Timing is everything. Dont kick the bear while your trying to save 500,000 + industrial jobs with the removal of tariffs and a renewed CUSMA and restored stability. Aa per the New York speech the road to stability is a partnership of equals. Failing agreement then full on maker strategy and gripens will be a small but important part of the reinvention strategy . We'll know which path were on by the fall.
It's not overly complicated - if you're forced to negotiate with a wannabe mob boss, the timing is based on how to maximize impact in that negotiation. Arguably more important right now than the schedule impact of the actual programs, unfortunately.
Huh... 60 X CF-39 Arrow II. "Nostalgia is not a strategy" but maybe so in this instance.
Since Germany/Norway have offered to surrender two Type-212CD construction slots in order to deliver four boats to the RCN by 2036, maybe Saab would deliver Swedish-built Gripen Es while the Canadian production facility is being developed...
Just a thought... Article IV - Final Provisions, s. 3. of the NORAD Agreement states: "Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon twelve months’ written notice to the other Party."
Do you think this - or the threat of this - is in PM Carney's mind?
Is it plausible in the present geopolitical climate that Canada could or would throw all-in with NATO and step back from our very much junior-partner position within NORAD?
I agree - shit or get off the pot. Delaying for geopolitical purposes , while understandable given the circumstances, does not help the RCAF. It’s only reduced capability if the F35 truly satisfies Canada’s requirements. I say ‘not’, given that the Grippen is much better suited to operations in the Arctic. We also have to look at the facilities we are building for the F35 - are they suitable or necessary for the Grippen? CF-39 ‘Arrow 2’ - I. Like. It!
That the Gripen is somehow better suited to operations in the Arctic is, at best, and exxageration, and at worst, a myth that needs to die. Every time I ask anyone for specific about this "better suited" claim what I hear is things around doctrine of useful that apply to Sweden, but not Canada.
I think a fleet of 45 F-35 and 80 Gripen would be the compromise choice given the previous commitments . It would allow two operational squadrons of F-35 and three of Gripen much like Canada had during latter part of the Cold War. It would also allow a training squadron/ OCU of both types in Canada. Maybe post the three Gripen Squadrons in Europe dedicated to NATO on a full time basis reviving the 1 Air Group like we had at Baden-Soellingen during the Cold War. Establish the base for them at Siauliai, Lithuania or in Poland. It would partially placate the Americans and show we are serious about our NATO obligations for once. I have not been a fan of the F-35 since I wrote to the Toronto Star in 2010 calling it a glorified modern day F-105. It even has picked up the nickname now of Fat Amy, given its lack of maneuverability in the furball. I especially dislike the mediocre mission availability and ridiculously high maintenance costs. Our 40 year old Hornets are just about as mission ready as new F-35’s according to CBO reports. At least the Gripen is cheaper to fly and available more often to fly. In a European war, that will mean much. In reality, I would have ordered the Super Hornet/ AIM-174b combination for NORAD as an American fighter before the F-35 any day of the week. It can smoke a TU-95 or hypersonic missile at very long range. Also it can be converted to SEAD or Aerial refueling Tanker with only minor modification.
A quicker decision might be better, but ~6 months makes little difference in terms of capability for NORAD. We have recently been informed by Command NORAD, 4+ Gen fighters, such as the HEP2 CF-18, are perfectly adequate as the NORAD mission is about shooting down TU-195/TU-22 bombers, ALCMs and hypersonic missiles, which is the principle air breathing threat for NORAD (not adversary fighters and penetrating opponents IADS). The HEP2 CF-18 now has an excellent radar (the GaN based APG-79(V4), which is arguably as good or better than the F35’s APG-81), and is paired with the latest generation AIM120D and the very good ALR-67V3 RWR and associated mission computers. This combination of new tech insertion makes the HEP2 CF-18 a very viable NORAD capable aircraft. Additionally the NORAD mission is a lower G environment which should offer some relief in the airframe to allow a reasonable number to conduct NORAD deterrence out to 2032 (or maybe a couple extra years). The CAF also has an experienced cadre of pilots to manage it.
What might this look like?
The F35 is slated to enter Canada in ~2028 with IOC in 2029/30 (likely the first 8 jets). With pilot & maintenance training completed in the US by experienced RCAF pilots. Meaning Canada then has the ability to support limited NATO/coalition ops (the classic Canadian 6-pack) with F35 in multi-role strike ops/deterrence while CF-18s hold the homeland air intercept deterrence role.
F35 FOC is scheduled for 2034.
If the first Gripens come online in 2032-34 (5-7 yrs from now) as an initial batch of 6-12 off the Swedish lines they can replace CF18 HEP2s on a sort of one for one basis with at least initial cadre training of again experienced CF18 pilots and maintainers done in Sweden.
Yes you end up managing a transition of CF-18 to Gripen for a couple of years, but with a ‘stabilized F35 capability’, though in a bit of a bathtub in 2034 with only 42 jets. If assembly/production in Canada results in first aircraft in 2034 it seems feasible that you could then rapidly build up the Gripen Fleet over 3-5 years to have a fully functioning dual fleet of Gripen and F35 paired with the recently announced Saab GlobalEye ER and a modern Tanker fleet capable of both boom (F35) and drouge (CF-18/Gripen) ops.
A bathtub is not ideal, but 6 months is not critical. The RAF had a similar situation where they went to ZERO maritime patrol and ELINT aircraft for a period of years between NIMROD and RC-135 and P8. So while not ideal it can be done. And likely achieved while meeting minimum NORAD numbers for day to day deterrence (today’s conditions). An actual shooting war? A different question unless a good dispersal concept is in place, even if we had 88 F35s or some mixed fleet combo of 80-100.
What does this offer?
- For the RCAF: some stagger as things go offline/online, though 6
Months means little other than extra planning coordination time if they are told in confidence this is the way ahead.
- For the government: a chance to get out the other side of CUSMA review rather than announce this irritant going in? (Though the cat may be out of the proverbial bag now)
There might be another possibility. Carney is hiding his cards very well. I had chat with the Commander RCAF recently, and even her is not sure of Carney's intent. But in the draft bill that you analyzed that will legally frame Defence procurement, with all the special powers given to the MND, it looks like wartime procurement powers to me. Ian Brodie confirmed that all the DMs in the federal government have now accepted that the risk of a major international in 5 to 10 years is very real and Canada would be involved. Lastly, the CDS has ordered the CAF to be ready for a major international conflict in 3 years. The Army is preparing to fight at division level. So, I think the plan is to get as many F-35 as we can get while having an independent fighter jet production capability, because if there is a major international conflict Lockeed Martin will supply the US with replacement aircrafts first. I maybe wrong, but there several indicators pointing to Carney having accepted the notion that Canada might be at war in mid-term horizon.
Bingo! Your point about spares being hoarded by the U.S. has a history. Last year in the build-up for Op Midnight Hammer spares for F-35s were moved from Denmark. Going back to the first Gulf War, we were still dependent on the OEM for the CF-18s EW mission data files. We got those after the conflict was over. Hence DND actually invested into the ability to reprogram all RCAF EW systems with a classified unit within the CFEW Centre in Ottawa (one of the few investments made during that era of horrendous DND budget cuts). However, I’m of a growing opinion that our dollars should be invested into the development and production of an uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft. Bigger bang for the buck. Not absolutely sure, but the Gen 4s that appear to have continuous combat effectiveness appear to be two seaters. I’m thinking of how the IDF switched to an all 2 seat fleet among its F-15s, even its F-16s and how production of F_15s in the U.S. will be the 2 seat F-15EX. So perhaps our Gripen products should be 2 seaters too, as controllers for their CCA wingmen.
In my mind, the reason they are doing this is to leave uncertainty in the minds of American negotiators while the CUMSA is still being negotiated. Additionally, knowing the ego of the person in charge down there, he will take that as a personal affront and do even more to punitively try and make Canadians miserable on the trade end. If the plan is to announce it after the mid-terms, that's prudent because hopefully the Dems will control the house. If all three levels of government are still under GOP control, whether through legal or illegal means, then they still can drag it further, dribbling out accepting more spots in the F-35 Production line until 2028. There is a rabid elephant next door - all your actions should try to minimize the risk of making a sudden move that could cause a rampage until it dies from its disease.
That's far too few aircraft for a mixed fleet. 88 F35s was the number before Canada even made a real effort to get to 2% of GDP spending on defense, let alone 3.5%. If we're going with a mix fleet, it had better be a larger quantity. 40+ F35s and ~80 Gripens at least.
Agreed. I’m not an Air Force guy so I crudely estimated 40+ was about right for 2 squadrons + some perminantly attached to the flight school. If that number is 30 something, that’s good too. But I assume it would have to be more than 30? (2x squardons of 16-18 plus 4? at the school). Maybe 36-40 is the number, but I don’t know the planned squadron size or how many would be needed at the school.
I think it would be a big mistake to announce the Gripen before CUMSA negotiations are ironed out. It makes sense to announce after the midterms. Hopefully then a Democratic Congress would keep Trump occupied and lessen the impact. In the meantime a lot of the groundwork can be done out of the public eye before the formal announcement is made.
There is an interesting article from Defense Express (UK) published a few months ago. One point made is that Gripen production for Ukraine will be in Ukraine, which will potentially begin assembling there starting in 2033.
At the time of publishing, there were 80+ Gripen E/F in the production queue ahead of Ukraine.
It was emphasized that the schedule is based upon no increase in production rates in Sweden and/or Brazil.
Saab reported the Swedish facilities can produce ~12 aircraft per year. However, over the next 2-3 years they say Swedish production should increase to 20-30 aircraft per year.
They emphasized that increased capacity could be substantially greater if Canada established manufacturing facilities, subject to Canada purchasing the aircraft. They do not speculate on the rate of production nor timelines associated with a Canadian facility in the mix.
Hence my comment on negotiations for earlier delivery to Canada from Swedish domestic deliveries. And, perhaps it would be also plausible to provide Canadian aircrew and maintainer training within the existing Swedish (or Brazilian?) infrastructure.
Further production lines are a bit of an economical waste. Even F-35 FACOs in Italy and Japan have been unprofitable. More than a billion invested in each. Japan mulled about converting theirs into a maintenance hub, but then for other than financial reasons stuck with it... and that fighter has quite a bit better long term sales potential. Ideally only the amount of manufacturing required to learn how to maintain Gripens should be considered. Canada already has a significant jobs program in the navy/cg, which meant 5x costs compared to buying from abroad. But that is clearly a more strategic realm for Canada than fighter jets.
If they want to send a message, just buy the token amount of F-35. Then throw money at European 6th gen project to underline it without wading into near term mixed fleet mess.
I share Glen's view that the HEP2 CF-18 would satisfy NORAD missions, as well as about the staggered entry of F-35 and Gripens.
Moreover, as Peter Kuhn says: In the meantime a lot of the groundwork can be done out of the public eye before the formal announcement is made.
I also share Ray Floreani's view about the value of 45 F-35 and 80 Gripen allowing for allow two operational squadrons of F-35 and three of Gripen much like Canada had during latter part of the Cold War and a training squadron/ OCU of both types in Canada. I like Ray's recommendation regarding deployment of the Gripen squadrons in Europe dedicated to NATO on a full time basis with base for them at Siauliai, Lithuania or in Poland for the reason he gives namely, it would partially placate the Americans and further show how serious we are about our NATO obligations. However, I would keep one Gripen squadron in Canada at Goose Bay especially for operations in the Arctic.
1) Leverage has to be credible. Announcing negotiations with Saab would be more credible than these whispers. The US would be well aware of the challenges we’d face as this drags on.
2) I’m unclear how much stronger our position would be if the Democrats controlled one or both houses.
3) A lot of things would need to fall neatly into place to avoid lots of pitfalls on the fighter capability.
For point 2, it's not about Canada's position being stronger, but the POTUS position being internally weaker and less able to retaliate if Canada doesn't follow his dictates.
A loss in the mid-terms will damage his credibility among the Republicans (though not his base). I know the likelihood of his enablers and backers to reign him in a bit after such a loss is low, but I'd rather have some hope than simply despair.
Biden also threatened much of the same retaliatory action that the Trump administration has announced. So, this isn’t really even the case. Although I agree in the sense that the rumoured timing of Canada’s decision (supposedly around US midterms) could be meant to showcase the cost to “red” states or even districts of Trump’s “policies” and his aggression towards US allies and friends.
I really hope that is not part of the rationale for the timing. The costs Canada will bear from the delay will be greater than any suffered by red states. And should "showcasing cost" really be our main motivations for these decisions?
Agreed, six months is not material. Nail down the sub purchase then get the Gripen deal done.
Timing is everything. Dont kick the bear while your trying to save 500,000 + industrial jobs with the removal of tariffs and a renewed CUSMA and restored stability. Aa per the New York speech the road to stability is a partnership of equals. Failing agreement then full on maker strategy and gripens will be a small but important part of the reinvention strategy . We'll know which path were on by the fall.
Well said Philippe!!! ...
It's not overly complicated - if you're forced to negotiate with a wannabe mob boss, the timing is based on how to maximize impact in that negotiation. Arguably more important right now than the schedule impact of the actual programs, unfortunately.
Huh... 60 X CF-39 Arrow II. "Nostalgia is not a strategy" but maybe so in this instance.
Since Germany/Norway have offered to surrender two Type-212CD construction slots in order to deliver four boats to the RCN by 2036, maybe Saab would deliver Swedish-built Gripen Es while the Canadian production facility is being developed...
The infrastructure and training challenges would remain.
I believe Ukraine is next in line for Gripen E slots, and their need is arguably greater than ours.
Just a thought... Article IV - Final Provisions, s. 3. of the NORAD Agreement states: "Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon twelve months’ written notice to the other Party."
Do you think this - or the threat of this - is in PM Carney's mind?
Is it plausible in the present geopolitical climate that Canada could or would throw all-in with NATO and step back from our very much junior-partner position within NORAD?
I agree - shit or get off the pot. Delaying for geopolitical purposes , while understandable given the circumstances, does not help the RCAF. It’s only reduced capability if the F35 truly satisfies Canada’s requirements. I say ‘not’, given that the Grippen is much better suited to operations in the Arctic. We also have to look at the facilities we are building for the F35 - are they suitable or necessary for the Grippen? CF-39 ‘Arrow 2’ - I. Like. It!
That the Gripen is somehow better suited to operations in the Arctic is, at best, and exxageration, and at worst, a myth that needs to die. Every time I ask anyone for specific about this "better suited" claim what I hear is things around doctrine of useful that apply to Sweden, but not Canada.
I think a fleet of 45 F-35 and 80 Gripen would be the compromise choice given the previous commitments . It would allow two operational squadrons of F-35 and three of Gripen much like Canada had during latter part of the Cold War. It would also allow a training squadron/ OCU of both types in Canada. Maybe post the three Gripen Squadrons in Europe dedicated to NATO on a full time basis reviving the 1 Air Group like we had at Baden-Soellingen during the Cold War. Establish the base for them at Siauliai, Lithuania or in Poland. It would partially placate the Americans and show we are serious about our NATO obligations for once. I have not been a fan of the F-35 since I wrote to the Toronto Star in 2010 calling it a glorified modern day F-105. It even has picked up the nickname now of Fat Amy, given its lack of maneuverability in the furball. I especially dislike the mediocre mission availability and ridiculously high maintenance costs. Our 40 year old Hornets are just about as mission ready as new F-35’s according to CBO reports. At least the Gripen is cheaper to fly and available more often to fly. In a European war, that will mean much. In reality, I would have ordered the Super Hornet/ AIM-174b combination for NORAD as an American fighter before the F-35 any day of the week. It can smoke a TU-95 or hypersonic missile at very long range. Also it can be converted to SEAD or Aerial refueling Tanker with only minor modification.
A quicker decision might be better, but ~6 months makes little difference in terms of capability for NORAD. We have recently been informed by Command NORAD, 4+ Gen fighters, such as the HEP2 CF-18, are perfectly adequate as the NORAD mission is about shooting down TU-195/TU-22 bombers, ALCMs and hypersonic missiles, which is the principle air breathing threat for NORAD (not adversary fighters and penetrating opponents IADS). The HEP2 CF-18 now has an excellent radar (the GaN based APG-79(V4), which is arguably as good or better than the F35’s APG-81), and is paired with the latest generation AIM120D and the very good ALR-67V3 RWR and associated mission computers. This combination of new tech insertion makes the HEP2 CF-18 a very viable NORAD capable aircraft. Additionally the NORAD mission is a lower G environment which should offer some relief in the airframe to allow a reasonable number to conduct NORAD deterrence out to 2032 (or maybe a couple extra years). The CAF also has an experienced cadre of pilots to manage it.
What might this look like?
The F35 is slated to enter Canada in ~2028 with IOC in 2029/30 (likely the first 8 jets). With pilot & maintenance training completed in the US by experienced RCAF pilots. Meaning Canada then has the ability to support limited NATO/coalition ops (the classic Canadian 6-pack) with F35 in multi-role strike ops/deterrence while CF-18s hold the homeland air intercept deterrence role.
F35 FOC is scheduled for 2034.
If the first Gripens come online in 2032-34 (5-7 yrs from now) as an initial batch of 6-12 off the Swedish lines they can replace CF18 HEP2s on a sort of one for one basis with at least initial cadre training of again experienced CF18 pilots and maintainers done in Sweden.
Yes you end up managing a transition of CF-18 to Gripen for a couple of years, but with a ‘stabilized F35 capability’, though in a bit of a bathtub in 2034 with only 42 jets. If assembly/production in Canada results in first aircraft in 2034 it seems feasible that you could then rapidly build up the Gripen Fleet over 3-5 years to have a fully functioning dual fleet of Gripen and F35 paired with the recently announced Saab GlobalEye ER and a modern Tanker fleet capable of both boom (F35) and drouge (CF-18/Gripen) ops.
A bathtub is not ideal, but 6 months is not critical. The RAF had a similar situation where they went to ZERO maritime patrol and ELINT aircraft for a period of years between NIMROD and RC-135 and P8. So while not ideal it can be done. And likely achieved while meeting minimum NORAD numbers for day to day deterrence (today’s conditions). An actual shooting war? A different question unless a good dispersal concept is in place, even if we had 88 F35s or some mixed fleet combo of 80-100.
What does this offer?
- For the RCAF: some stagger as things go offline/online, though 6
Months means little other than extra planning coordination time if they are told in confidence this is the way ahead.
- For the government: a chance to get out the other side of CUSMA review rather than announce this irritant going in? (Though the cat may be out of the proverbial bag now)
Best assume that things will be far more complicated, and take far longer, than even sound plans assume.
Yes it could go sideways but hopefully we don’t try to Canadianize the Gripen. and we also remain at the mercy of the F35 program evolution.
I think there is ample opportunity for things to go awry even if it was just F35s (GAO reports, etc). Fingers crossed.
Bonjour Philippe,
There might be another possibility. Carney is hiding his cards very well. I had chat with the Commander RCAF recently, and even her is not sure of Carney's intent. But in the draft bill that you analyzed that will legally frame Defence procurement, with all the special powers given to the MND, it looks like wartime procurement powers to me. Ian Brodie confirmed that all the DMs in the federal government have now accepted that the risk of a major international in 5 to 10 years is very real and Canada would be involved. Lastly, the CDS has ordered the CAF to be ready for a major international conflict in 3 years. The Army is preparing to fight at division level. So, I think the plan is to get as many F-35 as we can get while having an independent fighter jet production capability, because if there is a major international conflict Lockeed Martin will supply the US with replacement aircrafts first. I maybe wrong, but there several indicators pointing to Carney having accepted the notion that Canada might be at war in mid-term horizon.
À plus,
Eric
Could be! That reinforces the risk of allowing a fighter gap.
Bingo! Your point about spares being hoarded by the U.S. has a history. Last year in the build-up for Op Midnight Hammer spares for F-35s were moved from Denmark. Going back to the first Gulf War, we were still dependent on the OEM for the CF-18s EW mission data files. We got those after the conflict was over. Hence DND actually invested into the ability to reprogram all RCAF EW systems with a classified unit within the CFEW Centre in Ottawa (one of the few investments made during that era of horrendous DND budget cuts). However, I’m of a growing opinion that our dollars should be invested into the development and production of an uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft. Bigger bang for the buck. Not absolutely sure, but the Gen 4s that appear to have continuous combat effectiveness appear to be two seaters. I’m thinking of how the IDF switched to an all 2 seat fleet among its F-15s, even its F-16s and how production of F_15s in the U.S. will be the 2 seat F-15EX. So perhaps our Gripen products should be 2 seaters too, as controllers for their CCA wingmen.
In my mind, the reason they are doing this is to leave uncertainty in the minds of American negotiators while the CUMSA is still being negotiated. Additionally, knowing the ego of the person in charge down there, he will take that as a personal affront and do even more to punitively try and make Canadians miserable on the trade end. If the plan is to announce it after the mid-terms, that's prudent because hopefully the Dems will control the house. If all three levels of government are still under GOP control, whether through legal or illegal means, then they still can drag it further, dribbling out accepting more spots in the F-35 Production line until 2028. There is a rabid elephant next door - all your actions should try to minimize the risk of making a sudden move that could cause a rampage until it dies from its disease.
That's far too few aircraft for a mixed fleet. 88 F35s was the number before Canada even made a real effort to get to 2% of GDP spending on defense, let alone 3.5%. If we're going with a mix fleet, it had better be a larger quantity. 40+ F35s and ~80 Gripens at least.
40 is more than needed for two Squadrons but not enough for three. Better to choose how many Squadrons we want and then number of airplanes.
Agreed. I’m not an Air Force guy so I crudely estimated 40+ was about right for 2 squadrons + some perminantly attached to the flight school. If that number is 30 something, that’s good too. But I assume it would have to be more than 30? (2x squardons of 16-18 plus 4? at the school). Maybe 36-40 is the number, but I don’t know the planned squadron size or how many would be needed at the school.
I think it would be a big mistake to announce the Gripen before CUMSA negotiations are ironed out. It makes sense to announce after the midterms. Hopefully then a Democratic Congress would keep Trump occupied and lessen the impact. In the meantime a lot of the groundwork can be done out of the public eye before the formal announcement is made.
There is an interesting article from Defense Express (UK) published a few months ago. One point made is that Gripen production for Ukraine will be in Ukraine, which will potentially begin assembling there starting in 2033.
At the time of publishing, there were 80+ Gripen E/F in the production queue ahead of Ukraine.
It was emphasized that the schedule is based upon no increase in production rates in Sweden and/or Brazil.
Saab reported the Swedish facilities can produce ~12 aircraft per year. However, over the next 2-3 years they say Swedish production should increase to 20-30 aircraft per year.
They emphasized that increased capacity could be substantially greater if Canada established manufacturing facilities, subject to Canada purchasing the aircraft. They do not speculate on the rate of production nor timelines associated with a Canadian facility in the mix.
See: https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/how_many_gripen_ef_saab_can_actually_produce_what_it_means_for_ukraine_why_36_jets_per_year_remains_a_stretch-17425.html
Hence my comment on negotiations for earlier delivery to Canada from Swedish domestic deliveries. And, perhaps it would be also plausible to provide Canadian aircrew and maintainer training within the existing Swedish (or Brazilian?) infrastructure.
Further production lines are a bit of an economical waste. Even F-35 FACOs in Italy and Japan have been unprofitable. More than a billion invested in each. Japan mulled about converting theirs into a maintenance hub, but then for other than financial reasons stuck with it... and that fighter has quite a bit better long term sales potential. Ideally only the amount of manufacturing required to learn how to maintain Gripens should be considered. Canada already has a significant jobs program in the navy/cg, which meant 5x costs compared to buying from abroad. But that is clearly a more strategic realm for Canada than fighter jets.
If they want to send a message, just buy the token amount of F-35. Then throw money at European 6th gen project to underline it without wading into near term mixed fleet mess.
I share Glen's view that the HEP2 CF-18 would satisfy NORAD missions, as well as about the staggered entry of F-35 and Gripens.
Moreover, as Peter Kuhn says: In the meantime a lot of the groundwork can be done out of the public eye before the formal announcement is made.
I also share Ray Floreani's view about the value of 45 F-35 and 80 Gripen allowing for allow two operational squadrons of F-35 and three of Gripen much like Canada had during latter part of the Cold War and a training squadron/ OCU of both types in Canada. I like Ray's recommendation regarding deployment of the Gripen squadrons in Europe dedicated to NATO on a full time basis with base for them at Siauliai, Lithuania or in Poland for the reason he gives namely, it would partially placate the Americans and further show how serious we are about our NATO obligations. However, I would keep one Gripen squadron in Canada at Goose Bay especially for operations in the Arctic.
Three points based on the discussion thus far:
1) Leverage has to be credible. Announcing negotiations with Saab would be more credible than these whispers. The US would be well aware of the challenges we’d face as this drags on.
2) I’m unclear how much stronger our position would be if the Democrats controlled one or both houses.
3) A lot of things would need to fall neatly into place to avoid lots of pitfalls on the fighter capability.
For point 2, it's not about Canada's position being stronger, but the POTUS position being internally weaker and less able to retaliate if Canada doesn't follow his dictates.
How often has Trump relied on Congress to punish Canada?
A loss in the mid-terms will damage his credibility among the Republicans (though not his base). I know the likelihood of his enablers and backers to reign him in a bit after such a loss is low, but I'd rather have some hope than simply despair.
Biden also threatened much of the same retaliatory action that the Trump administration has announced. So, this isn’t really even the case. Although I agree in the sense that the rumoured timing of Canada’s decision (supposedly around US midterms) could be meant to showcase the cost to “red” states or even districts of Trump’s “policies” and his aggression towards US allies and friends.
I really hope that is not part of the rationale for the timing. The costs Canada will bear from the delay will be greater than any suffered by red states. And should "showcasing cost" really be our main motivations for these decisions?