Greg Quinn: Why Canada should (still) stick with the F-35

Canadians have a lot of reasons to be angry. But it's still the right plane for a Canadian fleet that can't take any further delays.

By: Greg Quinn

It is tempting, in these times of “Elbows Up,” to make rash decisions which cause more harm than good in the long run. Does the ongoing debate about whether or not Canada should buy the F-35 have the potential to be one of those decisions?

In short, yes, but let’s look at this a little more closely.

For blindingly obvious reasons (“51st state,” anyone?) Canada is rightly looking at its relationship with the United States across the board. Previously sacred cows are being slain, discussions about east–west pipelines have started, enhanced relations with Europe and the United Kingdom are there for all to see, and a new era of intra-provincial trade is mooted.

As anger at the U.S. grows, many have started to question whether or not Canada should continue with its planned purchase of 88 F-35A jets under the Future Fighter Capability Project (funds have been formally committed for an initial order of 16 jets).

It is easy to understand why such discussions might be ongoing, and alternatives (such as the Saab Gripen E, the Eurofighter Typhoon, or the Dassault Rafale) are also being considered. But these are not simple options or alternatives. All have some U.S.-origin components, which means export to Canada would still require U.S. authorization under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). This is a particular problem for the Gripen E, given it uses a General Electric engine.

Notwithstanding these issues, however, is Canada at risk of cutting off its nose to spite its face? Let’s look at how the United Kingdom has approached its own F-35 purchase in the face of a tense relationship with the new (ish) U.S. administration.

The U.K. has already committed to buying 138 F-35Bs. Forty eight are on formal contract and 38 of these have been delivered. Recently, the U.K. ordered 12 F-35As to allow it to participate in NATO’s nuclear mission. These will replace 12 F-35Bs in an existing 27-jet order.

As the U.K. is further down the line (and probably has no choice but to press ahead with existing orders), it is in a different situation than Canada.

That doesn’t necessarily make it an easier decision for Canada.

I’m a huge fan of the Typhoon, but it’s a traditional fighter jet that lacks “Day One” stealth capabilities. (“Day One” stealth capabilities refer to jets that are able to penetrate enemy air defences on the first day of a conflict, before enemy radar sites have been destroyed, making it safer for non-stealth or less stealthy planes to begin operating over enemy territory.) Whilst I believe it has a long-term role to play in the Royal Air Force (and other air forces), it is as an addition to the capabilities which the F-35 brings. (There is no other option but an F-35B to fly off our carriers.)

I’m less of a fan of the Rafale. And whilst there may be reason to doubt Pakistan’s claim about shooting down four Rafales in recent combat, the jet does not seem to have performed as well as expected. It also has the same problems as the Typhoon of not being a “Day One” fighter. There is also the reality that in going for the Rafale, Canada would be exchanging U.S. “control” for French control, and while the French might be more friendly to Canada at the moment…

Despite some issues, the F-35 is an excellent jet and provides capabilities which go beyond anything the Canadian Air Force currently has. It also has the capability to be used in the NATO nuclear mission, and there is commonality of supply chain and spare parts provision around the globe given the number of sales to other countries and the U.S. footprint.

Besides that, policy-making on the basis of being “pissed off” with someone is not a sensible approach. The Canadian Armed Forces have been starved of cash and equipment for years. That is changing, but changing tack on the F-35A now would add a new delay and create added complications for an air force already struggling with increasingly obsolete and unreliable equipment.

Finally, so far the defence relationship seems to have escaped the most egregious excesses of the U.S. administration. Notwithstanding valid claims about the need for NATO members to pony up more defence spending, cooperation on defence has remained one positive for most members of NATO. Around the world, the U.S. continues to cooperate with allies (including embarking U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs on HMS Prince of Wales in the Far East — the latest example of U.S. Marine Corps/Royal Navy interoperability).

So where does that leave us?

The Canadian government is between a rock and a hard place. I get the anger, I get the annoyance, I get the upset. I get the desire to “Elbows Up.” But defence is not the right area to do this. The U.S. remains a close ally. We will all depend on it in times of crisis. We will need to stay in the tent to try and convince them not to do anything silly with Russia, and we need their heft and strength.

Deliberately poking them by refusing to honour a commitment to buy F-35s will serve no long-term purpose and risks damaging the defence relationship and Canadian national security. Plus, it will add more delays to a long-suffering Royal Canadian Air Force.

Greg Quinn, OBE, is a former British diplomat who has served in Estonia, Ghana, Belarus, Iraq, Washington, DC, Kazakhstan, Guyana, Suriname, The Bahamas, Canada, and Antigua and Barbuda, in addition to postings in London. He now runs his own government relations, business development, and crisis management consultancy: Aodhan Consultancy Ltd.

---

The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation does not function as a subscription — it’s just an extra way to support our work!

---

The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter. Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com.