Canada’s F-35 Fighter Problem Is Getting Serious

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points and Summary: Canada’s decision to acquire 88 F-35 fighter jets promises to modernize its air force but raises critical questions about cost, operational challenges, and strategic implications.

-The $70 billion program aims to address Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet and bolster commitments to NATO and NORAD. While the F-35 offers advanced stealth, sensors, and interoperability, concerns persist over technical reliability and sovereignty in Arctic defense.

-The high costs may strain Canada’s defense budget, diverting resources from other priorities.

-As the program unfolds, its success hinges on effective integration into Canada’s broader defense strategy and sustained political commitment to modernization efforts.

Canada’s F-35 Deal: Game-Changer or Financial Gamble?

The Trudeau government’s decision to move forward with the acquisition of 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets has been hailed as a long-overdue renewal of Canada’s air force. However, the program, fraught with political, operational, and financial complexities, raises critical questions about whether it will truly transform Canada’s air capabilities or simply perpetuate systemic challenges within the nation’s defense infrastructure.

The F-35 decision marks the end of a protracted and controversial procurement process. Initially selected by the Conservative government in 2010, the program faced substantial criticism due to rising costs and questions about its suitability for Canada’s specific defense needs. In opposition, the Trudeau Liberals promised to revisit the fighter jet purchase and even suggested Canada might opt for a different aircraft altogether. Yet after years of delay and further evaluations, the F-35 re-emerged as the chosen platform. The delays stemmed from a combination of political hesitancy, fiscal concerns, and evolving defense priorities. Successive governments grappled with the aircraft’s high costs and technical issues, while domestic political dynamics, including promises to reassess the program, slowed progress. Additionally, Canada’s broader defense strategy often took a back seat to other policy priorities, leaving critical decisions like the F-35 acquisition mired in bureaucratic inertia.

This vacillation has had significant implications. The delays have left Canada reliant on an aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets, some of which have already surpassed their intended service life. This gap has raised concerns about Canada’s ability to meet its commitments to NATO and NORAD, particularly in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, North Atlantic, and North Pacific regions. According to the latest plans, the first F-35 is expected to enter service with the Royal Canadian Air Force by 2029, providing a critical timeline for modernization efforts.

The F-35 offers cutting-edge capabilities that promise to modernize Canada’s air force. Its stealth features, advanced sensors, and interoperability with allied forces make it a formidable addition to any defense strategy. These attributes align with Canada’s need for multi-role aircraft capable of conducting surveillance, air defense, and strike missions across vast and diverse geographic areas. However, the platform’s operational advantages come with caveats. The aircraft has faced persistent technical issues, including problems with its software, maintenance systems, and reliability. Critics point out that these challenges could limit its availability and effectiveness, potentially hampering Canada’s ability to respond swiftly in crises. Moreover, the F-35’s emphasis on interoperability raises questions about Canada’s sovereignty. While close integration with U.S. and NATO forces is a strategic necessity, it may also constrain Canada’s ability to act independently. This dynamic is particularly relevant in the Arctic, where Canada faces overlapping yet distinct interests from its allies.

The cost of the F-35 program has been a contentious issue from the outset. The current estimate of CAD 19 billion for acquisition is only part of the equation; the total lifecycle cost, including maintenance and upgrades, is projected to exceed CAD 70 billion. These figures place enormous pressure on Canada’s defense budget, which has long been criticized for inadequacy. This financial strain has broader implications. Critics argue that the F-35’s high costs could divert resources from other critical defense priorities, such as Arctic infrastructure, naval modernization, and personnel recruitment. Canada’s defense strategy requires a balanced approach, yet the F-35’s price tag risks skewing priorities in favor of air power at the expense of other domains.

The F-35 decision is not merely a matter of defense policy; it is also deeply political. By selecting the aircraft, the Trudeau government has demonstrated a pragmatic shift from its earlier skepticism. This move may quell criticism from allies who view Canada as lagging in its defense commitments, particularly its NATO pledge to spend 2% of GDP on defense. Yet domestic political risks remain. Critics on the left argue that the program represents an unnecessary militarization of Canadian foreign policy, while skeptics on the right question whether the government has the political will to see the program through. Canada’s history of defense procurement, marked by delays, cost overruns, and cancellations, amplifies these doubts.

Beyond its technical and financial dimensions, the F-35 program raises broader strategic questions. Canada’s air force plays a pivotal role in the country’s ability to assert sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic. The F-35’s capabilities align well with these needs, but they are not a panacea. Canada’s defense challenges are multi-faceted. In the Arctic, for example, air power must be complemented by investments in icebreakers, surveillance systems, and ground infrastructure. Similarly, Canada’s commitments to NORAD and NATO require robust capabilities not only in the air but also at sea and on land. The F-35 program addresses one piece of the puzzle but leaves others unresolved.

Whether the F-35 program fundamentally renews Canada’s air force will depend on several factors. The government must ensure that the procurement process remains on schedule and within budget. This will require unprecedented discipline in program management, an area where Canada has historically struggled. The F-35 must also be integrated effectively into Canada’s broader defense strategy. This means aligning its capabilities with investments in other domains to create a cohesive and balanced approach. The aircraft’s potential will only be realized if it operates as part of a well-resourced and integrated defense architecture.

U.S. Air Force Maj. Kristin “BEO” Wolfe, F-35A Lightning II Demonstration Team commander and pilot, flies during a demonstration rehearsal at Hill Air Force Utah, Jan 20, 2021. The F-35A Lightning II Demonstration Team is part of the 388th Fighter Wing, and routinely flies over the Hill Air Force Base to practice and prepare for upcoming air shows around the world. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Thomas Barley)

Finally, the government must address the long-term challenges of defense funding and political commitment. Meeting Canada’s NATO obligations and ensuring a credible defense posture require sustained investment and bipartisan support. The F-35 program’s success hinges not only on technical and operational factors but also on the political will to prioritize defense over the long term.

The F-35 program represents both an opportunity and a challenge for Canada. It offers the potential to modernize the air force and enhance the country’s strategic capabilities, but it also exposes longstanding issues in defense procurement, funding, and strategy. Whether this initiative will fundamentally renew Canada’s air force or merely patch over existing gaps remains to be seen. As the program unfolds, Canadians will need to confront the complexities of balancing ambition with realism in their defense policy.

About the Author: Andrew Latham 

Andrew Latham is a Professor of International Relations and Political Theory; and Special Advisor to the President of Macalester College, Saint Paul, MN. He is also a Non-Resident Fellow, Defense Priorities, Washington, DC; a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy also in Washington, DC; a 2023-25 Education Ambassador with the Council on Foreign Relations; an Opinion Contributor with The Hill in Washington, DC; and an Opinion Contributor with RealClearDefense.