Also Read: JS Izumo reappears with a squared-off bow for F-35B jets, and Japan\u2019s quiet carrier comeback is no longer easy to hide<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nBut the price tag has become harder to ignore. The Office of the Auditor General said the project\u2019s cost estimate rose from $19.0 billion Canadian (USD$14 billion) in 2022 to $27.7 billion Canadian (USD$20 billion) in 2024, almost 50% higher than first expected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It also warned that at least $5.5 billion Canadian (USD$4 billion) more would be needed for full operational capability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Gripen question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The main alternative now being discussed is Sweden\u2019s Gripen<\/a>, made by Saab. Reuters reported that Canada could split the fleet, buying fewer F-35s while adding some Gripen jets, although Ottawa has already made a legal funding commitment for the first 16 F-35 aircraft.<\/p>\n\n\n\nOn paper, the F-35 still has a powerful case. Internal evaluation data reported by AeroTime, based on Radio-Canada documents, said the F-35 scored 57.1 out of 60 points while the Gripen E<\/a> scored 19.8. That does not settle the politics, but it shows why military officials may see the American jet as the stronger combat platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe carbon question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Here is where the story gets bigger than one aircraft. In fiscal year 2024 to 2025, Canada\u2019s national safety and security fleet emitted 840 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to the federal emissions inventory. National Defence accounted for 574 kilotons, and 80% of that came from aircraft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That does not mean fighter jets can simply be replaced with clean aircraft<\/a>, at least not with today\u2019s technology. But in practical terms, every long-term defense purchase also locks in decades of fuel use, maintenance needs, infrastructure, noise, and supply chain impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Department of National Defence says it supports a net-zero target for national safety and security fleet operations by 2050, while noting that progress depends on availability, affordability, compatibility, and operational feasibility\u2013a lot of caveats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\nAlso Read: Misawa is no longer just an F-16 base, because the arrival of F-35s is turning northern Japan into a sharper edge of U.S. airpower<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nStill, it is the kind of tension that shows up in everyday life, too, when people want lower emissions but also need reliable transportation, even when the electric bill and fuel costs are already biting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Environmental concerns are already official<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The climate debate is not just coming from outside critics. An official environmental petition record filed with the Office of the Auditor General raised questions about the F-35 fleet\u2019s carbon emissions, mining needs, firefighting foam, possible soil and water contamination, noise, and effects on Arctic operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The important word here is \u201cquestions.\u201d The petition record does not prove every concern will happen in Canada. But it does show that environmental scrutiny has become part of the fighter jet debate, and not as an afterthought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/okdiario.com\/techy\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/canada-f35-fighter-jet-deal-review-lockheed-1.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
As the cost of the F-35 program climbs to $27.7 billion CAD, Canadian officials are reconsidering whether a mixed fleet of aircraft might better serve the country’s defense and climate goals.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nA future fighter door opens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
McGuinty has also confirmed that Canada is looking into possible observer status in the Global Combat Air Programme, the sixth-generation<\/a> fighter effort led by the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy. The Canadian Press reported that no final decision has been made on that step, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThat program is aimed at delivering a next-generation fighter aircraft<\/a> by 2035, according to a UK government joint statement. For Canada, that could be a way to diversify partnerships. The catch is simple: it would not solve the near-term problem of replacing the CF-18 fleet.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat Canada must decide<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
At the end of the day, Canada\u2019s fighter review is a balancing act. The F-35 offers stealth, interoperability with the United States, and a strong evaluation record. The Gripen offers a non-U.S. option and potentially more industrial flexibility. Neither choice is climate-free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\nAlso Read: British F-35Bs have just achieved their first victory in actual combat, and it wasn’t in just any exercise. It took place over Jordan, amid a regional wave of drones, with the support of a Typhoon and a Voyager tanker aircraft, as confirmed by the RAF<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nSo, what should readers keep in mind? The final decision will shape Canada\u2019s air defense for decades, but it will also shape military emissions<\/a>, infrastructure spending, and the environmental footprint of bases and training routes. That is why this is no longer just a defense procurement story.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe official environmental petition record was published on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Canada is still reviewing its plan to buy 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, and this time the debate is … <\/p>\n
On paper, the F-35 still has a powerful case. Internal evaluation data reported by AeroTime, based on Radio-Canada documents, said the F-35 scored 57.1 out of 60 points while the Gripen E<\/a> scored 19.8. That does not settle the politics, but it shows why military officials may see the American jet as the stronger combat platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is where the story gets bigger than one aircraft. In fiscal year 2024 to 2025, Canada\u2019s national safety and security fleet emitted 840 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to the federal emissions inventory. National Defence accounted for 574 kilotons, and 80% of that came from aircraft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That does not mean fighter jets can simply be replaced with clean aircraft<\/a>, at least not with today\u2019s technology. But in practical terms, every long-term defense purchase also locks in decades of fuel use, maintenance needs, infrastructure, noise, and supply chain impacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Department of National Defence says it supports a net-zero target for national safety and security fleet operations by 2050, while noting that progress depends on availability, affordability, compatibility, and operational feasibility\u2013a lot of caveats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, it is the kind of tension that shows up in everyday life, too, when people want lower emissions but also need reliable transportation, even when the electric bill and fuel costs are already biting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate debate is not just coming from outside critics. An official environmental petition record filed with the Office of the Auditor General raised questions about the F-35 fleet\u2019s carbon emissions, mining needs, firefighting foam, possible soil and water contamination, noise, and effects on Arctic operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The important word here is \u201cquestions.\u201d The petition record does not prove every concern will happen in Canada. But it does show that environmental scrutiny has become part of the fighter jet debate, and not as an afterthought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n McGuinty has also confirmed that Canada is looking into possible observer status in the Global Combat Air Programme, the sixth-generation<\/a> fighter effort led by the United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy. The Canadian Press reported that no final decision has been made on that step, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That program is aimed at delivering a next-generation fighter aircraft<\/a> by 2035, according to a UK government joint statement. For Canada, that could be a way to diversify partnerships. The catch is simple: it would not solve the near-term problem of replacing the CF-18 fleet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the end of the day, Canada\u2019s fighter review is a balancing act. The F-35 offers stealth, interoperability with the United States, and a strong evaluation record. The Gripen offers a non-U.S. option and potentially more industrial flexibility. Neither choice is climate-free.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what should readers keep in mind? The final decision will shape Canada\u2019s air defense for decades, but it will also shape military emissions<\/a>, infrastructure spending, and the environmental footprint of bases and training routes. That is why this is no longer just a defense procurement story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The official environmental petition record was published on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Canada is still reviewing its plan to buy 88 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, and this time the debate is … <\/p>\nThe carbon question<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: Misawa is no longer just an F-16 base, because the arrival of F-35s is turning northern Japan into a sharper edge of U.S. airpower<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Environmental concerns are already official<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A future fighter door opens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What Canada must decide<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: British F-35Bs have just achieved their first victory in actual combat, and it wasn’t in just any exercise. It took place over Jordan, amid a regional wave of drones, with the support of a Typhoon and a Voyager tanker aircraft, as confirmed by the RAF<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n