Philippe, your skepticism about 2026 feels spot on. Bold pledges are one thing, but execution is another.
The government's June 2025 announcement did commit over $9 billion in new spending to accelerate toward the NATO 2% target. Still, as you note, bureaucratic hurdles and internal debates often push decisions on fighters, subs, and the industrial strategy into delays. Spending ramps up, but capabilities lag behind. Fair assessment.
It seems to me that the Ukraine/Russia war has demonstrated a revolutionary change in "conventional " warfare. That means the decision around manned/unmanned tactical weapons delivery is as important to Canada Forces as is the decision around energy evolution is to the O & G industry …
And our military leader's symbiotic relationship with the US department of War makes it even more difficult than it should be.
With respect to the fighter purchase, the priority should be the best plane to send Canadians into harms way, period.
As for the job numbers promised, from what I’ve been able to discern is they exceed everything that currently exists at Saab. We’ve heard all kinds of numbers for all kinds of projects and none of them have come to fruition. Don’t forget that we do have 3,000 high tech jobs already associated with the F-35 that would likely be lost. Let’s start basing the decision on what is best in air combat, not what’s best for those that will never see a fighter.
I respectfully disagree. The F35 is a great plane but it's supplier is the problem. We do not control delivery, maintenance and access to spare parts. The F35 is,a superior strike weapon, but who are we invading? Better to have more easily maintained, locally sourced and produced fighters, not because they produce jobs, but because they better meet our needs. Which I think are continental defense and our alliance with NATO. The Saab is a very good jet and for me, the fact that it is not fully interoprable is a plus. This procurement decision is about the most political one I have ever seen.
The F-35A is not the best jet for the missions required. Period, full stop. It is the best jet for preemptive deep penetration strikes, which we don’t typically do . Therefore it is not the optimum choice for Canada . The 4.5+ gen Gripen E is more than adequate for the NORAD mission, especially considering its first rate networking capability and very good IRST sensor. Considering that the Americans are now buying and using the “new” 4.5+ gen F-15EX as their NORAD interceptor with the ANG which is tasked with their NORAD mission, it disproves that 5th gen fighters are really the necessity for that mission as the RCAF brass pushes. It proves the lie, but in addition. Buying a plane where only 50% are available at any time and horribly expensive to keep flying is just plain stupid economics and policy.
I never went to the war college or served. I am an economics and political science graduate who wrote about mostly Canada and NATO and longtime amateur military historian since. My opinion relied on my 30 years of business experience including aircraft ownership and management, extensive reading and research and feedback from my three first cousins who flew in the US Air Force as fighter pilots and with SAC for decades and my niece who is an active armored officer in the CAF. Ironically, I wanted to join the USAF and go to Colorado Springs out of high school, but Senator Alphonse D’Amato would not nominate me, since I was a dual citizen living in Canada. That was during the dark days for the CAF in the early 80’s and Reagan was lavishing money on the military.
Thank you Mr. Lagasse, for your insight. The one paragraph referring to the Bombardier 6500 vis a vis the Boeing E-7 is now moot given its cancellation.
I have never served in the military nor defence related industries. My primary concern is that, although I support what equipment is best for the Canadian Forces, I sometimes wonder if the strict specifications compliance doesn’t sometimes shoot us in the foot. I refer to the Avro Arrow programme which, in my opinion, was hindered by the strict RCAF 1953 requirements for an airframe, a Canadian engine and a Canadian weapon system. This led to the incredible expense of this programme and was a factor in its cancellation.
So when I think of submarines, AEWS, fighters and myriad other projects let us aim for 95 to 99 percent usability with a streamlined procurement system.
Philippe, your skepticism about 2026 feels spot on. Bold pledges are one thing, but execution is another.
The government's June 2025 announcement did commit over $9 billion in new spending to accelerate toward the NATO 2% target. Still, as you note, bureaucratic hurdles and internal debates often push decisions on fighters, subs, and the industrial strategy into delays. Spending ramps up, but capabilities lag behind. Fair assessment.
It seems to me that the Ukraine/Russia war has demonstrated a revolutionary change in "conventional " warfare. That means the decision around manned/unmanned tactical weapons delivery is as important to Canada Forces as is the decision around energy evolution is to the O & G industry …
And our military leader's symbiotic relationship with the US department of War makes it even more difficult than it should be.
With respect to the fighter purchase, the priority should be the best plane to send Canadians into harms way, period.
As for the job numbers promised, from what I’ve been able to discern is they exceed everything that currently exists at Saab. We’ve heard all kinds of numbers for all kinds of projects and none of them have come to fruition. Don’t forget that we do have 3,000 high tech jobs already associated with the F-35 that would likely be lost. Let’s start basing the decision on what is best in air combat, not what’s best for those that will never see a fighter.
I respectfully disagree. The F35 is a great plane but it's supplier is the problem. We do not control delivery, maintenance and access to spare parts. The F35 is,a superior strike weapon, but who are we invading? Better to have more easily maintained, locally sourced and produced fighters, not because they produce jobs, but because they better meet our needs. Which I think are continental defense and our alliance with NATO. The Saab is a very good jet and for me, the fact that it is not fully interoprable is a plus. This procurement decision is about the most political one I have ever seen.
The F-35A is not the best jet for the missions required. Period, full stop. It is the best jet for preemptive deep penetration strikes, which we don’t typically do . Therefore it is not the optimum choice for Canada . The 4.5+ gen Gripen E is more than adequate for the NORAD mission, especially considering its first rate networking capability and very good IRST sensor. Considering that the Americans are now buying and using the “new” 4.5+ gen F-15EX as their NORAD interceptor with the ANG which is tasked with their NORAD mission, it disproves that 5th gen fighters are really the necessity for that mission as the RCAF brass pushes. It proves the lie, but in addition. Buying a plane where only 50% are available at any time and horribly expensive to keep flying is just plain stupid economics and policy.
Ray, what years were you at War College?
I never went to the war college or served. I am an economics and political science graduate who wrote about mostly Canada and NATO and longtime amateur military historian since. My opinion relied on my 30 years of business experience including aircraft ownership and management, extensive reading and research and feedback from my three first cousins who flew in the US Air Force as fighter pilots and with SAC for decades and my niece who is an active armored officer in the CAF. Ironically, I wanted to join the USAF and go to Colorado Springs out of high school, but Senator Alphonse D’Amato would not nominate me, since I was a dual citizen living in Canada. That was during the dark days for the CAF in the early 80’s and Reagan was lavishing money on the military.
Thank you Mr. Lagasse, for your insight. The one paragraph referring to the Bombardier 6500 vis a vis the Boeing E-7 is now moot given its cancellation.
I have never served in the military nor defence related industries. My primary concern is that, although I support what equipment is best for the Canadian Forces, I sometimes wonder if the strict specifications compliance doesn’t sometimes shoot us in the foot. I refer to the Avro Arrow programme which, in my opinion, was hindered by the strict RCAF 1953 requirements for an airframe, a Canadian engine and a Canadian weapon system. This led to the incredible expense of this programme and was a factor in its cancellation.
So when I think of submarines, AEWS, fighters and myriad other projects let us aim for 95 to 99 percent usability with a streamlined procurement system.
Happy New Year.
Carney said the old relationship with the US is over - defense and economic. I have written on this.
These 4 relate mainly to defense and the current issues with the US:
https://dominionreview.ca/canada-must-become-transactional-like-trump/
https://dominionreview.ca/should-canada-go-rogue/
https://dominionreview.ca/canada-needs-to-rethink-both-nato-and-norad/
https://dominionreview.ca/canadian-defence-policy-playing-the-percentages/
The defence minister saying we are moving in lockstep with the united states is concerning. Sounds like Carney will do whatever Trump wants him to do.