There was an interesting eruption, although brief, recent of clarity in the ongoing saga if Canada intends to proceed with the full order of F-35 fighters manufactured in the United States.
He was courtesy of the United States ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, who might spoken the quiet part aloud last week in an interview with the Independent Canadian podcasts Jasmin Laine.
Hoekstra was asked, a Michigan’s meaningless Republican, about the revision of the liberal government of the $ 27.7 billion purchase of stealthy combatants And the possibility that after the delivery of the first section of airplanes, Canada can decide to fill the rest of its order with another type of plane.
“You can’t pay two combatants, two different combat aircraft programs,” said Hoekstra. “Canada should decide what they want. Quern F-35?
But then, he added that the ongoing review is “an irritant that makes it more difficult to reach a [trade] agreement.”
It is not very exaggerated to suggest that few Canadian tears would be shed by the notion that the Trump administration is irritated by uncertainty.
But the fact that he says it publicly is significant and represents an interesting escalation of the previous comments that suggested that not buying the F-35 would endanger NORAD, the binational defense pact with the United States.
What is even more potentially entertaining are the lengths at which all on the Canadian side have twisted the Pretzels to minimize the notion that the combat aircraft program is being used as a meaning of influence in the negotiations with Washington.
Talk about CBC radio The house Last weekend, the country’s main military commander, Gen. Jennie Carignan, portrayed the review as a prudent exercise, as usual and due diligence.
“With the new government instead, it is perfectly normal,” said Carignan. “There is a request to ensure that our processes remain valid, that we are obtaining what we need.”
The housePutin triumphed over Trump at the Alaska Summit?
What did the Trump-Poutin summit achieve, and what comes later for Ukraine? The Senior Defense reporter of CBC, Murray Brewster, Helms this episode of the house -centered house of The House, with a report in the seated among the US and Russian presidents in Alaska; An immersion about whether a defense divorce of the United States is possible; The main general of Canada on participating in a high fire in Ukraine; And how democracies can look at the past to address today’s misinformation.
With any other important defense purchase, that could be a reasonable argument. But the F-35 has been, more than 15 years of political drama, object of a huge study. The parliamentary guardians, an independent panel and a legion of experts have aligned to analyze, cut, dice and dissect the plan.
One wonders what more can be said that it cannot be found in an information book on the ministerial transition.
The review has been happening since the beginning of spring and with so much information at its disposal, the question of what the political impact could be bigger as time passes.
ViceMiRAL Retired Mark Norman, also speaking in The house Last weekend, he said that there is an obvious “restlessness” and a consideration of “what type of reaction of setback” could be in Washington if Canada chooses to buy elsewhere.
Others argue that Trump’s tantrums and the irritation of their administration should not dictate the Canadian defense policy.
“I think the Trump administration will decide whether or not they want to punish us or not depending on any current thought of the moment in the chiefs of the president and his key advisors,” said Wendy Gilmour, a former Canadian attached general secretary for defense investment in NATO.
“I think Canada needs to make the best decisions you can for our own interests.”
And that is what makes the details of what, precisely, has been told to the National Defense Department to review so crucial.
When you request the terms of reference or even the obstacles and costs of executing two fleets of combatants, most of the time, you get boiler answers about spending wisely and the scope of the huge investment.
“The nature of air combat, the nature of war, the nature of our responsibilities, the scale of our investment, all these elements have changed during the last years,” said Prime Minister Marney a couple of weeks ago, while announcing a military salary increase.
“We also need the appropriate air capabilities for the Arctic, for the tracks in the Arctic, for the threats we face in the Arctic … Is it the most suitable F-35 for that?”
Safety risks for Canada
The contract to buy the F-35 was announced in January 2023 and one would expect the debate on Arctic operations to have been established for a long time before that. It is important to consider, As reported by the citizen of Ottawa last monthThe construction of new hangar and infrastructure facilities to house the F-35S is about to be launched in the main military combat bases in Cold Lake, Alta., And Bagotville, which.
Interestingly, the non-political aspect of the F-35 agreement that would provide an important logical justification for a review is what nobody wants to discuss publicly: the potential national security risks for Canada.
Buying the F-35 makes the Canadian Air Force depend on the US for software and repair, which has the potential to create delays in deployment and affect operational preparation. It was a problem that raised his head briefly after the president of the United States, Donald Trump, returned to the position last winter and suggested that the allies could end with less capable versions of the aircraft.
It could also be argued that growing costs (with the purchase estimate for 88 aircraft, including weapons and training, which go from $ 19 billion to $ 27 billion), would justify an urgent review. Defense Minister David McGuinty suggested last week that the Government would take their “leadership of experts who carried out the review, both in the Department of National Defense and in the Canadian Armed Forces.”
The report of a new general auditor finds the cost of buying combat jets Stealth F-35 manufactured in the United States has globalized almost 50 percent of an estimate of $ 19 billion to $ 27.7 billion, and that is without the additional cost of weapons and infrastructure. The program also faces a shortage of trained pilots.
As if there were any doubt about where the military is, there was a fairly clear indication with a recent Reuters report, based on Fuentes, which said the Air Force was recommending to keep the F-35.
Carney was clear that a decision had not been made and that it would be at some point at the end of the summer or early fall before the review was considered.
Playing politics with defense purchases is nothing new in Canada, but Norman argues that, given the state of the world, the military cannot afford games and uncertainty, especially with the current CF-18 who quickly approach at the end of their useful life.
“What we must be careful is that we are not inadvertently, or perhaps for superficial political reasons, let’s do what would characterize as a silly decision,” Norman said.
