Key Points: Cutting Canada’s F-35 order to just 16 jets for European alternatives like Gripen would be a strategic mistake driven by political reaction to the US, not sound defense policy.
-The F-35 provides superior capabilities beyond stealth—its networking and seamless NORAD integration are crucial for Canada.
Gripen Figher Jet. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-Sovereignty arguments against the F-35 are flawed, as European fighters also rely on US parts.
-Operating a small, mixed F-35/Gripen fleet would create a logistical nightmare and weaken defense.
-Proceeding with the full F-35 purchase remains Canada’s most pragmatic option for capability and interoperability, despite political tensions.
What Does Canada Do If It Cuts the F-35 Fighters Purchase To Just 16?
Canada is waffling again about whether to buy the F-35.
Ottawa is considering purchasing the Swedish JAS-39 Gripen instead of the Lightning II.
Saab, the manufacturer of the Gripen, has promised to build factories in Canada to produce spare parts, and possibly even an aircraft manufacturing plant to produce the Gripen in Canada, bringing jobs and industrial infrastructure to its ally’s territory.
But Canada has already paid for at least 16 F-35s.
What do they do with only 16 F-35s, if they decide to cut the remaining 72 aircraft in the contract?
The Canadian F-35 Fiasco Is a Mistake of Its Own Choosing
The F-35 program has evolved over time, with foreign ally nations joining in. Those partners include Canada, which indeed was the first nation to sign on.
Canada’s contribution was $160 million, which allowed Canadian firms to bid for and acquire contracts for parts and components. Between 1997 and 2021, these contracts generated $1.3 billion.
Canada opted to buy 88 F-35s. Its planned purchase held up even after 2015, when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party government canceled the purchase and reopened a search for a fighter jet to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s obsolescent CF-18s.
The F-35, however, remained among the possible choices, and the Trudeau government in 2022 belatedly ate crow, saying it would purchase 88 Lightning IIs for $19 billion.
The Royal Canadian Air Force is expected to have a squadron in operation in 2029, and all the aircraft in hand by 2032. The first 16 F-35s, already paid for, are scheduled to arrive in 2026.
Fast forward 10 years, and new Prime Minister Mark Carney, in one of his first official acts, directed Defense Minister Bill Blair to consider canceling a substantial part of Canada’s order of F-35 fighter jets.
Saab Gripen E. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
“We have alternatives to the F-35, so we will explore those, as the ministers of defense and procurement will explore how the F-35 program could be adjusted, including greater investment here in Canada, greater production here in Canada,” Carney said at a press conference.
“The prime minister has asked me to go and examine those things and have discussions with other sources, particularly where there may be opportunities to assemble those fighter jets in Canada,” Blair said.
Canada’s Reasoning: Sovereignty or Silliness?
This is not happening because the F-35 suddenly doesn’t meet requirements, or because new technology has emerged. No, it is because Donald Trump is back in the White House.
Canada, like the United Kingdom across the pond, has decided that it is too dependent on the U.S. for security and is using some of Trump’s tariff threats and bombastic statements about Canada’s potential as the “51st state” to wave the sovereignty flag.
So, Ottawa once again waffles on buying the F-35 because it worries about their national sovereignty. But Canada has been operating American aircraft for years—to say nothing of the cooperation between the countries within NATO and as part of NORAD, which has endured for decades.
So, the F-35 and its parts-manufacturing business, which supports NATO and the U.S., is a threat to national sovereignty. But the Gripen is not? That’s the silliness of it all. So, Canadian politicians are willing to sacrifice their national defense and integration with other NATO partners for a lesser product.
And don’t forget, the Gripen’s engine is made in the United States, as are its missiles.
This would be a mistake, but Canada currently doesn’t have answers to the most basic of questions. What does it want its armed forces even to be?
The continued seesaw over the F-35 shows that Canada has no strategy, and that isn’t due to Trump.
The U.S.-Canadian partnership in NORAD, along with the U.S. Air Force’s F-22s and F-35s based in Alaska, and the projected RCAF’s F-35s, all are intended to defend North America’s airspace against Russia and China. The F-35 can seamlessly interact with NORAD’s systems — a capacity no other fighter is likely to have.
One thing that politicians keep forgetting is that the stealth features of the stealth fighter are hardly the sole selling point of the aircraft.
The F-35 is much more than a fighter; it’s an intelligence-gathering, stealth-enabled, data-fusing node designed to operate as part of a larger, digitally integrated force. That’s exactly what Canada needs for the Arctic, for NORAD, and for the kinds of coalition operations it claims to want to support.
Killing the F-35 contract then opens up the question: what would Canada do with just 16 fighters paired with 72 European aircraft? Maintaining two distinct planes will increase the cost of maintenance, spare parts, and training. Canada has traditionally shied away from such a prospect.
Is Canada’s national security worth thumbing your collective noses at Trump? It is not, though it may feel good for a minute. Still, stranger things have happened on the global stage.
About the Author:
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications.
