A U.S. Air Force F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft takes off at the opening ceremony of Aero India 2011 in Yelahanka air base on the outskirts of Bangalore, India, Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011. THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP-Aijaz Rahi

Lately, Canada’s fighter jet procurement process has been the subject of a lot of controversy. Indeed, since the release of the Trudeau government’s Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy statement, pundits, scholars, journalists and public officials have offered their takes on the country’s aerospace and security needs.

Criticism abounds, and while some of the assessments have been judicious and instructive, all of them, curiously, continue to overlook (or avoid) the real question: Does Canada actually need a meaningful complement of forth or fifth-generation fighter aircraft?

We have argued elsewhere that the days of ‘modern’ fighter jets are numbered, and that investing in such ‘futuristic’ war-fighting platforms — including naval frigates — is a waste of money. The U.S. Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) already acknowledge that new and emerging missile, drone and satellite technologies likely will render piloted fighter aircraft obsolete by 2030.

Not surprisingly, they also have identified ‘cost’ as one of the more compelling reasons to seek out alternatives to their existing (and aging) air and sea-based assets. So we remain perplexed by Ottawa’s decision to bulk purchase some kind of advanced fighter jet. We understand that it makes for great optics, but at what point does defending Canada become a real priority?

Moreover, we are baffled by the apparent consensus assumption that F-35s — or used F-18 Hornets — are somehow essential to maintaining (and even strengthening) Canada’s domestic and global defence obligations. They’re not — and Canada would benefit more from seeking out and deploying other weapons systems and defence-oriented measures better suited for 21st century conflicts and other non-traditional security challenges.

We think that a number of compelling questions still haven’t been answered about this purchase.

Ottawa seems to be locked into the uncritical assumption that Canada lacks more cost-effective air defence and equipment options. Not true. Ottawa seems to be locked into the uncritical assumption that Canada lacks more cost-effective air defence and equipment options. Not true.

Will a fleet of 88 advanced fighter jets, or the purchase of used F-18 Hornets, serve to protect Canada against a more substantial and aggressive conventional enemy? Probably not. Canada is woefully lacking in military capacity and is far too big, geographically, to defend. Even now, the F-35 doesn’t have the range to cover Canada’s vast expanses. Moreover, token arms purchases are unlikely to discourage the supposed hegemonic ambitions of an ever-expanding China, or a re-emergent Russia.

And purchasing fifth generation fighter aircraft appears to be profoundly out of step with Canada’s longer term strategic, operational, and tactical security objectives. The threat of large-scale symmetrical conflict has been usurped by terrorism, cyberwar, organized crime, animosity between competing political and religious groups, and the need for humanitarian relief missions. (We’d also do well to remember that the threat of nuclear annihilation has not disappeared.)

Fighter jets are not even remotely effective in any one of these areas. Our global security environment has changed, and in any case, the Trudeau government evidently has abandoned the previous administration’s war-fighting ambitions to pursue a more practical and relevant peacekeeping role.

Finally, as has been well documented, fighter jets are extremely expensive, both to buy and to maintain. Ottawa seems to be locked into the uncritical assumption that Canada lacks more cost-effective air defence and equipment options. Not true. If the Liberal government truly wants to defend Canadian airspace and participate in more practical collective defence projects, then it needs to commit more time and energy to exploring the utility of ballistic missiles, high-altitude drones and better early warning systems (radar and satellites). It needs to cultivate a domestic research and manufacturing sector dedicated to these endeavors.

By purchasing a robust, integrated and purposeful ‘sky-guard/shield’ air-defence system, Canada could contribute to its broader continental and European commitments in a more effective fashion. The message would be simple: Violate Canadian airspace, or that of one of our allies, and you risk being swarmed by a hail of missiles and/or bullets, depending on the severity and proximity of the violation. Armed and surveillance drones would assist in bolstering this ‘deterrence’ strategy and are far more potent operationally and tactically.

The real rewards of such an approach would be threefold. First, it would be a lot cheaper. Second, pilot risk would be eliminated. Third, it would give Ottawa a new way to exploit hi-tech defence research and manufacturing by supporting and subsidizing Canadian businesses engaged in this sector of our otherwise modest defence industry — a long-term job generator.

The Trudeau government needs to start looking to the future and shake off the country’s dependence on foreign-made conventional weapons platforms of limited utility. Ottawa has a genuine opportunity here to explore some very reasonable and progressive alternatives. It remains to be seen if our self-proclaimed ‘defenders’ of the public interest have the courage to do so.

Jason Lacharite is a professor of politics, policy, government and global studies at the University of Northern British Columbia. Richard Lacharite is a retired Lt. Colonel, Canadian Armed Forces and Staff Officer, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.