Airbus is now talking openly about building Europe’s next fighter with Saab... and that should make Washington, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin sit up straight.
It's eclipsing hardware. It's about sovereign supply capability, and partnering with other middle powers and like minded democracies. I may add, all the while keeping decisions under wrap lest the great orange autocracy gets pissy. Multi point manufacturing will be key, so that never again will procurement is a single manufacturing point. The world is becoming substantially tested.
You hit the nail again Fred! It's good that other countries are standing up for themselves without closing off a shipping strait & starting a few wars...& the one who did all that +++ wanting to steal countries for themselves, HIMself, all while he started a PEACE group that had just ONE meeting hahaha. Peace out!!!
- Saab also floated the idea of 6th gen with Bombardier and Canada participating. Especially with integrating it with Gripens, GlobalEyes and "loyal wingmen" (Drones flying alongside the aircraft). This also meant Canada helping to design/build such drones. Not quite sure what's happened with this (worst case is us not officially announcing Gripens when it's pretty much the worst-kept secret, methinks -- but maybe by not officially committing, Saab is hedging now??)
- Japan, UK, Italy are working on such an aircraft right now. Canada is applying to be an "observer" with that project (with potentially being allowed into the partnership. Why Japan and Italy? That's because Lockheed Martin has licensed TWO (and only two) other companies to build F-35s. Mitsubishi (Japan) and Leonardo (Italy). Guess which two companies are spearheading the 6th gen (and without LM!). Note also that Canada's CAE is currently doing a major advanced aircraft flight school/simulator system with Leonardo in Sardinia.
Interesting points, Grant... especially the Canada angle.
I’ve seen the Saab–Canada chatter too around pairing the Gripen with loyal wingmen drones and surveillance systems like GlobalEye.
If Canada ever wants more sovereignty in defence capability, that kind of ecosystem starts looking a lot more interesting than just buying a plane and hoping for the best.
And good catch on Japan–UK–Italy.
That project does not get talked about enough.
The fact Japan and Italy already build F-35s, but are also helping lead a sixth-gen future outside Lockheed Martin’s orbit, tells you something important...
Even close allies are hedging their bets.
Your CAE/Leonardo point is interesting too.
Sometimes the breadcrumbs show up long before the official announcement does.
Excellent piece. The USA still doesn’t get but relays on blustering, threats and bullying. Not cooperation or respect of other countries. And we are the closest and most convenient target. If that means a total restructuring of NORAD and other continental defences so be it. The USA military is now playing the same game as trump. Dominance or they walk away.
This is why Canada should be buying the Gripen and building them here so that we have a seat at the table in the Airbus/Saab negotiations. Sure it may not be as stealthy as the F35 but do we really need that right now if our future could be as a partner in Europe’s 6th generation fighter that will certainly rival America.?
I think the strongest case people are making for the Gripen now is not just the aircraft itself... it’s the ecosystem around it.
Domestic assembly. Canadian industrial participation. Access to upgrades. Sovereign maintenance. Potential involvement in drones, surveillance systems, and maybe future programs if Europe keeps moving toward a Saab/Airbus path.
That said, stealth and interoperability matter too, especially with NORAD realities and operating beside allies already flying the F-35.
So I suspect the real question is not simply “Which jet is better?”
It is...
Which partnership gives Canada the most long-term leverage, capability, and independence?
Because buying a fighter is one decision.
Choosing who you’re strategically tied to for the next 30–40 years is a much bigger one.✈️
A few other things to consider. The US has stated that the 6th gen fighter F47 would be like the F22 and would not be exported or an unannounced de-tuned export version would be created. There would be little chance that Canada would get to build more than a few components with virtually no IP transfer and no say in the development if we were to acquire that aircraft, just like we have now with the F35 program.
Second, there is another 6th gen program that was created a while back between the UK, Japan and Italy and Canada was asked to participate. It is not clear what role would Canada play in this project as the cake has already been divided and Japan apparently wants to remain in charge for most of it.
The Airbus program would probably be a better bet for Canada in particular if it starts a relationship with SAAB that could see enhancements to the Gripen and Airbus already has two significant operations in Canada, the one in Mirabel making the A220 (previously known as the Bombardier C series) and a helicopter assembly plant in Ontario. I could see Canada actively participating in the development.
Lots to unpack there, Luc... and you raise several good points.
The export issue matters more than people realize.
If the U.S. treats a sixth-gen fighter like the F-22... meaning tightly controlled or de-tuned for allies... then Canada risks ending up as mostly a customer again rather than a meaningful partner.
Buying something and helping shape it are very different things.
You also nailed the key question on the UK–Japan–Italy project...
what role would Canada actually play?
Joining late sometimes means getting a chair at the table… but not necessarily a vote on the menu.
The Airbus/Saab angle feels different because there are already industrial relationships and potential pathways for deeper participation.
Airbus already has serious Canadian roots through Mirabel and helicopters, and Saab has long floated the idea of Canadian involvement beyond simply buying jets.
That doesn’t automatically make it the better choice... defence decisions are rarely that simple...
but if Canada wants more sovereignty, more industrial participation, and more influence over future capability, the European path starts looking harder to ignore.
The uncomfortable question underneath all of this is one Canada has avoided for years...
Should Canada join this group as part of its gripen deal? Isnt airbus tied into Bombardier? With 12 years experience building gripens domestically this would be a natural fit.
That’s a fair question, Larry — and on paper, there’s a pretty strong argument for it.
If Canada ends up leaning toward a Gripen ecosystem, joining a broader European sixth-gen partnership would make a lot of sense.
We already have aerospace expertise, pilot training infrastructure, advanced simulation capability, and companies that could participate in manufacturing or systems integration.
And yes, there are already industrial links in the ecosystem.
Airbus and Bombardier have worked together before, and Canada’s aerospace sector is not exactly a rookie at this stuff.
The bigger issue is timing and politics.
Canada has historically preferred buying proven systems instead of helping build them from the ground floor because development is expensive, slow, and politically risky.
But the world is changing.
Supply chains, sovereignty, interoperability, and trusted partners matter more than they used to.
The interesting part?
If Europe is genuinely trying to reduce dependence on U.S. systems, Canada suddenly becomes a pretty attractive middle-power partner.
Good engineering base. NATO country. Stable democracy. Arctic relevance.
So yes... natural fit?
I can absolutely see the argument for it.
The question is whether Ottawa wants to think 20 years ahead…
America no longer has allies. It has clients. Saab and Airbus could balance the 6th generation fighter future. Canada will be a big part of this.
“Clients” is a harsh word Pete… but I understand why people are starting to use it.
For decades, the alliance worked because interests mostly lined up.
What’s changing now is trust.
Europe seems to be asking a new question... What happens if Washington’s priorities suddenly shift?
And you’re right about Canada watching this closely.
Saab, Airbus, NATO procurement, sovereignty... this conversation is getting a lot bigger than fighter jets.
It's eclipsing hardware. It's about sovereign supply capability, and partnering with other middle powers and like minded democracies. I may add, all the while keeping decisions under wrap lest the great orange autocracy gets pissy. Multi point manufacturing will be key, so that never again will procurement is a single manufacturing point. The world is becoming substantially tested.
I think you’re onto something, Pete.
This feels bigger than hardware now.
Countries are starting to think in terms of resilience...
Who can still supply parts, software, repairs, and upgrades if politics suddenly turns ugly?
The old model assumed stability. The new model assumes disruption.
And yes... partnering with middle powers and trusted democracies feels increasingly like the direction of travel.
Shared manufacturing, multiple supply points, fewer single points of failure.
Funny how “just-in-time globalism” suddenly looks fragile when geopolitics gets noisy.
The world does feel stress-tested right now...
and governments seem to know it, even if they’re keeping a lot of the planning quiet.
You hit the nail again Fred! It's good that other countries are standing up for themselves without closing off a shipping strait & starting a few wars...& the one who did all that +++ wanting to steal countries for themselves, HIMself, all while he started a PEACE group that had just ONE meeting hahaha. Peace out!!!
Thanks Patsy 😊
Appreciate you reading... and yes, a lot of countries seem to be quietly deciding they’d rather have options than dependencies these days.
Strange times when “self-reliance” suddenly starts sounding practical again.
Canada should probably be paying attention too.
Other points:
- Saab also floated the idea of 6th gen with Bombardier and Canada participating. Especially with integrating it with Gripens, GlobalEyes and "loyal wingmen" (Drones flying alongside the aircraft). This also meant Canada helping to design/build such drones. Not quite sure what's happened with this (worst case is us not officially announcing Gripens when it's pretty much the worst-kept secret, methinks -- but maybe by not officially committing, Saab is hedging now??)
- Japan, UK, Italy are working on such an aircraft right now. Canada is applying to be an "observer" with that project (with potentially being allowed into the partnership. Why Japan and Italy? That's because Lockheed Martin has licensed TWO (and only two) other companies to build F-35s. Mitsubishi (Japan) and Leonardo (Italy). Guess which two companies are spearheading the 6th gen (and without LM!). Note also that Canada's CAE is currently doing a major advanced aircraft flight school/simulator system with Leonardo in Sardinia.
Hmmmm.
Interesting points, Grant... especially the Canada angle.
I’ve seen the Saab–Canada chatter too around pairing the Gripen with loyal wingmen drones and surveillance systems like GlobalEye.
If Canada ever wants more sovereignty in defence capability, that kind of ecosystem starts looking a lot more interesting than just buying a plane and hoping for the best.
And good catch on Japan–UK–Italy.
That project does not get talked about enough.
The fact Japan and Italy already build F-35s, but are also helping lead a sixth-gen future outside Lockheed Martin’s orbit, tells you something important...
Even close allies are hedging their bets.
Your CAE/Leonardo point is interesting too.
Sometimes the breadcrumbs show up long before the official announcement does.
Hmmmmm indeed.✈️
Made in America Destroyed by Trump!
Excellent read.
Excellent piece. The USA still doesn’t get but relays on blustering, threats and bullying. Not cooperation or respect of other countries. And we are the closest and most convenient target. If that means a total restructuring of NORAD and other continental defences so be it. The USA military is now playing the same game as trump. Dominance or they walk away.
I understand the concern, Brian.
I think what a lot of countries are wrestling with right now is this question...
How dependent is too dependent?
For decades, continental defence worked on the assumption that interests would mostly stay aligned and cooperation would remain predictable.
But when politics gets volatile, allies naturally start asking harder questions about supply chains, command structures, and strategic flexibility.
NORAD, NATO procurement, defence manufacturing... none of this is written in stone forever.
Countries reassess when the world changes.
At the same time, I suspect most governments still see cooperation as the goal...
just with fewer single points of dependence.
And Canada being the closest neighbour means we probably feel every shift first.
That part is hard to ignore.
This is why Canada should be buying the Gripen and building them here so that we have a seat at the table in the Airbus/Saab negotiations. Sure it may not be as stealthy as the F35 but do we really need that right now if our future could be as a partner in Europe’s 6th generation fighter that will certainly rival America.?
You make a reasonable argument, Richard.
I think the strongest case people are making for the Gripen now is not just the aircraft itself... it’s the ecosystem around it.
Domestic assembly. Canadian industrial participation. Access to upgrades. Sovereign maintenance. Potential involvement in drones, surveillance systems, and maybe future programs if Europe keeps moving toward a Saab/Airbus path.
That said, stealth and interoperability matter too, especially with NORAD realities and operating beside allies already flying the F-35.
So I suspect the real question is not simply “Which jet is better?”
It is...
Which partnership gives Canada the most long-term leverage, capability, and independence?
Because buying a fighter is one decision.
Choosing who you’re strategically tied to for the next 30–40 years is a much bigger one.✈️
A few other things to consider. The US has stated that the 6th gen fighter F47 would be like the F22 and would not be exported or an unannounced de-tuned export version would be created. There would be little chance that Canada would get to build more than a few components with virtually no IP transfer and no say in the development if we were to acquire that aircraft, just like we have now with the F35 program.
Second, there is another 6th gen program that was created a while back between the UK, Japan and Italy and Canada was asked to participate. It is not clear what role would Canada play in this project as the cake has already been divided and Japan apparently wants to remain in charge for most of it.
The Airbus program would probably be a better bet for Canada in particular if it starts a relationship with SAAB that could see enhancements to the Gripen and Airbus already has two significant operations in Canada, the one in Mirabel making the A220 (previously known as the Bombardier C series) and a helicopter assembly plant in Ontario. I could see Canada actively participating in the development.
Lots to unpack there, Luc... and you raise several good points.
The export issue matters more than people realize.
If the U.S. treats a sixth-gen fighter like the F-22... meaning tightly controlled or de-tuned for allies... then Canada risks ending up as mostly a customer again rather than a meaningful partner.
Buying something and helping shape it are very different things.
You also nailed the key question on the UK–Japan–Italy project...
what role would Canada actually play?
Joining late sometimes means getting a chair at the table… but not necessarily a vote on the menu.
The Airbus/Saab angle feels different because there are already industrial relationships and potential pathways for deeper participation.
Airbus already has serious Canadian roots through Mirabel and helicopters, and Saab has long floated the idea of Canadian involvement beyond simply buying jets.
That doesn’t automatically make it the better choice... defence decisions are rarely that simple...
but if Canada wants more sovereignty, more industrial participation, and more influence over future capability, the European path starts looking harder to ignore.
The uncomfortable question underneath all of this is one Canada has avoided for years...
Do we want to simply buy defence…
or actually help build it? 🇨🇦✈️
They don’t want Americans anymore.
Should Canada join this group as part of its gripen deal? Isnt airbus tied into Bombardier? With 12 years experience building gripens domestically this would be a natural fit.
That’s a fair question, Larry — and on paper, there’s a pretty strong argument for it.
If Canada ends up leaning toward a Gripen ecosystem, joining a broader European sixth-gen partnership would make a lot of sense.
We already have aerospace expertise, pilot training infrastructure, advanced simulation capability, and companies that could participate in manufacturing or systems integration.
And yes, there are already industrial links in the ecosystem.
Airbus and Bombardier have worked together before, and Canada’s aerospace sector is not exactly a rookie at this stuff.
The bigger issue is timing and politics.
Canada has historically preferred buying proven systems instead of helping build them from the ground floor because development is expensive, slow, and politically risky.
But the world is changing.
Supply chains, sovereignty, interoperability, and trusted partners matter more than they used to.
The interesting part?
If Europe is genuinely trying to reduce dependence on U.S. systems, Canada suddenly becomes a pretty attractive middle-power partner.
Good engineering base. NATO country. Stable democracy. Arctic relevance.
So yes... natural fit?
I can absolutely see the argument for it.
The question is whether Ottawa wants to think 20 years ahead…
or just buy the next thing off the shelf. ✈️