President Donald Trump’s latest public statement is that the tariffs proposed on Canada will go into effect as scheduled on March 4th.
The mood in Ottawa is said to be belligerent, with the federal government set to push back on tariffs with countermeasures.
The precise nature of that retaliation is not yet clear, but it could conceivably encompass the tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars paid by the government of Canada for American military equipment.
For example, questions are being asked in official Ottawa about whether Canada should spend $19 billion to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets from the U.S. defence firm, Lockheed Martin, Esprit de Corps military magazine wrote last week. The first F-35 deliveries to the Royal Canadian Air Force are scheduled for next year, more than a decade after the Trudeau government said it would cancel the previous government’s plan to buy them (and then, in 2023, bought them anyway).
In the English-language Liberal leadership race this week, Mark Carney said he would not spend 80 per cent of the Defence Department’s capital dollars in the U.S. “I will spend them in Canada, and as rapidly as possible,” he said.
I asked his campaign whether this might mean cancelling the F-35 contract but didn’t get an answer.
Regardless, such is the mood among Canadian politicians of all stripes that the cancellation of a high-profile contract to spite Trump might be seen as cathartic for the whole country.
The good news for proponents of that course of action is that there is an obvious replacement which could be supplied by a new NATO ally: Sweden.
The Saab Gripen E would be cheaper than the F-35, at least when it comes to long-term maintenance. Saab has already said that the jet would be built in Canada by IMP Aerospace and Defence of Nova Scotia.
In doing so, it would meet Canada’s normal defence offset requirement that the equivalent of 100-per-cent of spending be reinvested back into Canada. (Lockheed Martin offers no such guarantees, instead creating opportunities for Canadian firms to bid on all F-35 work. The problem here is that Trump is said to have told Lockheed that he wants those jobs back in the U.S. when contracts come up for renewal.)
In a paper for the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, author Alex McColl argued that the Gripen, which came runner-up to the F-35, has already been judged as meeting all of Canada’s technical requirements.
He cited, rather cheekily, a quote from RCAF Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, the Canadian who commanded NATO’s mission in Libya in 2011, that said the Gripen had “spectacular capability” (after his retirement from the RCAF, Bouchard worked for Lockheed and was a vocal proponent of the F-35).
McColl noted that while the Gripen does not possess the F-35s stealth capabilities, it is much more flexible, easier to maintain and is perfect for Arctic intercept missions, landing and taking off on short northern runways. “It would save us boatloads of money in the long run,” he said on a social media thread.
McColl makes a convincing case. But the national interest dictates that Canada not provoke Trump any more than necessary on the defence front.
This week has already seen a scare where it was suggested by the Financial Times that the administration is thinking about kicking Canada out of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing network.
Cancelling the F-35 would put our partnership in NORAD at risk, senior military sources warn.
“The bottom line: the fighter jet choice is bound up with the future of NORAD. Canada is in a better position strategically with that partnership intact. Drop the F-35 and you risk the partnership,” said one Defence Department official, who was granted anonymity so he could speak freely.
NORAD was successfully ring-fenced from Trump during his first administration. The hope in Ottawa is that there remains enough pragmatism in the Pentagon to see that preserving the arrangement is in America’s interests. But Canada only pays around 40 per cent of NORAD’s costs, which would probably not be enough for the mercurial president.
Operationally, the senior Defence Department official said the F-35 was chosen in part because it would still be combat viable after 30 years.
One of the country’s most experienced commanders agreed, saying Canada urgently needs new fighters. “To cancel the F-35 again and restart the process would be foolish and it would just increase the period in which we have a capability gap,” he said. “The RCAF is already oriented on the infrastructure and training necessary for it.”
He said he recognizes that the Gripen is cheaper to maintain. But he said it doesn’t have anywhere near the capabilities of the F-35, particularly when networked with other platforms like the P-8 Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft Canada has just purchased.
“Interoperability remains important and, the U.S. aside, most of our other allies are, or will be, flying the F-35,” he said.
To reduce the vast amounts being spent in the U.S. he said Canada should be investing “aggressively” in what comes next: autonomous systems, including drones.
“I believe the F-35 will be the last manned fighter. We should turn our aerospace industry to develop ‘loyal wingmen’ — autonomous aircraft that are tethered to a manned F-35 — and then use that as a springboard to get into the next generation: completely autonomous fighters.”
He advocated ramping up defence research and development as a way to shorten the path between innovation and acquisition. “As has been the case throughout history, the side that can adapt the fastest wins.”
The whole F-35 debate could yet become moot. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is conducting a review of the Pentagon’s spending and he is a noted F-35 skeptic, labelling the plane obsolete and the “worst military value for money.”
Last December, the New York Post reported that Trump had told Lockheed he is planning to cancel the F-35 program, a story the company said was “fake news.”
Were that to happen, the Gripen could yet come back into the picture.
But it has taken two decades to get to this point in the F-35 procurement, a process my senior (very senior) military source called “gruelling and broken.”
The tragicomic saga has been like watching Sisyphus pushing an immense boulder uphill for eternity, only to see it roll back down time and again.
There are good reasons now, with the top of the hill in sight, to hope it crests the summit.
National Post
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.