OPINION: Canada’s F-35 Will Break NORAD

The F-35: Built for Networked Defense

The F-35 Lightning II is not just a fighter jet; it is a networked warfare platform designed specifically for this type of integrated defense. Its onboard sensors automatically combine radar, infrared, and electronic surveillance data into a single view for the pilot. Secure data links allow it to send and receive targeting information with other aircraft and ground stations. It is this fifth-generation architecture that makes the F-35 perfectly suited to NORAD’s requirements. This is also what enabled it to significantly outperform the Gripen during the Canadian project’s evaluations.

Technology is both fascinating and frightening. The F-35 is almost a flying computer that sees everything, knows everything, and shares everything. And the Gripen, while certainly an excellent aircraft, doesn’t speak the same language—it doesn’t play in the same technological league. I wonder if we truly understand the extent of the technological gap between these two aircraft. It’s not just a matter of speed or firepower; it’s a matter of connectivity, integration, and the ability to work together. And in modern warfare, that’s what makes the difference between being a formidable force or… a liability.

A Program Under Fire

It must be acknowledged that the F-35 is not without its flaws. A December 2025 report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General revealed that the F-35’s operational readiness had suffered in 2024, with aircraft available to fly only about 50% of the time. This is well below the U.S. Air Force’s minimum performance expectations, partly due to maintenance and parts shortages. The same audit revealed maintenance contracts that lacked performance incentives. These are serious problems that are costing billions.

And at this point, I pause and ask myself: really? We’re spending fortunes on an aircraft that doesn’t fly half the time? It’s a waste, it’s inefficient, it’s absurd. Canadian and American taxpayers are paying for a product that doesn’t work as intended. It’s like buying a car that breaks down every other day. I am appalled by this reality, by this acceptance of mediocrity, by this tolerance for the unacceptable. We’re being sold a technological dream, but the reality is hangars full of planes waiting for parts we don’t have.

The Gripen E and Its Attractive Promises

Saab’s Gripen E has positioned itself as the European alternative to the American F-35. The Swedish company has stepped up its efforts to win over Ottawa, raising its job creation promises to as many as 12,000 in Canada. This is a powerful political argument in an uncertain economic climate. The Gripen is a versatile fighter jet that has proven itself with several NATO allies and performs well in Arctic conditions. It is less expensive to purchase and maintain than the F-35.

12,000 jobs—that’s certainly a dream come true. In a world where jobs are becoming precarious, where factories are closing, and where the future seems uncertain, 12,000 jobs are a lifeline for entire communities. I understand the political appeal; I understand the temptation to say: yes, let’s go with the Gripen, create jobs, and be independent. But is that really the right calculation? Are today’s jobs worth tomorrow’s security? I have this nagging doubt, this question that remains unanswered.

A Decision Made Under Pressure

Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the purchase of 88 F-35s shortly after taking office. Although the official findings of this review were received in mid-2025, no decision has yet been made public. Meanwhile, Saab has upped its offer to create jobs in an effort to convince Ottawa to cancel the F-35 contract. This is a dangerous political game that jeopardizes a decades-long defense relationship.

Politics is the art of compromise, but this borders on sabotage. Canceling a contract that’s already underway after more than a dozen aircraft have already been delivered sends a terrible message to Washington. It’s like saying: we don’t trust you; we prefer Europe; we prefer… who, what? China, perhaps? Carney spoke of strengthening relations with Beijing, and that leaves me completely speechless. How can we simultaneously rely on U.S. protection from NORAD and court a strategic adversary? It’s pure inconsistency; it’s like dancing on a volcano.

Independence or Dependence

Some Canadians, such as Ronald Fallis, believe that the greatest threat to Canada is the United States itself. He points out that it is the only country to have invaded Canada twice and advocates for a joint fleet that would give Canada a degree of independence. Moreover, the United States does not recognize Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Other Canadians point to recent economic tensions between the two countries.

That really strikes a nerve. I understand that sense of humiliation, that feeling of being the little brother who has to obey the big brother. The Canadians’ comments reveal a deep unease, a national wound that won’t heal. We want to be independent; we want to be sovereign; we want to decide our own destiny without looking south for every decision. But military independence is expensive—very expensive. And are we really willing to pay that price? I don’t know; I don’t know if we have the resources, the will, or the courage to go it alone in this dangerous world.

Voices Are Speaking Out Against Pressure

Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, warns against public criticism among allies. She argues that public disputes only benefit our adversaries and risk undermining the credibility of our shared deterrent. Vincent Rigby, a former national security adviser, describes the ambassador’s remarks as a political pressure tactic to force the Canadian government’s hand.

Finally, voices of reason are rising above this political din. Charron is right: our adversaries must be rubbing their hands with glee as they watch us squabble publicly like children in a schoolyard. And Rigby is right, too: this is a pressure tactic, not a declaration of war. Diplomacy is subtle, nuanced, and… complicated. I’m tired of these excesses, these threats, these fabricated dramas. We need seriousness, responsibility, and maturity. No Cold War rhetoric in the 21st century.

A thought-provoking precedent

Denmark, which has already purchased F-35s, is in the midst of a dispute with the Trump administration over the president’s threats to take possession of Greenland. The country has deployed its F-35s to the Arctic island in response to these threats. Rasmus Jarlov, chair of the Danish Parliament’s Defense Committee, has a message for Canada: choose a different fighter jet. He explains that they’re in the shop about half the time, so the Americans have complete power to cripple our air force by cutting off the supply of parts.

This Danish account sends a chill down my spine. Imagine for a moment that your national defense could be paralyzed simply by… a halt in parts deliveries. It’s a terrifying dependence, an unacceptable vulnerability. The Dane is warning us: don’t make our mistake. And I hear it—this message—loud and clear. Because in the end, if we buy the F-35, we won’t truly be free to conduct our own foreign policy. Every time Washington disagrees with us, they’ll be able to hold us hostage by threatening to cut off the supply. That is the reality of military dependence.

A Deep Divide Among the Public

An Ekos Politics poll conducted in December among Canadians reveals that 72% support integrating the Swedish Gripen into Canada’s fighter jet fleet, either by switching entirely to this aircraft or by maintaining a mixed fleet. This overwhelming majority runs counter to the Canadian military’s recommendations and puts the Carney administration in a delicate position. A mixed fleet would have implications for the already overburdened Canadian Air Force.

72% is a huge number; it’s a slap in the face—a near-total rejection of the F-35 option. Canadians feel hurt and betrayed; they reject dependence on the United States. But how can this popular will be reconciled with strategic realities? That is the government’s dilemma: should it listen to the people or follow military recommendations? I’m torn; I understand both sides. On one hand, there’s the desire for independence and national dignity. On the other, there’s the need for a credible and interoperable defense. In this kind of situation, there’s no right answer—only painful compromises.

Today’s Choices Will Shape Tomorrow

Canada finds itself at a true strategic crossroads with this decision to purchase fighter jets. On one hand, the F-35 offers seamless interoperability with the United States within the NORAD framework, but comes with high costs and complete technological dependence. On the other hand, the Gripen promises jobs and a degree of independence, but threatens to undermine a decades-old defensive alliance. The choice is not an easy one; the stakes are enormous, and the consequences will be felt for generations. This is much more than just a purchase of aircraft; it is a decision that will define Canada’s place in the North American security architecture for decades to come.

When I look at all of this, I’m overcome by a sense of weight, of gravity, of… responsibility. This decision isn’t just about planes—it’s about our future, our security, and our place in the world. And I tremble at the thought that this choice might be made for short-term political reasons rather than long-term strategic ones. Canada deserves better than electoral calculations. Canadians deserve a credible, independent, and trustworthy defense. Whatever the final decision may be, it must be made with seriousness, vision, and courage. Because in the end, what’s at stake is far more than just fighter jets. It’s our sovereignty, our dignity, our future.

Signed, Jacques Provost