Canada’s fighter replacement saga is no longer a theoretical procurement exercise, it is a live test of whether the country intends to field a front-line air force that can survive and win in modern combat. Swapping a maturing fleet of F-35s for a smaller number of cheaper Gripens might look fiscally tidy on paper, but it would hollow out Canada’s ability to fight alongside its closest allies, defend the Arctic, and deter adversaries who are already fielding fifth‑generation jets.
At a moment when allied air forces are converging on a common stealth platform and great‑power competition is intensifying, I see a Canadian retreat from the F-35 as a strategic self‑inflicted wound. The choice is not between two roughly equivalent fighters, it is between joining the core of a high‑end coalition air network or accepting a second‑tier role that would leave Canadian pilots and missions dependent on others’ technology and protection.
Political temptation versus operational reality
Domestic politics make the idea of cancelling or scaling back the F-35 buy and pivoting to the JAS 39 Gripen superficially attractive. Critics of the program point to cost overruns, industrial benefit disputes, and the appeal of a “made‑in‑Canada” industrial package that Saab and its partners have been eager to advertise. In that context, it is easy for opponents of the current plan to frame a switch as a fiscally responsible reset rather than a retreat from high‑end capability.
Yet the operational reality is that the F-35 is already the backbone of allied air power, and Canada is deeply embedded in that ecosystem. Earlier analysis of the debate warned that any move to walk away from the program would be a Forget the JAS decision that undercuts Canada Dumping the F-35 Would Be a Big Mistake at precisely the moment when military credibility is crucial. In that framing, the political temptation to score points at home runs directly against the operational need to keep pace with allies who are standardizing on a single fifth‑generation platform.
What the official evaluation actually found
When I look past the rhetoric and focus on the data, the picture becomes clearer. Canada’s own fighter competition did not treat the F-35 and Gripen as interchangeable options; it ranked them against detailed mission and capability criteria. That evaluation, conducted under the Future Fighter Capability Project, was not a paper drill but a structured assessment of how each aircraft would perform across the full spectrum of Canadian and allied missions.
Reporting on the outcome of that process makes plain that the F-35 emerged as the clear winner in the evaluation that underpinned the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) in Canada. The Gripen, by contrast, reportedly scored only about a third of the achievable total in key mission areas, a gap that is hard to reconcile with claims that the two jets are functionally equivalent. Reopening the contest now, or discarding its results, would mean discarding the very evidence‑based process that was designed to keep politics from overwhelming operational logic.
Why fifth‑generation capability matters for Canada
The core of the argument for sticking with the F-35 is not brand loyalty, it is the qualitative leap that fifth‑generation aircraft bring to the fight. Stealth, advanced sensors, and secure data links allow a small number of F-35s to do what used to require large strike packages of fourth‑generation jets, jammers, and support aircraft. For a country with Canada’s geography and budget constraints, that kind of efficiency is not a luxury, it is a necessity.
Analysts who have dug into Canada’s own Future Fighter data note that the F-35 delivered a significantly higher mission‑effectiveness score than the Gripen, with one assessment highlighting that the F-35 achieved a score of 35 compared with the Gripen’s 28 in key mission categories. That comparison, drawn from The Canada Fighter Debate Is Over analysis, underscores that the gap is not marginal. When Newly released data show that one aircraft consistently outperforms another across the missions Canada actually needs to fly, downgrading to the weaker option would be a deliberate choice to accept less capability for the same strategic risk.
Arctic defence and the Gripen argument
Supporters of the Gripen often pivot to geography, arguing that Canada’s vast northern approaches demand an aircraft optimized for short, rough runways and austere basing. They highlight the jet’s reputation for operating from dispersed locations and suggest that this makes it a better fit for Arctic patrols and sovereignty missions than a more maintenance‑intensive stealth fighter. In political terms, that narrative dovetails neatly with promises of regional basing and local jobs.
Those arguments have found a receptive audience in some quarters, particularly when advocates stress that the Gripen’s design lends itself to shorter take‑offs and that Saab has dangled a job‑creation pledge tied to Arctic operations. Reporting on the fighter decision debate notes that But those who support the Gripen point to Arctic advantages, such as shorter take‑offs and a job‑creation pledge from industry partners. Yet even in that framing, the trade‑off is stark: a platform optimized for rugged basing but lacking the stealth and deep integration that Canada will need if the Arctic becomes a contested theatre against adversaries flying their own fifth‑generation jets.
Alliance interoperability and NORAD credibility
Canada’s air force does not operate in a vacuum. Its fighters are woven into binational NORAD missions with the United States and into NATO operations abroad. In that environment, interoperability is not a buzzword, it is the difference between being a full partner and being a junior contributor who relies on others for the most dangerous tasks. The F-35 is rapidly becoming the common denominator for high‑end allied air operations, from Europe to the Indo‑Pacific.
Retired leaders of the Royal Canadian Air Force have been explicit about what that means in practice. A group of former commanders has urged Ottawa to stay the course on the F-35, warning that walking away now would signal that Canada is willing to sacrifice hard‑won interoperability to score short‑term political points against Washington. Their message, captured in a detailed Canada F-35 analysis that highlighted Image Credit and Ideogram visuals, stressed that Key Points and Summary from Royal Canadian Air Force veterans converge on a simple idea: a mixed or downgraded fleet would erode Canada’s credibility inside NORAD and NATO at the very moment when those institutions are under strain.
Industrial benefits and the “Latest Excuse”
One of the loudest arguments for revisiting the F-35 deal has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with industrial benefits. Critics in Ottawa have complained that Canada is not getting enough workshare and technology transfer in return for its investment, framing the issue as a bad bargain for domestic industry. That line of attack has become a convenient rallying point for those who want to slow‑roll or renegotiate the program.
Recent reporting describes this as Canada’s Latest Excuse, with officials arguing there are Not Enough Benefits For the F-35 Buy even as Canada is already contractually tied into the program. That same analysis warns that Ottawa is playing with fire by threatening to walk away when suppliers and allies have planned around Canadian participation, and it notes explicitly that any pivot toward the JAS 39 Gripen in Canada would come with its own industrial and contractual risks. In other words, the notion that a Gripen deal would magically deliver more secure or generous industrial benefits is unverified based on available sources.
The cost illusion of a cheaper jet
On sticker price alone, the Gripen can look like the thrifty choice, especially when compared to the complex logistics and sustainment system that comes with the F-35. For politicians under pressure to show fiscal restraint, that comparison is tempting. But air forces do not buy jets the way consumers buy cars; they buy decades of capability, integration, and upgrade paths that either keep them in the technological first tier or consign them to the margins.
When I weigh the long‑term picture, the supposed savings from a Gripen pivot start to look like a cost illusion. Analyses that dig into mission effectiveness and lifecycle value argue that the F-35’s higher upfront and sustainment costs are offset by its ability to do more with fewer aircraft, particularly in contested environments where fourth‑generation jets would need heavy support or could not survive at all. Earlier assessments that framed Canada Dumping the F-35 Would Be a Big Mistake emphasized that the program’s 39 G and 35 metrics are tied to a broader ecosystem of training, software upgrades, and shared logistics that a one‑off Gripen fleet could not match. The result is a paradox: the “cheaper” jet could leave Canada paying more in the long run for less usable combat power.
The debate is “over” only if Ottawa listens to its own data
Some observers argue that the fighter debate in Canada is effectively settled, at least on the merits. From that perspective, the combination of formal evaluations, alliance expectations, and operational analysis has already answered the question of which jet best serves Canadian interests. What remains unsettled is whether political leaders will accept those findings or reopen the issue for short‑term advantage.
One detailed review of the Future Fighter process concluded that the F-35’s performance and mission scores were so decisively better that the Canada F-35 Fighter Debate Is effectively Fighter Debate Is Over. In that account, the Key Points and Summary of the competition, including the F-35’s score of 35 against the Gripen’s 28, left little room for ambiguity. Newly compiled evidence from Canada’s 2021 Future Fighter Capability Project reinforced the conclusion that any move away from the F-35 now would not be a correction of past mistakes but a conscious decision to ignore the country’s own data.
Strategic risk: what Canada would actually lose
When I strip away the slogans and focus on outcomes, the strategic risk of scrapping the F-35 becomes stark. Canada would be trading a seat at the core of allied air operations for a more peripheral role, one in which its fighters might still patrol national airspace but would be sidelined in the most demanding coalition missions. That shift would not only affect prestige, it would shape how allies plan and invest around Canada for decades.
Analysts who have warned against a Gripen pivot stress that Canada’s credibility is on the line at a time when great‑power competition is intensifying and when NORAD and NATO are recalibrating for higher‑end threats. The argument laid out in the Would Be Big Mistake analysis is blunt: walking away from the F-35 now would signal that Canada is willing to accept a diminished role just as allies are counting on it to modernize. In that light, the choice between the F-35 and the Gripen is not simply a procurement preference, it is a statement about how Canada sees its place in the world and how seriously it takes the security guarantees it has already signed.
More from MorningOverview