Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!acton From: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Canadian Military & Industry Message-ID: <935@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 21:58:21 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.935 Posted: Mon Jan 28 21:58:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 03:46:02 EST References: <395@utcs.UUCP> <1334@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 53 Summary: In article <395@utcs.UUCP> pkern@utcs.UUCP writes: > I have this theory that if this were possible, an >aircraft designed to be able to stand up to the rigours of Canada >would be much better than any product from the south. This >then might prove marketable thus providing a decent defence >and a good number of jobs. In many respects I believe this situation has already happened once with the Arrow. (As an aside, someone in an earlier posting called the Starfighter a CF-105 when it is in fact the CF-104 Starfighter with the CF-105 (or perhaps CAF-105) being the designation given to the AVRO Arrow) As pointed out the Arrow appeared to be a plane vastly superior to anything available at the time or on the the drawing boards in other countries. One of the problems with the Arrow was that it couldn't be sold even though it was the best aircraft around. The United States wouldn't buy it because they were, and I guess still are, busy supporting their own aircraft companies. In addition the US placed heavy pressure on its allies to buy its equipment over that of Canada's. After all, all Canada could offer in the arms market was the Arrow while the US could offer much more and made use of that fact. According to the book "The Fall of an (the?) Arrow" the Canadian government of the day wasn't exactly pro-American and Washington was responding in kind. Even if the US did recognize the quality of Canada's product they weren't about to sacrifice "their" market to Canada especially when the Canadian government was perceived to be anti-American. Wasn't it in the best short term interests of the US government to see the demise of the Canadian industry? After all they got the talent that built the Arrow and they gained a new market for their planes. If Canada were again to develop a viable military aircraft industry similar problems would no doubt appear but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The government provided Canadair and DeHavilland (sp?) with several billion dollars (about 3 billion I think) last year so they could keep operating. In addition they are spending about 4.2 billion dollars to acquire the CF-18 Hornets. Taken together these moneys could have provided about 7.2 billion dollars towards a made in Canada fighter. Actually it is much more than that given how much money the government has given the above two companies over the last few years. No doubt this amount of money is just a drop in the bucket compared to the total development cost of a fighter aircraft. However, the intangible costs of not doing so are even greater as the following quote from the above mentioned book says: "Another lesson that Canada will have to re-learn, apparently, is that sophisticated defence industries cannot be erected overnight. When war and mortal danger become imminent, it is too late to set about trying to assemble an aircraft industry, or tank and gun factories or shipyards. There is a price to pay for keeping these facilities in existence in the piping times of peace. Countries which are not prepared to pay the price will ultimately pay a far higher one." Donald Acton