Canada’s been on course to buy the F-35 ever since the Chretien government signed up as a development partner on the Joint Strike Fighter program in 1996. In fact, the aircraft should’ve been in service now, but for the fecklessness of the Conservatives and the Liberals. The RCAF is at a point where the CF-18 is simply worn out and can’t keep flying: when the aircraft entered service in the mid-80s, it replaced embarrassingly old and obsolete CF-101 Voodoos and CF-104 Starfighters that were 20-25 years old. That was 40 years ago. Another delay of 5 years or so to switch to another type risks leaving Canada without any fighter force.
If Canada wants to bring on a 2nd fighter type that’s not dependent on US technology, the way to do it would be to join one of the European next-gen development programs currently underway. The better one would probably be the UK-Japan-Italy Tempest program; the other one is a French-German collaboration, and the history of previous multinational programs says to *never* work with the French or the Germans. The French won’t really collaborate, and the Germans will bog down progress and hog work share. Such a fighter should also be part of an expanded Air Force, not a fraction of an already-tiny fleet of 65 to 80 aircraft.
There’s also the usual contingent of fans of eclectic Swedish aircraft who will be clamoring for the Saab Gripen. Buying it would be a repeat of the infamous decision to purchase the CF-5 Freedom Fighter back in 1968. Same thing: small, simple, cheap aircraft with low operating costs. However, physics means that it’ll never carry a big payload, and the small nose is inherently going to limit radar capability due to antenna size.
First, they didn't have their act together to justify the purchase when they proposed it in 2010. They didn't do their homework regarding cost and requirements, and got cornered when they weren't prepared to rebut a half-baked PBO study criticizing the buy and the inevitable Liberal/NDP pile-on. They blinked, and didn't proceed with an order, perhaps a concession to the fact they were a minority government at the time.
Second, they had a majority between 2011 and 2015, and they *still* didn't proceed with an order.
I’m willing to bet that Canada is speaking to the French as we write. The Liberal party (whose Cabinet membership list reads like a Chicoutimi phone book) and the civil service leadership is controlled by the Quebec French who are more comfortable with that language.
I can see the point, but I sure wish the elbow up phrase would go away. It no longer just annoys me, it’s moving to the point where I can hardly read anything that uses it because I think the writer is taking a short cut and assuming everyone knows exactly the feelings and sentiments attached to it. I’ve thought the expression was dumb from day one but we’ve clearly established nobody believed any part of it and it was just a social justice warrior expression. Please for the love of all that is expressive in journalism, use real words to describe the situation and not a ridiculous and meaningless catch phrase.
I'm seeing a lot of shallow arguments for the F35, and this is one of them. It confuses "cost" with "value". It also neglects to discuss "who is the enemy?" Without ever saying so, the question being asked is, what is the best plane *in peace-time*. Once that qualifier is explicitly added, the weakness of the argument becomes more visible.
Let's look at ships as an example. Ships made in South Korea cost much less than ones made in Canada. So during peace-time Korean made ships are a much better deal than Canadian made ones. But in war-time a major part of Canada's supply chain would be within easy reach of Chinese and North Korean missiles. This would mean that during war-time it would be difficult to replace lost ships or repair extensive battle damage. This in turn would lead Canadian Admirals to be very hesitant to expose our existing ships to battle. Thus the *value* of Korean ships might actually be very low. It is very possible that Canadian made ships have a better value to cost ratio than do Korean made ships.
Let's apply the same logic to planes. The US has successfully destroyed Canada's domestic fighter industry. Which was fine when we were all liberal democracies united in opposition to the Soviet Union. But now the US wants to carve the world up and become an exploitive imperialistic power. Russia gets Ukraine (and Eastern Europe); China gets Taiwan (and South Korea and Japan); and the US gets Canada. Canadians are not just "angry" at the US. There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the two countries. So the question is not what can the F35 do but, how valuable is it for Canada? Could we send our F35s to fight in Ukraine? How about Taiwan? Could the US shut them down? (Either by shutting off the software, or simply by cutting off supplies.) Would the Canadian government be willing to expose our F35s to battle?
Gripens may not be as good as F35s in peace-time, but they may be better value in war-time. And that's what counts.
No, but I have over 30 years of experience in manufacturing. Most of what I read about military procurement fails to understand what it take to make things at scale.
The sacred cows are still standing. Inter-prov pipelines were stopped at the MB border by Wab Kinew. Pierre Trudeau (remember him?) tried building trade with Europe & UK in the 70s. Inter-provincial trade continues to fail against many provinces' regulations, especially their professional colleges.
Justin Trudeau (remember him?) cancelled our F35 order in 2015. It was a platform promise. His reason? Stephen Harper signed the deal.
There's no reason to be sure the US would honour future commitments for part, service, software upgrades. And they might withhold these items in a coercive manner against our country. The evidence of a trend is building.
Which would stop us from doing what exactly? The majority of our missions are done in support of the Americans & NATO. We’re buying these planes almost entirely because we’re trying to reach NATO spending commitments. Yes, there is potential that it would stop us from supporting the EU or some other ally, if they were on the wrong side of the Americans, but we wouldn’t be alone in that predicament at all. Americans cutting off our military would almost certainly be hurting their own interests and give us a valid reason to go back to spending at sub-2% levels.
Regarding hurting their own interests, I have one word...tariffs. Our military should not be put in a position of being beholden to US good graces and common sense because they are proving that they have neither.
So many words, yet so few actually saying anything.
What are people so quick to dismiss a two-fighter solution? The RCAF has used multiple fighters in the past, and any Air Force actually worth its salt has multiple fighters each fulfilling a niche, rather than one unicorn trying to do everything.
I get that the idea of two fighters is costly in terms of supply chains, but let’s be real, the RCAF ALREADY maintains a fleet of like 12-14 different platforms with different supply chains, we can do it; and if we’re going to spend more money, then there are worse ways than spending money on a duel fleet to beef up our versatility and continental defence.
Changing our contract to 40 some F35s still gives us all the fancy expensive new capabilities, and still gets new planes in the CAFs hands. Adding 60-70 Gripens adds flexibility, a second plane for missions the F35 really isn’t suited for, and bolsters relationships with other partners and our industrial base. Also reducing the order would be significantly less politically costly than canceling it altogether.
I think the problem isnt that a two plane isnt feasible. The issue of most two plane policy is that theres not enough of each plane to do much. A good solution would be to have 88 F-35, and 88 Gripens
Hey Greg, you address the main problem with purchasing the F-35’s, but only in passing (that perhaps the French could also get stroppy at some point in the future). The baseline, unchallenged assumption is that we’ve seen nothing over the last year that suggests the US is any less reliable than any of our other allies.
If this were true, of course it makes sense that Canada would go with the F-35. But of course it’s not true. Trump’s threats of annexation and the US’s general slide into authoritarianism don’t necessary mean we need to start building tank traps at the border tomorrow. However, those are big, relevant data points suggesting that, whatever the relationship we’ve had with the US over the last 80 years, things are different now. It feels like you’re suggesting 1938 Norway should proceed with that order of Messerschmitts because they need the planes and things with Germany are never going to get that bad, are they?
To sum up, if you’re going to argue a point, I’d suggest you make more than a passing nod at the large, impossible to avoid counter argument. Suggesting instead that proponents of cancelling the F-36 order are caught up in a fit of pique is disingenuous.
I think many in Canada forget that most of our knowledge about what’s going on in the Us is partisan in nature due to how polarized the media is in the US. I work 99% with Americans. Things are different for people living in the US than how the news makes things sound. I think it’s premature to use the word authoritarian. There will be a new president in another 3 years. Trump will be gone from office then. Some of his the things Trump is criticized for other Democrat presidents have done as well, but weren’t criticized for. Some of trumps policies are dumb and he’s sure not trustworthy. But midterm elections will happen and who knows how the balance of power will change then. Trump doesn’t have absolute power.
I grant that most Americans aren’t a daily witness to masked ICE agents apprehending political enemies in the streets, but it’s well accepted in circles that study authoritarian governance that the US is well on its way to implementing Orbanism. Elections will still be held, but the institutions that previously would have ensured elections were conducted fairly no longer function in that manner, and the direction of travel is toward less and less fairness.
Even if you don’t accept that, I gather you accept that the American government is no longer bound by the agreements that they sign? And surely that suggests signing long-term military contracts would be unwise?
I think that anecdotal evidence provided by the Americans you work with should be taken with a grain of salt.
How much stock would you put in the political analyses of complex Canadian affairs offered by "ordinary Canadians"? Much casual analysis offered by non-experts tends to make huge assumptions; "normalcy bias" is one such assumption (things will remain more-or-less as they have been during the past 30 years).
Furthermore, surely it is at least plausible that what you have been hearing has been filtered through / influenced by partisan lenses?
It would have been fine for Norway to buy Messerschmitts in 1938, because a war with Germany wouldn't last long enough for spare parts orders to be placed.
Switzerland bought Messerschmitts in 1938, used them throughout the war to defend their airspace. They also shared a border with Nazi Germany, unlike Norway. So what made Switzerland different? That's probably more to the point than the type of aircraft equipping an air force.
I think that’s debatable, but even accepting your premise, you think it would have been a good idea for 1938 Norway to long-term military business with the belligerent superpower to their south? I think the only Norwegians who would have accepted that premise were folks who thought like Vidkun Quisling.
This piece mentions the F-35s day-one attack capabilities, which is a good point. However, I counter with its vulnerability to day-one attacks. Its a long airfield/high maintenance jet that needs dedicated bases. Ukraine just used shipping crate based sneak attack strategy with drones to destroy 30% of Russia's strategic air force in one day.
Quinn's article doesn't mention drones. With their low cost, low risk, and ability to saturate defences, they seem to be the best tools for attack now.
A cheap, low maintenance, short strip, supercruise jet would seem ideal for general purpose and forward interception of bombers, cruise missiles and drones. The latest Saab Gripen fits the bill.
Your linked article rather argues that once drones complete their first-day role in taking out air defences (like in Iran) large manned air power best presses the air superiority advantage.
Another thing that is missed in these discussions is the very long 10yr lead time for development of a new fighter jet relative to drones or air defence systems and radars.
? That one sentence in the article pointing out one use of drones in support of traditional air operations in no way suggests that they can replace an Air Force. Reading it as suggesting drones are an adequate substitute for traditional air power is to ignore every other sentence in the article.
First, stealth technology provides an advantage well beyond "Day One" of a conflict (which presupposes you successfully take out the enemy's air defenses on Day One.) A stealth aircraft is harder to detect, giving it an edge in air-to-air combat. Even as other countries acquire stealth aircraft, that feature is going to remain valuable.
Second, *everybody* has been working on drones. They're not ready yet. The little ones featured in videos from Ukraine have got profound limitations, and are largely a poor substitute for a real tactical air force. The ones Russia and Iran use are basically munitions, cheap cruise missiles. Higher-end systems have been in development for decades, but the paradigm has shifted from fully autonomous systems to what the US calls a "loyal wingman" - drones that are controlled from a manned aircraft on the same mission. Communications can be jammed too easily for long range control, and artificial intelligence isn't yet up to the complexity of the mission.
Cancelling the F-35 order would be peak dumb but entirely consistent with the current (and previous) government's approach to Canada/US relations. North America is an integrated economic and manufacturing juggernaut which should be nurtured and protected by an integrated defence strategy. Screwing this all up in a pique of populist rage while spouting silly elbows up rhetoric and pretending Canada is part of Europe is all so very Liberal.
It is not clear, at the moment, exactly how far the current American government will push the trade war/51st state business, but it does not look good. The prudent action would be to put more daylight between Canada and the US. Perhaps that means purchasing a less-expensive fighter that still meets most, if not all, our needs.
It shouldn’t be looked at as an either or, rather a what do we buy in addition to. We have committed to increasing our defence budget nothing says it has to be with the Americans. But the typhoon or euro fighter in addition to the F-35’s. Also I get the let’s build locally to ensure supply however we are super inefficient at it. I would rather buy current technology and ships from allies on the cheap now and then build our own capacity for the next generation of equipment. So buy the Korean and German submarines and a couple French heli-carriers. Then start right now building the consumables at home aka drones, missiles, bullets etc. then longer term build the infrastructure for boats, subs etc. But carney is falling into the same liberal fault thinking the announcement is all that matters and execution is not needed.
I find this argument less that convincing. It assumes that these aircraft are needed to support NATO in Europe. We need aircraft that can are required for North American defence and for air control over the Canadian Arctic. Enemy radar ground stations would not be high on the task list.
There's anger for sure, but I can easily make a logic argument as to why we should cancel them. They have unjustly declared a trade war on us, they have proven untrustworthy, and there are some troubling signs they may be slipping into an authoritarian fascist state. I think at the very least we should use it as a bargaining chip, having 88 or having 0 fighters will yield the same result if we get invaded by Russia or the US.
First of all, it would not be Canada that was doing the poking. The United States has been hugely provocative in its flaunting of existing agreements with Canada.
Secondly, the F-35 design is essentially a quarter-of-a-century old, and was conceived at a time when the dogma (and the reality) told us that one could create a stealth technology that would trick the sensors available then into seeing something much smaller than an advanced fighter aircraft. The state-of-the-art WRT sensor systems has moved since then. Recent reports in defence related periodicals suggest that so-called quantum sensors may render all existing (and foreseeable) stealth designs obsolete.
Finally, the United States on the one hand, as well as the UK, Italy and Japan on the other, are separately developing a sixth-generation fighter design that could well make the F-35 yesterday's news by the late 2030s.
At this point, we might wish to defer purchase of the F-35 (without committing to other existing platforms), opting instead to build a credible anti-drone system and doctrine for our land and naval forces, greatly strengthening our airborne strategic lift and early warning fleets and otherwise preparing ourselves for missile attacks (conventional and nuclear) by adopting a comprehensive missile defence system (one that we could make here).
The latter extends the analysis about the potential obsolescence of stealth technology to stealth-equipped submarines, thanks to the likely development of sensors enhanced by the use of quantum technology:
QUOTE
Quantum sensors can detect otherwise invisible variables — like subtle magnetic or gravitational anomalies — that traditional methods miss. Such advancements could revolutionize surveillance, enabling the early detection of stealth submarines or concealed threats.
Well, there are a few arguments against the Gripen.
First, although not exclusive to the Gripen, it's not available on the required time frame. The Canadian fighter force is at the end of its service life. We need an aircraft that can begin deliveries essentially immediately - which means orders places years ago. Even if we could get them right away, decades of underfunding have left the Canadian Forces without the manpower, infrastructure, or training capacity to stand up two new fighter types at the same time. And that assumes (a questionable assumption) that if we dumped the F-35 in favor of the Gripen, Trump wouldn't veto the sale, which he can because the Gripen doesn't exist without components requiring an American export license.
Second, it's small. It can't carry a heavy payload. It has a limited upgrade path as a result. Much is made of its purported range advantage over the F-35, but that's ephemeral because it assumes the F-35 can't use external fuel tanks. But the F-35 can, and without degrading its combat effectiveness; the Israelis did exactly that over Iran. Moreover, small is going in the opposite direction of every other aircraft project. The European next generation fighters, the F-47 in the US, the new Chinese aircraft... all the major new fighter development projects are going bigger, longer range, heavier payload. Canada, a country that more than most needs long range aircraft is a natural fit for the design philosophy that the rest of the world seems to have adopted already.
And third, its purported cost savings is nonexistent. It depends on an apples to oranges comparison: comparing direct maintenance costs for a Gripen flight hour to the total cost of ownership of the F-35. Even that obscures the real problem: the Gripen maintenance system is different and a poor fit for the Canadian forces. The Gripen is built with a highly modular design, which allows a ground crew with little training to swap modules easily, in rough conditions. The purpose of this design is to allow extensive mobility, road mobile teams can setup ground strips on highways within driving distances of the main Swedish air bases. In contrast, Canada has historically (along with the rest of NATO) used a maintenance system where a lot of maintenance is done by crews at air bases, and then when really major work is needed the aircraft gets shipped somewhere for depot maintenance.
The Swedish system allows rapid dispersal of air assets, to many sites, staffed primarily by ground crews based on a conscription/mobilization manpower system. In a place where you are reasonably concerned that all of your airbases could come under attack at any time, and when you're designing in the shadow of the 6 day war where Israel used air strikes on airbases to great effect, it's a brilliant system.
So, why doesn't that work for Canada? Well, Canada doesn't have a conscription/mobilization based military manpower system. We have highly trained career military personnel who maintain our aircraft. When they swap the (much smaller) part on the aircraft, instead of the (large) modules on the Gripen, they do a lot more work at the airbase. The Swedes truck the modules back to the base where their professional maintainers do something halfway between depot maintenance and field maintenance. We don't have enough people to replicate this structure, and they don't have the right training. It's not just retraining; it's a major change to the entire organization of the air force.
Finally, this dispersal capability isn't very useful to Canada. It doesn't make sense to disperse our fighters to places you can drive to from Cold Lake, for example, as compared to defending Cold Lake properly. Moreover, the experience in both Ukraine, Israel and Iran recently has been that it's actually quite hard to get an air base taken out of action. With good passive defenses (shelters, drone netting, dispersal around the base), and active air defenses, air bases can take a lot of hits and do repairs quickly without being taken out of action. The Gripen was in significant part built around this capability which is at best of minimal value to Canada, and would require a lot of time, money, and manpower (all of which are in insufficient supply) to realize.
Yeah his whole article actually didn’t say a whole lot of why we should go with the F35 other than “it would anger the US” and the “CAF needs fighters quickly”. A duel fleet would answer both of those, but he neglects to even really acknowledge that possibility.
Canada’s been on course to buy the F-35 ever since the Chretien government signed up as a development partner on the Joint Strike Fighter program in 1996. In fact, the aircraft should’ve been in service now, but for the fecklessness of the Conservatives and the Liberals. The RCAF is at a point where the CF-18 is simply worn out and can’t keep flying: when the aircraft entered service in the mid-80s, it replaced embarrassingly old and obsolete CF-101 Voodoos and CF-104 Starfighters that were 20-25 years old. That was 40 years ago. Another delay of 5 years or so to switch to another type risks leaving Canada without any fighter force.
If Canada wants to bring on a 2nd fighter type that’s not dependent on US technology, the way to do it would be to join one of the European next-gen development programs currently underway. The better one would probably be the UK-Japan-Italy Tempest program; the other one is a French-German collaboration, and the history of previous multinational programs says to *never* work with the French or the Germans. The French won’t really collaborate, and the Germans will bog down progress and hog work share. Such a fighter should also be part of an expanded Air Force, not a fraction of an already-tiny fleet of 65 to 80 aircraft.
There’s also the usual contingent of fans of eclectic Swedish aircraft who will be clamoring for the Saab Gripen. Buying it would be a repeat of the infamous decision to purchase the CF-5 Freedom Fighter back in 1968. Same thing: small, simple, cheap aircraft with low operating costs. However, physics means that it’ll never carry a big payload, and the small nose is inherently going to limit radar capability due to antenna size.
How were the Conservatives feckless? They wanted the plane!
First, they didn't have their act together to justify the purchase when they proposed it in 2010. They didn't do their homework regarding cost and requirements, and got cornered when they weren't prepared to rebut a half-baked PBO study criticizing the buy and the inevitable Liberal/NDP pile-on. They blinked, and didn't proceed with an order, perhaps a concession to the fact they were a minority government at the time.
Second, they had a majority between 2011 and 2015, and they *still* didn't proceed with an order.
I’m willing to bet that Canada is speaking to the French as we write. The Liberal party (whose Cabinet membership list reads like a Chicoutimi phone book) and the civil service leadership is controlled by the Quebec French who are more comfortable with that language.
I can see the point, but I sure wish the elbow up phrase would go away. It no longer just annoys me, it’s moving to the point where I can hardly read anything that uses it because I think the writer is taking a short cut and assuming everyone knows exactly the feelings and sentiments attached to it. I’ve thought the expression was dumb from day one but we’ve clearly established nobody believed any part of it and it was just a social justice warrior expression. Please for the love of all that is expressive in journalism, use real words to describe the situation and not a ridiculous and meaningless catch phrase.
I thought it is now being used primarily to make fun of people whose political position is meaningless and ridiculous.
The fact that some of those people use it themselves unironically just makes it funnier.
The younger generation and people in Alberta basically use the "Elbows Up" meme to mock boomers and people back east.
Much if not most of modern Canadian nationalism is a creation of boomers reflecting their wants, needs and pathologies.
I would have left it at pathologies only…
Agree completely it was dumb from day one. But then the same can be said of Doug Fraud’s public statements since this whole trade skirmish started.
Or, really, pretty much every public statement Doug Ford has ever made on any topic. And, if he said something sensible, it was by accident.
I'm seeing a lot of shallow arguments for the F35, and this is one of them. It confuses "cost" with "value". It also neglects to discuss "who is the enemy?" Without ever saying so, the question being asked is, what is the best plane *in peace-time*. Once that qualifier is explicitly added, the weakness of the argument becomes more visible.
Let's look at ships as an example. Ships made in South Korea cost much less than ones made in Canada. So during peace-time Korean made ships are a much better deal than Canadian made ones. But in war-time a major part of Canada's supply chain would be within easy reach of Chinese and North Korean missiles. This would mean that during war-time it would be difficult to replace lost ships or repair extensive battle damage. This in turn would lead Canadian Admirals to be very hesitant to expose our existing ships to battle. Thus the *value* of Korean ships might actually be very low. It is very possible that Canadian made ships have a better value to cost ratio than do Korean made ships.
Let's apply the same logic to planes. The US has successfully destroyed Canada's domestic fighter industry. Which was fine when we were all liberal democracies united in opposition to the Soviet Union. But now the US wants to carve the world up and become an exploitive imperialistic power. Russia gets Ukraine (and Eastern Europe); China gets Taiwan (and South Korea and Japan); and the US gets Canada. Canadians are not just "angry" at the US. There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the two countries. So the question is not what can the F35 do but, how valuable is it for Canada? Could we send our F35s to fight in Ukraine? How about Taiwan? Could the US shut them down? (Either by shutting off the software, or simply by cutting off supplies.) Would the Canadian government be willing to expose our F35s to battle?
Gripens may not be as good as F35s in peace-time, but they may be better value in war-time. And that's what counts.
Do you have any military experience because I have never looked at the question this way before. Great comment.
No, but I have over 30 years of experience in manufacturing. Most of what I read about military procurement fails to understand what it take to make things at scale.
The US gets Canada. A couple more Chinese bought elections and it won’t any more.
The sacred cows are still standing. Inter-prov pipelines were stopped at the MB border by Wab Kinew. Pierre Trudeau (remember him?) tried building trade with Europe & UK in the 70s. Inter-provincial trade continues to fail against many provinces' regulations, especially their professional colleges.
Justin Trudeau (remember him?) cancelled our F35 order in 2015. It was a platform promise. His reason? Stephen Harper signed the deal.
Very accurate little summary!!👍🏼
There's no reason to be sure the US would honour future commitments for part, service, software upgrades. And they might withhold these items in a coercive manner against our country. The evidence of a trend is building.
Which would stop us from doing what exactly? The majority of our missions are done in support of the Americans & NATO. We’re buying these planes almost entirely because we’re trying to reach NATO spending commitments. Yes, there is potential that it would stop us from supporting the EU or some other ally, if they were on the wrong side of the Americans, but we wouldn’t be alone in that predicament at all. Americans cutting off our military would almost certainly be hurting their own interests and give us a valid reason to go back to spending at sub-2% levels.
Regarding hurting their own interests, I have one word...tariffs. Our military should not be put in a position of being beholden to US good graces and common sense because they are proving that they have neither.
So many words, yet so few actually saying anything.
What are people so quick to dismiss a two-fighter solution? The RCAF has used multiple fighters in the past, and any Air Force actually worth its salt has multiple fighters each fulfilling a niche, rather than one unicorn trying to do everything.
I get that the idea of two fighters is costly in terms of supply chains, but let’s be real, the RCAF ALREADY maintains a fleet of like 12-14 different platforms with different supply chains, we can do it; and if we’re going to spend more money, then there are worse ways than spending money on a duel fleet to beef up our versatility and continental defence.
Changing our contract to 40 some F35s still gives us all the fancy expensive new capabilities, and still gets new planes in the CAFs hands. Adding 60-70 Gripens adds flexibility, a second plane for missions the F35 really isn’t suited for, and bolsters relationships with other partners and our industrial base. Also reducing the order would be significantly less politically costly than canceling it altogether.
I think the problem isnt that a two plane isnt feasible. The issue of most two plane policy is that theres not enough of each plane to do much. A good solution would be to have 88 F-35, and 88 Gripens
Hey Greg, you address the main problem with purchasing the F-35’s, but only in passing (that perhaps the French could also get stroppy at some point in the future). The baseline, unchallenged assumption is that we’ve seen nothing over the last year that suggests the US is any less reliable than any of our other allies.
If this were true, of course it makes sense that Canada would go with the F-35. But of course it’s not true. Trump’s threats of annexation and the US’s general slide into authoritarianism don’t necessary mean we need to start building tank traps at the border tomorrow. However, those are big, relevant data points suggesting that, whatever the relationship we’ve had with the US over the last 80 years, things are different now. It feels like you’re suggesting 1938 Norway should proceed with that order of Messerschmitts because they need the planes and things with Germany are never going to get that bad, are they?
To sum up, if you’re going to argue a point, I’d suggest you make more than a passing nod at the large, impossible to avoid counter argument. Suggesting instead that proponents of cancelling the F-36 order are caught up in a fit of pique is disingenuous.
I think many in Canada forget that most of our knowledge about what’s going on in the Us is partisan in nature due to how polarized the media is in the US. I work 99% with Americans. Things are different for people living in the US than how the news makes things sound. I think it’s premature to use the word authoritarian. There will be a new president in another 3 years. Trump will be gone from office then. Some of his the things Trump is criticized for other Democrat presidents have done as well, but weren’t criticized for. Some of trumps policies are dumb and he’s sure not trustworthy. But midterm elections will happen and who knows how the balance of power will change then. Trump doesn’t have absolute power.
I grant that most Americans aren’t a daily witness to masked ICE agents apprehending political enemies in the streets, but it’s well accepted in circles that study authoritarian governance that the US is well on its way to implementing Orbanism. Elections will still be held, but the institutions that previously would have ensured elections were conducted fairly no longer function in that manner, and the direction of travel is toward less and less fairness.
Even if you don’t accept that, I gather you accept that the American government is no longer bound by the agreements that they sign? And surely that suggests signing long-term military contracts would be unwise?
Agree 100 percent.
I think that anecdotal evidence provided by the Americans you work with should be taken with a grain of salt.
How much stock would you put in the political analyses of complex Canadian affairs offered by "ordinary Canadians"? Much casual analysis offered by non-experts tends to make huge assumptions; "normalcy bias" is one such assumption (things will remain more-or-less as they have been during the past 30 years).
Furthermore, surely it is at least plausible that what you have been hearing has been filtered through / influenced by partisan lenses?
It would have been fine for Norway to buy Messerschmitts in 1938, because a war with Germany wouldn't last long enough for spare parts orders to be placed.
The same supplies to Canada and the F35.
Switzerland bought Messerschmitts in 1938, used them throughout the war to defend their airspace. They also shared a border with Nazi Germany, unlike Norway. So what made Switzerland different? That's probably more to the point than the type of aircraft equipping an air force.
I think that’s debatable, but even accepting your premise, you think it would have been a good idea for 1938 Norway to long-term military business with the belligerent superpower to their south? I think the only Norwegians who would have accepted that premise were folks who thought like Vidkun Quisling.
This piece mentions the F-35s day-one attack capabilities, which is a good point. However, I counter with its vulnerability to day-one attacks. Its a long airfield/high maintenance jet that needs dedicated bases. Ukraine just used shipping crate based sneak attack strategy with drones to destroy 30% of Russia's strategic air force in one day.
Quinn's article doesn't mention drones. With their low cost, low risk, and ability to saturate defences, they seem to be the best tools for attack now.
A cheap, low maintenance, short strip, supercruise jet would seem ideal for general purpose and forward interception of bombers, cruise missiles and drones. The latest Saab Gripen fits the bill.
Drones are not a substitute for traditional air power, and the Ukrainians would tell you this themselves. This article helpfully lays out why:
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/nato-should-not-replace-traditional-firepower-drones
Your linked article rather argues that once drones complete their first-day role in taking out air defences (like in Iran) large manned air power best presses the air superiority advantage.
Another thing that is missed in these discussions is the very long 10yr lead time for development of a new fighter jet relative to drones or air defence systems and radars.
Here's an interesting article about different approaches used now to detect stealth aircraft. https://www.flyajetfighter.com/how-radars-detect-stealth-aircraft-today/
? That one sentence in the article pointing out one use of drones in support of traditional air operations in no way suggests that they can replace an Air Force. Reading it as suggesting drones are an adequate substitute for traditional air power is to ignore every other sentence in the article.
First, stealth technology provides an advantage well beyond "Day One" of a conflict (which presupposes you successfully take out the enemy's air defenses on Day One.) A stealth aircraft is harder to detect, giving it an edge in air-to-air combat. Even as other countries acquire stealth aircraft, that feature is going to remain valuable.
Second, *everybody* has been working on drones. They're not ready yet. The little ones featured in videos from Ukraine have got profound limitations, and are largely a poor substitute for a real tactical air force. The ones Russia and Iran use are basically munitions, cheap cruise missiles. Higher-end systems have been in development for decades, but the paradigm has shifted from fully autonomous systems to what the US calls a "loyal wingman" - drones that are controlled from a manned aircraft on the same mission. Communications can be jammed too easily for long range control, and artificial intelligence isn't yet up to the complexity of the mission.
Cancelling the F-35 order would be peak dumb but entirely consistent with the current (and previous) government's approach to Canada/US relations. North America is an integrated economic and manufacturing juggernaut which should be nurtured and protected by an integrated defence strategy. Screwing this all up in a pique of populist rage while spouting silly elbows up rhetoric and pretending Canada is part of Europe is all so very Liberal.
And stupid.
It is not clear, at the moment, exactly how far the current American government will push the trade war/51st state business, but it does not look good. The prudent action would be to put more daylight between Canada and the US. Perhaps that means purchasing a less-expensive fighter that still meets most, if not all, our needs.
The fact that this conversation is still going on pretty much assures us that we'll be buying surplus Harvard trainers. Elbows Up
It shouldn’t be looked at as an either or, rather a what do we buy in addition to. We have committed to increasing our defence budget nothing says it has to be with the Americans. But the typhoon or euro fighter in addition to the F-35’s. Also I get the let’s build locally to ensure supply however we are super inefficient at it. I would rather buy current technology and ships from allies on the cheap now and then build our own capacity for the next generation of equipment. So buy the Korean and German submarines and a couple French heli-carriers. Then start right now building the consumables at home aka drones, missiles, bullets etc. then longer term build the infrastructure for boats, subs etc. But carney is falling into the same liberal fault thinking the announcement is all that matters and execution is not needed.
We should be asking what we need as domestic capability to execute a porcupine strategy.
Sure, have some expedition capable jets, but assume they are scrap if the real chips are down.
Precisely.
I find this argument less that convincing. It assumes that these aircraft are needed to support NATO in Europe. We need aircraft that can are required for North American defence and for air control over the Canadian Arctic. Enemy radar ground stations would not be high on the task list.
This.
And if we continue to vacillate when the wind blows back and forth (Harper and Trudeau), on a long-term project, we will continue to accomplish SFA!
As noted this isn't a five year commitment and, in 10-15 years (or less) we need to be ready for the next major fighter capability decision.
There's anger for sure, but I can easily make a logic argument as to why we should cancel them. They have unjustly declared a trade war on us, they have proven untrustworthy, and there are some troubling signs they may be slipping into an authoritarian fascist state. I think at the very least we should use it as a bargaining chip, having 88 or having 0 fighters will yield the same result if we get invaded by Russia or the US.
I wonder at this assessment.
First of all, it would not be Canada that was doing the poking. The United States has been hugely provocative in its flaunting of existing agreements with Canada.
Secondly, the F-35 design is essentially a quarter-of-a-century old, and was conceived at a time when the dogma (and the reality) told us that one could create a stealth technology that would trick the sensors available then into seeing something much smaller than an advanced fighter aircraft. The state-of-the-art WRT sensor systems has moved since then. Recent reports in defence related periodicals suggest that so-called quantum sensors may render all existing (and foreseeable) stealth designs obsolete.
Finally, the United States on the one hand, as well as the UK, Italy and Japan on the other, are separately developing a sixth-generation fighter design that could well make the F-35 yesterday's news by the late 2030s.
At this point, we might wish to defer purchase of the F-35 (without committing to other existing platforms), opting instead to build a credible anti-drone system and doctrine for our land and naval forces, greatly strengthening our airborne strategic lift and early warning fleets and otherwise preparing ourselves for missile attacks (conventional and nuclear) by adopting a comprehensive missile defence system (one that we could make here).
C.f.: John A. Tirpak, DARPA’s No. 2 Sees Quantum Sensing as Threat to Stealth, Air & Space Forces Magazine, 25 June 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/why-darpa-thinks-stealth-is-obsolete-in-future-wars/
See also Summer Myatt, Inside the Quantum-Powered Defense Landscape of the Future, GOVConWire, 14 January 2025, https://www.govconwire.com/articles/future-quantum-defense-applications
The latter extends the analysis about the potential obsolescence of stealth technology to stealth-equipped submarines, thanks to the likely development of sensors enhanced by the use of quantum technology:
QUOTE
Quantum sensors can detect otherwise invisible variables — like subtle magnetic or gravitational anomalies — that traditional methods miss. Such advancements could revolutionize surveillance, enabling the early detection of stealth submarines or concealed threats.
END QUOTE
Though some commenters may have answered this, I notice that Mr. Quinn did not provide any arguments against the Saab jet. What are its pros and cons?
Well, there are a few arguments against the Gripen.
First, although not exclusive to the Gripen, it's not available on the required time frame. The Canadian fighter force is at the end of its service life. We need an aircraft that can begin deliveries essentially immediately - which means orders places years ago. Even if we could get them right away, decades of underfunding have left the Canadian Forces without the manpower, infrastructure, or training capacity to stand up two new fighter types at the same time. And that assumes (a questionable assumption) that if we dumped the F-35 in favor of the Gripen, Trump wouldn't veto the sale, which he can because the Gripen doesn't exist without components requiring an American export license.
Second, it's small. It can't carry a heavy payload. It has a limited upgrade path as a result. Much is made of its purported range advantage over the F-35, but that's ephemeral because it assumes the F-35 can't use external fuel tanks. But the F-35 can, and without degrading its combat effectiveness; the Israelis did exactly that over Iran. Moreover, small is going in the opposite direction of every other aircraft project. The European next generation fighters, the F-47 in the US, the new Chinese aircraft... all the major new fighter development projects are going bigger, longer range, heavier payload. Canada, a country that more than most needs long range aircraft is a natural fit for the design philosophy that the rest of the world seems to have adopted already.
And third, its purported cost savings is nonexistent. It depends on an apples to oranges comparison: comparing direct maintenance costs for a Gripen flight hour to the total cost of ownership of the F-35. Even that obscures the real problem: the Gripen maintenance system is different and a poor fit for the Canadian forces. The Gripen is built with a highly modular design, which allows a ground crew with little training to swap modules easily, in rough conditions. The purpose of this design is to allow extensive mobility, road mobile teams can setup ground strips on highways within driving distances of the main Swedish air bases. In contrast, Canada has historically (along with the rest of NATO) used a maintenance system where a lot of maintenance is done by crews at air bases, and then when really major work is needed the aircraft gets shipped somewhere for depot maintenance.
The Swedish system allows rapid dispersal of air assets, to many sites, staffed primarily by ground crews based on a conscription/mobilization manpower system. In a place where you are reasonably concerned that all of your airbases could come under attack at any time, and when you're designing in the shadow of the 6 day war where Israel used air strikes on airbases to great effect, it's a brilliant system.
So, why doesn't that work for Canada? Well, Canada doesn't have a conscription/mobilization based military manpower system. We have highly trained career military personnel who maintain our aircraft. When they swap the (much smaller) part on the aircraft, instead of the (large) modules on the Gripen, they do a lot more work at the airbase. The Swedes truck the modules back to the base where their professional maintainers do something halfway between depot maintenance and field maintenance. We don't have enough people to replicate this structure, and they don't have the right training. It's not just retraining; it's a major change to the entire organization of the air force.
Finally, this dispersal capability isn't very useful to Canada. It doesn't make sense to disperse our fighters to places you can drive to from Cold Lake, for example, as compared to defending Cold Lake properly. Moreover, the experience in both Ukraine, Israel and Iran recently has been that it's actually quite hard to get an air base taken out of action. With good passive defenses (shelters, drone netting, dispersal around the base), and active air defenses, air bases can take a lot of hits and do repairs quickly without being taken out of action. The Gripen was in significant part built around this capability which is at best of minimal value to Canada, and would require a lot of time, money, and manpower (all of which are in insufficient supply) to realize.
Yeah his whole article actually didn’t say a whole lot of why we should go with the F35 other than “it would anger the US” and the “CAF needs fighters quickly”. A duel fleet would answer both of those, but he neglects to even really acknowledge that possibility.