Geopolitics of Canadian F-35 Fighter Jet Decision

Canadian Decision has Geopolitical Implications

Canada’s long-delayed decision on the F‑35 has become deeply politicized and that cancelling the purchase in favour of the Swedish Gripen would seriously damage North American defence cooperation and provoke a harsh reaction from the United States under President Trump. Taking into account historical precedent for U.S. insistence on continental defence, warns that the U.S. could assert operational control of Canadian bases or otherwise leverage trade and security ties, thus a prompt Canadian decision to buy the F‑35 to preserve sovereignty and continental defence. Key points:

• Canada’s F‑35 purchase has been contested for 15 years; a cancelled or reversed commitment would be politically tempting but strategically risky.
• Popular support has grown for the Gripen amid political anger with the U.S., but the Gripen is militarily inferior to the F‑35 for defending North America.
• Historical precedent (1940 Ogdensburg talks) and current U.S. National Security Strategy suggest Washington may take strong measures to ensure continental defence if Canada withdraws.
• Possible U.S. responses could include demanding access to Canadian bases, leveraging trade negotiations (e.g., USMCA), or other pressures short of invasion.
• Suggestions include that Canada should decide quickly to proceed with F‑35 acquisition to protect sovereignty and maintain strong continental defence cooperation.

Possibility of Mixed Fighter Fleet by Canada

Canada is reconsidering its 2022 plan to buy 88 F-35s and may adopt a mixed fighter fleet that includes Sweden’s Saab Gripen E. Saab could capture roughly half the program’s value if a split purchase proceeds. The debate is driven by industrial-return promises from Saab, political emphasis on strategic diversification by Prime Minister Mark Carney, and U.S. warnings about implications for NORAD interoperability. No final decision has been announced.

Other complicating factors are would Canada have the manpower to maintain two systems. In addition, the Saab Gripen has many US components including the jet engine made by General Electric, thus the argument for independence looks weaker in that light.

Ottawa may move from a full 88‑jet F‑35 buy toward a mixed fleet with Gripen E; Saab could win about half the replacement program value (per unnamed sources). Saab’s offer emphasizes domestic production and industrial benefits (claimed support for ~12,600 jobs, local workshare with partners like Bombardier) rather than only aircraft performance.

Polically, Prime Minister Mark Carney has pushed diversification and strategic autonomy themes since Davos, influencing the procurement review; a defense trade framework with the EU was signed in June 2025. However, U.S. officials, including Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, warn reducing the F‑35 purchase could alter NORAD arrangements and complicate interoperability.

Slow decision making in Canada on defence means the review follows a long, contentious fighter procurement history (2010–2022), with Canada originally picking the F‑35 in 2022 for interoperability and Arctic defense reasons; no final decision announced.

Strong Domestic Canadian Opinion Against F-35

The NDP is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to cancel Canada’s F‑35 fighter jet contracts — including 16 jets already committed — and instead buy Saab Gripen fighters from Sweden. NDP interim leader Don Davies argues Gripen would better align with Carney’s call for middle powers to cooperate and reduce dependence on the U.S. amid tensions with President Trump. Defence officials say procurement is under review; military leaders warn switching jets would raise costs and delay training and readiness. No final decision on the Royal Canadian Air Force’s future fighter fleet has been made. Key points:

• NDP proposes cancelling F‑35 purchases (16 already committed) and buying Swedish Gripen jets.
• Argument: Gripen supports “middle power” cooperation and reduces deep military integration with the U.S.
• Context: tensions with U.S. under President Trump and threats affecting aerospace trade prompted concern about reliance on U.S. defense supply.
• Government and defence leadership say procurement is under review; military warns switching aircraft would increase costs and complicate training/maintenance.

US-Canadian Defence Ties: Reality versus Talk

Canada has moved quickly to reduce its security dependence on the United States after confrontational actions by U.S. President Donald Trump exposed decades-long complacency. Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ottawa is pursuing a major, sustained military buildup—boosting defense spending, improving equipment readiness, strengthening Arctic infrastructure, raising troop pay and recruitment, and aiming to diversify defense industry ties toward European allies and NATO partners while preserving practical cooperation with the U.S.

The reality is Canada has been the laggard in NATO with little investment in defence for the past 20 to 30 years. Catching up now will be expensive. This was a result of being very complacent since the US would protect Canada no matter what. With threats in the Artic looming this is no longer the case. The tightly integrated US-Canadian defense relationship could hang in the balance.

• Political shift: Trump’s hostility prompted a strategic re-evaluation; Carney frames the moment as a rupture in the post‑WWII bargain that justified subordination to U.S. primacy.
• Big defense push: Canada plans to sharply increase military spending (targets include tripling spending over a decade and reaching 5% of GDP in core security investments by 2035), improves recruitment/retention, and prioritizes basic capabilities and infrastructure.
• Readiness gaps: A 2023 internal report showed large percentages of unserviceable equipment across Army, Navy and Air Force, revealing decades of underinvestment.
• Arctic vulnerability: Canada’s vast, sparsely defended Arctic is a growing strategic weakness as Russia expands its northern military and economic presence; Ottawa’s budget includes a $730M Arctic Infrastructure Fund.
• Industry and interoperability: Canadian defense firms remain tightly integrated with U.S. supply chains (over half of exports go to the U.S.), but government policy aims to grow exports to Europe and fill NATO needs while maintaining NORAD and practical U.S. cooperation.
• Public support: Polling shows strong Canadian backing for higher defense spending, driven by distrust of U.S. leadership under Trump and concerns about global threats (U.S. and Russia ranked top perceived threats).