Newly released internal data obtained by Radio-Canada shows that the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II was the overwhelming top-scoring aircraft in Canada’s fighter competition, outperforming Saab’s Gripen E by a wide margin across all major capability categories.
The evaluation was conducted in 2021 as part of the Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP), Canada’s second attempt in over a decade to replace its aging CF-18 fleet, following an earlier procurement effort that collapsed amid cost concerns and political controversy.
The FFCP restarted the process with new requirements, independent scoring and a commitment to a competitive open tender. Dassault withdrew due to Five Eyes interoperability and security constraints; Airbus exited, arguing the terms favored the F-35; and Boeing’s Super Hornet was later disqualified, leaving only the F-35 and Gripen in the final evaluation.
According to the Radio-Canada documents, the F-35 scored 57.1 out of 60 points (95%), while the Gripen E achieved 19.8 points (33%). Both aircraft met Canada’s mandatory requirements, but their performance diverged sharply once rated operational criteria were applied. Several experts, along with representatives from both competing manufacturers, told Radio-Canada they had never seen the precise evaluation figures before their release.
F-35 dominated all five rated categories
According to the table obtained by Radio-Canada, the F-35 significantly outperformed the Gripen in every category:
| Category | Weight | F-35 Score (%) | Gripen Score (%) |
| Mission Performance | 52% | 97% | 22% |
| Upgradability | 28% | 100% | 28% |
| Sustainment | 11% | 85% | 81% |
| Technical Criteria | 6% | 86% | 55% |
| Capability Delivery | 2% | 67% | 54% |
The most striking gap was in mission performance, where the F-35 scored nearly five times higher than the Gripen. Saab’s best performance was in sustainment, where the Gripen earned 81%, still trailing the F-35’s 85%.
The F-35’s overall score, 57.113 points, placed it near the top of the evaluation scale, while the Gripen’s 19.762 fell below one-third of the achievable total.
Scoring gap adds pressure to Canada’s fighter choices
The data has emerged at a time when Ottawa is reviewing its decision to purchase 88 F-35s, following a directive from Prime Minister Mark Carney amid rising trade tensions with the United States.
Former Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin (2012–2015) also reacted to the renewed debate during an interview on Montréal’s 98.5 FM, underlining the stakes involved in choosing a frontline combat aircraft.
“If we send our sons and daughters into combat, it will be in these aircraft,” he said. “If you put them in an F-35 against Chinese or Russian jets in the Arctic, the aircraft scores 95%. If you put them in a Gripen, it’s 33%. That should be the first factor we consider when deciding which fighters to buy.”
Saab still lobbying, pushing the industrial argument
Despite the results, Saab continues to pitch the Gripen E to Ottawa, emphasizing:
- lower operating costs
- rapid maintenance and dispersal capability
- potential for Canadian industrial participation
- possibility of local assembly in partnership with Bombardier
Those industrial benefits have taken on new relevance as Canada re-examines its procurement strategy. Saab is currently in discussions with Bombardier over a possible joint production arrangement, and Ottawa has signaled that industrial return remains a core criterion in its ongoing fighter review.
However, with the newly revealed capability data showing such a decisive performance gap, advocates of a Gripen-based or mixed fleet may face a tougher argument.
The Department of National Defence has reportedly completed its internal reassessment of the F-35 program, but the report has not yet been made public.
With Radio-Canada’s scoring chart now circulating widely, pressure is likely to grow on the government to justify any move away from a full F-35 fleet, or to explain how industrial policy will be balanced against operational capability.
70 comments
Canada should take into consideration the fact that the role of fighter jets in today’s warfare as a secondary choice to drones. Save money and choose the less expensive fighter jet in spite of their inair capability. Spend your military funding on AI drones.
Absolutely correct
Today’s air warfare is dominated by sophisticated drones and unmanned aircraft. Our sons and daughters are not directly on tbe front lines.
So, why insisting on the F35 when tbe Gripen E can do the job and designed for our climate
Also you cannot trust the US to allow the F-35 to be useable (is there a cut off switch) if Trump is in a dispute with Canada – which seems the most likely conflict currently, apart from war with Denmark over Greenland – as we see, Trump has turned against Ukraine and is backing Russia in Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.
Don’t let the USA GOVT BULLEY US INTO BUYING THE F 35. 16 is enough.
WHERE’S THE REPORT?
CBC’s summary table is meaningless until we know which specific metrics were included under each heading, which were excluded, and why. But even a glance at the figures should raise alarm bells.
“Mission performance” 97% vs 22%? What was the “mission” — having two tail fins? If so, the Gripen should have scored at least 50%! More seriously, how can the F-35 win on “Upgradability” when it has been excoriated by US auditors for its repeated failure to deliver on promised new versions (the Block 4 package Canada is waiting on is currently 5 years behind schedule and $6 billion over budget)? How does it lead in “Capability Delivery” when Gripen E demonstrates almost twice the average operational availability, a fraction of the F-35’s cost per hour in the air, and 10-minute re-fueling/re-arming and re-launching, with minimal staff, from 800 meters of frozen highway: can the F-35 do that? We simply can’t judge until we know the range and relevance of the tests that were employed in the evaluation.
CBC blew it on this one: their “investigative reporting” was shallower than an oil slick. But the more serious question is whether the design and writing of the DND report suffers from unacknowledged bias among CAF officers who have climbed a military career ladder held by their American big brothers.
So shame on CBC. And shame on anyone who’s willing to accept their lazy headline without asking WHERE’S THE REPORT?
Well said
Exactly, CBC and others that claim F35 is clearly better should be asking the military for full disclosure of the criteria used in the evaluation. More and more knowledgeable people are questioning whether the only real advantage of the F35 is it’s stealth, and do we need that in Canada.
There should be a link to the report posted for all the public to read.
What exactly was the evaluation process?
Agree on all fronts. The report from Ottawa Citizens rating the F35 being more superior has lots of facts left out on purpose ( more as a propaganda news cluster) by the American
Reporter and not taking into consideration the aGriphen S newest re design and updates.
That ! They left out on purpose.
Two European alternatives withdrew from the competition, citing F-35 bias—an impression reinforced by the F-35’s comically high scores in “Mission Performance” and “Upgradeability.” Since the jets have fundamentally different design philosophies, such results are difficult to accept without transparency on the evaluation criteria. Given the outcome, the criteria seems almost tailor made in one direction.
The F-35 is built for stealth attacks deep into enemy territory. If that is what the RCAF values most, its high score makes sense—but it raises questions about the aircraft’s suitability for roles like home-airspace interception, especially given its reported 30–50% operational availability. That hardly supports the glowing “Mission Performance” rating, and a reassessment seems warranted.
The Gripen, by contrast, is a true multirole aircraft designed for dispersed wartime operations from makeshift runways. The F-35 requires a heavy, peacetime-style logistics network to function, suggesting that wartime resilience was not a priority in the evaluation. Somehow grounded jets was not cause for concern.
“‘Upgradeability’ is another puzzling category with no context to support the scoring. The F-35 is five years late on its Block 4 software and hardware update, while the Gripen evolved from the C/D to the E/F in just 12 years after the first prototype—a new fighter with a larger airframe, a more powerful engine, longer range, additional sensors, greater fuel capacity, a larger wingspan, more hardpoints, redesigned landing gear, and an advanced electronic warfare suite.
Moreover, Gripen E’s modular software architecture enables rapid iteration, allowing continuous updates, whereas the F-35’s monolithic system requires lengthy recertification. By most metrics, the Gripen program appears to outpace the F-35 in terms of both hardware and software. Yet the F-35 somehow scores four times higher. It’s as if the game was played without even inviting the opposing team.
Recent reports indicate that buyers have limited control over F-35 parts and software. The U.S. has moved partner-nation spare parts without notice, as Denmark experienced, and retains authority over critical software functions. These issues suggest that owning the F-35 often means hosting an aircraft ultimately controlled by the United States—while paying dearly for the privilege. One has to question the validity of the F-35’s supposed upgradeability when operating nations are not even guaranteed access to spare parts.
Finally, the release of these figures appears to be little more than a smokescreen meant to divert attention from the deteriorating Canada–U.S. relationship. Ultimately, the capabilities of these aircraft are eclipsed by a more fundamental requirement: trust. This is a partnership that will span at least the next three decades, and the current U.S. administration has not inspired the confidence such long-term cooperation demands. There is no telling if—or when—that may change.
Canadians don’t know much about what’s going on with this. whole deal with planes .Now there is pressure on both sides.I have read a lot about this ordeal and the longer this takes we won’t have a damned thing for a while..I say get Canada what it needs in our best interest..Time is moving on..
A real Mark Carney Major Project would be to build a Canadian aircraft a la Avro Arrow.Then all Canadians wouldn’t have to pretend they don’t know the US government thugs are routinely humiliating our leaders
This is a highly misleading article. The comparison between the Gripen and the F35 only looked at areas that are irrelevant for Canada.
It mainly looks at stealth and sensor capabilities, completely ignoring that the F35 is not suitable for our environment and does really poor in cold weather.
It also doesnt mention how the gripen is faster then the f35 and the gripen also has a much bigger range.
On board sensors are irrelevant for the sole reason that our jet fleet is used to intercept things already detected and the stealth is useless because we want our presence in the arctic known.
So this article as well as the original report being leaked is very misleading and honestly, 100% political.
Since they ignored comparisons in all aspects that are important to Canada and only focused on aspects that are useless to Canada is a clear sign of the intent of these articles.
Not to mention the massive cost difference and limited upgrade capabilities the F35 has compared to the Gripen.
F35 is utterly useless to Canada and only about 10% of our fleet should be f35’s used for southern border defense and joint operations.
Lastly, the idea that the f35 is valuable for future missions where we invade a nation and want the stealth is not anything any Canadian would like.
I agree 100%
Finally someone who understands that stealth is not an asset when you are trying to let the opposition know you are monitoring your Arctic areas. For quite a number of reasons, the Gripen E is more suited to this role – stealthy enough to be useful at a distance, connected electronically to others in the airspace when combined with other systems, and able to utilize the ability to work from improvised airfields.
In a straight dogfight, the F35 will be superior as it is less apparent to the aggressor, and would absolutely protect our pilots best in a battle.
There are arguments for having two fleets – one for patrol/presence, one for agressive front line actions if needed. Both fleets have to be sufficiently robust size wise – one thing we can’t cheap out on, we have to have adequate numbers of both types of aircraft in a mixed fleet.
That was then.
The f-35 upgradability is sitting around a 6 right now.
Block 4 won’t be completed for another 10 years. Not to mention only the tiniest fraction of the upgrade intelligence will be shared.
Gripen hardware can be changed out as soon as the engineering is done and software for new sensors upgraded in weeks.
Mission specific software on the f-35 is proprietary and takes months for aircraft to be updated.
The Gripen can fly a mission collect data and then the info shared and updated..THE NEXT DAY.
As for missions defending the Arctic right now I’ll fly in a Gripen thanks. F-35 has yet to be proven reliable in the cold and is currently proving the opposite.
One of the reasons the last crash happened in Alaska is in a flight of three the first two aircraft sat on the runway sorting issues and by the time the third took off water in the hydraulic lines froze.
Then even with Lockheed support it was keystone cops time trying to fix the plane in flight and things froze up more and more until the pilot had to eject.
We don’t need the f-35
We need something reliable built in house with a full technology transfer and right now that’s the Gripen
Was it the Gripen C or Gripen E?
Things have changed since 2021, so an updated analysis might look different today. Costs and delivery dates are not as promised; having control over replacement parts and updates are a concern too. I say, a mixed fleet is best. Additionally, Blondin works for L-Martin: he is not likely to waffle in his support for the F-35.
Please apologize to General Blondin who selected the F35A Block 4 in 2021 and the quote was also from 2021. Last week he has done several interviews saying we should only accept one squadron of F35A fighters and rest should be Gripen JAS39E. The former General who worked for and is now a lobbyist for Lockheed Martin is General Lawson who wrote the letter to the Prime Minister supporting the F35A fighter. General Sullivan another head of the RCAF who works for Boeing said he has bias either way in both fighters said he agrees with General Blondin and supports his statements. He said the F35A has over promised and massively under delivered since the start of program. He also said the F35A Block 4 update today is not same fighter they based the selected evaluation on in 2021. All one has to do is to imagine countering a US Freedom of Navigation Navy ships sailing through the North West Pasage with a F35 Canadian fighter after challenge Canada sovereignty in our territory. This brings up a mission of Naval Strike Fighter which the F35A is not capable to perform as that mission would require a F35C but the JAS39E has been designed to perform that mission for Sweden… not something you want with one of the longest coastline in the world.
It is interesting that Blondin works for Lockheed Martin!
Donald Trump certainly nullified your stats, and Canada is NOT inclined to empower a buffoon wannabe dictator.
Let’s be clear: this was a biased assessment by the RCAF who have for years demonstrated a desire for F-35 and closer integration with the US. It fails to recognize that Canada needs a reliable and affordable aircraft to patrol it’s airspace and fulfill it’s NATO and NORAD obligations. The Gripen has a readiness rate of approximately 80%, 50% for the F-35, and costs a fraction to operate than the F-35. This is without even looking at the issue of sovereignty and independence with an increasingly unreliable, if not hostile US, administration.
Would not be surprised the Canadians buy the Swedish jet over the F35 as they hate us Americans before of Trump the 🤡.
Best they put off making A decision after the 2028 election
Of course the F35 did better. The criteria waa built for the F-35.
What about the cost overruns, the technical issues in cold weather? Etc etc etc…
The F35 is a Hanger Queen. Doubt if it can stay in the Arctic long enough to meet ghost Russians and Chinese. Third of the USAF fleet is in the shop at any give time .Stealth is not essential on Arctic patrols. Probably best for the 16 in Europe.. A high tech mugging at best!!
TOTAL US BS. LIKE THE COACH SAID “STATISICS ARE FOR LOSERS”. IT’S THE PILOT NOT THE PLANE. THE SIMPLE FACT IT’S AN AMERICAN PLANE MEANS THE CANADIAN PUBLIC WILL NOT BACK THE GOVERNMENT IF IT PICKS THE WRONG PLANE, THAT WOULD BE THE F WHATEVER. WE WANT THE SAAB PLANE, NOW!
The key word is operational. The F-35, is probably the best fighter/attack aircraft out there. But is it affordable. Most of these competitions are conducted/evaluated with people with a vested interest. People who want the best for themselves & people under them. Then you have the political aspect. Do you want to be tied to a country that up till a few years ago. You would have called a friend. A decision has been made for multiple reasons not just operational.
It’s not really a shock. One cost 100bill to design and each unit costs about 100million each.
The other cost about 2 billion to design and probably costs 15 million each . The gripped is a fantastic aircraft in it’s category and it should be compared to Eurofighter Rafale and latest Russian birds. Not a stealth jet that most nations could never afford to buy let alone develop from scratch. Stupid article. It’s like comparing a BMW M4 to a Fiat 500. Total different pieces of kit
The F-35 is the superior aircraft if you can get it into the air. The F-35 is a hangar queen that takes long maintenance hours to sortie between missions. The Grippen was designed for simplicity of repair and rapid turnaround after a mission. The Grippen will be harder to target as it can use rural roads for takeoff and landings. Possibly the best solution would be the Hi/Lo option with a mixed integrated fleets.
The deal was already announced and done with a long time ago….Just honour the contract in good faith!
Like the contracts and deals the USA has been honoring latly
It takes 2 to fulfill a contract. Doesn’t cost overruns and delivery delays count as a deal breaker? Canada should only honor the original 16 plane deal and scrap the rest! Those “reliable” f35s can use our rarely needed Gripen hangers for service and repairs. The Gripen meets Canada’s defense needs. We don’t need specialized attack jets! We aren’t aggressors as is the US.
Canada is once again contemplating buying what will soon be outdated technology. Canada should be looking at the F-47. This 6th generation plane is about to be produced and flying in 2026. Production starts in 2027. The F-47 will be light years of the F-35 and a universe ahead of the Gripen. Let’s use our brains and tax dollars to the best possible advantage.
The F47 won’t be available for delivery until the mid 2030’s and all export versions will have reduced capabilities. They will also cost at least 3 times more than F35s. Compare that to the initial 16 F35s that will be delivered next year and all Canadian F35s will have full capabilities. The optimal choice is a hybrid approach: purchase a small number of highly specialized F35s complemented with a larger number of all-purpose Gripens, in terms of availability, affordability, and suitability. In 10 years Canada can better reassess if the F47 is necessary.
Det här med F-47 är helt verklighetsfrånvänt. F-47 är ett framtidsprojekt som inte ens är färdigkonstruerat, långt mindre testat eller redo för export. Ingen vet vad slutresultatet blir, vilka kostnaderna landar på eller vilka barnsjukdomar som dyker upp — och det ligger många år bort innan det ens kan provflygas i full skala. Att jämföra det med Gripen eller F-35 som finns här och nu är helt missvisande.
F-35 har dessutom egna problem som Kanada redan kämpat med: kvalitetsstrul i kyla, driftsäkerheten och Block 4-uppgraderingen som är kraftigt försenad. Det är ett avancerat men dyrt system som fortfarande inte levererar allt som utlovats.
Gripen däremot är ett beprövat, billigt och lättskött plan som fungerar i tufft klimat, kräver mindre underhåll och kan operera från enklare baser. Dessutom kan Kanada bygga delar av eller hela planet på hemmaplan, vilket både stärker den egna industrin och ger landet verklig kontroll över sin framtida flygförmåga.
Kort sagt: F-47 är en vision på ritbordet. Gripen är ett realistiskt val som fungerar i vardagen och stärker Kanada både militärt och industriellt.
Scores higher across all categories for 10 times the cost. No kidding.
Why is this even a debate??? Lockheed-Martin has consistently produced the finest, most capable aircraft available. The only planes that even come close are the Sukhoi, and there reliability does not compete.
Tensions are not between Canada and the US, tensions are between the World and the petty, whiny, fraudulent rapist currently in the Whitehouse. This orange clown is already losing grip in his administration. Buy the best aircraft (F-35), weather the storm for 3-years (if the deadbeat even makes it), and call it a day.
I was a big Carney supporter in the beginning, but now he’s pissing me off!
Problemet är att diskussionen ofta låter som att F-35 är ”det självklara valet”, men det stämmer bara om man bortser från tre centrala saker: driftsäkerhet, uppgraderingsförmåga och Kanadas egen industriella framtid.
1. F-35 har fortfarande stora praktiska problem.
Planet är avancerat, men just den komplexiteten gör att det är dyrt, känsligt och krångligt att hålla i drift. I kalla klimat har F-35 visat sig ha betydande kvalitets- och underhållsproblem, och tillgängligheten är långt från vad som utlovats. Block 4-uppgraderingen — som behövs för att planet ska nå sin ”fulla kapacitet” — är kraftigt försenad. Allt detta betyder att Kanada riskerar att köpa ett system som de facto inte är färdigt.
2. F-35 binder Kanada till ett amerikanskt underhållsberoende.
Allt är centraliserat: reservdelar, uppgraderingar, programvara, service. Kanada kan inte självt vidareutveckla eller uppgradera planet — det styrs av USA. Det innebär lägre handlingsfrihet och högre kostnader över tid.
3. Gripen är byggt för att vara uppgraderingsbart — snabbt och lokalt.
Gripen har en modulär arkitektur som gör att Kanada kan integrera egen mjukvara, egen beväpning och egna system. Tekniköverföringen gör att Kanada kan tillverka stora delar av flottiljen hemma, vilket ger jobb, kompetens och självständighet. Gripen är designat för att kunna förbättras steg för steg utan att behöva bygga om hela flygplanet.
4. Gripen fungerar i verkligheten, inte bara på papper.
Det är billigare att köpa och mycket billigare att driva. Det klarar kyla, fungerar från enklare baser och kräver mycket mindre logistisk apparat. För ett land med Kanadas geografi är det en tydlig fördel. Och du får ett plan som Kanada faktiskt kan äga, förstå och vidareutveckla.
Canadians do not want anything American made. The Americans cannot be trusted ever again. They are not our friends and certainly not our allies.
There are many other joint efforts that could take a back seat. Arctic Circle. They are still part of Five Eyes, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), OAS (Organization of American States), USA is also offering Golden Dome defense security with AI for both Canada and USA and the cost could be a blowback if the contract is not honored. Moreover canadian army wants F35s.
In aireal combat, even a couple of points of superiority can be the difference between life and a fire death. Accordingly it pains me as a,European to say it, but given the margin of superiority, unless the abilities of the Grippen have been improved markedly, The Canadians really have no option but to buy the F35. Otherwise the cost will be paid in blood.
Blood has already been spilled. The US is an enemy of Canada and an of NATO they just don’t know it yet. There is no sovereignty without a military industrial complex. It needs to start now for Canada.
The F35 program has been a complete disaster and will continue to hamper the US until they can con other countries to share in their financial burden.
Det är en märklig jämförelse. F-35 är inte byggt för ren luftstrid, utan är ett tungt multirole-plan som är starkt beroende av sensorer. I närkamp och manöverduglighet är Gripen klart snabbare, lättare att flyga, vänder snabbare och återhämtar energi bättre. Det är exakt det som avgör luftstrid när stealthfördelen försvinner.
Dessutom kan Gripen uppgraderas och anpassas lokalt, medan F-35 gör Kanada helt beroende av USA för allt från mjukvara till reservdelar. Med Gripen kan Canada till och med tillverka planet hemma och bygga egen kompetens för framtiden.
Kort sagt: Gripen är ett mer lätthanterligt och smidigt jaktplan i faktisk luftstrid — och det ger Kanada både självständighet och starkare långsiktig förmåga än ett system de inte själva får kontrollera.
Does Canada need stealth? It’s not a defensive feature. We need to keep our giant neighbor mollified, but doing everything they want makes us just an inefficient 51st.
I thought Canada rejected the F35 due to high cost, bad contract terms, and a political riff with the United States? The F35 was basically a bad deal.
However they did not consider that the software in the F-35 is controlled by an entity which is now under the control of our primary adversary. Price and performance become irrelevant when putin can shut it down on a whim.
Except not one word of that is true…
This evaluation was conducted by the US manufacturer and also doesn’t mention the various software problems the F-35 has developed for the last 4 years! The testing was squed unfairly towards thr F35 from the beginning.
While I accept that the F-35 is technically superior in many ways to the Gripen, the disparity of scores here is much larger than I would expect.
Having worked with governmental purchasing in Canada in the past, those numbers lead me to suspect that the DND had already picked their preferred aircraft before the competition, and designed the competition to favour their result.
Here is a thought. When the software bugs out( and it will). Would you not want to be in a plane that can be flown manually? Or just eject and buy a new one? I’m not a pilot so what would I know😏
Most, if not all, modern fighter jets rely on flight computers to remain stable in the air. The Gripen, for example, uses an intentionally unstable aerodynamic design, meaning the aircraft constantly needs to “fight” the natural tendency of its rear to overtake its nose. This instability allows for extremely quick turns, which is useful in dogfighting or when rapidly evading incoming missiles. Without computer assistance, a pilot would need superhuman reaction speed, continually adjusting the control surfaces—especially the canards—to keep the aircraft stable. Developing the flight-control software for such unstable aircraft is one of the major engineering challenges.
So no, these fighters cannot be flown “manually” in the real sense of the word. Software “bugging out” is not an option. The Gripen E uses a modular software architecture that allows individual modules to be developed and updated independently, without affecting flight-critical avionics. As a reference point, the Gripen’s predecessor, the Viggen, used a roughly 18-month software update cycle, whereas the Gripen’s software can be updated more or less continuously. It’s not that the Gripen doesn’t require certification — it does — but the modular design typically means you don’t have to recertify the entire software suite from scratch for every update. Saab even claims to be the only manufacturer using this kind of architecture for a front-line fighter. Pretty impressive, actually.
Why would we ever purchase a multi million dollar jet from a country that has openly declared economic war with us. This is beyond stupid…whats next is the USA going to promise they will be good? Insanity!!! Instead of overpriced jets buy a million drones and blow those parked American jets into the ground
The world has changed look at the example set by the Russia/Ukraine war and take heed.
Publicly available information, from as recent as summer 2025, indicate that the Gripen-39S is superior to the F-35 if we take stealth out of the picture.
Does Canada need stealth? For operations within Canada, No. For overseas operations, Canada should leave the pleasure to Trump & Pete Hegseth, two of the best US pilots.
In addition, the Gripen makes Canada independent of the US. Canadians are skilled in MW frequencies stealth operations. Canada & Sweden could develop a Stealthy Gripen that stays operational most of the time.
The F-35 seems to have developped a reputation that requires it a lot more time on the ground than in operations.
Stealth is important. However, future air combat will involve manned fighters supplemented with stealthy Collaborative Combat Aircraft drones. If the Gripen can support CCA, especially ones optimized for Canadian defence, that might balance the F-35 advantage.
This is a most puzzling comment here.
“Publicly available information, from as recent as summer 2025, indicate that the Gripen-39S is superior to the F-35 if we take stealth out of the picture.”
Would you mind sharing this info please?
“Canada & Sweden could develop a Stealthy Gripen”
Really? They could? Are they magicians now? That’s not how this works I’m afraid. That’s not how any of this works.
You don’t make a non stealth aircraft “stealthy”. That’s akin to saying you’re going to turn the farm truck into a formula 1 car. Also there seems to be a great number of commenters here that do not truly understand what stealth actually is and what it provides in an actual combat scenario. I see a lot of commenters saying “we don’t need stealth. We want our presence known in the arctic.”
My friends stealth or not they’ll know if you’re patrolling an area without every spotting you on a radar screen.
Stealth in a combat scenario is the difference between life and death. This is not a hollyweird movie and no one is dogfighting. All combat between the parties in question will be performed BVR (beyond visual range). What stealth along with a superior radar and increased missile range (and both of those additional topics would take more to talk about then I’m sure the character count will allow here) means is you are able to see the enemy and fire before the enemy can see you or fire at you. So the talk about how the Gripen is has a higher speed etc. is completely irrelevant. The Gripen may get lucky and even score a kill eventually but the F-35 will score a kill 100 out of 100 times if both pilots are equal.
Faktum är att Saab JAS 39 Gripen kan uppgraderas och vidareutvecklas lokalt, tack vare sin modulära design — man är inte låst till någon leverantör. Stealth är aldrig 100% garanti: moderna sensorer, värmesignatur och störsystem gör att även avancerade flygplan upptäcks.
Att påstå att Lockheed Martin F-35 ”vinner alltid” i luftstrid bygger på idealiserade scenarier och bortser från taktik, elektronik, störmedel och underhåll – där Gripen ofta har stora fördelar.
Gripen är dessutom billigare, lättare att underhålla, fungerar bättre i tufft klimat och kan opereras eller till och med byggas av Kanada själv — det gör det till ett realistiskt och solid val för långsiktig försvarsförmåga
If you think you can trust the americans to honour any kind of contract not to with hold upgrades or parts on these fighter jets you are sadly mistaken. They have proven to be unreliable and even hostile to Canada, even to the point of invasion or economic destruction. It would be better for Canada as a country to become more independent and not depend on the US for anything. Go with the gripen or any other fighter.
Who leaked this info? If you spend a few minutes on google you can find stories that this info was provided by the US department of defence….the same department that owns this 1 trillion dollar mess.
This is a unvetted story by the CBC by biased actors. Shame on you.
You mean Department of War?
I’ve competed in tenders and this big difference in in scoring says alot. The tender was clearly written with the F-35 in mind. Especially as the Gripen scored so low in upgradeability… as upgradeability was a key aspect when designing it and uppgrading non stealth aircrafts are generally way esier
The “DND Tests” lack credibility.
Transactional bias is not exactly a new phenomenon in Gov’t procurement, affecting the design and the implementation of which outcome is desired. Far be it from accountability to openly follow a path deemed tendatious, but when confronted by such margins in the evaluation process, without releasing specific information, it strains objective reasoning, compelling one to perceive a preordained conclusion. With the exception of a very expensive and maintenance intensive “radar absorbing paint job” (stealth),
there is precious little separating the Lightning II from the Gripen. From a strictly technological aspect they achieve an operational objective by applying different types of “tricks”, the F-35 relies upon its stealth (that tech will last how much longer?) vs the JAS-39 using its advanced (& easily upgradable) Electronic Warfare suite to get the job done.
Arctic operational efficiency will be predicated upon the introduction of our recent purchase from Australia of the Jindalee-Over-The-Horizon-Radar (JOHR), making any interception of potential hostiles by fighter aircraft using their passive systems rather than active radar, Meteor missiles available in Gripen are acknowledged as better than any the Lightning II carries, see first and shoot first is the pilot mantra to survive air to air combat, Meteor has a range and technological superiority, virtually inescapable.
Reliability is an inescapable exigency, and again the JAS-39 takes the prize, a third to half the F-35 in Alaska are down at any given time with weather related issues in winter. Can we keep it real for a second here, Canada gets cold in winter, so we need aircraft capable of operating in this environment! Not hanger hogs!
Speaking plainly, foregoing correctness, there are big bucks and egos involved. The USA has a military industrial complex that has been incredibly adept at getting their way through lobbying and political pressure. Draw your own conclusions using your critical thinking skills…
So many things have changed since the review. Gripen is the only choice for Canada .
4 year test done by usa, what’s going to be the answer. More American lies. As seen you can’t trust them. In games in England they cleaned up and sent the f35 packing
This is hype as usual from the propagander machine of usa
The authors of the underlying report are on US payrolls, making any further analysis a sham.
Instead examine geopolitics including the Swiss experience with the F35 – it is rapidly becoming a white elephant, with broken down planes, a massive budget requirement and few benefits for the purchasing country while it faces an economic war from the selling country. Switzerland says “no more.”.
Canada needs to consider their experience and so much than the opinions of a few of yesterday’s men.
They did not consider the F35 cold weather performance, poorly illustrated by the F-35 crash in Alaska due to icing.
Again Canada has to take that into consideration and compare it to the Swedish designed Gripen jet designed for Arctic conditions.
The low cost. Light runway reqs. STOL. Low maintenance costs. Souverignty. So much more.
Cast aside analysis based in the flawed and suspect report. It looks like F35 public relations.
build our own it will be cheaper, create more jobs and we will have a full fleet in less time than when we can get a full compliment of f35s
aircraft design has progressed far beyond when the f35 design started. we have the engineers needed, and we need the jobs and use the rolls engine also
ABSOLUTELY fake scoring
The Gripen is the obvious winner
The 35 is overpriced, and overhyped with zero mission performance.
Cost Gripen-E and the 35 are close in price
Winner tie
Operating costs
35 Cost 1.5 million per hour of flight
The Gripen only costs 10k per flight hour
Winner Gripen
Turn around.
The 35 takes about 45 minutes to 1.5 hours
Gripen takes only 10 minutes
Winner Gripen
Stealth 35 has limited stealth, Gripen has an ECM suite that the 35 wishes it had. The 35’s stealth is broken if you load on external stores.
Winner Gripen
Runway
35 needs a long and pristine Runway, VTOL is navy version.
Gripen only needs 800m of straight road. Which means can operate from dispersed areas.
Winner Gripen
Carrying of external stores.
35 can carry more than the Gripen. But BREAKS its stealth.
External stores do nothing to the ECM suite
Badly written article by someone paid by Boeing
Winner Gripen
Here’s the deal. Gripen might have been a fine choice… 20 years ago. The aircraft is now unsurvivable in modern contested environments against a peer opponent and combat ineffective in all but the most permissive situations. Thats just the reality. Jason’s comparison of these two platforms above is inaccurate BS and utter fantasy. With the exception of F35s relatively high maintenance cost per flight hour. If you don’t actually plan to take the aircraft into combat, fine, go with gripen. But I’ve got other news for you: if Canada is worried about a kill switch in the F35, they’ve got much bigger strategic problems to worry about. Not to mention, the US government and defense companies also are capable of exercising control over gripen critical component supply chains so tough luck either way.
Gripen E är i praktiken ett helt nytt plan – ny motor, radar, avionik, EW-system och beväpning. Det har inget att göra med Gripen från 20 år sedan.
Att påstå att det skulle vara ”oöverlevbart” i modern luftstrid är fel. Gripen E är byggt för avancerade hot, med stark elektronik, hög manöverförmåga och bra sensorfusion.
Dessutom ger Gripen Kanada kontroll över uppgraderingar och industriell produktion, något F-35 inte gör. Kort sagt: Gripen E är fullt stridsdugligt och framtidssäkrat.
The results are not relevant as the comparison was designed to favor the f35. The RCAF wants the f35 for prestige reasons and because they’re likely in LM’s pocket. instead, a true comparison to determine what is best for Canada was what was needed. The big difference is stealth. Canada doesn’t need stealth. Stealth is most useful for first strike aircraft. This is a role Canada will not need in any capacity. Taking that out and add the ECM capabilities of the gripen go a long way to equalizing the playing field. After that it’s a no brainer to select an aircraft Canada can build and deploy without the ridiculously expense climate controlled environment necessary to maintain availability of f35 at their atrociously low availability rate and embarrassing high cost per flight hour. This BEFORE factoring in that in the Canadian environment maintenance and availability will be even worse. The gripen is the clear winner for what CANADA needs even if the f35 is better at things Canada doesn’t need.