Little known story you might follow up. During 9/11 the US NORAD Commander had, to say the least, serious issues running the air response. His staff realized this and convinced him to return to his office, and his Canadian deputy took over. Eric (Rick) Findley ran the operation for the next few days. The NORAD headquarters building, to be politically correct, was named after the US commander but also in recognition of his leadership, after Rick, so the Eberhart-Findley building - as far as I’m aware the only US military building named after a foreigner. When Trump says they don’t need us Americans need to be reminded of events like this.
One quick point to add that pops up every-so-often and I'll research later:
Finland is an example of the F-35 (albeit not Block Four as far as I'm aware- the version Canada is supposed to receive, a conundrum in and of itself) having full interoperability with Finland's older F-18s, Sweden's Gripen, Europe's (UK, Germany, etc) Eurofighter, etc.
Why is the US claiming that the Gripens "won't" have the ability to interoperate with the F-35 in the Norad role? Obvious retort: 'Norad requires a unique transponder level'. I find that puzzling.
I haven't accessed the Walrus link, I might later, looks very interesting.
Meantime there are various stories appearing in the Cdn press, I thought it valuable to reference an Australian one, in lieu of yesterday's mention in Cdn news sources:
[A $2.5 billion deal to sell Australia's highly advanced over-the-horizon radar system to Canada has been signed, making it Australia's most valuable defence export ever.
Canada is buying the powerful radar system to monitor the Arctic, modelling the system on Australia's JORN radar.
The JORN radar has been operating for 40 years, allowing up to 3,000 kilometres of surveillance coverage of Australia's northern approaches.
Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, announced in March that his country would spend billions on the system, the first time Australia has sold the technology.
Now the first stage of that deal has been signed, allowing it to go ahead with the prospect of more to come.
The deal was noted at the time as a sign that Canada was keen to broaden its defence partnerships beyond a heavy reliance on the United States.
Canada's secretary for defence procurement, Stephen Fuhr, said the deal marked a significant shift in the Australia-Canada relationship.
"As the world adjusts to its new strategic and economic realities, I can't think of a stronger partner to work with than Australia," he said.
The Canadian project will be built through defence manufacturer BAE Systems, which also maintains Australia's JORN radar.
Canada has provisioned $6.5 billion in total for the project and will look at expanding the network in the years ahead.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the deal comes with benefits to Australia beyond the billions in export revenue, as Australia will benefit from future shared expertise in developing the radar system further.
He said Australia would be open to selling the radar to other countries, like the US, but noted the sensitivity of the technology.
"That said, under our government, we have looked to be more ambitious in terms of finding more opportunities to engage in defence industry exports."]
From what's been stated so far (and I'm rushing out the door, will reference more sources later to buttress this point) indicates Canada *cautiously* still supporting Norad membership, but with eyes clearly focused on not *relying* on it continuing.
I recollect the US Commander making nice noises a few weeks back, but he was a professional, considerate and altruistic gentleman, a voice from the past in today's Trumponian nightmare.
Thanks for provoking the kind of strategic debate we need Wesley. NORAD was a creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence so with that binational decision making structure suspended, NORAD is no longer binational in its governance. So it has to be renegotiated sooner or later.
Perhaps we should adopt the path CUSMA is going down: a ten-year ticking clock until it is abolished, unless negotiations establish a new arrangement that preserves sovereignty equality. That will give Canada a decade to work out how to defend our skies without U.S. support and we can carry on military cooperation in parallel rather than in the integrated fashion.
See also the NORAD-focused book edited by Christian Leuprecht, Joel J. Sokolsky and Thomas Hughes entitled: North American Strategic Defense in the 21st Century: Security and Sovereignty in an Uncertain World, Cham: Springer, 2019.
I read your Walrus article, Wesley, and it was excellent. Canada has always been the junior cooperating partner and our country provides time and distance should an attack occur on the USA. Let’s admit it, Canada is not on the mandatory knock off list for malign nations.
In reference to Canada’s recent JORN contract and cooperation with SAAB on GlobalEye AEWS, issues will arise with some interoperability with certain American aspects of their defence structure. For example the whole suspect question of F35 interoperability with whatever fighter aircraft combination we identify and acquire.
A senior Saab official did opine that the interoperability issue - NORAD, AEWS, fighters, the F35 Multi-function Advanced Data Link system is not so much about technological integration but an “unwillingness “ to resolve these matters. I don’t believe he was referring to Canada.
I would support Canada’s continuation in NORAD contingent upon our nation’s sovereign decisions about how and what we contribute pursuant to our own defence requirements. If the US objects to the latter…who knows given US “polity”.
Changing NORAD would require completely changing the culture of the RCAF, who for generations have seen themselves as integrated with, and subservient to, the Americans. The push back we are seeing with the potential purchase of a non American fighter shows what a challenge it would be.
Little known story you might follow up. During 9/11 the US NORAD Commander had, to say the least, serious issues running the air response. His staff realized this and convinced him to return to his office, and his Canadian deputy took over. Eric (Rick) Findley ran the operation for the next few days. The NORAD headquarters building, to be politically correct, was named after the US commander but also in recognition of his leadership, after Rick, so the Eberhart-Findley building - as far as I’m aware the only US military building named after a foreigner. When Trump says they don’t need us Americans need to be reminded of events like this.
Interesting. I'll dig on that later.
Rick’s a great guy, really laid back, so will probably be unhappy I brought this up. But we need to tell our stories.
All interesting comments. Much appreciated.
One quick point to add that pops up every-so-often and I'll research later:
Finland is an example of the F-35 (albeit not Block Four as far as I'm aware- the version Canada is supposed to receive, a conundrum in and of itself) having full interoperability with Finland's older F-18s, Sweden's Gripen, Europe's (UK, Germany, etc) Eurofighter, etc.
Why is the US claiming that the Gripens "won't" have the ability to interoperate with the F-35 in the Norad role? Obvious retort: 'Norad requires a unique transponder level'. I find that puzzling.
Anyone?
Good, comment Stephen, my comment covers some of what you mentioned.
I haven't accessed the Walrus link, I might later, looks very interesting.
Meantime there are various stories appearing in the Cdn press, I thought it valuable to reference an Australian one, in lieu of yesterday's mention in Cdn news sources:
[A $2.5 billion deal to sell Australia's highly advanced over-the-horizon radar system to Canada has been signed, making it Australia's most valuable defence export ever.
Canada is buying the powerful radar system to monitor the Arctic, modelling the system on Australia's JORN radar.
The JORN radar has been operating for 40 years, allowing up to 3,000 kilometres of surveillance coverage of Australia's northern approaches.
Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, announced in March that his country would spend billions on the system, the first time Australia has sold the technology.
Now the first stage of that deal has been signed, allowing it to go ahead with the prospect of more to come.
The deal was noted at the time as a sign that Canada was keen to broaden its defence partnerships beyond a heavy reliance on the United States.
Canada's secretary for defence procurement, Stephen Fuhr, said the deal marked a significant shift in the Australia-Canada relationship.
"As the world adjusts to its new strategic and economic realities, I can't think of a stronger partner to work with than Australia," he said.
The Canadian project will be built through defence manufacturer BAE Systems, which also maintains Australia's JORN radar.
Canada has provisioned $6.5 billion in total for the project and will look at expanding the network in the years ahead.
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the deal comes with benefits to Australia beyond the billions in export revenue, as Australia will benefit from future shared expertise in developing the radar system further.
He said Australia would be open to selling the radar to other countries, like the US, but noted the sensitivity of the technology.
"That said, under our government, we have looked to be more ambitious in terms of finding more opportunities to engage in defence industry exports."]
[...]
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-22/australia-canada-sign-billion-dollar-over-horizon-radar-deal/106827724
From what's been stated so far (and I'm rushing out the door, will reference more sources later to buttress this point) indicates Canada *cautiously* still supporting Norad membership, but with eyes clearly focused on not *relying* on it continuing.
I recollect the US Commander making nice noises a few weeks back, but he was a professional, considerate and altruistic gentleman, a voice from the past in today's Trumponian nightmare.
To be continued...
More on this up at YouTube:
Multi-billion dollar deal with Canada secures ‘largest-ever’ military export | 9 News Australia
https://youtu.be/ikTDeStnsaI
Thanks for provoking the kind of strategic debate we need Wesley. NORAD was a creation of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence so with that binational decision making structure suspended, NORAD is no longer binational in its governance. So it has to be renegotiated sooner or later.
Perhaps we should adopt the path CUSMA is going down: a ten-year ticking clock until it is abolished, unless negotiations establish a new arrangement that preserves sovereignty equality. That will give Canada a decade to work out how to defend our skies without U.S. support and we can carry on military cooperation in parallel rather than in the integrated fashion.
See also the NORAD-focused book edited by Christian Leuprecht, Joel J. Sokolsky and Thomas Hughes entitled: North American Strategic Defense in the 21st Century: Security and Sovereignty in an Uncertain World, Cham: Springer, 2019.
I read your Walrus article, Wesley, and it was excellent. Canada has always been the junior cooperating partner and our country provides time and distance should an attack occur on the USA. Let’s admit it, Canada is not on the mandatory knock off list for malign nations.
In reference to Canada’s recent JORN contract and cooperation with SAAB on GlobalEye AEWS, issues will arise with some interoperability with certain American aspects of their defence structure. For example the whole suspect question of F35 interoperability with whatever fighter aircraft combination we identify and acquire.
A senior Saab official did opine that the interoperability issue - NORAD, AEWS, fighters, the F35 Multi-function Advanced Data Link system is not so much about technological integration but an “unwillingness “ to resolve these matters. I don’t believe he was referring to Canada.
I would support Canada’s continuation in NORAD contingent upon our nation’s sovereign decisions about how and what we contribute pursuant to our own defence requirements. If the US objects to the latter…who knows given US “polity”.
"unwillingness" being the key factor
Yes, I suspect so.
Great article, and I agree. But that of which you write is heresy around 101. We can share data and warning without a bi-national command
I once had a very senior GOFP ask me why we had a CANEYESONLY caveat to certain document classifications. In his mind, CAN-US had no secrets.
"In his mind, CAN-US had no secrets."
Ha ha ha. Ah, the arrogance.
Changing NORAD would require completely changing the culture of the RCAF, who for generations have seen themselves as integrated with, and subservient to, the Americans. The push back we are seeing with the potential purchase of a non American fighter shows what a challenge it would be.
Thank you for this. I will read the Walrus article. Canadians need a wider discussion about NORAD, that is certain.
Thanks for this analysis . Good to have your insights on the subject of our sovereignty.