By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ottawa has begun making payments for essential components for an additional 14 U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets, despite an ongoing government review of future jet purchases amid trade disputes with Washington. These expenditures are for “long-lead items,” parts that require significant advance ordering to maintain Canada’s position in the delivery schedule and avoid losing its place to other buyers. While these payments have not been publicly disclosed, the Department of National Defence has declined to confirm new funding commitments, stating the review remains active. This move occurs as Canada weighs options for its CF-18 replacement, including potentially a mixed fleet or a reduced F-35 order, which could further strain relations with the U.S.
Read the original article here
Canada has discreetly placed a significant financial commitment on an additional 14 F-35 fighter jets, a move that might not be as surprising as it initially appears. The initial plan to acquire only 16 of these advanced aircraft was always understood to be insufficient, given the extensive infrastructure and specialized training required to operate them effectively. Furthermore, the reported less-than-ideal operational readiness rates of the F-35 necessitate a larger reserve fleet to ensure consistent deployment capabilities for the necessary squadrons.
This latest purchase suggests a strategic progression towards a more robust F-35 fleet. The idea of acquiring approximately 30 units for spares and overseas deployment while maintaining a home-based presence now seems more plausible. There’s still speculation among some experts about the possibility of a mixed fleet, where a significant number of F-35s, perhaps around 40, could be complemented by an unspecified number of Gripen aircraft, a combination that many believe would offer a well-rounded air defense capability. It’s important to remember that Canada has already invested in the initial 16 aircraft, including the crucial pilot and maintainer training, making it highly unlikely that the program would simply halt at that number.
With Canada’s two primary fighter bases located in Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, Quebec, the aim of establishing two fully operational squadrons, even in conjunction with a potential Gripen acquisition, makes strategic sense. This latest financial outlay, however, arrives at a particularly delicate geopolitical moment, coinciding with recent pronouncements from former President Trump regarding a critical border infrastructure project funded by Canada. Some have even mused if this F-35 transaction could be a veiled quid pro quo, a subtle attempt to mend relations or secure assurances.
It’s worth noting that the narrative surrounding the F-35 program in Canada has been subject to considerable debate and, at times, misinterpretation. While the program has indeed been under review, the government has not, contrary to some headlines, definitively halted the purchase. The recent financial commitment is not an outright purchase of completed aircraft but rather a crucial down payment to secure vital parts needed for future production, thereby maintaining Canada’s position in the lengthy F-35 customer queue. This demonstrates a pragmatic approach to long-term defense planning, acknowledging that aircraft procurement involves substantial lead times.
The Canadian government has consistently presented several options regarding its fighter jet future, including the original long-term plan to acquire a total of 88 F-35s. Alternatively, a mixed fleet, potentially incorporating European fighters like the Swedish-built Gripen, has also been a prominent consideration. The strategy behind these incremental financial commitments might be to navigate complex international trade negotiations, such as the CUSMA talks, by strategically phasing F-35 purchases.
Discussions with individuals deeply familiar with aerial combat, such as former RCAF fighter pilots, offer a compelling perspective. One such pilot definitively dismissed the Gripen as a serious contender when compared to the F-35, a viewpoint that challenges much of the public discourse and media coverage. This raises the pertinent question of whom to trust when forming an opinion on such a critical defense acquisition: the media, politicians, public sentiment, or those with direct operational experience facing potential adversaries.
While the news of additional F-35 purchases might be disappointing to some, especially considering the aircraft’s maintenance requirements, it’s not entirely unexpected. The initial number of 16 jets was widely considered inadequate for fulfilling operational needs, particularly given the demanding upkeep associated with these advanced platforms. Canada’s approach, characterized by these discreet financial arrangements, can be seen as a pragmatic way to manage long-term procurement while potentially navigating political sensitivities.
The financial commitment to these 14 F-35s should be viewed in the context of the aircraft’s substantial lifespan, estimated at 40 years. Any political uncertainties, such as those posed by transient administrations, are likely secondary to the strategic necessity of acquiring a capable and modern air force. Canada, in essence, is making a long-term investment that transcends immediate political landscapes, recognizing that the F-35 remains a superior technological asset for confronting future threats.
The notion of a direct link between this F-35 order and any recent diplomatic exchanges regarding border infrastructure is speculative, though not entirely implausible in the complex world of international relations. Meanwhile, the ongoing debate on platforms like Reddit often reflects a polarized view, with some staunchly advocating for the Gripen while others champion the F-35’s technological superiority. This highlights the diverse opinions and sometimes lighthearted, sometimes serious, discussions that surround significant defense procurements.
The protracted nature of Canadian military procurement is a recurring theme, and the F-35 acquisition is no exception. However, the current financial move underscores a commitment to the F-35 program, even as broader decisions about the total fleet size and potential mixed-fleet scenarios continue. The F-35’s effectiveness has been demonstrated in real-world scenarios, with some attributing its impact to rapid resolution of conflicts. Regardless of the overall fleet composition, the need for more than the initially planned 16 aircraft is evident.
The question of discretion versus stealth in this announcement is an interesting linguistic point, but the underlying action is a calculated move to secure future aircraft. It’s also been suggested that these F-35 purchases are likely to be executed in batches equivalent to squadron sizes, a practice that allows for flexibility and phased integration. The commitment for these 14 jets, expected for delivery around 2030, aligns with a strategy to make further decisions on subsequent tranches of aircraft later, by which time the geopolitical landscape might be clearer.
The purchase of these additional 14 F-35s is likely an obligation stemming from prior agreements, and further acquisitions are not necessarily mandated at this stage. Some express disappointment, viewing the move as an attempt to appease external political pressures rather than a sound defense strategy. However, many see the F-35 as the leading option for multi-role combat, particularly against technologically advanced adversaries like China and Russia.
The argument that the F-35 is a significantly superior platform compared to the Gripen or other contemporary fighters is strongly supported by defense analysts. The Gripen, while a capable aircraft, is generally considered a generation behind in terms of stealth, situational awareness, and overall system integration, crucial factors when facing peer or near-peer competitors. The F-35’s advanced networking capabilities and integration within a broader military ecosystem make it a more strategic long-term investment.
The decision to proceed with more F-35s, even with political considerations, is seen by some as a sign of pragmatic executive leadership. Anyone who believed Canada would completely abandon the F-35 program was, in this view, misinformed. The purchase of these additional 14 jets brings the total planned acquisition closer to the aspirational 88 aircraft, a number that would provide two full squadrons for each primary base.
The potential for political tensions between Canada and the United States, while a concern, is unlikely to be a decisive factor in the long-term viability of F-35s, especially given the aircraft’s extensive operational lifespan and its integral role in NORAD and NATO alliances. Abandoning the Gripen in favor of a more comprehensive F-35 fleet, even if politically unpalatable in the short term, is viewed by some as the more strategically sound path. The economic benefits, while a consideration, are often secondary to national security imperatives, and the F-35’s integration into the wider allied defense architecture is a significant advantage.
The F-35’s technological prowess is considered paramount, and its effectiveness has been highlighted in various operational contexts. Even with a potential mixed fleet strategy, exceeding the initial 16 F-35s is a necessity. A total fleet size in the range of 30 to 45 F-35s, possibly supplemented by Gripens, is seen as a balanced approach, offering a degree of diversification while still capitalizing on the F-35’s advanced capabilities. The F-35’s role as a well-integrated component of a modern military strategy is undeniable.
The decision to acquire more F-35s, even if not entirely “discreet,” reflects a commitment to maintaining a cutting-edge air force. The notion of a mixed fleet, with F-35s and Gripens, has been a recurring theme, suggesting a potential future where Canada operates both types of aircraft to leverage their respective strengths. The phased procurement of F-35s in squadron-sized batches allows for financial flexibility and gradual integration into the Canadian Armed Forces.
The idea that this decision is a direct response to the former President’s “bridge tantrum” is a cynical interpretation, though understandable given the timing. The procurement of 14 additional F-35s likely represents two squadrons’ worth of aircraft, with Cold Lake and Bagotville each potentially receiving a squadron. This aligns with the strategic requirement for at least 25 aircraft plus spares for a fully operational squadron.
The F-35 is considered a superior multi-role fighter, particularly against advanced adversaries, and a move towards acquiring more of them is seen as a logical step. While the idea of a mixed fleet with Gripens has been discussed, the F-35’s technological edge and its integration within allied defense networks are significant advantages. The perception that Canada is “buying them” underscores a commitment to the program, with some hoping for additional Gripen purchases to complement the F-35 fleet.
However, there are dissenting voices, with some Canadians expressing disappointment, viewing the F-35 purchase as a misstep and an attempt to placate external political figures. Concerns about the F-35’s suitability for Canada’s harsh climate, its high maintenance requirements, and its reliance on extensive infrastructure are raised, with the Gripen being presented as a more adaptable and independent alternative, capable of operating from highways and offering faster turnaround times. The Gripen is also seen as a platform that could bring significant economic benefits through Canadian manufacturing.