Canada’s F-35 Delay: Pentagon Raises Alarm on Allied Airpower Readiness
The alarm bells are ringing in Washington, and they’re pointing directly north to Ottawa. For the first time in 86 years, the Pentagon has taken the unprecedented step of suspending the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) with Canada — the highest-level forum for U.S.-Canada defense coordination that has operated continuously since 1940. The cause? Canada’s ongoing delays in its F-35 fighter jet procurement and what the Pentagon views as inadequate defense spending commitments.
This isn’t just another diplomatic spat between neighbors. The Pentagon’s dramatic move signals deep American frustration with Canada’s defense priorities at a time when global threats are escalating and North American security depends on seamless bilateral cooperation. With Canada’s aging CF-18 fleet desperately needing replacement and NORAD modernization hanging in the balance, the stakes couldn’t be higher for allied airpower readiness and continental defense.
The suspension marks a historic low point in U.S.-Canada defense relations and raises serious questions about Canada’s commitment to shared security responsibilities in an increasingly dangerous world.
The Heart of the Crisis: F-35 Procurement in Limbo
Canada’s F-35 procurement saga has become a textbook case of how not to manage critical defense acquisitions. In 2023, Canada finally committed to purchasing 88 F-35A Lightning II fighters for C$19 billion, ending years of political wrangling that saw the program canceled, reinstated, and repeatedly delayed across multiple government administrations.
But just when it seemed the decision was final, Canada threw another wrench into the works. Since early 2025, the Canadian government has been conducting yet another “review” of the F-35 purchase, considering options that include reducing the total number of aircraft or supplementing the order with Saab Gripen fighters instead.
The Pentagon’s patience has clearly run out. U.S. officials are particularly frustrated by what they perceive as Canada’s lack of transparency and failure to provide credible responses to American security concerns. The situation became even more tense when Canada allegedly failed to adequately respond to a classified document detailing North American defense priorities that the Pentagon had provided to Ottawa.
Meanwhile, Canada’s current CF-18 Hornet fleet continues to age beyond its intended service life. These aircraft, first introduced in the 1980s, are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and lack the advanced capabilities needed for modern warfare. The capability gap is widening with each passing month, leaving Canada’s air defense increasingly compromised.
Defense Spending: The Numbers Don’t Add Up
The F-35 delays are just one piece of a larger puzzle that has the Pentagon concerned about Canada’s defense spending commitments. The United States expects Canada to dramatically increase its defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 — a substantial jump from the 2% target that Canada is only now meeting for the first time in 2025.
Canada has pushed back against American criticism, pointing to significant planned investments including over $82 billion in capabilities spending over the next five years and $87 billion designated for NORAD modernization over 20 years. Canadian officials argue that these investments demonstrate their commitment to continental defense and meeting NATO obligations.
However, Pentagon officials remain skeptical about Canada’s willingness to follow through on these commitments, particularly given the country’s history of defense procurement delays and cost overruns. The classified defense priorities document that Canada allegedly failed to address adequately has become a particular source of friction between the two allies.
Historic Suspension: The End of an Era
The suspension of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense represents a seismic shift in U.S.-Canada relations. Established through the Ogdensburg Agreement in 1940, the PJBD has served as the primary forum for bilateral defense coordination through World War II, the Cold War, 9/11, and every major security challenge of the past 86 years.
This board has been instrumental in developing joint defense strategies, coordinating military exercises, and ensuring seamless cooperation between American and Canadian forces. Its suspension forces both nations to rely on ad hoc discussions and informal channels for critical security coordination — a far from ideal situation given current global tensions.
The timing couldn’t be worse. With Russia’s renewed aggression, China’s military expansion, and emerging threats in the Arctic, North American defense planning requires unprecedented coordination. The PJBD suspension sends a clear message that the Pentagon views Canada’s defense commitments as insufficient to warrant business as usual.
The F-35’s Own Troubled History
Ironically, while Canada grapples with F-35 procurement delays, the aircraft itself has faced significant challenges that may validate some Canadian concerns. The F-35 program has endured its 8th Pentagon audit failure and experienced 238-day delays in critical development milestones, raising questions about the program’s management and oversight.
Perhaps most concerning for potential operators like Canada is the F-35’s readiness rate. The U.S. Air Force has reported that only 51% of its F-35 fleet is mission-ready at any given time — well below the target readiness levels needed for effective operations. This poor readiness rate stems from complex maintenance requirements, parts shortages, and ongoing software issues.
The F-35’s Block 4 upgrade program, which would provide enhanced combat capabilities, has also experienced significant delays. These delays mean that Canadian F-35s might not receive the full suite of advanced capabilities originally promised, potentially affecting their operational effectiveness and value proposition.
For a country like Canada with vast territories to patrol and limited maintenance infrastructure, these readiness and reliability concerns are particularly troubling. The last thing Canada needs is a fighter fleet that spends more time in hangars than in the air.
Saab Gripen: A Compelling Alternative
Canada’s consideration of the Saab Gripen alongside or instead of the F-35 isn’t just political posturing — it reflects legitimate operational and economic advantages that the Swedish fighter offers. The Gripen has proven particularly well-suited for countries with challenging operational environments and limited defense budgets.
The Gripen’s lower operating costs represent a significant advantage for Canada’s defense budget. While the F-35’s complex systems require specialized maintenance facilities and extensive training, the Gripen was designed for simpler, more cost-effective operations. This operational simplicity could be particularly valuable for Canada’s remote northern bases where complex maintenance infrastructure is limited.
Swedish industry has also offered substantial domestic industrial benefits as part of a potential Gripen purchase, including technology transfers and domestic production opportunities that could strengthen Canada’s aerospace sector. This “domestic control” aspect appeals to Canadian policymakers who want greater sovereignty over their defense capabilities.
The Gripen’s cold-weather performance and ability to operate from shorter runways could also make it better suited for Canada’s Arctic operations, where the F-35’s more complex systems might face greater challenges.
Implications for NORAD and Continental Defense
The stakes of Canada’s F-35 delays extend far beyond bilateral relations — they threaten the very foundation of North American security architecture. NORAD modernization depends on both nations fielding compatible, advanced fighter aircraft capable of intercepting modern threats including cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons.
Canada’s vast Arctic territory requires constant surveillance and patrol capabilities that aging CF-18s can no longer provide effectively. The capability gap leaves critical air approaches to North America inadequately defended, potentially compromising the entire continental defense system.
The delays also impact Canada’s ability to contribute meaningfully to NATO missions and coalition operations. As threats evolve and adversaries deploy increasingly sophisticated aircraft and weapons systems, Canada risks being left behind with outdated capabilities that limit its strategic value to allies.
This situation puts additional strain on an already complex relationship between two nations that must work seamlessly together for continental defense. The Pentagon’s suspension of the PJBD reflects genuine concern that Canada may not be a reliable partner for shared security responsibilities.
A Pattern of Procurement Problems
Canada’s F-35 delays fit into a troubling pattern of defense procurement challenges that have plagued the country for decades. The Sea King helicopter replacement took over 20 years to complete, while the national shipbuilding strategy has faced repeated delays and cost overruns. This history of procurement dysfunction has eroded confidence among allies and defense industry partners.
The political nature of Canadian defense procurement, where major acquisitions often become electoral issues rather than capability decisions, has contributed to this dysfunction. Each change of government brings new reviews, delays, and sometimes complete program cancellations that waste billions of dollars and years of progress.
Charting a Path Forward
Canada faces a critical decision point that will define its defense relationship with the United States and its role in global security for decades to come. The Pentagon’s unprecedented suspension of the PJBD serves as a wake-up call that business as usual is no longer acceptable.
Resolving this crisis will require decisive action from Canadian leadership and a commitment to following through on defense spending promises. Whether Canada ultimately chooses the F-35, Gripen, or some combination of both matters less than making a decision and sticking with it.
The longer Canada delays, the wider the capability gap grows and the more strained the relationship with its most important ally becomes. With global tensions rising and new threats emerging, Canada can’t afford to keep kicking the can down the road on critical defense decisions.
The Pentagon’s alarm is clear — it’s time for Canada to step up and demonstrate that it’s serious about defending North America.
FAQ
What is the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD)?
The PJBD is the highest-level forum for U.S.-Canada defense coordination, established in 1940 through the Ogdensburg Agreement. It has operated continuously for 86 years until its recent suspension, facilitating bilateral defense planning and cooperation through major conflicts and security challenges.
Why is the Pentagon concerned about Canada’s F-35 delays?
The Pentagon views the delays as indicative of Canada’s broader reluctance to meet defense spending commitments and take continental security seriously. The aging CF-18 fleet creates capability gaps that affect NORAD operations and North American defense readiness.
What are the main advantages of the Saab Gripen over the F-35 for Canada?
The Gripen offers lower operating costs, simpler maintenance requirements, better cold-weather performance, shorter runway capabilities, and potential for greater domestic industrial benefits. Its operational simplicity could be particularly valuable for Canada’s remote Arctic bases.
How much is Canada planning to spend on defense?
Canada plans to spend over $82 billion on capabilities over five years and $87 billion on NORAD modernization over 20 years. The U.S. wants Canada to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, up from the 2% target Canada is meeting for the first time in 2025.
What are the main problems with the F-35 program?
The F-35 has faced significant challenges including its 8th Pentagon audit failure, 238-day development delays, a 51% readiness rate in the U.S. Air Force, and delays in the Block 4 upgrade program that would provide enhanced combat capabilities.
How do these delays affect North American security?
The delays create capability gaps in continental air defense, particularly in Canada’s vast Arctic territory. This compromises NORAD’s ability to detect and intercept modern threats like cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons, potentially leaving critical air approaches to North America inadequately defended.