Cold War Canada Wank?

[Riain]

If your scope for a Cold War era Canada wank is limited to plane procurement in the 60s and 70s, sure.

Now let's instead go back to Dief the Chief and his efforts to revive the National Policy. Let's discuss northern development and an economic Commonwealth.

It's not limited to plane procurement but that's my pet subject so I know the most about it, I've also had a bit of a look at the submarines.

All I know about Dief is he cancelled the Arrow, and that by time of cancellation it was probably a reasonable decision. Additionally the Voodoos and BOMARCs aren't a 'normal' acquisition, they're tied in with NORAD, manning radars and the like so you can't just butterfly them away by saying 'buy Phantoms' or whatever.

What's the National Policy? Why didn't it get up?

 

[Legofan4]

That and a lack of a direct threat.

In the same time period as Canada was reducing defence spending Australia was dealing with the Indonesia Confrontation of Netherlands and invasion of West Papua, trouble in Thailand leading to a deployment of RAAF Sabres, Indonesian Confrontation with the Commonwealth over Malaysia which lead to combat deployments and the deployment of substantial force to Vietnam. In 1963 Australia bought F111s, DDGs, M113s, all of which served well over 30 years, with the M113s still in service.

I would think that is all part of the same thing. Because America will defend Canada, and is the only nation that borders Canada, there can be no direct threat except for the Soviet Union. There is nothing Canada can do to punch at the weight of the Soviets or the Americans so from the point of view of their politicians and people why really bother.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What's the National Policy? Why didn't it get up?

The National Policy, was a trio of positions held nearly without interruption between Confederation and the election of Brian Mulroney. Originally they were to a) industrialize Canada through tariffs on American goods, b) to connect Canada to the West by rail, and c) to people the prairies. More broadly they were anti-continentalism, strong federal funding for infrastructure projects, and openness to immigration.

Diefenbaker sought to revitalize it through a swath of northern development schemes (the most ambitious of which aimed for an 11th province around Great Slave Lake), and an empowered Commonwealth (including a Commonwealth trade agreement). As for why it failed: Domestically he inherited a recession and fumbled the response. On the Commonwealth side of things his efforts to turn the Commonwealth into a relevant "moral" force on the global stage directly lead to South Africa leaving, and the UK by this point had firmly shifted its interest from the Commonwealth/Sterling Area to the European Common Market and the one thing that might have swayed them (total free trade) was a few bridges past what Dief or any other Commonwealth proponents had been advocating.

 

[Riain]

I would think that is all part of the same thing. Because America will defend Canada, and is the only nation that borders Canada, there can be no direct threat except for the Soviet Union. There is nothing Canada can do to punch at the weight of the Soviets or the Americans so from the point of view of their politicians and people why really bother.

Yes; Canada has no unruly neighbors to contend with, unlike Australia, so can easily get away with doing the bare minimum the way Australia cannot.

 

[Riain]

The National Policy, was a trio of positions held nearly without interruption between Confederation and the election of Brian Mulroney. Originally they were to a) industrialize Canada through tariffs on American goods, b) to connect Canada to the West by rail, and c) to people the prairies. More broadly they were anti-continentalism, strong federal funding for infrastructure projects, and openness to immigration.

Diefenbaker sought to revitalize it through a swath of northern development schemes (the most ambitious of which aimed for an 11th province around Great Slave Lake), and an empowered Commonwealth (including a Commonwealth trade agreement). As for why it failed: Domestically he inherited a recession and fumbled the response. On the Commonwealth side of things his efforts to turn the Commonwealth into a relevant "moral" force on the global stage directly lead to South Africa leaving, and the UK by this point had firmly shifted its interest from the Commonwealth/Sterling Area to the European Common Market and the one thing that might have swayed them (total free trade) was a few bridges past what Dief or any other Commonwealth proponents had been advocating.

So what if Dief hadn't fumbled the response to the recession, which incidentally can be blamed for shrinking (and ruining) the British airliners VC10 and HS Trident? Would the finances be less tight in the late 50s and early 60s so they wouldn't be so miserly with the subs and warships procurements? Would there be more support from the industrial side to build more stuff? Would the development programmes alter Canada's security policy, in order to cope with the changes they would bring?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

So what if Dief hadn't fumbled the response to the recession, which incidentally can be blamed for shrinking (and ruining) the British airliners VC10 and HS Trident? Would the finances be less tight in the late 50s and early 60s so they wouldn't be so miserly with the subs and warships procurements? Would there be more support from the industrial side to build more stuff? Would the development programmes alter Canada's security policy, in order to cope with the changes they would bring?

Yes an economically healthier, and also more protectionist, Canada would likely be inclined to spend more on its military, especially on domestically built projects.

Now another potentially interesting way for Canada to go in the Cold War would be Trudeau's interventionism and love for creating jobs in his home province to take on a more coherent form. The Canadian government already owned Canadair, had the Long Branch small arms factory until 1976, and had to bail out and reorganize Davie Shipbuilding in the 1980s, consolidating these into a single Crown Company could be the basis for a BAE style consolidation of the defence sector. Heck, have him licence produce the Centurion replacement tank in Montreal (something I'm surprised he didn't do given his proclivities) and you can add AFVs to the list of things a theoretical CanadArms could do.

 

[Riain]

Yes an economically healthier, and also more protectionist, Canada would likely be inclined to spend more on its military, especially on domestically built projects.

Now another potentially interesting way for Canada to go in the Cold War would be Trudeau's interventionism and love for creating jobs in his home province to take on a more coherent form. The Canadian government already owned Canadair, had the Long Branch small arms factory until 1976, and had to bail out and reorganize Davie Shipbuilding in the 1980s, consolidating these into a single Crown Company could be the basis for a BAE style consolidation of the defence sector. Heck, have him licence produce the Centurion replacement tank in Montreal (something I'm surprised he didn't do given his proclivities) and you can add AFVs to the list of things a theoretical CanadArms could do.

Consolidation should be undertaken just to get the name CanadArms!

A lack of coherence was what I was thinking of when I started this thread, but I think it's less incoherent than I thought and more 'miserly because it can be'.

Would/could a more protectionist government in the late 50s push the Arrow to production and develop multi-role capabilities in order to look after the industries?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Would/could a more protectionist government in the late 50s push the Arrow to production and develop multi-role capabilities in order to look after the industries?

Pushing it into production is possible, developing multi-role capabilities for it is quite another. It is bigger than an F-111 after all, with an air frame optimized for straight line speed at altitude. I think Canada's best chance to save the Arrow was back in 1952 way back at the conceptual stage. Recognizing Canada's limited budget and anticipating high maintenance costs from operating multiple specialized high performance platforms (or something like that) the RCAF requests a jack of all trades jet rather than a super specialized interceptor. Tada an F-4 competitor conceptualized on the same timeline as the F-4.

 

[Riain]

The Phantom had a pretty bizarre development cycle; it started as a supersonic fighter in competition with the F8 Crusader, they then turned it into a attack fighter wth 4 x 20mm guns and 11 pylons and then the Navy told McDD they wanted a long range fleet interceptor so they stripped all the attack stuff out and gave it semi-recessed Sparrows. It was this twisting and turning in the development cycle that made it a jack of all trades rather than good thinking at the outset.

Like all fighters of the era the Arrow had the basic performance that would make it a decent attack aircraft, likely much better and more useful than the CF104.

 

[Bougnas]

Would carriers or SSNs have been the best tool for hunting Soviet SSBNs in the central North Atlantic?

Carriers, SSNs and offensive ASW destroyers, not really the kind of surface ships NATO had that were overoptimized for convoy escort.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Carriers, SSNs and offensive ASW destroyers, not really the kind of surface ships NATO had that were overoptimized for convoy escort.

Would this be a good time to bring up the joint Commonwealth VSTOL/Commando Carrier program I suggested in another thread for the Australian, British and Canadian navies?

 

[Riain]

Would this be a good time to bring up the joint Commonwealth VSTOL/Commando Carrier program I suggested in another thread for the Australian, British and Canadian navies?

I like the idea of a Commonwealth-wank and I think Britain and Australia are pretty easy targets to rig something up, even if it's not a joint STOVL/Commando carrier. However Canada is very tough, successive governments in the 60s and therefore the electorate simply wasn't interested. It's hard to wank a country where a plan to get 6 subs and 8 warships is whittled down to 3 subs and 2 warships within 2 years.

 

[TheCoolCucumber]

If I were going to write a timeline on this subject, this would be the bones:
- Arrow is killed in the early 50s, preferably before it ever gets off the ground. There are a few ways to do that, different design selected results in more adaptable aircraft, government decides to go with the Super Canuck (this seems unlikely but would kick the development of a new interceptor down the road enough that it would have to take place in a time when it had become apparent that ICBMs were the main threat to North America).
- Liberals win the 1957 election, St Laurent probably retires shortly after and is replaced by Pearson or Martin, who then gets stuck dealing with the early 60s economy and loses in 61 or 62.
- General Purpose Frigate or equivalent gets built and replaces the WW2 destroyers.
- A-4 purchased for the Bonaventure, which probably wouldn't be scrapped by a PC government.
-Replacement of the Canadair Sabres really depends on what happens with the interceptor in the 50s. Hard to see them getting a decent replacement if a bunch of money was spent on a domestic interceptor.
-Unification of the Armed Forces happens under someone not named Paul Hellyer

 

[Riain]

I think any Canada wank would have to make it's big gains in the late 50s and early 60s then ride this through the remainder of the 60s in order to make the next big things (CF5A and Iroquois class) better.

 

[jsb]

Pushing it into production is possible, developing multi-role capabilities for it is quite another. It is bigger than an F-111 after all,

Like all fighters of the era the Arrow had the basic performance that would make it a decent attack aircraft, likely much better and more useful than the CF104.

I just agree look at its airframe weight as this normally equals cost somewhat and the low numbers it would be made in, and the cost would be huge......

Arrow Mk 1 Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,244 kg) MK1 so real one with systems would weight more!!!!
F-4 Phantom II Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
F-14D Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg)
F/A-18C/D Empty weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)
CF-116 8,681 lb (3,938 kg)

 

[Lascaris]

I just agree look at its airframe weight as this normally equals cost somewhat and the low numbers it would be made in, and the cost would be huge......

Arrow Mk 1 Empty weight: 49,040 lb (22,244 kg) MK1 so real one with systems would weight more!!!!
F-4 Phantom II Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
F-14D Empty weight: 43,735 lb (19,838 kg)
F/A-18C/D Empty weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)
CF-116 8,681 lb (3,938 kg)

A proper if unpopular question might be... how do you kill the Arrow for a more affordable design, around the size of Phantom if not Mirage III? Because even if Arrow does get into service what are it's long term prospects? Exports seem to me unlikely to put it mildly.

 

[jsb]

A proper if unpopular question might be... how do you kill the Arrow for a more affordable design, around the size of Phantom if not Mirage III? Because even if Arrow does get into service what are it's long term prospects? Exports seem to me unlikely to put it mildly.

The problem is that Canada needs a huge aircraft from a geographic and defence point of view and wants a small cheap aircraft from an industrial sales export and cost point of view, it can't really be done without sharing with somebody else or simply incensing somebody else design to get large production numbers, but that also means giving up on being the lead design, really just becoming an early manufacturing deal for USN F4s would be best agree a work share deal with McDonnell Douglas like F35 deal to make parts as you will be buying them for NORAD mission...? Do it in middle 50s and miss out on C104 as well as C116.... CF4 can do it all!

 

[Lascaris]

The problem is that Canada needs a huge aircraft from a geographic and defence point of view and wants a small cheap aircraft from an industrial sales export and cost point of view, it can't really be done without sharing with somebody else or simply incensing somebody else design to get large production numbers, but that also means giving up on being the lead design, really just becoming an early manufacturing deal for USN F4s would be best agree a work share deal with McDonnell Douglas like F35 deal to make parts as you will be buying them for NORAD mission...? Do it in middle 50s and miss out on C104 as well as C116.... CF4 can do it all!

True but I'd note Avro's C.104/1 was an one-engined design. The cynic would ask what distinct advantages CF-105 offers over... F-106 for example? And are they worth it when you do a cost/benefit analysis?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

A proper if unpopular question might be... how do you kill the Arrow for a more affordable design, around the size of Phantom if not Mirage III? Because even if Arrow does get into service what are it's long term prospects? Exports seem to me unlikely to put it mildly.

I think the simplest option would just be to switch around the RCAF's two 1950s procurement programs. iOTL they wanted a domestically designed interceptor and a licence produced "strike-reconnaissance aircraft". So instead Canadair will licence produce the Voodoo (or something like that), and Avro gets tasked with filling the operational need filled iOTL by the CF-104.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Either the Voodoo or the F-106, for the interceptor.

Assuming the Canadians make similar engine choices, the new strike aircraft is likely to look a lot like a Canadian Thunderchief - single engine in the J75 class designed for nuclear strike.