Newly surfaced data from Canada’s 2021 Defence Department competition shows the F-35 Lightning II outscoring the Saab Gripen fighter jet by a wide margin, recasting a once-opaque process as a decisive win for the American aircraft. The disclosure, emerging in late November 2025, lands as Ottawa weighs the F-35 deal against Swedish alternatives and faces mounting pressure from allies, industry and domestic critics. It also sharpens an already heated debate over whether Canada is locking itself into a costly but highly capable platform or missing a chance to back a more flexible, less U.S.-dependent option.
2021 Defence Department Competition Outcomes
Fresh reporting on the 2021 evaluation reveals that the F-35 did not simply edge out the Gripen, it “beat Gripen fighter jet ’by a mile’ in 2021 Defence Department competition, according to internal scoring now coming to light. The assessment, conducted under Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project, compared the Lockheed Martin F-35 against the Saab Gripen across mission effectiveness, survivability, life-cycle cost and industrial benefits, with officials concluding that the F-35’s overall performance left the Swedish bid far behind. For Canadian decision-makers, that gap matters because it suggests the choice was not between roughly equivalent aircraft, but between a platform that met or exceeded most requirements and one that struggled to match key operational benchmarks.
Additional analysis of the same competition indicates that data shows F-35 was clear winner over Gripen in Canada’s fighter evaluation, particularly in stealth, interoperability and advanced sensor fusion. The F-35’s low observable design and integration with U.S. and NATO command-and-control networks reportedly gave it a decisive edge in scenarios tied to North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and expeditionary operations, while the Gripen’s strengths in operating cost and dispersed basing did not fully offset its lower scores in those mission areas. For the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), which must defend vast Arctic airspace and plug seamlessly into U.S.-led operations, the evaluation’s emphasis on NORAD integration and Arctic defense effectively translated into a structural advantage for the F-35 that is now being publicly quantified.
Emergence of New Data in Late 2025
The timing of the disclosures is almost as significant as the numbers themselves, with the internal scoring details surfacing on November 27, 2025, after years of limited transparency around the 2021 process. Reporting that the F-35 beat the Gripen “by a mile” and that the data confirms the F-35 as the “clear winner” has shifted the narrative from one of stalled procurement talks to one of validated technical superiority, at least on the criteria Ottawa set four years ago. For stakeholders who questioned whether political pressure or alliance dynamics tilted the playing field, the newly public metrics provide a concrete, if belated, explanation for why the American jet emerged on top.
The release of this information also contrasts sharply with the secrecy that surrounded the original evaluation, when officials cited commercial sensitivities to avoid publishing detailed scores or trade-offs. Independent reporting that now lays out how the F-35 dominated the competition has injected new urgency into cabinet-level deliberations, signaling that the technical case for the aircraft is stronger than many critics assumed. That shift could accelerate Canada’s decision-making process post-2021, narrowing the political space for a late pivot to the Gripen and raising the stakes for any government that might consider reopening or reversing the competition.
US Advocacy and Diplomatic Pressure
Washington has seized on the emerging data to reinforce its own advocacy, with the U.S. ambassador publicly describing the F-35s as a “phenomenal success” as Canada considers Swedish fighter jets. That endorsement, delivered on November 20, 2025, framed the F-35 not only as a high-performing aircraft but as a cornerstone of allied interoperability and shared deterrence, particularly within NORAD and NATO. For Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon, such statements underscore the program’s strategic value, signaling that Canada’s choice is being watched in Washington as a test of North American defense cohesion rather than a routine procurement.
US involvement has intensified over the course of 2025, with officials highlighting the benefits of Canada joining the broader F-35 user community at the very moment when the Gripen is being promoted as a viable alternative. By tying the aircraft to alliance commitments and joint mission planning, the ambassador’s “phenomenal success” remark effectively raises the diplomatic cost of choosing a European platform that is not embedded in the same U.S.-led logistics and training ecosystem. For Ottawa, that pressure complicates an already delicate balance between asserting procurement sovereignty and maintaining the closest possible alignment with NORAD partners on airpower, technology sharing and Arctic surveillance.
Risks and Criticisms of the F-35 Deal
Despite the favorable evaluation data, critics warn that Canada Is Playing with Fire over F-35 Fighter Deal, pointing to cost overruns, maintenance challenges and sovereignty concerns that have dogged the program internationally. Analysts cited in that reporting argue that the aircraft’s complex sustainment system, heavy reliance on U.S.-controlled software and historically volatile operating costs could leave Canada exposed to budget shocks and external leverage over mission-critical upgrades. For Canadian taxpayers, the fear is that a procurement justified on performance grounds could evolve into a long-term financial burden that crowds out other defense and social spending priorities.
The same critics also highlight risks for the RCAF, warning that delays in finalizing the F-35 deal could jeopardize fleet readiness as aging CF-18s approach the limits of their service lives. While the new data strengthens pro-F-35 arguments by showing how decisively it outperformed the Gripen in 2021, it simultaneously heightens debates over long-term affordability and operational resilience if sustainment issues are not resolved. Compared with pre-2025 optimism that framed the F-35 as a cutting-edge but manageable investment, the latest warnings suggest that Canada is entering a more sober phase of the conversation, in which performance advantages must be weighed against the possibility of future capability gaps if the fleet cannot be kept fully mission-ready.
Promotion of Gripen as an Alternative
Against this backdrop, Saab and its supporters have intensified efforts to position the Saab GRIPEN E Canada – Fighter Jet as a credible alternative, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and rapid deployment advantages. Reporting on November 19, 2025, highlights arguments that the Gripen E’s lower acquisition and operating costs, combined with its ability to operate from shorter, austere runways, could give Canada a more flexible and fiscally sustainable fighter fleet. Proponents also stress that the Gripen’s open-architecture systems and emphasis on user control over software and data would give Ottawa greater sovereignty over upgrades and mission configurations than a tightly controlled U.S. platform.
Swedish advocacy has further underscored potential industrial offsets and NATO compatibility without deep dependencies on U.S. supply chains, presenting the Gripen as a way to diversify Canada’s defense partnerships while still remaining interoperable with allies. That pitch resonates with stakeholders who worry about overreliance on a single supplier and who see value in spreading aerospace work across different international partners, including Canadian firms that could benefit from technology transfer and local production. Yet the push for the Gripen now unfolds in the shadow of evaluation data that portrays the F-35 as the clear operational frontrunner, leaving Saab to argue that strategic diversification and economic benefits can justify choosing a platform that did not win the original competition on technical grounds.
