WI Canada retains CV capability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
True - it is possible but the whole scheme, as i said would largely discredit the Canadian Aviation industry with even trying to use the aircraft for military purposes.

The reproduction that was built in the 1990's was mostly built using surviving photographs and the memoirs of a few of those who worked on it. For the most part it it merely an asthetic design - a metal overcoat covering a frame of re-bar and scafolding.

As an aviation enthusiast i too would love to see the Arrow fly again but I just don't think it to be feasible. The cons outweigh by far the pro's, Sadly.

I have to agree with this as much as I don't want to. Announcing that we would be building the Arrow would be like the Brits deciding to now build the TSR2 or the US deciding to build the B-70. The first reaction would be laughter followed by more laughter. The industry has moved on.

Now if Canada announced that we would be developing our own fighter/strike aircraft which will be called the Arrow II, that would be different. In this timeline given the money spent on the forces it would be seen as expensive but possible - something along the lines of " well if Sweden can do it....".

As to selling the idea, that's different. I would expect to see lots of "spontaneous" documentaries about the original Arrow and extensive use of photos. The governments line would be "We did it once and we can do it again. Aerospace is part of our heritage". Pushing the right nationalistic buttons would ensure lots of support for the program.
 
I have to agree with this as much as I don't want to. Announcing that we would be building the Arrow would be like the Brits deciding to now build the TSR2 or the US deciding to build the B-70. The first reaction would be laughter followed by more laughter. The industry has moved on.

Laughter from the industry, nothing but praise from most Canucks for rectifying one of the biggest industrial injustices and mistakes in Canadian history. And the industry here means less than public opinion, because the public opinion is directly connected to this project's success. (And BTW, the Brits seriously studied resuscitating the TSR.2 project in the early 80s IOTL.) Here, the industry hasn't got the skills to do something from scratch. So, you take a design you already know works and make it fly again, just to get the skills back working, then go for the brass ring and build a first-class fighter. There will only be a couple dozen built, just to get everybody warmed up and the infrastructure there again on a fairly easy project. The Brits and Americans never allowed a government decision to implode their defense industry. (Though Britain tried several times......) Canada did, and now the whole point of the Arrow project is not to build a front-line fighter for the CF so much as a PR tool and base project that just so happens to also be a fighter jet.

Now if Canada announced that we would be developing our own fighter/strike aircraft which will be called the Arrow II, that would be different. In this timeline given the money spent on the forces it would be seen as expensive but possible - something along the lines of " well if Sweden can do it....".

I am planning to have Canada have a much greater involvement in future fighter projects, as time goes on.

As to selling the idea, that's different. I would expect to see lots of "spontaneous" documentaries about the original Arrow and extensive use of photos. The governments line would be "We did it once and we can do it again. Aerospace is part of our heritage". Pushing the right nationalistic buttons would ensure lots of support for the program.

And pushing those buttons here will be ridiculously easy just because of the fact that the Arrow is a part of Canada's history, almost synonomous with "government mistake" here.

To mmmeee0: Yes. And as a result, CF troops will end up in Afghanistan.
 
Well I won't argue against it further 'cause I love the idea.

I would just point out that unless there are some documents found in an archive somewhere it will pretty much be starting from scratch. Diefenbaker (or Pearkes) ordered everything associated with the Arrow destroyed. One would almost think that he wanted to prevent anyone from reviving the project in the future. :)

Of course there are some rumors (conspiracy theories?) that at least one of the prototypes was secretly flown to some other location perhaps in the US after the cancellation.
 
Well I won't argue against it further 'cause I love the idea.

I would just point out that unless there are some documents found in an archive somewhere it will pretty much be starting from scratch. Diefenbaker (or Pearkes) ordered everything associated with the Arrow destroyed. One would almost think that he wanted to prevent anyone from reviving the project in the future. :)

Of course there are some rumors (conspiracy theories?) that at least one of the prototypes was secretly flown to some other location perhaps in the US after the cancellation.

IIRC it was the guy who ran Avro who ordered everything related to the Arrow destroyed, not the government. Diefenbaker merely ordered the project cancelled, but somebody at Avro didn't take that order very well.
 
Laughter from the industry, nothing but praise from most Canucks for rectifying one of the biggest industrial injustices and mistakes in Canadian history. And the industry here means less than public opinion, because the public opinion is directly connected to this project's success. (And BTW, the Brits seriously studied resuscitating the TSR.2 project in the early 80s IOTL.) Here, the industry hasn't got the skills to do something from scratch. So, you take a design you already know works and make it fly again, just to get the skills back working, then go for the brass ring and build a first-class fighter. There will only be a couple dozen built, just to get everybody warmed up and the infrastructure there again on a fairly easy project. The Brits and Americans never allowed a government decision to implode their defense industry. (Though Britain tried several times......) Canada did, and now the whole point of the Arrow project is not to build a front-line fighter for the CF so much as a PR tool and base project that just so happens to also be a fighter jet.



I am planning to have Canada have a much greater involvement in future fighter projects, as time goes on.



And pushing those buttons here will be ridiculously easy just because of the fact that the Arrow is a part of Canada's history, almost synonomous with "government mistake" here.

To mmmeee0: Yes. And as a result, CF troops will end up in Afghanistan.

The Canadian people may love it, but the Canadian people don't control the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry, an industry which clearly has a little bit more know how concernining aircraft development that the ordinary people of Canada. Such bone headed thinking would only isolate and then discredit the Canadian industry. In America and elswhere, people are thinking "We've got the F-35, F-22 and the Euro Fighter - aircraft of the next century, why in the name of Gods do we want to invest or work with Canada - they're stuck in the 1950's!'

In Britain, the BAC TSR-2 was looked into again in the 1980's but deemed to be too old, expensive and obsolete to restart. That was only less than 15 years since it's cancellation. The Arrow is more than 40 years cancelled by 1997 and on top of that, virtually none of the design work on it remains.

The Arrow is still going to be synonomous with government failure only this time it's going to be a legacy of billions of dollars wasted on an aircraft that had little practical purpose for either Combat or research. It's going to bankrupt the defence industry (funding would collapse, no foreign investment and thousands of people loosing their jobs, with many leaving for posts in places like Europe or he U.S.), bring down the government and potentially destroy the armed forces (what government would want to pour any money into defence after that debacle).

If Cananda wants to re-build a promient aviation industry, it shall need to do so sensibly. There are many better aircraft already in existance that can be used for test beds and if the country needs experience at building new aircraft, the government is best off paying incentives for already exisiting companies to build airacraft in Canada or help fund smaller companies to but the right to manufacture. Diving in at the deep end is going to drown the industry.

I'm only saying this because I like this TL and so far, while it may have pushed the boundaries of ASB it has still managed to remain within them.

Russell
 
IIRC it was the guy who ran Avro who ordered everything related to the Arrow destroyed, not the government. Diefenbaker merely ordered the project cancelled, but somebody at Avro didn't take that order very well.

Not to hijack this into an Arrow thread but I did a bit of research to verify my "common" knowledge. It seems that after the cancellation, the existing prototypes were offered to the National Research Council as testbeds and to the British MOD, both refusing the offer. The Chief of the Air Staff then recommened to the Minister that the aircraft and drawings be destroyed, which process was started some two months after the cancellation.
 
OOC: Alright, I'm canning the Arrow project. That said, it's successor, on the other hand, is going to get underway......
 
OOC: Alright, trying again......

1999 (Part 1)
1999 was the last year of the 20th Century, and it would for the Canadian Forces be forever referred to as the "Year of Destiny". With a name like that, one would expect it to be a big, important year, and so it was.

The biggest events of the year began in January, when a group of Canadian aerospace engineers, many of them having experience with Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and others, formed a small consulting company in Toronto, named the Canada Defense Aerospace Company. The company's name was of course a harbringer to what was to come.

In March, this small group submitted a proposal to Gordon O'Connor, a former Brigadier and now the deputy Minister of National Defense. The case the company made was that the Canadian Forces had built a substantial electronics industry partly as a result of the rebuilding of HMCS Warrior and the upgrades to many aircraft, along with a growing industry building other products that catered to the Forces, and that the country could easily build many of its own aircraft and military gear. And the proposal that the company specifically focused on was a new fighter for Canada, to be developed entirely in Canada.

The idea would go in three stages. Stage I would be the build of a fighter design, using a proprietary design but with off-the-shelf internals, to prove that the concept could fly. Stage II would add a new engine program, while Stage III would go for the brass ring and build the aircraft entirely from Canadian knowledge and know-how. The plan was ambitious, but even the most pessimistic would realize the chance to build a major high-tech industry in Canada, instead of simply buying gear from the Americans.

O'Connor quickly brought this to Defense Minister Kim Campbell, who loved the idea and quickly explained it to the Cabinet. All liked the idea, but most expressed concerns about the cost. Even the most mild variant would cost hundreds of millions to develop, to do the job that the Tomcat could already do. But the argument in favor was that this would create a real Canadian aerospace defense industry. The debate raged on through May 1999, but then got changed. The existence of the program was leaked to the Press, with the proposal callign it "a chance to rectify the mistakes made when Canada stopped its indigenous fighter the last time." The response was positive, to say the least.

The debate through June was focused on how much it would cost to build the fighter, and all expected the costs of development to be in the billions. But even the most pessimistic commentators pointed out that the program would create tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs, and spending such money to develop the fighter was better spent in Canada than buying upgrades or new equipment from abroad. All five parties in Ottawa expressed support for the idea, though Reform and BQ support was somewhat tempered by cost concerns and the BQ's trademark "what's in it for Quebec?" attitude.

Sensing the support, Ontario Premier Mike Harris his Quebec counterpart, Daniel Johnson, made the first moves - an agreement between Canada Defense Aerospace and Bombardier Aerospace to build the fighters, with the first development moneys coming from Queens Park and Quebec City. That deal was signed on June 25, 1999, and the development began again.

On July 1, in a Canada Day speech broadcast across the country, Charest emphatically made it official - "We will not make the same mistake twice. This fighter will be developed, it will be built, and it will see service with the Forces" - was in his speech, and was a key portion of the speech sent out to the Forces members. The legislation to provide the funding from the DND was introduced on July 5, 1999, and passed easily on July 21. The project was real, and it was underway, and Canada was back in the fighter jet business......

OOC: Better? :)
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Much more reasonable i suppose. The Arrow was a good plane, just that that was back in the 1960s. I suppose you could have this next-gen fighter use the PS-14 Haida Turbofan like the Super Tomcats, eh?
 
Much more reasonable i suppose. The Arrow was a good plane, just that that was back in the 1960s. I suppose you could have this next-gen fighter use the PS-14 Haida Turbofan like the Super Tomcats, eh?

That is part of the idea......:cool:
 
OOC: Alright, trying again......
<snip>

OOC: Better? :)

I gotta say, this does sound much more reasonable.

Now the military/industrial complex comes to Canada with a vengance :). As has been shown to the south of us, military procurement money is much easier to pry out of legislatures when its going to numerous constituancies with lots of defence industry workers/voters.
 
I gotta say, this does sound much more reasonable.

Now the military/industrial complex comes to Canada with a vengance :). As has been shown to the south of us, military procurement money is much easier to pry out of legislatures when its going to numerous constituancies with lots of defence industry workers/voters.

Such will be the case here, I assure you. :D
 
OOC: I'm on it, Ming. I'll have to go back and update things later, but what the hell, let's roll. :cool:

1999 (Part 2)
Canada's year for the Forces would be noted by the end of one peacekeeping mission, the opening of another, and the escalation of what was the biggest peacekeeping mission in the world at that point.

1999 opened with the end of what had been at one time the biggest peacekeeping mission in history. After the 1998 elections went off without a hitch, the United Nations decided to close out the UN mission in South Africa - the job was done, and the Federal Republic of South Africa, the economy of which was growing like a weed and the old racial problems were dying away. The UN formally announced the end of UNMISA on January 18, 1999. The next day, South Africa's new President, Steven Biko, addressed the United Nations, thanking all of those who had done so much to ensure South Africa's revival in the 1990s. "The nations of the world came to our aid when we needed it, and for that, on behalf of the people of South Africa, I thank you for your sacrifices. If the debt can be repaid one day, I give you my word now that it will be."

The last Canadian units in South Africa were 1,500 men from the Calgary Highlanders, who departed Johannesburg for home on Febuary 14, 1999. Their heavy equipment - mostly Grizzly and Bison APCs - was offered to the SANDF, but the South Africans sent the equipment home behind the troops. Two months later, however, Canuck troops were back in South Africa - a few of them, anyways.

Noting that Canada's goals with its new equipment procurement meshed well with those the SANDF, the South Africans offered to donate 75 of their Rooikat 105 armored support vehicles to the Canadian Forces. This offer was considered, and in April twelve heavy weapons experts flew to South Africa to test the Rooikats. What they found was impressive. The Rooikat, which was capable of 120 km/h onroad and 60/km/h off of it, packed a massive 105mm gun, which used standard NATO ammo, and had highly sophisticated fire control, which allowed the gun to be accurately fired even at high speed. The troops called it "the troop tank", as it had been designed to keep up with faster-moving infantry units. Impressed, the twelve urged the acceptance of the vehicles. Despite some opposition from the Reform Party - the objections of which were loudly shouted down by the Conservatives - the vehicles were accepted. They entered service for the CF's infantry regiments in 2000. They were so effective that 75 more were ordered in 2003.

With South Africa dying away, the attention to shifted to the Balkans. That mess had been simmering for years after the Dayton Accords of 1995, but it opened up again in 1999 when the Yugoslav territory of Kosovo earnestly attempted to break away from the rump Yugoslavia. Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milsoevic ordered the Serbian Army to end the revolt, and the army and many militias moved into Kosovo. The violence spread rapidly, and by March 1999 dozens were dying every day.

Not wanting to see a repeat of the Balkan Wars which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and realizing Kosovo's demographics were far divided from those of the rest of Yugoslavia, NATO ordered Milosevic to back down. Milsoevic angrily refused, and on March 24, Operation Allied Force began.

Warrior wasn't in on this one - it was off Peru making a transit to the Pacific at the time - but the Canadian Forces were there, in strength. CF-14s were among the aircraft assigned to air defense, and CF-18s and CF-187s were among the aircraft dropping bombs, though the CF-14s did drop basic iron bombs themselves on a number of occasions. Their work was exemplary, dropping 14% of the bombs dropped in the entire war and shooting down three Yugoslav MiG-29s, but the biggest event of the year went down on May 26, and had only a little to do with the Air Command.

Reconaissance and intelligence-gathering leading up to the campaign had repeatdly tracked down the locations of several high-ranking genocide leaders, most notably Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, both wanted by international courts. Now the chief of the Canadian Forces and having a distrinct memory of the pain he saw and suffered in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire was not about to let these men get away, and he proposed a mission to go in and get them. Telling the authorities, though, was fraught with peril - somebody would undoubtedly tip off Karadzic and Mladic. They needed to go in themselves.

Charest made the call himself - go for it. Defense Minister Campbell agreed, and Dallaire began planning for it.

On May 10, the two turned up in the town of Foca. Dallaire got this intel within hours, and drew up his plans with the American Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark. As these two were wanted, Dallaire's plan was easily approved - and Clark would say later, "he wanted to go after them like an angry pitbull. He wanted them badly."

On the night of May 25, 525 men of the Canadian Special Air Service took off in nine C-130H Hercules aircraft and flew from Aviano, Italy, to Foca, Bosnia, where they parachuted in. As they arrived, so did CF-187 fighters form the AF, which had left from Aviano shortly after the Hercules had. They provided cover while the Canadian troops cleared out any Serb militiamen and caputed Karadzic and Mladic. Two MiG-23s of the Srpska's air forces were shot down by the CF-187s, and the Hercules landed on a nearby road cleared out by the forces. The aircraft picked up the teams and took off, heading back to Aviano. They were refueled over the Adriatic before landing back in Italy.

The mission was a success, though ten men died and twenty-eight were wounded. One of the CF-187s was struck by a Serb SAM and crashed in a house, killing both crew members instantly. The daring raid seriously angered the Bosnian and Yugoslav governmments, but the response from both NATO and Canada was little more than a shrug. Karadzic and Mladic were both turned over to the International Courts, and both were charged with genocide. Karadzic ultimately hung himself in his cell, but Mladic was convicted of crimes against humanity on May 15, 2005, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The operation also awed the media. "Our Boys Get the Murderers of Bosnia" was the headline of the National Post, while the Toronto Sun was even more simplistic: "Gotcha, Punks." While a few pointed out that the Forces had violated international law in the raid, almost nobody cared - the crimes of Karadzic and Mladic were well-known, and many who had been victims of the two Serbian murderers openly cheered Canada's raid. In Washington, the response was both being impressed with the ambitious raid, and questions as to why the United States didn't do it themselves. "We got upstaged on our mission by the Canucks!" Growled Congressman Pete Hoekstra, Republican of Pennsylvania. "How did we let that happen?!"

OOC: Part 3 to come......
 
Question...1,500 troops from the Calgary highlanders? As a reserve infantry unit that's a ton of troops to recruit and mobilize. 150 troops is easily practical but to get those kind of numbers you'd be looking at something more like:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/41cbg_hq/41_units.asp
each sending roughly 100-150 soldiers.

But other than that...I like the snatch and grab.
 

Hyperion

Banned
I was thinking of a more realistic timeline myself.

It involves Canada operating two carriers, based on the Spanish design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Principe_de_Asturias

I figured that might be realistic as Spain built a similar copy for Thailand in the 1990s. I would figure Canada would be willing to give Spain more money to support a licensing agreement to build ships in Canadian yards.

While they would lack the luster of a supercarrier, they would be much more realistic to afford, and instead of a dozen to twenty support ships, they could probably do with only half a dozen or so.

For submarines, I was thinking more along the lines of eight submarines, all diesel submarines, likely designed by German contractors and possibly built in Germany, but probably heavily outfitted in Canada.

While diesel submarines aren't as fancy as expensive nuclear submarines, they are much more realistic for Canada to afford. They would also be able to operate in more littoral waters, and some built with modern technology are supposedly quieter than nuclear submarines. That and they would require less manpower and less specialization for nuclear power. Having smaller crews would also mean a larger number of people could be spread out over more ships.

I figure also a force of six destroyers, and twenty frigates. This makes it easier to provide protection for the carriers, and to have ships doing independent work.

Having two carriers, even smaller ones only capable of operating carriers and helicopters, would be more in line with supporting Canadian peacekeeping. Helicopters to transport troops. Also, by using harriers, this gives a uniform aircraft, instead of smaller numbers of different aircraft. That and Harriers would outlive F-14s and Corsairs by many years, mainly as they would still be built brand new up to around 2003, so spare parts would be much more realistic to come by.

Having two carriers, albeit smaller ones, means that one carrier would be based in the Atlantic, and one in the Pacific. This covers each ocean, and depending on the crisis that arises, if one carrier is down for maintenance, the other could take over.
 
Hyperion, dude, make your own TL, dude. That's part of the goal of this forum. Do it in this thread if you want, man, I'll gather mine up and head to the TLs and Scenarios if ya want. :)

I admit that this is somewhat wankish. If I was building the carriers myself, I agree on the idea that two smaller carriers would be better than one great big one. I'm not arguing that one. But here, the older but still in good shape Forrestal came to Canada for nothing, and the Canucks spent a billion dollars reducing its required crew by 2,400 to make it easier on the budget to operate.
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
Hey, I love it!!!:D

I mean, we get a friggin super carrier for dirt cheap, and it was the first one ever too!!!

So yeah, the Mann, please carry on your good work.

And out of curiosity, what made you decide to have the CdG's Island transplanted onto the Warrior?

And make sure we get those CC-180s soon:p
 
Hey, I love it!!!:D

I mean, we get a friggin super carrier for dirt cheap, and it was the first one ever too!!!

But technically, the first ever angled-deck supercarrier designed as such was Forrestal's sister ship, Ranger.

So yeah, the Mann, please carry on your good work.

And out of curiosity, what made you decide to have the CdG's Island transplanted onto the Warrior?

It's a good setup. It's much taller than that of the Forrestal, and gives better visibility and better room to work, as well as mounting the radars high up, giving them a better field of vision. It's also a design that is about the same as the state of the art at the time.

And make sure we get those CC-180s soon:p

Watch this space......:D
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top