As political tensions with the United States sharpen and defence spending rises, Canada’s fighter-jet plan is being pulled apart by new industrial offers and hard military assessments.
How Canada ended up rethinking the F‑35 deal
Back in 2022, Canada picked the US‑built F‑35A to replace its ageing CF‑18 Hornets, capping a long, contentious procurement saga. The choice followed a competitive process in which Saab’s JAS‑39 Gripen E/F was the main rival. Boeing’s F/A‑18 Super Hornet was eliminated, and both Dassault’s Rafale and the Eurofighter consortium had already walked away.
Ottawa then committed to buying 88 F‑35As from Lockheed Martin. Sixteen aircraft have already been firmly ordered. On paper, the rest of the deal should have been a formality.
That changed in March 2025. Against a backdrop of diplomatic and trade disputes with Washington, the Canadian government signalled it would revisit the F‑35 purchase. The announcement immediately reopened a political and military fight over the future of Canadian air power.
A sharp military verdict on Gripen vs F‑35
The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) has made its preference explicit: it wants all 88 F‑35As, not a mixed fleet that includes European jets.
Internal scoring from the original competition gave the F‑35 an overwhelming edge on combat capability: 95% versus just 33% for the Gripen.
According to leaked evaluation documents cited in Canadian media, the F‑35 scored 57.1 points out of 60 for military capabilities. Saab’s Gripen took just 19.8. The large gap helps explain why Justin Trudeau’s government ended up breaking an earlier pledge not to buy the F‑35.
For the RCAF, splitting the buy now makes little sense. An internal report, referenced by Reuters, argued that dividing the purchase between F‑35s and another fighter would be “nonsensical” from a military standpoint. Former senior defence official Stefanie Beck backed that view in parliamentary testimony before leaving her post in a cabinet reshuffle.
Not everyone in Ottawa accepts that logic. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has argued that the “single-fleet” argument is a convenient excuse, noting that all G7 countries operate mixed combat fleets and still manage to integrate them into their defence structures.
➡️ More people are working less hours but earning more, and it’s not what you think
➡️ More Australian families are ditching this traditional routine, and kids are responding better
➡️ The small financial reset people do after the holidays that prevents money stress all year
Saab’s counter‑attack: build the jets in Canada
In this tense context, Saab has put a new, aggressive offer on the table. According to Canadian media reports, the Swedish group has proposed to assemble a major batch of its aircraft on Canadian soil:
- 72 JAS‑39 Gripen E/F multirole fighters
- 6 GlobalEye airborne early warning and control aircraft
All would be built in Canada, with Saab claiming the plan could create around 12,600 jobs.
Saab is not just pitching aircraft; it is pitching a Canadian aerospace hub tied to long‑term high‑tech employment.
The GlobalEye offer is particularly strategic. The aircraft is based on Bombardier’s Global Express 6000 business jet, a Canadian platform. Saab proposes to convert and equip these airframes with advanced radar and mission systems, effectively stitching together Swedish defence tech with Canadian aerospace manufacturing.
Simon Carroll, Saab Canada’s chief executive, has framed the proposal as a “sovereign” solution, promising advanced combat and surveillance capabilities while feeding skills, technology, and investment into Canadian industry.
Why GlobalEye matters to Ottawa
GlobalEye is an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform. It carries a powerful radar able to track aircraft, ships, and some ground targets at long range. For a country with Canada’s huge airspace and Arctic approaches, that kind of persistent radar coverage is politically attractive.
Integrating fighter jets and AEW&C aircraft from one supplier also offers a clean package: shared training, common support contracts, and a single industrial ecosystem.
Lockheed Martin defends the F‑35 industrial footprint
Lockheed Martin has responded quickly to Saab’s gambit, stressing that Canada is already deeply embedded in the F‑35 supply chain.
The company says more than 110 Canadian firms contribute parts to the F‑35, with potential industrial value of C$15.5 billion by 2058.
According to the US manufacturer, each F‑35 contains Canadian components worth more than C$3.2 million. Those parts go into every jet produced, not just the ones destined for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Lockheed Martin also highlights knock‑on benefits. Many Canadian suppliers, it says, have used their F‑35 experience as a springboard to win further contracts in the global aerospace and defence market. That message targets a key concern of the Canadian government: long‑term competitiveness rather than one‑off work packages.
| Aspect | F‑35 path | Saab Gripen/GlobalEye path |
|---|---|---|
| Combat evaluation score | 95% (57.1/60) | 33% (19.8/60) |
| Industrial presence | Global supply chain, 110+ Canadian companies | Local assembly of aircraft in Canada |
| Jobs headline | Long‑term distributed employment to 2058 | Approx. 12,600 jobs tied to assembly programme |
| Package | Stealth fighters only | Fighters plus AEW&C GlobalEye |
Politics, tariffs and a government looking for options
The timing of Saab’s proposal is no accident. Relations with Washington have been strained by US tariffs under President Donald Trump, which have hit Canadian industries and triggered calls in Ottawa for more diversified defence suppliers.
According to a report by CBC News, Saab’s plans have generated “strong interest” within Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government. Officials are said to view the Swedish offer as a tool both to diversify equipment sources and to shore up sectors damaged by US trade measures.
Canada is also planning to boost defence spending by C$82 billion over the next five years. Ministers want maximum local benefit from that money. A project that creates visible jobs in aerospace hubs, while anchoring design and assembly lines in Canada, fits that agenda neatly.
Where public opinion stands
On the home front, Saab appears to have the upper hand. A recent poll by Ekos shows a clear lean towards the Swedish jets:
- 43% of respondents support buying Gripen to replace the CF‑18s
- 29% favour a mixed Gripen/F‑35 fleet
- Only 13% back an all‑F‑35 force
Those numbers give politicians cover if they decide to shift away from a pure F‑35 path, or at least re‑open the door to a split purchase, despite RCAF objections.
Why mixed fleets are so controversial
At the centre of the argument lies a classic defence planning dilemma: flexibility versus complexity.
A single‑type fleet simplifies pilot training, logistics, spare parts, and maintenance. Software upgrades, weapons integration and mission planning tools all revolve around one core design. The RCAF, which already struggles with personnel and maintenance backlogs, points to these efficiencies as a strategic necessity.
A mixed fleet adds options but also friction. Two types of fighter mean two sets of simulators, technical training courses, support contracts and warehouses full of different parts. Coordinating missions across platforms with different sensors, data links and performance characteristics raises integration challenges that do not disappear just because other G7 countries manage them.
On the flip side, a mix reduces dependence on a single foreign supplier and a single software ecosystem. It can create bargaining leverage, and it spreads industrial work across more partners. Saab and its Canadian allies are betting that, in the current geopolitical climate, diversification carries extra political weight.
Key concepts: stealth jets and airborne early warning
The F‑35 is a fifth‑generation stealth fighter, designed to be hard to detect on radar and to fuse data from its own sensors and allied platforms. In a high‑end conflict, such as defending NATO airspace in Europe or deterring a near‑peer adversary, that combination of low observability and information sharing is central to US doctrine.
Gripen E/F takes a different approach. It is less stealthy but optimised for affordability, rapid turnaround and high sortie rates. Small air forces value it for its ability to operate from dispersed and relatively austere bases. For Canada, with many forward operating locations in remote regions, that ruggedness has appeal, though it did not offset the capability score gap in the original evaluation.
GlobalEye sits in a separate but complementary category. An AEW&C aircraft flies high and scans far, acting as an airborne radar station and command post. In a Canadian scenario, a pair of GlobalEyes could monitor wide sections of the Arctic or Atlantic approaches, coordinating fighters, naval assets and ground-based radar in real time.
What hangs on Ottawa’s final call
Canada’s eventual decision will shape more than just its future fighter fleet. It will set the tone for defence industrial policy, signal how far Ottawa is willing to lean away from US dominance in certain areas, and send a message to domestic voters about jobs and sovereignty.
If the government sticks with the full F‑35 plan, it doubles down on integration with US and NATO air forces and bets on long‑term gains through a global supply chain. If it shifts towards Saab’s offer, Canada gains visible local assembly lines, a new AEW&C capability and a second pillar of defence partnerships, while accepting higher complexity and diverging from the RCAF’s preferred model.
Either way, the choice will echo through Canadian aerospace for decades, affecting where engineers train, where factories expand, and which flags sit on the tail of the jets patrolling North American skies.
Originally posted 2026-03-08 13:49:00.