Why did PM Diefenbaker scrap the Arrow Project?Tanson LeeMs. NesciCHC2D7aDecember 22, 2017Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of SourcesThis Historical Investigation evaluates the question “Why did PM Diefenbaker scrap the Arrow Project?” A great quantity of information from this HI was derived from Storms of Controversy by Palmiro Campagna. This source’s focus is the many factors that contributed to the cancellation of the Arrow Project which correlates with the topic of this HI proving its relevance.
The second source that will be analyzed is Neoclassical Realism and the Avro CF-105 Arrow by Bryn Rees. This thesis involves the deep political issues that pertain to the elements encouraging the cancellation of the Arrow which also corresponds to the major theme of this investigation.Storms of Controversy by Palmiro Campagna is valuable as it’s written by the reputable author Palmiro Campagna, a Canadian representative in NATO establishing his experience further verifying his military expertise.
This correlates to the origin which positively reflects the validity and value. This text’s purpose is to inform the public on this topic which has the value of being equitable in perspectives. The purpose is to inform and not to persuade which also limits the amount of fragmentation or omission in the text. As a fourth edition book, the content is heavily revised and new information is added from the first edition which furthers its value.
Being a fourth edition book also entails that it’s a multi-author book establishing a minimal amount of bias.The origin limits the validity of this book as it was written by a Canadian. This creates a bias as the author has nationalistic pride for Canada consequently decreasing the value. The purpose has entertaining values in addition to the informative aspect as it is a novel. This causes the book to be written in a way to make the event interesting and may not encompass the full nature of the situation and this exclusion results in a reduction of value towards this investigation. The source is limited in the sense that it is so deeply political that government censorship could result, hindering its content.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
This limits the ability for this source to have stronger ideas as they may be threatening to the Canadian government’s reputation.Neoclassical Realism and the Avro CF-105 Arrow, a thesis has the value of originating from a reputable writer, Bryn Rees. His education level is towards a masters degree in political science which establishes his expertise in the topic.
The purpose of this thesis is to fulfil requirements for his master’s degree which suggests that all the information will be valid and to the utmost relevance. The content of this thesis specifically correlates to this investigation which pertains directly to the political aspect of this investigation which in turn provides an increase in value. The thesis Neoclassical Realism and the Avro CF-105 Arrow has the limitation of being biased.
The source says “The cancellation… was a national ‘tragedy,’ an inexcusable gaffe on the part of Canadian Prime Minister,” which limits the value of the content. The Origin is limited as the author is a student which entails that he may not have the authority to access specific government documents contrary to the access that professional historians have, establishing a possible lack in information. The purpose of this thesis is to fulfil requirements to a masters degree. This establishes that this was not meant for the general public suggesting that the different themes discussed aren’t explained in a simplistic manner so false interpretations are likely.
Section 2: InvestigationThe Avro CF-105 Arrow was a futuristic, supersonic jet which was never released but still establishes heavy historical significance. Due to Canada’s political and economic situation, as well as the development of military technology diminishing the practicality of the Arrow, PM Diefenbaker abolished the Avro Arrow project.The situation of Canada’s economy was a leading factor towards the cancellation of the Arrow Project. There was an extensive raise in the development cost of the Arrow due to the changing decision of part usage. In 1953, the cost per unit of aircraft was two million dollars but this changed drastically. With the requirement of changing the engine, fire control and missile system to adhere to the NORAD agreement, the price rocketed to twelve and a half million dollars.
This price contributed to PM Diefenbaker’s negative prejudice on the project. Each change in engine caused a heavy raise in development costs. The Rolls Royce and Curtis-Wright J-67 engines have been deserted by the Avro company due to discontinuation and the United States Air Force abandonment respectively. These changes in aircraft components establish a raise in the Arrow’s development costs which intern increases the overall cost per aircraft.
Another contributing element is the Canadian decrease in demand. In 1953, there was demand for 600 aircrafts but after the development, the technology was too advanced for reserve pilots. The decrease in pilots able to fly the plane lowered the demand to just 300. The government then had many doubts about the usefulness of the plane which lowered it again to only 100 aircraft.
The interest of the Arrow to other global countries was low as well which impacted how the Canadian economy would benefit from the Arrow, deterring the continuation of the Arrow project. Many countries had their own interceptor which more suited their needs than the Arrow did. The US had their own interceptor, the F-106. The British government, one of Canada’s closest trading partners, had budget cuts in the 1950s which disallowed them to buy the Arrow. “There was a cut of 6% in 1953, anticipating the Korean armistice of July that year… During the mid-1950s the UK defence budget had bobbed around – up a little in 1954, down in 1955 and up a little in 1956. But in 1957 following Suez, there was a 10% cut.
” This establishes the budget cut by the British government in the military department leading to the lack of funds to buy the Arrow. Through these economic aspects, Canada’s profit margin was insignificant which lead to the cancellation of the Arrow Project.There were many political elements that played a role in the cancellation of the Arrow. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had a large political impact on Canada. This agreement ensured protection for Canada’s airspace by the US.
The purpose of the Arrow was to protect Canada in the airspace aspect so, with this new protection from the US, it became less necessary for Canada to develop the Arrow thus contributing to the cancellation of the Arrow project. The election of 1958 also had an extensive impact on Canada’s political situation influencing the Arrow project. Previous to this election, St. Laurent negotiated terms with the US claiming they would buy the Arrow which ensured that Canada would make a profit from this Arrow project. St. Laurent’s loss in the 1958 election caused America to withdraw their arrangement regarding the Arrow as a term in the NORAD agreement with PM Diefenbaker’s unhesitant approval. This insurance of a profit on the Arrow project was rejected and this had a large negative impact on the decision of cancelling the project. The NORAD agreement also forced Canada into an unfavourable political position involving the Bomarc missile.
The US was pressuring Canada to buy and erect the Bomarc missile system. The trajectory of threatening Soviet Union Bombers was north over the north pole and then south towards North America. A memorandum from Royal Canadian Air Force Chief of Requirements to Chief of Plans, April 25, 1958: “If the Bomarc bases are located south of the Great Lakes, the interception of enemy bombers will be done over the area which includes Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, etc.
, and higher casualties and property damage would probably result.” This threatening concept forced Canada to adopt this missile on December 31, 1963, which relocated military budget focus to the Bomarc. PM Diefenbaker wouldn’t fund both these projects because he is infamous for not prioritizing military budget. With different governmental agreements and leaders, the political circumstances of Canada contributed to the retirement of the Arrow project.The development of the world throughout the 1960s shifted the military focus of Canada which contributed to the cancellation of the Arrow project. In 1967, the Soviet Union launched their first satellite into space. This action had deeper meaning as it established that the Soviet Union had technologies for operational Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles(ICBMs). Furthermore, ICBMs are missiles that cannot be intercepted by an interceptor, such as the Arrow.
This suggests that the use of bombers will decrease and establishes that the usefulness of the Arrow will decrease significantly over time. This new development lead PM Diefenbaker to state: “There’s no purpose of manufacturing horse collars when horses no longer exist,”establishing his negative viewpoint on the Arrow. With the decrease in usefulness of the Arrow, the justification for its price becomes irrational. Another development is the development of the F-106 in June 1959 by the US.
The F-106 was a much more affordable interceptor at under five million dollars. The more affordable interceptor meant that Canada could get a more affordable interceptor which signifies that Canada could put the saved money into other aspects of the economy. This cheaper interceptor by the US also meant that other countries are more likely to buy from the US and not Canada establishing that Canada would not profit off of the Arrow. These aspects contributed to the decision on cancelling the Arrow project because cheaper options are more favourable. Other advancements in military technologies through the 1960s are surface to air missiles. The Boeing developed technology, the Bomarc missile, was more efficient and economic than the Arrow or other interceptors while having similar purposes.
The US sold two inexpensive Bomarc installations with their complementary command and control systems as well as one hundred US interceptors for a price of only two million dollars each which was comparable to the cost of the Arrow which raised to twelve and a half million dollars per unit. These facts establishes the impracticality of the continuation in developing the Avro Arrow which all contributes to its ultimate cancellation.Due to Canada’s political and economic situation as well as the development of military technology diminishing the practicality of the Arrow, PM Diefenbaker abolished the Avro Arrow project. PM Diefenbaker changed the complex political situation nationally and internationally contributing to the cancellation of the Arrow Project. The Arrows impact on Canada’s financial state also affected Diefenbaker’s view on the Avro Arrow controversy.
As well as these complex themes, the world was evolving and changing during the decade so many major aspects of the Arrow became obsolete. Canada’s foregoing of economic, political and intentional development influenced by the Avro Arrow project directly correlated with PM Diefenbaker’s decision of cancelling the Arrow project.Section 3: Reflection This HI has contributed to a deeper understanding of concluding valid sources from inaccurate sources, the nature of different types of sources and developing themes on ideas. Throughout this HI I have analyzed many sources’ values and limitations with consideration of origin, purpose and content. By way of this analysis, I have developed a deeper comprehension on how to decipher the validity of a source. Other than finding validity of a whole source, I have determined how to extract valid information which has direct relevance to my thesis. This HI has expanded my knowledge on the difference between primary sources and secondary sources as well. To expand, I have stumbled upon the difference between credible websites, such as scholarly articles or academic journals, and invalid websites, such as fan sites.
Recognizing these different sources elevates my knowledge on the challenges of historians. A heuristic approach is a method that historians use to develop the sources that they will use. Historians are given the job to analyze historical sources and decipher the validity to determine a bias, distortion or fragmentation. This task allows a constitution of how the source could have value and contribute to an investigation. To check whether the source has value to the investigation, historians criticize the origin, purpose and content. I can professionally connect to these challenges that historians face and their process. In accordance with this, the revelation of the challenging factor of finding relevant information that directly supports my thesis has arisen throughout my process. Other challenges have also emerged such as developing themes and creating a thesis based on my research question.
The difficulty arises when one tries to make the themes more relevant towards their research question. It is quite simple to derive irrelevant themes which in the case of this HI, an example is the predecessor of the Avro Arrow, the CF-100. This doesn’t contribute to the supporting of why the Arrow was cancelled despite that it has some relevance to the general topic. This misleading topic could be made without a careful dissection of the research question. With these findings, the investigation must have a very explicit display of the relevant information. Historians accomplish this with the Synthesis and Exposition method which aids them in organizing and display the information relevantly.
Prior to this investigation, my research was very empty and the research process had very minimal acknowledgement of searching for legitimacy. With the new understanding of the difficulties that historians face while investigating historical topics, new researching techniques and discovering the methods of a historian, I have become more experienced in the theme of research and topic development and feel more competent in future tasks.Works CitedBraham, M. “THE BOMARC MISSILE & THE BOMARC MISSILE CRISIS.” Accessed December 17, 2017. https://www.friends-amis.org/index.
php/fr/document-repository/english/fact-sheets/36-the-bomark-missle-and-missle-crisis/file.Buteux, Paul. “Bomarc Missile Crisis.” Bomarc Missile Crisis.
April 03, 2015. Accessed December 19, 2017. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bomarc-missile-crisis/.CAMPAGNA, PALMIRO. STORMS OF CONTROVERSY: the secret avro arrow files revealed (fourth edition). 4th ed.
S.l.: READHOWYOUWANT COM LTD, 2017.CAMPAGNA, PALMIRO. REQUIEM FOR A GIANT: a.v. roe canada and the avro arrow.
S.l.: READHOWYOUWANT COM LTD, 2017.Castella, Tom De. “Five years that shaped the British military.
” BBC News. March 10, 2015. Accessed December 19, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31750929.”CONVAIR F-106 Delta Dart Interceptor Aircraft.
” Military Weapons. February 11, 2017. Accessed December 21, 2017. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.
asp?aircraft_id=158.Defense: A Brief History of NORAD. United States: Publisher not identified, 2014.Gainor, Chris. Who killed the Avro Arrow? Edmonton: Folklore Pub., 2007.”Palmiro Campagna.” Palmiro Campagna.
Accessed December 19, 2017. https://www.dundurn.com/authors/Palmiro-Campagna.
Rees, Bryn. NEOCLASSICAL REALISM AND THE AVRO CF-105 ARROW. Master’s thesis, University of Saskatchewan , 2016. Saskatoon, 2016. 0-104. Accessed December 16, 2017. https://ecommons.
usask.ca/bitstream/handle/10388/7329/REES-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1.
Staff. “Sputnik launched.” History.
com. 2009. Accessed December 20, 2017. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sputnik-launched.
