Nortel and the Avro Arrow myth

by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:03pm - 106 Comments

Nortel and the Avro Arrow mythI’ll have lots to say about this Nortel nonsense in a bit, but for now let me just deal with the inevitable Avro Arrow analogy. Appearing before the Commons industry committee the other day, Research in Motion co-CEO Mike Lazaridis trotted out the well-worn Arrow story to pressure lawmakers into blocking Nortel’s deal to sell its wireless operations to the Swedish telecom giant Ericsson.

He told MPs that allowing Nortel’s next-generation wireless patents to go to a foreign-based company would be similar to Canada’s notorious decision to cancel development of the Avro Arrow aircraft in 1959….

Lazaridis noted that he has a model of the Canadian-designed Avro Arrow on his desk and that 2009 marks the 50th anniversary of its cancellation. “Fifty years later we consider the disposition of another beachhead built by Canadian ingenuity,” he remarked. “Let us learn from our history and not make the same mistake again.”

There are any number of things wrong with RIM’s case, but the first and worst is the notion that killing the Arrow was some sort of terrible mistake. Indeed, if the best RIM can do is cite the Arrow, darling of every nationalist drama queen and high-tech trainspotter who never bothered to actually inform themselves of the reasons for its demise, that tells you just how weak their case is — though it was enough to send the Toronto Star into one of its patented teenage swoons.

For those in need of a refresher course, let me point you to Michael Bliss’s classic history of Canadian business, Northern Enterprise, pgs. 474-477. I’m going to quote it at some length, because, well, it’s just so damning…

Born in war, with an original aim of making warplanes for the Pacific theatre, the A. V. Roe company of Canada made a bold but unsuccessful grab for peacetime leadership in aircraft design by producing one of the world first jet-propelled passenger planes, the C-102 Jetliner. The project was funded by [C. D.] Howe’s Department of Reconstruction and Supply. [However] no commercial airlines, including TCA [Trans Canada Airlines], which refused to bend to the minister’s pressure on this one, found the C-102 suitable to their needs. It was an impractical, premature leap onto a technological frontier, and was headed for the scrapheap anyway when the Korean War provided an excuse for concentration on military aircraft.

Avro had good luck with a conventional jet fighter, the CF-100 Canuck, which it designed and built for the RCAF, manufacturing almost seven hundred of them… The Canuck success led defence planners to commission Avro to design a successor, the project that became the CF-105, or Avro Arrow… Originally the Arrow was to use imported engines, fire-control systems and ground control systems. Gradually the military and the nationalists and the high-tech enthusiasts decided to have all these components manufactured in the country that could make anything, Canada….

By the time the Arrows flew [in 1958], it was clear that the project was a horrible mistake. Avro Canada was not an experienced aircraft manufacturer; the CF-100 was its only success and it had been plagued with design problems and delays… The firm’s frenetic expansion, highly self-conscious publicizing of its commitment to high technology (its ultimate space-age product was the Avrocar, a doughnut-shaped vertical take-off and landing craft that resembled nothing so much as a flying saucer…) and very heavy reliance on government contracts, camouflaged serious managerial weakness. The evidence suggests that A. V. Roe was a classic promotional company … built on wild optimism, taxpayers’ money, media gullibility and Canadians’ naive patriotism…

Costs of the Arrow went straight up in a decade of comparatively little inflation. By 1957 aircraft originally estimated at $1 million each would cost at least $8 million, probably much more. Arrow would cost six times as much as U.S.-designed interceptors. No one other than the RCAF wanted to buy the Arrow… The Arrow was consuming a huge proportion of Canada’s defence budget, and beginning to starve the other services for equipment. Even the Department of National Defence turned against it. Howe and the Liberal government decided to cancel the Arrow — after the 1957 election.

As it turned out, they never got the chance. It fell to the Diefenbaker Conservatives to kill the project in 1959. Controversial as that decision may have become in later years, at the time, as Bliss notes, it was not: “hardly anyone believed the program, which Canada simply could not afford, should be continued…. The Liberals’ only criticism of the Conservative decision was that they had not taken it sooner.”

Bookmark and Share
  • Emilie

    How pathetic to scratch for excuses for yet another Conservative government blunder. Wonder how much is going into Coyne's pocket of the 2.3 million subsudy from this Harper ConReform government

    • RagingRanter

      Actually, the article could be interpreted more as a criticism of the current Conservative government, as they've been playing the nationalist card themselves in dragging their heels over approving this deal.

  • RagingRanter

    It's almost quaint the way the Toronto Star refers to 'foriegn investors' as though they were writing about 'terrorists' or 'white supremacists'.

    No, we can't let Canadian technology fall into the greedy clutches of – GASP – foreign investors!!

    It will be interesting to see how Sweden begins treating the numerous Canadian firms with investments and operations in that country if the Canadian government does go ahead and block this deal. And Canada pulling this stunt so soon after concluding a free trade deal with the Northern Europe Free Trade Area, and announcing intentions to pursue a similar agreement with the EU? With all the hand-wringing about our "international reputation" I normally see on these boards, it's odd the nationalists aren't worried about it here, where it might actually count.

  • JoeM

    Everyone connected to the nuclear industry who doesn't want AECL sold, and thinks taxpayers should subsidize for millions/billions forever keeps bringing up the Avro Arrow as well.

    Is this all that Canadians can come up with?

    They should give it rest.

  • Cow

    Can we let the Toronto Star's patent on teenage swoons fall into foreign hands?

  • Dot

    Looking forward to your "lots to say about this Nortel nonsense in a bit".

    Btw, I'm sure if I had extrapolated the Gov'ts investment in Avro Arrow to today's dollars, or at a rate of return of 7.5% for tech investments, it'd be like some silly amount of Canada's national debt…. :)

    Great engineering feat. Too bad we can't celebrate the victores, but rather focus on the negatives. Still, this doesn't explain the destruction of the planes and blueprints. Why wipe out an important part of a nation's history, if ultimately falling short of its potential?

  • Jenn

    I wonder how much money the stupid U.S. threw away on that dumb "go to the moon" thing. Heh, they're probably still paying for it, and all they have to show for it are some rocks and dust.
    http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

    Maybe the company wasn't the best or most efficient, but I laugh at Michael Bliss's comment, "Avro Canada was not an experienced aircraft manufacturer;" No, and we're not likely to ever have experienced new technology manufacturers if they have to start off right out of the gate with experience. That's the thing about new technologies. They're NEW.

  • Dot

    I tip my Vodka and Tang in your general direction.

  • will

    The thing is, in high tech high capital industries like aerospace, companies have to evolve into the top tiers gradually. For instance, a firm would begin by making a specialized component of an aircraft, like the avionics, or wings, or fire control system (or just making licensed copies). Gradually, as it built up operational experience and recognition, it would move into progressively larger roles and eventually become the primary contractor if everything went well. It takes decades of work and billions in investment to get to that stage. So, for a company like Avrow, to more or less skip all that and and try to make a high tech interceptor from the start was clearly ridiculous. It would be like if Bombardier announced tomorrow is was going to compete with Boeing and Airbus in the wide-body jet category or if Kia said it was going to compete with BMW.

  • scf

    New technologies are new, and only 1 of 10 startups succeed. The main reason they fail is inept management. That is always fatal. So you cannot make excuses for collosal failures just because they are "new". You need to allow the good ones to succeed and the bad ones to fail.

  • Dee

    Excellent points, Jenn. And an excellent link. Thanks!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    (1) I think Lazaridis got the idea for this argument from a Macleans commenter two weeks ago.

    (2) Although the Avro Arrow had serious cost problems, that wasn't the reason given for scrapping it. The reason given was that Canada would never need fighters because we were going to use the Bomarc missile instead. This cost roughly $1.4 billion (for the two bases in Canada) and was scrapped a few years later because it was ineffective. Note that $1.4 billion would have paid for roughly 140 Arrows, roughly equal to the number of CF-18 fighters that were eventually purchased from the US for a total cost of more than $2 billion (if memory serves).

    So let's add this up: Canada scrapped a plan to buy 140 Arrows for approximately $1.4 billion, instead spending $1.4 billion on Bomarc missiles that didn't work, and then more than $2 billion on CF-18's. Total cost: at least $3.4 billion vs. $1.4 billion, and we gave the business to another country. They got the jobs, the profit, and the R&D. Classic.

    On top of this, the cadre of top engineers at Avro went to NASA and never came back. Brilliant. Canadian aerospace, once best in the world, never recovered and is practically non-existent today. Brilliant.

    The blow to Canadian forces morale was not inconsiderable either. Superb.

    Now, one can argue that the Nortel situation is not going to be a repeat of the Arrow. Perhaps. One can also argue that RIM is using Canadian patriotism for their own ends. Quite likely. One can also argue that Lazaridis is a none-too-original opportunist for using the Arrow argument straight off Macleans' comment pages. Almost certainly.

    But one cannot argue, with any show of understanding, that the Arrow cancellation with the associated total destruction of all the research, plans, and firings of teams of experts, was not a total blunder. If the Nortel situation bears any resemblance to that charlie-fox then it must be avoided.

  • will

    It is worth pointing out that most countries have had the same "Avro Arrow moment" when nationalist politicians insisted on indigenous fighters. For instance, Japan created the F-2 program of creating an indigenous clone of the LockMart F-16. The result was that they ended up paying over a hundred million dollars for a plane that was inferior to the aircraft purchased by the UAE (F16s) for half the price. France's aviation industry is just a list of jingoistic failures. Their latest Dassault has faled to secure any customers outside of France, mainly because they built something that cost more and performed worse than American equivalents or even Euro equivalents.

    The reality is it makes more sense for most countries to engage in licensing and subcontracting as opposed to prime contracting. Israel has been a good example of the success this approach can have, as has the U.K. which is now home to one of the main defense contractors on a lot of US defense projects (BAE). Even Canada, lament of the Arrow crowd aside, has a surprisingly strong defense industry. We are the world's 13th largest arms exporter (believe it or not, we are only 10-20m behind China), mainly from selling components to US projects. The value of our contributions to the US led JSF program will total between 4-6 billion dollars and we haven't even signed any orders for the plane yet. Outside of the USA and Russia, the countries with the most successful defense industries are those that have specialized into niche production and left final prime contracting work to the Americans.

  • scf

    LOL

  • scf

    One thing is for sure, RIM is a victory. Palm has been wiped out, so has Sony (in the handheld space), along with dozens of other competitors, while RIM continues to battle Apple head-on.

    However, their nationalistic argument in this case was unquestionably just a self-serving false argument (can't blame em for trying).

  • Mulletaur

    It was a vision that produced a success. That is why it had to be killed and the planes cut for scrap and destroyed and the technical expertise scattered to the four winds. Success is not permitted in Canada. Particularly if you are a Conservative and the success in question was funded with public money.

  • scf

    Interesting information.

  • Mulletaur

    Yes, the United States of America has also had a number of "Avro Arrow moments" too. The only difference is, they're not a bunch of whinging, visionless losers, so they actually follow through and build their projects. Tell me, how much does the F-22 Raptor program cost ?

  • Dot

    Often referred to generically as an industry with a high barrier to entry.

  • Dot

    (can't blame em for trying).

    Hopefully, this is not a trend away from what made RIM excellent to begin with. I'm beginning to wonder if all of the favourable press and coverage of NHL dreams is not affecting their focus. Not really sticking to their knitting.

  • Mike R

    The F-22? The one that's just been ordered to have production wind down because they can't afford it? I'd say it cost a lot more than it's worth – and the USAF seems to agree.

  • will

    The F-22 cost quite a bit. That's why they are only buying 150 of them as opposed to the 700 they originally intended to. Just like they canceled the FCS program (the army's 340b modernization plan), the ARH program (a 6.2b helicopter acquisition program), wide swaths of BMD systems (i.e. the airborne laser), the Zumwalt class of new destroyers, the Comanche helicopter program, a new Space Based Radar system, the VH-71 program, the E10 and so forth. And those are only from the past five years, and not even a complete list when one looks at the number of smaller programs.

    CF-105 specifically, the USA did actually have an identical moment to us. They canceled the XF-108 project, also designed to create an advance interceptor to counter soviet bombers, the exact same year Canada canceled the Arrow because by then it had become clear that the entire concept of such planes was flawed (Britain also canceled both of its' high speed interceptor programs around this time) and costs were too high. The Arrow itself was obscenely impractical, with a price some 5x that of its peers and without a functioning weapons system.

    I don't really know where people get the idea that the US just blindly throws money into defense projects but is dead wrong. Programs do go over budget, but nowhere near the degree shown by the Arrow. Currently, a program which exceeds the approved budget by 75% faces an automatic Congressional Review to determine if it is worth it. Generally anything 100% over budget gets canceled or at least has it's program redefined and restarted under different goals and time lines.

  • Mulletaur

    The British had the Vulcan. Just keep that in mind.

From Macleans