am odd that way!