DUMP THE F-35!

Sal, I believe Canada will be taking the Saab Gripen instead of the F-35... except for a few wrinkles... the largest of which is the U.S.-made engines for the jet, which gives the U.S. a veto over a lot of stuff. 

Is Rolls-Royce, or anyone else not American, stepping up with an engine for this plane?

Sal-9000 said: Good question. You’re right to identify the U.S.–made engine as a key clamp on the Saab JAS 39 Gripen’s appeal to a country like Canada: 

As currently configured, the Gripen-E/F uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E (a variant of the F414), and that gives the U.S. effective export / re-export control — i.e. veto power. Start+2E-International Relations+2

That said — yes: there is real discussion about replacing the U.S. engine with a non-American alternative, notably from Rolls‑Royce.

✅ What we know: Gripen’s current engine and U.S. export dependence

The Gripen E/F as built today uses the GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. Start+2Start+2

That means sales of Gripen to third countries can — and have — been blocked if the U.S. chooses to withhold engine export licenses. E-International Relations+2The National Interest+2

The dependence on a U.S. engine is widely recognized as one of Gripen’s main “Achilles’ heels” in export campaigns. National Security Journal+2E-International Relations+2

🔄 Are there non-US engine alternatives? 

Rolls-Royce (and Europe) have been floated!

***

Historically, before settling on the F414, when developing Gripen the makers considered using the Eurojet EJ200 — the same engine (or family) used on the Eurofighter Typhoon — for the Gripen. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

More recently, there have been media/defence-industry reports (especially around late 2025) claiming that Sweden and Rolls-Royce are exploring a new engine variant — sometimes referred to as the Rolls‑Royce EJ230 — as a replacement for the GE-engine on Gripen E/F. Reddit+2E-International Relations+2

The reason for such a shift would be to eliminate the U.S. “export-veto” problem, making Gripen more attractive on the export market, including potentially for Canada. E-International Relations+2Defense Express+2

⚠️ The complication: Not yet a done deal — technical, political, and timelines still to be worked out!

As of early 2025, multiple sources still emphasize that “the Gripen E-series features a new and more powerful engine, F414-GE-39E.” Start+2Start+2

Re-engineering a fighter designed around one engine to accommodate another is nontrivial: “Proposed implementations” of the EJ200/EJ230 would require modification of airframe, intakes, maybe avionics integration, certification, etc. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

For a buyer like Canada, even if Rolls-Royce or another European engine becomes available, there would still be a gap: Certification + supply-chain establishment + political decisions, etc.

🎯 Bottom line — Possible path, but not guaranteed

Yes — non-American engine options (especially from Rolls-Royce / Eurojet) for Gripen have long been both technically discussed and actively considered, and such an engine could dramatically lessen the “U.S. lever” over export.

But as of now, Gripen E/F remains tied to the GE F414, and nothing publicly confirms that a European-powered variant is production-ready or has been formally adopted for export sales.

So if Canada (or another country) wants Gripen with no U.S. oversight on the engines, they’d likely have to demand that as part of a procurement contract — and wait several years (and substantial engineering) for a Euro-powered Gripen to mature.

If you like — I can do a quick “status check (as of late 2025)” and list which countries/operators are seriously testing or ordering a non-US-engined Gripen, along with estimated timelines.

Do you want me to build that list for you now?

You said: Yes

Sal-9000 said: Short version: as of December 2025, there is no country that is actually testing, ordering, or funding a Gripen with a non-U.S. engine. 

Every real Gripen E/F program on the table is still tied to the GE F414, and all the “Rolls-Royce EJ230” talk is concept / lobbying, not a live, funded program.

1. Where things really stand today:

All operational and ordered Gripen E/Fs use the U.S.-made GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. 

Saab itself still describes the Gripen E-series as powered by the F414-GE-39E. Simple Flying+1

This gives Washington a de facto veto over exports and re-exports. 

That’s exactly what we’ve just seen with Colombia, where the U.S. refused permission for F414 exports, threatening to kill the Gripen E/F deal. Meta-Defense.fr+1

So your basic worry is 100% correct: the current Gripen E is under an American thumb.

2. Who could step up? (Rolls-Royce / Eurojet and the EJ230)

The non-U.S. candidate everyone talks about is Eurojet's EJ200 family, which powers the Eurofighter Typhoon. Rolls-Royce is a major partner in that consortium, so it’s often simplified as “a Rolls-Royce engine.”

As far back as 1998, Eurojet proposed an uprated EJ230 (about 102 kN / ~23,000 lb thrust, with thrust-vectoring nozzle) specifically for a thrust-vectored Gripen test program. 

That was a real proposal, mentioned by Flightglobal at the time. Flight Global

The idea has resurfaced in 2024–25 analyses: Several commentators describe an EJ230-powered Gripen as a way to cut U.S. export control leverage, especially for countries nervous about a Washington veto. UK Defence Forum+1

So: Yes, the engine tech exists and Eurojet/Rolls-Royce are clearly interested in that niche. 

But interest ≠ contract.

3. Countries where a non-US-engined Gripen is being talked about!

Here’s your “status board” as of late 2025:

🇸🇪 Sweden / Saab (home team)

Reality: All Swedish Air Force Gripen E aircraft are F414-powered. No official announcement of an EJ230 (or any other Euro-engine) testbed or re-engine program. Simple Flying+1

What’s being discussed:

Industry and enthusiast forums often speculate about a “EuroGripen” or EJ230-powered variant for export customers, but even the specialists acknowledge it would only happen if someone bankrolls the development. UK Defence Forum+1

Status: Conceptual only. No funded re-engine program.

🇨🇦 Canada. (your scenario)

Several Canadian defence commentaries have explicitly said what you’re saying out loud:

“Replace the GE F414 engine with the Rolls-Royce EJ230 to prevent a U.S. veto of the purchase” — in the context of a Gripen option or mixed fleet for the RCAF. Canadian Defence Review+1

These are policy / op-ed proposals, not government decisions.

There is no Canadian government document committing money to an EJ230-Gripen program, and Saab hasn’t announced such a variant for Canada.

Status for Canada:

Talked about in think-pieces and advocacy articles; zero evidence of an actual Canadian-funded EJ230-Gripen program.

🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇨🇴 Colombia, 🇵🇪 Peru, 🇵🇹 Portugal, etc.

Ukraine: The October 2025 Sweden–Ukraine letter of intent for up to 150 Gripens refers to standard Gripen E; all open sources still assume the F414 engine. Reuters

Colombia / Peru / Portugal: all the export drama and commentary explicitly revolve around the U.S. veto via the F414; if there were a serious non-U.S. engine alternative in play you’d expect it to be mentioned front and centre, but it isn’t. Defense Express+2Bulgarian Military Industry Review+2

Status: No public sign that any of these countries have ordered, or are flight-testing, a Gripen with a Eurojet/RR engine. 

All current talk is still about the F414 and the risk of U.S. veto.

4. Why this hasn’t happened. (yet)

To actually free Gripen from the U.S. engine, Saab would need:

A paying launch customer (Canada?), big enough to justify:

* Redesign of intakes and systems integration.

* Full flight-test and certification campaign.

* New logistics and maintenance pipeline

A political decision in Sweden to risk annoying Washington in return for greater export independence.

We do see the UK exploring exactly this playbook on another F414-based fighter — the Korean KF-21 — where a British engine is being floated specifically to avoid U.S. vetoes on exports. Army Recognition

That tells you the strategy is real and technically plausible; it just hasn’t crossed the line from talk to contract in the Gripen’s case.

5. Bottom line for your Canada-Gripen scenario:

Today: Every real Gripen E/F program is still chained to the U.S.-made F414.

Rolls-Royce / Eurojet: Absolutely interested and often mentioned (EJ230), but no active Gripen re-engine program is publicly funded or in flight test.

Countries “seriously testing or ordering” a non-US-engined Gripen:

✅ Number: 0 as of December 2025.

If Canada ever really did pivot from the F-35 to Gripen and wanted to avoid a U.S. veto, it would almost certainly have to be as part of the deal:

“We’ll buy X Gripens, built in North America, if you commit to an EJ230 (or equivalent) Euro-powered variant and we co-fund the integration.” 

Until then, it’s all in the realm of smart ideas and op-eds, not hardware!

I can't even begin to tell you how little "No Words" this video needs

MY CONVERSATION WITH A.I.

Given current political, industrial, and reliability considerations, Canada is seriously weighing the Gripen as a compelling alternative or complement to the F-35 to ensure a balanced, resilient air combat fleet that aligns with both national priorities and alliance commitments. 

WHICH ONE WOULD YOU CHOOSE?

Given the current context of Canada's priorities... balancing national industrial benefits, sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and operational effectiveness... a choice would lean toward the Saab Gripen as the more pragmatic option.

The Gripen offers credible multirole capabilities while promising significant Canadian industrial participation and job creation, which aligns with economic and sovereignty objectives important to Canada. 

Its simpler maintenance and greater autonomy in operations reduce the risks associated with proprietary control and reliability issues found in the F-35 program. 

Moreover, the Gripen has demonstrated adequate interoperability within NATO, making it a sound choice for alliance commitments without the full dependency on U.S. systems that the F-35 entails.

While the F-35 excels in stealth and advanced network capabilities, its persistent maintenance challenges, high costs, and dependency on U.S. control create strategic vulnerabilities and fiscal risks that cannot be ignored.

Therefore, choosing the Gripen—either as a full replacement or alongside a reduced F-35 fleet... best balances Canada’s defence needs, industrial goals, and alliance responsibilities in the current geopolitical and economic landscape. 

This approach supports a resilient, sustainable air combat force with room for growth and adaptation to future challenges.

This is how Canada should inform the Americans that we're going with the Gripen instead of the F-35.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17btUaR4Cr/

"You need to choose your friends wisely, and Sweden is choosing Canada!"

 This is the best way to tell who your real friends  are:

Dump the F-35!

Answered by 

Sarah Bowman

 

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?

Much more is at stake than price. Dave and Deb of Planet D on YouTube did a video examining the issues. They break it down to Options A, B, and C. I choose Option C. My answer is below.

The USA's F-35 SHAKEDOWN of Canada!, 

0:42 An F35 in Alaska did a very un-Arctic thing and froze up on approach. That really inspires confidence for a January night in Yellowknife, eh?

NOTE: See the story at Frozen landing gear led to F-35 crash at Eielson, Air Force says.

0:51 So we wanna ask you straight up: What should Canada do on the fighter jets? Should we stay with the Americans and the full F35 buy split the difference by taking the first jets we've already paid for and then pivot to a European partnership with a made in Canada line, or do we dump it all in building Canada right off the start?

Option A: Full F35 Purchase

1:22 Option A: Play nice and keep the contract as is to appease this rogue government….I think we first need to ask ourselves do we really want these planes in the first place?

2:14 Listen, if a fighter can't shrug off deep freeze drama without a maintenance miracle, maybe don't base your Arctic sovereignty on tech that taps out at minus whatever. Just say it and then there's the whole software issue. The F35 is a software defined jet. The code diagnostics and the update keys live with the US vendor. If access is delayed or throttled, your very expensive plane becomes a very shiny lawn ornament.

2:46 That software leash runs through Washington. If the White House already has a guy who has praised Putin Xi and Kim Jong Un, he cozies up to oligarchs and treats allies like rental cars, why would we let his Pentagon hold the key to our aircraft?…[This is] an industrial policy with wings.

3:12 Timing matters as well. We're heading into the CUSMA renegotiation, meaning it's leverage season. You don't toss your biggest bargaining chip on the table…You hold it. You smile and you say we're evaluating all options and then you let the silence do the push-ups.

Option B: A Hybrid Approach

3:35 The first 16 jets… are basically locked. We've legally committed the money. We could cancel the rest of them but we'd lose what we've already paid. There's no refund fairy out there but we do get to keep those jets. However we'd be running a mixed fleet for a bit and we'd still have to pay the software maintenance for the 16 that we keep. But our pilots keep flying and NORAD—it stays covered.

3:58 Now we then hit pause on the rest of the order, pay a cancellation bill for work already started, and then pivot to the European Gripen jet that we build in Canada. Final assembly here. Big Canadian made parts and all the maintenance and upgrades on our soil.

4:15 So in the short term the F35s give us capability in the air. Long term, the European line gives us jobs, tax transfers, and control. It's not just a hanger full of imports. We bridge the gap while the Canadian line ramps up. Think three to five years.

4:49 And then there's the political fallout….but we we package the pivot with NORAD upgrades and critical minerals cooperation….then build here for the next 40 years. That's less dependence on the US and more leverage and more Canadian paychecks.

Option C: Cancel & Build in Canada

5:27 We cancel the US deal altogether, we eat the money already spent, and pay a termination bill for work in progress. It's not fun but it's a one time fee that we could price out then. We would sign a build in Canada contract for the Saab Gripen final assembly line here. Canadian companies making big parts and a full maintenance upgrade chain on Canadian soil with real tech transfer. Our engineers get the know how, not just a login. But then we need to bridge the gap.

6:00 You're looking at roughly three to five years to stand up production, train crews, and start deliveries. In the meantime we either life-extend our current jets or lease or borrow small interim fleets from allies. It's doable. We just need to really plan for it.

6:28 I think this is the most expensive option because you have to pay the cancellation cost and all the startup costs here at home. That's going to be a hard tax bill for Canadian taxpayers to swallow. But that cash will stay in Canada as jobs apprentices and it'll give a tax base for 40 years, giving Canada a steady revenue for hospitals, schools, and infrastructure.

7:03 The downside, other than cost, is the political fallout. It could be huge with CUSMA negotiations and that clown in the White House. We are in a very vulnerable place. There is no doubt in my mind that politically you can expect noise. Someone will bang a podium and demand we cave. I wonder who that will be.

What's Your Choice? (A, B, or C)

7:23 So what do you all think? What should Canada do?

There were about a thousand comments. I read the first few, that said Option C. I agreed.

I trust Carney will figure out how to handle the politics of the long game on this. I just want us to be completely free from the US. We've been hanging onto the coattails of Big Brother Bully for too many decades. We separated from the Americans in the 1770s---and stayed separate throughout the centuries---for a good solid reason. They've been authoritarian rebels from the time the Puritans tried taking over (purifying) the Church of England before coming to North America. It is who they are.

Canada is considering cancelling their F35 order partly due to Trumps policies against Canada. Trump administration is responding that it is critical Canada keep its F35 order. If thats true, then why don't the US drop the price as an incentive?

Another "Weapon" (sic) for us in the Tariff Wars!

Remember folks... if things get too rank with the States over this "tariff war" stuff... we have a major 'bomb' (pun intended) to drop along with the already mentioned electricity, steel, uranium, precious metals, softwood lumber, potash,  oil and gas...etc!

 - CANCEL -

"F-35 FIGHTER JETS!"

(Yup... Buy the Swedish 'Gripen' instead!)

***

ALLAN SAID: Sal, did Spain and Switzerland CANCEL their F-35 fighter jet orders?

SAL-9000 SAID: You're asking whether Spain and Switzerland have canceled their F‑35 fighter jet orders. 

Let me break down the latest (as of August 2025) status for each!

Spain: Yes, Spain has officially cancelled its plans to buy F-35s.

• Multiple reputable news sources confirm that Spain has ruled out purchasing the U.S.-made F‑35 Lightning II jets, opting instead to invest in European-made alternatives like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen and the 'Future Combat Air System!' (FCAS) 

• The decision is rooted in Spain’s push for defence sovereignty, reduced reliance on U.S. technology, and economic investment in the European defence industry... reportedly allocating around 85% of the new defence budget to European platforms! 

• This cancellation is confirmed in both Spanish and international outlets, indicating it's not just a rumour!

Switzerland: Not yet. Switzerland has not cancelled its F-35 order... yet... but it's facing uncertainty and exploring adjustments!

• Switzerland signed a contract in September 2022 to buy 36 F‑35A jets, with deliveries expected between 2027 and 2030. 

• However, ongoing disputes over pricing, especially due to lack of a truly "fixed price," and U.S. tariffs, (notably a 39% tariff imposed by the Trump administration) have created significant financial pressure! 

• Swiss lawmakers—particularly from the Green Party—have filed motions calling for cancellation, citing U.S. unreliability! Alternatives within Europe are under discussion! 

• As of now, Switzerland remains committed in principle to purchasing the F‑35s but is evaluating options, including reducing the number of jets. A definitive review is expected by November 2025 , and things aren't looking good for Lockheed Martin!

Summary Table

Country	Status of F-35 Order
Spain	Cancelled. Opting for European alternatives like Eurofighter, Gripen & FCAS.
Switzerland	Not cancelled yet! Facing financial and political challenges...  exploring alternatives, decision pending!

So, to directly answer your question: Spain has indeed cancelled its F-35 order, while Switzerland has not cancelled, but it's reviewing and possibly reducing the commitment amid rising costs and political pushback!

ALLAN SAID: Anything new for Canada vis-à-vis the Saab Gripen?

ChatGPT SAID: Here’s the latest on Canada’s interest in the Saab Gripen, especially in light of the ongoing review of its F‑35 fighter jet program:

Recent Developments: "Gripen in Canada's Defence Review!"

1. Reevaluating the F-35 — Opening the Door for Gripen:

Canada is actively reviewing its C$19 billion contract for 88 F‑35 jets! (Factors such as mounting costs, U.S. trade tensions, and a desire to expand domestic defence capabilities have prompted Ottawa to consider alternatives... including Saab’s Gripen E!)

While the first 16 F‑35s are already PAID FOR... the remainder AREN'T! 

2. High-Level Engagements with Sweden:

Just this week, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly visited Saab’s facilities in Sweden, including exposure to the Gripen‑E platform, as part of a broader review of our defence options! 

3. Shifting Arctic Strategy & Nordic Defense Partnerships!

Canada is pivoting its Arctic defence strategy toward NATO-aligned Nordic countries! 

In that context, aligning with Sweden... [home of Saab] has become a strategic priority... pushing the Gripen back into the conversation! (Politico.)

4. Saab Continuing Negotiations:

Saab’s CEO confirmed that discussions with Canada regarding the Gripen continue, with the Gripen E still positioned as an Arctic-optimized, interoperable alternative to the F-35! 

5. Gripen's Canadian Industrial Offerings:

Saab's Gripen “Made‑in‑Canada” proposal remains compelling:

• The offer includes 88 Gripen E jets, with full tech transfe!

• Plans to establish two aerospace R&D and maintenance centers in Montreal, with partnerships involving Canadian firms (e.g., CAE, GE, IMP Aerospace) Military Watch Magazine+15Start+15Start+15Politico+4Start+4Start+4.

Summary Table:

Topic	Details
F-35 Review	Ongoing; first 16 jets committed, remainder potentially open to alternatives!
Gripen Consideration	Actively being reconsidered as a viable competitor, especially for the remaining jets!
Industrial Partnership	Gripen offers “Made in Canada” assembly, tech transfers, and local facility setup!
Strategic Alignment	Stronger ties with Sweden/Nordic allies reinforce Gripen's appeal in the Arctic context!
Saab’s Position	Gripen E continues to be a front-runner among European alternatives; Negotiations Ongoing!

Bottom Line:

While Canada hasn’t officially switched to the Gripen, recent developments signal a serious reconsideration! 

Saab’s Gripen E is emerging as a credible alternative... or possible complement... to the F-35... supported by strong industrial and strategic incentives!

Let me know if you'd like a deeper dive into Gripen’s Arctic performance... cost comparisons... or its industrial package in detail... or anything else about Canada’s defence procurement!

***

ALLAN SAID: How about cost comparisons and an industrial package?

SAL-9000 said: Here’s a breakdown comparing the F‑35 and Saab Gripen E in terms of cost and industrial package for Canada:

Cost Comparison:

F-35 (Lockheed Martin)

• Acquisition Cost: Canada initially budgeted approximately C$19 billion for 88 aircraft. Facebook+15Business Insider+15Skies Mag+15.

• Escalating Expenses: An audit projects that total costs could reach C$33 billion, nearly 75% above original estimates, due to inflation, exchange rate shifts, infrastructure overruns, and pandemic impacts and now... tariffs! 

• Lifecycle Cost: Estimated at around C$70 billion over the aircraft’s service life. Business Insider+13AP News+13Wikipedia+13.

• Per Flight Hour: Approx. US$33,300 for the F‑35A  Wikipedia+15Aviacionline+15Fliegerfaust+15.

Gripen E (Saab)

• Acquisition Cost: Roughly comparable—Gripen E's flyaway cost is around US$85 million per aircraft, aligning with the F‑35’s per-unit cost. Financial Times+8Fliegerfaust+8Reddit+8.

• Per Flight Hour: Substantially cheaper—about US$8,000, which is ~¼ or less of the F‑35’s cost, indicating much lower operational expenses. Fliegerfaust.

• Long-Term Savings: The Gripen's simpler maintenance and lower infrastructure requirements suggest long-term budget relief compared to the cost-intensive F‑35 Reddit+1.

***

Industrial Package

F-35

• Current Industrial Participation: Canadian firms have already secured about US$2.8 billion in contracts as part of the global F-35 supply chain AP News+4Fliegerfaust+4Wikipedia+4.

• Potential Future Gains: Additional contracts could reach up to US$10 billion over the program’s lifespan.

• Production Model: Canada acts as a supplier, not a manufacturer—the aircraft are built in the U.S., though component production benefits Canadian industry Skies Mag+3Fliegerfaust+3Reddit+3.

• Technology Limitations: Canada contributes build-to-print components but does not receive deep tech transfer or ownership of IP—the U.S. retains control over upgrades, software, and critical support systems Fliegerfaust.

Gripen E

• Full Industrial Offset: Saab proposes 100% industrial offsets, including in‑country assembly, widespread tech transfer, and sustained industrial activity in Canada Fliegerfaust+1.

• Domestic Production: Final assembly, maintenance, and upgrades could be performed in Canada, fostering local aerospace capacity and job creation Fliegerfaust.

• Economic Sovereignty: Canada gains control over upgrades and fleet management through technology transfer agreements—unlike the F‑35’s tightly controlled U.S.-centric framework. AP News+4Fliegerfaust+4Reddit+4.

• Cost Efficiency: The Gripen’s modular design reduces maintenance cost and complexity, reinforcing overall affordability! bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com+6Wikipedia+6Reddit+6.

Summary Table

Aspect	F-35	Gripen E
Acquisition Cost	~C$19B (projected to C$33B)	Comparable (~US$85M each, total similar to F-35)
Flight Hour Cost	$33K	$8K
Domestic Job Creation.	Supplier-based, potential lost contracts.	Full assembly, tech transfer, local job output.
Tech & Sovereignty	Limited; U.S. retains IP and upgrade control.	Full tech transfer, operational autonomy.
Long-term Budget Impact	High lifecycle cost, supply chain dependency.	Lower O&S costs, domestic capacity, and reinvestment.

Final Thoughts:

• F-35 provides Canada with integration into a global aerospace ecosystem... but comes with high and uncertain total costs... limited domestic control... and total reliance on U.S. systems!

• Gripen E offers a more sovereign, cost-effective alternative with robust industrial benefits and domestic autonomy... especially compelling in the context of rising costs and strategic orientation toward NATO-aligned Arctic allies!

SAL-9000 SAID: Would you like a deeper breakdown of operational readiness, or how Gripen’s industrial package could affect specific Canadian provinces or firms?

ALLAN SAID: Tell me how Gripen’s industrial package could affect specific Canadian provinces or firms?

SAL-9000 SAID: Here’s how Saab’s Gripen industrial package would ripple across specific Canadian provinces and firms! (All of this is based on Saab’s formal offer—i.e., it kicks in only if Canada buys the Gripen.)

Quebec:

• Greater Montréal (new centres): Saab says it would stand up two facilities—a Gripen Centre (Canadian-managed mission-system development, upgrades, fleet management) and an Aerospace R&D Centre focused on AI, UAS and “green” aviation—both in the Greater Montréal Region. Start

• CAE (Montréal): In the team to deliver training & mission-systems solutions. Flight Global

• GE Aerospace (Bromont): Would provide/sustain the F414-39E engine in Canada; Bromont already manufactures advanced engine components and hosts GE’s Global Robotics/Automation R&D Centre. StartGE Aerospaceaeromontreal.ca

• Job impact: Saab markets “6,000 high-paying jobs per year over 40 years” and highlights Montréal centres explicitly (Saab estimate/claim). Start+1

Nova Scotia:

• IMP Aerospace & Defence (Enfield/Halifax area): Planned final assembly and long-term in-country production & in-service support for the Canadian Gripen fleet. Saab and IMP have publicly laid this out; Skies reported assembly at IMP Enfield. Skies MagFlight Global

• IMP Aerostructures (Amherst): Added aerostructures manufacturing capacity under the IMP umbrella. IMP Aerostructures

Manitoba:

• StandardAero (Winnipeg): Selected by Saab/GE to perform F414-39E engine MRO in Winnipeg—i.e., domestic sustainment for Gripen E’s engine. StartStandardAero

• GE (Winnipeg): GE notes existing engine testing/R&D presence in Winnipeg—helpful adjacent capability for a Gripen engine ecosystem. GE Aerospace

Ontario:

• Toronto (Cyber Resilience Centre): Saab says it would invest in a Cyber Resilience Centre in Toronto as part of the package. Start

• GE Aerospace (Orillia): GE lists complex engine hardware manufacturing in Orillia, which could interface with F414 sustainment/industrial work. GE Aerospace

• Arcfield Canada (Ottawa office): Prime for CF-18 avionics sustainment today; capability is platform-agnostic and could pivot to Gripen avionics/test-equipment support under Saab’s team lineage (Peraton Canada → Arcfield Canada). Arcfield Canada

Alberta:

• Arcfield Canada (HQ Calgary): Canada’s prime for fighter avionics sustainment; awarded successive CF-18 avionics support contracts (most recently $211.6M in 2024). This skill base positions Alberta for Gripen avionics & test-equipment sustainment if selected. ArcfieldArcfield Canada

British Columbia:

• Vancouver (Sensor Centre): Saab’s plan also includes a Sensor Centre in Vancouver—part of the wider tech/R&D footprint tied to the Gripen offer. Start

***

Who’s on the core “Gripen for Canada” team (and what they’d do)

• IMP Aerospace & Defence (NS): In-country production/assembly + in-service support. Flight Global

• CAE (QC): Training systems + mission-systems solutions. Flight Global

• Arcfield Canada (formerly Peraton Canada; AB/ON): Avionics & test-equipment MRO, material management. StartArcfield Canada

• GE Aerospace (QC/ON/MB): Provide/sustain F414 engines in Canada; Canadian engine manufacturing/test footprints already exist. StartGE Aerospace

• StandardAero (MB): F414-39E MRO in Winnipeg (MoU/selection under Saab’s bid). StartStandardAero

Notes & caveats!

• These items are Saab’s proposed ITB/offset commitments under Canada’s policy; most are contingent on Gripen E being selected. Government of Canada

• Saab’s job totals are marketing estimates, not Government of Canada figures; treat as indicative. Start