4 ms·
Even fewer Canadians understand why the U.S. didn't trust Canada with such an able aircraft. It's destruction was, sadly, the right choice.
by byron_fast 7y ago
Even fewer Canadians understand why the U.S. didn't trust Canada with such an able aircraft. It's destruction was, sadly, the right choice.
- kejaed 7y agoAny references as to why they didn’t ?
- byron_fast 7y agoThe obvious, that it was "too expensive" like Israel's Lavi program: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/avro-iarrowi-there-never-was-an-iarrowi-feature https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/avro-iarro... But there was the idea that the CIA didn't trust Canada to not sell it to an enemy of the USA. If the Arrow had existed under P. Trudeau, that was a justified fear.
- warlog 7y ago..and then eventually, having no aerospace program, Canada goes on to buy F18s from America. I think the Arrow was an economic threat couched in strategic language. The arrow was kick-ass long before 14s, 15s, 16s,18s entered the science. And yes, they have different mission scenarios, but like Avro wouldn't have owned that space. #disgruntledCanadian
- hnaccy 7y agoHow is it an economic threat when the US had the f-106 which was superior and flying sooner?
- na85 7y agoThat's a myth. The US government was offered the chance to buy the Arrow and all its intellectual property but declined. It was a promising design but it was not the world-beating wonderplane that its reputation suggests.
- catalogia 7y agoFor whatever it's worth, on twitter Chuck Yeager has said he wasn't a fan of the Avro Arrow. He didn't go into details though. He's well into his 90s, so maybe he doesn't remember the details anymore. https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/936416735464366081 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/936416735464366081
- yborg 7y agoProbably because you couldn't dogfight with it.
- catalogia 7y agoEh, maybe. But neither could the F-104 and he liked that plane. But the F-104 was also an American plane, so maybe that has something to do with it. Then again, he almost got himself killed in a rocket boosted NF-104. https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/643965329115185152 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/643965329115185152 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/1204703686099906560 https://twitter.com/GenChuckYeager/status/120470368609990656...
- byron_fast 7y agoYeah, maybe. But like in tech, it's easier to acquire or destroy a competitor than catch up.
- na85 7y agoThe US was offered the chance to "acquire their competitor" and declined. So was the UK. Meanwhile, American firms were testing prototypes that were faster and carried similar armament. Those prototypes were also cancelled. There is no conspiracy here.
- byron_fast 7y agoIt's not a conspiracy. Just business as usual where tech is concerned. The USA didn't want to see this tech fall into enemy hands; it was easier and cheaper to see it killed and hire the engineers as they came available. Acquihire, government style during the Cold War.
- catalogia 7y agoPersonally I'm partial to the theory that it was cancelled to free up funding for the Diefenbunkers, because Canadian politicians preferred to hide underground and leave the plebians to get nuked. It's probably not true, but it seems plausibly cynical.
- byron_fast 7y agoBy expressing an opinion that is unpopular, my "karma" takes a hit. This is how Hacker News works, like Y Combinator: be popular, or STFU. Understandable in many respects for those who have maintained forums, but still unfortunate.
- braythwayt 7y agoRidiculous. Try expressing an opinion in a bar. If people like it, or if we’re persuasive, they buy us a round. If not, we get ignored at best. Why would HN be any different? We’re all the same stuff, underneath a veneer of cheering for Tesla and Apple instead of the Leafs or Patriots. Check my history. I’ve been upvoted, and downvoted. Upvoted is more pleasant, but we have to take the rough with the smooth.