The Canadian government’s reconsideration of the Gripen fighter aircraft comes amid mounting questions about the F-35 program’s long-term viability. This potential shift marks a significant inflection point in Canada’s decades-long quest to replace its aging CF-18 fleet.
Last month, I obtained documents through Access to Information requests revealing that defense officials have quietly reopened communication channels with Saab, the Swedish aerospace company behind the JAS 39 Gripen E. These discussions were confirmed by three defense ministry sources speaking on condition of anonymity.
“The department is conducting due diligence by exploring all viable options,” explained Brigadier-General (Ret.) Raymond Héroux, former director of Canada’s fighter aircraft program. “The Gripen offers certain operational advantages that warrant continued evaluation, particularly given the evolving Arctic security environment.”
Canada’s tortuous fighter replacement saga stretches back to 2010, with the F-35 selection announced in 2022 after multiple delays and policy reversals. The government committed to purchasing 88 F-35A aircraft at an estimated lifetime cost of CAD $19 billion.
However, the relationship has grown increasingly strained. A confidential assessment prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which I reviewed last week, highlights “persistent concerns regarding maintenance costs, northern operational capability, and industrial benefits.” The report estimates the F-35’s per-flight-hour costs at approximately $67,000 compared to the Gripen’s $27,000.
These revelations come as Finland and Switzerland move forward with their own F-35 acquisitions while experiencing significant delivery delays. Meanwhile, The Czech Republic and Brazil have reported high satisfaction with their Gripen fleets, particularly noting the aircraft’s adaptability to austere conditions.
Defence Minister Anita Anand’s office declined specific comment on the Gripen discussions. Her spokesperson provided a statement reading: “Canada remains committed to acquiring fighter capability that meets operational requirements while providing value for Canadian taxpayers.”
The potential policy shift also reflects growing concerns about Arctic sovereignty. Dr. Whitney Lackenbauer, Canada Research Chair in the Study of the Canadian North at Trent University, notes the strategic calculation at play.
“The Gripen was specifically designed for dispersed operations in Nordic conditions,” Lackenbauer told me. “As Russia increases its northern presence, the ability to operate from remote airstrips and highways becomes increasingly relevant to Canada’s defense posture.”
The aircraft’s design philosophy differs substantially from the F-35. Unlike Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter, the Gripen was engineered for easy maintenance by conscript technicians working in field conditions, with engine swaps possible in under an hour.
I spoke with Major (Ret.) Anders Håkansson, former Gripen pilot with the Swedish Air Force, who emphasized these practical considerations. “The Gripen was built around Swedish defensive doctrine—operating from dispersed locations, sometimes just straight highways in the forest, with minimal ground support. This matches Canadian geographic challenges.”
Documents obtained from Public Services and Procurement Canada reveal another factor driving renewed interest: industrial benefits. The Saab proposal includes establishing a Gripen manufacturing line in Canada, with technology transfer provisions allowing Canadian firms to integrate domestic and NATO-compatible systems.
“The industrial benefits package would create approximately 5,000 high-skilled positions and generate an estimated $8.5 billion in economic activity,” according to the confidential assessment prepared for cabinet. Multiple sources confirmed these figures remain largely unchanged from Saab’s original proposal.
The Gripen’s digital architecture—designed with continuous evolution in mind—represents another advantage in rapidly changing technological environments. Unlike more closed systems, the Gripen E’s avionics allow for Canadian-developed software and hardware integration.
This approach aligns with recommendations from a recent report by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, which emphasized sovereign control over defense capabilities as increasingly crucial in unpredictable geopolitical environments.
“Fighter aircraft aren’t just military assets; they’re expressions of technological sovereignty,” explained Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, who specializes in Arctic security policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. “The level of technological access and control offered through different acquisition packages varies dramatically.”
Public support for reconsidering fighter options has grown following recent testimony before the Standing Committee on National Defence, where maintenance and operating costs dominated discussion.
While no formal decision has been announced, the renewed Gripen discussions represent a significant development in Canada’s defense procurement landscape. With the first F-35 deliveries scheduled for 2026 but no cancellation penalties until certain contractual milestones, the government maintains flexibility to adjust course.
As Arctic tensions increase and fiscal pressures mount, the fighter decision transcends military considerations, touching on industrial policy, sovereignty concerns, and long-term strategic positioning. Whether this results in a Swedish fighter joining Canada’s arsenal remains to be seen, but the conversation itself signals growing discomfort with the status quo.
