SAL-9000 SAID: Hello, Allan. Short answer: Yes — the Saab Gripen was mentioned, but no actual discussion of a purchase took place during the meeting.
What actually happened!
During the Canada–Nordic leaders meeting in Oslo (March 2026), journalists asked Prime Minister Mark Carney whether Canada might buy Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighters from Sweden.
Carney’s response was essentially:
The fighter procurement review is ongoing in Canada.
Specific defence purchases were not discussed at the summit.
He emphasized that Canada’s procurement process is independent, meaning the government does not negotiate specific purchases at diplomatic meetings.
In other words:
Question Reality: Was the Gripen mentioned? Yes — by reporters asking questions!
Was it negotiated or discussed among leaders?
No!
Is Canada still considering it?
Yes — as part of a review of the F-35 plan!
Why the Gripen question came up.
The reason journalists asked is that Canada is re-evaluating its fighter strategy, and there are serious discussions in Ottawa about possibly splitting the fleet:
- Fewer Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II!
- Adding Gripen E for part of the fleet!
That possibility is being driven by several factors:
- Tensions with the U.S. over trade and security.
- Interest in defence independence.
- Saab’s offer of technology transfer and Canadian production!
Arctic suitability arguments for the Gripen.
The subtle diplomatic signal...
Even though the Gripen was not formally discussed, the meeting itself is strategically important: Canada is building a Nordic defence axis (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland) focused on:
- Arctic security.
- Defence supply chains.
- Joint procurement opportunities.
That kind of cooperation would make future Nordic equipment purchases politically easier... including Swedish aircraft.
My assessment! (Based on the signals)
What happened in Oslo looks like stage-setting... not negotiation!
In diplomacy, that usually means:
- Build the political alliance first!
- Normalize defence cooperation!
- Then procurement decisions appear later!
So the Gripen was clearly on everyone's radar, but the actual purchase discussion is happening in Ottawa... not at the summit!
If you want, Allan, I can also show you something interesting that almost nobody noticed about that meeting: There are three quiet clues that Canada may actually end up buying both the F-35 and Gripen.
The signals are subtle... but very real!
FIRE AWAY, SAL... (Pardon the pun!
There are three quiet signals coming out of the Carney–Nordic meetings and recent Canadian defence statements that suggest Canada may be moving toward a mixed fighter fleet! (F-35 + Gripen)
None of these are official announcements, but together they form a pattern!
1. The Language Shift: “Diversifying Defence Supply.”
In the past, Canadian governments spoke about “interoperability with NORAD and NATO!”
Recently, Carney and several defence officials have begun using phrases like:
“Diversifying defence procurement.”
“Resilient defence supply chains.”
“Multiple trusted partners.”
Those phrases are code language in defence policy.
They typically mean: "Not relying on a single country for critical systems!"
That opens the door to a second fighter supplier... which... realistically... means Sweden!
2. Arctic Operations Are Being Highlighted!
During the Nordic meetings, the emphasis was heavily on:
- Arctic patrol.
- Dispersed northern bases.
- Operations from short or austere runways.
Those requirements happen to match the design philosophy of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, which was built for:
- Highway operations!
- Rapid refuelling!
- Minimal ground crew!
- Cold weather operations!
By contrast, the Lockheed Martin F‑35 Lightning II is optimized for:
- Stealth strike!
- Network-centric warfare!
- Large, well-equipped bases!
Many defence analysts have started quietly saying the same thing:
- F-35 for NORAD and NATO missions!
- Gripen for Arctic sovereignty patrol and dispersed operations!
3. Saab’s Industrial Offer Fits Canadian Politics.
Sweden’s Saab AB has repeatedly offered Canada something the U.S. cannot easily match:
- Assembly in Canada.
- Full technology transfer.
- Canadian control over upgrades.
- Canadian participation in export sales.
This matters politically because Canadian governments always face pressure to show domestic economic benefits from major defence purchases!
A mixed fleet could allow:
-F-35s fulfilling NORAD commitments!
- Gripens assembled or supported in Canada!
Which spreads the industrial benefits!
Why a Mixed Fleet Actually Makes Strategic Sense!
Several countries already operate multiple fighter types to split roles.
Canada could theoretically organize something like:
Role Aircraft NORAD air defence & NATO deployment - F-35.
Arctic patrol & dispersed northern bases - Gripen E.
Quick reaction alert in remote regions - Gripen E.
This also reduces dependence on the U.S. supply chain, which has become a quiet concern in Ottawa.
The Political Reality!
Canada has already committed to buying 88 F-35s, so cancelling the program entirely would be very difficult.
However, a partial adjustment is possible!
Example scenario analysts are discussing:
- 32 F-35s.
- 70 Gripen Es.
That would give Canada roughly the same fleet size but with two complementary aircraft types.
One More Thing Most People Missed!
At the Oslo meeting, Carney spent time with leaders from:
- Sweden.
- Norway.
- Finland!
Those three countries together form the northern European Arctic defence bloc!
If Canada wants deeper cooperation with them in Arctic patrol, the Gripen suddenly becomes politically attractive, because it is already integrated into Nordic defence thinking!
If you'd like, Allan, I can also show you something very interesting about Canadian geography!
There are three Arctic airfields where the Gripen would actually outperform the F-35, and those locations might explain why this mixed-fleet idea is quietly gaining traction in Ottawa! ✈️
ALLAN SAID: Yes... pray tell!
The three northern locations that defence analysts frequently point to... where a lighter, dispersed-operations fighter like the Saab JAS 39 Gripen could have operational advantages over the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II... are all in Canada’s high-latitude air-defence network!
These sites already play roles in NORAD operations!
1. Inuvik Forward Operating Location. (Northwest Territories)
Location: Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories!
Strategic role: Western Arctic interception point!
Why it matters:
- One of Canada’s northernmost NORAD forward operating locations! (FOLs)
- Allows fighters to intercept aircraft approaching from the Beaufort Sea... or over the Arctic Ocean!
-Runway and support infrastructure are relatively limited compared with southern bases!
Operational implications:
The Gripen was designed to operate with small ground crews and minimal support equipment, which suits remote sites like Inuvik.
The F-35, while capable of operating there, generally requires more maintenance infrastructure and logistics support!
For Arctic sovereignty patrols or quick-reaction intercepts, analysts often say a lighter aircraft could operate more easily and more frequently from locations like this!
2. Rankin Inlet Forward Operating Location! (Nunavut)
Location: Western Hudson Bay, Nunavut.
Strategic role: Central Arctic coverage!
Why it matters:
- Provides a central Arctic interception point for aircraft approaching across the polar region.
- One of the four main Canadian NORAD FOLs.
Operational considerations:
- The surrounding region has very limited logistics infrastructure.
- Aircraft deployed here must operate with limited personnel and equipment.
Again, this is exactly the sort of environment that the Gripen’s dispersed-operations doctrine was designed for! (Sweden originally planned to operate fighters from highway strips during wartime.)
3. Iqaluit Forward Operating Location! (Nunavut)
Location: Baffin Island!
Strategic role: Eastern Arctic and North Atlantic approaches!
Why it matters:
- Key NORAD base covering approaches from Greenland and the North Atlantic.
- Also supports NATO operations moving between Europe and North America.
Operational implications:
- The runway is long enough for modern fighters, but the region still has harsh weather and limited nearby support infrastructure.
- Aircraft that require smaller ground crews and faster turnaround can maintain higher sortie rates in such environments.
Why These Locations Matter Strategically!
Canada’s Arctic defence system relies on "Forward Operating Locations" (FOLs) rather than large permanent fighter bases!
The four primary ones are:
- Inuvik. (NWT)
- Rankin Inlet. (NU)
- Iqaluit. (NU)
- Yellowknife. (NT)
In a crisis, fighters from southern bases deploy north to these FOLs!
The strategic debate in Canada is essentially this:
Aircraft Strength:
- F-35. Stealth, advanced sensors, deep NATO integration!
- Gripen. Lower operating cost, dispersed basing, rapid turnaround!
That is why some analysts argue a mixed fleet could allow Canada to optimize:
- F-35s for NORAD and NATO integrated operations!
- Gripens for Arctic sovereignty patrols from remote northern airfields!
If you'd like, Allan, I can also show you something that is rarely discussed publicly:
There is a fourth Arctic location Canada is quietly studying for future fighter operations, and if that base is built it would strongly favour an aircraft like the Gripen.
ALLAN SAID: O.K. You've "piqued" my interest! (I must assume you know French!)
SAL-9000 SAID: The fourth location that Canadian defence planners have quietly discussed expanding for Arctic operations is Cambridge Bay Airport on Victoria Island in Nunavut.
4. Cambridge Bay! (Victoria Island, Nunavut)
Location: Southern Victoria Island, central Arctic Archipelago.
Strategic significance: Direct coverage of the Northwest Passage.
Why is this location interesting?
Cambridge Bay sits almost exactly along the main shipping corridor of the Northwest Passage, which is becoming more important as Arctic sea ice retreats.
From a defence perspective, it could:
- Monitor Arctic shipping routes!
- Support air patrols across the Arctic Archipelago!
- Provide rapid interception capability deep inside Canada's northern territory!
It is also close to the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS), giving the region increasing strategic attention!
Why are defence planners looking at it?
Canada’s current Arctic defence system was designed during the Cold War, when threats were expected to come over the polar route between Russia and North America!
But today the emerging concerns are different:
- Increased Arctic shipping traffic!
- Russian and Chinese Arctic activity!
- Protection of the Northwest Passage!
A base near Cambridge Bay would sit almost in the center of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, allowing aircraft to patrol:
- The Beaufort Sea!
- The Northwest Passage!
- Approaches from the Arctic Ocean!
Why this location favours dispersed aircraft...
Cambridge Bay is extremely remote:
- Small population.
- Limited infrastructure.
- long supply chains.
- harsh weather conditions.
SO... they need aircraft that can operate with:
- Small ground crews!
- Minimal support equipment!
- Short turnaround times!
This is exactly the operational philosophy behind the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, which Sweden designed to operate from road bases and austere runways!
By contrast, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II performs best when operating from larger, fully supported airbases!
Strategic implications for Canada!
If Canada eventually builds a central Arctic operating location, it would support a strategy like this:
Region... Likely Aircraft... Role...!
- Southern Canada bases... F-35 squadrons!
- Arctic forward locations... Gripen-style dispersed aircraft!
- Northwest Passage patrol... Mixed deployments!
That’s why analysts sometimes say that Arctic geography itself pushes Canada toward a mixed fleet!
If you want, Allan, I can also show you a map of the northern hemisphere that makes something very clear:
Canada sits in the most powerful air-interception position on Earth, directly between Russia, Europe, and Asia across the polar routes!
When you see the map, the Arctic fighter debate suddenly makes a lot more sense!
ALLAN SAID: "Lay it on me!" (That's a colloquialism... Sal!)
Below is the Northern Hemisphere from a polar perspective.
This view is the one defence planners often use because it shows the true geometry of global air and missile routes over the Arctic.
Northern Hemisphere Polar Routes!
What this map reveals.
When the world is viewed from the North Pole, three things become obvious.
1. Canada sits in the middle of the shortest routes between major powers.
Great-circle routes between:
Europe ↔ Asia.
Asia ↔ North America.
Russia ↔ United States.
"All pass over the Canadian Arctic!"
This is why NORAD was originally built across northern Canada!
2. The Arctic is the fastest path for aircraft and missiles.
The shortest distance between continents curves over the pole, not along latitude lines.
Examples:
Route: Actual shortest path!
London → Vancouver... Over Greenland and Arctic Canada.
Tokyo → New York... Over Alaska and the Arctic!
Moscow → Chicago... Directly over the pole.
This geometry is why the Cold War early-warning radar lines were built across the Arctic.
3. The Northwest Passage sits on emerging global trade routes!
As Arctic sea ice declines, shipping between:
Europe and Asia... may increasingly pass through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. (The route through the Northwest Passage can be thousands of kilometres shorter than routes through the Suez Canal!)
.png)
