Canada Canada chooses Sweden's Saab in defence deal over US rivals, PM Mark Carney says

[Saithan]

Carney says Canada's historically close relationship with the United States has been permanently altered and Ottawa needs to diversify its economic and security relationships.​

Canada is moving ahead with the Swedish firm Saab on procuring a new fleet of Arctic surveillance aircraft, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced on Wednesday, choosing the Stockholm-based company over US competitors.

For Carney, the move addresses two key priorities; improving Canada's defence capabilities in the Arctic and reducing the country's economic integration with the United States.

By entering into formal negotiations with Saab on the procurement, Canada has sidelined two US alternatives: the Aeris X by L3Harris and the E-7 Wedgetail by Boeing.

"The GlobalEye procurement will help us secure our North and build our economy at once," Carney said at a defence industry event in Ottawa on Wednesday.

Saab applauded the news and noted plans "to transfer knowledge and technology to Canada that will grow the domestic defence industry," a message also shared by Carney.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney makes an address at the annual defence industry trade show CANSEC in Ottawa, 27 May, 2026 AP Photo

The Canadian premier has listed the Arctic as a strategic priority, warning Canada needs to rapidly improve its defence posture in the region, where geopolitical competition is rising, notably with Russia.

But in choosing a European partner over a US firm, Carney may further anger President Donald Trump's administration, which has already voiced frustration over Ottawa's decision to reconsider a multi-billion-dollar deal for a new fleet of US-made F-35 fighter jets.


When US Undersecretary of Defence Elbridge Colby announced earlier this month that the Pentagon was suspending cooperation on an 86-year-old joint defence advisory board with Canada, he cited the stalled F-35 deal as an aggravating factor.


Carney says Canada's historically close relationship with the United States has been permanently altered and Ottawa needs to diversify its economic and security relationships, insisting bilateral ties will not return to a pre-Trump normal.

Canada chooses Sweden's Saab in defence deal over US rivals

Carney says Canada's historically close relationship with the United States has been permanently altered and Ottawa needs to diversify its economic and security relationships. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

 

[Gessler]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2060800469677871612

I’m told, the USG has made it clear that if the CDN gov reneges on the contract signed by the Trudeau gov in Jan 2023 to purchase 88 x F35A’s in 4 batches, in order to buy a number of Gripen E’s, then 3 things will happen quickly.

1. LM with the full backing of the USG will launch a lawsuit to recover lost funds. When the Chrétien gov did the same thing with EH101 purchase, the CDN gov paid AgustaWestland nearly $1 billion in compensation.

2. CDN based businesses that exist solely to provide various components for the 3 variants of the F35 will have their future parts orders cut by 50%. This will cost them roughly $1.5 billion in revenue.

3. The USG will notify Saab & the Gov of Canada, that they will veto the export permit for the GE F414 engine, making any sale of the Gripen E to Canada impossible. The Biden admin, threatened this when the sale of the Gripen E to Columbia was announced, the Trump admin followed through with the threat & formally vetoed the use of the engine, which killed the deal. When the Columbia challenge occurred Saab engineers looked at the cost of using a Rolls Royce engine & concluded it would add $3-5 million USD to the flyaway cost to each Gripen E & add 5-8 years to the delivery timeframe while the airframe was modified & new testing & certification was completed.

Last point, the RCAF has made clear their position, 1 fighter jet & the best option is the F35A, why exactly should short term politics play a roll in a $20 billion dollar purchase that will not be finalized until long after Trump is not just out of office but likely deceased.

Perhaps they should just honour the contract they signed just 3 years ago & as recommended by the very people who risk their lives using the aircraft, no?

====

Of all the things mentioned, the engine veto is the one most likely to kill the deal, if employed.

 

[Saithan]

While picking Gripen is a good choice, I do not understand how any Government in existence would think that US would let such deals would go through with Trump and the republicans in senate and house selected by Trump.

I would have said Canada should have gone with EF, using European engine.

The same goes of course for Turkey and it's pick of engines and jet.

They should have at least proven the concept of EJ200 with a prototype.

 

[mehmed beg]

All these people are jokers .
They had France as an example but preferred their Northern European smugness.
In many things I am not fan of France but I respect their independent and can do spirit.

 

[Nilgiri]

Going for the Gripen? Then do it already.

Delaying the fighter decision is irresponsible

philippelagasse.substack.com

The Carney government is apparently planning to acquire 60 Gripens and to cut Canada’s F-35 buy from 88 to 30. As reported by Joel Dennis Bellavance in La Presse, Ottawa will announce the decision around the American mid-term elections in the fall.

Governments have the right to make these calls. If the reporting is correct, the government has concluded that a military pivot away from the United States, and Canada’s defence industrial ambitions, warrants a mixed fighter fleet. As I wrote last November, there are several trade-offs involved in pursuing a mixed fleet, notably around reduced capability and much higher costs, but the government appears to have accepted them.

What I find odd, though, is the delay. What exactly is the government waiting for? The F-35 review was launched in the winter of 2025. The results would have been provided to the government in short order. Indeed, the government has probably had a good sense of its options for about a year now. Maybe the government has been hoping that it could use the F-35 review as leverage in its trade negotiations with the United States. Maybe some things needed to be ironed out with Saab and Sweden. If the government has decided to go with a mixed fleet, however, it should get moving.

Why the urgency? Because it will take time —a lot of time— to get the RCAF ready for 60 Gripens. Negotiations with Saab will need to be settled. If the planes will be built in Canada, a viable production line will need to be set up. Infrastructure for the new fleet will need to be built. Pilots will need to be trained on the Gripen. If we’re being optimistic, all this will take at least 5 years. In terms of benchmarks, it’s worth noting Brazil assembled its first Gripen in March 2026, twelve years after signing a deal with Saab to build 36 Gripen there.

In the meantime, Canada’s CF-18s are nearing the end of their lives. When we hear that the CF-18s will be in service until 2032, that doesn’t mean that the entire fleet will operate until then. It means that the CF-18s are slated to be gradually retired over the next six years as Canada’s new fighters are delivered. So, the last of the CF-18s are supposed to be flying until 2032, not the whole fleet.

If we assume that 30 F-35s will be delivered between now and 2032, and if we assume that it will be five years at best before the first Gripens enter into service, that will result in a significant drop in Canada’s fighter fleet. Since the RCAF currently operates around 80-ish CF-18s, this would mean a gap of about 50 fighters for an unknown amount of time.

Why does this matter? Ironically, given the desire to pivot away from the United States, it would mean that Canada would be heavily dependent on the American air force to defend Canadian airspace in the interim. It would also limit, if not prevent, any deployment of Canadian fighters to defend Europe in the event of a crisis or war. It’s hard to say how long this capability gap would last, but it would linger for a while.

Could we keep the CF-18s flying as a stopgap? Potentially. Throw enough money at a problem and you can usually arrive at some kind of solution, however sub-optimal. Doing so would create other problems, though. The CF-18s wouldn’t be suited for higher threat environments, such as a potential conflict with Russia to defend Europe. The RCAF would also need to train and maintain pilots, infrastructure, and maintenance programs for three separate fighter fleets: the CF-18s, the F-35s, and the Gripens. That’s where the plausibility of extending the CF-18s really runs into trouble. It’ll be hard enough for the RCAF to operate two different fighters, let alone three.

Delaying a decision on a mixed fleet for several more months, therefore, would be irresponsible. The government can choose to cut the F-35 buy and acquire Gripens. It’s their decision, regardless of what the military, defence observers, and the United States think of it. What’s troubling is the dithering. The delay is making an already difficult choice harder, costlier, and riskier.



Postscript

The explanation most often given for the delay is that it gives Canada leverage in its trade negotiations with the United States. I saw it the same before. I’m increasingly doubting the idea. The longer a mixed fleet decision is delayed, the less credible it becomes, given the timeline factors discussed here. At some point, threatening to cut the F35 order becomes a case of Canada threatening to punch itself in the face: “Don’t make me unable to defend my airspace without you!”

Moving on the Gripen, or at least opening real negotiations, would provide actual leverage if that’s what we’re after. It would signal a credible plan B. Delaying indefinitely is planning for the status quo, not the presentation of an alternative plan.