Why Canada Could Dump the F-35 and Pick the F-47 Fighter Instead

F-47 for Canada? The RCAF operates the CF-18 Hornet, a derivative of the U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet, a Cold War-era naval-aviation fighter.

The Canadian Hornets entered service in the early 1980s and have since been outclassed by newer, more capable fighter jets. Ottawa launched the Future Fighter Capability Project program to replace the Hornets. Canada has selected the American-designed F-35 stealth fighter for the job.

But questions are raised now about the wisdom of procuring the F-35, given the bellicose stance of the current U.S. administration.

The F-47 Might Be Possible for Canada

The singular impetus for the recent backlash against the Canadian F-35 acquisition program is the jet’s American design.

But if Canada eschewed the F-35, what could replace their CF-18s?

Considering Canada’s global responsibilities, if Ottawa decided to jump past fifth-generation jets entirely, perhaps their only choice in the near future would be another American aircraft: the U.S. Air Force’s future fighter jet, the F-47.

While this might seem like a stretch, consider some possibilities. Especially if, for example, Canada did pass on the F-35, and time passed, no replacement was found, and relations between Ottawa and Washington were repaired.

The F-47 makes a lot of promises: superior stealth, collaborative teaming with attritable aircraft, and advanced propulsion that will collectively offer a potent suite of capabilities.

But is it the right jet for Canada — or even for the United States?

The Right Jet for the Job?

Recent comments voiced by former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall, who served under the Biden administration, cast a shadow across the F-47 project.

In an opinion piece penned by Mr. Kendall, the former air secretary explains the rationale behind his decision to defer further progress of the program to the incoming Trump administration.

“Congress needs to look beyond the obvious appeal of this advanced aircraft [the F-47] and ask the Trump administration some hard questions: Is this the right airplane for our defense strategy? Is it affordable? Does it displace higher priorities? I deferred the NGAD decision,” Kendall explains, “because I didn’t have those answers before I left the Department of the Air Force — and it’s unclear whether the Trump administration has them now.”

Kendall spearheaded the Next Generation Air Dominance program, which evaluated what the former secretary calls “high-risk and high-payoff technologies” for the next generation of U.S. Air Force fighters, an initiative that ultimately yielded technologies “that are the basis for the designs that competed to become the F-47.”

One of the Air Force initiatives Kendall inherited was a successor to the F-22 Raptor that would conduct penetrating counter-air (PCA) missions – essentially operations deep in the enemy’s airspace – and survive against entrenched, peer-level air defenses. Though Kendall lauds the technologies that went into the F-47’s design, he questions whether it is the right platform for the challenges of tomorrow.

“We don’t know what conflicts or warfighting scenarios will drive the Trump administration’s defense investments,” he writes. “PCA designs are based on the need to take the air superiority fight deep into heavily defended enemy territory, but we have to ask: Is this a sound planning scenario for nuclear powers like China or Russia?”

Part of the issue, Kendall says, is the lack of clarity concerning the Trump administration’s strategy priorities. “If the Trump administration’s strategy emphasizes homeland security and defensive scenarios, wouldn’t a lower cost design more focused on Defensive Counter-Air, or DCA, make more sense? Would a multi-role next-generation design, like the F-35, make more sense? Would an aircraft designed to work with uncrewed tactical aircraft, like the Air Force uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft, make more sense?”

The Canadian Mission

One of Ottawa’s more important international responsibilities is to ensure collective security under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, better known by its acronym NORAD. Under that agreement, Canadian and American military personnel cooperate, with assets spread across Canada to protect North American airspace.

The NORAD agreement sees interdiction and air-policing flights over Canada, the United States, and the surrounding oceans. Canada’s and Alaska’s proximity to the Arctic also offers the ability to monitor air or missile threats over that region.

Given this kind of threat environment, and the collective defense tasks placed on Canada, an air policing or defensive counter-air mission would be of priority — and this kind of task does not require the degree of survivability in highly-contested environments a platform like the F-47 would offer.

Instead, a capable, stealthy aircraft would excel — the kind of platform represented by the F-35.

Postscript

Though Canadians have understandably soured on the U.S.-Canada relationship, given the uncertainty recently unleashed on the Canadian economy, Ottawa is already constructionally tied to the F-35 project — and it would be painful to leave at this stage and pick up a different aircraft instead.

About the Author: Caleb Larson

Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.