Will the Gripen E even still be in production in 2034? I agree it makes sense to consolidate around a single type, unlike Thailand's regional neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia who seem to like Fighter jet soup.

Problem is the Thais have a lot of aircraft to replace. Unless their air force is going to shrink radically, or the F-5s, alphajets and early Blk F-16s are going to stay around longer, then an additional 12 Gripen E, which are different enough already to the C currently in service, is not going to be enough.

I expect a second airframe to bulk out the fleet, something like the FA-50, makes more sense but will the Thais have the funding...
Their plan is to procure replacement fighter in 3 stages. First stage is the Gripen E/F acquisition announced last year, replacing their oldest falcons from the '80s. Second stage will see the replacement of their F-5s between 2031 and 2035. After that, the remaining F-16A/Bs between 2037 and 2046.

I'm pretty sure they will want something stealthier for the third stage, though as for the second stage, 60 Gripems ordered by Flygvapnet is more than enough to keep the production running until Thailand proceeds with the second stage programme.

Flygvapnet was originally to receive Gripen E/F from 2018 until 2027. This was the plan in 2013, but since then the plan changed and the first Gripen actually came in 2023. If the procurement plan was exactly delayed by 5 years, and yearly production plan hasn't, that would mean that the production of Swedish Gripens will run at least until 2032. Now add to that 12 Thai Gripens. This also makes sense if we consider the fact that Sweden will only decide with how they'll proceed with their next generation fighter after 2030.

As for the Brazilian Gripens, it is not the question of if but when they will place the follow-on order, though they've licensed it and produces them locally, as in, it is not just CKD or SKD kits being imported from Sweden and being assembled in Brazil, but has a high percentage of parts manufactured in Brazil, so if Sweden wants to keep the production line at SAAB running, they'll need to find new customers.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the "restrictions" are mostly about which equipments may be used and which notbduring the exercise with China.
Ugh, not sure they'll find much more export success with ideas like this.
Clients that won't mind that are switching to F-35, and for Thailand it's a bad surprise after the announcement.

Guess they're protecting raven and arexis (both bound to find their way onto eurofighter), or showing that they're NATO now, but this will further decrease relative attractiveness of this aircraft.
 
Attractiveness is when your aircraft performs as expected when tested in anger. This englobes the rightfulness of discipline.
 
Attractiveness is when your aircraft performs as expected when tested in anger. This englobes the rightfulness of discipline.
Only customers who even consider gripen E/F are budget-minded neutral countries.
They don't buy gripens to use them in anger, they buy them to stay away from anger.
"No exercises with China" by itself is a red flag for them.
 
Only customers who even consider gripen E/F are budget-minded neutral countries.
They don't buy gripens to use them in anger, they buy them to stay away from anger.
"No exercises with China" by itself is a red flag for them.
It's not "no exercises with China," it's "you cannot use the following equipment in exercises with China"
 
It's to limit what the Chinese aircraft can "sniff" out of the Gripen E.
I recall something similar happened 20 years ago when Indian Flankers visited the US and could not use its radars in exercises with US planes.
 
It's not "no exercises with China," it's "you cannot use the following equipment in exercises with China"

I would imagine that Thailand, like most other armed forces, doesn't use the full capabilities of their aircraft and equipment when conducting exercises with foreign air forces. This seems more like a minor point that nonetheless has to be put into the contract rather than something that Thailand is going to take issue with.
 
I would imagine that Thailand, like most other armed forces, doesn't use the full capabilities of their aircraft and equipment when conducting exercises with foreign air forces. This seems more like a minor point that nonetheless has to be put into the contract rather than something that Thailand is going to take issue with.
I would assume so as well. You always want to keep a bit in reserve in international wargames, just to hide the edges of what you can do.
 
I would assume so as well. You always want to keep a bit in reserve in international wargames, just to hide the edges of what you can do.
Certainly, but the moment small neutral supplier starts placing partisan conditions, he turns into small partisan supplier.
IKEA discounts aren't worth that much.
 
C/D sold to Czech Republic, South Africa, Hungary and Thailand,
E/F sold to Brazil, Peru, Thailand

Export to Argentina and Pakistan was blocked, Colombia has said this year it firmly intends to place an order, been half a dozen more bids where it has generally lost out to the Rafale or second hand F-16's.
 
C/D sold to Czech Republic, South Africa, Hungary and Thailand,
E/F sold to Brazil, Peru, Thailand

Export to Argentina and Pakistan was blocked, Colombia has said this year it firmly intends to place an order, been half a dozen more bids where it has generally lost out to the Rafale or second hand F-16's.
Peru and Colombia are not done deals yet.
 
Better foreign sales than Russian SU-57 or SU-75 have achieved. Especielly when you look at how well the flanker and Mig-29 did in exports.
An interesting bar to measure against especially given Su-75 is at this point just concept art. The other issue with Gripen export is almost all A/C exports were just remanufactured aircraft, not new builds.

Saab have talked up big exports for over 25 years, often speaking of exports in the hundreds but that has never materialised.
 
If New Zealand government decides to reverse Helen Clarke's bit of high-treason when she disbanded the RNZAF's air-combat wing 2002 and restore I have no doubt that the Griffen E/F would be at the top of the list.
 
If New Zealand government decides to reverse Helen Clarke's bit of high-treason when she disbanded the RNZAF's air-combat wing 2002 and restore I have no doubt that the Griffen E/F would be at the top of the list.
I'd actually expect FA50s or M346s to be higher. Cheaper to operate and adequate for air policing.
 
If New Zealand government decides to reverse Helen Clarke's bit of high-treason when she disbanded the RNZAF's air-combat wing 2002 and restore I have no doubt that the Griffen E/F would be at the top of the list.
There is zero chance of that happening. With what NZ has to afford over the next 20 years including replacement of the ANZACs, new transport aircraft to replace the 757, new naval helicopters, long range drones etc per the 2025 capability plan there is no money to return to manned fighter aviation.
 
There is zero chance of that happening. With what NZ has to afford over the next 20 years including replacement of the ANZACs, new transport aircraft to replace the 757, new naval helicopters, long range drones etc per the 2025 capability plan there is no money to return to manned fighter aviation.
If the Kiwis are lucky, they can just buy new fighter-CCAs in 20-30 years. Drone fighters that can fight without needing a quarterback.
 
The recent debacle of Novo (the partnership b/w Volvo and the crazy startup Northvolt) wasn't that much profitable with billions of losses that halted/hampered Volvo investments... ;)
A soul makes you follow self preservation instincts and adhere to sanity, which in the industry simply translates by putting knowledge owners in charge instead of screaming monkeys.
 
Gripen sales have time and again been kneecaped by US on bogus ITAR grounds only to sell F16 with same gear . And not only Gripen , when croatia wanted to buy Used F16 from israel ,US knecaped that sale as well , French picked up the pieces of that spat ,by providing political services US could not.

Besides BAE that was in charge of Gripen international sales kinda burned trough their budgets for hookers and blow they were pushing to sell Eurofighters in addition to billion dolar bribes that got laundered in public . Left Gripen bribes,hookers and blow budget dry.End of the day that is what sells jet fighters.

Gripen is also not very price competitive compared to F16 variants let alone used f16

End of the day Gripens foreign part content makes it easy to block sales , US and UK both do .But its also only way countries like Korea ,Turkey or Sweden can make a jet by having 80+% foreign content.

As for chinese cars, Volvo would likely not exist anymore without them and end up like Saab ,same story with UK car industry
 
Last edited:
Gripen sales have time and again been kneecaped by US on bogus ITAR grounds only to sell F16 with same gear . And not only Gripen , when croatia wanted to buy Used F16 from israel ,US knecaped that sale as well , French picked up the pieces of that spat ,by providing political services US could not.

Besides BAE that was in charge of Gripen international sales kinda burned trough their budgets for hookers and blow they were pushing to sell Eurofighters in addition to billion dolar bribes that got laundered in public . Left Gripen bribes,hookers and blow budget dry.End of the day that is what sells jet fighters.

Gripen is also not very price competitive compared to F16 variants let alone used f16
Yes quite the chequered run...
End of the day Gripens foreign part content makes it easy to block sales , US and UK both do .But its also only way countries like Korea ,Turkey or Sweden can make a jet by having 80+% foreign content.
I don't think anyone doubts that but if you build a fighter and plan to export it then using a significant portion of US parts including the engine then you limit your market to only those countries that the US will let you deal with. I expect that Saab was hoping Swedish entry in NATO might also open up some additional sales but there is sufficient impending competition to make the Gripen E less appealing now than it might have been years ago when it was supposed to originally IOC.
 
Yes quite the chequered run...

I don't think anyone doubts that but if you build a fighter and plan to export it then using a significant portion of US parts including the engine then you limit your market to only those countries that the US will let you deal with. I expect that Saab was hoping Swedish entry in NATO might also open up some additional sales but there is sufficient impending competition to make the Gripen E less appealing now than it might have been years ago when it was supposed to originally IOC.

Like said that was an unavoidable choice Swedes had to make , and at the time export was not first priority, 404 is a good engine made in huge numbers. Euro engines were not on the table at the time plus likely cost much more than 404 or 414 ,EJ200 and M808 are practicaly coach built ,given the low manufacturing numbers i would not be supprised if they are 2x the cost or more , and if they ever came head to head French ,EU would block them as well.
 
Better foreign sales than Russian SU-57 or SU-75 have achieved. Especielly when you look at how well the flanker and Mig-29 did in exports.

You're comparing a single engine, rugged budget fighter to a heavy twin engine stealth fighter (most likely double the cost, maintenance not included) and an aircraft in development yet to make its first flight.

That aside, weren't the Gripens in Hungary or Czechia just on a lease too? I remember reading once that a country just leased the Gripen, I think it was in eastern Europe.
 
Last edited:
@Mr.T the thing is that now that every former F-16 user is switching over to the infinitely more capable F-35 the market is flooded with used F-16s, some of which not even that old. Add to that an ocean of spare parts, people with technical know how and decades worth of experience having fixed most issues, it's just far more attractive than the still rather pricey Gripen E/F which has none of the above really. Just look at SA being not able to keep their Gripens flying, it's after all still a very expensive machine, it's in a sense a luxury item.

And in a market where on the NATO side of things the F-35 gets picked up by everyone who's allowed to get them, the use F-16s being thrown out at bargain prices and select few opting for advanced Eagles or the Dassault Rafale there isn't much space for the Gripen.

While many countries more on the neutral side of things gravite to mixed air forces of various origins or much cheaper alternatives like light combat aircraft or second hand fighters.

As it stands in the current environment the Gripen, as much as I love it and I truly do, isn't a convincing offer. Especially when it cannot edge out competitors on technical grounds and not even on political grounds anymore. It's unfortunate but that's how things played out
 
@Mr.T the thing is that now that every former F-16 user is switching over to the infinitely more capable F-35 the market is flooded with used F-16s, some of which not even that old. Add to that an ocean of spare parts, people with technical know how and decades worth of experience having fixed most issues, it's just far more attractive than the still rather pricey Gripen E/F which has none of the above really. Just look at SA being not able to keep their Gripens flying, it's after all still a very expensive machine, it's in a sense a luxury item.

And in a market where on the NATO side of things the F-35 gets picked up by everyone who's allowed to get them, the use F-16s being thrown out at bargain prices and select few opting for advanced Eagles or the Dassault Rafale there isn't much space for the Gripen.

While many countries more on the neutral side of things gravite to mixed air forces of various origins or much cheaper alternatives like light combat aircraft or second hand fighters.

As it stands in the current environment the Gripen, as much as I love it and I truly do, isn't a convincing offer. Especially when it cannot edge out competitors on technical grounds and not even on political grounds anymore. It's unfortunate but that's how things played out

The Czechs have a lease for the older model. Hungary has a lease and buy, and by next year they'll fully own it.

The Gripen series as a whole, has generally been relatively successful for Saab/Sweden. It's achieved more exports than the Viggen (none), and the Draken. Both in terms of number of countries operating them and total numbers exported. I believe the total numbers built, its about the same as the Rafale.

However at the end of the day, most countries prioritize strategic interests when buying warplanes or other major weapon systems. Buying American, French, Chinese, Russian, or the UK, means you're also buying into their support system (whether its spares, or political support). For countries that have an active threat or high security concerns, building such connections are important. Hence why a country like Qatar went nuts buying American, French, and UK products around the time when its neighbors started ganging up on them.
Sweden in contrast, is a smaller country with less global influence, and until now, a neutral foreign policy. I think they punch above their weight in what they've accomplished in the defense sector, but at the end of the day, they're limited on what they can do, and end up having to rely on foreign suppliers for a number of things.
It doesn't mean the Gripen is a no-go for these countries, but that it is at a disadvantage to products from the P5.

For countries without a major threat, the Gripen has more appeal, especially if that country has a policy where it does not want to lean too heavily to any of the P5 members. These are countries like Thailand (which ended up with Gripens), Brazil, or Malaysia (not a Gripen user but fits the category as well as having a foreign policy where they lean west but also wants to keep some independence from them).
The thing is, many of these countries, don't really have a strong demand for fighter jets because they're generally at peace, so orders numbers are generally low (12-24).

Gripen E/F, has a high price tag, equal or higher than the F-35. But supposedly a low sustainment cost, which means the savings will be more noticeable over its lifetime. But that high unit price tag might also deter some countries, especially as there's a ton of much cheaper used F-16s. Spare parts are plenty and the F-16 will likely continue to be produced for a while, perhaps longer than the Gripen. Due to its widespread use and history, the F-16 does offer alternatives for potential users. For example, if a user doesn't have access to the latest AMRAAM missile, they can use European or Israeli missiles instead. Even the Turks are rapidly developing a wide variety of munitions for the F-16. I believe that was the case for Chile or another country, where the US initially refused to export the AMRAAM, so they went with Israeli weapons.
 
Better foreign sales than Russian SU-57 or SU-75 have achieved. Especielly when you look at how well the flanker and Mig-29 did in exports.
There's the so-called time involved.
Su-57 appeared a few years ago right into the war. Su-75 isn't even a true index (plane doesn't exist, it's a proposal). It's a future Aircraft.
Current Russian sales portfolio is Su-35s, Su-30sm2 and Mig-29M2. Outselling gripen under CAATSA and 2022-.

Gripen is with us for over 3 decades. It had some success playing the affordable/neutral card, but by now it lost both. It never had the tech transfer one, as there's not that much to transfer. Of course it never had any political services or equal offsets.

Now it's only card ironically is "advanced", but it's a tough card to play when you're small and 4.5 gen.
4.5 gens bruteforce your perceived advancedness, and being "advanced" when you can't even fight the world standard on even terms is a very tough sell.

In this case, the only option seems to be pro-american Latin America, if someone, for some reason, doesn't want second hand F-16 and US can live with it.
 
Last edited:
Basically Gripen is squeezed between a) second-hand F-16s that are dirt cheap b) Rafale (or Typhoon) as european alternatives if no F-35 possible and c) F-35 itself, full stealth.
The Grippen should thrieve on being "cheap because single engine" unfortunately the F-16, first hand or second hand, is crushing that market.
 
The Grippen should thrieve on being "cheap because single engine" unfortunately the F-16, first hand or second hand, is crushing that market.
They had an opportunity at a great sales pitch in Ukraine (just 1-2 meteor ambushes would've made it name and history), but Sweden somehow failed to grasp even that (half assed it), despite sending many times more money to Ukraine.

And it would've hidden another glaring downside of gripen order - that Sweden can't add the main requirement for making interceptor effective - it can't provide air defences.

Bad luck, lil fighter.
 
Last edited:
For countries without a major threat, the Gripen has more appeal

While Sweden doesn't directly border Russia, Gripen definitely is designed for a geostrategic situation where a major threat exists. The requirement originates from the days of Sweden's neutrality, no less (albeit there were de facto bilateral security guarantees from the U.S). Swedish fighter export efforts have some very idiosyncractic challenges, it being more of a networked system within a network of total defense systems; I'm unsure as to how much its current export clients have wanted or been able to emulate that. They've made their decisions regardless.

The Gripen's "natural" environment is the arctic and the Baltic region (Brazil's involvement with their aviation sector may yet result in some localization). Denmark and Norway's procurement history is more tied to NATO, Finland went with the F-35 as well, the Baltic countries can't afford fighter wings individually, and SAAB couldn't possibly have scaled up to Poland's urgent needs so they went with U.S. and South Korean products, and so forth. Circumstances and trends somewhat impossible to predict during the commercial life of a fighter.

Some of Gripen's qualities certainly would be a good fit for Ukraine; too bad a Gripen "U" production line based on the C/D apparently isn't in the cards. I certainly wondered (even aloud) whether enough legacy equipment exists/existed for that to happen/have happened. A complicated proposition in any case.
 
yeah thats a good point and one I wanted to bring up earlier but didn't. Gripen, like the Viggen, was designed for Sweden's defense needs first and foremost, which means integrating it with its other defense systems, that might be lacking in some potential customer countries.

On the topic of the FA-50, that's another potential rival to the Gripen in addition to used F-16s. The FA-50 has overlaps slightly with the F-16, but the Gripen overlaps both.

the FA-50 has the same engine as the Gripen, and in terms of exports, about the same number has been exported. The current FA-50 isn't as capable as the older Gripen, let alone the Gripen-E, but it wins out in low unit and sustainment costs. The upgrades the Poles are pushing for (AESA, AMRAAM, etc) will put the FA-50 on par with the older Gripens. Which for some air forces, is good enough to do air policing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom