Ottawa is financing 14 more F-35s up front, without approving a fleet of more than 100. The real issue is the Arctic: sovereignty, sensors, NORAD, and cost.
Summary
The information needs to be clarified. Canada has not officially announced a new fleet of more than 100 F-35s. What has been confirmed at this stage is more limited and subtle: Ottawa has committed to payments for long-lead components for 14 additional F-35As in order to keep production slots open, even though the political review of the program has not been completed. This brings the number of aircraft “in the pipeline” to 30—the first 16 already committed plus this preparatory tranche—but the official framework remains 88 F-35As, as decided in 2023. The issue is therefore not a clear expansion beyond the initial plan, but a signal: despite political tensions with Washington and the debate on strategic dependence, Ottawa does not want to lose its place in the industrial queue. And behind this lies the Arctic, where Canadian sovereignty is less about rhetoric than about the ability to detect, take off quickly, go the distance, and share a credible tactical picture with NORAD.
Canada has not confirmed a fleet of 102 F-35s, and this is a key point
Let’s be clear from the outset: the assertion that Ottawa has “confirmed 14 additional aircraft, bringing the planned fleet to more than 100” does not correspond to what has been publicly established. The official Canadian program remains that of the Future Fighter Capability Project, namely 88 F-35As. This is stated in black and white on the Canadian government’s website. In January 2023, Ottawa approved the purchase of 88 aircraft to replace the CF-18s, with the first delivery to the United States in 2026, arrival in Canada in 2028, initial operational capability between 2029 and 2030, and full capability between 2032 and 2034.
What changed in February 2026 is more technical. Mark Carney’s government confirmed preliminary spending on long-lead items related to 14 additional aircraft. This does not constitute a definitive signature for a new complete batch outside the 88-aircraft plan. Above all, it means that Ottawa is paying a limited amount to secure components to be ordered well in advance, in order to retain industrial options and not slip down the production line. Aviation Week and AeroTime summarize the situation in a similar way: Canada is keeping its options open, but has not announced a new fleet target above the official plan.
In other words, it would be more accurate to speak of an interim industrial commitment than a clear political order. The important number today is not 102. It is 30: 16 aircraft firmly committed, plus 14 aircraft for which critical supplies are beginning to be secured. The official ceiling remains at 88, although Ottawa suggested in 2025 that the final purchase structure could still be adjusted.
The F-35 was chosen because it fits with NORAD’s logic and the scale of the territory
The choice of the F-35 was not made for symbolic reasons. It was selected after a competition in which it remained in the final round against the Saab Gripen, then ranked first by Ottawa. The Canadian government puts forward a simple point: a modern fighter jet is essential for defending Canadian sovereignty and meeting NORAD and NATO commitments. For a continent-sized country that must monitor vast northern approaches and remain interoperable with the United States, this argument carries considerable weight.
The F-35 offers several structural advantages in this regard. First, its data fusion: it combines radar, electro-optical sensors, infrared sensors, data links, and onboard processing to give the pilot a more integrated tactical picture than that of a previous-generation fighter. Second, its stealth, which is not only useful for striking; it also improves survivability in scenarios where interception can quickly shift to a more contested environment. Finally, its interoperability with the US NORAD architecture reduces coordination friction. This last point is extremely important above the Arctic, where decision-making time is often short and deployment options are limited.
Canada is therefore not just buying a “fighter jet.” It is buying a flying sensor node, integrated into a broader surveillance and warning architecture. This is exactly the logic behind its northern modernization: aircraft, refueling, radars, polar communications, advanced infrastructure, and shared operational imagery. Seen from this angle, the F-35 is not an isolated solution; it is part of a system.
The F-35 is credible in the Arctic, but it is not enough on its own
When it comes to the polar region, we must avoid clichés. The F-35 is not an “Arctic aircraft” in the sense that an aircraft would be naturally designed for ice. It remains a complex fighter, demanding in terms of maintenance, sensitive to the quality of support, and dependent on robust logistics. However, it has been certified for extreme cold, notably during tests in Alaska, and Canada itself highlights a very concrete feature in its official specifications: the drag chute capability for operations on short, wet, or icy runways in the Arctic. This is not a minor detail.
In the North, it’s not just about flying. It’s also about being able to decelerate and operate safely on more constrained infrastructure.
The Canadian government also highlights a set of features that matter directly in the Far North: advanced radar, electro-optical and infrared sensors, advanced voice and data communications, and networking capabilities. This does not mean that Canada has announced an entirely new suite of “specifically polar” sensors. At this stage, what is public is mainly the integration of a set of high-level sensors, useful in all theaters, but particularly valuable in an environment where long-range identification, weather, and the scarcity of relays make every piece of information critical.
The real weakness, therefore, is not the aircraft itself, but the context in which it is used. In the Arctic, distances are immense, bases are scattered, technical support is difficult, and the weather can severely disrupt operations. A high-performance F-35 without a robust supply chain, refueling capabilities, suitable runways, and early warning remains a partially constrained asset. That is why Ottawa is investing in parallel in the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar, polar communications, and northern support hubs. The fighter does not replace infrastructure. It consumes it.
Polar technology relies less on “magic” sensors than on the entire ecosystem
The idea of “integrating sensors specifically designed for polar conditions” must be handled with care. To date, Ottawa has not announced a package of exotic sensors specifically designed for ice or the northern lights. What does exist, however, is a combination of very concrete building blocks. First, there is the drag chute, already officially promoted for Arctic runways. Then there is Canada’s participation in the Australia Canada United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL), where the Canadian flag was raised at the end of 2024. This means that Canada is now part of the team developing the F-35’s mission data files. These files are essential: they adapt the threat library, signatures, and part of the tactical behavior of the sensors to specific contexts of use.
This is where part of the adaptation to the North comes into play. In a polar environment, the detection, identification, and prioritization of air and sea tracks do not depend solely on powerful radar. They also depend on the quality of the software processing, the threat databases, and how the aircraft fits into the warning and command network. The F-35 is a software-intensive aircraft, so its relevance in the Arctic depends as much on its sensors as on the quality of its re-parameterization.
The third level of adaptation is external to the aircraft. Canada is investing C$38.6 billion over 20 years in the modernization of NORAD, which includes the A-OTHR program. This over-the-horizon radar is expected to reach initial operational capability by the end of 2029 and aims to massively expand situational awareness over northern approaches. This is, in fact, the most important “polar sensor” for Canadian defense: not a gadget mounted on the aircraft, but a very long-range detection network capable of seeing earlier.
Compared to other aircraft, the F-35 dominates in terms of information, not simplicity
Comparing the F-35 to other aircraft in the Arctic requires looking beyond the slogans. Compared to the CF-18 it replaces, the difference is clear. The Canadian Hornet remains a robust aircraft, but it belongs to another era in terms of data fusion, radar stealth, networked warfare, and survivability against modern defenses. For a traditional air policing mission, a CF-18 can still do the job. For an area where early warning, threat tracking, and coordination with NORAD are key, the F-35 is objectively on another level.
When compared to an aircraft such as the Gripen E, the debate is more nuanced. The Gripen has the advantage of a lighter support logic, a simpler dispersion philosophy, and a reputation for operational robustness that is attractive for austere environments. This is one of the reasons why it was a finalist in Canada. But the F-35 retains a major advantage in stealth, sensor fusion quality, and native integration with the US ecosystem. In the Canadian Arctic, where the core mission remains the defense of the continent alongside the United States, this structural advantage carries significant weight. This is also why Ottawa ranked it ahead of Saab.
So let’s be clear: from the perspective of strictly national sovereignty and simplified maintenance, another aircraft could have been part of the debate. From the perspective of NORAD’s high level of integration, the F-35 remains the most logical choice, even if it is more expensive and more difficult to support.
The Canadian budget has changed in scale, and this is now a political issue
Cost has become the other issue in this case. When the announcement was made in 2023, the contract was presented as being worth around $19 billion CAD. But in June 2025, the Auditor General of Canada indicated that the projected cost for the 88 aircraft had now reached C$27.7 to 33.2 billion, an increase of at least 45%. The reasons are well known: exchange rate fluctuations, infrastructure inflation, schedule slippages, and support costs. The problem is no longer marginal. It has become central.
This overspending is all the more significant given that Canada must simultaneously finance its entire northern strategy: over-the-horizon radar, refueling aircraft, polar space communications, advanced infrastructure, MQ-9B drones, P-8A Poseidon drones, support hubs, Arctic patrol vessels and, more broadly, military buildup in the North. The F-35 does not absorb the entire budget, but it now weighs heavily enough to compete with other priorities. This explains the periodic temptation to adjust the format or even consider a different fleet mix.
The Canadian government therefore finds itself in an uncomfortable position: reducing the scope would weaken the coherence of the NORAD system; maintaining the full trajectory exposes it to sustained budgetary pressure. This is not an abstract debate. It is a trade-off between quantity, interoperability, industrial sovereignty, and financial sustainability.
Canada’s Arctic strategy is now a mix of continental defense and political signaling
The Canadian Arctic is no longer a quiet backyard. Ottawa is now saying it more bluntly: the region is attracting increased geopolitical attention, and Canada is strengthening its presence throughout 2026 through Operation NANOOK, Operation LIMPID, Operation LATITUDE, and its participation in allied activities such as ARCTIC SENTRY. The official strategy is based on three pillars: detection, presence, and interoperability.
Russia remains the most obvious military driver of this posture, particularly through its air and submarine capabilities in the Far North. China, for its part, plays a more indirect but growing role, through its strategic, scientific, logistical, and economic interest in Arctic routes and resources. Canada no longer treats these dynamics as separate. It is strengthening a system designed to monitor North American approaches, assert its sovereignty, and show its allies that it no longer entirely outsources the security of the North.
This is where the F-35 comes into its own. It is not a symbol of absolute air dominance over the Arctic. It is part of a broader defense architecture designed to make up for Canada’s longstanding shortcomings in surveillance, response, and persistence in the North. It would be a mistake to believe that a new aircraft alone can solve the problem. The Arctic is controlled first and foremost by continuous presence, detection networks, logistics, and the ability to endure. The F-35 gives Canada a better spearhead. It does not exempt Ottawa from building everything else behind it.
The real question is no longer “to buy or not to buy,” but “how much and for what purpose.”
The Canadian debate on the F-35 has long revolved around a false dilemma: for or against the aircraft. That stage is now over. Canada is already committed. The real question now concerns the final format of the fleet, the budgetary consistency of the program, and the country’s ability to turn this purchase into a concrete advantage in the Arctic.
If Ottawa maintains its trajectory of close to 88 aircraft, it will consolidate its NORAD alignment and its credibility in defending the North. If it significantly reduces the volume, it will lighten the bill but undermine the logic of mass, rotation, and availability. If it imagines that a simple additional tranche of 14 aircraft will resolve the issue, it is mistaken in its level of analysis. The real issue is not a micro-batch. It is Canada’s ability to finance a comprehensive Arctic system, where fighters, radars, refueling aircraft, infrastructure, and crews all work together. It is there, and nowhere else, that Canadian sovereignty in the Far North will be played out.
Live a unique fighter jet experience