Comment by cmrdporcupine

Comment by cmrdporcupine 8 months ago

32 replies

View on Hacker News

I'm sure the answer is probably fairly mundane, but it's birthed a whole lineage of nationalist semi-conspirational explanations (US colonial masters chewed Diefenbaker out, demanded the total cessation and destruction of the project, etc.)

I suspect it makes absolutely zero sense for Canada of the 50s to be designing and building its own fighter-bomber jets, but the mythos is strong.

And the vibe of the whole thing is very topical, of course, with the US basically demanding we spend more money subsidizing their defense industry by buying their overpriced armaments from them while at the same time key people in the administration openly musing about the elimination of our sovereignty.

The US: having it both ways ("be our subservient raw resource provider and nothing else" and "oh, but it costs so much to defend you") since forever.

preommr 8 months ago

> And the vibe of the whole thing is very topical, of course, with the US basically demanding we spend more money subsidizing their defense industry by buying their overpriced armaments from them while at the same time key people in the administration openly musing about the elimination of our sovereignty.

Surprised this doesn't get mentioned more.

If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex.

It's easy for America to complain about other countries not spending as much when it's the one that owns the market we all shop at.

Reply View 24 replies
  • multiplegeorges 8 months ago

    > If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex.

    We're about to find out if we want to. This is a major point in Carney's defence plan.

    Reply View 18 replies
    • hylaride 8 months ago

      As a Canadian, I have mixed feeling about this. You can develop and build domestic defence industries, but it only becomes economical if you can develop an export market. Even then, the inputs for parts/resources are still global.

      Sweden has one heck of a domestic defence industry, but it's tailor made for its requirements and expensive. The SAAB Gripen is one of the best planes in the world for what it was designed to do: operate dispersed off of regional roads when your main infrastructure is destroyed or unavailable. But its flyway cost is the same as an F-35 because hundreds have been built instead of thousands. And the Gripen's engine is still from General Electric.

      The NLAW anti-tank weapon is a good example of export success. It was developed jointly with the British and has had a lot of exports and proven success in Ukraine.

      On top of that, Canada's defence civil service is terrible at procurement. Even when we buy foreign, we manage to drive up the costs to the point where its rediculously price just to shove in some domestic "advantage", rather than focusing that money on stuff we are really good at (we tend to kick ass at sonar and anti-sub tech, for example).

      Reply View 16 replies
      • lupusreal 8 months ago

        Domestic development is an investment in your own country, it develops and pays skilled labor and supporting industries. When you buy jets from America, virtually all of that money is gone from Canada forever, funneled into America with Canada getting nothing out of it besides a jet which will need spare parts also from America, technicians from America, and after some years will need to be replaced with another American jet because after you've stabbed your own domestic industry in the back now you have no other choice than to continue buying foreign.

        Reply View 10 replies
      • mrguyorama 8 months ago

        Russia's weapons exports have cratered (because their products aren't living up to the hype) and US exports will be shakey since countries can't trust us anymore.

        South Korea was already finding export success in Europe for general military equipment. Eastern Europe is paying big bucks to not be Ukraine 2. The market is ripe for new entrants.

        Meanwhile NATO has been stuck with 80s equipment with a hundred upgrade packages for quite some time. It's a great time to offer brand new products. Specifically tanks and AFVs are an open market right now. Anti-Air is also an open market, since Russian units are all exploded in Ukraine so they don't exactly have any stock to export and the Patriot is good but expensive and from an untrustworthy partner.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • hylaride 8 months ago

          I think the US defence industry really is going to be hurting for awhile for the trustworthiness reason alone. The Patriot was under-promised and over-delivered as shown in Ukraine (the Americans seemed happy to let people think that its teething problems in the first Gulf war were still a factor), but even if you buy it the supply is constrained to a country with what we can now describe at best a "mercurial" political system.

          Russia's exports have more cratered because they're focusing on domestic demand, but they still have a market for developing countries fighting amungst themselves that the west won't supply. The one exception is India, which will likely pivot to more western kit as they have border issues with China.

          Korea already had a domestic industry for various strategic reasons with North Korea being next door (if a global war became hot, they could be cut off from artillery ammunition sources, so it makes sense for them to make sure they can manufacture their own, even if its more expensive), so they're in a position to capitalize. Canada's reasons to do the same (massive arctic defence) doesn't have much of an export market, though we are teaming up with the Scandinavian countries for icebreakers.

          Reply View 0 replies
      • rjsw 8 months ago

        The Gripen could have been designed around the EJ200 or Snecma M88 instead.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • cmrdporcupine 8 months ago

        "On top of that, Canada's defence civil service is terrible at procurement."

        You could remove "defence" from that and describe almost every large company or gov't in this country, too.

        We need a moral and civil reform in this country, to really build again like we used to. Civic spirit revival.

        Look at the joke of the Eglinton LRT, or even more so the Hamilton LRT. Even when we commit to building things, it turns into a swamp of mismanagement and a game of political hot potato.

        Most embarassing thing about the Eglinton LRT is it sounds like its our (software) profession that is to blame for the latest series of dysfunctions. I'm disgusted.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • hylaride 8 months ago

          Yeah, I was trying to remain in scope to defence-related issues, but I don't disagree with you. I'm holding out some small sliver of hope that all the recent geopolitical events will finally wake us up, but I'm not holding my breath.

          Reply View 0 replies
    • cmrdporcupine 8 months ago

      We shall see. Big words, but this country has a history of doubling down on mediocrity and parochial interests.

      I personally would love to contribute in whatever way I could to homegrown manufacturing, tech, and maybe even defence sector, and am willing to put in the hours and even compensation cut to make things happen in this country.

      I just hope there's investors out there willing to make things happen, and that the gov't doesn't just do its usual thing of protecting a few existing corporate buddies.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • lenerdenator 8 months ago

    > If Canada wanted to, we could easily scale military spending by investing it in homegrown projects instead of spending it at the altar of the mililtary industrial complex.

    That doesn't mean no longer spending money at the altar of the military-industrial complex, it just means having your own altar. Which you're free to do, by the way. You don't have to buy our stuff.

    Canadians seem to consistently ignore the effects that a strong military-industrial complex has had on the US (and UK, to a lesser extent), particularly on foreign policy. When major components of the TSX Composite need sales, they're going to start lobbying MPs to get them. It's not a coincidence that a lot of the defense industry is based in Northern Virginia.

    As far as the sovereignty... I don't think you have to worry about that.

    Reply View 4 replies
speed_spread 8 months ago

It was a long range bomber interceptor and it made sense until ICBMs happened. Canadian territory is vast and mostly barren in a way that no other NATO country is, having specialized equipment to defend it can make a big difference.

Reply View 4 replies
  • the_af 8 months ago

    I understand the cancelation, I'm actually asking about the memory-holing of the project (destroying blueprints, not even keeping an airframe for a museum, etc).

    Reply View 0 replies
  • cf100clunk 8 months ago

    It was an interceptor. Ideas for conversion to a bomber role were only ideas.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • speed_spread 8 months ago

      My bad, I meant it was an interceptor against bombers.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • cf100clunk 8 months ago

        Re-reading, I now see that you meant interceptor of bombers.

        Reply View 0 replies
the_af 8 months ago

Keep in mind I'm not asking why the project was canceled, but why even the blueprints were destroyed! It seems overkill, or even spite.

Reply View 0 replies
cf100clunk 8 months ago

> designing and building its own fighter-bomber jets

The Avro Arrow was only proposed as an interceptor but neither a fighter nor bomber. There were spitball ideas of future bomber adaptations but they were never part of the project.

Reply View 0 replies