Canada Should Dump the F-35

If the Americans wish to spurn their closest economic partner and ally, then we must look out for our own interests as well. It is unlikely that further participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is beneficial to Canada, as its main selling point is integration with American armed forces — whose intentions with regard to us are no longer clear.

It was under the short-sighted leadership of Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker that Canada folded up and shut down our aerospace defence industry, terminating the Avro Arrow and chasing our top aeronautical engineering talent out of the country. Now, generations later and having never recovered, we are stuck buying 88 overpriced and inappropriate F-35 single-engine multi-role aircraft in order to be integrated with an ally that no longer cares about our relationship.

Canada does not have a strong need for a stealth first-strike attack aircraft. We need long range, high reliability, high speed aircraft to cover vast distances from few airbases. We should tear up the F-35 deal — and consider refusing to pay any cancellation costs for a project we have already spent far too much time and money dallying with.

There were three serious contenders to replace our 45-year old CF-18 fighter planes.

The Boeing F-18E/F Super Hornets were more appropriate for Canadian needs than the F-35. They are twin engine, high speed, long range, direct descendants of the aircraft we currently use. Boeing blew their chance when they tried to bully Bombardier’s innovative C-series aircraft out of the narrow body jet market. Canada ultimately lost ownership of that aerospace technology, too, as a result, handing the entire C-series program over to Airbus, who renamed it the A220.

The F-35 is marketed as a stealth aircraft, and Canada requested aircraft that can be in service until at least the year 2060. By 2060 anti-stealth technology will no doubt make a complete mockery of what we believe to be stealth today. Other countries, in particular China, are putting significant resources into compromising the F-22 and F-35’s stealth capabilities. It is unlikely that any country will disclose to what extent they are able to see around radar absorbing paint, so the advantages of the aircraft long term must be based on more than their stealth properties.

The Swedes, on the other hand, have developed a low-maintenance aircraft capable of operating from small airfields for less than half the operating cost of the F-35. The Saab Gripen is a combat-tested aircraft built for Arctic conditions that flies faster, longer, and takes off from shorter runways at a significantly lower per-hour cost than the F-35, while still being capable of integration with our allies.

The money saved from aircraft that are cheaper to operate could be well invested to courting scientists and engineers back to Canada to reclaim our once world-leading position in the aerospace industry. With President Trump making a point of firing anyone who isn’t a white male and cancelling as much scientific research funding as he is able to find, there should be a wide range of qualified scientists and engineers on the market available to be courted by Canada. Trump may well end up returning Diefenbaker’s favours.

We don’t need to carry through with the F-35. It is clear from the actions of the President that the United States no longer values our alliance or friendship, and we need to find our own way and be ready to operate our defences without the cooperation of the Americans. NORAD itself cannot be taken for granted under Trump.

In the absence of our own aerospace defence industry, it is important that we look at other options with fresh eyes while figuring out how to get back to where we would be today had we not traded our aerospace industry in for a handful of Boeing-built nuclear surface-to-air missiles. Our sovereignty may well depend on it.