By Kris Osborn, Warrior Canada may again be considering acquiring [https://defence-industry.eu/f-35-fighter-jets-ensnared-in-growing-trade-and-political-clash-between-u-s-and-canada/] larger numbers of Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen amidst ongoing ambiguity regarding its decision to buy large numbers of F-35s. The issue is tactical, strategic, geopolitical and financial, and there does not as of yet appear to be a clear or decisive path forward for Canada. Canada’s air force likely sees its defense obligations in a multi-faceted way, involving a need to defend North American airspace through NORAD, yet also contribute to expeditionary operations with NATO. Any replacement for the CF-18 Hornet fleet therefore has to meet both requirements, and this strategic reality informs much of the ongoing questions about Canada’s decision to sustain or increase its F-35 buy or acquire large numbers of 4th and 4.5 [https://nationalpost.com/opinion/richard-shimooka-all-the-ways-the-f-35-is-superior-to-the-gripen]-Gen aircraft such as the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. An interesting essay in Breaking Defense says Saab is again showing Gripen details and information with Canada to a greater extent. The F-35 is deeply integrated into U.S. and NATO air operations, designed from the outset to operate in contested airspace against advanced air defenses. Its stealth, sensor fusion, and data-sharing capabilities allow it to function as a node in a broader network rather than just a standalone aircraft. For NORAD, where Canada operates [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-f35-9.7059800]in lockstep with the United States, this interoperability mattered enormously. F-35 vs Gripen The Gripen, by contrast, represents a different philosophy. Saab designed it for smaller air forces operating close to home, emphasizing dispersed basing, low operating costs, and ease of maintenance. Gripen advocates argued that it was better suited to Canada’s geography, especially Arctic operations, where long distances, harsh weather, and limited infrastructure are constant challenges. The Gripen’s ability to operate from short or improvised runways was often highlighted as a uniquely Canadian advantage. [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/world/canada/norad-us-canada-security-agreement.html] Saab & Gripen Support Supporters of the Gripen argued that it offered lower acquisition and operating costs, as well as greater transparency. Saab also proposed extensive industrial benefits, including the transfer of intellectual property and guaranteed domestic maintenance work. This appealed to Canadian policymakers who wanted to strengthen national industry rather than simply buy into a U.S.-dominated supply chain. However, critics of the Gripen noted that Canada’s version would not be truly “off-the-shelf.” Canadian requirements—especially around communications, sensors, and NORAD integration—would have required significant customization. That raised doubts about whether the Gripen’s cost advantage would survive contact with reality. [https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-canada-airspace-fighter-jets-b2907807.html] Industrial participation became another dividing line. Saab promised Canada more control over sustainment and upgrades, reinforcing arguments about sovereignty and independence from U.S. political constraints. In theory, this would allow [https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/mark-carney-trump-f35-fighter-jets-canada-airspace-b2914401.html]Canada to operate and modify its aircraft without relying on American approval. F-35 for Canada? The F-35, on the other hand, ties users into a global sustainment and software ecosystem managed largely by the United States. Critics worried this could limit Canada’s freedom of action, particularly if U.S. political priorities diverged from Canada’s. Yet the F-35 also offered industrial benefits of a different kind. Canadian companies were already embedded in the F-35 supply chain as partners, with contracts tied to performance rather than guaranteed offsets. Choosing the F-35 protected those existing [https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5723441-canada-reevaluates-f35-purchase/] roles and allowed Canadian firms to compete for work across the entire global fleet. The evolving nature of air combat ultimatel [https://www.eurasiantimes.com/1st-canadian-f-35-now-in-production/]y tilted the balance toward the F-35. Modern warfare increasingly revolves around sensors, data, and electronic warfare, not just speed or maneuverability. The F-35’s ability to detect, process, and share information across domains—air, land, sea, space, and cyber—gave it a qualitative edge. While the Gripen E is highly capable and features advanced avionics, it remains a fourth-generation aircraft operating in an environment where stealth and information dominance are becoming baseline requirements. Kris Osborn [https://nationalinterest.org/profile/kris-osborn] is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master's Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University
