What strikes me most in your analysis is the quiet strategic logic behind Canada’s moves. Diversifying trade relationships and strengthening ties with partners across the Indo-Pacific and Europe is not simply economic policy — it is geopolitical risk management. For a country that has long relied heavily on one dominant neighbour, building options may prove to be the most rational long-term strategy.
The real challenge, as you suggest, is patience. Structural shifts in trade networks and supply chains rarely produce immediate results, but they can profoundly reshape a country’s strategic freedom over time.
If Canadians understand that this is a long game rather than a quick fix, the Carney strategy could turn out to be one of the more consequential adjustments in Canada’s modern economic diplomacy.
Canada built its modern economy beside the biggest consumer market in history. That proximity was a gift... but it also created a kind of quiet dependency.
What we’re seeing now is something different... options.
Trade options.
Security options.
Supply chain options.
Those take years to build… but once they exist, they change the entire strategic landscape.
Purchasing an aircraft that currently spends 40% of its time in maintenance is not a wise investment. Tethered to that is a support system that is fragile at the best of times. Although a supposedly superb aircraft, if we forget the deficiencies, the exorbitant cost and cost over runs, should be more than enough for pause. Alternate options are available for Canada that would more than meet our needs at a cost effective scale.
I agree 100%; problem is, this fleet is for NORAD, a joint defense with the U.S. We need to be able to work with their aircraft to make the whole system function. Canada was already committed to the purchase, but will limit the scale, I think. It's a bad time politically to cancel the contract altogether but it might be easier after CUSMA is settled. I'm hoping we see new orders then for Gripen aircraft built in Canada. It may become the jet of choice for NATO!
NORAD interoperability is the main reason the F-35 became the default choice... joint systems tend to push countries toward the same platform.
But the industrial side of the debate hasn’t disappeared.
The Gripen conversation keeps resurfacing because it offers something Canada rarely gets in defence deals... local manufacturing and control of maintenance.
Either way, the bigger change happening now is that Ottawa seems to be moving toward building the northern infrastructure that actually supports Arctic defence.
For a country our size, that may matter more than the specific aircraft.
Hi there, I believe interoperability is not an issue with US air forces and future Canadian fighters under NORAD. There is currently interoperability with our poor aged CF18’s and US F35’s. I believe it is called the Link 16 system.
Scott, you’re right that Link 16 allows different aircraft to communicate and share targeting data, which is why CF-18s can still operate alongside newer jets today.
Where the interoperability argument usually expands is beyond the data link...
into training systems, maintenance networks, spare parts, and joint operations planning.
That’s where governments often prefer the same aircraft across allied fleets.
It’s one of the reasons the fighter debate in Canada has been so long and complicated.
No worries, I just found out a little while ago. I hope we make a final decision for a two aircraft fleet soon. I know these things take time but retiring the CF18’s sooner than later would be good. Now to find prospective future fighter pilots…
I believe Link 16 is standardized within NATO as well, so no issues.
Excellent article, Geezer! I keep fairly abreast of Canadian political and particularly defence matters. I’m hoping the feds would air PSA’s on the increase in defence spending, allocation and particularly Arctic matters just released. Those ads would certainly inform us that these are long term plans.
An excellent and thought-provoking piece, Fred.
What strikes me most in your analysis is the quiet strategic logic behind Canada’s moves. Diversifying trade relationships and strengthening ties with partners across the Indo-Pacific and Europe is not simply economic policy — it is geopolitical risk management. For a country that has long relied heavily on one dominant neighbour, building options may prove to be the most rational long-term strategy.
The real challenge, as you suggest, is patience. Structural shifts in trade networks and supply chains rarely produce immediate results, but they can profoundly reshape a country’s strategic freedom over time.
If Canadians understand that this is a long game rather than a quick fix, the Carney strategy could turn out to be one of the more consequential adjustments in Canada’s modern economic diplomacy.
— Hans
Hans, that’s a sharp observation.
Canada built its modern economy beside the biggest consumer market in history. That proximity was a gift... but it also created a kind of quiet dependency.
What we’re seeing now is something different... options.
Trade options.
Security options.
Supply chain options.
Those take years to build… but once they exist, they change the entire strategic landscape.
Thanks for adding such a thoughtful perspective.
That is the part that concerns me, Hans, will we take this all the way? We simply must!
Take care of your own, take care of your home. I've noticed Canadian Armed Forces commercials on TV as well. WE're waking up!
Yvette, that phrase sums it up perfectly.
Take care of your home.
For a long time Canada assumed geography would protect us.
Now we’re remembering that sovereignty is something you actively build... roads, ports, bases, and all.
Nice to see the country waking up a bit.
Purchasing an aircraft that currently spends 40% of its time in maintenance is not a wise investment. Tethered to that is a support system that is fragile at the best of times. Although a supposedly superb aircraft, if we forget the deficiencies, the exorbitant cost and cost over runs, should be more than enough for pause. Alternate options are available for Canada that would more than meet our needs at a cost effective scale.
Ron, the F-35 discussion has been one of the longest-running procurement debates in Canadian defence.
You’re right that the program has had maintenance and cost controversies.
The government’s reasoning is largely about integration with NORAD and allied air forces, which are increasingly flying the same aircraft.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether it’s the ideal platform for Canada.
The larger shift I was highlighting in the article is something slightly different...
more defence spending being invested inside Canada’s infrastructure rather than simply writing cheques abroad.
I agree 100%; problem is, this fleet is for NORAD, a joint defense with the U.S. We need to be able to work with their aircraft to make the whole system function. Canada was already committed to the purchase, but will limit the scale, I think. It's a bad time politically to cancel the contract altogether but it might be easier after CUSMA is settled. I'm hoping we see new orders then for Gripen aircraft built in Canada. It may become the jet of choice for NATO!
Jim, that’s a good breakdown of the trade-offs.
NORAD interoperability is the main reason the F-35 became the default choice... joint systems tend to push countries toward the same platform.
But the industrial side of the debate hasn’t disappeared.
The Gripen conversation keeps resurfacing because it offers something Canada rarely gets in defence deals... local manufacturing and control of maintenance.
Either way, the bigger change happening now is that Ottawa seems to be moving toward building the northern infrastructure that actually supports Arctic defence.
For a country our size, that may matter more than the specific aircraft.
Hi there, I believe interoperability is not an issue with US air forces and future Canadian fighters under NORAD. There is currently interoperability with our poor aged CF18’s and US F35’s. I believe it is called the Link 16 system.
Scott, you’re right that Link 16 allows different aircraft to communicate and share targeting data, which is why CF-18s can still operate alongside newer jets today.
Where the interoperability argument usually expands is beyond the data link...
into training systems, maintenance networks, spare parts, and joint operations planning.
That’s where governments often prefer the same aircraft across allied fleets.
It’s one of the reasons the fighter debate in Canada has been so long and complicated.
maybe the issue is we're already locked into the purchase then. Thanks for pointing that out.
No worries, I just found out a little while ago. I hope we make a final decision for a two aircraft fleet soon. I know these things take time but retiring the CF18’s sooner than later would be good. Now to find prospective future fighter pilots…
I believe Link 16 is standardized within NATO as well, so no issues.
Scott, thanks for adding that.
The CF-18s have done decades of heavy lifting for Canada, but eventually every airframe reaches retirement age.
Replacing aircraft is the visible part of defence policy.
Building the pilots, technicians, and infrastructure behind them is the harder part... and it takes years.
That’s why these decisions tend to move slowly.
Excellent article, Geezer! I keep fairly abreast of Canadian political and particularly defence matters. I’m hoping the feds would air PSA’s on the increase in defence spending, allocation and particularly Arctic matters just released. Those ads would certainly inform us that these are long term plans.
Scott, thank you... glad the piece landed with you.
You’re absolutely right about the communication gap.
These Arctic projects are nation-building infrastructure, and they’ll unfold over decades.
Without context, people just see a big dollar number and assume it’s politics.
What’s actually happening is much bigger than that.
And Canadians probably deserve to understand it better.
The government in Canada has announced this arctic $30 billion + investment 3 times out of the last 4 years. In 2023, 2025, and now again in 2026. 🤔
But, this time I believe it will happen :)
Patsy, I think a lot of Canadians feel exactly that way... cautious optimism.
The Arctic has been promised attention many times over the years.
If this round turns into real infrastructure in the ground, it could be one of the most important nation-building projects we’ve seen in decades.
Yes, I totally agree Fred!
Mike, that’s a reasonable thing to notice.
Major infrastructure projects tend to show up in the news several times because governments announce them at different stages...
planning, funding approval, and then execution.
The important question now is exactly what you’re hinting at...
Do we actually see roads, bases, radar stations, and ports getting built?
That’s when announcements turn into reality.
The Git Punch - as in Git ‘er done! Even love your typo’s. Thanks for your informative work.