While advocating for the Grippen purchase, this opinion piece does a good job summarizing the arguments “for” and “against” each: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-sweden-saab-gripen-fighter-jet-defence/.
The pieces I’m finding that argue for the F-35 almost exclusively ignore the current context of Canada-US relations, and specifically the possibility that Canada will be denied upgrades and maintenance at the request of the administration that would render the aircraft inoperable. In other words, Canada would purchase the aircraft at great expense, but would be wholly dependent upon another country for the operation of the fleet.
Some interesting points from the article:
Sweden’s population is one-quarter that of Canada’s, but the Scandinavian country excels in some advanced products, especially military flying machines. The Gripen fighter jet and the GlobalEye early-warning surveillance aircraft, both made by Saab, are considered globally competitive.
Sweden has pitched the idea of making both planes in Canada, since Saab’s own factories lack the capacity to pump out either product in significant numbers as the order books fill up. Saab says that building the Gripen in Canada would create 10,000 jobs and that building the entire GlobalEye, which is based on the Canadian-made Bombardier 6500-series business jet, in Canada would create 3,000 jobs (the GlobalEye’s radar, sensors and other military gear are currently installed in Sweden).
Even if the jobs generated are half of what the company claims, the tally would be significant at a time when Mr. Trump’s tariffs are draining the Canadian auto, steel and aluminum industries of jobs.
….
It’s well known that the DND’s generals and procurement officers prefer the F-35 over the Gripen. Unlike the Gripen, the F-35 is a stealth aircraft and is said to have better “networked warfare” capabilities – the latest IT and AI systems to communicate with scattered air, ground and sea forces to provide an accurate picture of the combat theatre.
The Gripen’s big weakness is that it’s not a stealth aircraft. But the plane does have advantages. The latest version is reputed to have fine electronic warfare capabilities. It’s designed for harsh weather conditions, can operate from roads, has a quick “turnaround time” – the time it takes to rearm and refuel the plane in a war – is far cheaper to buy and operate than the F-35 and, crucially, offers sovereign control over its mission-system software updates. Canada’s F-35s would rely on U.S.-controlled software and data flows, raising the question: Could the Pentagon turn them into hangar queens by denying them software upgrades?
The Gripen’s main selling point is not the Gripen itself, however; it’s the opportunity to rebuild Canada’s defence aerospace industry and strengthen the country’s sovereignty by running a fleet of made-in-Canada aircraft that do not rely on the U.S. for software upgrades. If Bombardier doesn’t botch its transformation from a civil aerospace company into a defence player, the industrial benefits could extend well beyond manufacturing into research and development. Canada could play a key role in designing the next version of the Gripen or an entirely new aircraft, one with or without pilots.
With potential U.S. retaliation in mind, Canada could try to hedge its political risks by buying, say, 44 of the 88-plane order of F-35s and 50 to 70 Gripens. Canada’s military chiefs would hate the expense of running a dual-aircraft fleet, and buying only half the F-35 order might still be enough to enrage Mr. Trump.