Canada’s long-delayed fighter replacement is sliding toward a choice that satisfies neither its allies nor its own strategic needs. The longer Ottawa stretches its review of the F-35, the more it risks locking itself into a suboptimal outcome that looks less like careful due diligence and more like an avoidable misstep.
Instead of clarifying the Royal Canadian Air Force’s future, the process has become a tangle of political caution, industrial lobbying and alliance pressure, with each new twist narrowing Canada’s room to maneuver. I see a decision point approaching where any path will carry real costs, but the current drift makes the eventual bill higher than it needed to be.
How Canada backed itself into a corner on fighter replacement
Canada’s fighter saga began as a straightforward plan to replace aging CF-18s with a modern platform, but it has evolved into a prolonged review that has eroded clarity and credibility. Ottawa initially aligned with the United States and other partners on the F-35 program, then pulled back under domestic pressure, and is now caught between recommitting to that path or pivoting to an alternative like the Gripen. Each shift has signaled uncertainty to allies and industry, while the aircraft Canada already flies continue to age.
Instead of a clean competition, the government has layered on new studies and political tests that have stretched the process far beyond normal procurement timelines. Reporting on how Canada has repeatedly revisited its participation in the Joint Strike Fighter, including detailed analysis of the country’s messaging to the F-35 program, shows how Ottawa’s hesitation has become a defining feature of the file rather than a temporary pause for due diligence, a pattern examined in depth in one strategic review.
Washington’s patience is thinning as the review drags on
From Washington’s perspective, Canada’s indecision is no longer a technical procurement issue but a test of alliance reliability. U.S. officials have signaled that the extended review of the F-35 is straining goodwill, warning that Ottawa’s delay could affect both interoperability and the broader defense relationship. Those warnings are not subtle, and they reflect concern that a NATO partner sharing the North American aerospace defense mission is still debating whether to buy the alliance’s flagship fighter.
Detailed accounts of U.S. messages to Ottawa describe how American officials have cautioned that Canada’s drawn-out process risks undermining joint planning and industrial cooperation, with one report outlining how Washington explicitly warned Canada over the F-35 review and its implications for NORAD and NATO commitments, a concern captured in coverage of the U.S. warning. A separate analysis of the same exchanges underscores that the review has now been extended so long that it is being read in Washington as a political signal in its own right, not just a bureaucratic delay, a point reinforced in reporting on how the F-35 review is irritating the U.S..
An “indefinite” review that narrows Canada’s real options
Ottawa’s decision to stretch the F-35 review indefinitely has not created more freedom of choice, it has quietly reduced it. By postponing a firm commitment, Canada has allowed costs to rise, schedules to slip and industrial opportunities to migrate to more decisive partners. The label of an “indefinite” review sounds like flexibility, but in practice it has meant drifting while other air forces lock in production slots and upgrade paths.
Specialist reporting on the fighter file describes how Canada has formally extended its F-35 assessment without a clear end date, a move that leaves the Royal Canadian Air Force planning around multiple hypothetical fleets instead of a concrete replacement plan, as detailed in coverage of how Ottawa extended the F-35 review indefinitely. That same reporting notes that while the review lingers, the CF-18 fleet continues to age, and the window to synchronize Canada’s acquisition with partner upgrade cycles is closing, which will likely translate into higher long-term costs and more complex integration work.
The Gripen temptation and the risk of a split with allies
Into this vacuum has stepped the Swedish Gripen, marketed as a cheaper, more flexible alternative that could give Canada a modern fighter without the full cost and complexity of the F-35. The appeal is obvious: a proven aircraft, strong industrial participation and the promise of more control over technology and sustainment. For a government wary of being seen as capitulating to U.S. pressure, the Gripen offers a politically attractive contrast.
Yet the strategic tradeoffs are significant. Choosing Gripen would put Canada out of step with key NATO partners that are standardizing on the F-35, complicating joint operations and training. Reporting on Ottawa’s flirtation with the Swedish option highlights how Saab has pitched the Gripen as a tailored solution for Canada, while critics warn that turning away from the F-35 would undercut interoperability with the United States and other allies, a tension captured in coverage of Canada’s potential snub of the U.S. F-35 in favor of Sweden’s Gripen. Canadian political reporting has also detailed how the Gripen bid has been framed domestically as a way to secure local jobs and industrial workshare, even as defense officials weigh the operational costs of diverging from the F-35 club, a debate laid out in analysis of the Canada–Sweden Saab competition.
Domestic politics, veterans and the view from the cockpit
Inside Canada, the fighter debate is no longer confined to cabinet rooms and procurement offices. Former senior officers and veterans have stepped forward to argue that the country’s credibility and combat effectiveness are at stake, urging Ottawa to stop hedging and commit to a modern fleet that can operate seamlessly with allies. Their interventions reflect frustration that operational requirements are being overshadowed by political risk calculations.
One widely shared statement from former Canadian military officers explicitly urged the government to ignore the Gripen pitch and proceed with the F-35, arguing that anything less would shortchange the Royal Canadian Air Force and Canada’s role in coalition operations, a position circulated in a public appeal that called on Ottawa to ignore Gripens and proceed with the F-35. At the same time, rank-and-file and retired personnel have taken to online forums to vent about the drawn-out review, with one discussion among Canadian Forces members focusing on whether the prolonged F-35 assessment is irritating the United States and undermining trust, a sentiment captured in a thread asking if Canada’s F-35 review is irritating the U.S..
Critics call it a “fighter fiasco,” but the alternatives are not painless
Outside government, analysts have begun to describe Canada’s handling of the F-35 file in stark terms, arguing that the country is paying a premium for indecision. Some contend that the aircraft itself has become a symbol of sunk costs and shifting requirements, and that Ottawa should walk away rather than double down on a troubled program. Others counter that the real problem is not the jet but Canada’s inability to make and stick to a choice.
One detailed commentary labeled Canada’s F-35 experience a “fighter fiasco” and argued that it is time to dump the American stealth fighter altogether, citing concerns about cost, delays and the political baggage attached to the program, a critique laid out in an analysis that calls Canada’s F-35 path a fighter fiasco. Yet even that critical view acknowledges that abandoning the F-35 would force Canada to accept tradeoffs in interoperability and access to cutting-edge capabilities, and that any alternative would require its own complex integration and sustainment effort rather than offering a simple escape hatch.
Why the looming decision still favors the F-35, despite the damage done
For all the frustration and second-guessing, the structural logic of Canada’s defense posture still points toward the F-35 as the least bad option. The country shares a continent with the United States, relies on NORAD for aerospace defense and participates in NATO operations that are increasingly built around fifth-generation fighters. In that context, choosing a different platform would mean accepting permanent friction in training, logistics and mission planning, costs that will accumulate over decades.
That is why, even as Ottawa stretches the review and entertains alternatives, much of the detailed strategic analysis continues to treat F-35 acquisition as the most coherent way to align Canada’s airpower with its allies, a conclusion echoed in assessments that examine how Canada’s messaging to the F-35 program has already complicated its position without fundamentally changing the underlying requirements, as explored in the earlier video discussion of Canada’s fighter choices. The misstep now looks less like the eventual selection of the F-35 and more like the costly, credibility-sapping path Ottawa has taken to get there, a path that has narrowed its options, irritated its closest partner and left the Royal Canadian Air Force waiting for a decision that should have been made years ago.
More from MorningOverview