[Northern Light]

Let's see how this holds up in 30 years, given that Canada is forecast to be dead last in the OECD, in economic growth over that time period. And given that a ton of our prosperity over the last two decades was based on an unprecedented housing bubble in Canada and resource extraction that is killing the biosphere. Forget becoming like Scandinavia. We're on track to becoming a PIIGS country at this rate. The likelihood that the median Canadian falls behind the median American is very high if these trends hold:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1612444061368991752

But recency bias and the general Canadian smug superiority complex is hard to get over. So the average Canuck can't admit we have a problem. Add the partisan aspect to it too. I expect Liberals won't see any of these as economic problems till the second day of a Conservative government in office when all blame can be put on them.

You and I actually share the concern over current policy direction.

Lagging wage growth, and a housing bubble ponzi scheme are no way to foster long term prosperity.

Regrettably, we lack a federal party (well, among contenders for office, for now) willing to admit to the need for fresh policy in this area.

**

Let me add, being ahead of U.S. is never a reason for smugness, nor, for that matter is being number #1 in any given area.

Its a reason to compare yourself to best in the field, and the best you can be; and then refocus to raise the bar.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If only...​

55 years later, biggest question surrounding Avro Arrow remains “what if?”​

See link.

Now we have to buy jets from the Americans.

 

[lenaitch]

If only...​

55 years later, biggest question surrounding Avro Arrow remains “what if?”​

See link.

Now we have to buy jets from the Americans.

A lot of revisionist history and whataboutism, sprinkled with plain incorrections. It's unfortunate that it was cancelled; however, the tragedy was how it was cancelled.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem with Haiti is that it has been allowed to become a TOTAL mess and I doubt any country will want to go in unless they have CLEAR support from not only the 'government" (who are not in control) and from a sizable part of the population. Any help would require both 'peace keeping / making" and support from civic society.

Haiti cannot be fixed. Caribbean countries have but two or three revenue sources; tourism, finance/tax evasion, food/drink exports. No one is going to look to Haiti for the first two, and they can’t feed their own people. The world might be better off if Haiti was depopulated, and its eleven million people dispersed across the globe as UN refugees.

 

[Admiral Beez]

55 years later, biggest question surrounding Avro Arrow remains “what if?”
Now we have to buy jets from the Americans.

First of all, we must remember that the Avro Arrow was designed by a Brit (James Floyd, who per Wikipedia at least, at 108 is still alive!), and Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley, as was Orenda Aerospace that made the Arrow's engines. Canada may have fronted the lion's share of the cash, but we must share the laurels and the faults with the Brits.

And after all we made the wrong jet. The world was turning towards ICBMs and Canada designed a sole purpose, long range interceptor to counter Soviet nuclear-armed bombers - a threat that disappeared. Canada should have designed a multi-role fighter like the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II. Coincidently both the Arrow and the Phantom first flew in 1958. One was a conceptual dead-end, the other one of the most successful postwar multirole fighters. The German Air Force retired its last operational F-4F Phantom IIs on 29 June 2013, and Greece still flies the Phantom today! But it wasn't just the Americans building multi-role fighters in the late 1950s, Saab had their Draken (first flight 1955), France had their Dassault Mirage III (first flight 1956) and the Soviets the Sukhoi Su-7 (first flight 1955). And Canada needed multi-role fighters, which is why we license-built the CF-104 (a terrible choice) and the CF-5.

If Canada had build something akin to the Draken or Phantom they would have had a winner for the 1960s-90s and we may very well be making our own jets today, likely as a part of an international consortium, like the Eurofighter or Panavia.

 

[kEiThZ]

Should be noted too that we would have stopped building fighters at some point anyway. Even the Brits don't build complete fighter aircraft anymore. And the French with the Rafale and the Swedes with their Gripen are probably on their last nationally designed fighters. The reality is that this kind of manufacturing requires collaboration and long planning horizons. Canada is not capable of that. Just look at what a cluster our rather small participation in the F-35 program led to.

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

Weapons makers say Ottawa is leaving them in the dark on its plans to aid Ukraine​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-weapons-cianfarni-eyre-anand-1.6710882

In a bluntly-worded opinion piece published online Wednesday, Christyn Cianfarani, executive director of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, said that Canada — unlike its allies — has not put in place a framework to ramp up production to meet the demand triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Instead, Cianfarani wrote, the industry has heard "vague pleas" from the Liberal government "for companies to get with the program," without any clear sense of which items of equipment are needed and what the long-term expectations might be.

"No one in industry has a clue what government will require from companies to achieve that end, or even what 'wartime footing' means to government in the modern context," wrote Cianfarani, adding that the last time the country's defence industry was on a war footing was during the Second World War.

"No firm will take vague exhortations to 'increase their production lines' seriously without meaningful and systematic commitment from the government. No respectable CEO is going to take the risk of ordering tens of millions of dollars worth of parts to then see them sitting on a shelf awaiting integration, while simultaneously telling investors to trust them that a buyer will materialize in this highly managed protectionist market."

Canada's approach to date — scrambling to buy equipment for Ukraine — is uncoordinated, lacks a strategy and leaves the country an outlier among its closest partners, she added.

"Allied governments are already at the table with their respective industry partners," Cianfarani wrote. "The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence, for example, has been speaking to and buying from British defence companies daily since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Likewise in Washington."

Other nations, she wrote, maintain institutionalized government-defence industry relationships and forums that share information on government objectives and military equipment.

"Canada doesn't think this way. It has been decades since we have fostered serious, institutionalized government-defence industry collaboration that would allow the two sides to work together toward common objectives like getting on a wartime footing," wrote Cianfarani.

 

[lenaitch]

First of all, we must remember that the Avro Arrow was designed by a Brit (James Floyd, who per Wikipedia at least, at 108 is still alive!), and Avro Canada was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley, as was Orenda Aerospace that made the Arrow's engines. Canada may have fronted the lion's share of the cash, but we must share the laurels and the faults with the Brits.

And after all we made the wrong jet. The world was turning towards ICBMs and Canada designed a sole purpose, long range interceptor to counter Soviet nuclear-armed bombers - a threat that disappeared. Canada should have designed a multi-role fighter like the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II. Coincidently both the Arrow and the Phantom first flew in 1958. One was a conceptual dead-end, the other one of the most successful postwar multirole fighters. The German Air Force retired its last operational F-4F Phantom IIs on 29 June 2013, and Greece still flies the Phantom today! But it wasn't just the Americans building multi-role fighters in the late 1950s, Saab had their Draken (first flight 1955), France had their Dassault Mirage III (first flight 1956) and the Soviets the Sukhoi Su-7 (first flight 1955). And Canada needed multi-role fighters, which is why we license-built the CF-104 (a terrible choice) and the CF-5.

If Canada had build something akin to the Draken or Phantom they would have had a winner for the 1960s-90s and we may very well be making our own jets today, likely as a part of an international consortium, like the Eurofighter or Panavia.

It was designed for the existential threat of the day; Soviet bombers. When it was in the design/development stage, it was the right platform for threat perceived. It was a lawn dart - designed to go very fast in a straight line towards the threat. Not a rivet was designed for air superiority or ground attack. It wasn't even that 'long range'. It's published range was about the same as the CF-18, but lacked any in-flight refueling capability, and the published range didn't get to assess the fuel consumption at Mach 2+ (it wasn't "hypersonic" as claimed in the article) with the Orenda engine. The faster you fly, the more fuel you burn. Given that we were still in Germany, we still would have had to figure out how to afford aircraft for that role. Without a market;, which they were unable to attract, we couldn't manufacture it in any kind of numbers, making the unit cost solely for domestic use very, very expensive.

There's no denying it was ambitious. We were trying to develop a new airframe, plus a new engine, plus a fire control (weapons) system all at the same time. I think that level of its ambition was part of its downfall. That and a parochial, populist PM who had no world view and who hated Avro's Crawford Gordon.

The Avro Aerocar ('hovercraft') wasn't a spin-off. It was a separate project for the US Army that failed on its own merits. What these projects did demonstrate was that we (Avro Canada, DeHaviland, etc.) had the capacity to conduct cutting edge R&D. Although a lot of the expertise either returned to the UK or went south to the US space program, some of it stayed in the form of SPAR Aerospace which continued some pretty impressive work. Where we consistently fail is to exploit and support the knowledge that this country has.

PS: I'm not sure this topic belongs in this thread. Trudeau wasn't even born yet!

Edit: Last sentence edited to add 'not'.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Should be noted too that we would have stopped building fighters at some point anyway. Even the Brits don't build complete fighter aircraft anymore. And the French with the Rafale and the Swedes with their Gripen are probably on their last nationally designed fighters. The reality is that this kind of manufacturing requires collaboration and long planning horizons. Canada is not capable of that. Just look at what a cluster our rather small participation in the F-35 program led to.

I believe Canada was an early partner in the Panavia program. I think the Tornado F3, with its long range and dual engines would have been a good replacement for the CF-101s in the NORAD role, and the IDS model in the NATO role.

 

[Admiral Beez]

PS: I'm sure this topic belongs in this thread. Trudeau wasn't even born yet!

There are many that blame Trudeau for everything.

 

[kEiThZ]

I believe Canada was an early partner in the Panavia program. I think the Tornado F3, with its long range and dual engines would have been a good replacement for the CF-101s in the NORAD role, and the IDS model in the NATO role.

My frustration with the reminiscing about the Arrow is that Canadians don't understand how much aerospace development changed after that. Even if the Arrow program went to production, there's no evidence our capacity to be a combat aircraft OEM would have remained. Beyond that we have kept losing capacity to be major partners ever since. In no small part because all major defence spending is now controversial. It's not just aircraft. Next generation armoured vehicles, for example, require teaming up to field in 15 years. It's the same for major UAVs, systems with lots of automation and artificial intelligence, satellite networks, etc.

A lot of this is turn both drives and provides landing spots for the highest skilled personnel in the defence industrial base. This is why being left out of AUKUS is much more damaging than those who just see it is as some kind of garden variety defence deal understand. You cannot work in bleeding edge tech without being involved in some defence work. Canada out of AUKUS will mean brain drain of our absolute best and brightest technical and scientific minds. That said, Canadians have gotten so used to letting their best go that I don't think this even registers as a matter of concern for the average Canadian.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In no small part because all major defence spending is now controversial. It's not just aircraft.

And if needn’t be. The politicians make stupid promises to cancel military projects already underway. Why did Jean Chrétien cancel the Mulroney government’s EH-101 contract? Why did Justin Trudeau cancel the previous Harper government‘s F-35 commitment, only to buy the same aircraft a decade later? The public wasn’t clamouring for such projects to be canceled, especially without prodding by the candidates in the elections.

When a new government takes over it should assume that the permanent bureaucracy and DND procurement folks have done their due diligence, let any committed programs carry on so to avoid delays, and aim to make the new government’s mark on new military projects.

 

[kEiThZ]

And if needn’t be. The politicians make stupid promises to cancel military projects already underway.

They do it because this is what voters want. And when it comes to defence spending this is particularly true on the left and centre left. It's no accident that the biggest high profile cancellations have happened on Liberal watch. And then the attempt to smear VAdm Mark Norman over their shipbuilding meddling that saw a cabinet minister lose his job and the whole House of Commons have to issue a formal apology. This is a party that has as much contempt for the defence bureaucracy as Conservatives did for climate scientists. Remember how Harper was muzzling those folks? Here's the Liberal version:

Liberals order 235 military personnel, bureaucrats to take fighter jet details to the grave

The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions

nationalpost.com

Given this history, now imagine other countries signing up to long term high tech military development programs. Can you imagine how foreign partners might rate the political risk in Canada?

Not to say the other parties in Canada are much better. They pull the same stunt in other areas. Harper and the census, long gun registry, etc. None of our parties seem to be willing to let the bureaucracy of government run relatively independently. The only difference is where they focus their meddling.

Why did Justin Trudeau cancel the previous Harper government‘s F-35 commitment, only to buy the same aircraft a decade later?

At this point, we should all just cross our fingers and hope the deal goes through. They already tried to perpetrate one bogus fraud (made up capability gap) to try and sole source Super Hornets. That only failed because Boeing Commercial's execs are real morons. Until there's an F-35 on the ground in Canada, I'd be worried about a second such attempt.

 

[lenaitch]

Why did Justin Trudeau cancel the previous Harper government‘s F-35 commitment, only to buy the same aircraft a decade later?

We actually might have fallen backwards into a win on this one. The early generation F-35s had a lot of unresolved (and some say unresolvable) problems.

 

[afransen]

And if needn’t be. The politicians make stupid promises to cancel military projects already underway. Why did Jean Chrétien cancel the Mulroney government’s EH-101 contract? Why did Justin Trudeau cancel the previous Harper government‘s F-35 commitment, only to buy the same aircraft a decade later? The public wasn’t clamouring for such projects to be canceled, especially without prodding by the candidates in the elections.

When a new government takes over it should assume that the permanent bureaucracy and DND procurement folks have done their due diligence, let any committed programs carry on so to avoid delays, and aim to make the new government’s mark on new military projects.

Kind of like Mike Harris filling in the Eglinton Subway--was anyone really clamouring for that project to be cancelled?