Canada’s newly installed government, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, initiated a review of its multibillion-dollar F-35 fighter jet deal with the United States in early 2025, the move was widely interpreted as symbolic. At the time, it appeared to be a diplomatic signal aimed at Washington amid escalating tensions triggered by President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies and rhetoric toward Canada.
Few analysts believed Ottawa would seriously reconsider the agreement to purchase 88 F-35 stealth fighters—an acquisition central to modernizing the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF). Scrapping or even significantly altering the deal risked straining relations with Canada’s most critical ally, trading partner, and defense collaborator.
Yet, more than a year later, the review remains unresolved, with no timeline for completion. What began as a seemingly routine reassessment has evolved into a prolonged and politically sensitive process, raising questions about Canada’s defense strategy, industrial priorities, and geopolitical positioning.
Initially expected to conclude by September 2025, the F-35 review has extended well beyond its projected deadline. Canadian officials have declined to provide a revised timeline, fueling speculation that the delay reflects both internal divisions and external pressures.
Defense Minister David McGuinty, speaking before a parliamentary defense committee on April 27, confirmed that the review is ongoing and comprehensive. He emphasized that the government is carefully evaluating not only the F-35 program but also potential alternatives from other countries.
“The review of the purchase of the F-35s is continuing,” McGuinty said. “We are taking the necessary time to study very closely the question of the fighter fleet.”
He added that exploring other aircraft options is “on the table,” signaling that Ottawa is seriously considering diversifying its procurement strategy rather than committing fully to the U.S.-built platform.
Canada’s openness to alternatives has attracted interest from European defense manufacturers. France has offered its Rafale fighter jet, while Sweden has aggressively promoted its Gripen-E/F platform.
Sweden’s proposal, in particular, has drawn attention due to its emphasis on industrial benefits. Saab, the manufacturer of the Gripen, has pledged to establish a production hub in Canada, enabling domestic manufacturing. The offer includes full technology transfer, access to mission system source codes, and sovereign control over data and upgrades—features that appeal to Canada’s desire for greater autonomy in defense operations.
Such industrial incentives could deliver long-term economic benefits, including job creation and technological development within Canada’s aerospace sector. McGuinty acknowledged that these factors are central to the government’s deliberations, noting that Ottawa is “examining all of the industrial benefits” to ensure the best outcome.
The financial dimension of the F-35 program has also come under scrutiny. A 2023 report by the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that the lifecycle cost of operating the fleet over 45 years could reach nearly $74 billion. This figure includes acquisition, maintenance, upgrades, and eventual disposal.
More recently, an audit by Canada’s Auditor General revealed that the projected acquisition cost has already risen significantly—from CAD 19 billion to CAD 27.7 billion. Additional expenditures of at least CAD 5.5 billion are expected for weapons systems and infrastructure, including airbases and maintenance facilities.
The audit also highlighted operational challenges, including a shortage of trained pilots and insufficient infrastructure to support the advanced aircraft. These findings have added weight to arguments for reconsidering the scale or structure of the purchase.
While Canadian officials have framed the review as a standard reassessment by a new government, the political context is difficult to ignore. The review was launched shortly after President Trump imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and made controversial remarks about Canada’s sovereignty.
These tensions have cast a shadow over defense cooperation, with U.S. officials expressing frustration over the prolonged review. The U.S. ambassador to Canada described the process as an “irritant” that complicates broader trade negotiations.
More pointedly, Washington has warned that abandoning the F-35 deal could have consequences for Canada’s role in NORAD, the joint U.S.-Canada aerospace defense command. Such statements underscore the strategic stakes involved.
Canada’s relationship with the United States is deeply intertwined across defense, intelligence, and trade. The two countries are founding members of NATO and key partners in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. NORAD remains a cornerstone of continental defense, providing integrated monitoring and response capabilities.
Economically, the U.S. is Canada’s dominant trade partner. Bilateral trade totals approximately $720 billion annually, accounting for the majority of Canada’s exports and imports. This level of interdependence makes any major policy divergence—such as canceling a flagship defense contract—potentially consequential.
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental question: can Canada afford to walk away from the F-35 program?
From a military standpoint, the need to replace the aging CF-18 fleet is urgent. The F-35 is widely regarded as one of the most advanced multi-role fighters in the world, offering stealth capabilities, sensor fusion, and interoperability with allied forces.
Defense analysts argue that alternatives may not provide the same level of integration with U.S. systems, particularly within NORAD. This could complicate joint operations and reduce the effectiveness of Canada’s air defense.
Justin Bronk, an airpower specialist at a UK-based think tank, has suggested that the review may ultimately confirm the lack of viable alternatives. He noted that delaying procurement risks creating a capability gap that the RCAF can ill afford.
Similarly, former RCAF commander Yvan Blondin has advocated for proceeding with the F-35 purchase, arguing that the aircraft meets Canada’s operational needs and that further delays are counterproductive.
Despite the ongoing review, there are indications that Canada remains committed to the F-35 program. The government has already funded long-lead components for the aircraft, a step that typically signals a high level of commitment.
Andrew Latham, a defense analyst based in Washington, argues that these investments effectively lock Canada into the program. He suggests that the public review may serve more as political theater than a genuine reconsideration.
“Canada can keep pretending it is still at the start of the decision tree,” Latham wrote earlier this year. “The purchase of long-lead parts suggests it knows better.”
Ottawa now faces a complex balancing act. On one hand, it must ensure that its defense procurement delivers value for money, supports domestic industry, and meets operational requirements. On the other, it must manage its relationship with the United States, which remains indispensable to Canada’s security and economic well-being.
Splitting the fighter jet purchase—acquiring a mix of F-35s and alternative aircraft—has emerged as a संभावित compromise. However, such an approach could introduce logistical complexities, increase costs, and dilute operational efficiency.
As the review drags on, Canada’s F-35 saga illustrates the intricate interplay between defense policy, economics, and geopolitics. What began as a routine reassessment has become a high-stakes decision with far-reaching implications.
