The Arrow was cancelled for a few reasons, including the realization that the US was not going to purchase it, making for tiny, uneconomical production runs, the realization that Soviet missiles were now the main threat, not the manned bombers the Avro was designed to shoot down, and the development of anti-missile technology like the nuclear-armed Bomarc missile. Hey, “close enough” counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and atomic “devices.” That the use of the Bomarc would mean nuclear explosions over Canada was not seen as a problem by US defence planners.
There was also the fact the project had gone WILDLY off the rails in terms of cost. At the time it was cancelled they had quadrupled the budget and the Arrow was nowhere near ready, years from being a working interceptor. At that point it still had 't been married to the intended engine, still didn’t have its avionics or weapons systems even close to ready.
The Arrow would have been a great plane for what it was at the time - a high altitude interceptor - but it would have had a service life of 15 years before it was out of date. It had no multi-role capability at all, and by the 1970s, which was just 10-15 years beyond a generous guess of when Arrow would be operational, planes like the F-15 and the Soviet responses like MiG-29 and Su-27 would have made the Arrow obsolete. We would have dragged it into the 1980s, way past its usable life.
It was a cool idea but it didn’t work.
Agreed with all of it, but the fact that the plans and existing parts and tooling were outright destroyed is still a frustrating and suspicious decision. Eliminating information never looks good, especially at government command.
So a resounding success by today’s mega-project standards, eh?
Not only that, but it got upstaged… by Leave It to Beaver.
People were paranoid back then.
Pretty much the same thing happened with the TSR-2 in the uk. Tooling destroyed along with most of the prototypes. There’s one at Duxford and it’s a beautiful plane. A real paper dart design.
Canschluss?
Good article, although the title question is unanswerable:
Is Trump’s trade war with Mexico and Canada over?
The article gives reasons to think both yes and no. Here’s the case for the answer bring no:
My guess is that he won’t dare charge 25 percent on everything, but something lower and/or targeted is coming.
Oh yes. Trump will fuck something up just so he can ‘save face’. Who knows, a 10% tariff on Canadian whiskey? I’ve no idea.
That thing looks like someone gave the Arrow viagra! 
Stop giving that idiot ideas! I only drink three kinds of whiskey - Crown, Jameson, and whatever bourbon is on sale that I like.
ETA: And sometimes rye whiskey can be good if it suits the mood.
We should all buy Canadian sauce, while they’re pulling ours from the shelves.
Will do.
Canadian rye whisky Crown Northern Harvest got rave reviews and was deemed world best by some expert in 2015. It’s very good value, fruity and an order of magnitude better than Crown. But there are quite a few whiskies I prefer. I’d even say Canadian whisky Lot 40 was better.
Great idea! But I’d suggest avoiding the common ones that are popularly advertised and typically get pride-of-place on the retail shelf (e.g. Canadian Club and Royal Reserve). I will note that Black Velvet and Crown Royal are acceptable-to-nice.
But for really outstanding Canadian whisky, I’d suggest looking for some you might never have heard of. Forty Creek Barrel Select (Ontario) is a pleasant sipping whisky. Your first sip of Collingwood (Ontario) may leave you wondering what flavours and aromas are in it, so you’ll need a second glass to pin them down (and maybe a third; it is really nice). And then there is Glen Breton (Nova Scotia), which is technically a Canadian whisky, but is made just as a Scottish single malt would be. Rather unusual in the Canadian whisky landscape, but definitely worth the search. And the price; it ain’t cheap.
I should add Alberta Premium Rye, which is 100% rye, and if you’re looking for a straight rye, you can’t go wrong with this one. From Alberta, as the name implies.
Whatever you choose, happy exploring and tasting!
You should run out right now and buy two of each!
Interesting Nanos poll just came out, showing Canadians prefer Mark Carney over Poilievre when it comes to “who would do the best job at negotiating with Trump?” 40% Carney, 26% Poilievre. Of course, Carney isn’t the Liberal leader yet (he’s my choice among the candidates) but it’s a curious bellweather. Accent aside, Poilievre really does come across as a DeSantis-style politics-of-grievance culture warrior (he even looks a bit like Mike Johnson, IMHO). If he keeps reminding Canadians of the GOP in aesthetic, attitude, and style of speech, he may not be in as strong a position as he was a month ago.
At least, I hope he’s not.
He’ll change tactics if the polls say he should. Poilevre doesn’t have any particular ideology; he is purely, one hundred percent a wind-shifting populist whose only ambition is being Prime Minister. I don’t think he really stands for much of anything.
He’s just saying “Axe the Tax” over and over again because it works.
But that said, Poilevre isn’t going to give the farm away to Trump for that same reason; he knows full well that Canadians hate Trump and are spoiling for a fight and will clearly accept a recession if that’s what means maintaining our sovereignty. ’
My concern would be that he’s an asshole and while I don’t think he’d sell out to Trump, I am unconvinced he’s clever or agreeable enouogh to get all the premiers, business leaders and other players on board. Trudeau has done a decent job of making Canada a unified front - he can’t prevent Danielle Smith from being a Quisling but whaddya gonna do. Poilevre likely doesn’t have the ability to keep that up, though, hey, one never knows.
Can Carney? Beats me; people are drooling over him because he did a few interviews and has good hair. We have no idea, none, if he is a skilled politician. He’s never been a politician.
What a disservice to the man! He clearly has unswerving devotion to the two bedrock principles of modern conservatism: owning the Libs and what’s best for himself.