Avro Arrow - Page 8

NORAD DROPS "THE MAMA JOKE"

Dateline: www.canadaka.net forums

Sources have revealed that in an attempt to regain some semblence of superiority, Norad, a local poster with a fetish for big-foreheaded men, used a "mama" joke.

Norad, or Professor Pringle as he has recently come to be known, worked his own deviousness into the "mama" joke by cleverly hinting that due to a decrease in milk production, local hero and prophesied saviour Dayseed would be unable to suckle from them. Similar insults have been used for decisive victories in and around his trailer park unlicensed daycare, although this is the first recorded time Norad has issued a "mama" joke outside those realms.

The US Military was quickly in contact with Norad, aka Professor Pringle, in an attempt to transition his stunning wit to winning the war for Iraq. Said US General Abe Horowitz, "We were always close to perfecting the mama joke. However, we spent too much effort casting about referring to this hypothetical mother's excessive weight or perhaps a bouffant hairstyle. Sadly, too many lives were wasted in this fruitless pursuit. If only Professor Pringle had unleashed his devasting wit beforehand." US General Horowitz was unable to continue, his sobs wrenching his body.

There were quick calls from Opposition Leader Stephen Harper, demanding that the "mama" joke be used as Canada's own ballistic missile defence system. Harper remarked in the House of Commons recently that, "Canada can now stand on it's own two feet, safe from any incoming missile destined to threaten our safety, our families, our way of life. Provided the missile is sensitive about its mother's tits of course."

The "mama" joke was not well-received in the capitals of European nations. Said Tony Blair, "Currently, the European Union is investigating the matter to see if indeed a war crime or contravention of the Geneva Convention has occurred. The only "mama" precedent to appear before the Hague was in 1985 when Hans Blucher of Bavaria remarked to some lcoal gypsies that they were 'sons-of-bitches'. This, however, this is a new low."

As of press time, Norad had not issued any further jokes of mass destruction although sources close to him revealed he may indeed possess similar weapons including cliched observations about airline food and an anecdote about changing diapers; no real punchline, just a cute story.

When asked for comment, Dayseed responded, "Who? No, seriously, who?"

Man!... You badly need to get a life, Dayseed... :roll:

Thanks Freaker, would that include trumpeting my arcade victories on a message board? Way to be irrelevant to the discussion Champ!

norad,

This is your “A” game?!?!? Stop. This is like watching a train wreck. Jesus Christ…did you just write “mammary glands”? Damn. Did Richie lend you his “poet laurette” approved thesaurus – it’s called a breast – just use it. Besides, you intimated Dayseed was a homosexual (see, you substituted “Day” with “Gay” – how clever) and now you think he sucks on a women’s breast. Uhh…for God’s sake which is it? Try to maintain some semblance of continuity in your piss poor attempt at humour. For example, I’ve always suggested you have a prosimian brain (you proved me correct by trying to claim prosimian was spelled incorrectly or that I was a simian supporter) – see how it works?

Dude, you entered into an intellectual gang-bang but you’ll be the only one hurting – you are not funny. It’s that simple. You’ve been schooled on the Arrow, threatened boom-boom violence and made bigoted homophobic comments (good one, Dice Clay – how early 90s of you!). Isn’t this the part where you threaten to contact the moderators to bail you out? Would Bruce Willis approve (and “Mercury Rising” sucked)?

Lastly, you still won’t substantiate your claim that Michael Bliss or his historiographical conclusions are “moronic.” When you dodge again, I predicted it! :twisted:

Geez it's like the Romper Room in here. :roll:

Although this is good for my post count i am begining to find this tiresome mustang. When i read a book, i do not see it all as fact. Some is, some isn't. It is the perception of what we read that is important. You seem to think that everything that you see and hear is true, unless it differs from what you believe to be true. It is utterly imposible to cite everything that i have read, seen, and heard that has influanced my opinion on the matter, so i will not even bother to begin. If i am dodging the issue on this, fine. The fact remains that i have yet to hear what YOU have decided on this hole issue. You have said many times that i am wrong and have offered your opinion of myself and others, as well as your general opinion on the topic of the Avro Arrow. Yet you have never seemed to offer an independant thought on the Arrow, just saying 'so and so said this' and 'what about that?' but never really saying anything that you can ever be personally acountable for. I am not affraid to offer my ideas and say that they are my own. If i am deemed to be stupid by the likes of you, i could not care less. Every time you question my intelectual integrity i get a little smile because i know that you are unable to defend yourself adequatly so you instead resort to attacking others.

One more time, my opinion is derieved from all which i have experienced, not specific research. And i know that i am not an expert in military history, technology, politics, or anything else relevant to this. Therefore, i am in no position to directly contridict an expert, yet with what i do know about those areas, the official story of what happened does not make sense. Lets agree to dissagree on this, shall we?

You may rationalize it anyway you feel necessary – that’s your prerogative – but you simply haven’t presented a competent academic historical argument (no intention to insult). Evidently, you don’t respect the proper, established methodology nor do you possess – or have demonstrated – the requisite knowledge (political, military or Cold War history) foundation. All of this ultimately hinders proper narrative interpretation and construction. Where is your historiographical analysis? Where is your review of the pertinent primary sources? What major errors are evident in the orthodox historical model (the one established by competent historians)? You dogmatically refuse to address these relevant points and your supposition, therefore, remains erroneous and unproven.

I repeatedly challenged your assumptions because they were clearly incorrect. The historical record (that which you seem to hold in such contempt) is quite clear about the particulars regarding the Arrow’s cancellation. You disagree? That’s irrelevant – to suggest that Bliss, Granatstein, Chaikin, Mclin and Morton somehow need your endorsement of their work as a requirement for authenticity is preposterous and supercilious. That’s not how history is conducted. It’s not about unfounded opinions, personal beliefs, premonitions, feelings, or amateurish nonsense like “it’s not in the sources” conclusions. It’s about historiographical analysis (not, as of yet, offered by you). It’s about examining BOTH the primary and secondary evidence (again, you have NOT provided a single example) and arriving – through a methodologically sound manner – at a conclusion or understanding that fits the available tangible information. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated this. You? Not so much.

Here’s what the historical record is crystal clear on in terms of termination reasons:

1. Cost – There is scholarly consensus on this objective fact (see Morton). The cost has been consistently suggested by many historians and political scientists (see Isinger, Chaikin and McLin) Bottom line: the plane was too expensive – even C.D. Howe lamented the finical mess of the endeavour. Arrow’s cost was astronomical and its development comprised a significant component of the entire defence budget. The per/plane numbers were significant as Pearkes had suggested it was almost $8 million per plane (he would later state $9-10 million per/plane for 60 planes (NOT including development/pre-production costs!). That’s unacceptable numbers for an aircraft designed to intercept strategic bombers in the ICBM era (although this stringent strategic shift would lessen in the 1960s).

Moreover, documents suggest that by 1958 approx $400million had been spent on only 5 airplanes – now do the math – anyway you look at it, Avro had 5 airplanes produced (albeit in-house) at the cost of $400 million and no international buyers in a limited marketplace. Of note – USAF was on record saying that their planned (and later aborted) F-108 Rapier (an aircraft whose potential performance was on par or better than the CF-105’s) was in early pre-production and its costs would be nothing in comparison to the Avro debacle.

2.Cold War strategic shift – Oct 4, 1958 – Soviet rocket lifts Sputnik 1 into space and ushers in the intercontinental missile age – For a brief time, major Western powers shifted primary strategic policies to ICBMs and manned interceptors (especially expensive ones, despite their technological prowess) are put on indefinite delay (see U.S. F-108 Rapier) – it is irrelevant that this shift was reactionary and incorrect, this was the era that the Arrow belonged to.
In addition, Sandys’ White Paper on defence ended RAF desire for Arrow procurement. The immerging trend saw everyone, including Khrushchev/USSR, declare interceptors momentarily tactically obsolete. This marketplace would prove – according to English and Bothwell – somewhat problematic to small and national airframe manufacturers. This was the temporal milieu that the Arrow occupied.

3.Mismanagement of resources by RCAF and Avro – too many components were taken on in pre production (airframe, engine, weapons, fire control) that further escalated an already costly program. Stewart’s excellent treatment of Gordon (good use of primary sources) clearly paints a picture of a troubled corporate culture at Avro.

That’s it. That’s the story. Deal with it.

Lastly, let’s wrap up this silly U.S. conspiracy (Campagna’s crap) nonsense.

U.S. “Conspiracy” – evidence? Not much from the historical record would suggest it existed. Consider the following:
A) If the U.S. wanted the airplane cancelled, why offer to buy it for the RCAF (see Mclin)?
B) The Arrow’s technological innovations and stellar performance (albeit without the Iroquois) were matched and exceeded by U.S. counterparts (see YF-12, F-108 and future F-4) – what was the market threat?
C) The interceptor was momentarily DEAD – the U.S. was not interested in strategically obsolete hardware, so why would it object to its NATO/NORAD ally using it?

Don’t believe it? Why not demonstrate, with tangible, irrefutable and accessible primary sources that there are glaring inconsistencies within the assertion? If you can’t – maybe it’s because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Want more sources?
:twisted:

1 2 and 3 all fit, all make sense... but where's number four? Why melt the planes, destroy documents and all the jigs and ficutres?

Dief denied any knowledge of the order to scrap the planes untill his death.

At the stage the project was in, it actually cost more to cancell it than it would have to complete it.

A long range interceptor was assumed to be obsolete... but a high altitude interceptor with tha arrows capabitliy could pose a threat to the U2 (which hadn't been shot down yet) or maybe even a blackbird. They didn't fly the first blackbird untill the mid sixites and the Arrow was already ready to go! There WAS a market, it just wasn't in the west.

One reason the plane had cost so much, is because they did it so fast. Did you know they built all the jigs and fixtures as they built the prototype machine? A huge gamble, if something was wrong with the prototype, they would have to change those fixtures. However, if the prototype worked, which it did, they were ready to go into production almost immediatly.

At one point, the Yanks did offer to buy a few planes. They also preassured The Canucks into substantially lowering the production numbers.

They also were preasuring the Canucks into buying an expensive missile system that didn't work (gee, that sounds familiar). And they knew full well that Canada could not afford a missle system and a high altitude, long range interceptor.

Your story is pretty much the official one that the press was given. I have no doubt that all those factors played into the Arrows demise.

Personnally? I think there had to be another factor influencing our politicians to make destroying the plane necessary.

Arrow never posed a significant threat to the U-2 (Campagna erroneously theorized this) or the SR-71 (didn’t the A-12 - the forerunner of the SR-71 - first fly well after the Arrow’s cancellation?)- in fact, when comparisons are drawn between the Arrow and the SR-71, the latter is infinitely superior(despite the obvious fact that SR-71 wasn’t even in existence (1964) in 1959!!!). What threat did the Arrow pose? It certainly wasn’t an operational element and there were no market issues, so this point appears moot. Besides, why offer to buy us Arrows, if they posed a security threat to U.S. reconnaissance missions? How does one reconcile this glaring problem?

Secondly, the escalating costs were due to project/production mismanagement. Avro assumed too many manufacturing aspects (some were at the RCAF’s insistence) as opposed to only designing the airframe (their original mandate). The Astra/Sparrow II weapons systems and the Iroquois engine (the J75s were used in flight tests) were all adopted (including the procurement of Orenda) into the overall Arrow project and this pushed the cost (more than any other factor) beyond normal operating parameters.

Lastly, not to needle the point, but some of my previous cancellation causes only surfaced during the 1980s (especially the volatile Gordon angle - thank Stewart - and the problematic corporate culture at Avro). C.D. Howe’s lamenting of the project surfaced only when his memoirs became public and was academically published by historians (it demonstrated the fact that the plane was scheduled for termination prior to 1958 – this tends to eliminate American influence!). Moreover, a quick historiographical treatment would reveal that early theories only centred on Diefenbaker as the sole reason behind the plane’s cancellation. Further historical research (and an emerging primary record) revealed that Howe, St. Laurent and Pearson (had he been electorally more successful) would have all cancelled the plane for cost reasons as well. As well, recent information surfaced the clearly pointed towards a Canadian military influence on the Prime Minister.

As it has been so eloquently said, “The Arrow was the wrong plane, at the wrong price at the wrong time.”

The Arrow was ahead of it's time, so yes it was at the wrong time. The wrong price, well sure it was expensive but costs come down once you have made a number of units, a fact that is widely known.And the wrong plane, that is an incredibly subjective question. At the time, it seemed as though bombers had become obsolete with the launch of sputnik. At the same time however, it would seem unlikely that the bombers would be abandoned completely in favour of ICBM's.

You brought up the idea of Arrow vs Phantom. When comparing the arrow to the Phantom, the Arrow was to be better than the F4 in all areas except for range and possibly payload but i believe that the Arrow had a greater payload. In fact, when comparing the Arrow to any other fighters produced until the late 1960's, the Arrow is generally considered to be the superior aircraft.

In terms of what was lost when everything was destroyed, systems such as fly-by-wire were to be introduced on the Arrow, technology that was first fully deployed on the F-16, designed in the late 70's. The engines were to produce more thrust than the F-14 Tomcat, which was designed at the end of Vietnam. It is the questions of 'why was everything destroyed' that has nerer really been answered. To prevent the Russians from getting it? In that case, the best hting to do would to be to have the technology yourself so you have experience with it and can improve on it faster.

Where are the links, Mustang? I need some evidence that what you're writing isn't bullocks - no insult intended.

What about the Bomarc system? Do they come into the equation somewhere?

Robair: Number four as I understand it. The cold war. There were security concerns. Hence, they were destroyed.

If anyone has any evidence otherwise about number four, please post a link here.

Oh, and Mustang, if you read what I wrote, I said he was a moron for telling his history students that Elvis Presley flew the Arrow that got away. Again, that's not scholar talk; argue all you want about it. You twisted it into something else. Are you Michael Bliss by chance? You certainly took it personally.

I'm sorry Rob, bu t i also know my aircraft and i admit that the Arrow could have intercepted a U2 but not the SR71. It flew officially at mach 3+ at an atlitude of 80 000+ feet for a long time. Then it was officially mach 3.5+ at over 100 000 feet. The Arrow was good, but not nearly that good.

The Blackbird does hold the altitude record for sustained horizontal flight... at 85,068'. This record was set in 1976.

But that is all besides the point.

In the late fifties, they were coming up with designs to replace the U-2. They were shooting for something capable of 2,000mph at 80,000'.

Canada was building an interceptor that may have been capable of carrying a deadly payload awefully close to 80,000'.

My suspision is that played a role in the Arrows demise.