F‑35 vs Gripen: Leaked Report and 13,000‑Job Swedish Offer Put Canada’s Fighter Jet Choice Under New Pressure

On November 29, 2025, Canada’s long‑running fighter jet saga hit a new inflection point. A leaked evaluation report showing the F‑35’s overwhelming technical edge over Saab’s Gripen collided with a high‑profile Swedish jobs and investment pitch – and with intensifying political debate in Ottawa over sovereignty, trade with the United States, and where Canada should anchor its defence industry. ^[1]

The result is a complex, high‑stakes choice for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government that now goes well beyond “which plane flies better.”

What Changed on November 29, 2025?

Several outlets on November 29 reported fresh details from a previously confidential 2021 evaluation that ranked the Lockheed Martin F‑35A against Saab’s Gripen E during Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project. ^[2]

According to the leaked scoring table, based on documents first exposed by Radio‑Canada and then circulated globally:

Overall military capability:
- F‑35: 57.1 points out of 60 (about 95%)
- Gripen E: roughly 19.8 points (about 33%) ^[3]
Across five rated categories – mission performance, upgradability, sustainment, technical criteria, and capability delivery – the F‑35 reportedly outperformed the Gripen in every field, with the biggest gulf in mission performance. ^[4]

Both aircraft met Canada’s “must‑have” requirements, but once more detailed criteria were weighted and scored, evaluators concluded that the F‑35 was the far more capable platform. Defence reporters and analysis sites framed the outcome as the F‑35 beating the Gripen “by a mile,” language now ricocheting through political and social media debate. ^[5]

This leak landed just as Sweden and Saab were mounting their most aggressive push yet to convince Ottawa to pivot away from — or at least partially reduce — its planned F‑35 fleet.

Saab’s Counter‑Offer: 13,000 Canadian Jobs and a “Made‑in‑Canada” Fighter Hub

Sweden is not pitching Gripen to Canada as “just” an aircraft. It is pitching an industrial strategy.

Over the last month, Saab and Swedish officials have sketched out a package that, taken together, they say could support around 13,000 Canadian jobs if Ottawa embraces a broader Sweden‑Canada aerospace partnership. ^[6]

Key elements of that offer include:

Gripen fighter production in Canada
Saab has confirmed talks with the federal government and Bombardier about building Gripen fighters under licence in Canada. The company has floated a figure of about 10,000 jobs tied to full‑scale Gripen manufacturing, engineering and support work in the country. ^[7]
GlobalEye surveillance aircraft built domestically
In a detailed analysis published on November 22, the Deep Dive reported that Saab is also offering to build its GlobalEye airborne early‑warning and surveillance aircraft entirely in Canada if Ottawa orders the platform. Saab executives describe this as adding another roughly 3,000 jobs in assembly, sensor integration and long‑term support – on top of the Gripen employment. ^[8]
A Canadian hub for Ukraine and export markets
Sweden and Saab have been open about the fact that a Canadian Gripen line would not serve only the Royal Canadian Air Force. As Stockholm explores sending up to 100–150 Gripens to Ukraine, a Canadian plant is being floated as a potential production and upgrade hub both for Ukrainian jets and for future export customers. ^[9]
Anchoring the new Sweden–Canada strategic partnership
This industrial pitch is explicitly linked to a new Canada–Sweden Strategic Partnership covering economic development, security and defence cooperation, Arctic issues, and innovation. Saab casts Gripen and GlobalEye as the concrete defence‑industrial backbone of that pact, not just one‑off contracts. ^[10]

This is the “13,000 good reasons” that a Toronto Star opinion column invoked when arguing that Canada should buy Sweden’s Gripen – a clear reference to the promised jobs. ^[11]

“Choose Your Friends Wisely”: Sweden’s Political Message to Ottawa

The Swedish campaign has been unusually political and public.

During a rare three‑day state visit to Canada in November, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia arrived with a heavyweight delegation: Sweden’s defence and industry ministers, top Saab executives, and dozens of business leaders. ^[12]

At one widely shared moment, Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch said that in turbulent times “you need to choose your friends wisely, and Sweden is choosing Canada” – a line that has become a slogan for pro‑Gripen campaigners online. ^[13]

Behind the warm rhetoric is a clear strategic message:

Sweden wants secure, long‑term access to Canadian aerospace talent and Bombardier’s airframes.
Canada, shaken by U.S. tariffs and erratic trade policy under President Donald Trump, is looking to diversify supply chains and reduce its reliance on U.S. defence contractors. ^[14]

A Buffalo Toronto Public Media report on November 20 framed the Swedish offer as one way for Canada to “lean away” from dependency on the U.S., at least at the margins, by tying a major aerospace project to a European partner. ^[15]

Sovereignty, Trade and the Hill Times McKay Intervention

The sovereignty argument crystalized this week in a Hill Times piece by former Liberal MP John McKay, a past chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee. McKay argued that a Gripen purchase would allow Canada to assert greater sovereignty, and warned that “military calculations may not be the most important” factor when deciding on the next fighter fleet. ^[16]

The article highlights two political realities:

Trade talks with Washington are leverage.
Trade consultant Eric Miller told the paper that the future success of U.S.–Canada trade negotiations will weigh heavily when Ottawa decides whether to stick with the American‑made F‑35. In other words, the fighter buy has become part of a broader bargaining game with the Trump administration. ^[17]
Supply‑chain sovereignty now matters more than before.
Hill Times and earlier coverage note that successive Canadian governments have warned for years about over‑reliance on U.S. defence supply chains – a concern turbocharged by new tariffs and Washington’s willingness to weaponize trade. ^[18]

For McKay and like‑minded MPs, Gripen is attractive precisely because it is not American. A Swedish‑designed jet built in Canada would diversify suppliers, embed more high‑value work at home, and – in theory – give Ottawa more freedom to chart its own foreign policy without fear that Washington might restrict spare parts or software upgrades.

The F‑35 Camp Strikes Back: Capability, Alliances and the Leaked Scorecard

Supporters of the F‑35, meanwhile, see the November 29 leak as vindication.

A technical blow to Gripen’s case

The leaked evaluation data shows the F‑35 crushing the Gripen E across mission performance and future‑proofing, scoring around 95% overall versus 33% for the Swedish jet. ^[19]

Defence outlets that covered the leak emphasized:

The F‑35 dominated mission performance, the heaviest‑weighted category, thanks to stealth, sensor fusion and networked warfare capabilities.
It also scored far higher on upgradability, reflecting a massive U.S.‑led software and modernization pipeline.
Gripen’s best showing was in sustainment costs, where it was closer to the F‑35, but still did not close the gap. ^[20]

For F‑35 defenders, this undercuts the narrative that Canada’s original decision to buy 88 F‑35s was primarily political. The numbers, they argue, show that the jet simply offered far more capability for NORAD and NATO missions than any rival.

A defence review that leans toward sticking with F‑35s

A separate, government‑ordered defence review, completed earlier this year and reported exclusively by Reuters in August, also leaned heavily toward staying the course. ^[21]

According to that reporting:

Defence officials concluded there was no military sense in splitting the purchase between F‑35s and a different fighter.
They warned that operating two fleets would add significant costs in training, logistics and maintenance, and complicate Canada’s integration with U.S. forces.
At the same time, Canada’s auditor general found that the F‑35 program could cost at least 45% more than originally estimated and faces a pilot shortage – fueling criticism that the jet is an expensive gamble. ^[22]

The review stopped short of formally recommending one path, leaving the final decision to Prime Minister Carney. But its tone, combined with the leaked scorecard, empowers those arguing that Ottawa should honour the existing F‑35 plan.

Former generals and U.S. officials

The F‑35 lobby has also mobilized:

A group of former senior Royal Canadian Air Force officers signed a letter backing the planned F‑35 acquisition and warning against reopening the competition in favour of Gripen. ^[23]
The U.S. ambassador to Canada has publicly called the F‑35 a “phenomenal success” and linked Canada’s fighter decision to the broader defence and trade relationship, with U.S. officials warning of “negative consequences” if Ottawa cancels the deal outright. ^[24]

For critics, that sounds a lot like arm‑twisting. For F‑35 supporters, it’s simply the reality of an integrated North American defence posture in which Canada relies heavily on U.S. aircraft, satellites and radar.

The Middle Ground: “Buy F‑35s Now, Go European Later”

The second article you flagged – a Globe and Mail opinion by a former senior air force officer – essentially tries to split the difference.

While the full piece sits behind a paywall, its core argument, echoed in other commentary, is that Canada should: ^[25]

Proceed with the current F‑35 buy to replace aging CF‑18s and maintain seamless interoperability with the U.S. and NATO in the 2030s; but
Plan now for a future transition to European‑designed fighters in the 2040s or 2050s, so Canada is not permanently locked into a single U.S. supplier.

In this view, the real contest is not between today’s F‑35 and today’s Gripen, but between:

A near‑term F‑35 fleet that keeps Canada credible in NORAD and NATO; and
A long‑term industrial strategy that aligns Canada with emerging European sixth‑generation fighter programs, while building domestic aerospace capability through partnerships like Saab’s Canadian manufacturing offer.

This framing resonates with Carney’s own rhetoric. He ordered the F‑35 review partly because he argued Canada had become “over‑reliant” on the U.S. defence industry, even as he acknowledged how deeply integrated the two militaries are. ^[26]

What Happened Specifically on November 29, 2025?

Beyond the raw leak, November 29 saw a wave of coverage and commentary that crystallized the stakes:

News and analysis sites summarized the Radio‑Canada data, emphasizing the 95% vs 33% capability scores and describing the F‑35 as the clear winner in Canada’s fighter competition. ^[27]
Articles framed Saab’s ongoing lobbying as a campaign now running “into bitter reality,” given how decisively the F‑35 had outscored Gripen in the original evaluation. ^[28]
Online outlets and blogs used the leak to argue either that:
- Canada has no excuse to walk away from the F‑35, or
- The evaluation proves the F‑35 is technically superior but still leaves room to choose Gripen on sovereignty and industrial‑policy grounds.

In other words, the November 29 news didn’t introduce a brand‑new issue. It put numbers and a date on what had been an abstract debate, giving both sides fresh ammunition.

How the Three Linked Pieces Fit Together

Although the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and Hill Times articles you cited take different angles, they are talking about the same three fault lines:

Capability and risk – the F‑35 is, on the evidence we have, the more capable jet for high‑end warfare, with all the benefits that brings for NORAD and NATO missions. ^[29]
Jobs and industrial strategy – Saab’s pledge to build Gripen and GlobalEye in Canada, tied to a 13,000‑job estimate, offers a scale of domestic work the F‑35 program, with its global supply chain, cannot match. ^[30]
Sovereignty and alliances – Canada must choose how much of its future airpower to source from an increasingly unpredictable United States, and how much to shift toward European partners like Sweden – all while U.S. officials make it clear they expect Ottawa to stay in the F‑35 camp. ^[31]

Put simply:

The Star‑style pro‑Gripen argument says: the jobs and sovereignty benefits of a Swedish‑Canadian production line outweigh the technical advantage of the F‑35, especially in a world where the U.S. is willing to use defence and trade as leverage. ^[32]
The Globe‑style “F‑35 now, Europeans later” argument says: don’t abandon the F‑35 when it’s clearly the better jet today – but learn from this experience and make sure the next fleet isn’t 100% American. ^[33]
The Hill Times sovereignty argument leans into the idea that trade politics with Washington may ultimately matter more than any performance chart, and that a Gripen purchase could help Canada send a signal that it has real choices. ^[34]

Three Paths Now Facing the Carney Government

As of November 29, 2025, Canada has not formally changed its F‑35 order. It has committed funding for the first 16 jets, with the remaining 72 effectively under review. ^[35]

Broadly, Ottawa’s options look like this:

1. Stick with 88 F‑35s

Pros:
- Maximizes combat capability based on existing evaluations.
- Keeps Canada fully aligned with U.S. and other F‑35 operators.
- Avoids the cost and complexity of a split fleet. ^[36]
Cons:
- Leaves Canada more dependent on U.S. supply chains and political goodwill.
- Foregoes the 13,000‑job “made‑in‑Canada” aerospace boom Sweden is dangling. ^[37]

2. Cancel most of the F‑35 order and pivot to Gripen

Pros:
- Anchors a major new domestic aerospace cluster with thousands of jobs.
- Signals that Canada is serious about diversifying away from exclusive U.S. suppliers.
- Could position Canada as a production hub for Ukrainian and other export Gripens. ^[38]
Cons:
- Risks straining relations with Washington, which has already warned of negative consequences if the F‑35 deal collapses. ^[39]
- Moves Canada to a jet that, according to its own evaluation, is significantly less capable on high‑end missions. ^[40]

3. A hybrid or phased approach

This includes scenarios like:

Buying a smaller core fleet of F‑35s for the most demanding missions, while adding Gripens for sovereignty patrols and training.
Proceeding with the current F‑35 order but making a political commitment to join a future European fighter program and to deepen industrial cooperation with Sweden in surveillance aircraft, drones, or a Gripen successor. ^[41]

A mixed fleet would address sovereignty and diversification concerns, but at the cost of higher long‑term spending and operational complexity – exactly what the August defence review warned against. ^[42]

The Bottom Line

November 29, 2025 did not answer Canada’s fighter jet question, but it did sharpen it.

The leaked evaluation underscored that, on paper, the F‑35 is the superior weapon system by a wide margin. ^[43]
The Swedish offer – including up to 13,000 Canadian jobs and a deep strategic partnership – showed how much industrial and geopolitical weight Saab is willing to put behind Gripen and GlobalEye. ^[44]
The political interventions from John McKay, former generals, and U.S. officials revealed that the debate is as much about sovereignty and trade as it is about turn rates and radar ranges. ^[45]

For Mark Carney, there is no option that avoids risk. Sticking with the F‑35 may look safest from a military perspective, but it deepens dependence on an ally that has shown it is willing to weaponize tariffs and defence deals. Pivoting to Gripen could unlock a once‑in‑a‑generation industrial opportunity and send a powerful signal on sovereignty – at the price of irritating Washington and walking away from a jet that Canada’s own experts ranked far higher.

Whichever path Ottawa chooses, the events – and leaks – of November 29 mean it will have to justify that decision more clearly than ever, not just in terms of aircraft performance, but in terms of what kind of economic and strategic future Canada wants.

What’s the difference between F-35 and Gripen fighter jets?