While Canada’s potential F-35 purchase is still being reviewed, the federal government is already laying the groundwork for operating the jets.
As reported by the Ottawa Citizen, the government is already moving toward the construction of two F-35 hangars:
The Department of National Defence is proceeding to spend an initial $500 million for two new F-35 hangars even as the Liberal government continues to weigh the decision to purchase of the stealth fighter jet.
But ultimately the new infrastructure that will be needed for the U.S.-built F-35s will cost at least $2 billion, the department confirmed.
The Department of National Defence is proceeding to spend an initial $500 million for two new F-35 hangars even as the Liberal government continues to weigh the decision to purchase of the stealth fighter jet.
This is a clear indication that the government intends to go ahead with the purchase of F-35s, despite claims that the purchase is under review. Likely, the review was announced for political reasons to dampen public opinion blowback from purchasing an American fighter jet and to create leverage for Canada in trade negotiations. After all, turning a sure-thing purchase into a potential purchase gives the government the chance to offer it as a ‘concession’ in trade talks with the U.S.
The Trump Administration has proven receptive to countries purchasing U.S. military equipment as part of ‘trade deals,’ though it remains impossible to have confidence in those deals given how rapidly Trump’s demands change.
Still, nearly every country is trying to get the ‘least bad’ deal they can with the U.S. in the short term, to buy time as they reduce dependence on the U.S.
Is the government making a mistake?
With the U.S. proving much less reliable than Canadians had hoped, would it be a mistake to purchase the F-35?
Such a question is based in large part on fears of a ‘kill-switch’, meaning the United States could disable Canada’s F-35s whenever it chose.
While this is not exactly the case, the fears are grounded in reality.
Per EuroNews:
“Mark Cazalet, editor-in-chief at European Security and Defence Magazine, told Euronews Next he has not heard or seen any hard evidence that a kill switch exists but that it’s “not outside the realm of possibility” that measures to block aircraft software could be produced.
Cazalet said the US “doesn’t necessarily need” a kill switch on the F-35 to block the weapon’s use, the government could “simply withhold ammunition and spare parts”.
To replace US control of the software would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible,” to integrate into their weaponry, Cazalet said.
“The more relevant question for military planners is, can the US effectively prevent F-35s operated by other countries from being used, should it choose to do so?” Cazalet said. “Here the answer would seem to be mostly yes”.”
The ‘NATO plane’
It would be naive to completely dismiss this risk. That said, we should also consider the fact that the F-35 is the ‘NATO plane.’
It is operated by the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the Czech Republic, Finland, and Belgium. Germany is also purchasing at least 35 of them. Given the importance of NATO to Canada’s national security and given the importance of interoperability with our NATO partners, it makes sense for Canada to possess F-35s.
Above all, the F-35 is an incredibly effective aircraft. Israel operates modified F-35i ‘Adir’ variants, and has by all accounts achieved success with the aircraft in the recent campaign against the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program:
“Justin Bronk, an airpower expert at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider that the strength of Iranian defenses at the time made the combat operations that Israel conducted last October and the most recent strikes on Iran “the most challenging kinetic campaign that F-35s have flown in.”
The Israeli military has not discussed specific F-35 actions against Iran, but the jet’s capabilities and the nature of the targets suggest the aircraft could be playing a central role.
Bronk said that based on the publicly available information from Israeli Air Force officials, every indication is that “the F-35I has been a critical and highly successful leading edge capability in the overall Israeli air campaign at every stage.”
The jet, Bronk said, “offers a combination of stealth, capability to rapidly detect, identify, and geolocate radar-emitting threats like air defense systems, pass those targets to other aircraft or strike them itself, and conduct electronic warfare attacks to suppress said targets to protect other aircraft and get weapons through to targets.”
It should also be noted that Iran built its air defences largely on Russian-made systems, and those systems performed horrendously against the Israeli Air Force. Given that Russia is the most likely adversary Canada and our allies would face in a conflict, the F-35 would provide us with the best chance of both achieving operational success and protecting the lives of our pilots. Further, with China rapidly expanding its fleet of 5th-generation aircraft, Canada must possess advanced fighters to avoid falling behind.
Thus, the risk-reward tradeoff comes down on the side of accepting the risk of U.S. shutdowns of the aircraft to get the reward of possessing the capabilities the aircraft provides. Also, the probability is that the current U.S. administration is the least reliable administration Canada will have to deal with for quite a while. Though this is would not justify returning to our previously naive and overdependent posture, we are likely at ‘peak risk’ of the U.S. interfering with a weapon system we purchase from them, and that risk will go down in time. Since our F-35 order will not be complete until the mid-2030s, the political situation will likely be much different at that time.
Putting all our eggs in one basket?
But that is not the end of the story.
If there’s one thing we should have learned over the past half-year or so, it’s that putting all of our eggs in one basket is a dangerous move, even if the basket appears sturdy and reliable at first glance.
And so, while Canada should still purchase the F-35, we should also hedge our bets. The best way to do so is to purchase the Saab Gripen-E.
The Saab Gripen is less stealthy than the F-35; however, it is far less expensive and operates a robust electronic warfare suite. Though shifting procurement costs, exchange rates, and other factors make perfect comparisons impossible, the Gripen E is roughly 30-50% less expensive on a per unit basis, and has a 10-year operating cost roughly 1/3rd of the F-35’s.
Since it is operated by fewer countries, it is less interoperable. However, the Gripen-E offers one big potential advantage:
Saab is willing to build it in Canada.
In their pitch to Canada, the Gripen & F-35 often compete when countries seek to upgrade their air forces – Saab proposes building the Gripen in Canada, creating 6,000 jobs per year over 40 years, and promises intellectual property transfers to the Canadian aerospace sector.
These two points are essential.
To become a robust military power, Canada must run a dual-track rearmament strategy. We must quickly fill out our forces with advanced equipment as soon as possible, which, given decades of underfunding of the CAF and thus the erosion of our defence industry, generally requires purchasing foreign-made equipment. At the same time, we must build the foundation for domestic production and ultimately domestic design wherever possible.
Purchasing the F-35 and the Saab Gripen-E accomplishes both goals. Going forward with the F-35 purchase helps preserve our relationship with the U.S. defence sector and provides our pilots with one of the most advanced aircraft in the world, while purchasing the Saab Gripen builds our domestic production capacity and helps our aerospace sector become more effective, raising the possibility of Canadian-designed fighter jets in the future.
It’s not an ‘either-or’ choice, it’s a ‘yes-and’ decision.
50/50
My recommendation is that Canada implement a ’50/50 plan’.
Canada’s F-35 order is for 88 planes, but we are only obligated to purchase 16. If we locked in an additional 34 planes, that would bring our total order to 50. We could then supplement that order with 50 Saab Gripen E’s to be built in Canada.
The end cost estimate works out to about the same over 10 years with all factors included – roughly CAD 26-$41 billion for the original 88 F-35s plan, and CAD 25-$43 billion for the mixed 50/50 fleet.
The benefit of the mixed fleet is that it creates some resilience against U.S. capriciousness. In the unlikely event the U.S. sought to restrict our use of F-35s, we would still have 50 relatively advanced fighter jets under our control. Further, the mixed fleet means domestic fighter jet production and long-term benefits to the Canadian aerospace sector, increasing our self-reliance. Also, Sweden is a key NATO partner, so working with Saab deepens an important connection to a country that faces some similar concerns to Canada (fending off Russia in the North).
Given the myriad trade, sovereignty, and operational concerns the government must consider, the 50/50 plan is Canada’s best bet when it comes to rebuilding the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.