F-35 vs Saab Gripen: Jobs, Leaked Scores and Public Opinion Collide in Canada’s Fighter Jet Showdown

OTTAWA — December 8, 2025 — Canada’s long‑running quest to replace its aging CF‑18s has crystallized into a three‑way tug‑of‑war: a Swedish promise of 10,000 aerospace jobs, a leaked evaluation chart that overwhelmingly favours the U.S.‑made F‑35, and a fresh Nanos/CTV poll showing voters care more about getting the best fighter jet than maximizing domestic employment.

At stake is far more than a single aircraft order. The decision will shape Canada’s defence industry, its relationship with the United States and Europe, and the Royal Canadian Air Force’s ability to defend North America for decades.

Key takeaways

Saab is pitching the Gripen E with a promise of roughly 10,000 Canadian jobs if the jet is built under licence with Bombardier — a figure sceptics say is wildly optimistic. ^[1]
A leaked Department of National Defence scoring chart from 2021 shows the F‑35 crushing the Gripen, scoring about 95% on military capability versus 33% for the Swedish jet, with a huge gap in “mission performance” and “upgradability.” ^[2]
New Nanos/CTV polling finds 40% of Canadians prioritize “the best fighter jet for the RCAF” over job creation (28%) when forced to choose what matters most in the F‑35 vs Gripen decision. ^[3]
Prime Minister Mark Carney has ordered a review of the C$27.7‑billion F‑35 program amid a trade war and political tension with President Donald Trump, while simultaneously joining the EU’s SAFE defence fund to reduce reliance on U.S. suppliers. ^[4]
Analysts are now openly warning of U.S. “consequences” if Canada walks away from the F‑35, even as European partners and Sweden intensify their courtship of Ottawa. ^[5]

Carney’s fighter‑jet review hits a decisive phase

Canada formally selected the Lockheed Martin F‑35A in 2022 under the Future Fighter Capability Project, planning to buy 88 jets to replace the CF‑18 fleet. The program is officially valued at C$27.7 billion, covering aircraft, infrastructure and sustainment. ^[6]

But costs have surged. A June report by Auditor General Karen Hogan projected that the total bill could rise by at least 45%, potentially reaching C$33.2 billion once currency shifts and construction overruns are factored in. ^[7]

That escalation, combined with President Trump’s new tariffs and harsh rhetoric about Canada, prompted Prime Minister Mark Carney to order a review of the F‑35 purchase in March 2025, even though Ottawa is already contractually committed to 16 jets. ^[8]

At the same time, Canada has joined the European Union’s new Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defence fund, becoming the first non‑EU member to access a €150‑billion loan facility for defence projects. Carney has framed the move as an effort to diversify away from a reality in which more than 70% of Canada’s military capital spending flows to U.S. suppliers. ^[9]

That dual track — reviewing the F‑35 while opening the door to more European equipment — is exactly the space Saab is trying to fill with its renewed “Gripen for Canada 2.0” campaign. ^[10]

Saab’s 10,000‑job promise: headline number vs hard math

The most eye‑catching element of Saab’s bid is employment.

In mid‑November, Reuters reported that Saab is in talks with Canada and Bombardier to build Gripen E fighters under licence, with CEO Micael Johansson telling The Globe and Mail the plan could create around 10,000 jobs in Canada. Bombardier confirmed it is “open” to providing local expertise if Ottawa chooses the Gripen. ^[11]

A subsequent Global News report added detail:

Saab has spoken of 9,000–10,000 direct and indirect jobs “on a continuous basis for decades”, tied to both Canadian and export production.
The company has not publicly released the underlying modelling for that number.
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada acknowledged it does not have Saab’s detailed methodology; the 10,000 figure is the company’s own projection. ^[12]

Industry analysts have pounced on that gap. A widely cited Macdonald‑Laurier Institute column notes that Saab employs about 24,000 people worldwide, only 8,000 of them in aerospace, and just over 1,000 in its U.S. operations — making a 10,000‑job footprint in Canada alone seem implausible. ^[13]

Critics also point to Brazil, where Saab assembles Gripens locally: that program supports on the order of a few hundred direct jobs, not thousands, even with comprehensive technology transfer. ^[14]

Opponents of a Gripen‑heavy fleet argue that the Swedish jet’s supply chain is still heavily dependent on U.S. and European firms for high‑value components — including a GE engine, Collins avionics and an Italian‑built radar — undercutting the promise of strategic autonomy. ^[15]

Joly’s frustration with the F‑35 deal

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has become the political lightning rod in this jobs debate.

She has publicly complained that Canada has “not gotten enough” industrial benefit from the F‑35 program, and has called on Lockheed Martin to improve its offer. ^[16]

Her argument is that if Canada is going to commit tens of billions of dollars to a combat aircraft — especially in the middle of a bruising trade war with Washington — it needs to secure visible, long‑term employment and technology transfer at home, whether from Lockheed or Saab. ^[17]

That stance has made Joly the prime target of pro‑F‑35 commentators, who accuse Saab of “seductive yet threadbare reasoning” on both costs and jobs and warn that Ottawa is being lobbied by people with little defence experience. ^[18]

The leaked scorecard that turbocharged the F‑35

If Saab’s numbers grabbed headlines, the leaked DND scorecard grabbed the military’s attention.

According to documents first reported by Radio‑Canada and later summarized in several international outlets, a confidential 2021 evaluation by the Department of National Defence ranked the F‑35 far ahead of the Gripen E across most operational dimensions. ^[19]

Key figures cited from that assessment:

Overall military capability: F‑35 around 95%, Gripen E 33% (19.8 out of 60 points). ^[20]
Mission performance (how well each jet can succeed across assigned combat scenarios): roughly 97% for the F‑35 vs 22% for the Gripen, according to subsequent analysis of the leaked chart. ^[21]
Upgradability across the life cycle: F‑35 scored near 100%, while the Gripen sat around the high‑20s. ^[22]

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute described the result as a “winner by a mile,” arguing that the capability assessment leaves “no ambiguity” about which aircraft the RCAF prefers. ^[23]

Ottawa Citizen leak and questions of bias

The Ottawa Citizen has reported, via defence writer David Pugliese, that the leaked scoring chart formed part of the original 2021 bid evaluation and is now putting heavy pressure on the Carney government to honour the F‑35 selection, especially after years of internal endorsements by senior air force officers. ^[24]

But the leak has also triggered a backlash:

Critics question how categories such as “mission performance” and “upgradability” were defined, arguing they may have privileged stealth and deep‑strike missions over the Arctic interception and dispersed operations where the Gripen is strong. ^[25]
Some point to the F‑35’s well‑documented delays and cost overruns in its Block 4 modernization as evidence that its perfect “upgradability” score is more theoretical than real. ^[26]
Others see the leak itself as political messaging aimed at boxing Carney into an F‑35‑heavy outcome by making any alternative look reckless. ^[27]

Whatever the motive, the scorecard has raised the stakes dramatically: the government must now explain, in public, how it can justify anything other than the aircraft its own evaluation deemed the clear tactical winner.

U.S. pressure and the “consequences” debate

Washington has not been subtle.

U.S. officials have privately and publicly warned that there will be “serious consequences” if Canada cancels or dramatically scales back its F‑35 order, according to reports highlighted by both AeroTime and Canadian media. ^[28]

Those consequences are understood to include:

Potential damage to NORAD interoperability, with Canada operating a different fighter than most of its closest partners. ^[29]
Increased scrutiny of Canadian defence industrial participation in the F‑35 global supply chain, where over 30 Canadian companies have already secured more than US$3.3 billion in contracts as of January 2025. ^[30]
Possible spillover into trade and procurement decisions affecting Canadian flagships like Bombardier, whose CEO has already voiced concern that his firm could be targeted if Ottawa scrapped the F‑35 deal. ^[31]

The U.S. warnings have, in turn, fuelled a wave of commentary about sovereignty and whether reliance on U.S.‑controlled software and parts in the F‑35 creates a security vulnerability for Canada. Some activists invoke the idea of an American “kill switch” that could theoretically ground allied jets — a claim defence officials in Ottawa and Washington say is false and widely debunked. ^[32]

What Canadians think: Nanos/CTV poll puts capability first

Into this swirl of lobbying and leaks stepped a concrete datapoint: public opinion.

A CTV News/Nanos Research survey released on December 5 asked Canadians what should matter most as Ottawa weighs the U.S. F‑35 against Sweden’s Saab Gripen E. ^[33]

Nanos conducted a dual‑frame (landline and mobile) telephone and online survey of 1,009 adults between November 29 and December 2, with a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. ^[34]

When respondents were forced to pick a single top priority:

40% chose “having the fighter jet that is the best solution for the Royal Canadian Air Force.”
28% chose “picking the jet that generates the greatest number of Canadian jobs.” ^[35]

The rest selected other factors or were unsure.

Nanos chief data scientist Nik Nanos has argued that if the government ends up making a decision that appears to prioritize jobs over capability — especially after the leaked scorecard — it will need a clear and persuasive explanation for voters. ^[36]

The poll is especially striking because other recent Nanos tracking finds jobs and the economy are Canadians’ top overall concerns in the post‑budget period. ^[37] Yet when the question is narrowed to fighter jets, capability edges out employment, at least in this first cut of public opinion.

That gives Carney political cover to stick with a capability‑driven choice — but only if he can convince skeptical voters that the industrial benefits of the F‑35 are real and growing.

How many jobs are actually at risk?

On the F‑35 side, the numbers are more concrete.

According to the Department of National Defence, over 30 Canadian firms are already participating in the F‑35 global program, producing components and services for the entire international fleet. As of January 2025, those contracts were worth more than US$3.3 billion, with further sustainment work expected over the life of the fleet. ^[38]

Analysts estimate that work supports roughly 2,000–2,500 Canadian jobs, many of them high‑skilled positions in aerospace hubs like Montreal and the Greater Toronto Area. Several companies are now lobbying for F‑35 maintenance and upgrade facilities in Quebec, arguing that a full order of 88 aircraft would justify significant MRO investment north of the border. ^[39]

U.S. officials and Lockheed Martin have signalled that if Canada substantially cuts or cancels its F‑35 order, those industrial opportunities will “shrink” or migrate to other partner nations, eroding the economic upside of having joined the Joint Strike Fighter program early. ^[40]

On the Saab side, the potential upside is more speculative:

The 10,000 jobs claim rests on a not‑public model that combines direct factory employment, local suppliers and long‑term export production. ^[41]
Independent experts, pointing to Brazil’s Gripen assembly line with about 260 staff, argue that a Canadian plant is more likely to generate hundreds, not tens of thousands, of sustained jobs, especially given that many high‑value systems would still be imported. ^[42]
Saab’s own global footprint — 24,000 employees, roughly a third in aerospace — suggests that adding 10,000 people in one foreign partner country would represent an unprecedented expansion. ^[43]

In short, both options offer jobs, but they differ in where and how those jobs materialize:

F‑35: more diffuse, embedded in a global supply chain that already exists, but contingent on staying in the program.
Gripen: a promise of a Canadian final assembly line and potential exports, but with big question marks around scale, financing and long‑term demand.

Alliance politics: between NORAD and Europe’s SAFE era

Beyond spreadsheets, the fighter choice is tangled up with alliance politics.

Pro‑F‑35 analysts, including a new National Security Journal piece re‑published by the Macdonald‑Laurier Institute, argue that the F‑35 is “critical” to North American defence, providing the sensor fusion and data‑sharing backbone needed to detect and intercept modern Russian and Chinese cruise and hypersonic missiles. ^[44]

They note that:

Finland, Denmark and Norway — all northern allies with harsh climates and vast airspace — are buying F‑35s, undermining claims that the aircraft is unsuited to Arctic conditions. ^[45]
Canada has special access to mission‑data reprogramming through the AustCanUK Reprogramming Laboratory, giving its F‑35s access to high‑end American intelligence products. ^[46]
A mixed fleet of F‑35s and Gripens would complicate training, maintenance and interoperability, echoing a 2014 Defence Research and Development Canada study that found mixed fleets tend to deliver lower capability at higher cost. ^[47]

On the other side, Saab and its supporters pitch the Gripen as a path to greater strategic autonomy, tighter ties with Sweden and the EU, and an indigenous fighter‑support ecosystem built around Canadian firms like Bombardier. ^[48]

The Carney government’s decision to join the EU’s SAFE defence fund has emboldened that camp. SAFE is explicitly designed to support European and partner defence production, including combat aircraft and drones; a Saab–Bombardier Gripen line in Canada would be a natural candidate for financing if Ottawa chose that route. ^[49]

What happens next? Three plausible paths

With the review nearing its conclusion and the debate intensifying, most analysts see three main scenarios on the table:

1. Stay the course: 88 F‑35s, sweetened with more industrial benefits

Under this option, Ottawa would proceed with the full F‑35 order, perhaps adding:

A Canadian maintenance and upgrade hub for Canadian and possibly allied F‑35s.
Additional munitions and training contracts that guarantee long‑term work for domestic firms. ^[50]

This path aligns with the leaked scorecard, NORAD interoperability and the preferences of senior defence officials — and appears most consistent with the new Nanos poll emphasizing capability over jobs. ^[51]

2. A mixed fleet: 16 F‑35s plus Canadian‑built Gripens

This is the compromise many in the “Gripen for Canada” campaign are urging: keep the 16 F‑35s already paid for for high‑end missions, but acquire Saab Gripen Es — assembled in Canada — for routine Arctic patrols and sovereignty operations. ^[52]

Proponents say this would:

Create a Canadian fighter‑production base and thousands of jobs.
Reduce reliance on U.S. weapons and software.
Still give Canada a limited fifth‑generation capability through a small F‑35 fleet.

However, DRDC’s mixed‑fleet warning, the RCAF’s infrastructure investments tailored to the F‑35, and questions around Saab’s jobs math all weigh heavily against this path. ^[53]

3. Delay and diversify: buy time for future options

A third, less discussed scenario would see Ottawa delay decisions on the bulk of the fleet, stretch CF‑18 life extensions and limited F‑35 purchases, and wait for:

A potential European next‑generation fighter (such as the Franco‑German‑Spanish FCAS). ^[54]
Or other emerging alternatives, including South Korea’s KF‑21, to mature.

This path might appeal to those who believe the fighter market will look very different by the mid‑2030s. But it carries obvious risks: higher maintenance costs for an aging CF‑18 fleet, a widening capability gap versus allies, and a reputation for indecision in both Washington and Brussels. ^[55]

The bottom line: a choice Canadians can now see clearly

For once in a major defence procurement, Canadians are not in the dark.

They can see:

A leaked, numbers‑driven evaluation that puts the F‑35 at the top of the capability list. ^[56]
A high‑stakes jobs pitch from Saab and Bombardier that promises a level of domestic industrialization Canada has rarely seen in aerospace — but which experts warn may not add up. ^[57]
A new poll showing that when pressed, Canadians say they want the RCAF to have the best possible jet, even more than they want a made‑in‑Canada jobs bonanza. ^[58]

Carney’s cabinet now has to translate those competing pressures into a concrete decision — one that will lock in Canada’s air‑power trajectory, and a good chunk of its defence‑industrial future, well into the 2060s.

Whatever choice Ottawa makes, the combination of leaked charts, public polling and aggressive lobbying means it will be impossible to claim later that Canadians didn’t understand what was on the line.