Would Canada be better off shifting some of our shipbuilding budget to the purchase of advanced 6th generation bombers if they become available?
The B-21 Raider is the world’s first 6th generation aircraft.
The long-range bomber will replace the B-2 Spirit and the B-1 Lancer, while the venerable B-52 remains in service.
It is expected to be the ‘stealthiest’ aircraft in the world, with the longest range of any bomber.
According to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the plane can “hold any target at risk,” which is a way of saying it could hit anything on Earth without being detected.
It is clearly designed as a way to send a message of deterrence to both China & Russia, a message that is quite important given how those nations are attempting to weaken the influence of democracies and infringing on their neighbours.
Surprisingly, the B-21 Raider program has come in under cost and on time.
Overall, the entire program is expected to cost just over $200 billion USD:
“It is also known that the B-21 Raider costs $692 million for each aircraft. Over the next three decades, the program is expected to cost United States taxpayers $203 billion, according to a Time exclusive. The Air Force has stated it seeks an inventory of a minimum of 100 B-21 Raiders.”
Now, I want you to keep that number – $203 billion – in mind.
Since that’s in US Dollars, it works out to roughly $276 billion CAD.
Why do I mention this?
Well, let’s take a moment to consider a new report on the cost of Canada’s shipbuilding program.
As reported by the Ottawa Citizen, Canada has already spent $4.8 billion on the shipbuilding program, without any ships having been built:
“The federal government has spent $4.8 billion so far on the new warships it hopes will be built starting in two years.
But National Defence has now acknowledged it doesn’t fully know the cost of maintaining and supporting the ships that will replace the navy’s Halifax-class frigates.”
The cost for the program has ballooned massively:
“The new figures presented to the House of Commons provide a limited window into some of the spending so far on the Canadian Surface Combatant or CSC project. Two months ago, the parliamentary budget officer estimated the total cost of the CSC would be more than $300 billion.
That project, the largest single purchase in Canadian history, has already fallen behind schedule and the cost has skyrocketed. The estimated price tag for constructing the ships has climbed from an original $26 billion to $84.5 billion, according to parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux.”
What makes this more stunning – aside from the brutal cost overruns – is that rapid advances in missile technology have made naval forces far more vulnerable.
Additionally, when you consider that Canada is a sparsely populated nation, with a high level of technology, allies who could require long-range support, and a small level of overall military personnel, it raises the question of whether a massive shipbuilding program actually makes sense when compared to the alternative of expanding our air force.
Notably, Australia is considering that exact question:
“Regular rotations of America’s newest nuclear-capable stealth bomber, and even a possible future Australian purchase of the B-21 aircraft, are expected to be discussed during high level talks between both nations this week.
At a tightly controlled ceremony in California on Friday, the United States Air Force publicly unveiled the B-21 Raider, in front of an audience that included the Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF).”
The B-21 is seen by some analysts as providing the deterrence needed by Australia:
“Defense analysts in Australia are urging the government to allocate funding to buy advanced B-21 stealth bombers from the US.
Marcus Hellyer and Andrew Nicholls wrote through the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank that the country must weigh the aircraft’s massive cost with the advantages it could provide.
The recently-unveiled sixth-generation stealth bomber is on track to cost nearly $700 million per plane. “We estimate the total acquisition cost for a squadron of 12 aircraft to be in the order of $25–28 billion,” Hellyer and Nicholls wrote.
But the two defense analysts believe that “a number of factors potentially offsets that cost.”
“The worst-case scenario for Australia’s military strategy has always been the prospect of an adversary establishing a presence in our near region from which it can target Australia or isolate us from our partners and allies,” Hellyer and Nicholls noted.
The B-21 could deliver the long-range strike capability needed to deter China by denial: “having sufficiently robust capabilities to convince an adversary that the cost of acting militarily against Australia isn’t worth any gains that might be made.”
Hellyer and Nicholls also suggested that Australia should consider Beijing’s increasing strike capabilities, whether on naval or ground platforms.”
Others have noted that the B-21 would be more cost-effective than Australia’s planned submarine procurement program:
“The B-21 would provide Australia with powerful military capabilities, sooner and cheaper than AUKUS’s submarine plan. A B-21 can carry more weapons and attack more land and ship targets on a single flight than a submarine can on a patrol lasting weeks or months. A B-21 flying from Australia could patrol across the Indian Ocean one day, the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait the next, and the south Pacific the day after that. A submarine can’t do that.
In a crisis, the Australian air force could disperse its bombers to bases across Australia, to friendly bases in the region, or even to the United States. Submarines by contrast will have to operate from one or two known and vulnerable bases.
If Australia expects to buy a nuclear-powered submarine similar to the U.S. Navy’s Virginia class subs, today’s cost is $3.5 billion per submarine. For that, Australia could buy five B-21s, giving its air force the capacity to strike scores of targets per day across the Indo-Pacific region.”
Should Canada cancel the shipbuilding program?
No.
Canada’s various defence branches are – at all levels – so bereft of equipment that we need to start building something.
Instead of cancelling programs, we need ruthless accountability for cost-overruns, and a complete overhaul of our military procurement system.
And, since the U.S. has not yet said whether it is willing to sell B-21’s to allies, cancelling one project now for a potential project in the future wouldn’t make sense.
That said, we should be lobbying the U.S. to sell the B-21 to Canada, and if they agree, we should be willing to significantly scale-down the shipbuilding program in order to afford the advanced bombers.
Since we are already buying the F-35, and since the F-35 and B-21 will have significant synergies, it would be a good fit. Plus, the ability to cover a vast expanse and deliver the most advanced weapons would be perfect for Canada’s sparsely populated – but strategically valuable – north.
All in all, it is patently absurd that our shipbuilding program could cost more than America’s mass procurement of the most advanced airplane of all time, and if we can transfer some of those costs to purchasing the B-21 our national security – and likely our national budget – will be the better for it.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
***
We must stand up for the truth and hold the government accountable. If you value my independent & rational perspective, you can contribute to support my work through PayPal or Stripe below.
PAYPAL
[simpay id=”28904″]
