What leaked documents exist comparing the F‑35 and Gripen in national procurement contests, and how were those scores derived?
Executive summary
A confidential 2021 Department of National Defence (DND) evaluation comparing Lockheed Martin’s F‑35A and Saab’s Gripen E was leaked to media in late November 2025 and publicly reported by Radio‑Canada and other outlets; the chart shows the F‑35 scoring far ahead across multiple technical and military‑capability categories (including high marks for stealth and sensor fusion) while the Gripen scored much lower in those same categories (figures such as roughly 95% vs 33% have been cited) [1] [2] [3]. The leaked file appears to be an internal Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF)/DND scoring table from the Future Fighter Capability Project and has triggered political debate, an internal DND probe of the leak, and pushback from Gripen supporters who dispute the evaluation criteria and timing [4] [5] [6].
1. The documents that leaked: what they are and who reported them
The primary leaked material reported publicly is a confidential 2021 DND/RCAF scoring chart obtained and first reported by Radio‑Canada and amplified by outlets including the Ottawa Citizen, National Post and several defence sites; those reports describe a compact evaluation table comparing the F‑35A and the Gripen E across categories such as “military capability,” “mission performance,” “stealth,” and “sensor fusion,” with the F‑35 dominating the Gripen in many cells [1] [4] [2] [7].
2. The headline numbers and what they mean in coverage
Multiple outlets summarize the same headline outcome: the leaked table gives the F‑35 very high marks (commonly described around the mid‑90s percentage range on some “military capability” or stealth/sensor fusion metrics) while the Gripen’s scores on those same metrics are reported as much lower (around the low‑30s in some summaries) — figures repeated in reporting and political commentary to argue a decisive technical advantage for the F‑35 [3] [2] [8].
3. How the scores were derived — what the leaked material says and what it omits
Reporting consistently attributes the technical scoring to RCAF/DND evaluators and frames the chart as part of the 2021 Future Fighter Capability Project assessment; however, none of the published coverage reproduces a full methodological annex, so the public record shows only the scored categories and totals rather than the raw weightings, scoring rubrics or evidence packets used to justify each cell [1] [9] [6]. Critics cited in the press argue that categories like “mission performance” and “upgradability” may have been defined in ways that privilege stealth/sensor‑fusion architectures (i.e., F‑35 strengths), while other stakeholders note Gripen strengths — such as availability, lower operating cost and simpler upgrade paths — are less directly reflected in those scored metrics [3] [5] [7].
4. Disputes, alternative metrics and external studies that complicate the picture
Independent evidence and manufacturer claims introduced into the debate include U.S. Congressional Budget Office and other analyses on F‑35 mission‑capable and availability rates and widely cited comparisons of cost‑per‑flight‑hour that favor Gripen on running costs; The Walrus and other outlets highlighted CBO/GAO/RAND figures showing lower availability and higher operating costs for the F‑35 compared with Gripen‑type claims, underlining that different evaluative emphases (capability vs. lifecycle cost and sovereign control) produce different “winners” [5]. Saab and Gripen proponents also pressed industrial and sovereignty arguments — including offers of substantial Canadian jobs and local assembly — that the DND scoring table does not quantify [6] [3].
5. Timing, possible motives and official response
Coverage notes the leak’s timing as politically consequential — appearing as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his team weighed the broader procurement decision — and several commentators and former officials suggested the leak could be aimed at pressuring the government toward the F‑35, a claim the DND has said it is investigating [4] [1]. Reporting also records internal scepticism: some defence analysts and critics point to institutional bias toward the F‑35 within the RCAF and question whether the scoring rubric was neutral [9] [3].
6. What remains unknown and why that matters
Crucial methodological details remain off the public record: the leak as reported supplies high‑level scores and categorical labels but not the full scoring rubric, weighting scheme, source data or how tradeoffs (capability vs. cost vs. sovereign access) were balanced — limits that make it impossible, from available reporting, to independently verify whether the numeric gap reflects an objective technical gulf or a choices‑of‑metrics bias [1] [4] [3].