Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Cancel Anytime
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

An F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter takes off in Florida in this file photo.

US AIR FORCE/Reuters

An independent panel that monitored the government's rethink of Canada's jet-fighter needs will give its official seal of approval to the process this week as the Harper government prepares to make a pivotal decision on the country's next warplane.

The government, which backed off $45-billion plans to buy the controversial F-35 Lightning in 2012, had ordered a reassessment of what Canada needs in a fighter and what's available on the world market.

It's now setting the stage for a tough decision on the file, starting with a public thumbs-up from the four independent experts who oversaw the Royal Canadian Air Force's re-evaluation of fighter options.

Story continues below advertisement

The Conservative government is hoping this will lend credibility when it announces the next step. The Tories' carefully cultivated image as stewards of the public purse took a beating in 2012 after a damning Auditor-General's report said they selected the F-35 without due regard for price and availability.

The main decision facing the government is whether to stick with the untendered purchase of F-35s or launch a full competitive bidding process for new aircraft.

But sources said Ottawa has also been considering a third route forward, one that could buy it more time and possibly delay a decision until after a 2015 election.

The government has also been looking at the possibility of rewriting the requirements for the fighter jet, something it hasn't touched to date. This is because, as insiders say, the current technical specifications are designed to pick the F-35. No other jet could meet all the existing requirements.

"If the government doesn't want to make a decision before the election, it can state that it needs to review the statement of requirements based on the work that has been done," a source involved in the process said. "It would be a way for the government to show action without having to make a commitment."

Ottawa will hold a technical briefing for media, planned for this Thursday and a source said that during this presentation, the four-member panel is expected to "discuss its work and endorse the methodology that was used."

The independent review panel was made up of former fighter pilot and ex-Communications Security Establishment Canada chief Keith Coulter, University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé as well as two retired senior civil servants, James Mitchell and Rod Monette, a former federal comptroller-general. It has held 32 meetings between late 2012 until February of this year, according to the minutes publicly posted on a Public Works website.

Story continues below advertisement

The monitors supervised the government's evaluation of technical and financial data that were supplied by four aircraft manufacturers involved in the "evaluation of options" to replace the current fleet of CF-18s. Sources said the process was based on a "risk analysis" that ranks the jets based on a number of criteria, including the ability to meet planned missions for the new aircraft and their maintenance and upgrading costs.

The F-35 continues to draw criticism, with experts insisting that a single-engine fighter jet is not particularly well suited to replace Canada's twin-engine CF-18 for remote missions such as Arctic patrols.

"You could use a single-engine aircraft to do national and continental missions, but there would be greater risk involved. It is as simple as that," Duff Sullivan, a retired major-general and former fighter pilot, said in an interview. "When you lose an engine in a CF-18, it's a non-event. … When you lose the engine of a single-engine aircraft, the outcome is certain: You will be ejecting from that aircraft."

Mr. Sullivan, who is not working for any firms involved in the current process, oversaw allied air operations in Afghanistan and worked as a defence adviser in the Privy Council Office before retiring in 2010. He said the F-35's biggest advantage comes at the high end of the spectrum of military operations, such as a hypothetical mission to conduct a pre-emptive strike in North Korea. But Mr. Sullivan said Canada has not traditionally participated in these "most extreme, most unlikely" types of missions.

The F-35 is still in development, and has faced a number of technological challenges that have boosted its price tag. Still, as the most modern fighter on the market, it promises to offer unrivalled stealth capabilities and state-of-the-art capabilities when it enter into operation.

The SuperHornet, by contrast, is already in use and offers more predictable sustainment costs, government officials and experts said.

Story continues below advertisement

The opposition parties in the House are also urging the federal government to conduct a competition, pointing out that the sole-sourced process was ripped apart in 2012 by the auditor-general. The project is estimated to cost at least $45-billion over the new aircraft's lifespan.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies