Gripen V F-35: Debunking the Maintainability Myth as Canada Rethinks its Fighter Deal

Canada’s long-running search for a new fighter jet has once again hit turbulence.

In January 2026, Saab — the Swedish aerospace firm — formally offered Ottawa a package of 72 Gripen E/F fighters plus six GlobalEye airborne early-warning aircraft, bundled with a promise of 12,600 jobs and significant industrial participation.

The timing is no coincidence: it arrives just as Canada quietly reconsiders its 2023 commitment to purchase 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jets, a deal now valued at around CAD $33 billion.

The official line from Ottawa has long been that the F-35 is the only aircraft meeting Canada’s NORAD and NATO commitments. Yet behind the scenes, doubts about the jet’s maintainability — and the broader risks of deep dependence on American systems — are growing louder.

Maintainability myth

The maintainability myth, as some defence analysts call it, centres on the idea that the F-35 is uniquely difficult and expensive to keep flying.

One frequently cited figure is stark: the F-35 reportedly requires around 300 certified mechanics per squadron to maintain operational readiness. That is not a casual number.

For comparison, legacy fourth-generation fighters like the F-16 or Gripen typically need a fraction of that specialised support. The high headcount stems from the F-35’s extreme complexity — advanced stealth coatings, sensor fusion, and software-driven systems that demand constant attention. When not in the air it has to be housed in an air-conditioned hangar to protect its stealth coating.

Critics argue this makes the jet less deployable in austere environments, a concern for a country like Canada with vast geography and limited forward bases.

Kill switch

More troubling for allies is the degree of control retained by the United States. The F-35’s performance is managed through a centralised cloud-based system operated by Lockheed Martin and the US Department of Defense ('War'). Software updates, mission data files, and even certain performance envelopes can be remotely adjusted or restricted.

In practice, this means Washington holds a kill-switch: withhold spare parts, delay upgrades, or degrade capabilities if political winds shift.

Allies have already tasted this reality. The United Kingdom, for example, found its Storm Shadow cruise missiles limited by US control over TERCOM terrain-mapping data. Similar constraints have been reported by Portugal and Switzerland, both F-35 customers, who worry about dependency in a crisis.

Canada, with its long border and Arctic commitments, is now wondering whether it should commit further to a fighter whose availability might be subject to US control when Trump is suggesting Canada should become the US's 51st state.

Enter the Gripen E

Saab’s offer is not just a competing aircraft; it is a different philosophy. The Gripen is designed for rapid turnaround, high sortie rates, and low logistical footprint.

It requires far fewer specialised personnel — often cited at around 3 per aircraft— and can operate from austere airstrips or highways. Its maintenance philosophy emphasises simplicity: modular components, easy access, and a focus on availability over exotic technology.

Saab claims the Gripen achieves mission-capable rates above 90% in real-world use, with hourly operating costs a fraction of the F-35’s.

A sovereign aircraft

Beyond technical merits, the Gripen deal addresses sovereignty concerns directly. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen is not tied to a single-nation software ecosystem. Saab are using this as a powerful USP in their marketing to Canada.

Sweden has committed to full technology transfer, industrial participation, and no external veto on upgrades or mission data, even construction of the aircraft in Canaa.

For Canada, this means greater operational independence — a key consideration when NORAD duties and Arctic defence are at stake.The political backdrop adds urgency.

Trump de-marketed the F-35

In 2025, Donald Trump suggested Canada could become the “51st state” and claimed the US had downgraded allied F-35s by 10–15%.

Whether bluster or not, the remark highlighted the leverage Washington holds over its partners. Canada’s government, facing domestic pressure over costs and sovereignty, now has a credible alternative on the table. The Saab package promises not only fighters but economic benefits — jobs, technology transfer, and reduced reliance on a single supplier.

Is there a downside?

Critics of the Gripen argue it lacks the F-35’s stealth and sensor fusion, making it less survivable in contested airspace. Yet in Canada’s likely operating environment — Arctic patrols, NORAD intercepts, limited peer conflict — the Gripen’s agility, low cost, and independence may outweigh raw fifth-generation capabilities.

Stealth is valuable, but so is having an aircraft you can actually maintain and control.

A strategic choice for Canada

As Ottawa weighs its options, the debate is no longer just about aircraft. It is about strategic autonomy in an era of great-power competition. The F-35 represents deep integration with the US; the Gripen offers a path to self-reliance. With Saab’s offer on the table, Canada has a genuine choice — and the maintainability myth around the F-35 is looking increasingly difficult to sustain.

Saab's Gripen offer, along with Canada's recent trade deal with China, has caused anger in Washington and the US is now reported as being involved in stoking separatist sentiment in Canada's Alberta province.

Sources / Read more

Saab official announcement (January 2026)

Reason.com analysis of F-35 allied constraints

Public statements from Canadian defence officials and opposition figures

I also write on medium and substack.