By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Canada is reviewing its $19-billion contract to purchase 88 F-35 fighter jets, with current funding only committed to the initial 16 aircraft. Prime Minister Carney cited the need for cost-effectiveness and increased domestic industrial benefits, considering alternatives like the Saab Gripen which offered Canadian production. This review includes exploring opportunities to increase Canadian participation in European and British defence supply chains, potentially diversifying suppliers and maximizing economic benefits. The government emphasizes that the F-35 contract remains in place for the initial planes, while ongoing evaluation seeks to ensure optimal value for Canadian taxpayers.
Read the original article here
Canada is seriously considering scaling back its order for F-35 fighter jets and exploring alternative options. This decision stems from a desire to find a more cost-effective solution and secure greater industrial benefits for Canada, rather than predominantly enriching the United States. A complete cancellation of the order is unlikely, but modifications are highly probable. The focus appears to be on finding an alternative that minimizes reliance on American defense manufacturers, especially given the current strained political climate.
The Saab Gripen, a Swedish fighter jet, is emerging as a strong contender. Previous bids showed Saab’s willingness to build the Gripens in Canada, promising significant domestic job creation. This aligns perfectly with the stated goal of maximizing Canadian economic benefits from the purchase. Brazil’s successful use of Gripens, a country of comparable size and geography to Canada, adds weight to this argument.
Concerns about US reliability as a defense partner are paramount. The current political atmosphere and past actions suggest a need for Canada to diversify its defense acquisitions, reducing dependence on potentially unreliable allies. This necessitates considering alternatives from European manufacturers. The Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale are both advanced fighter jets that offer distinct advantages over relying solely on the US.
Exploring joint ventures or partnerships with European nations also emerges as a logical step. Joining programs like the UK’s Tempest program or the European FCAS could guarantee long-term technological advancement and reduce dependence on single suppliers. This would not only enhance Canadian capabilities but also foster closer technological partnerships with European allies.
The potential sale of the sixteen already-acquired F-35s presents itself as a realistic option. Other countries seeking to acquire these aircraft might be interested in purchasing them, offsetting some of Canada’s initial investment. While this doesn’t entirely resolve the core issue, it helps mitigate some of the potential financial losses.
The cost-effectiveness of the Gripen versus the F-35 is a pivotal consideration. While previous estimates suggested a slightly higher cost for the Gripen, the changing geopolitical landscape and the potential for reduced production costs by building the Gripens in Canada could alter this equation. Even if the Gripen proves marginally more expensive, the reduction in political risk and the increased domestic economic benefits may make it a worthwhile investment.
However, maintaining two different types of fighter aircraft—the existing F-35s and a new alternative—presents logistical and financial challenges. This would necessitate significant investment in maintenance, training, and support for two distinct systems. The long-term financial and logistical implications of this scenario must be carefully evaluated.
Despite the benefits of diversifying defense procurement, the unique capabilities of the F-35, particularly its stealth technology, cannot be overlooked. The F-35’s advanced features and interoperability with other NATO forces are highly valuable, especially given the current global security situation. A complete departure from the F-35 program could potentially compromise Canada’s defense capabilities.
The decision facing Canada is complex and presents a delicate balancing act. Economic factors, national security interests, technological considerations, and geopolitical realities all play significant roles. Ultimately, the optimal solution will require a thorough assessment of all available options, ensuring that Canada’s long-term defense needs are adequately met while safeguarding its national interests. The final choice will profoundly impact Canada’s military capabilities and its geopolitical relationships for years to come.