The F-35 Debate Is Really about How We Killed the Avro Arrow | The Walrus

CANADA DOESN’T TALK about the Avro Arrow because it’s nostalgic. It talks about the Arrow because it’s unfinished business. Every time Ottawa finds itself boxed in on defence procurement, every time the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) tries to remind Canada who it thinks really owns North American air power, the Arrow reappears. It doesn’t show up as an engineering debate or a budget line. It shows up as a question of sovereignty.

Who decides what flies over Canada, who maintains it, who upgrades it, and who gets the final say when politics intrudes on defence?

Right now, that question is back on the table. Canada is reviewing whether to proceed with the full purchase of eighty-eight F-35s, having paid for only the first sixteen. Alternatives are being openly discussed. Saab’s Gripen is back in the conversation. France’s Rafale lurks on the margins. And hovering above all of it is an unmistakable warning from Washington: if Canada walks away from the F-35, the United States will “fill the gaps,” even if that means American fighters flying more often in Canadian airspace and changes to NORAD itself.

That’s why the current F-35 debate feels different. It’s not just about whether the jet is good. It’s about whether Canada is comfortable with the level of dependence that comes with it. The F-35 is not just an aircraft. It’s a system of systems. Software updates, mission data files, sustainment logistics, and upgrade pathways are all tightly controlled within an American-led ecosystem.