Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[FighterJock]

The Gripen E certainly has a nice looking glass cockpit AndersJ.

 

[AndersJ]

The Gripen E certainly has a nice looking glass cockpit AndersJ.

Yes, those new big screen displays are very versatile. Never had anything like that while I was working in the industry. One wonders what they will show under different circumstances? Say you get illuminated by an S-400 and receive a launch indication? My guess is it would automatically change into a dynamic missile range display showing appropriate maneuvering and ECM suggestions etc.

However, the only thing we can know for sure is that we will never see anything like they will display in time of war at airshows like Farnborough and Le Bourget. What you will see there (like in the above picture) will be vetted harmless generic display modes, nothing else.

 

[FighterJock]

Anything like the Early warning system page will be highly classified I would think AndersJ.

 

[IRT]

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.

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.

Gripen E's internal EW suite is GaN based, non of the other mentioned EW suits are today. Its also got "UWB" coverage, also something that the others dont have today.
The fact that the Luftwaffe scraped the Praetorian EW system for its EK version of the Typhoon and bolted on the Arexis system from the Gripen E instead points to it being a very capable system.

It also seems that the 20 new ordered Tranche 5 Typhoons for the Luftwaffe will use the Arexis instead of the Praetorian.

 

[AndersJ]

Anything like the Early warning system page will be highly classified I would think AndersJ.

Yes, and one of the things that will be so good with the Gripen E is that this huge display will be able to present a lot of interesting stuff connected to EW, dynamic threat areas, missile avoidance etc.

Just to take an example, AFAIK the Swedish Defense Material Administration (FMV) have done a two year evaluation of a system a former Gripen pilot's aviation firm Avioniq has been working on: Rattelsnaq, which he says may be integrated in Gripen E. If so, the pilot will then get a 3D picture both with his and his opponents missile envelopes and cues on how to maneuver to minimize the risk of getting shot down.

Sure, others are working on similar concepts, but my point is that Sweden has competence in the area, and are willing to do technology transfer to the right customers.

And in a future fight, you will not win because you can do Cobra maneuvers or turn with a few deg/s better: You will either win or lose because your radar, EW, avionics and display functions are better or worse than you opponents.

 

[isayyo2]

The key issue offered is sovereign control over operation, mission, sensor data etc.
But i feel an upgrade path for the next generation like investment for cheaper aquisition options etc would be more enticing.

This is an entirely AI generated website with 0 citations from Saab or the Canadian government.

Even the quotes are hallucinations!

*Edit - Thanks Mods for the cleanup...

 

[Sintra]

Saab Shares Detailed Information On Gripen With Canada As Part Of Dual Fleet Pitch



The key issue offered is sovereign control over operation, mission, sensor data etc.
But i feel an upgrade path for the next generation like investment for cheaper aquisition options etc would be more enticing.

So the "Mekong Flavours" site states that the Fins and Poles field the Gripen... I would stick with Flight Global, Janes, AW, etc.

Cheers

 

[topspeed3]

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.

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.

It is 6 x better in maintaining it.....and a flying hour ( than the cheapest available stealth ).

It is also supacruise, Mach 2 and agile.

 

[GTX]

Any facts to back up these claims?

 

[topspeed3]

Any facts to back up these claims?

Common knowlegde.

5 k flying hour...tightest intantenious 360 turn etc etc.

But less ordnance and no stealth.

 

[TomcatViP]

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy expects Ukrainian pilots to begin training on Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets as early as this year.

Source: Zelenskyy during a joint press briefing with King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden in Lviv, as cited by Ukrinform and reported by European Pravda

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/04/17/8030632/

 

[AndersJ]

Regarding the Gripen's maximum instantaneous turn capability, there is a "soft" stop at which you get 9 g's if the dynamic pressure is high enough and you don't exceed the maximum angle of attack. But this soft stop can in an emergency be overriddeen with enough force to get you 12 g if the aerodynamic properties are there to do that.

On a tangent: In the early stages of the Gripen's development I believe that the Swedish Defense Material Administration (FMV) wanted an automatic ejection mode to be implemented, as in if the pilot managed to get himself into a situation where the speed vector towards the ground was such that whatever he did he was going to crash anyway, then the system would eject him automatically.

But this did not sit well with SwAF pilots, who were reluctant to trust engineers on this point and it was never implemented AFAIK. But I suppose in some sense one can understand them, given that SW has been known to contain bugs sometimes.

But jokes aside, they already have their lives placed in the hands of engineers as it is: Because in case of a FBW malfunction at high speed they would be killed in an instance anyway.

 

[topspeed3]

Regarding the Gripen's maximum instantaneous turn capability, there is a "soft" stop at which you get 9 g's if the dynamic pressure is high enough and you don't exceed the maximum angle of attack. But this soft stop can in an emergency be overriddeen with enough force to get you 12 g if the aerodynamic properties are there to do that.

On a tangent: In the early stages of the Gripen's development I believe that the Swedish Defense Material Administration (FMV) wanted an automatic ejection mode to be implemented, as in if the pilot managed to get himself into a situation where the speed vector towards the ground was such that whatever he did he was going to crash anyway, then the system would eject him automatically.

But this did not sit well with SwAF pilots, who were reluctant to trust engineers on this point and it was never implemented AFAIK. But I suppose in some sense one can understand them, given that SW has been known to contain bugs sometimes.

But jokes aside, they already have their lives placed in the hands of engineers as it is: Because in case of a FBW malfunction at high speed they would be killed in an instance anyway.

Why ?

 

[AndersJ]

Why ?

Because either the instantaneous g-forces will kill the pilot outright, and/or it will break up the airplane in an instant.

 

[topspeed3]

Because either the instantaneous g-forces will kill the pilot outright, and/or it will break up the airplane in an instant.

It is known that in certain conditions man can survive 40-150 Gs. Not without problems.

John Stapp, a U.S. Air Force officer and doctor (MD), survived extreme G-forces exceeding 40 Gs in the 1950s to test human endurance for rocket sled decelerations.

Key Details on Surviving >40 Gs

• The Individual: Col. John Stapp, known as "the fastest man on earth," was a physician who researched the effects of acceleration and deceleration on humans.
• The Record: In 1954, Stapp was subjected to a deceleration that peaked at 46.2 Gs.
• Impact on Body: During this experiment, Stapp's body weight felt like over 7,700 pounds for a few seconds. The forces caused temporary blindness (redout/greyout) and ruptured blood vessels in his eyes, but he survived with no permanent injuries, demonstrating that humans can briefly survive exceptionally high, short-duration G-forces.

F-1 driver survived 179.8 positive Gs in Adelaide.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXhWM8tZE_E

 

[red admiral]

On a tangent: In the early stages of the Gripen's development I believe that the Swedish Defense Material Administration (FMV) wanted an automatic ejection mode to be implemented, as in if the pilot managed to get himself into a situation where the speed vector towards the ground was such that whatever he did he was going to crash anyway, then the system would eject him automatically.

Why would you implement automatic ejection in this case rather than automatic pull up? As has been done with Auto GCAS.

 

[Ainen]

The Gripen E certainly has a nice looking glass cockpit AndersJ.

It's the newest [western] fighter cockpit in the world, after all, together with SH blk.3 and F-15EX.
Wider world will add modern Chinese cockpits and Su-57 "mod 2025"; that's it.

And in a future fight, you will not win because you can do Cobra maneuvers or turn with a few deg/s better: You will either win or lose because your radar, EW, avionics and display functions are better or worse than you opponents.

This isn't really a good argument for Gripen, though. Which is good in degrees, but physically limited in power/real estate, and it is most certainly not stealth.

.p.s. to be fair, as of 2026, it turns out that degrees do save lives in all relevant examples of modern warfighting. Starting with the 2010s Syria (incident where an Israeli F-16 was shot down with the pilot specifically accused of giving up defensive maneuvering too early), Ukraine, Yemen, Iran.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

An explanation

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6pVOG33B2E


https://en.defence-ua.com/news/saab...stroyers_russia_does_not_even_have-17138.html

This video is most likely in whole or in part AI generated, and the channel is created by a random person in Vietnam to make money. Hardly a reliable "source" for anything at all. Clickbait title.

It's quite possible that the vast increase in site traffic from Brazil and Vietnam, nations that for a long time hardly visited the forum, is related to the increasing trend of such videos churned out en masse in lower income economies.

 

[Ozair]

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen features a high instantaneous turn rate, aided by its delta wing and canard configuration, allowing it to pull up to 9g almost instantly at combat speeds. It is considered highly maneuverable and evenly matched with fighters like the F-16 in close-combat, with a focus on care-free handling to maximize pilot performance.

so you said it had the best turn rate but turns out... pun intended... that according to AI it isn;t any better than other platforms.

The estimated operating cost for a Saab JAS 39 Gripen is roughly $4,500 to $10,000 per flight hour for older C/D models, with newer E/F models estimated between $20,600 and $22,100 per hour

So even AI can't figure out how much a Gripen costs to operate...

The Saab Gripen E is a 4.5-generation fighter with a maximum speed of Mach 2+ at high altitude. It features supercruise capability, allowing it to sustain speeds of around Mach 1.2–1.25 without afterburners, even while carrying air-to-air weapons. This capability is powered by a single General Electric F414-GE-39E engine.


Supercruise Capability

The Gripen E is designed for efficient, sustained supersonic flight without using fuel-intensive afterburners, commonly known as supercruise. While some reports suggest top supercruise speeds around Mach 1.2 with missiles, the aircraft is noted for its ability to maintain supersonic speeds for several minutes during, according to the detailed analysis on Wikipedia, tests. This high-speed performance is achieved through a low-drag airframe and high-performance engine.

Can you find on the current Saab website for the Gripen E https://www.saab.com/products/gripen-e-series , not historical Saab marketing puff pieces, where it lists the Gripen E can supercruise?

It has quietly disappeared from their marketing, I wonder why...

Acceleration: Known for high agility, the Gripen E on Saab.com can rapidly accelerate and maneuver at supersonic speeds.

This really sets the aircraft apart, being able to rapidly accelerate and manoeuvring at supersonic speed, who would have thought...

Training Wins: During a Red Flag exercise, reports indicate the JAS 39 Gripen achieved a 4–0 win against F-22s in close-combat scenarios.

Great. Is there honestly a single scenario where an F-22 would not have killed a Gripen or flight of Gripens from long range before the Gripens even knew they were detected? Starting from WVR when you know where each other is makes it a semi fair fight. 5th gen aircraft are not designed to fight fair.

 

[slroger]

This video is most likely in whole or in part AI generated, and the channel is created by a random person in Vietnam to make money. Hardly a reliable "source" for anything at all.

It's quite possible that the vast increase in site traffic from Brazil and Vietnam, nations that for a long time hardly visited the forum, is related to the increasing trend of such videos churned out en masse in lower income economies.

I think this one has an AI voice as well but its well sourced and was actually really good

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzWRL7459CA

 

[GTX]

Is it just me or does the Gripen seem to attract more fanboys sprouting gibberish than other aircraft?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Is it just me or does the Gripen seem to attract more fanboys sprouting gibberish than other aircraft?

Typhoon and Rafale are pretty similar and expensive, F-35's fairly expensive, about as heavy. Gripen's focus on small size and low operational costs does differentiate it a bit.

its not some kind of F-22 killer though.

 

[UpForce]

Is it just me or does the Gripen seem to attract more fanboys sprouting gibberish than other aircraft?

For the past few (I don't know) weeks (at least?) this conversation has been showing signs of "flooding the zone" i.e. pushing so much low quality "content" (the nominal purpose of it being irrelevant; technical, supportive, opposing, doesn't matter) in the space that constructive information exchange becomes prohibitively costly, disorienting and unpleasant. It's not specific to this site alone; as I'm somewhat interested in this fighter I've noticed a marked uptick of AI generated stuff on the subject all around the net since it achieved some export success and especially since SAABs effort to get Canada to adopt it as well.

Some of it is surely just opportunistic. AI is bringing the cost of trying to cash in on genuinely trending subjects very low especially in places where a little income goes a long way or labor is more exploitable. But some types of misinformation about the Gripen are now so thematically persistent that I've begun to consider whether there are other driving forces at play here too. For instance, baseless claims of swapping the F414 for EJ200s on a host of "defense websites" that seem to have sprung up very recently were making simple web searches and the offerings of YouTube's algorithm exercises in frustration. Other stuff as well but it's been mostly eminently ignorable, at least beyond the first examples of any new clickbait idea emerging.

In any case I've just come to read conversations such as these differently; I breeze through the latest comments chronologically but only tend to read around certain "anchor" posters who have previously benefited the thread with original insight, inquiry and information.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

For the past few (I don't know) weeks (at least?) this conversation has been showing signs of "flooding the zone" i.e. pushing so much low quality "content" (the nominal purpose of it being irrelevant; technical, supportive, opposing, doesn't matter) in the space that constructive information exchange becomes prohibitively costly, disorienting and unpleasant. It's not specific to this site alone; as I'm somewhat interested in this fighter I've noticed a marked uptick of AI generated stuff on the subject all around the net since it achieved some export success and especially since SAABs effort to get Canada to adopt it as well.

Some of it is surely just opportunistic. AI is bringing the cost of trying to cash in on genuinely trending subjects very low especially in places where a little income goes a long way or labor is more exploitable. But some types of misinformation about the Gripen are now so thematically persistent that I've begun to consider whether there are other driving forces at play here too. For instance, baseless claims of swapping the F414 for EJ200s on a host of "defense websites" that seem to have sprung up very recently were making simple web searches and the offerings of YouTube's algorithm exercises in frustration. Other stuff as well but it's been mostly eminently ignorable, at least beyond the first examples of any new clickbait idea emerging.

In any case I've just come to read conversations such as these differently; I breeze through the latest comments chronologically but only tend to read around certain "anchor" posters who have previously benefited the thread with original insight, inquiry and information.

Agreed.

Far too much posting of poor quality content from Youtube or websites with little to no validation of sources. Of course, if you love Gripen, you want to hear how awesome it is, and so this stuff validates your position and you don't apply any critical thinking.

 

[ComradeVortex]

Is it just me or does the Gripen seem to attract more fanboys sprouting gibberish than other aircraft?

Rivals F-35/F-22/F-15 fanboys.

 

[Ainen]

Typhoon and Rafale are pretty similar and expensive, F-35's fairly expensive, about as heavy. Gripen's focus on small size and low operational costs does differentiate it a bit.

its not some kind of F-22 killer though.

The irony is that for BVR in a organized fight, it's really "a" rather than "the" fighter.
Fighter has to be only good enough to it's role, results overall are more tied to the capability of system as whole, and in particular those Sweden tended to focus on.
While arguments against the gripen were always more in hard specs (how much, how fast and how far), despised in every other conversation.

P.s. F-22 in particular itself is a difficult case. For last 10 years, this 20 years older aircraft tries to adapt to a new fight away from Europe, born for a flight which was gone 30 and imagined 40 years ago.
I won't be terribly surprised if you can, in fact, use Gripen E v evolved external stores F-22 with good results.

 

[Ozair]

I won't be terribly surprised if you can, in fact, use Gripen E v evolved external stores F-22 with good results.

You'd be the only one to think that...

 

[Ainen]

You'd be the only one to think that...

Well, F-22 may indeed be immune to technological progress, degrading RCS via external stores and all that, aircraft out of age and time.

 

[Ozair]

Well, F-22 may indeed be immune to technological progress, degrading RCS via external stores and all that, aircraft out of age and time.

No, it's just that the capabilities the F-22 possesses compared to the Gripen E means there is still a very significant overmatch.

 

[Ainen]

No, it's just that the capabilities the F-22 possesses compared to the Gripen E means there is still a very significantly overmatch.

I very much doubt F-22 is somehow resistant to time. The way its modernization goes (sacrificing stealth, supercruise and all external hardpoints to get to...basic capabilities for a modern fighter) shows it is not the case.

And since it isn't, I don't see much reason to treat F-22 as some unique capability any longer. Both can be detected by AWACS and GBADs, both interlinked and can fire under external cueing.
F-22 is much more of a plane, yes. As F-35 thread teaches us, it isn't that important. And as such, in model engagement (i.e. not individual flights of fighters over open Ocean, for example), you may treat both as "fighters".

Nothing outstanding about Gripen here, other than it being perhaps the newest available contestant. Rafale F5 or MLU Eurofighter (latter now having a shot at equal performance) will, in all likelihood, do the same.

 

[Ozair]

I very much doubt F-22 is somehow resistant to time. The way its modernization goes (sacrificing stealth, supercruise and all external hardpoints to get to...basic capabilities for a modern fighter) shows it is not the case.

And since it isn't, I don't see much reason to treat F-22 as some unique capability any longer. Both can be detected by AWACS and GBADs, both interlinked and can fire under external cueing.
F-22 is much more of a plane, yes. As F-35 thread teaches us, it isn't that important. And as such, in model engagement (i.e. not individual flights of fighters over open Ocean, for example), you may treat both as "fighters".

Nothing outstanding about Gripen here, other than it being perhaps the newest available contestant. Rafale F5 or MLU Eurofighter (latter now having a shot at equal performance) will, in all likelihood, do the same.

Laughable but no point clogging this thread with more nonsense.

 

[slroger]

I very much doubt F-22 is somehow resistant to time. The way its modernization goes (sacrificing stealth, supercruise and all external hardpoints to get to...basic capabilities for a modern fighter) shows it is not the case.

And since it isn't, I don't see much reason to treat F-22 as some unique capability any longer. Both can be detected by AWACS and GBADs, both interlinked and can fire under external cueing.
F-22 is much more of a plane, yes. As F-35 thread teaches us, it isn't that important. And as such, in model engagement (i.e. not individual flights of fighters over open Ocean, for example), you may treat both as "fighters".

Nothing outstanding about Gripen here, other than it being perhaps the newest available contestant. Rafale F5 or MLU Eurofighter (latter now having a shot at equal performance) will, in all likelihood, do the same.

Dont you think F-22 avionics have been updated over the years? I doubt there isnt a classified program to keep them up to date. Its not in US interests to announce upgrades to the F-22s, its the only jet we actually do not sell to any other country, I dont see how it hasnt been modernized. I like the Gripen and think its a good jet with impressive EW capabilities especially the E version but still dont think its more modern than the F22. Thats the best US fighter.

 

[Ainen]

Dont you think F-22 avionics have been updated over the years? I doubt there isnt a classified program to keep them up to date.

There is, we know it.
And to a reasonable degree we know it's scale and problems - lack of internal space, weird programming language&legacy of 1980s architecture, small fleet, lack of challenge, bad adaptability to future theatres.

Raptor is, to this day, a very impressive aircraft, aircraft built for a war it'll never see (unless you give all of them to Ukraine, and even then the world has moved on, it won't be ~2000 alternative Fulda it was born for).

Gripen E, from electronic perspective, is simply a 20 years younger aircraft. Rather unimpressive ancient airframe, sure (even it's much talked STOL/dispersal performance is impressive only in context).
But it's an aircraft born in a world very close to one we live in right now. Where taxi/food delivery app does levels of interconnectivity no legacy equipment can even dream of.

 

[helmutkohl]

Moderator notice:
Lets stop the F-22 vs Gripen E comparison, they are not competing with each other in any market, and get back to the Gripen E news and discussion.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is it just me or does the Gripen seem to attract more fanboys sprouting gibberish than other aircraft?

I don't think it's more in total, I think it's more right now.

 

[Forest Green]

Saab CEO optimistic Ukraine Gripen deal could be finalized this year​

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/05...ine-gripen-deal-could-be-finalized-this-year/

 

[Wotan]

It would be interesting to see if they will be able to introduce the deal in the SAFE program.
https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/safe-security-action-europe_en

"To maximise impact and reduce fragmentation, projects will be based on common procurement, involving at least one Member State benefitting from SAFE and another Member States, as well as Ukraine and EEA-EFTA countries. However, in light of current geopolitical realities, SAFE will also temporarily support procurements by individual Member States to ensure timely delivery of critical assets.

EU borrowing for the financing of the new programme will enable competitively priced and attractively structured long-duration loans to requesting Member States. The terms of these loans benefit from the EU's strong credit rating."

 

[AndersJ]

Article in today's issue of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. A quick synopsis of the article:

“Gripen deal with Ukraine could change the game”

If Ukraine quickly gains access to Swedish Gripen fighter jets, they could change the situation in the war against Russia, according to the country’s defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov.

“They could become a gamechanger.”

A solution may now be in sight regarding the EU countries’ €90 billion in loans to Ukraine. If everything falls into place, Ukraine wants access to Gripen aircraft models C and D as soon as possible, even though the negotiations are primarily focused on the E model.

He believes that news of a deal could come within a few months. Saab CEO Michael Johansson has, in an interview with SVT, expressed hopes that an agreement could be finalized within the same timeframe.

Defense Minister Pål Jonson is optimistic and says that Swedish and Ukrainian authorities have worked hard on preparations for a deal.

“What I can say is that the negotiations have been in an intensive phase over the past few months.”

Jonson notes that the negotiations are mainly concerning the Gripen E model.

“We are holding discussions about Gripen E, but also about C and D. We will return with more information if and when we reach an agreement,” says Pål Jonson.

Fedorov says that the Swedish aircraft, together with their missiles and the range those missiles provide, could become a powerful weapon in the war.

They could strengthen protection for Ukrainian soldiers at the front and improve the ability to defend against Russian glide bombs, for example.

Ukraine is negotiating with Sweden and Saab to purchase up to 150 Gripen aircraft.

Financing has been a problem, but after Hungary finally lifted its veto, Ukraine’s defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov believes that a decision regarding Ukraine’s plans to purchase Swedish Gripen jets could come within a few months.

So finally, it seems that the financing is close to being solved, and yes, it looks like lobbing glide bombs into Ukraine is about to become a much more dangerous business indeed. Svenskt stål biter!

 

[Ainen]

So finally, it seems that the financing is close to being solved, and yes, it looks like lobbing glide bombs into Ukraine is about to become a much more dangerous business indeed. Svenskt stål biter!

Or a few gripens will get splashed without any effect whatsoever.
It's a war, unlike usual pr campaigns which at most go to red flag, here words can hurt.

Since new Aesa and updated EW will likely miss the train, Gripen C, from Ukrainian perspective, is a worse F-16 without apkws. But w meteor.

It can work on meteor, but the longer it takes, the lower expectations should be. Fight w su-35s was never fair in the first place, but it takes such a long time situation became substantially worse.

 

[slroger]

View attachment 811839

Article in today's issue of the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. A quick synopsis of the article:

“Gripen deal with Ukraine could change the game”

If Ukraine quickly gains access to Swedish Gripen fighter jets, they could change the situation in the war against Russia, according to the country’s defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov.

“They could become a gamechanger.”

A solution may now be in sight regarding the EU countries’ €90 billion in loans to Ukraine. If everything falls into place, Ukraine wants access to Gripen aircraft models C and D as soon as possible, even though the negotiations are primarily focused on the E model.

He believes that news of a deal could come within a few months. Saab CEO Michael Johansson has, in an interview with SVT, expressed hopes that an agreement could be finalized within the same timeframe.

Defense Minister Pål Jonson is optimistic and says that Swedish and Ukrainian authorities have worked hard on preparations for a deal.

“What I can say is that the negotiations have been in an intensive phase over the past few months.”

Jonson notes that the negotiations are mainly concerning the Gripen E model.

“We are holding discussions about Gripen E, but also about C and D. We will return with more information if and when we reach an agreement,” says Pål Jonson.

Fedorov says that the Swedish aircraft, together with their missiles and the range those missiles provide, could become a powerful weapon in the war.

They could strengthen protection for Ukrainian soldiers at the front and improve the ability to defend against Russian glide bombs, for example.

Ukraine is negotiating with Sweden and Saab to purchase up to 150 Gripen aircraft.

Financing has been a problem, but after Hungary finally lifted its veto, Ukraine’s defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov believes that a decision regarding Ukraine’s plans to purchase Swedish Gripen jets could come within a few months.

So finally, it seems that the financing is close to being solved, and yes, it looks like lobbing glide bombs into Ukraine is about to become a much more dangerous business indeed. Svenskt stål biter!

This is great news, hopefully they also fund some of the unmanned systems that were under experimentation, those would be cheaper than the Gripen E but could be major force multipliers. The <5 ton uncrewed subsonic platform could be a force multiplier to order alongside the Gripen E. I wonder what you think about this. On the other hand the plan to get some C/D models first seems practical. That way they can start operating them as soon as possible. Though I wonder how they could reach the 150 Gripens with the amount of funding they have especially considering they also have an intent to get 100-150 Rafales. Maybe coproduction deals where some parts could be produced in Ukraine. But something like 36 Gripen-Es and 12-24 Gripen C/Ds doesnt sound like something impossible over the next 5 years.