Smoke and mirrors and fighter replacement

Something is decidedly odd about the way the federal government is approaching replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet. Contradictions abound. And transparency is quickly turning into opacity.

Everyone with an interest in our military knows the planes are approaching the end of their shelf life. They have flown two decades longer than envisioned when they were purchased. But what to replace them with?

During the election campaign, Justin Trudeau pledged his government would pick up the ball dropped by the Harper Conservatives around replacing the F-18s with the new and expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Trudeau promised an “open and transparent competition to replace the F-18 fighter aircraft.”

Fast forward to the present and the first disturbing contradiction. While it’s acknowledged the existing fighters are getting long in the tooth, air force officials and other experts have consistently said they’ll be adequate for Canadian needs until 2023 or even 2025, especially with updates and modifications made in the last year or two. That’s ample time for the government to hold that transparent competition.

But something changed. In late May, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the F-18s have a “capability gap” so severe that existing commitments, including to NATO and Norad are at risk. Suddenly the problem is so serious the government needs an interim plan in the form of buying Boeing Super Hornets, which are more modern than our existing fighters but not next generation weaponry, which the Joint Strike Fighter is (next generation referring to qualities like stealth, weapons and superior manoeuvreability).

Even more puzzling, the government appears to be pulling back on its transparency pledge and is considering a single-source purchase option that would see Super Hornets available in fairly short order.

Something doesn’t smell right here. What happened to make the F-18s acceptable for the next decade at one point and then completely unacceptable and in need of urgent replacement? If the original assessment was wrong, how do we know this new one isn’t wrong, too?

This isn’t to say that Super Hornets are not suitable aircraft for Canada. They may be. But in the absence of a transparent and thorough assessment, how will Canadians know one way or the other?

We’re talking millions upon millions of dollars here. Surely Canadians deserve more clarity than is coming from Ottawa at present. Are the Super Hornets actually a long-term replacement option? Will we spend millions for only a few years until strike fighters are delivered and become the long-term option?

None of this feels right, and it certainly doesn’t feel like what Trudeau promised. It feels more like what his predecessor would have done. That’s not a road the Prime Minister should go down.