The issue is likely the actual tactical execution, not the technical capability. Any airframe stooging around from either side is fair game to long range missiles but Gripen likely won't have the advantage of an AEW&C close enough to prove targeting data for meteor use.
Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)
- Thread starter arc3371
- Start date
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,831
- Reaction score
- 4,937
Soon is 2032, as of now(2026). I don't like making predictions, but tbh given that originally it should've been operational for years at this point, i won't be surprised if eventual result will be never.
All 3 eurocanards, on the other hand, are Meteor operators, plus KF-21 is around the corner
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 19,560
- Reaction score
- 28,018
I wish I didn't agree with you on this.
At the rate the UK is paying for integrating weapons, I don't think they will ever get around to Meteor on F-35.
Gripen E is equipped with an internal (nose mounted) IRST. So no need to carry a pod for A/A missions.
Big_Zukini
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 November 2024
- Messages
- 907
- Reaction score
- 1,743
Thanks for the info lmao.
Wotan
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 April 2023
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 1,158
The opinion of an expert.
https://united24media.com/interview...kraine-a-former-swedish-air-force-pilot-16919
https://united24media.com/interview...kraine-a-former-swedish-air-force-pilot-16919
Who just happens to be paid by Saab to say the right thing...
Don't get me wrong. I like the Gripen and that it will be a useful addition to Ukraine. I also acknowledge that Jussi Halmetoja is highly experienced with the Gripen, but please don't try to imply that he is objective in this case.
It does not matter much what aircraft it would be. What is essential in the next dozen years for them is to build mass with a large procurement of anything that is available on the market in that bracket of performances.
All the talk of Ukraine operating new fighters en masse is just wishfull thinking , Ukraine can't afford to operate more than a dozen fighters , Foreign funding will not continue indefinitely even if EU funds are used to buy the aircraft ,maintenance and operations cost are beyond Ukrainian means , same goes for their insistence on 800k+ soldier military , who will pay for it.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,831
- Reaction score
- 4,937
But for now, Ukraine operates more, and foreign funding is likely there for the foreseeable future.
So we work with current inputs.
What is the basis for that assertion?
EmoBirb
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,701
- Reaction score
- 6,927
I'll do it for him, according to Flight Internationals 2021 edition of their World Air Forces Directory this was the Ukrainian Air Force throughout 2020:
Now, that was a time where Ukrainian infrastructure was intact, Ukrainian industry was intact, Ukrainian workforce was much larger as not around 7 Million people left the country (most of which, according to polling don't plan to return) and Ukraine had the ability to draw from their stockpile and foreign stockpiles of Soviet legacy equipment to keep their air force going. These stockpiles outside of Russia and allied countries have been essentially exhausted by now.
What does this mean for the UAF? They have to build their force completely new from the ground up. They have to train new personelle, have to establish new logistics, have to adopt systems they're largely unfamiliar with when it comes to operation and maintenance. Systems that are more expensive to procure and maintain despite their industrial capability having been crippled compared to what it was pre-2022.
So while they were able to maintain around 67 soviet era fighters, attack aircraft and fighterbombers back then, due to all the factors above it's unlikely that a future fleet of modern western multirole fighters will approach these numbers, let alone exceed them. In 2020/21 the only reason they had these aircraft in operation to begin with was because Ukraine used to be at the heart of the USSR and subsequently inherited a lot of stockpiles of equipment, spares and industrial facilities. Most of which simply doesn't exist anymore and wouldn't be compatible with models like the Gripen.
Note: I believe posts like these and the ones to which this serves as a reply should belong in their own thread. Something like 'Hypothetical Future of the Ukrainian Air Force and potential acquistions'. Because threads like this Gripen thread, F-16 thread, Rafale and many others suffer greatly from people filling endless pages with thoughts and 'reports' on what-if's and maybe's. It would be better to pool them in a dedicated thread and leave the dedicated aircraft threads to mostly technical and historical/developmental types of posts. @overscan (PaulMM) @Antonio or @Jemiba could chime in if that's appropriate or not.
Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,713
- Reaction score
- 1,407
It is worth noting that the American government retaliated against our civil aviation sector for even discussing cancelling the F-35 order... our government has strong reasons to avoid drawing attention (even after the Davos speech).
Also, if it looks like the competition metrics were somewhat rigged... I wonder if senior officials who persist from that era would really want attention drawn to it... better to wait until after the mid-terms if we're ordering the Gripens and just go ahead and do it (or not).
Appetites based on EU financing Ukraine for forseable future !Which is unlikely particulary if war comes to a halt,near all EU member states are in the red and can't really afford to finance Ukraine . Current financing is being sold as Loan when its really not.
Ukraine Revenue $68.7 billion and expenditure of approximately $113.8 billion
Comparable budget expenditure with minimal deficits , but twice the GDP of Ukraine - Czech republic -> Fighter fleet 14 second hand Gripens
Poland 3x the GDP of Ukraine , gets cca 46billion a year in EU funds (as much as Ukraine) Present fleet 46 F16 ,2 F35 ,12 FA50 aims for 46 F16,32 F35 and 35 FA-50
Austria near 3x the GDP of Ukraine , 15 Eurofighters ,aspires for 36 modern replacments.
Switzerland cca 5x the GDP of Ukraine , 25 F18 , aspiring for 30x F35
All listed combined do not aspire to Ukraine dream fleet size despite having cca 13x the GDP of Ukraine and more or less balanced budgets.
Ukrainian 'aspirational orders'
150 Gripen
100 Rafale
X number of other second hand airframes
Same goes for 800k man standing army Zelenski is demanding at 'peace talks' , they could not pay for one ever
I think Ukraine could operate maybe 30+/-6 fighters but would still need foreign financing for that.
Ukraine previously operated similar numbers with pilots barely making any flying hours and barely operational fleet.
Last edited:
Be cautious with information supplied by a biased party as part of their marketing...
Let's keep to the technical side and leave the Ukraine war stuff for elsewhere.
I've been watching these two videos:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzWRL7459CA
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy4EqhlCunc
From a purely technical persepctive. How capable are Gripen-E's in EW and SEAD against modern IADS?
Saab's marketing is very convincing, but how much of that would translate into real combat? Could Gripen Es do anything close to what Israeli F15/16s have done against Iranian air defences, or is that a wrong comparison because Israel's results depend heavily on a wider ecosystem of ISR, networking, support assets, training and stealth?
Likewise in a Ukrainian scenario without F35 support, could Gripen-E realistiically use EW suite and Meteor to survive against Russian GBADs, challenge Russian aircraft, and create at least localized air superiority over occupied Ukraine? Or are people like Justin Bronk overstating how far it could go? Basically: even if the F35 is in another league, is the Gripen E still good enough to operate effectively against Russian style air defences without taking heavy losses?
From a purely technical persepctive. How capable are Gripen-E's in EW and SEAD against modern IADS?
Saab's marketing is very convincing, but how much of that would translate into real combat? Could Gripen Es do anything close to what Israeli F15/16s have done against Iranian air defences, or is that a wrong comparison because Israel's results depend heavily on a wider ecosystem of ISR, networking, support assets, training and stealth?
Likewise in a Ukrainian scenario without F35 support, could Gripen-E realistiically use EW suite and Meteor to survive against Russian GBADs, challenge Russian aircraft, and create at least localized air superiority over occupied Ukraine? Or are people like Justin Bronk overstating how far it could go? Basically: even if the F35 is in another league, is the Gripen E still good enough to operate effectively against Russian style air defences without taking heavy losses?
Waterballoon
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 October 2023
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 682
It's the Swedish version of "Muh Spectra"
Wotan
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 April 2023
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 1,158
AndersJ
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 7 November 2023
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 900
Yes, the Gripen E’s strength is not its flight performance but its electronics: Radar, sensor fusion, ECM & EW, data links, and the separation of flight critical and non-flight critical SW allowing extremely fast SW upgrades of radar and EW in a time of war. And Gripen E’s “code in the morning, fly in the afternoon” SW architecture will allow it to stay one step ahead of its adversaries, especially those who rely on FPGAs harvested out of washing machines. This is what will decide future conflicts. Not that you can do Cobra manouvres at Farnborough or Le Bourget.
Last edited:
EmoBirb
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,701
- Reaction score
- 6,927
No and that's not even a difficult question to answer. When you see last generations fighters operate over hostile air space, for example US or Israeli aircraft over Iran, then that's because their way has been paved by the likes of the F-35, B-2 and B-1/B-52 using stand off weapons. And even then, you rarely see them operate directly over the heartland and more so at the border regions just because the thread of IADS can't be fully eliminated.
And unlike the US jets the Gripen E is overweight, underpowered and it's ECM suite is most likely not better than what the Americans and Israelis field. So trying to cross the line of contact would be suicide.
The only advantage the Gripen has over the F-16s Ukraine currently fields is that the Meteor gives it more credible means of defending itself. But ultimately it would just be used to launch stand off munitions and engage drones and slow flying cruise missiles. And for that role the horrendously high acquistion cost is not really justifiable. Not to mention that there is only like a dozen Gripen E/F right now.
I.e. this line of thinking belongs firmly in the realm of fantasy or Saab PR, to which of these Mr. Bronk subscribes, I'll let you decide for yourself. Let's just say that Saab has always been good at creating plenty of hype but delivering very little, quite literally so because the Gripen fleet across all variants isn't huge and export orders for the E/F are abysmal.
Hull down
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 19 February 2023
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 517
I find the logic of some individuals here fascinating. “If a Russian aircraft can’t accomplish a mission, than a western one couldn’t”If you want to know how good the Gripen E is, then there are IMHO two reliable indicators of this:
The first is Gripen's performance record in Red Flag exercises. The second is the level of noise semi-professional forum posters who love Eastern kit are making about it.
After all, if it really is as bad as they say it is, why do they feel the need to pound the podium Khrushchev style to insist just how bad it is? Are they perhaps afraid of something?
With that being said Ukraine doesn’t have the necessary electronic attack or cyber capability to effectively carry out a conventional SEAD campaign. Nor does Russia.
Last edited:
AndersJ
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 7 November 2023
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 900
True, and which is all the more reason for Ukraine to operate the Gripen E. Or any other nation (like Sweden during the Cold War) that can't guarantee air superiority over the whole country:
Because if you are quick on your feet and always one step ahead through quick turn around times on numerous and dispersed road bases, your chances or survival are greater than if you are limited to a few well known airbases with hardened shelters and kilometers of runways in fixed spots ripe for the picking.
Wotan
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 18 April 2023
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 1,158
Well, the israelis and the americans seem to field pretty effective ECM Suites. At the moment they are bombing unpunished a regional power armed with latest eastern weapons, like the russian S-400 and the chinese HQ-9 SAM, which are marketed to have anti-stealth capabilities. If the Gripen has the same capabilities then it will do it„s job just fine...
The Gripen has the great advantage to be able to constantly operate from different locations at each flight, in a guerilla warfare style. This does not matter if you can operate in a condition of air superiority, but it is crucial against an opponent who has superior numbers and long range strike capability. From the point of view of the cost, well, it costs less than other modern fighters on the market, like the Su-35 or Rafale. And because of it`s small weight and single engine, the cost of operating it is also significantly smaller.
https://www.aviacionline.com/englis...fective-than-rafale_a697b7e5d0e48856db23f94e8
https://www.flyajetfighter.com/actual-availability-rates-for-the-f-22-rafale-su-35-and-gripen-e/
A direct comparison of availability rates
| Fighter aircraft | Average availability rate | Cost per flight hour (€) |
|---|---|---|
| F-22 Raptor | 50–60% | 70,000 |
| Rafale | 75–90% | 16,000 |
| Su-35 | 40–60% | 20,000 |
| Gripen E | 85–95% | 8,000 |
Last edited:
I find it amusing how videos such as this try to portray this as something unique to the Gripen. Shock, horror, so does the Rafale, Typhoon, F-35 etc etc to varying degrees.
Yes, the Gripen E’s strength is not its flight performance but its electronics: Radar, sensor fusion, ECM & EW, data links,
Look the Gripen is a good jet and I believe it deserves to sell well. It could easily pick up the mantle of the F-5 of the 21st century. I also admire greatly the Swedes' ability to develop it (and dedicated efforts to market it). It is not however some sort of miracle jet and certainly not necessarily any better than other platforms, such as those mentioned above.
Waterballoon
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 October 2023
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 682
Source?
One could also measure in terms of sales performance compared to its competitors...
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 2,289
- Reaction score
- 5,220
So can we get back to talking about Gripen E news.
All I see are posts and pics about the older Gripen model, as well as people resorting to personal attacks.
All I see are posts and pics about the older Gripen model, as well as people resorting to personal attacks.
thank you for the well thought out answer, although I am pretty certain from people living in Tehran that US and Israeli jets are flying directly over Iran and not just border regions including over Tehran and most major cities. Which is why I asked the question about the Gripen Es capabilities in the first place. Not to say that risks are not there for those jets as we have seen with the F35 getting hit and videos of close calls. But the jets' EW SEAD and DEAD capabilities(F16 and F15s) have been exceptional. From your analysis, the answer is Gripen Es are not good enough to do something similar over say occupied Ukraine since their ECM suite is inferior and they do not have the support assets.
Okay so technically the Gripen-E should have the technical suite to carry out such operations over say occupied Ukraine. Actually I wonder with the Global Eye as well maybe it even augments the whole system. Not US Israeli level, but enough to stay airborne over hostile territory and jam medium to long range air defence systems such as Russian and Iranian ones. Also with meteor able to fend off Russian Su-35s and other capable Russian fighters. Honestly the Iranian AD systems have performed even worse than Saddam Husseins. Seems western style SEAD/DEAD capabilities have improved from lessons during the past 30 years. Question is does Gripen reach a good enough the level of SEAD/DEAD capable F16s and F15s to effectively carry out the same thing over say occuped Ukraine, and your answer seems to be yes. I guess at the end of the day it depends fielding them and testing it out in real combat like the F16s have been subjected to over the decades.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,912
- Reaction score
- 5,523
AFAIK, ZSU F-16AMs fly any SEAD missions above Ukrainian-held territory too. So, why question whether the Gripen can operate in an environment where the F-16s can't go?
I meant whether Gripen-E for example would be able to operate over say occupied Ukraine not the non occupied parts, because currently with F16AMs this isnt the case. They risk getting hit by Russian Su-35s or other type such long range air to air. But with Meteor and Gripen theory is they could fend off capable Russian air superiority fighters which currently have Air to Air missiles that outrange them. So really wondering whether all these capabilities of Gripen-E are actually good enough or we shouldnt expect them to perform anywhere as advertised.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,831
- Reaction score
- 4,937
(1) They aren't armed with "latest eastern" suites, neither S-400 nor HQ-9(which themselves aren't latest any longer, but this is beyond the point). They had 2 sets of PMU2, but they were taken out back in 2024.
Iranian AA is for the most part its own thing, coming from CW Standard, Hawk, and Kub legacies. Apparently, not all that well.
(2) Even CW aircraft without significant defensive suites and in vulnerable positions are doing fine over Iran.
Gripen E has way more defensive EW capability than just about any American tactical aircraft, and probably most Israeli ones too(while Israel is a frontrunner at self-escort, many of their (visible) solutions at this point are on the dated side).
Any Ukrainian aircraft will be at risk of getting hit by Russian missiles when in the front area, there's no way around that. But until VKS doesn't want to fly over enemy ground, it's manageable with the right tactics.
There's nothing physically unique in modern EW suites(like a different set of physics); all of them are very broadly similar. Even if there are some engineering choices on how to approach things. This, by the way, most certainly covers 5th-gen sets, they are not some unicorn sets built on some other math.
But Arexis is the latest (and quite likely the most capable atm) in the line of rather elaborate European suites, which tend to take EW self-escort to extreme (i.e., self-defense suit takes more volume and design attention than primary attack sensor). More premium volume within the aircraft, the best positions for the job.
It's functionally very hard to outrange Russian fighters, as you can't operate at the same altitude as them in the first place.
In energy competition between the Meteor and Russian A2A missiles, 40N6, 9M82/83, or even 77N6(aka stupidly large and fast Russian heavy SAMs, with the last one weighing as much as Gripen itself) will likely win.
What Meteor can do is it can reach very respectable ranges while shot from the deck and/or relatively slow. This can make aircraft relevant and capable of contesting air superiority despite the odds.
Last edited:
I doubt that. I don't see anything in Arexis that is more advanced than for example the ALQ-254 or the ALQ-257 now equiping F-16 fleets or the EPAWSS that is flying on F-15Es over Iran today. Israel is also going through an upgrade of their F-16I fleet.
While the physical equipment may not broadly differ what separates the men from the boys in EW are the libraries. US and Israel likely have EW libraries that dwarf what Sweden/Saab has access to.
AndersJ
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 7 November 2023
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 900
When it comes to how the Gripen E can be operated in time of war, this continues the tradition of using dispersed road bases which the SwAF introduced in the late 1960's, and the Gripen E has also been designed from the start with this in mind.
And this way of operating is of course not limited to Sweden, and can thus be used by any Gripen E customer provided they invest in a similar infrastructure. If you're interested to learn more about how Gripen can operate from road bases, there is a separate thread for that which you can find here.
And this way of operating is of course not limited to Sweden, and can thus be used by any Gripen E customer provided they invest in a similar infrastructure. If you're interested to learn more about how Gripen can operate from road bases, there is a separate thread for that which you can find here.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,831
- Reaction score
- 4,937
I doubt it's more advanced. But it's a bigger system, taking more real estate, placed at the juiciest spots on the airframe, regardless of the same aircraft being far more susceptible to a performance penalty. On F-15 and most F-16, everything but RWR is placed where they could enough real estate.
Thanks for the piece on F-16I, though tbh I mostly thought about rather ancient vanilla F-15 and F-16 still in Israeli service (and very active over Iran). Those are, broadly, the kind of aircraft that were shot down during the Desert Storm back in 1991.
Yes, there's a difference, but one would expect 2010s SAMs to cover that difference.
F-15I and F-16I are certainly not the aircraft I'd call underprotected, even before the said upgrade.
Part is libraries, part is what to do with them, especially with unexpected unknowns. Angry Kitten Story is a very interesting case here, how old¬ very successful jammer (even for its own era, 45 years ago) can be completely reborn.
Last edited:
AndersJ
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 7 November 2023
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 900
There has been a lot of speculation in this thread about the Gripen E’s capabilities when it comes to EW and ECM which I really would like to comment. But since I’ve worked professionally with EW for years, Gripen systems among them, I usually don’t comment much on this subject in aviation forums (see my sig!) since I’m still bound by NDA’s.
However, what I can say more about, is that I’ve also been involved in the marketing of Ericsson SAAB’s ERIJAMMER A100 EW training system, which among other things was trialed by the US Navy’s VAQ-34 (can't talk about that unfortunately!) under the designation ALQ-503. It has also been sold to Canada and Switzerland.
And connected to this is a small anecdote illuminating Swedish EW competence: While on duty in our booth at Farnborough, I once met a USAF F-15 pilot who wanted to know more about our systems. I informed him that we had sold the ERIJAMMER A100 to Canada, and that they were using it in Maple Flag exercises. When I said this, this seemed to ring a bell and looking somewhat bemused, he said something like: “OK, so THAT was what they were using....”, whereupon he suddenly seemed to remember where he was, and assumed a rather guilty look which I of course answered with a big grin.
Now if Swedish training systems can do that, then I leave it up to your imagination what our tactical stuff can do once you flip the small switch down to the right in Gripen E’s cockpit (circled in red), which while by default is set to the “peace” position, but which of course at any time can be flipped to “war” position whereupon a lot of “interesting” things happens to both radar and EW modes, much of what I think would be very appreciated by possible customers like the Ukraine AF for example.
However, what I can say more about, is that I’ve also been involved in the marketing of Ericsson SAAB’s ERIJAMMER A100 EW training system, which among other things was trialed by the US Navy’s VAQ-34 (can't talk about that unfortunately!) under the designation ALQ-503. It has also been sold to Canada and Switzerland.
And connected to this is a small anecdote illuminating Swedish EW competence: While on duty in our booth at Farnborough, I once met a USAF F-15 pilot who wanted to know more about our systems. I informed him that we had sold the ERIJAMMER A100 to Canada, and that they were using it in Maple Flag exercises. When I said this, this seemed to ring a bell and looking somewhat bemused, he said something like: “OK, so THAT was what they were using....”, whereupon he suddenly seemed to remember where he was, and assumed a rather guilty look which I of course answered with a big grin.
Now if Swedish training systems can do that, then I leave it up to your imagination what our tactical stuff can do once you flip the small switch down to the right in Gripen E’s cockpit (circled in red), which while by default is set to the “peace” position, but which of course at any time can be flipped to “war” position whereupon a lot of “interesting” things happens to both radar and EW modes, much of what I think would be very appreciated by possible customers like the Ukraine AF for example.
Similar threads
-
-
Swedish Missiles and Missile Projects.- Started by Tzoli
- Replies: 62
-
SAAB, Svenska Aeroplanaktiebolaget, Svenska Aeroplan AB, Saab AB aircraft list.- Started by blockhaj
- Replies: 41