Why Canada risks Trump's ire if it chooses Gripen gamesmanship over F-35 stealth

WASHINGTON, D.C. — It’s a high-flying tale of carrots, sticks and political flip-flops.

American leaders have been urging Canada to boost its military spending and NATO contributions since the alliance’s founding, back in 1949. Some, like former U.S. president Barack Obama, have been polite about it, encouraging Ottawa that “the world needs more Canada,” while others, especially U.S. President Donald Trump, have been more blunt, referring to Canadians as “freeloaders” who are “delinquent” on military contributions.

In other words, there has long been a bipartisan U.S. view on Canadian defence spending needs, and Ottawa has been pushed with both carrots and sticks to spend more.

So U.S. defence officials supported Canada’s 2022 selection of the F-35, with the intent of buying 88 U.S.-made jets, but political back-and-forths, reviews, and debates have meant that only 16 have been ordered to date. Earlier this year, amid Trump’s trade war and “51st state” rhetoric, and citing over-reliance on U.S. defence, Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review to inform his upcoming decision on the remaining 72 jet purchases.

As the Liberal government review winds down amid escalating trade tensions — including a warning from Ambassador Pete Hoekstra that a trade deal would be off without the F-35 buy — a debate has reignited, pitting Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter jet against Saab’s Gripen.

Leaked 2021 Department of National Defence data show the F-35 beat the Gripen, 95 to 33 per cent in an evaluation of their stealth and sensor fusion capabilities. But those who support the Gripen point to Arctic advantages, such as shorter take-offs and a job-creation pledge from Saab, while some military experts have cautioned that it could be a logistical nightmare.

Defence experts urge Canadian leaders to see the fighter jet purchase as a strategic choice, one that prioritizes military effectiveness and operational independence, over political reactions to U.S. pressure.

Stealth vs. jobs

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has said she would like to see more economic benefit from the F-35 and has described Swedish aerospace company Saab’s offer to create up to 10,000 Canadian jobs if Canada chooses the Gripen as “very interesting.” She would like to see more jobs offered by Lockheed Martin for the F-35.

But, in terms of ministerial support for the F-35, RCAF Deputy Minister Stephanie Beck has stressed the need for fifth-generation stealth capabilities as non-negotiable, which only the F-35 offers.

“Canada could choose a mixed fleet … to accrue more economic benefits,” said Philippe Lagassé, a Carleton University professor and procurement expert, noting how Saab has offered to build the Gripen in Canada.

But first, he added, Ottawa must “examine whether the Saab proposal is feasible and how much it would cost.”

Joly’s push for the Gripen plays into the anti-Trump sentiment that is popular these days in Canada, and to which many attribute Carney’s election win, according to Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow and defence expert at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

But, he said, it ignores the DND 2021 evaluation, in which the F-35 soundly beat the Gripen, and prioritizes politics over military assessments. Siding with the Gripen over Saab’s job promises, he added, is based on a “misunderstanding of aerospace development,” noting that 10,000 jobs is “completely unrealistic” given that the Gripen production today supports only around 4,000-5,000 direct and indirect jobs around the world.

“Part of the issue with the Joint Strike Fighter program,” Shimooka said, “is that you cannot actually get industrial benefits. That’s not how it operates.”

Canada joined the consortium early and competes globally for contracts on every F-35 built, securing some 2,500 direct jobs across more than 30 Canadian firms to date based on a “best value” Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allows competitive bidding for industrial work and ensures ongoing involvement, but not fixed quotas.

Chauncey McIntosh, F-35 VP and General Manager at Lockheed Martin, says, “Over 110 Canadian companies have contributed to the F-35 supply chain with $3 million in Canadian components in each jet in the current fleet … That’s before Canada receives its first aircraft.”

McIntosh added that Lockheed Martin expects to produce over C$15.5 billion in industrial value for Canada, with both the current and projected production opportunities, spanning from the 2007 start of the Joint Strike Fighter program through 2058.

The other consideration here is simply scale. There are over 1,200 F-35s in service today versus fewer than 400 Gripens, and the Gripen is older technology that has been online for nearly 20 years longer.

There has been a lot of media speculation over the possibility of Canada opting for a split buy, investing in both the F-35 and Gripen to hedge its bets, limiting its reliance on solely U.S.-built parts, and also embracing more European partnerships.

“The long-term costs of maintaining a mixed fleet would be much higher than a single fleet,” said Lagasse. “But the government may determine that these costs are worthwhile from a defence industrial perspective.”

Doing so would prolong the wait to be operational, said Shimooka, pointing to the need to set up two production pipelines and spend more money to include an “aircraft that’s less capable.”

Michael O’Hanlon, director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution think tank, said that a split buy is “easily the worst idea.”

“Canada doesn’t have a big enough military budget to be trying to please all people by buying six of this type and 12 of the other type,” he said.

Reducing the number of each plane with a split buy would elevate maintenance and training costs.

“Canada is already punching below its weight in terms of defence budget and the size of its air combat capabilities,” O’Hanlon added.

Politics, at what cost?

Trump hasn’t said anything publicly about the decision, but he’s not shy about voicing his frustrations with Canadian choices. He recently halted U.S.-Canada trade talks over a television ad sponsored by Ontario featuring Ronald Reagan talking negatively about tariffs.

“I think the Americans would react pretty negatively,” to Canada choosing something other than the F-35, said Shimooka, noting how so many American policymakers have tried to get Ottawa to acknowledge its lack of spending on defence spending and especially on continental security issues.

“My view is that we have been severely deficient in providing any security,” he added, noting how this has frustrated American politicians from both sides of the aisle for decades. “Then, finally, when we buy the fighter, and we go to Congress and say, ‘Look, we’re serious about our defence,’ … and then we turn around and almost potentially pull the plug on this program? It’s really hard for a lot of even proponents of Canada within the U.S. national security ecosystem to look at us as a reliable partner.”

Shimooka went so far as to suggest that Carney is using the review as a bargaining chip. “I think this is part of an effort to gain leverage over the United States on trade negotiations,” he said, advising against it.

“I don’t think it’s a great bargaining chip when you’ve already promised it. And if you pull the plug, the consequences (could be) even worse.”

Other experts suggest leaving politics out of the equation altogether.

“I think you’d better make your decision based on what you think is right for you. And if you have to disagree with Trump, just tell him why,” O’Hanlon said.

He noted that Canada can’t really go wrong with either plane. But when it comes to the stealth, compared to the Gripen, the F-35 is a “little more modern” and “harder to pick up on radar, which would matter if you were going into a heavily defended area.”

The review of the jet buys was supposed to be completed by the end of summer, but it remains unclear when Carney will make a final decision. The Department of National Defence is staying tight-lipped.

“The review of the F-35 is still ongoing as Canada continues to consider our Defence Industrial Strategy and work to ensure maximum economic benefits for our businesses and workers,” it said via email.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.