F-35C also carries more fuel than the -A model - and the tailhook would be quite useful if landing on some contaminated short RW somewhere north of Buttfuk-middle-of-nowhere-Saskatchewan?
True, but it's also heavier and draggier. Don't have the figures to hand, but IIRC the A has the greater range/endurance of the three variants.
The A has a tailhook for emergencies -
https://theaviationist.com/2016/05/2...t-edwards-afb/ , or the Canadians could opt for the braking parachute fitted for the Norwegians.
You're quite correct on the aerial refuelling issue though - no easy way to square that circle for Canada without opting for the C.
The fact that Canada is buying a stealth aircraft specifically designed for first-day-of-war operations penetrating an area defended by an integrated air defense system when Canada has zero plans to do such a thing, and zero plans to buy all the other military infrastructure to engage in such operations makes me believe this was NOT a requirements driven procurement decision.
To be fair, that could be said for all of the F-35 customers save the US, UK and maybe one or two others.
Agree on the single-twin-engine debate. If a single-engine Gripen or F-16/F-35 is good enough for flying over the high-north of Sweden or Norway, the I dare say it is good enough for Canada also.