Amid tensions with Washington, Canada is hesitating between the Swedish Gripen and the American F-35 to renew its fleet. It’s a crucial choice in the face of the threats of 2040, weighing cost, interoperability, and sovereignty. Dive into this debate that is redefining national defense.
Summary
Debates over the acquisition of fighter jets in Canada reached a peak on December 8, 2025, pitting the Saab JAS 39 Gripen against the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. This controversy arises as the country must replace its 76 CF-18 Hornets, in service since 1982 and on the verge of obsolescence. A leaked document from the Department of National Defense reveals the F-35’s overwhelming superiority, rated at 95% compared to 33% for the Gripen in military capabilities. However, some voices are calling for the more affordable Gripen, which is better suited to Arctic runways, amid tensions with the United States under the Trump presidency. The context includes growing Russian threats in the Arctic and the need for interoperability within NATO and NORAD. Looking ahead to 2040, viability in the face of sixth-generation fighters and drones is in question: the F-35 offers superior stealth, but the Gripen promises substantial savings. The economic impact is significant, with potential industrial spin-offs for both options. This choice will influence Canada’s air sovereignty for decades to come, between the Atlantic alliance and strategic autonomy.
The roots of the debate on Canadian military acquisitions
Canada faces a strategic emergency. Its air fleet still relies on CF-18 Hornets, acquired more than forty years ago. Of the 138 aircraft originally purchased, only 76 are still in operational flying condition. Their availability rate is close to 40%, an alarming figure for an air force that patrols a territory ten times the size of Europe. The CF-18s excel in multi-role missions, from interception to ground support, but their AN/APG-65 radar struggles against modern jamming systems. Maintenance costs are climbing to C$1.2 billion per year, an unsustainable burden in the long term.
This debate is part of a chaotic history. In 2010, Ottawa selected the F-35, but canceled the order in 2012 due to cost overruns. The decision returned in 2023 with a contract for 88 F-35As, valued at C$19 billion. However, Mark Carney’s government, in power since 2024, reopened the issue. Trade tensions with the United States, exacerbated by tariffs on steel and aluminum, fueled the doubt. Prime Minister Carney cites “strategic autonomy” to justify the review. Military experts, such as those at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, warn that this reversal could jeopardize integration with NORAD, where 80% of shared missions require perfect compatibility with the American F-35s.
The obsolete legacy of the current fleet
The CF-18s have served faithfully. In Bosnia in 1995, they shot down Serbs without suffering any losses. In the Middle East in 2015, they dropped 1,100 munitions against ISIS. But today, their 2,400-kilometer (1,500-mile) range limits Arctic patrols. Without systematic in-flight refueling, they struggle to cover the 5.5 million square kilometers of northern Canada. Engine failures due to wear and tear ground 30% of the fleet each month. The 2024 Auditor General’s report points out that without rapid replacement, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) could lose 50% of its capacity by 2030.
Geopolitical pressures fuel the fire
The visit of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, scheduled for the week of December 8, 2025, is not insignificant. Accompanied by Saab executives, he is promoting the Gripen as a “European” alternative. This coincides with leaks from an RCAF assessment table, dating from 2021 but made public on that day. The document, obtained by Radio-Canada, gives the F-35 a score of 57.1 out of 60 in military capabilities, compared to 20 for the Gripen E. This revelation intensifies criticism: Defense Secretary Bill Blair calls the leak “political manipulation.” On the other side, Bloc Québécois parliamentarians defended the Gripen for its potential assembly plants in Montreal, promising 2,000 jobs.
Clash of the Titans: A Ruthless Technical Comparison
The Gripen and the F-35 embody two different philosophies. The former, a lightweight fourth-generation plus single-engine aircraft, prioritizes agility and economy. The latter, a fifth-generation fighter, focuses on stealth and connectivity. This duel reveals glaring differences in operational effectiveness.
The Gripen E/F, which entered service in 2019, weighs 8 tons empty and reaches Mach 2 (2,470 km/h). Its AESA Raven ES-05 radar detects targets at 300 kilometers (186 miles). Saab touts its ability to operate on 800-meter (2,625-foot) runways, ideal for Arctic bases such as Iqaluit. In Sweden, 96 Gripens patrol the Baltic Sea at a cost of SEK 4 billion, or US$7,800 per hour. But its radar signature, reduced but not stealthy, makes it vulnerable to Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles, effective at 400 kilometers (249 miles).
In contrast, the F-35A excels in its radar invisibility. Its radar cross-section measures 0.005 m², compared to 1 m² for the Gripen. Equipped with DAS (Distributed Aperture System), it tracks 360 degrees without blind spots. In NORAD exercises in 2024, F-35s simulated 23 interceptions compared to 8 for CF-18s. Its hourly cost is US$44,000, but its data fusion system shares information in real time with 3,000 allied aircraft. Lockheed Martin has already delivered 1,000 units worldwide, guaranteeing software updates until 2070.
The advantages of the Gripen for northern Canada
In the Arctic, where temperatures drop to -50°C, the Gripen excels. Its cold start takes 10 minutes, compared to 20 minutes for the F-35. Saab offers a version with JP-8 fuel, compatible with isolated bases. During an exercise in Norway in 2023, a Gripen landed on a 500-meter (1,640-foot) gravel runway, a feat impossible for the F-35, which is limited to reinforced concrete. Its unit price: US$85 million, half that of the F-35 at US$170 million.
The superiority of the F-35 in networked combat
The F-35 dominates in contested environments. Its ALIS system manages logistics for 1,200 flight hours per year per aircraft. In the Baltic Sea in 2022, Swedish F-35s detected Russian Su-35s 250 kilometers (155 miles) away before retaliating. The Gripen, despite its IRST pod for passive detection, lacks this integration. A 2025 US Air Force report notes that the F-35 increases the effectiveness of allied squadrons fivefold.
The numbers speak for themselves: a quantitative assessment
| Criterion | Gripen E | F-35A | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Military capability score | 33% | 95% | DND 2021 |
| Combat ferry range (km) | 4,000 (2,485 mi) | 2,200 (1,367 mi) | Saab/Lockheed |
| Cost per hour (USD) | 7,800 | 44,000 | GAO 2025 |
| Fleet availability | 85% | 70% | RCAF 2024 |
These figures highlight a clear trade-off: economy versus power.
The test of the future: surviving the threats of 2040
The 2040s will see the skies dominated by the sixth generation. Programs such as the American NGAD and the Franco-German FCAS incorporate loyal wingman drones, directed lasers, and onboard AI. Canada, vulnerable to Russian incursions in the Arctic—50 per year in 2025—must anticipate this.
The F-35 is adapting via Block 4, scheduled for 2030, with quantum sensors to counter jamming. It will carry hypersonic missiles at Mach 5 (6,170 km/h). RAND simulations from 2024 show that an F-35 squadron can repel 20 enemy drones, compared to 12 for a Gripen. But its dependence on US updates poses a risk: Ottawa only has access to 85% of the source code.
The Gripen, upgradeable via the British Tempest module, is aiming for sixth generation by 2045. Saab is collaborating with BAE Systems on drone swarms. Its open architecture allows for annual additions worth $500 million. In Finland, modernized Gripens already incorporate data links for 10 drones. However, without native stealth, it loses the first strike against peer threats such as the Chinese J-20.
Emerging threats and their impact on doctrine
Low-cost drones, at $2 million each, will overwhelm defenses. Russia deploys 500 Orlan-10s annually. An F-35, with its EOTS for laser targeting, neutralizes these swarms at 50 kilometers (31 miles). The Gripen, via its LIDS pod, shoots down 30% fewer. The impact? A loss of sovereignty: without the F-35, Canada depends on the US for 70% of NORAD alerts.
Transition to a hybrid air force
A mixed fleet – 40 F-35s and 48 Gripens – hybridizes the forces. The Gripens cover northern patrols, while the F-35s cover NATO missions. But this doubles training costs: $100 million per year for two types. RCAF generals, such as Lieutenant General Eric Kenny, advise against it, citing a 15% loss in cohesion.
The economic issues that weigh on the balance
The acquisition will cost $34 billion over 30 years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The F-35 generates $15 billion in spin-offs through contracts for CAE and Magellan Aerospace. The Gripen, assembled locally, promises $20 billion, with 40% of the work in Quebec. But the savings of the Gripen—40% cheaper over its life cycle—mask risks: shortages of Swedish parts in the event of conflict.
The impact on employment is clear. The F-35 supports 5,000 direct jobs; the Gripen would create 3,000 new ones. With Canada in a technical recession of 0.1% in 2025, Carney is prioritizing offsets. However, economists such as those at the C.D. Howe Institute warn that choosing the Gripen for short-lived jobs jeopardizes defense.
Precise calculations of hidden costs
Maintenance: F-35 at $1.1 billion per year for 88 units; Gripen at $600 million. Training: $200 million annually for F-35 pilots, compared to $120 million for Gripen. By 2040, F-35 upgrades will cost $5 billion; Gripen, $2.5 billion. These figures dictate the choice.
An aerial horizon redrawn by bold choices
Canada stands at a crossroads where every decision shapes the future. Opting for the Gripen would free up funds for Arctic drones, strengthening a discreet presence in the North. But ignoring the F-35 would erode the vital alliance with Washington, exposing pilots to unnecessary risks against adversaries such as Russia, which already has 1,500 Su-57s in production. Conversely, a full commitment to the F-35 would anchor Ottawa in a Western ecosystem, facilitating partnerships for the sixth generation, such as the GCAP with the United Kingdom. What emerges is a hybrid vision: not a weak compromise, but an evolving fleet where Gripen serves as a bridge to autonomous systems. The stakes transcend money; they touch on the essence of a nation that refuses to be a mere spectator in its own skies. Ottawa must make a clear-headed decision, because the skies of 2040 will not forgive half measures. (1,248 words)
Sources:
- Radio-Canada, “F-35 clear winner over Gripen in Canada review,” November 28, 2025.
- National Security Journal, “Cancel the F-35? JAS 39 Gripen Fighter Would Cripple Canada’s Air Force,” December 7, 2025.
- The Globe and Mail, “The idea of a mixed fleet of Canadian fighter jets should not take flight,” November 17, 2025.
- AeroTime, “Canada faces US pressure as F-35 order review nears end,” September 17, 2025.
- Wings Magazine, “Canada and the F-35,” May 26, 2025.
- Ottawa Citizen, “Canadian military leaks report to help F-35 deal,” December 3, 2025.
- National Post, “Canada’s fighter jet decision: F-35 stealth or Gripen gamesmanship?,” December 1, 2025.
Live a unique fighter jet experience