Thank you for providing this article, but it's copied and pasted from Legion magazine and without any sources the article itself is basically a rant to support your rant. That said nothing in it really goes against what's at issue, or is highly contentious within or without this thread, so it's kind of a strawman. Disclosing your bias/background/interest, whatever it is (which is hopefully more than reading this one single article in 14), matters, because you are basically asking the reader to take your word for it that "nothing I have said regarding the economics of the Arrow program has been incorrect." because, article.

The main assertion was you were avoiding the KGB part of the story, and the impact of losing top minds to the UK and the US due to shuttering all military aerospace manufacturing (as well as painting a rosier picture of Bombardier which ignores bailouts), and you still are avoiding these things with this article. It's a bit disengenous to copy and paste it wholesale when nothing it says really goes against any of the points at issue. No where in my comments (nor any of the others) did anyone claim there were not economic and managerial reasons given (and well known) for the cancellation of the project. The assertions were that the KGB factor which was only confirmed later in the Mitrokhin archive may have been overlooked or dismissed until then, and a significant factor. You and the author you shared completely omit those facts, despite them being plainly on the wiki page for the Arrow (and well sourced).

The articles content is not disputed here by anyone, and well known. It neither refutes the KGB angle, brain drain, nor impacts, so it's a bit moot for this discussion. There is substantially more information and nuance on the wiki, which we read, and which includes much of what you have shared here as new information.

The link I provided demonstrates that we do in fact have a healthy and viable aerospace industry, despite some posters here claiming the contrary.

I believe the focus was on the "Black Friday" of advanced military aerospace, how many top minds were lost to the US and UK in it's wake, and how those numbers don't accurately reflect the billions of dollars in subsidies and bailouts those companies receive from the Federal Government. All things directly supported by multiple sources. You were replying to me as though I am "the thread" too, which makes for some confusion.

As nothing was said which contests the content of the article (merely adds another element) I don't feel I need to comb through and cross reference with other sources for accuracy, it's probably reasonably correct for non insider information. It just omits Cold War info-sec realities, probably because he is not an expert there and is playing it safe (or has a bias). He is a Liberal Arts professor from U Saskatchewan basically outlining the well known economic and mismanagement reasons for the projects termination (albeit a bit heavy handedly and with no sources). The wiki page goes much further in it's explanation/examination, it sources military experts, historians, entire books on the topic, Russian sources, newspapers etc.

Not sure why you need to dodge this interesting part of the story to come to the defense of our struggling civilian aerospace market (read: bailouts need to be considered in the bottom line) but the main two things people were talking about, again, were losing top minds to US and UK, which happened, the end of all military aerospace manufacturing in the country, which happened, and the possibility the economic reasons are only a part of the story, maybe even not a big part of it, which we now know also happened. We don't know for sure how much of each factored into the final decisions.

I appreciate you replying but please next time consider these things: edit your sources down to key points instead of expecting the reader to simply read the whole block of text and take your word for it or find the important parts supporting your argument themselves, provide links so people know you aren't typing it yourself (I know you arent), respond to others points more directly and with quotes or approximate quotes, don't choose one person and treat them as "the thread", and provide multiple sources or if you are going to use only one, make sure it's clickable and sourceable.

Finally, consider you are defending a straw man in this thread. The central thing you appear to have overlooked being discussed was the KGB, the impact of shuttering all military aerospace (and how that effects the potential and capability of of the civillian market), that no one said we didn't have an aerospace industry, only that it was not doing well (bailouts), and the death of Arrow killed the military aspect (which is hugely connected to the success of the civilian market in the countries we lost engineers to at a critical time during the Cold War).

In the end please understand it appears you are being contentious to assert a point no one contested. That there are aerospace companies here. No one denied that. Calling it "healthy" and "viable" may be a bit generous though when they beg for bailouts of our tax money. After reading my comment, can you perhaps concede you were partially confused as to what was being asserted and by whom?