Why Canada May Have Already Passed The Point Of Canceling Its F-35 Order

Published Jul 27, 2026, 2:00 PM EDT Luke Diaz is a freelance military writer with experience with active duty experience in the US Navy as well as defense and industrial engineering. He is a former Naval Flight Officer who performed tactical air control on the carrier-based E-2 Hawkeye. The Royal Canadian Air Force is still debating whether or not it will purchase the full number of Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters that it originally planned to procure. Canada has already committed billions to the first 30 aircraft. From a domestic political standpoint, accepting that it is 'too late' to cancel the F-35 means Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government must pivot from an aggressive posture of trade resistance to one of pragmatic damage control. The original F-35 deal was for 88 jets at an estimated $19 billion CAD, with lifecycle costs now projected at $27.7 billion, according to Zona Militar. Walking away from the remaining 58 jets would trigger breach-of-contract fines that could dwarf the cost of actually buying the planes, leaving Canada with a massive bill and zero aircraft to show for it. Accepting the full 88-jet F-35 order also acts as the ultimate geopolitical reset button for Canada-US relations. Having placed the deal under a high-profile protest to American tariffs, the government must now reframe the purchase not as a capitulation to Washington, but as an essential, non-negotiable step to protect Canadian jobs and aerospace contracts. Accepting the F-35 will mean dealing with 'black box' technology that the US holds the 'keys' to. Politically, this exposes the government to criticism from nationalist and opposition factions who argue Canada is sacrificing its defense sovereignty. The Non-Optional Defense Spending Hike Credit: US Air Force The escalating US demand for Canada to dramatically boost its defense spending directly overlaps with Canada's F-35 procurement program. The Trump administration’s demand for Canada to hit a 3.5% GDP defense spending target by 2035 has been backed with threats of severe economic and trade penalties. The pressure from Washington is also intensely immediate. In response to Canada's perceived foot-dragging and its ongoing review of the F-35 acquisition, the Pentagon took the extraordinary step of suspending cooperation under the US-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defence. More recently, at the July 2026 NATO Summit in The Hague, Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed that NATO allies have officially adopted a new, aggressive benchmark: member states must commit 5% of their GDP to defense by 2035. This massive target is broken down into 3.5% for core military spending and 1.5% for strategic defense infrastructure. While the F-35 is a massive financial burden, its lifecycle costs would satisfy a huge portion of that spending mandate, effectively purchasing goodwill and economic stability with Canada's most critical trading partner. Additionally, the program is projected to sustain tens of thousands of high-tech Canadian jobs over its lifespan. Aborting the full procurement would trigger an industrial collapse in the domestic aerospace sector. Another major reason it is financially too late to pull away from the F-35 is that Canada's aerospace sector is already completely woven into Lockheed Martin’s global manufacturing pipeline. Canada has been an investing partner in the F-35 program since 1997. Because of this early entry, Canadian companies do not just build parts for Canadian jets; they build parts for every single F-35 delivered globally. If the Carney government shrinks the JSF order, Lockheed has signaled it will legally strip these production contracts from Canadian aerospace makers. The Operational Reality On The Flightline Credit: US Air Force Ultimately, the Royal Canadian Air Force desperately needs to replace its aging Boeing CF-188 Hornets, which are nearing the end of their service life. The Canadian Ministry of Defense is considering a Swedish alternative even though it rated the F-35 significantly higher than the Saab JAS-39 Gripen E during tactical evaluations, as Hushkit reported. While the F-35 is technically superior, its lifetime costs vastly overshadow those of the Saab. The total investment is estimated at $74 billion to $80 billion over the service life of the fleet. The Gripen E is also significantly cheaper to operate and maintain, particularly for routine Arctic patrols. The combat readiness rate of the Gripen fleet has reportedly ranged between 70% and 80%. Whereas in the past, the F-35A has experienced severely degraded availability, frequently said to be as low as 35% to 55%. Aside from this advantage, the fact that Canada would have total sovereign control over mission data and software is one of the most alluring features of choosing the Gripen. The F-35’s premier asset is also its main drawback for Canadian sovereignty. The aircraft's mission-systems software is a closed US monopoly. Canada cannot access or modify the core source code. If Canada wants to integrate a domestic weapon system or configure specialized software for the High North, it must pay Lockheed Martin to do it, making the RCAF technologically dependent on the states. It is also possible that the government could be pursuing a dual-fleet or mixed-fleet strategy. Sweden’s Saab Gripen offers an open-architecture system. Saab was willing to hand Canada the software keys to reprogram the fighter domestically, taking the first 16 to 30 F-35s it has already paid for while potentially replacing the remaining 58 to 72 aircraft with Gripens to gain industrial autonomy. The Climbing Cost Of Air Defense Credit: US Air Force The F-35 JSF is more than just an expensive plan for Canada; it is the single most costly defense-industrial project in military history. That fact is taking its toll on the US and Canada, and it is still proving to be a point of contention for other partners as the original cost continues to climb. Like the United Kingdom in Switzerland, the Canadian F-35 program has exceeded its original budget. The current estimate holds that additional cost at $8 billion, according to The Independent. Canada has legally committed to and begun payments for the first 16 F-35 aircraft, with the first delivery expected in late 2026. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly and the Carney administration have made it clear that Canada did not get enough industry advantages from the initial F-35 agreement. Still, Canada has started paying for long-lead components for 14 more F-35s than the initial 16 in order to keep its place in the manufacturing sequence, even though the deal has been officially reviewed. Due to these considerations, the remaining 72 planes' status is still uncertain. A rising number of people believe that Canada depends too much on the US defense sector, particularly in light of the rhetoric from the Trump Administration that casts the US as a 'hostile power' with brazen threats of annexation. Paying The Price For Alliance Credit: US Air Force From a global command perspective, Canada would not want to fight a war alone. Therefore, the armed forces operate as part of the NORAD or NATO coalitions. The US Air Force, US Navy, and key European allies are migrating entirely to 5th-generation data networks. If Canada were to operate a split or alternative fleet, it would face tactical 'exclusion.' During high-intensity NATO operations, non-stealthy, non-data-link-compliant aircraft are increasingly relegated to secondary, low-risk rear guard duties. The US position, voiced by Ambassador Pete Hoekstra in January, framed the purchase of the F-35 not as an optional commercial deal but as a requirement for continental joint security. The US suggested that if Canada chooses an 'inferior' or less interoperable jet, referring to the Swedish Saab, it would create security gaps. American officials argued that such a gap would necessitate altering or revising the NORAD agreement to allow more frequent and direct Air Force operations over Canadian territory, according to CBC. The rhetoric regarding a takeover of Canadian airspace is not about a hostile invasion but rather a leveraged renegotiation of the NORAD alliance terms. The Canadian Department of National Defence continues to study whether to proceed with the remaining 72 aircraft or pivot to a mixed-fleet strategy that includes non-US fighters. Canadian analysts and officials have interpreted these warnings as tactics intended to leverage the F-35 purchase during wider trade disputes. Future-Proofing Canadian Skies Credit: BAE Systems NATO is rapidly standardizing its air power around the F-35 ecosystem across Europe and North America. If Canada had split its fleet or switched to the Saab Gripen, it would have faced tactical exclusion within international alliances; locking in the F-35 order acts as a vital geopolitical reset button, preserving Canada's standing within Western intelligence and continental defense networks. Russia and China have aggressively expanded their military footprints in the High North, deploying advanced long-range radar networks and advanced surface-to-air missile systems. Operating a 4.5-generation jet like the Saab Gripen would be a strategic liability in this environment. The Gripen lacks the stealth required to survive or operate inside these hostile radar bubbles. Strategically, Canada does not view the F-35 as a simple dogfighter. In the Arctic, it acts as an invisible, flying sensor. A full fleet of 88 F-35s allows Canada to establish a persistent, stealthy picket line across the Arctic Circle. These jets can quietly detect Russian cruise missiles or bombers and securely transmit target data back to US and Canadian missile defense bases without ever revealing their own locations. Because Canada is stuck with the F-35 today, its entry into the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) as an observer is a long-term technology transfer play. Canada is using GCAP to gain exposure to 6th-generation software architectures, next-gen materials, and engine designs. This ensures Canadian engineers develop the competencies required to break free from the US technological monopoly by the 2040s.