By John Q. Hosedrinker 
European allies are reconsidering their commitment to the Lockheed Martin F-35, prompting exploration of alternative sixth-generation fighter programs. Australia and Canada, facing trade tensions with the U.S. and considering alternatives to the F-35, have shown interest in joining the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), a UK, Italy, and Japan collaborative effort. GCAP aims to field a next-generation fighter by the mid-2030s, featuring advanced technologies like AI co-pilots and potentially directed-energy weapons. Australia’s existing F-35As and both nations’ Commonwealth ties make their participation in GCAP feasible.
Read the original article here
Australia and Canada are seriously considering joining the British-led Tempest sixth-generation jet fighter program, a move that could significantly reshape the global aerospace landscape. This collaboration represents a potential shift away from dependence on US-made aircraft, driven by concerns about technological dependence and the potential for political interference.
The decision for both nations to explore this avenue is largely influenced by a desire for greater autonomy in defense procurement. For Canada, a history of relying on American jets, most notably following the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, presents a compelling argument for investing in domestic aerospace capabilities. The potential for US-based control over Canadian aircraft, including the hypothetical scenario of disabling technology via software updates, adds further weight to this consideration.
Australia, too, is motivated by a similar desire for independence. While already operating F-35s, there’s a recognition of the benefits in diversifying its defense procurement. This aligns with a broader trend among nations seeking to reduce reliance on a single supplier for critical military equipment. This move is partly driven by a recognition of the considerable financial investment and technological expertise required for a project of this magnitude, and the benefits of spreading this burden across multiple nations. Past experiences, such as delays and challenges encountered in procuring other military equipment, add further impetus to the pursuit of alternative, collaborative arrangements.
The Tempest program itself offers a compelling opportunity for these nations. The program’s structure, involving multiple partners—the UK, Italy, Japan, and now potentially Australia and Canada—promotes shared costs and technological expertise. This collaborative model, while carrying risks inherent in large international projects, also promises a balanced approach to development, production and overall cost. The inclusion of Loyal Wingman support, originally developed by Boeing and integrated into RAAF operations, further solidifies Australia’s interest and likely contributes to smoother integration within the program.
The potential entry of Australia and Canada would significantly bolster the Tempest program’s strength and viability. Adding these two countries would not only increase the financial backing but would also introduce additional technological expertise and operational perspectives. The resulting increase in airpower for the participating nations would be substantial, potentially altering the balance of power in key regions.
This decision also represents a strategic shift in international relations. It signals a growing desire among Commonwealth nations to strengthen their cooperation in defense matters, possibly creating a more unified front outside the traditional US-centric alliances. While not explicitly a rejection of NATO, it represents a deepening of bonds between these specific nations. The decision is also fueled by concerns surrounding the future reliability of US defense partnerships, highlighted by past instances where technological dependence has led to delays, limitations, or concerns about access to critical capabilities.
The timeline for Australia and Canada’s potential integration into the Tempest program remains fluid. While there’s considerable enthusiasm, several factors require careful consideration. The program’s complexity, the need for detailed cost-sharing agreements, and the potential for unforeseen technical challenges all warrant cautious optimism. Yet the combined strength and determination of these nations, along with the potential for reducing reliance on a single, potentially less reliable supplier, suggests a high likelihood of success. This new arrangement will allow for better defense procurement, reducing dependence on single sources and fostering innovation through collaboration. The potential benefits for all participating nations are considerable, paving the way for a truly collaborative international defense partnership.