Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Wotan said:
The Gripen E + Meteor + Globaleye package will mean the beginning of total domination over the ukrainian skyes.
Click to expand...

Remind me when are the Gripen Es being delivered again?

Total domination once there's none fighting?
 
EmoBirb said:
... There's little reason to operate Rafale, Gripen C/D, Gripen E/F, Mirage 2000, F-16, MiG-29 and Su-27 in parallel.

...
Click to expand...
Not sure your logistics and maintenance people would be over-joyed over operating lots of different types.
 
ComradeVortex said:
Remind me when are the Gripen Es being delivered again?

Total domination once there's none fighting?
Click to expand...
The war is at the moment mostly a WW1 trench style static conflict. Except the case that the russians will run out of soldiers (they have started to have more casualties than they succeed recruiting) the war will drag on for years. And the ukrainian, because of the military and financial support from the other europeans, are not only holding on but slowly modernising and increasing the capabilities of their armed forces (like the discussed Gripen case).
 
Sweden will also order 12 new Gripen E/F to replace the 16 C/D
So all in all 32 new Gripen should be ordered

https://www.di.se/nyheter/saabs-dolda-gladjebesked/
“To replace the 16 Gripen C/D aircraft being donated, the plan is to purchase 12 Gripen E aircraft for the Air Force,” Johan Hjelmstrand, press secretary to Defense Minister Pål Jonson (M), told Di.
"A few Gripen D aircraft are included in the donation; the rest are Gripen C," he added.
Click to expand...
 
Saab started slowly with the orders for new Gripens but now, in the actual geopolitical situation, is in a advantageus position.
 
perttime said:
Not sure your logistics and maintenance people would be over-joyed over operating lots of different types.
Click to expand...
That's the issue, which I also mentioned. When you narrow it down to Gripen E/F and Gripen C/D you have the hi/lo some here seem to espouse for some reason (for a mid tier air force???), while sharing many components, munitions, handling practices and technical support.

slroger said:
I dont see why they couldnt operate both Rafale and F16s I dont see how an initial batch of say 16 Rafale F3s alongside the 16 Gripen C/D would be difficult to maintain and operate. If anything the two are quite complementary.
Click to expand...
They could operate Rafale and F-16, just how they operate F-16, M2K, Su-27 and MiG-29. But it's less than ideal and relies on a lot of foreign good will from multiple parties while putting one of highest logistical burdens on a force which was already held together by duct tape before the war. The Gripen E/F as a follow up on the ordered C/Ds renders the Rafale redundant, especially the older versions, capability wise. While on the other hand not only not growing the logistical nightmare that haunts the Ukrainians, but actually reducing logistical burden. Narrowing down supply chains, training pipelines, ground crew diversification etc. An air force isn't a video game, where you mix and match aircraft based on "classes" like in an RPG so you have a well rounded party/fleet. An air force is a complex organization which relies heavily on logistics and a vast quantity of people on the ground to ensure the aircraft are operational, well maintained, armed, the pilots are trained, the ground crew trained, spare parts being supplied, being stored and sorted etc. And the Rafale would add another head to the logistical hydra. Switching completely to the Saab ecosystem, to which their AEW&C aircraft belong btw, would cut down on these heads. And looking at Airbus and Saab now becoming a bit more cozy, maybe Ukraine could further invest in the future Saab ecosystem (UCAVs, potential manned fighter).

There is a reason most countries rely on 1-2 suppliers for their fighter jets, and we're talking about well funded air forces, not an air force in a very difficult situation which has virtually no funds and relies on something as uncertain as good will.
 
In the case of countries not belonging to a military alliance there is a strong incentive to operate multiple types of jets. No matter what happens with one supplier (spare part issues or stopping of the political support), you still have the rest of the airforce fully functional. See the case of India for example.

Regarding the capability of Ukraina to operate the Gripen, there should not be a concern. For example, at the moment the ukrainian pilots are beeing trained on romanian (ex-dutch donation) F-16 while some dutch or us pilots are flying the F-16 in Ukraina. For the Gripens there will be probably similar arangements. New ukrainian pilots beeing trained on the Gripen in Sweden, while some varangian pilots from the North might defend the lands of the Kyivan Rus... Up to the moment the aircrafts, spares and equipment were donated, while the new ukrainian Gripen E/F will be paid using EU funds.
 
Archibald said:
Classy.
Not against Russia. Support to Ukraine is unconditional, 100%. Of course this may change next year if fucking RN and Bardella win the election and change France into Orban-land bis, their wet dream. Drats. But I'm going off topic and political, not good at all.
Click to expand...
;)
France just a few days ago blocked gdp rule.
That's why Rafale is absolutely quintessential for Ukraine, despite the cost. Gripen politically isn't (Sweden is just not that heavy), but - it is a fighter, maybe the fighter, for a ETO defensive fight.

There are only 3 aircraft built for that specifically: Eurofighter, Gripen and Mig-29. Modern mig would be the best, but it's obviously impossible. Eurofighter is darn expensive for line aircraft, plus nations behind it (UK about all) are unconditional. Plus Eurofighter and Gripen share main weapon fit anyways.

That leaves Gripen. It's a perfect fit. Especially for a war where you have to be rea to lose aircraft.
 
EmoBirb said:
That's the issue, which I also mentioned. When you narrow it down to Gripen E/F and Gripen C/D you have the hi/lo some here seem to espouse for some reason (for a mid tier air force???), while sharing many components, munitions, handling practices and technical support.


They could operate Rafale and F-16, just how they operate F-16, M2K, Su-27 and MiG-29. But it's less than ideal and relies on a lot of foreign good will from multiple parties while putting one of highest logistical burdens on a force which was already held together by duct tape before the war. The Gripen E/F as a follow up on the ordered C/Ds renders the Rafale redundant, especially the older versions, capability wise. While on the other hand not only not growing the logistical nightmare that haunts the Ukrainians, but actually reducing logistical burden. Narrowing down supply chains, training pipelines, ground crew diversification etc. An air force isn't a video game, where you mix and match aircraft based on "classes" like in an RPG so you have a well rounded party/fleet. An air force is a complex organization which relies heavily on logistics and a vast quantity of people on the ground to ensure the aircraft are operational, well maintained, armed, the pilots are trained, the ground crew trained, spare parts being supplied, being stored and sorted etc. And the Rafale would add another head to the logistical hydra. Switching completely to the Saab ecosystem, to which their AEW&C aircraft belong btw, would cut down on these heads. And looking at Airbus and Saab now becoming a bit more cozy, maybe Ukraine could further invest in the future Saab ecosystem (UCAVs, potential manned fighter).

There is a reason most countries rely on 1-2 suppliers for their fighter jets, and we're talking about well funded air forces, not an air force in a very difficult situation which has virtually no funds and relies on something as uncertain as good will.
Click to expand...
I hear you, and valid points, the logistics burden would be real. Adding Rafale would be extra work for the Ukrainian Airforce. But I think Ukraine's case is unusual because they are trying to generate sufficient modern airborne combat mass under wartime conditions while diversifying away from dependence on any single supplier.

Thats why I dont see Gripen deal making Rafale redundant, if anything it makes it even more relevant. Gripen C/D makes sense for the air defense missions, EW, Meteor and a proper bridge the Gripen E. But as shown in other conflicts for a Western airforce you need an F15 class platform for deeper multirole strike missions or close to it in terms of payload capacity which Rafale provides without the risks associated with a changing US administration. Gripen E is great aircraft but in terms of payload capacity Rafale offers more. So I wouldn't see it as redundant in the broad scheme of things. Ukraine's goal with the Airforce has shifted away from 1-2 max Western combat platforms(F16 and maybe Gripen) to now Gripen+Rafale.

I remember seeing a presentation they had for procuring F16s back in 2019 iirc, They had planned for F16 as the future backbone of the Ukrainian airforce I think up until recent US admin changes and delays in providing support. So now Gripen+Rafale with the unmanned programs that come with these makes the most sense. Dont be surprised if very soon they announce a purchase deal similar to the one we saw today but for the Rafale.
 
Ukraine has a strong aerospace industry. They will be probably able to mantain the Gripen (and also the Rafale) at home. Also a deal for local assembly might not be excluded. Saab has proposed this in the case of the offer for Canada.
 
Titus K said:
UK, Italy and Spain blocked the same gdp rule ...
Click to expand...
Point taken. But overall, UK is doing same thing for two centuries against largest power in Europe; changes of leadership almost don't matter.
Plus in any case, rafale delivers unique capabilities and line of supply which won't come with any other European fighter.
Gripen covers same weapons and key capabilities as Eurofighter, but cheaper and far more suitable for available conditions.
 
Ainen said:
Point taken. But overall, UK is doing same thing for two centuries against largest power in Europe; changes of leadership almost don't matter.
Click to expand...
If anything the sale of 8 SAMP/T NG batteries is much more strategic for France than a squadron of Rafale.
It would give MBDA enough backlog to invest massively in Aster production.
Whereas the Rafale's backlog is a more a "too much" than a "not enough" problem right now.

Ainen said:
Plus in any case, rafale delivers unique capabilities and line of supply which won't come with any other European fighter.
Gripen covers same weapons and key capabilities as Eurofighter, but cheaper and far more suitable for available conditions.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
EmoBirb said:
That's the issue, which I also mentioned. When you narrow it down to Gripen E/F and Gripen C/D you have the hi/lo some here seem to espouse for some reason (for a mid tier air force???), while sharing many components, munitions, handling practices and technical support.
Click to expand...
Gripens by themselves don't form a hilo couple in any sense.
Gripen EF is newer, and above all it's a significant boost in combat range : payload performance, which may or may not be even useful (Ukraine has plenty of aircraft that are only useful as PGM trucks).

But it just means that Gripen C/D will come as a single trick pony. It can't take bulk work as Low end component should; they don't do it, they aren't available in higher numbers, and their much lower fly away cost is of now practical use: you can't order more anyway.

Rafale is in a whole different class when it comes to range: payload.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine Finalizing Deals For Gripen Acquisition And Donation

Ukraine will receive 16 donated Saab Gripen fighters from Sweden once it finalizes the first stage of a deal to acquire new-build Gripen Es.

Visiting Sweden on May 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the donated Gripen C/Ds could be fighting in Ukrainian skies by the beginning of 2027.

Crucially, these aircraft would be armed with MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, finally giving the Ukrainian Air Force a counter to the long-range air-to-air missiles used by the Russian Air Force. Kyiv would also gain the ability to target Russian strike aircraft carrying standoff weapons such as glide bombs.

“These jets, with very specific weapons, especially Meteors, which can destroy [air] targets [at ranges of] 200 km-plus…we think we will push back these Russian jets, and they will not be able to use their aerial glide bombs,” Zelenskyy told journalists.

The $2.3 billion package of ex-Swedish Air Force aircraft would also include other long-range weapons, ammunition, electronic warfare capabilities and what the Swedish government described as “support to innovation,” enabling the aircraft to be adapted to Ukrainian operational requirements.
Click to expand...
 
Ainen said:
Gripens by themselves don't form a hilo couple in any sense.
Gripen EF is newer, and above all it's a significant boost in combat range : payload performance, which may or may not be even useful (Ukraine has plenty of aircraft that are only useful as PGM trucks).

But it just means that Gripen C/D will come as a single trick pony. It can't take bulk work as Low end component should; they don't do it, they aren't available in higher numbers, and their much lower fly away cost is of now practical use: you can't order more anyway.

Rafale is in a whole different class when it comes to range: payload.
Click to expand...
The most used bomb in the world is the american Mk82, with 225kg/500pounds weight. In the era of precision guided munitions you don`t need huge payload capacity. The Gripen can carry anyway antiship missiles/land attack missiles like the RBS 15, with ranges of over200- 300km, depending of variant.

The C/D will also probably be used like the most F-16 are used by Ukraina, as a cruise missile interceptor. It's capacity to operate in rough conditions from roads makes it ideal for this use. It can be placed anywhere and intercept the incoming cruise missiles in minutes from the initial warning.
 
Wotan said:
The most used bomb in the world is the american Mk82, with 225kg/500pounds weight. In the era of precision guided munitions you don`t need huge payload capacity. The Gripen can carry anyway antiship missiles/land attack missiles like the RBS 15, with ranges of over200- 300km, depending of variant.
Click to expand...
Strike in Ukraine (for PSU) is lo dash - release - lo egress profile. A lot of afterburner use to deny firing opportunities to SAMs, and range to LRAAMs. That means fuel is being burned crazy.

Current base Ukrainian strike aircraft are su/mig (both with 2 useful stryke pylons). They're effectively harmless in a2a, but they're powerful aircraft, able to haul their payloads on the deck fast. Sukhoi has lots of fuel, but low altitude flight on it isn't fun.
F-16 is a separate story, we may return there later and probably in a different topic.
That's what we're replacing.


It's oversimplified, but armed, with one tank and short pit stop, with gripen C you have to refuel in the immediate proximity to the frontline (frontline cities). It's a small aircraft, which relies on not burning too much fuel to go places.
It isn't a show stopper as long as Ukrainian AA denies Russian drones immediate kill chain(just knowing aircraft landed on an air base isn't enough unless you're nuking it, you need the specific spot), but this is of course a risk(we saw it in the past). You're also obviously time constrained - drones can be intercepted, but satellites don't sleep.

If you force Gripen to burn (like Swiss tender), it goes empty very fast. Thus, pit stop.

With 1 tank, you have 4 pylons available; 2 meteor/2 bombs, or 4 bombs, or 8 SDB.
With 3 tanks(when you can actually fly to a safe field and/or loiter in CAP), it's either 2 bombs or 2 meteors.
Plus, of course, gripen is a hot scooter when compared to available bombers (f-16/mig/su). Less acceleration/energy retention when loaded, meaning you need to start earlier and be more mindful of how you maneuver.
Advantage is it's done much cheaper, and also doesn't require too much fuel physically. Low footprint, faster fuelling.


With Gripen E, situation changes drastically as it has 3/2 central stations: you now can combine 2 tanks with main useful weapon loads, giving solid strike/self-escort advantage over all available aircraft. For example, 2 bombs, 3 meteors, or 4 bombs(two fuel destroying Soviet aircraft replaced by 1 Ikea scooter, with much faster run-around and pilot comfort).

With Rafale, because of its bag configuration(and their size) you can take full strike racks(6 250/4 500/3 1000) right from UKLS, deliver them and return to safety of a well established and defended rear base. All that with full self escort, with self escort pods always in, and with automatic terrain following not interfering with radar A2A search.
Or, screw around in a combined CAP.

Overall, Gripen C is a massive boost in sortie effeciency, plus meteors. But if we're talking actual additional capability for PSU over what they already have and can, it's basically a meteor interceptor.
Gripen E is where a big boost comes from, as it performs as a modern reincarnation of a mirage 2000.
Rafale - in it's own class.
 
Last edited:
The Gripens have the capacity to refuel in less than 10 minutes almost anywhere where is a 800m long strip of road. I whink we shall see the ukrainians using this capability extensively. It is very hard to organise a drone strike and sent the drones to a target 100km away in several minutes.
 
Wotan said:
The Gripens have the capacity to refuel in less than 10 minutes almost anywhere where is a 800m long strip of road. I whink we shall see the ukrainians using this capability extensively. It is very hard to organise a drone strike and sent the drones to a target 100km away in several minutes.
Click to expand...
Even if it can be refueled and rearmed in 10 minutes, the early detectable signs would be measured in hours, not minutes.
 
A truck and several technicians. Among other thousands of trucks and several tens of thousands military personel roaming in the area. Unlikely.
 
Wotan said:
A truck and several technicians. Among other thousands of trucks and several tens of thousands military personel roaming in the area. Unlikely.
Click to expand...
Several military trucks to carry the fuel, fuel tanks, munitions, mechanical equipment, tools, and the technicians, and MPs and their vehicles to close the road.
Not a huge signature, but not nearly as small as you portray it.
 
Wotan said:
The Gripens have the capacity to refuel in less than 10 minutes almost anywhere where is a 800m long strip of road. I whink we shall see the ukrainians using this capability extensively. It is very hard to organise a drone strike and sent the drones to a target 100km away in several minutes.
Click to expand...
No it this rubbish again. The capability is not inherent in the Gripen but rather the Swedish system. Unless the Ukrainians (or anyone else for that matter) heavily invests in that they don’t get the capability.
 
GTX said:
No it this rubbish again. The capability is not inherent in the Gripen but rather the Swedish system. Unless the Ukrainians (or anyone else for that matter) heavily invests in that they don’t get the capability.
Click to expand...
I think Ukraine has invested heavily in infrastructure for dispersed Air Force operations. They started this even before the full scale invasion in 2022 around 2019. The chosen aircraft was actually the F16. So I think we will see the Gripens sot in quite well into this
 
I think that Sweden will provide also all the necessary equipment together with the aircrafts, not just the airframes. They are always very helpful.
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukraine-airfield-maintenance-from-sweden/

A very interesting analysis
https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...r-jet-offer-ukraine-against-russias-air-force

"The Gripen-E, tailored for high-threat environments and rapid-deployment operations, offers a mix of advanced radar, beyond-visual-range missiles, and data-linked situational awareness. These features could allow Ukrainian pilots to challenge Russian aircraft such as the Su-35S and MiG-31BM while reducing vulnerability to long-range surface-to-air missile systems."

"The Raven radar offers high jamming resistance and supports interleaved air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, thereby shortening sensor-to-shooter timelines. Complementing the radar is the Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) sensor for passive detection of hot contacts and anti-stealth cueing. Together with modern sensor-fusion software and secure datalinks, these systems allow Gripen-E crews to detect and track Russian fighters or cruise missiles earlier, hand off tracks between aircraft and allied assets, and choose whether to engage actively or remain passive to preserve the element of surprise. "

"The Meteor’s ramjet motor sustains high speed and kinetic energy late in flight, creating a much larger no-escape zone than legacy Russian missiles such as the R-77. In operational terms, this enables Ukrainian pilots to engage high-value Russian fighters at greater standoff distances, increasing first-shot kill probability and forcing the VKS to alter tactics or accept greater risk. "

"Against Russian Su-35 and Su-30SM fighters, the Gripen-E provides multiple tactical advantages. With Meteor-equipped loadouts, it can engage from farther ranges than Russian pilots expect. With superior sensor fusion and EW protection, it can reduce exposure during the engagement process. Against the high-speed MiG-31 interceptor, which relies on radar reach and missile range, the Gripen-E’s passive tracking and datalinked situational awareness reduce the effectiveness of long-range intercept tactics. In mixed formations, Gripen-E aircraft can network with each other and allied ISR assets to distribute threat data and overwhelm Russian command chains with coordinated attacks. Each of these traits helps degrade Russia’s ability to control contested airspace."
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
No it this rubbish again. The capability is not inherent in the Gripen but rather the Swedish system. Unless the Ukrainians (or anyone else for that matter) heavily invests in that they don’t get the capability.
Click to expand...
I think refuel specifically should be mostly tied to aircraft being able to execute mission profile from a smaller tank?
If your load is 2.5t(gripen internal) it's one thing, if it's more like 20t, with same pump, process is mathematically longer and larger footprint.
Wotan said:
I think that Sweden will provide also all the necessary equipment together with the aircrafts, not just the airframes. They are always very helpful.
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukraine-airfield-maintenance-from-sweden/
Click to expand...
Aircraft is always system, doing one without another is stupid. It of course happens all the time anyways, but usually customers make fools of themselves when they don't really plan to use a capability.
 
Wotan said:
https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2...-to-purchase-saab-gripen-and-globaleye-awacs/
The Gripen E + Meteor + Globaleye package will mean the beginning of total domination over the ukrainian skyes.

The Varangian Rus from the North will make in a good old traditional way a massacre with the russians aircrafts. The russians have no similar modern AWACS and the old fleet of airborne radars is mostly gone, which means that the Su-35 and Mig-31 will have to try to operate on their own versus a reduced radar signature aircraft (estrimated 0.5 m2 or less from frontal aspect) and which also has a very efficient electronic warfare suite. And a very effective data link. The lack of airborne radars will mean that also the stealth Su-57 would only remain invisible until it fires its own radar trying to scan for targets.
Click to expand...
As long as the most pro-Ukrainian Russian president doesn't get assassinated or replaced with medvedev(very sane guy on twitter) or shoigu to blow up the airfields or make runways inoperable because of long range drone/missile strikes. apparently, there were some oil depots that they left standing for 3 years only to bomb it because Azerbaijan made a corridor deal. Or the fact Ukrainian officials say if some waste plant in Kiev gets destroyed instead of damaged as a warning the entire city could be flooded with feces which is nothing some 1000s of drones or missiles can't solve striking that location.

Sure, whatever the Gripens will solve the matter at hand. But downgraded F-16s were given for a reason instead of F-16Vs. The gripen delivery starting next year is a concern with how fast the map is changing which would further reduce effectiveness of the aircraft assuming it can magically take down more Su-57s, Su-35s and Mig-31s. The last article you posted that stated outranging legacy R-77s but not including R-37s which are widely used in this war is rather concerning.
 
Ainen said:
I think we can agree to disagree on these; neither of us is Canadian in any case. I respect your position.

But I'll specifically comment on the last one. One of the reasons the Russian VKS failed to gain air superiority over Ukraine (and the deal with Ukraine can be discussed, and Gripen will be able to operate against them) was this exact "biggest baddest aircraft" order of battle, procured for an unwinnable war with NATO, completely abandoning actual tasks of an air force(and armed forces in general).

As a result, they bought all of their aircraft with bigger radars, higher payloads, and longer range, instead of something more mundane, "but" with well-thought-out, easy access maintenance hatches, not requiring a whole truck of specialized tools. That, and just a normal set of standard capabilities, which their biggest, baddest Sukhois, lack. As a result, they wasted jet fuel for 4 years, flying outside of Ukrainian airspace. Yes, they never lost a single air battle to date; and?

"Lift with EW" is, in my eyes, one hell of a proposal. Applying it to Gripen(D/F especially) wasn't derogatory.
Gripen-E_2_05.jpg

Especially since there's quite a lot of EW there...
Click to expand...
The reason the RuAF can't operate over Ukraine has nothing to do with the relative merits of their fighters. They are fighting with one arm in the back because they can't target nato isr assets which provide most of ukraines targeting capabilities.
 
galgot said:
Of course, would be bad for the Gripen. But I bet the next Saab plane won't use any US engine anymore, if ever this US admin uses that great idea (and dumb as they are, their are perfectly capable of doing so).
Click to expand...
It already happened, with Gripen (Colombia); others anxiously wait outside the door (Tejas, Hurjet, Kaan). The problem is that others are equally competitor engines, and can play the same trick.
Nothing too surprising here.
 
It feels like the thread is only dealing with the Gripen E/F in a peripheral manner. As most discussions revolve around engines and missiles and foreign aircraft and strategy and politics.

Many posts, little Gripen E/F.
 
TomcatViP said:
B/w I wonder how the present US administration will react: ban F404 exports?
Click to expand...
That would be an absolutly stupid idea. The fallout of deying to a NATO member the access to weapons will be huge. It will guarantee that no NATO member will risk in the future to buy or build under licence american technology. They will choose the alternatives.
 
Nicolas10 said:
The reason the RuAF can't operate over Ukraine has nothing to do with the relative merits of their fighters. They are fighting with one arm in the back because they can't target nato isr assets which provide most of ukraines targeting capabilities.
Click to expand...
Not to muddy this thread with off-topic, but.... What?
That has little to do with why VKS cannot operate over Ukraine. Their SEAD/DEAD campaign at the start of the war was anemic and it been a weakness of Russia for some time (evidenced by Russo-Georgia war as well). Ukraine gained valuable time, experience, and new systems which has allowed them to establish fairly effective A2/AD in regards to manned aircraft at least.
 
Wotan said:
In the case of countries not belonging to a military alliance there is a strong incentive to operate multiple types of jets. No matter what happens with one supplier (spare part issues or stopping of the political support), you still have the rest of the airforce fully functional. See the case of India for example
Click to expand...
That might be why the earlier announcement was that the post-war air force would be Gripen plus Rafale. They won't be flying Rafale until there are significant Gripen numbers, but that might still involve ordering them early.
Ainen said:
They're getting more strike sorties, cheaper.
Click to expand...
Also getting Erieye. US may or may not be getting E7...
 
Null said:
Is this aircraft actually the gamechanger of all gamechangers? Will 100th time be the charm for Ukraine with whatever it received before?
Click to expand...
I don't think such a thing exist. That said, even some Gripen Cs will boost Ukraine air force, the thing that could make a serious change is if they are armed with Meteors.
 
galgot said:
I don't think such a thing exist. That said, even some Gripen Cs will boost Ukraine air force, the thing that could make a serious change is if they are armed with Meteors.
Click to expand...
I would wager Meteors are a more impactful upgrade for Ukraine than the Gripen itself, although I'm sure the sensor suite will also be a welcome improvement.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom