The United States has warned Canada that abandoning its planned purchase of F-35 fighter jets could carry negative consequences for the bilateral defense relationship and industrial cooperation, according to people familiar with recent discussions.
The caution comes as Ottawa prepares to conclude a months-long review of its 88-jet order, a contract that has become a test of the government’s intent to diversify security and supply chains without undermining North American defense.
Canada launched the review in March after a shift in political leadership and escalating trade frictions with Washington.
At the time, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the country relies too much on the United States for security and that it was prudent to examine alternatives.
Canada has legally committed funds for the first 16 aircraft, but officials left open the option to adjust the remainder of the order if a better path emerged on value, capability, or domestic production.
U.S. officials have privately emphasized the risks of stepping away from the F-35 program, including potential strain on NORAD interoperability and access to mission-critical upgrades that tie allied fleets together.
Defense experts note that any chill in technology sharing or software support would complicate operations for a mixed fighter fleet and could slow the Royal Canadian Air Force’s modernization plans.
In recent months, questions about the reliability of U.S. systems and support have grown amid broader tensions with allies, a backdrop that has sharpened Ottawa’s calculus without making the alternatives easier.
Canadian suppliers participate in the F-35 global supply chain, and a reversal could jeopardize existing and future work packages linked to the program.
Executives at major aerospace firms have warned that a cancellation could draw political retaliation that spills into commercial contracts in the United States, a market that remains essential for Canadian manufacturers.
Labor tensions in the aviation sector, such as Air Canada’s ongoing pay dispute now heading to mediation, highlight how workforce issues can add another layer of uncertainty to the industry.
Lockheed Martin, which builds the F-35, has said it values its relationship with Canada and deferred procurement questions to governments.
Cost and schedule pressure inside the program is another driver of Ottawa’s review. Canada’s Auditor General this summer flagged higher-than-planned costs and lingering risks around specialized infrastructure, pilot training, and sustainment.
The watchdog highlighted a multi-year delay in facilities needed to house and maintain the jets, and noted that broader program upgrades continue to evolve.
Those realities complicate any move to split purchases across platforms, which would add training and logistics burdens that can erase apparent savings.
Despite the U.S. warning, Canada’s defense establishment has argued that staying the course may still be the least disruptive option.
A shift to European or Swedish alternatives would require renegotiating industrial plans, certifying weapons and sensors across new architectures, and rebuilding joint tactics for NORAD and NATO missions.
Allies that started down similar paths have found integration costs to be higher and timelines longer than expected. Canada aims to operate the full fleet by the early 2030s while retiring aging CF-18s, time is a constraint as much as money.
The government has sought to show fiscal and strategic independence while reassuring allies that Canada will keep pace on air power and NATO commitments.
The United States, for its part, has an interest in keeping a close partner inside the F-35 ecosystem, where shared logistics and software updates underpin combat effectiveness.
That mutual dependence helps explain the tone of Washington’s message: not only a defense of an export, but a warning about the knock-on effects of leaving a tightly coupled program.
The review’s conclusion, expected soon, will set the course for both countries. If Ottawa affirms the order, it will likely push for stronger guarantees on industrial work, data access, and upgrade pathways to reduce strategic exposure.
If it pivots, it will need a rapid, credible plan to preserve NORAD readiness, protect Canadian aerospace jobs, and manage relations with a U.S. administration already signaling a hard line.
Either way, investors will watch Lockheed Martin and Canadian aerospace names for signs of contract risk and program timing, while defense planners focus on the same bottom line they always have: maintaining credible air defense in a turbulent strategic environment.
