Canada Rethinks F-35 Fleet as Gripen Offer Promises Local Production

Canada is reportedly reassessing the future of its fighter fleet as Ottawa weighs a possible shift away from a full 88-aircraft F-35 purchase and considers a mixed force built around both the Lockheed Martin F-35A and Saab Gripen. The idea under discussion would preserve a smaller fleet of around 30 F-35s while adding roughly 60 Swedish Gripen fighters, creating a split fleet that could reduce Canada’s dependence on U.S. defence supply chains and expand domestic aerospace production.

The reported reassessment marks a significant moment in Canada’s long-running effort to replace its aging CF-18 fighters. Ottawa selected the F-35 in 2023 after years of debate, but changing political, industrial and strategic conditions have reopened questions about whether Canada should rely almost entirely on a U.S.-built fighter ecosystem for the next generation of its combat airpower.

The possible mixed-fleet model would give Canada two different types of capability. The F-35 would remain the country’s high-end fifth-generation fighter, providing stealth, sensor fusion and deep interoperability with the United States and NATO allies. That would be especially important for NORAD, NATO commitments and missions where low observability and advanced networking are essential.

The Gripen would serve a different purpose. Saab’s fighter is being presented as a lower-cost, highly flexible multirole aircraft that can operate from dispersed bases, require less infrastructure and offer Canada greater control over sustainment, upgrades and local industrial participation. For a country with vast airspace, remote northern regions and long-term Arctic defence requirements, those factors could carry major weight.

The strongest part of Saab’s offer is not only the aircraft itself, but the industrial package around it. Saab has reportedly proposed local assembly, technology transfer, sovereign maintenance capabilities, software and engineering participation, and a wider Canadian research and development base. In practical terms, this would turn the fighter decision into an industrial strategy as much as a military purchase.

That is why the Gripen proposal is gaining attention. Instead of limiting Canadian companies to participation in a global supply chain controlled largely from outside the country, Saab’s model is being framed around building more of the aircraft’s production and support ecosystem inside Canada. Such a plan could create thousands of jobs and strengthen Canada’s aerospace sector, particularly if future export production is included.

One of the most politically important elements is the Ukraine angle. Saab has reportedly offered a concept in which Canadian facilities could produce Gripen fighters not only for the Royal Canadian Air Force, but potentially for Ukraine as well. If that idea develops, Canada could become a North American production hub for Gripen, linking Canadian industry, Swedish technology and future Ukrainian air force modernization.

That would be a major shift from the traditional procurement model. Canada would not simply be buying aircraft; it would be positioning itself as a manufacturing and sustainment base for a wider fighter programme. The idea is especially attractive at a time when Western countries are trying to increase defence industrial capacity and support Ukraine over the long term.

The debate also follows Canada’s recent move toward Saab in another major airpower programme. Ottawa has entered negotiations with Saab for GlobalEye airborne early warning and control aircraft, a system based on Saab’s Erieye ER radar and the Canadian-made Bombardier Global 6500 airframe. That decision suggests that Canada is increasingly willing to consider non-U.S. defence solutions when they offer stronger domestic industrial benefits and sovereign capability.

For Canada, the broader question is how much strategic dependence on the United States is acceptable. Canadian defence procurement has long been closely tied to American systems, sustainment networks and industrial structures. But recent political and trade tensions have made supply chain dependence and foreign leverage more sensitive issues in Ottawa.

A full F-35 fleet would offer major operational advantages, but it would also lock Canada deeper into the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter ecosystem. A mixed F-35-Gripen fleet would reduce that exposure while still preserving access to fifth-generation combat capability. It would be a compromise: Canada would keep the F-35 for the most demanding missions, while using Gripen to provide additional fleet mass, lower operating costs and stronger domestic industrial returns.

The operational trade-offs are real. Running two fighter types would create more complexity for the Royal Canadian Air Force. Training, maintenance, logistics, weapons integration and long-term sustainment would all become more complicated than operating a single type. Canada would need to decide whether the industrial and strategic benefits of diversification outweigh the cost and complexity of a split fleet.

Still, there are reasons the idea could appeal to Ottawa. Gripen was designed for rapid servicing, dispersed operations and lower support demands. Saab has promoted the aircraft as suitable for countries that need a capable fighter without the full cost and infrastructure footprint of heavier stealth aircraft. That could make it useful for air policing, Arctic patrols, quick reaction alert, training and lower-intensity missions, while the F-35 remains focused on high-end stealth operations.

The legal and financial side may also leave room for change. Canada is already tied to an initial batch of F-35s, and abandoning the programme completely would be costly and politically difficult. However, reports suggest the entire 88-aircraft purchase may not be fully locked through final production contracts. That gives Ottawa a potential path to reduce the total F-35 buy without cancelling the programme outright.

Such a decision would still carry diplomatic risk. Washington would likely view a major reduction in Canada’s F-35 order as a strategic signal, especially after decades of Canadian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter programme. It could also affect Canadian companies involved in the F-35 supply chain. But for Ottawa, the counterargument is that defence procurement should support national resilience, not only alliance integration.

If Canada moves forward with a split fleet, the decision would have consequences far beyond the Royal Canadian Air Force. It would give Saab a major North American breakthrough, strengthen Sweden’s position in the global fighter market and potentially create a new industrial bridge between Canada, Sweden and Ukraine. It would also show that even close U.S. allies are reassessing how much of their future defence capability should depend on American supply chains.

For now, no final decision has been announced. The mixed-fleet option remains under consideration, and the final outcome will depend on cost, politics, industrial guarantees, military requirements and Canada’s relationship with Washington. But the direction of the debate is clear: Canada’s fighter choice is no longer only about which aircraft replaces the CF-18.

It is about whether Canada wants its next fighter programme to also build domestic industrial power, reduce foreign dependence and give Ottawa more control over the future of its air force.