dan. “From Washington to Stockholm — Why Ottawa’s Rethinking the F-35 Deal Could Signal the End of U.S. Air Power Dominance in Canada”
Canada’s Strategic Fork: Why the F-35 Deal Is Suddenly Back on the Table
For years, the purchase of 88 F-35 jets had been treated as a foregone conclusion in Ottawa — a done deal. But in late 2025, that narrative shattered. The government, led by Industry Minister Mélanie Joly and Prime Minister Mark Carney, has put Canada’s multibillion-dollar F-35 plan under intense scrutiny, signalling openness to a radically different outcome: a mixed fleet combining F-35s with Sweden’s Saab Gripen. AeroTime+2Global Defense Corp+2
It’s not just about jets anymore — it’s about sovereignty, supply-chain independence, domestic industrial jobs, and reducing political leverage that foreign powers might wield over Canada’s security. Welcome to the moment when Canada could be rewriting the rules of North American air power.
What Changed: From Sure-Thing to Strategic Doubt
1. Industrial returns — and Canada’s long game
Originally, the F-35 contract was sold as more than just a weapons purchase. The idea was that Canadian industry would win work packages and benefit from domestic manufacturing and maintenance of a strategic asset. But as time passed, many in Ottawa felt that the benefits promised by American defence-giant Lockheed Martin were insufficient. Joly has publicly lamented that the contract “did not deliver enough jobs or economic benefits” for Canadians. AeroTime+1
As a result, the government is now demanding more — or else they might cut back the order for F-35s and supplement with Gripens, potentially built or maintained in Canada under license. That shift reflects a broader desire to develop a stronger, more autonomous Canadian defence-industrial base instead of funneling billions of dollars and infrastructure dependence into U.S. industry. Anadolu Ajansı+2CityNews Toronto+2
2. Geopolitics and trust: when alliances feel shaky
Beyond economics, recent tensions between Ottawa and Washington — including trade frictions, tariff disputes, and unpredictable U.S. foreign-policy swings — have prompted serious reflection inside Canada about over-dependence on American military hardware. The idea that F-35 jets, built and controlled under U.S. oversight, could be vulnerable to political pressure or even remote control in a future bilateral dispute has resonated in certain defence circles. en.defence-ua.com+2Soha.vn+2
For some in Canada, the appeal of a European-made fighter — produced under license domestically — isn’t just financial: it’s symbolic of a desire to carve out an independent defence posture, less tethered to Washington’s influence.
3. A mixed fleet as a path of compromise — and leverage
Rather than choosing one plane or another, Canada is seriously entertaining the possibility of a mixed fleet: using the F-35 for high-end NATO / NORAD / Arctic deterrence missions, and deploying Gripens for patrol, regional defense, or lower-intensity tasks. That would give Canada flexibility and help spread operational costs — while making possible a domestic industrial supply chain. AeroTime+2Defence Industry Europe+2
This approach would mirror models already seen in other advanced militaries: combining a “top-tier” stealth fifth-gen platform with more economical, easier-to-maintain jets for routine tasks. For Canada, it could represent a strategic hedge — and a subtle rebuke to traditional dependence on U.S. primes.
Why This Matters: Potential Impact on North American Air Power
If Canada goes through with a pivot — trimming the F-35 order, bringing in Gripens (and perhaps building them locally) — the implications could be profound:
- Shift in industrial geography. Maintenance, overhaul, upgrades, and production work would move from U.S. defense prime contractors into Canadian (and perhaps European) hands. That means long-term jobs, technology transfer, and growing Canadian sovereignty in defence manufacturing.
- Reduced leverage of U.S. defense dominance. No longer automatically reliant on U.S. supply chains and software support, Canada could insulate itself against political or trade pressure from Washington. A mixed fleet means less ability by any one government to “pull the plug.”
- A new model for Arctic & North American air defense. With rising strategic tensions in the Arctic, murky waters around alliances, and a need for sovereignty, Canada’s adoption of a more mixed, diversified air fleet might inspire other countries — perhaps even the U.S. itself — to rethink “all-in-one” doctrines.
In short: this could be the start of rewriting the implicit rules that have governed North American air power since the Cold War.
But It’s Not That Simple — Strong Opponents and Major Risks
⚠️ Gripen vs F-35: Capability gap is real
Behind the scenes lies a bitumen-hard reality: internal evaluations from Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) — leaked recently — show that the F-35 outperformed Gripen by a wide margin in a 2021 comparative study. The F-35 reportedly scored 57.1/60 (≈ 95%) on overall capability, while Gripen earned only 19.7/60 (≈ 33%). Gripen lagged in critical areas like mission performance, upgradability, and systems integration. aeronewsjournal.com+2english.almayadeen.net+2
In other words: the F-35 remains the gold standard for high-end, peer-level threats — stealth, sensor fusion, networked warfare, Arctic readiness. Dropping or down-scaling it is not trivial.
🔧 Mixed fleet headaches: cost, logistics, complexity
Running two very different fighter types is almost always messy. Differences in training, maintenance, spare parts, software infrastructure, pilot conversion, and supply chain management tend to drive costs up — sometimes dramatically. Canadian military officials and NATO interoperability planners have warned that a mixed fleet could be “inefficient from an operational standpoint.” AeroTime+2The Hub+2
Moreover, there’s the question of long-term viability: even if Canada assembled Gripens domestically, the jet still relies on certain American-made components (e.g. engines) — which may reintroduce dependency and geopolitical risk. Soha.vn+2en.defence-ua.com+2
🌐 Diplomatic fallout — and risk of friction with the U.S.
Abandoning or significantly reducing the F-35 order wouldn’t just be a technical choice — it would be a political signal. The U.S. has reportedly warned that such a move could threaten integrated defence structures like NORAD, potentially straining the bilateral security relationship. AeroTime+2National Security Journal+2
At a time when global geopolitics are already volatile — especially in the Arctic — Canada risks creating tension with its closest military ally.
What’s Likely — And What’s at Stake
Given all the forces at play — industrial interests, domestic political pressure, geopolitical uncertainty, and real capability tradeoffs — a few scenarios seem possible:
- A compromise mixed fleet: Canada keeps a smaller number of F-35s for high-end, stealth-dependent missions (Arctic, NATO, strategic deterrence) and supplements with Gripens for sovereignty patrols, training, and lower-threat tasks. This balances capability with domestic industry and geopolitical independence.
- Full pivot to European aircraft: If demands for industrial benefits or political independence increase enough — and if manufacturing is established in Canada — Ottawa might scale down or abandon most of the F-35 order. That would mark a historic break from decades of U.S.-centric procurement.
- Partial retreat under pressure: If lobbying by defense officials, NATO commitments, or American diplomatic pressure intensify, Canada may revert to the original plan — ordering all F-35s but perhaps re-negotiating for more domestic contracts with U.S. industry.
What happens will reverberate far beyond Canada’s borders. Whether Ottawa chooses Pragmatism, Independence, or Alliance-loyalty will send signals across NATO, among European defense industries, and — crucially — to Washington.
Conclusion: A Turning Point or Tactical Gamble?
What’s happening in Ottawa may well be the beginning of a subtle but meaningful shift: a rethinking of traditional dependence on U.S. military hardware, and a push for more autonomy — in defense, in industry, in sovereignty. The move toward a mixed fleet with Gripens isn’t just a question of cost or jets, but represents a strategic pivot in how Canada perceives its own place in a shifting global order.
Yes — there is risk. Gripen does not match F-35 in raw capability; mixed fleets are operationally messy; and antagonising the United States could carry political consequences. But Canada might judge those risks worth taking: for a stronger domestic defense base, less dependency on foreign supply chains, and greater control over its own security destiny.
In doing so, Canada could begin rewriting the rules of North American air power — and signal that it no longer sees itself merely as a subordinate buyer, but as a sovereign actor with its own strategic agenda.
