Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

WatcherZero said:
If the UK is contributing €300m to the loan as the UK content of the aircraft is between 30% and 40%, suggests the actual airframe costs in the contract is below a billion which puts it in the F-16 price band.
Click to expand...
Frankly speaking, given how airframe costs(and inflation) just continue going up every few years, at some point it would be sensible to simply adjust them to the price of gold.
 
Gold is not a particularly stable index.

1d4c9a30-2be5-11f0-8f57-b7237f6a66e6.png


Its up another $500 an ounce since the start of this year! Currently $4017 an ounce.
 
https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40068843

The Royal Thai Air Force plans to seek funding for eight additional Gripen E/F fighters to complete a 12-aircraft squadron replacing ageing F-16s.​

The Royal Thai Air Force is preparing to seek government funding for eight additional Gripen E/F fighters to complete a 12-aircraft squadron, as commanders marked 15 years of the existing Gripen–Saab system and cited its performance during Thai-Cambodian border operations in 2025.
Air Chief Marshal Sakesan Kantha, commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Air Force, said the first phase of the procurement programme, covering four aircraft, was progressing according to plan.
The air force intends to submit the remaining eight aircraft as a single proposal under the next phase, rather than dividing them into smaller batches, to accelerate preparations for a fully operational squadron. The proposal remains subject to budgetary consideration and government approval.

The Royal Thai Air Force plans to seek funding for the additional eight aircraft in the 2028 fiscal year under the Burapha Santi programme.

The planned 12-aircraft Gripen E/F squadron is intended to replace ageing F-16s stationed at Wing 1 in Nakhon Ratchasima, which are being progressively withdrawn after more than three decades of service.

Sakesan said the air force had begun coordinating its proposal in accordance with the relevant planning and budget cycles.

He expressed hope that the government and other agencies involved would support the project, saying the acquisition was intended to provide the personnel, technology and supporting systems required for future air operations.

Thailand’s initial contract covers three single-seat Gripen E aircraft and one two-seat Gripen F, together with associated equipment, support and training. Saab said deliveries under the contract would take place through 2030.

The agreement also includes a long-term offset package involving technology transfer, industrial cooperation and investment in Thailand, according to the Swedish manufacturer.

​

Click to expand...
 
Wotan said:
The money are coming already.
https://united24media.com/war-in-uk...sh-made-gripen-fighter-jets-for-ukraine-20834

"The state-backed investment is designed to facilitate the procurement of a complete squadron of Swedish-made Saab JAS 39 Gripen E fighter jets, an initiative projected to modernize Ukraine’s long-term air defense capabilities by 2029."
Click to expand...
And the other needed money...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2082811938497515998
View: https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/2082811938497515998/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2082811938497515998%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Ukraina has good and commited friends.
 
Wotan said:
Massive increase of production capacity planned for the Gripen.
https://united24media.com/defense-t...le-output-bad-news-for-russian-aviation-21531
Click to expand...
Would be interesting if Ukraine also got the UCAVs and CCAs that are planned to fight alongside the Gripen-E. That would be a force multiplier and the effects of which would be interesting to compare alongside competing platforms even the US. Fast iteration led by Ukraine and testing these systems out in a real war where the adversary has a somewhat decent airforce would give the Gripen an edge over a lot of other platforms. On the other hand just the Gripen Es alone could possibly work out quite well.
 
Think at the cost of the airframe + the CCA + the UCAV. Is that really necessary for Ukraine to finance* the R&D of a partner nation that only has one or two aircraft fielded?

*With a hard to get EU loan
 

Attachments

  • F-35BiOT-Shirt.jpg
    F-35BiOT-Shirt.jpg
    32.7 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Think at the cost of the airframe + the CCA + the UCAV. Is that really necessary for Ukraine to finance* the R&D of a partner nation that only has one or two aircraft fielded?

*With a hard to get EU loan
Click to expand...
F35 is arguably the best fighter jet out there but for example Iran using fairly simple technology was able to track it and strike it with an infrared based surface to air missile. Its not infallible nor insurmountable, especially when those supposed to maintain, upgrade and deploy it rest on their laurels, other systems can eventually beat it. Sweden+Ukraine can do quite a lot with a Gripen E+CCA platform leveraging different technologies from Europe(Leonardo for radars,Thales for secure datalinks, Hensoldt for EW,MBDA for Meteor or other effectors and Safran for EO/IR sensing). I think with funding especially now that its clear the funding is going to be made available, we could see Gripen E+CCAs that are competitive and have battle tested features and the continuous quick upgrades that could make it quite competitive against the F35.
 
Well, thanks to the european allies support, Ukraina is renewing it`s fighter fleet faster than the opponent. The Gripen E is going to best his opponents. The only thing who could be better is the ellusive Su-57, which is such a stealthy aircraft that nobody has seen taking part in real combat operations.
 
There are more than double active Su-57s than Gripen E/F produced overall (of which a grand total of 2 have been delivered to Sweden). Not to mention that said active airframes are confirmed to have taken part in air combat, long range strike, SEAD and test flights under combat conditions. Furthermore there are more Su-34/Su-35 delivered annually than the entire Gripen E production run thus far, the VKS actively grows while the UAF is at best keeping a steady fleet with influx of new types like the F-16. Realistically though, with mounting combat losses and inexhaustable missile and drone strikes on bases, the fleet is more likely to slowly shrink.

Anyone who's expecting a sudden and rapid increase in production of the Gripen E/F, let alone increased deliveries to any customer, is beyond naive. One also shouldn't overestimate the value of a medium weight single engine fighter that has received near zero upgrades over the last years. There is a reason why the F-35 and Rafale consistently snatched export orders from it. And that despite the F-35 having a lobby campaign actively ran against it in the EU and euro-adjacent countries and the Rafale being the more expensive option.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
There are more than double active Su-57s than Gripen E/F produced overall (of which a grand total of 2 have been delivered to Sweden). Not to mention that said active airframes are confirmed to have taken part in air combat, long range strike, SEAD and test flights under combat conditions. Furthermore there are more Su-34/Su-35 delivered annually than the entire Gripen E production run thus far, the VKS actively grows while the UAF is at best keeping a steady fleet with influx of new types like the F-16. Realistically though, with mounting combat losses and inexhaustable missile and drone strikes on bases, the fleet is more likely to slowly shrink.

Anyone who's expecting a sudden and rapid increase in production of the Gripen E/F, let alone increased deliveries to any customer, is beyond naive. One also shouldn't overestimate the value of a medium weight single engine fighter that has received near zero upgrades over the last years. There is a reason why the F-35 and Rafale consistently snatched export orders from it. And that despite the F-35 having a lobby campaign actively ran against it in the EU and euro-adjacent countries and the Rafale being the more expensive option.
Click to expand...
Ukraine doesnt need 100 Gripens immediately to alter the balance or prove the worth of the Gripen E. Since Meteors can theoretically be produced faster than Russia can produce Su-34/35s, 16 E models create a real threat to the VKS that hasnt existed yet. Those are the true workhorses of the VKS not the Su-57 anyway. Another thing is saying Gripen has received "zero upgrades" isnt accurate there is an ongoing upgrade of Gripen C/D with new engines, radars,EW suites that supposed to go all the way into 2029.

On the Gripen-E+CCA front I think thats the most interesting part. Funding is already available buttressed by frozen Russian assets. One of the few things that hadnt yet benefitted from the rapid iterative development cycle of the Ukrainian defence industry is Western combat aviation. That changes as soon as Ukraine operates Gripen, giving the Gripen-E an opportunity to use its rapid iteration software architecture in a real high intensity war, while Saab and Ukraine gather real time data about what physical changes need to be made to the aircraft and its effectors. This is why the initial Gripen C/D Ukraine deploys is going to be very critical, operating it against Russia will influence what kind of modifications end up in the eventual Gripen Es that Ukraine will gets. For one, I suspect Ukraine will push for greater distributed passive EO/IR coverage on the aircraft.
 
Last edited:
slroger said:
Ukraine doesnt need 100 Gripens immediately to alter the balance or prove the worth of the Gripen E. Since Meteors can theoretically be produced faster than Russia can produce Su-34/35s, 16 E models create a real threat to the VKS that hasnt existed yet.
Click to expand...
Broadly, the primary threat never was fighters, it is heavy SAMs denying high altitudes.

A fighter missile can reach long ranges if full conditions are met, and then the stream of updates is ensured for a sufficiently long time.
Heavy SAMs always have full reach.
SAMs, in turn, ensure VKS fighters always have commanding height and launch condition advantage. Meteor is much stronger than AMRAAM from lo/lo launch, but it's still a significant launch condition disadvantage.

That is not to say that Gripen doesn't provide(improve) chances of scoring hits, but touching unacceptable loss rates is very unlikely.
slroger said:
Those are the true workhorses of the VKS not the Su-57 anyway. Another thing is saying Gripen has received "zero upgrades" isnt accurate there is an ongoing upgrade of Gripen C/D with new engines, radars,EW suites that supposed to go all the way into 2029.
Click to expand...
Iirc, the 2023 upgrade to C/D hasn't delivered planes to date, and it's rather unlikely Ukraine is getting them.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Broadly, the primary threat never was fighters, it is heavy SAMs denying high altitudes.

...
Click to expand...
I think there were several Ukrainian jets downed well within Ukrainian controlled territory, by hi alt flying MiG-31s and Su-35s launching long range AA missiles from within Ru controlled territory air space (thus avoiding Ukrainian SAMs).
Ukraine having no Long range AAM appart from AMRAAMs, Meteor equipped jets such as Gripens (or others) could help for that.
 
galgot said:
I think there were several Ukrainian jets downed well within Ukrainian controlled territory, by hi alt flying MiG-31s and Su-35s launching long range AA missiles from within Ru controlled territory air space (thus avoiding Ukrainian SAMs).
Ukraine having no Long range AAM appart from AMRAAMs, Meteor equipped jets such as Gripens (or others) could help for that.
Click to expand...
Oh, most ukrainian losses are to fighters. But this is because everything Ukrainian is absolutely pressed into the deck, and pop up
mostly to loft bomb.

I.e., there's no "fair" long-range air-to-air combat in this war, and Gripen won't be excluded from this rule.
 
Ainen said:
Broadly, the primary threat never was fighters, it is heavy SAMs denying high altitudes.

A fighter missile can reach long ranges if full conditions are met, and then the stream of updates is ensured for a sufficiently long time.
Heavy SAMs always have full reach.
SAMs, in turn, ensure VKS fighters always have commanding height and launch condition advantage. Meteor is much stronger than AMRAAM from lo/lo launch, but it's still a significant launch condition disadvantage.

That is not to say that Gripen doesn't provide(improve) chances of scoring hits, but touching unacceptable loss rates is very unlikely.

Iirc, the 2023 upgrade to C/D hasn't delivered planes to date, and it's rather unlikely Ukraine is getting them.
Click to expand...
Valid observations, I agree Russian GBADs create an altitude advantage, where I disagree is whether that advantage remains while Ukraine is increasingly hunting down these SAM systems. We've seen recently F-16s manage to shoot down an Su-35 despite operating without the advanced radar and BVR that the Gripen C/D provide. I think this is in part because of a degraded Russian SAM network.

So I think maintaining that advantage will get much tougher for VKS with the introduction of the Gripen C/D. Which leads into my bigger point, that lessons from Gripen C/D will influence Gripen E modifications which will even cause greater problems for VKS. I dont think Ukraine even needs the 2023 upgrade tbh with the initial batch Gripen C/D but I could be wrong.
 
slroger said:
Valid observations, I agree Russian GBADs create an altitude advantage, where I disagree is whether that advantage remains while Ukraine is increasingly hunting down these SAM systems. We've seen recently F-16s manage to shoot down an Su-35 despite operating without the advanced radar and BVR that the Gripen C/D provide. I think this is in part because of a degraded Russian SAM network.
Click to expand...
Given how these fights usually develop, my guess is that the F-16 got lucky shot at an overzealous Su-35 pilot, hungry for a kill. The important number here is not the kill; it's that it took over 4 years(and a full year of F-16 operations) to come to even one.

The problem with degrading long-range GBADs is that you have to delete them for crazy distances in, and they still pop up(as there are hundreds and hundreds of them).
S-400 with 40N6 is advertised for a range of 370km, and S-300V(with tank-like mobility) had it already for a decade.

Plus Gripen is not a straight upgrade over F-16. Meteor is great for the underdog - yes, but an underdog still remains an underdog. F-16 has a lot of power, which is highly consequential for aggressive low-and-hot maneuvering. Gripen is less so.
slroger said:
So I think maintaining that advantage will get much tougher for VKS with the introduction of the Gripen C/D. Which leads into my bigger point, that lessons from Gripen C/D will influence Gripen E modifications which will even cause greater problems for VKS. I dont think Ukraine even needs the 2023 upgrade tbh with the initial batch Gripen C/D but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Gripen is a 1990s light fighter; it is just as (or more) outclassed as F-16 MLU is.
What NATO does is feeding its worst aircraft, from the lowest level (remaining soviet aircraft they managed to find) onwards.
While Su-35s aren't really dedicated fighter killers, they still sit somewhere near the very top on this ruler; it won't be outclassed anytime soon, not even by the most modern and advanced JAS-39E.
By itself it isn't critical; 1 fighter is 1 fighter. Gripen also has great tricks helping it out. But it's just very difficult to overcome baseline 30000 feet of unfair advantage between two 4th generation fighter aircraft.


Ukraine will indeed help to develop it, but the problem is they're getting a new plane right at the moment of introduction. It's still a light fighter, but with all the risks and quirks of a newly introduced aircraft.
 
Last edited:
An experienced Rafale pilot echoing some of the things I was mentioning about the Gripen E+CCA, At this minute onwards, he mentions that beyond the Gripen is the CCA thats needed for a use case like Ukraine, he claims that likely we will see the arrival of the CCA in Ukraine soon. He explains why in the video, and I 100% agree with his arguments.
 
slroger said:
An experienced Rafale pilot echoing some of the things I was mentioning about the Gripen E+CCA, At this minute onwards, he mentions that beyond the Gripen is the CCA thats needed for a use case like Ukraine, he claims that likely we will see the arrival of the CCA in Ukraine soon. He explains why in the video, and I 100% agree with his arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't think the air forces of the world are ready for fighter-capability CCAs yet. Supersonic 9+G maneuvering monsters.

Not least because those will be most of the cost of a manned airframe and so basically no more attritable than the manned aircraft they replace!
 
Interesting concept.
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/saab-a3-001-stealth-drone-europe-airpower-gripen-e/

"Saab has unveiled the full-scale A3-001 unmanned fighter concept, exposing Sweden’s ambition to distribute sensing, electronic warfare and weapons across a stealthy combat network built around the JAS 39 Gripen E."

"Its operational logic extends beyond providing Gripen E with an expendable escort, because Saab envisages distributing mission risk, electronic attack, forward sensing and precision-strike capacity across interconnected aircraft operating under human command.

The concept responds directly to dense integrated air-defence systems, long-range surface-to-air missiles and networked sensors that increasingly force crewed fighters to launch weapons from greater distances or accept escalating operational risk."
 
Let's be honest, the Maduro situation has completely turned the table. Now Venezuela is not an unfriendly neighboring power seeking territories and will soon become an allied, also, of the USA (with more predictable US basing day after day). In parallel, the resurgence of narco-guerilla is probable due to the military pressure exerted by the the US administration; but one that will master technology more than body snatching terror.
In consequence, Colombia probably doesn't need anymore a fighter jet that excel only on ECM warfare but one more dynamic (speed, climb rate, acceleration to supersonic flight and, ideally, supercruise) with range AND heavy payloads. They would also need persistence, hence large loitering drones.
The Gripen E seems then a luxury good too futile to afford. I completely understand Columbia stand here and would suggest Saab take notice by reallocating contract value to some of their other systems in their large portfolio. Gripen C + globaEye ? Direct fire ? Pattroling Boats and attack Sub ? etc...
 
Last edited:
SAAB has just put out this video:


On 28 August 2026, we successfully completed the first flight of Gripen F. The flight was conducted at Saab’s airfield in Linköping by Saab chief test pilot Jakob Högberg and Brazilian Air Force test pilot Lieutenant Colonel Aviator Abdon Vasconcelos. The aircraft took off at 09:40 local time and remained airborne for 40 minutes.​

Gripen F: Unlocking future potential. Again and again.
Click to expand...
 
Development of Gripen F kicked off when Brazil stipulated single- and two-seater Gripen - in 2014.
First flight of Gripen E: 15 June 2017
First flight of Brazilian Gripen E from Linköping: 26 August 2019.
First delivery of production Gripen E to Brazil: 1 April 2022.
First flight of Gripen F: 28 August 2026.
<edit> Mildly surprised, but gratified nonetheless, that enumeration of facts causes such mirth.
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
First flight roughly 10 years after the Gripen E/F was first unveiled...
Click to expand...

The two seater always was a Brazilian requirement.
Brazil (as always) has no money for defence.
Had they not renegotiated and delayed the whole program, all 36 planes (including the -F's) would have been delivered 2 years ago. Currently the the last planes are scheduled for 2032.
 
By the way, what's the current plan for twin seaters?
I briefly remember that they have advantage (but aren't strictly necessary) for arexis escort jamming extension.
Pure conversion trainers, or complex strike group of the fleet?
 
Wotan said:
And on the other hand, blocking the sales of armament to a NATO country would be suicidal for the US arms industry.
Click to expand...
It happened many times in the past though; TAF F-35s still sit in the US.

It doesn't change attractiveness of US armaments themselves (if anything, it decreases any merit in considering alternative). It only decreases attractiveness of individual US components on future programs, but US components were chosen with this risk in the first place.

They're chosen because they're good and often hardly replaceable(best/tested/the only suitable option).
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Sorry, but imho, they may be good, but some very expensive to operate, comes with lot of strings attached, and are often chosen because you had the whole power of US diplomacy/manufacturing capacity/economic capacity/some time pressions even behind it, and until recently, for close allies like Canada, guaranteed US protection that comes with it, that is/was their main "attractiveness".

but "all the times they are a changin"...
Click to expand...
F404(original) - no viable alternative at all (or develop engine yourself, which wasn't serious).
F414 - pay someone else to develop entire alternative and take all development risks. Everyone else is, by the way, is your direct competitor.
 
Ainen said:
F404(original) - no viable alternative at all (or develop engine yourself, which wasn't serious).
F414 - pay someone else to develop entire alternative and take all development risks. Everyone else is, by the way, is your direct competitor.
Click to expand...
Sure, superb kits. But you are talking of "good ol' days", when there was no insults/threats/tariffs... yes these were perfectly fine for some to choose.
What I mean is if one feels he can't trust the one supplying these marvels anymore, at some point alternatives with less capacity from elsewhere will be chosen, this all buy F-35 or Gripen debate is a shining example.
And on the longer term, it pushes to develop viable alternatives, which is happening right now (with various success because takes time and it's difficult) in a whole range of other fields.
And in some cases even before the current US admin; you cited the Turkish F-35s still sitting in the US, why do you think Turkey strated going full steam developing their own stuff ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom