How have political ties, export restrictions, and industrial offset offers influenced Gripen versus F-35 decisions?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Canada’s reopened fighter competition has been shaped as much by politics, export controls and industrial-offset promises as by aircraft performance: leaked Royal Canadian Air Force scoring gave the F‑35 57.1/60 on military capability versus the Gripen’s 19.8/60, a gap that reinforced the U.S. aircraft’s technical edge in Ottawa’s internal review [1] [2]. At the same time, political pressure — including high-level Swedish promotion of the Gripen and debate over U.S. foreign‑policy moves — plus concerns about U.S. export terms and industrial benefits have kept Gripen proponents viable [1] [3].
1. Political theatre as a procurement weapon
Political signaling has become central to the Gripen vs. F‑35 debate. Sweden staged visible, high‑level promotion of the Gripen during King Carl XVI Gustaf’s visit accompanied by Saab executives, framing Gripen as a “European” alternative to the American option and using diplomacy to influence Canadian opinion [1]. Conversely, the F‑35 benefits from deep institutional ties with the U.S. and interoperability arguments that appeal to NATO-aligned planning — an advantage visible in leaked Canadian scoring that heavily favoured the F‑35 on military capability [1] [2].
2. Leaked technical scores but political context matters more than numbers
Leaked Royal Canadian Air Force assessment data released to media showed a stark technical scoring disparity: the F‑35 received 57.1 out of 60 on military capabilities versus the Gripen E’s ~20 out of 60, a statistic widely cited in coverage and opinion pieces [1] [2]. Those numbers buttress arguments for the F‑35’s advanced stealth and multisensor package, but analysts and commentators note that operational needs, sovereignty questions and mission profiles (continental defence vs. expeditionary deployments) could blunt a purely numerical verdict [2] [4].
3. Export restrictions and foreign‑policy leverage
Concerns about U.S. export policy and foreign‑policy alignment have prompted at least two countries to reassess F‑35 purchases and brought export controls into the procurement calculus [3]. Reporting indicates that shifts in U.S. foreign policy have made some buyers — including Canada and Portugal in reporting — reconsider American fighters, giving Gripen a political opening by promising fewer bilateral strings and perceived greater procurement autonomy [3].
4. Industrial offsets are the battlefield for jobs and sovereignty
Industrial benefits and maintenance/hub promises are central political levers. Media reported pitched domestic debates over whether Canada should host maintenance hubs and local industry work tied to the F‑35 program; proponents argue that lockstep alliance integration brings supply-chain and sustainment advantages, while opponents push Gripen offers as more direct industrial participation and lower operating costs [4] [2]. Offset promises from Saab have been advanced publicly to frame Gripen not only as a fighter choice but as an economic-development package [1].
5. Competing narratives on cost and capability
Public and specialist commentary stresses different tradeoffs: outlets sympathetic to the Gripen highlight lower acquisition and operating costs and argue that, absent an absolute need for stealth for domestic operations, the Gripen can be superior for some mission sets [2] [5]. Pro‑F‑35 coverage emphasizes fifth‑generation stealth and advanced sensor fusion as decisive advantages, reinforced by the leaked scoring that overwhelmingly favoured the U.S. jet [1] [2].
6. Media framing and opinion pieces amplify political stakes
Opinion pages and defence blogs have amplified both the technical leak and the political contest: national outlets ran editorials questioning the F‑35 choice and military commentators produced comparative pieces that kept the Gripen case in public view [6] [7]. That media mix has turned what might be a technical procurement into a wider debate about sovereignty, alliance politics and domestic industrial policy [1] [3].
7. What the sources do not say
Available sources do not mention concrete, legally binding text of export licenses, detailed offset contracts proposed to Canada, or any definitive Cabinet decisions beyond public statements and leaks; they also do not provide the full RCAF evaluation methodology or the raw data behind the leaked scores (not found in current reporting). Sources likewise do not include responses from the U.S. government detailing export assurances in this specific procurement (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for policy and voters
The procurement decision is not reducible to the leaked scoreline alone: technical superiority (as reported) gives the F‑35 institutional momentum, but political campaigns, export‑control anxieties and industrial offset offers — amplified by diplomatic visits and media narratives — create sustained pressure to consider Gripen. Canadian decision‑makers face a classic tradeoff between highest capability and perceived national control over maintenance, supply and industrial return [1] [2] [3].