BEXTE: Fact Checking the F-35 Debate: Why Canada Must Stop Sabotaging Its Own Defence
Our pilots cannot be asked to confront modern threats in outdated fourth generation aircraft simply because Ottawa cannot resist reopening the same debate every few years.
Canada is once again circling the same drain it has for decades, repeatedly reopening settled defence decisions, second guessing its own experts, and allowing political theatre to override operational reality. The latest example is the push from some political voices to cancel or reduce the F-35 purchase and instead buy the far less capable JAS-39E Gripen, not because it is better, but because it is not American. This is not strategy. It is self inflicted paralysis, and our military is the one paying the price. The real question facing Canada is not whether we should buy the F-35. It is how many times we must choose the same aircraft before finally stopping this cycle of retreat.
In recent weeks, debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has resurfaced, driven far more by political narratives than by operational needs. The idea that Canada should abandon a fifth generation NATO standard fighter in favour of a fourth generation aircraft with limited global uptake simply to score political points reflects the same harmful habits that have derailed our procurement programs many times before.
The Sea King replacement fiasco remains the clearest example. In 1987 the Mulroney government selected the AgustaWestland EH101 to replace the aging Sea Kings. It was modern, widely used across NATO, and fully capable of meeting Canadian requirements. When the Chrétien government cancelled the contract in 1993 on purely political grounds, the country paid more than 500 million dollars in penalties and endured more than a decade of delay. The eventual purchase of the Sikorsky CH148 Cyclone created a helicopter that no other nation operates, with extensive custom development, repeated technical issues, and soaring costs. Aircrews were forced to keep ancient Sea Kings flying long past their safe lifespan while taxpayers covered the mounting bills.
Cancelling or reducing the F-35 program today would repeat the Cyclone disaster on a far larger scale. It would produce more delays, more wasted money, and a final capability that is inferior. This becomes even clearer when considering that Canada has already selected the F-35 three separate times. The Harper government chose it in 2010 and reaffirmed the selection in 2014. When the Trudeau government reopened the process in 2015, it spent nearly a decade searching for alternatives before choosing the F-35 again in 2023. During this period, the CF-18 fleet continued to age, and Canada spent roughly a billion dollars purchasing old Australian F-18s, many of which were cannibalized for parts. The Auditor General later confirmed that this was unnecessary to meet our obligations, meaning it amounted to money wasted simply to delay making the inevitable decision anyways.
Other countries do not engage in this self defeating behaviour. Finland selected the F-35 in 2021 and is already preparing to receive its first deliveries in 2026. Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all adopted the F-35 as their frontline fighter. The notion that Canada which has one of the largest airspaces in the world and a crucial role in continental defence still needs more studies is indefensible. Analysis is over. What Canada lacks now is aircraft.
Some argue that rejecting the F-35 would somehow be a way to make a political statement against the United States or against Donald Trump specifically. This line of thinking collapses immediately under scrutiny. Trump will leave office in 2029. Canada’s air sovereignty obligations will not. NORAD modernization will not. Russian militarization of the Arctic will not. The rapid evolution of stealth, electronic warfare, hypersonic threats, and unmanned teaming will not. Fourth generation fighters like the Gripen are simply not survivable in the threat environment Canada will face in the 2030s and 2040s. Stealth, sensor fusion, advanced data processing, and long range detection are no longer luxuries. They are minimum requirements for modern air combat. And of course, as mentioned previously, the Gripen will need American engines, Italian avionics, and likely American AMRAMM and Sidewinder air to air missiles anyways.
This reality is reflected in public opinion. A recent Nanos poll found that 40 percent of Canadians believe choosing the best fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force is the top priority, while only 28 percent prioritize maximizing domestic jobs. The jobs narrative used to promote the Gripen cannot withstand basic examination. Saab claims it could create 10,000 Canadian aerospace jobs by producing Gripens domestically, but Saab’s entire global aerospace workforce is only 8,000 people. This number also continues to magically rise as well, with another new estimate now saying 12,000 jobs instead of 10,000. The math does not work. Meanwhile the F-35 program already supports as many as 3,000 high skill Canadian jobs from over 30 suppliers tied to a long term multinational fleet, rather than a one off domestic production run of a niche aircraft.
Much is also made of the claim that the Gripen E is dramatically cheaper to operate than the F-35, but this argument also fails to hold water. While Saab and some advocates often cite eye-catching figures as low as eight thousand dollars per flight hour, those numbers typically reflect narrow accounting that excludes major cost drivers such as full maintenance, spares, long-term support, and personnel. When analysts compare like with like using comprehensive operating costs, the gap narrows substantially. Credible open-source estimates generally place the Gripen E at roughly fifteen to forty percent cheaper per flight hour than the F-35A, depending on assumptions and accounting methods. In other words, the Gripen is not “five times cheaper” to fly, nor does it deliver some transformative savings that justify sacrificing capability. Canada would be trading away survivability, interoperability, and future relevance in exchange for marginal operating savings that disappear the moment the aircraft is asked to perform high-end missions in a contested environment.
One question simplifies the entire debate. If the Gripen is the superior option, why has not a single Scandinavian country besides Sweden purchased it? Norway, Denmark, and Finland all thoroughly evaluated the Gripen E. All three selected the F-35. They did not do this because the aircraft is American, or because Lockheed bribed them. They did it because it is better. Modern air combat is determined by who detects first, who understands the battlespace first, and who fires first. The F-35 holds the advantage in each of these areas. In a recent leaked analysis of the F-35 versus the Gripen, the F-35 beat the Gripen by “a mile”, 95% to 33% in every category: mission performance, upgradability, sustainment, technical criteria and capability delivery. This was an analysis done by our own air force, not Lockheed Martin or any American group, which is quite telling.
Canada is a G7 nation with responsibility for the second largest airspace on the planet and a central role in the defence of North America. Our pilots cannot be asked to confront modern threats in outdated fourth generation aircraft simply because Ottawa cannot resist reopening the same debate every few years. The F-35 is not merely the best choice. It is the only choice that aligns with our alliances, our geography, our obligations, and the future of warfare. The longer we delay, the more money we waste, and the more capability we lose. If Canada is serious about defending its skies, meeting its NORAD commitments, and protecting its sovereignty, then it must end this cycle of indecision and fully commit to the F-35. We cannot continue sabotaging our own security by searching for reasons to avoid doing what every serious air force in the world has already done, and stop trying to save a buck. It is time to move forward.
An excellent article . I fully agree .
Please take note of the main points of this article and include them in a letter to your MP. Letters to MPs need no postage stamp.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the planes would fly in, drop bombs then fly away. Afghans had no air defence. Canadians need a strong air defence to prevent the same from happening here.
Don’t expect Americans to prevent bombing runs on Canadians.