# Why doesn't Canada design its own AFV and its own aircraft?



## HeatRoca (17 Apr 2007)

Why doesn't Canada design its own tank and its own air craft instead of purchasing it from other countrys i know its expensive but in the long run Canada would be getting its money back from selling the finished product. or Canada could negotiate a deal with the United States and build a tank and a couple of other things like air craft tanks etc . why doesn't bombardier design military equipment for Canada ? is it not a Canadian company 



_Edited by Vern to capitalize the word "Canada" in the topic title and throughout the post as well as "United States." _


----------



## Bane (17 Apr 2007)

Those questions open up a giant can-o-worms Pro Patria and really would be better in a different thread.  Or do a search on procurment and i'm sure you'll dig stuff up. 
Here are some short, out of my lane responses to get you thinking and then getting back on topic would be good. 

      Procurement issues are very complex, on the surface it might seem like an sensible thing to do to create all our own vehicles but; many nations already do lots of development and there is many different 'flavours' of all types of equipment already produced globally; why reinvent the wheel?  Also, there are often within contracts, agreements on reciprocal purchases or investments from countries/companies that equipment is purchased from, so we are already benefiting in that way.   Also, time to do original development, costing, facilities construction and production is complex.  Recall we do in fact make some of our own stuff (the LAV/strykers were produced in London recall) and often when we do buy something; it is with Canadian made upgrades or changes. 

Again, out of my lane and just off the top of my head, but do some searches here and on google and you will discover there is no shortage of info on procurement in the CF.  

…and now back on topic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Apr 2007)

Pro Patria said:
			
		

> Why doesn't canada design its own tank and its own air craft instead of purchasing it from other countrys i know its expensive but in the long run canada would be getting its money back from selling the finished product. or canada could negotiate a deal with the united states and build a tank and a couple of other things like air craft tanks etc . why doesn't bombardier design military equipment for canada ? is it not a canadian company



Try Googling the Indian “Arjun” tank for a reason not to trying designing our own tank.


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Apr 2007)

Pro Pat, it takes too long to design something decent and in most cases, other coutries are better at tanks, attack helicopters, IFV.

Canada is kind of a leader in the LAV field IMO (LAV25, coyote, bison, LAVIII, etc)...


----------



## gaspasser (17 Apr 2007)

Pro Pat, we once did.

It was called the AVRO ARROW, and it scared the bejesus out of the Americans to the point where they talked Defenbaker {sp.} out of producing it and go with a US system.  The major aircraft manufacturers hired OUR engineers and technicians who went to work at NASA and such like.  
We don't make our own because it's easier to buy "off the shelf", NATO compatible equipment.  We do improve on the design and make it OURS.


----------



## HeatRoca (17 Apr 2007)

Yea the avero arrow was a very good air craft. thats why i ask the question why canada doesn't create design its own weapons and vehicles the avero was one of the best jets design and built at the time but the united states had to sway are government into droping the program just imagine the capablities and jets canada would have designed and built had the avero not been scrapped we might have a avero class of air craft. also why doesn't canada buy air craft carriers


----------



## FredDaHead (17 Apr 2007)

Actually, the Arrow was severely limited. It was an interceptor, pure and simple, and had absolutely no value otherwise. While the F-14 managed to stick around because it could do a variety of missions despite being designed as a "pure" interceptor to defend carrier battlegroups, the Arrow had none of these "semi-built in" capabilities. Besides, it needed nuclear-tipped missiles to do it's job, at least at the time, and Diefenbaker wouldn't buy nukes. I'm not saying it wasn't a great plane _for what it was designed for_; just that people tend to say "it would've been such a great plane we could still use it today and kick everyone's ass" and, sadly, they are wrong.

I suggest the book _Avro Arrow : the story of the Avro Arrow from its evolution to its extinction _ by the Arrowheads. It's rather complete and even has some speculation on the possible "updates" to the aircraft.

As for carriers... run a search, it's been done and overdone.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Apr 2007)

Pro Patria said:
			
		

> also why doesn't canada buy air craft carriers



You have been warned before.....


----------



## MediTech (17 Apr 2007)

Pro Patria said:
			
		

> Yea the avero arrow was a very good air craft. thats why i ask the question why canada doesn't create design its own weapons and vehicles the avero was one of the best jets design and built at the time but the united states had to sway are government into droping the program just imagine the capablities and jets canada would have designed and built had the avero not been scrapped we might have a avero class of air craft. also why doesn't canada buy air craft carriers



Haha, Canada doesn't have enough people or resources to do all those things you want us to do.  The new American Gerald. R Ford class carriers are expect to cost in excess of $20 billion each.  The fact of the matter is, we don't need them.  We have hardly enough aircraft to put on them and the personnel required to operate one is also very high.  I don't see the necessity of creating our own weapons, aircraft and vehicles.  Why would I go into the forest and waste my time and money to cut down a tree to make paper when I could just buy some at the store that works just as good if not better than anything I could make?  Re the arrow, it wouldn't fullfill our needs right now.  The arrow was an interceptor and the last time I checked, nobody was trying to attack our airspace and drop a bomb on us.  We should have signed on to the JSF project in my opinion.


----------



## gaspasser (17 Apr 2007)

At least with the Arrow, the Canadian technology was there to do with as we pleased.  Interceptors, Fighters, Bombers.  Most of the technology in the F-14 and -18 came from the breakthroughs in Canadian ingenuity.  McDonnell-Douglas, NASA, Gruman and Boeing picked up Canadian Engineers after Black Friday.   :'(
The Bonnie and Maggie were scraped back in the 60s/70s {?} due to downsizing.  If we had the Navy and Maritime Air capabilities of yesteryear, we'd still need carriers, and carrier based A/C.


----------



## MediTech (17 Apr 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> The Bonnie and Maggie were scraped back in the 60s/70s {?} due to downsizing.  If we had the Navy and Maritime Air capabilities of yesteryear, we'd still need carriers, and carrier based A/C.


But we don't have them so we don't need carriers.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 Apr 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> At least with the Arrow, the Canadian technology was there to do with as we pleased.  Interceptors, Fighters, Bombers.  Most of the technology in the F-14 and -18 came from the breakthroughs in Canadian ingenuity.  McDonnell-Douglas, NASA, Gruman and Boeing picked up Canadian Engineers after Black Friday.   :'(



I think we need to be a bit more pragmatic and see what's best. Sure, having an "in-house" development company "to do with as we pleased" sounds nice, and it's great for misplaced pride, but is it really the best solution? If we can get planes that are equally useful for a fraction of the price, and that are compatible with our allies', why bother designing our own? We don't have the needs or the moneytary capabilities to support such a massive infrastructure. Besides, with the way all things must be equal, we'd need to have our own ship designs, our own tank designs, and the opposition would start asking why we don't have our own rifle design.



> If we had the Navy and Maritime Air capabilities of yesteryear, we'd still need carriers, and carrier based A/C.



I'd say it's more a question of _needs_ rather than _capabilities_. We interoperate with the Americans and other allies most of the time, and it's generally understood that they will send a carrier battle group if the situation is bad enough that we need to intervene. In those situations, having two (or more!) carriers would just make things difficult and cause interference between the two.

If we were still preparing to take on hordes of Russian ships on the high seas, then, sure, I could see us having a carrier or two, but we aren't, and so we don't. Same goes for nuclear submarines. As much as I'd love to get a Seawolf-class SSN, it's not what we need. The Victorias do the job we need them to do, and so that's what we'll keep.


----------



## Shamrock (17 Apr 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Canada is kind of a leader in the LAV field IMO (LAV25, coyote, bison, LAVIII, etc)...



Those vehicles aren't Canadian design.


----------



## Staff Weenie (17 Apr 2007)

Actually, Canada does have quite a vibrant and dynamic defence industry. It's just that, other than the current production of LAVs, we don't manufacture any major weapons platforms in any great and consistent way. We produce lots of electronics components for other major systems though. And, Canada is still one of the aerospace powerhouses in the world - just behind the scenes. Major projects take a lot of investment to get off the ground - and in Canada, our Govt doesn't have that sort of money, doesn't see the need, and is quite happy with allowing private industry to do its thing as it is right now.

Currently, I see absolutely no need for us to get into the design and production of tanks and aircraft. How much do you think it would cost in R&D alone to allow us to produce a product that is so superior to the M1A2 or Leo 2 that many NATO nations would buy it in quantity? General Dynamics and KMW have over 20 years of ongoing research and lessons learned put into those vehicles - probably representing billions of dollars. You see, to be profitable, or just to break even, our industry needs a viable export market - our domestic Defence needs for major platforms is just too small. So, whatever we make better be the best damn widget in the world - because the other big boys on the block will be leveraging their governments with offers of subsidies, trade deals, tax breaks, etc, to other countries to buy their product. Look at the fierce competition that has been going on in Turkey for the replacement of their Main Battle Tanks.

The Avro Arrow - yeah, it had the potential to be a great interceptor of Soviet Strategic Bombers coming over the high arctic - at over $40 million per unit (estimate only - it's been a while since I read _Fall of an Arrow_, and _Shutting Down A National Dream_), while the US was offering aircraft that were more general-purpose versatile for the export market at about $5 million per unit. I don't see the huge conspiracy others do, the project was fraught with delays and cost over-runs, and in the end, would have produced a beautiful but overly specific aircraft that nobody else really needed, at a price they couldn't afford. Yes, there were many behind the scenes issues, but the key determinant was cost, and lack of market.

Canadian defence industry has niches that it currently exploits quite nicely - our industry produces some of the best simulators for training. Our role in the Allied Vaccine development project sees us punching above our weight class. Our WeatherHaven shelters are viewed quite nicely by many. These are but a few examples.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2007)

Frankly, the main reason Canada does not have companies that design and build major military equipment like entire AFV's, aircraft etc. is it isn't worth their time and effort. Canadian procurement is so small and erratic (20 years or more between buys) that any company would be bankrupt without massive government subsidies. Even getting a licence to build equipment in Canada isn't much of a sure thing, a factory was opened in Kingston to build the HLVW (10 ton truck) and closed almost immediately after the run was complete. Compare the price of a recumbent bicycle (hand built in small quantities) to a Norico or CCM bicycle you can get at Canadian Tire or Wal Mart to see what I'm getting at.

Sweden had a fairly complete arms industry, but their government was willing to purchase items in large quantities and make regular upgrades and new purchases. Even with these advantages, they now import or build tanks under licence (the Striv 122 is a Leopard 2A6 with modifications) and can produce aircraft under partnership agreements (the Gripen is a joint production of SAAB and BaE) since it is too expensive to carry on alone.


----------



## Eland (17 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Frankly, the main reason Canada does not have companies that design and build major military equipment like entire AFV's, aircraft etc. is it isn't worth their time and effort. Canadian procurement is so small and erratic (20 years or more between buys) that any company would be bankrupt without massive government subsidies. Even getting a licence to build equipment in Canada isn't much of a sure thing, a factory was opened in Kingston to build the HLVW (10 ton truck) and closed almost immediately after the run was complete. Compare the price of a recumbent bicycle (hand built in small quantities) to a Norico or CCM bicycle you can get at Canadian Tire or Wal Mart to see what I'm getting at.
> 
> Sweden had a fairly complete arms industry, but their government was willing to purchase items in large quantities and make regular upgrades and new purchases. Even with these advantages, they now import or build tanks under licence (the Striv 122 is a Leopard 2A6 with modifications) and can produce aircraft under partnership agreements (the Gripen is a joint production of SAAB and BaE) since it is too expensive to carry on alone.



Sweden has always adhered to a policy of more or less absolute neutrality, which at one time meant it needed to support an indigenous defence industry. For a small country like Sweden, it
was very capable but quite expensive, probably partly accounting for the high taxation rates, cradle-to-grave welfare state aside. It produced the very successful Strv 103 medium 
tank and the Ikv 91 tank destroyer. 

However, even these could not be afforded in sufficient numbers to replace the British-built Centurions which were the backbone of Sweden's armoured corps.  An attempt was made to produce one more main battle tank, and this effort (the Strv 2000 project) was ultimately deep-sixed when budget cuts and the dictates of world financial markets forced the Swedes to make major cuts to virtually every government programme, defence included.

The Strv 2000 sported a 140mm main gun and a coaxial 40mm autocannon and would have outdone the Leopard 2 in every respect. Like the Avro Arrow and the Bobcat APC, it was intrinsically a great idea which ultimately collapsed under its own weight.

Unlike Sweden, Canada has the luxury of being able to tap into the US defence production sector to meet its needs. That, and limited production runs dictated by a small military are the chief reasons why Canada doesn't produce much of its own military hardware, much less design it. Even though Canada is wealthy enough that it could afford to do otherwise, given adequate domestic and foreign markets. 

My thinking is that Canada could probably afford to design and develop equipment types which don't require large R & D budgets or large capital plant and tooling-up expenses. Things like light armoured vehicles and turret systems, trucks, small arms and small crew-served weapons. I base this argument on the country's recent experience building LAV's and C7 rifles, and the fact that small(er) countries design and build similar articles on fairly small budgets. The Norwegian-designed TUA (Tow-Under-Armour) turret is a classic example of (relatively) inexpensive hardware that is well within Canada's reach. 

I recently came across some info (possibly outdated with the recent change in government) indicating that Diemaco is designing (with assistance of its US parent, Colt Arms) a rifle which will be offered as a candidate in the new SARP (Small Arms Replacement Program) which is intended to replace the C7 family of rifles in the next few years or so. If my info is correct and current, Diemaco's venture marks the first time a largely indigenous small arms design has been attempted in Canada. I'm not counting the vaunted Ross rifle as an indigenous design, since it uses what is essentially a slightly modified Mannlicher action and stock. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'll be looking forward to seeing what this indigenous design will look like. With any luck it won't look like the uber-futuristic XM8 the US Army has been evaluating.


----------



## HeatRoca (17 Apr 2007)

I would have thought that a Canadian company like Bombardier and a U.S company such as Lockheed and martin would have gotten together and designed some sort of military vehicle for both country's.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Apr 2007)

What does Bombardier have to offer Lockheed?

Here I'll answer my question for you... nothing! 
Anything that Bombardier can/could do Lockheed can/could do better.


----------



## Albertaone (18 Apr 2007)

I think the government could provide funding to revive this remarkeable aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 I guess Bombardies has the blueprints in a basement somewhere.  These might prove helpful in Afghanistan and in Canada in places where Canada does not have runways like up north.   Oh yeah and you could probably use them on our frigates and destroyers too.  A great multi-use aircraft no?


----------



## FredDaHead (18 Apr 2007)

Albertaone said:
			
		

> I think the government could provide funding to revive this remarkeable aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 I guess Bombardies has the blueprints in a basement somewhere.  These might prove helpful in Afghanistan and in Canada in places where Canada does not have runways like up north.   Oh yeah and you could probably use them on our frigates and destroyers too.  A great multi-use aircraft no?





> Two of the CL-84s crashed due to mechanical failures, but no loss of life occurred as a result of these accidents.



Two out of four crashed; a great safety record!

Besides which, it's an aircraft that has no role, or at least no _useful_ role. We already have helicopters, and we're getting new ones for the Navy. Even if we did buy them for the Army, they wouldn't start actually getting into active service until way after the Afghan mission will be over. Also, if we really wanted a VSTOL tilt-something aircraft, why not go with one that's field-tested and in production already, and wouldn't require massive upgrades to it's design like, say, the Osprey?

Utterly useless.


----------



## Flip (18 Apr 2007)

There is a downside to building your own.
If you build your own then you are obliged to use your own.
Even if the equipment is misdeployed or simply not suitable
for the task at hand.  Unarmoured humvees in Iraq come to mind.

The other issue is that Canadians are particularly
good at bureaucracy. At least one executive position will be generated for
each vehicle that rolls off the line - then you are paying out pensions
to those people long after the vehicles have been retired.

No. I think we have it right - Canada is a full partner in the US
"military industrial complex" with bargaining rights the Americans don't have.
We can make a fire control system for the M1A1 but then go buy the Leopards.
We could buy the Nyala and not be stuck with armoured Humvees.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Apr 2007)

Canada did try to design and produce its own AFV in the late 50's, the Bobcat (first 2 photos below).  If you are in the Borden area you can see one of the prototypes at the museum vehicle annex (last photo below, it's the vehicle partially obscured by the sign).  Don't know where the other prototypes ended up, hopefully there is one at the CWM.

If you ae interested in the story, try this link.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_02/iss_4/CAJ_vol2.4_19_e.pdf


----------



## CougarKing (18 Apr 2007)

Aren't we forgetting the WW2-era Ram tank? It was at least partially of Canadian design- though the chassis was on a US M3 Grant/Lee tank, IIRC. It wasn't really used in combat, considering Shermans were being used by the Canadian Army in large numbers by the time of the invasions of Italy and Normandy.


----------



## MediTech (18 Apr 2007)

Speaking of designing our own weapons, anybody remember the Ross rifle?  Now that was a wonderful piece of Canadian kit.  Haha.  We even learned about how crappy it was in history class in high school.


----------



## Shamrock (18 Apr 2007)

What?

That was more an example of the wrong tool for the job than a crappy weapon.


----------



## MediTech (18 Apr 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> That was more an example of the wrong tool for the job than a crappy weapon.



The sporting rifle variant was useful, I've read that the manufacturing of the original service rifle wasn't up to snuff.


----------



## Albertaone (18 Apr 2007)

Frederik G  have you added up the crashed V-22's and the loss of life associated with those aircraft.  Waayy more than the CL-84.  Protypes are known to crash and the CL-84 lost no lives, which illustrates it was a relatively safe aircraft. If you look closer one of the crashes was attributed to pilot stunting.   The Canadian Forces still needs utility aircraft to replace is stol aircraft that is used for SAR and up north anyway.  I seriously doubt that we will have enough Chinooks to go around.   We have the technology and the resources.  Besides most of the utility aircraft like the Buffalo, Twin Otter and Dash are Canadian built anyway.  So my proposing the government implement their Canada First defence plan with respect to utility aircraft such as the CL-84 is not entirely crazy.


----------



## Eland (18 Apr 2007)

CougarShark said:
			
		

> Aren't we forgetting the WW2-era Ram tank? It was at least partially of Canadian design- though the chassis was on a US M3 Grant/Lee tank, IIRC. It wasn't really used in combat, considering Shermans were being used by the Canadian Army in large numbers by the time of the invasions of Italy and Normandy.



The Ram had potential, but it was limited by an inability to accommodate anything larger than a six-pounder (ca. 57mm) gun. When first introduced, the 6pdr was capable of taking out most of the _early_ German tanks. Then the Panzer IV and Tiger came out and the Ram was instantly and hopelessly outclassed, and ended up being relegated to a training role. The Sherman which followed it was outclassed too - it's a good thing that the Allied armoured forces using the Sherman learned to use flanking and rear shots to take out the Panzer IV's and Tigers. 

Michael McNorgan, writing in _The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps: An Illustrated History _ argues that the Sherman tank was actually based on the Ram design. I tend to agree with him, because when looking at the Sherman and the Ram, the resemblance is hard not to see, particularly where the turret is concerned.


----------



## KwaiLo (18 Apr 2007)

There are over 500 members of CADSI that are helping keep Canada a player in the defense market worldwide.  

https://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/public/index.asp?action=profiles.

I think that a Canadian engineered and built design for an AFV or airframe is hard to justify when we have a defense partner in the US that is highly unlikely to prevent us from buying anything we really wanted from their companies.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (18 Apr 2007)

We probably could build some world class hardware up here, but as someone already mentioned its cheaper to by of the rack.


----------



## geo (18 Apr 2007)

Heh...
Can anyone spell ADATS?
Can anyone remember the Bobcat APC?

springing all of the R&D money for some international business to develop a weapon platform on the speculation that they might be able to sell the product overseas after we get the kinks out of the product..... Yetch? 

working out some agreement where we get manufacturing rights and an agreement that we can continue to produce the final product WITH the manufacturer...... like the Mowag Cougar / Grizzly which became the Bison which became the LAV III / Coyote / LAV 125 / ASLAV ....

Then again, GM Diresel was sold to General Dynamics Land Systems & I hear that we can't get an order in to replace some of the vehicles we have lost to the Taliban & wear 'n tear.


----------

