User talk:216.106.111.151

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there. I noticed your additions to the Avro Arrow page. Several of your parenthetical notes say that something in the article is wrong. This is bad form. If you can provide sources (and it looks like you can as you reference several in your notes) then change the article contents to the correct facts rather than inserting notes that various things are false. Qutezuce 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh. It's true that those aren't what you'd expect to find in an encyclopedia, but improperly executed warnings of factual inaccuracies are better than no warnings at all. Thanks. On the other hand, references are indeed needed to make the article more than "'Yes it is!' 'No it isn't!'" so while it's a bit above and beyond for you, using them would be very helpful. If you decide to do so, the basic way to reference an online source is by using an external link, enclosing an URL in single brackets like so: [1]. Citing printed media are more difficult, I'm afraid. Feel free to ask me if necessary, and sorry for troubling you. --Kizor
The last time this user added these types of comments to the page they were removed in less than a day by another user before any one had a chance to deal with them. So they didn't serve any purpose that time. Qutezuce 07:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I noticed that you have again made some additions to the Avro Arrow page. When making your changes please keep in mind that we are trying to craft a coherent article. So inserting things like "No,..." does not make a coherent article. If you disagree with a portion of the article change the relevant text, instead of just contradicting it in the next sentence. Qutezuce 02:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments and information regarding the accuracy of various statements on the Avro Arrow page are helpful. If you want to discuss the accuracy of the article a better venue would be to discuss it on the Avro Arrow talk page and then change statements. That way the statements on the Avro Arrow page can be corrected without the need for contradictory statements on the page warning readers. Every Wikipedia page has a talk page, you can see a link to the talk page at the top of the page labeled "discussion". I'd also suggest that you register a user account, there is a link at the top right of every page, all you need to do is pick a username and a password, you don't even need to provide an email. This will allow you see better keep track of messages to/from yourself. Please leave me a message, either on this page, or on my talk page if you need any further assistance. Qutezuce 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to access these pages but just noticed the plus sign and clicked on it. Here is a rewrite I propose:

The politics /wiki/Image:Stop_hand.svg/wiki/Image:Stop_hand.svg The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page.

Arrow Costs

Many have contended that the cost of the Arrow was simply too much for the Canadian economy to handle. This however is not supported by documents declasssifed by the author of Storms. While it is acknowledged the cost of the program was high, both the Prime Minister and Minster of National Defence noted that cost was not the reason for the cancellation of the program. Their comments are documented in Storms and Requiem. In 1955, the findings of a special government committee on the Arrow stated, "The greater effectiveness and greater range of the CF 105 results in the need for less aircraft and fewer bases. Aircraft for aircraft the F102B is less costly but, dollar for dollar, the CF 105 provides significantly more defence…The burden of cost involved in this course of action is in inherent in an air defence system which is kept abreast of the developing threat." (From files at the Directorate of History, Department of Natioal Defence, Canada, 73/1223 and reproduced in Requiem) As a side note, the Arrow was originally to be a one for one replacement for the CF 100 but because of the reason stated here, fewer aircraft were needed.

Historians have maintained the cost per aircraft would be $12 million dollars. Audit Records revealed in Storms and Requiem show that the total cost of the program when complete was going to be $1.111 billion. This figure included all of the development cost, all of the production and tooling, support equipment, combat stocks of Falcon missiles and finally, the aircraft themselves at a fly-away cost of $3.75 million each, not $12 million. Too often fly-away cost is confused with overall program cost. As more aircraft were produced, the fly-away cost was going to drop to below $3 million, more than comparable to the less capable single-engine F106 for example.

Requiem details the reasons why costs escalated. Much of it is attributable to rising labour and material costs. What the documents also show though is that parts of the program were progressing faster than anticipated hence costs not expected until months or years later, were appearing earlier on. In addition, costs were fluctuating due to the numerous redesigns the RCAF was imposing on Avro. World conditions were also playing apart in that when the Soviets unveiled new aircraft, the program was accelerated accordingly, by the RCAF. The afformentioned file contains the relevant documentation supporting this scenario.

What was revealed in Storms, was the Top Secret brief prepared for George Pearkes, then Minister of National Defence, for his July 1958 meeting with officials from the US. The NORAD agreement had been signed in 1957 and the American were requesting that Canada install Bomarc bases along with SAGE and gap filler radar. From the Top Secret brief, "The introduction of SAGE in Canada will cost in the neighborhood of $107 million. Further improvements are required in the radar…NORAD has also recommended the introduction of the BOMARC missile…will be a further commitment of $164 million…. All these commitments coming at this particular time…will tend to increse our defence budget by as much as 25 to 30 percent…" Pearkes was also concerned about funding a defence against ballistic missiles. From an American brief of the meeting with Pearkes, "He [Pearkes] stated that the problem of developing a defence against missiles while at the same time completing and rounding out defence measures against manned bombers posed a serious problem for Canada from the point of view of expense…" Eisenhower Library, File: DDE Trip to Canada, Memcons, July 8-11, 1958, Canada-U.S. Defence Problems. See Requiem

So, the problem was a combination of costs that Canada could not afford. What was revealed in the late 1990s, was a taped interview Pearkes gave to his biographer. In that recording Pearkes discusses these problems and then reveals that he was advised by an American oficial, while en route to Colorado, that Canada did not need to build aircraft because the US had plenty and could make them available at any time. On tape Pearkes states that this is when he made his decision. His dilemma though was how to fill in the defence gap from cancellation of the Arrow to the time when Bomarc bases would be operational. On tape he reveals a secret deal he struck to allow American training in Goosebay and Labrador and Cold Lake, in exchange for protection. By August 11 1958, Pearkes requested cancellation of the Arrow.

It has been stated that the Army and Navy were upset with the cost of the Arrow as their own programs might be jeopardized. This is not borne out by the documentary record. When Pearkes tabled his memo to cancel, the Cabinet Defence Committee refused. He table it again in September and recommended installation of Bomarc etc. The latter was accepted but again the CDC refused to cancel. The CDC wanted to wait until 31 March 1959, to better examine world conditions. What was cancelled in 1959 was the Sparrow/Astra system. Ill advised from the start, Avro and others had recommended against this program from the start.

The onset of Sputnik had raised the spectre of attack fromspace and as the year wore on, word of a missile gap began spreading more and more. Money would be needed for a defence against ballistic missiles. At the same time, the manned bomber threat was perceived to be diminishing. Noted Pearkes in a document after the cancellation, " We did not cancel the CF 105 because there was no bomber threat but because there was a lesser threat and we got the Bomarc in lieu of more airplanes to look after this." Department of National Defence, Directorate of History, File 79/469 Folder 19 see Requiem. We now know the missile gap was a fabrication and just a few months after the cancellation, the Americans were advising Canada to purchase interceptors, like American Voodoos.

Canada tried to sell the aircraft to the US and Britain but had no takers. Storms revealed that Donald Putt, AFRDC wanted to purchase the Arrow for the American inventory but the Secretary of the Air Force said no as did John Foster Dulles. In other words, while it is true that many Americans supported the Arrow, those that mattered did not, for various reasons not the least of which was pressure from American industry to purchase American made goods. Dulles said as much to Canadian officials, at the Paris summit in 1958.

The French government, prepared to buy some 200 Iroquois engines, cancelled the order in 1958, being advised by persons unknown that the Arrow was going to be cancelled.

On February 20, 1959 Diefenbaker announced to the Canadian House of Commons that the Arrow and Iroquois programs were to be immediately cancelled. The telegrams sent to Avro were very clearly and precise on the meaning of immediate. With no work available, this left the A.V. Roe Company no choice but to lay off some 14,000 works in one afternoon. Declassified records show Avro was caught unprepared by the suddeness of the anouncement by the government. Some 25,000 were laid off due to cancellations of contracts with various subcontractors. These numbers are from declassified government records.

Within two months, all aircraft and engines, production tooling and technical data, were ordered scrapped. An attempt was made to provide the completed Arrows to the National Research Council. The latter refused noting that without a company to provide spare parts and maintenance, as well as pilots, the NRC could make no use of them. As a static test bed, the NRC could not guarantee security around the aircraft. Remember, this was the cold war.

Why is the Arrow such a volatile subject in Canada?

There may be several reasons. Firstly, as noted from the above discussion, most of the information and records were kept in secret for over 30 years. Many thought they had been destroyed until discovered and declassified for Storms and later Requiem. This allowed much erroneous information to be propagated over the years. For example, the discussion on cost remains a major sticking point. Crawford Gordon was vilified for allegedly having argued with the Prime Minister at length and so the project was cancelled because of this. The two men met once. Writing in his memoirs, Diefenbaker made light of the encounter. It occurred long before the cancellation. Also, Gordon is accused of firing everyone out of spite. Again, the fact do not support this. For his part, Diefenbaker has been vilified for ordering the physical destruction of the Aircraft. This too has been laid to rest as the paper trail of the decision was revealed in Storms and lead to Pearkes and the Chief of the Air Staff. The fact of a mole in Avro operating at Avro was revealed in the 70s in a book called, For Services Rendered," about the RCMP. The fact was confirmed by RCAF personnel to the author of Storms. Later this fact was confirmed in a book called the Mitrokhin archives. The mole issue was given in Stroms as the reason why the aircraft and plans were destroyed. This was further supported in Storms in quoting an Aviation Week article from 1959 that stated government officials had said the plans were destroyed as they could aid a potential enemy.

The engineers were castigated by historians for building a flawed aircraft but this was proven incorrect by the documented record. Some Canadian historians have since changed their comments about a technically inferior plane as a result.

So, given the lack of information and the fact that over 25,000 Canadian, their friends and families were affected, it is easy to see how this has become a volatile subject.

Although almost everything connected to the program was destroyed, the forward fuselage and some sections of the wings and control surfaces of the first Mark 2 Arrow were saved and are on display at the Canadian Aviation Museum in Ottawa.

In 1961, the RCAF purchased 66 CF-101 Voodoo aircraft to serve in the role originally intended to be filled by the Arrow. The controversy surrounding this acquisition, and Canada's acquiring nuclear weapons for the Voodoos and Bomarcs eventually led to the collapse of the Diefenbaker government in 1963.

There is a belief, held by many people, that one lone Arrow was flown away before it could be destroyed, and is now stored in some remote location in Canada. This is, most likely, a myth, kept alive by the wishes of those who would like to have seen the project continue. [edit]


Avro's design and production teams dispersed, and their talents were used by other countries in the aerospace field, mostly in the United States and Britain. Some of the principal members of the Arrow design and engineering teams headed programs in the Mercury, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs with NASA, others worked for the Anglo-French Concorde project and some for American aircraft companies.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qutezuce" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.111.151 (talk • contribs)

I just want to point out to anyone else reading this (so they don't get confused) that the above was originally posted to my talk page by the IP 216.106.111.151, before that user moved it here. It is not my work, but the work of 216.106.111.151. Qutezuce 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working on a rewrite. I'm going to ask you if you can post that to the talk page for the Avro Arrow article. I will do my best to help you learn how to add your comments to talk pages on Wikipedia. You can access the talk page for the Avro Arrow article simply by clicking here. Or you can navigate to the Avro Arrow page and then look at the top of the page for the word "discussion" and clicking on it. Once there you should see the text "Talk:Avro Arrow" in a large bold font near the top of the page. You should again see a plus sign at the top of this page, right next to the words "edit this page" at the top of the page. Click the plus sign to add another comment to the talk page. You will then be presented with a page with a large box to enter your comment. Above the large box there is a box to enter a "Subject/headline", enter something like "Proposed corrections". Then cut-and-paste your proposed rewrite and paste it into the large box. Then below the large box click the button that says "Save page". Thats it. I apologize if this tutorial is either too terse or too patronizing. Please feel free to ask me for any assistance. You can just leave another comment here and I will see it. Qutezuce 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Arrow

Thanks, I moved the article as you suggested. Hope I did it correctly.


Hello again

I hope I have been doing things correctly this time. Any problem with pasting my politics re-write into the article? Thanks again for your help.