Canada is running out of runway for its F-35 review

thither was an interesting — albeit legal brief — recent extravasation of clearness in the on-going saga of whether Canada intends to proceed with the full order of American-made F-35 fighters.

It was courtesy of the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, who perhaps spoke the quiet part out loud last week in an interview with Canadian independent podcaster Jasmin Laine.

Hoekstra, a no-nonsense Republican from Michigan, was asked about the Liberal government's review of the $27.7-billion purchase of stealth fighters and the possibility that after delivery of the first tranche of jets, Canada could decide to fill the rest of its order with another type of aircraft.   

"You can't afford two fighters, two different fighter jet programs," said Hoekstra. "Canada should just decide what they want. Do they want F-35s? Do they want some other product? That's your decision to make, but you can't afford both of them."

But then, he added that the ongoing review is "an irritant that makes it harder to get to a [trade] agreement."

It's not much of a stretch to suggest that few Canadian tears would be shed over the notion that the Trump administration is irritated by the uncertainty.

But the fact he's said so publicly is significant and it represents an interesting escalation from earlier remarks that suggested not buying the F-35s would endanger NORAD, the binational defence pact with the United States.

What's even more potentially entertaining is the lengths to which everyone on the Canadian side has twisted themselves into pretzels to downplay the notion that the fighter jet program is being used as a significant piece of leverage in negotiations with Washington. 

"With the new government coming into place, it's perfectly normal," Carignan said. "There's a request to ensure that our processes are still valid, that we are getting what we need."

With any other major defence purchase, that might be a reasonable argument. But the F-35 has been — over 15 years of political drama — the subject of enormous study. Parliamentary watchdogs, an independent panel and a legion of experts have lined up to analyze, slice, dice and dissect the plan. 

One wonders what more can be said that couldn't be found in a ministerial transition briefing book.

The review has been going on since the early spring and with so much information already at their fingertips, the question of what the political impact might be only gets larger as time goes on.

Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman, also speaking on The House last weekend, said there's obvious "trepidation" and consideration of "what kind of blowback reaction" there could be in Washington should Canada opt to shop elsewhere.

Others argue that the tantrums of Trump and the irritation of his administration shouldn't dictate Canadian defence policy.

"I think the Trump administration will decide if they wish to punish us or not based on whatever current thought of the moment is in the heads of the president and his key advisers," said Wendy Gilmour, a Canadian former assistant secretary general for defence investment at NATO. 

"I think Canada needs to make the best decisions it can for our own interests."

And that's what makes the specifics of what, precisely, the Department of National Defence has been told to review so crucial.

When you ask for the terms of reference or even the obstacles and costs of running two fleets of fighters, more often than not, you get boilerplate responses about spending wisely and the scope of the enormous investment.

"The nature of aerial combat, the nature of warfare, the nature of our responsibilities, the scale of our investment — all of those elements have changed over the course of recent years," Prime Minister Mark Carney said a couple of weeks ago, while announcing a military pay increase.

"We also need the appropriate air capabilities for the Arctic, for the runways in the Arctic, for the threats that we're faced in the Arctic … is the F-35 best suited for that?"

The contract to buy the F-35 was announced in January 2023 and one would hope the debate about Arctic operations would have been long settled before that. It's important considering, as the Ottawa Citizen reported last month, construction of new hangar and infrastructure facilities to house the F-35s is about to get underway at the military's principal fighter bases in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que.

Interestingly, the one non-political aspect of the F-35 deal that would provide an important, logical rationale for a review is the one nobody wants to discuss publicly: the potential national security risks to Canada.

Buying the F-35 makes the Canadian air force dependent on the U.S. For software and repair, which has the potential to create delays in deployment and affect operational readiness. It was an issue that raised its head briefly after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office last winter and suggested allies could end up with less capable versions of the aircraft.

It could also be argued that the escalating costs (with the purchase estimate for 88 aircraft, including weapons and training, going from $19 billion to $27 billion), would justify an urgent review. Defence Minister David McGuinty, however, suggested last week the government would take its "lead from the experts that performed the review, both in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces."

F-35 costs skyrocketing, not enough pilots to fly them: AG report

As if there was any doubt about where the military stands, there was a pretty clear indication with a recent report by Reuters, based upon sources, which said the air force was recommending sticking with the F-35.

Carney was clear that no decision had been made and that it would be sometime in the late summer or early fall before the review would be considered.

Playing politics with defence purchases is nothing new in Canada, but Norman argues that given the state of the world, the military can't afford games and uncertainty, especially with the current CF-18s rapidly approaching the end of their useful life. 

"What we need to be careful of is that we don't inadvertently — or perhaps for superficial political reasons — make what I would characterize as dumb decision," Norman said.

Senior reporter, defence and security

---

---