Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Inka said:

Swedish DefMin cites ‘productive’ talks with Peru on potential Gripen sale​

Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson told Breaking Defense that up to 24 airframes are on the table.
By Jonas Olsson on August 28, 2025 10:50 am

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08...ith-peru-as-lima-shops-for-new-fighter-fleet/
Click to expand...
Longer this drags on the less likely Peru will have the two aircraft available locally for July 23 next year. Peruvian pilots would have to start conversion very soon to make that timeframe possible.
 
Gripen early autonomy software tested in flight by an outside pilot:

What Centaur actually did​

Modern beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat is a high-speed, sensor-driven chess match. The AI’s job: keep track of who’s where, manage the jet’s sensors and emissions, choose energy-efficient manoeuvres, and decide when a missile shot is tactically sound. According to Saab and Helsing, Centaur was trained at scale in high-fidelity simulation, then ported to the aircraft for reality checks—“years” of virtual flying condensed into days or weeks. The Gripen E helps here: its architecture separates flight-control software from tactical software, so new code can run in the mission computer without touching the jet’s safety-critical flight controls.
Click to expand...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/swed...ls-what-gripen-e-just-brian-iselin-林百安-wshce/
 
By the way, maybe I missed it.
Are KEPD 350s being integrated onto E/F, are they already integrated, or how does it work?
I only found news talking about C/D integration.
 
AGS-1787 said:
Given the current actions by the Colombian president I see it difficult for them to get approved to buy American engines.
Click to expand...

indeed relations are not the best at the moment, but I don't see the US being a major obstacle in the sale of the Gripen E/F to Colombia, simply because they'd tolerate a Swedish plane flying Latin America around rather than pushing the Colombians into buying the J-10 instead.
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
https://www.armyrecognition.com/new...n-1-9b-deal-for-18-saab-gripen-e-fighter-jets
Click to expand...
Financing from the Swedish Government with an 8 year grace period on the.loan... There is no way the Swedish Govt will make money from this deal, in fact this just costs the swedish taxpayer significantly.

The Thai deal has 155% offsets so significantly more than the contract deal was worth.

Does anyone buy a Gripen without a free loan or more investment than the total contract cost in offsets?
 
Ozair said:
Financing from the Swedish Government with an 8 year grace period on the.loan... There is no way the Swedish Govt will make money from this deal, in fact this just costs the swedish taxpayer significantly.

The Thai deal has 155% offsets so significantly more than the contract deal was worth.

Does anyone buy a Gripen without a free loan or more investment than the total contract cost in offsets?
Click to expand...

Sweden is a small geopolitical player and doesn't have the influence that the U.S. or even France does, especially in Latin America. So they have to bend over backwards offering attractive terms just to get their foot in the door and hope the customer likes their product and orders more in the future. The Gripen had the incredibly bad luck of coming into service just after the Cold War ended and the peace dividend era began, and by the time rising tensions necessitated a larger investment in air power, most countries had already opted for the F-35.
 
alberchico said:
Sweden is a small geopolitical player and doesn't have the influence that the U.S. or even France does, especially in Latin America. So they have to bend over backwards offering attractive terms just to get their foot in the door and hope the customer likes their product and orders more in the future. The Gripen had the incredibly bad luck of coming into service just after the Cold War ended and the peace dividend era began, and by the time rising tensions necessitated a larger investment in air power, most countries had already opted for the F-35.
Click to expand...
The question would then be why do the Swedish people put up with subsidizing Saab? I expect there are plenty of other businesses that don't get the same treatment. Saab makes some good products that sell quite well internationally, Gripen isn't one of them though, yet somehow gets significant govt benefit.
 
Ozair said:
The question would then be why do the Swedish people put up with subsidizing Saab? I expect there are plenty of other businesses that don't get the same treatment. Saab makes some good products that sell quite well internationally, Gripen isn't one of them though, yet somehow gets significant govt benefit.
Click to expand...
Privilege to get national fighter aircraft befitting doctrine, prestige, still notable sales maintaining high quality work positions. Contingency plan, shall things go wrong.

Certain level of international influence beyond normal for otherwise rather peritheral country this small.

Also, Gripen doesn't sell that badly either, and swedish air force is notably strong. It won't be possible with other western aircraft.
 
Saab products do sell. The Gripen isn't really one of them, albeit I doubt about your analysis on profitability.
A fighter aircraft is bought to remain in service for decades. That means years and years of maintenance, parts and upgrades.
Regarding the offset package, see it more as a bona-fida opportunity for the Swedish industry as a whole to invest outside of foreign investment restrictions in a booming low cost economy.

Your Gripen should be more seen as a Trojan horse than a winged lion...
 
Last edited:
One problem that has plagued Swedish military jet aircraft exports is an unfair playing field: AFAIK India was very interested in acquiring the AJ37 Viggen back in the days, but that was stopped by the US because it had an American engine. Well sort of, it was actually from the beginning a modified civilian jet engine further modified with Swedish made afterburner etc.

Learning from this experience, Sweden before yet again selecting a US engine for a military aircraft project, got assurances that the US would not block Swedish export sales if the US was competing on that market as well. That reassured the Swedes, who then went ahead and did the RM12 engine (modified F404) for the Gripen since the playing field now seemed level again.

But then when Finland was offered the JAS 39 Gripen, what I heard through the grapevine was that the Finns were interested but that the US negotiators position was: “Well, the Gripen is a good airplane, but what are you going to arm it with, wink, wink?” Our order books are full, so we can’t supply you with AMRAAM’s for a long, long time. However, if you buy the F-18, then we could probably throw in some AMRAAMs as well. Whaddya say bout dat?

True or not? I’m not sure, but it’s a good story anyway. ;)
 
Theoretically they could have made an engine maybe back in the 50's but even making your own aircraft is a huge undertaking, so it was probably all for the best that all Swedish jets from the "Flying Barrel" and onwards have been powered by non-indigenous engines.

And TBH, the only reason SAAB got contracts to build Swedish jets in the first place, was because of the neutrality policy that the ruling Social Democratic party insisted on until they too finally saw the light and finally acknowledged what everyone, NATO and Warsaw Pact included knew all along, that we belong in the Western camp.

Interestingly, AFAIK the SwAF when asked how to get the most bangs for the buck said F-18, not Gripen. Their reasoning IIRC, was that even though the Gripen may turn out good, the huge development cost to design a brand new jet could instead be spent on bolstering the numbers of a "Swedified" F-18 instead. But that was of course overruled by the politicians back in the 1980's and Gripen it was. But I think it will be interesting to see if the Ukrainians now get the Gripen as has been discussed lately. I think it should be well suited for their needs. Would love to see a Meteor-capable version delivered.

Edit: I see now that our Minister of Defense, Pål Jonsson, is actually considering delivering the Gripen E to Ukraine!
 
Last edited:
"IL interview: A huge deal is being secretly negotiated for Ukraine – "We are discussing Gripen E"
Swedish Defense Minister Pål Jonson tells Iltalehti that the Swedish government is discussing the export of the Gripen E fighter jet with Ukraine. Saab is prepared to arm Ukraine with Gripens."

https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/e1099443-9e58-41df-bdcc-03267c793140
 
Honestly they are not in position to anger the current administration. They should have gotten Rafael’s instead.
 
What are the chances that Sweden will develop its own aircraft engines in the future? For example, Turkey and South Korea are developing engines with thrust of less than 10,000 lbf for use in drones. Isn't Sweden also capable of doing the same?
 
synetic said:
What are the chances that Sweden will develop its own aircraft engines in the future? For example, Turkey and South Korea are developing engines with thrust of less than 10,000 lbf for use in drones. Isn't Sweden also capable of doing the same?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Do they have the population and GDP base?
 
Well, it was proposed every time and refused every time.
Furthermore, while engine is certainly a constraint, for actual independence I'd begin with weapons as @AndersJ hinted.

You can maintain engines without OEM for a while. But if you don't have means to fight with...
 
As you mentioned, aircraft engine development is expensive and requires market support, including demand. However, unless Saab and Sweden continue to rely on American engines, I believe they can achieve relatively low-thrust engines, given their economic scale and close relationships with the former Volvo Aero and now GKN Aerospace.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think Sweden would have a good niche for military engines in the 7500-12500lb thrust class. (yes, 10k +/-)

Alternatively, 5k dry/~8k afterburning
Click to expand...
Without established history and preferably long proven relationship with civilian aircraft industry to keep it afloat, it's hopeless.

Can Sweden do it?
Probably. I am sure DPRK can, if truly invested.

Is the huge investment worth it (do note that they'd need to sink money into whole engine development infrastructure)?

Not really.
 
Last edited:
For better or worse, I think JAS 39 Gripen was the last indigenous Swedish military jet we'll ever see. Now that we're in NATO there is no way you'll be able to convince the Swedish general public to pay up for another one.

In addition, if Gripen was expensive to research and design, imagine what the development costs would be for a new state-of-the-art multirole stealth fighter? Then split that on a production run of maybe max 200 aircraft for the SwAF. The only record that would break is the most expensive fighter per unit cost ever.

Then the alternative of doing it together with other EU countries? Maybe. But imagine getting France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. (especially France ;) ) sitting down at the same table to agree on what to build? And the result being something good and not another 2 kg Swiss Army knife (Panavia Tornado) you can't fit in your pocket?

No, I think we would be better off co-operating with the US and perhaps doing parts of whatever is in the pipeline. Something joint like the T-7A Red Hawk. But the US are big enough on their own so they would probably not think it worth the while. Doing something together with the British and/or Germans OTOH, that might work. But the whole EU? What could possibly go wrong......
 
Ainen said:
Without established history and preferably long proven relationship with civilization aircraft industry to keep it afloat, it's hopeless.

Can Sweden do it?
Probably. I am sure DPRK can, if truly invested.

Is the huge investment worth it (do note that they'd need to sink money into whole engine development infrastructure)?

Not really.
Click to expand...
Don't they already have relatively small turbines, though?

Idea was to make good relatively small CCA engines. More survivable that a cruise missile turbine, not anywhere near as long-lived as a civilian bizjet engine.
 
AndersJ said:
For better or worse, I think JAS 39 Gripen was the last indigenous Swedish military jet we'll ever see. Now that we're in NATO there is no way you'll be able to convince the Swedish general public to pay up for another one.
Click to expand...
To be fair, NATO isn't quite as stable as it seemed 10 or 5 years ago, and lives from US election to US election.
Modern fighter is a long term, "capital" investment nowadays. In some way, fighter may be a more relevant hedge than before.
AndersJ said:
In addition, if Gripen was expensive to research and design, imagine what the development costs would be for a new state-of-the-art multirole stealth fighter? Then split that on a production run of maybe max 200 aircraft for the SwAF. The only record that would break is the most expensive fighter per unit cost ever.
Click to expand...
Swedish fighters tend to take one major new gen technology a time. For Gripen that was FbW.
Given that gripen E did much to update architecture and onboard equipment up to speed, in principle it's possible to conceive a miniS-75 type F-X program, focusing on LO airframe.
Scott Kenny said:
Idea was to make good relatively small CCA engines. More survivable that a cruise missile turbine, not anywhere near as long-lived as a civilian bizjet engine.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but then again - even for CCA, it's up to debate how much independence it adds, when main armament is still american.

In this sense, modern south Asia/south east Asia hedges better - we may laugh at sustainance, but independents tend to go for chairs with 3 legs.(US-France-Russia-China in any combination).
No way all of those turn on you at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
In this sense, modern south Asia/south east Asia hedges better - we may laugh at sustainance, but independents tend to go for chairs with 3 legs.(US-France-Russia-China in any combination).
No way all of those turn on you at the same time.
Click to expand...
The last time US-Russia-France were collectively pissed at a country, it was 1991 and the aggravating country was Iraq.

And China may have been annoyed about the massive increase in fuel prices, so officially peeved as well.

So it's happened before, but more or less once in the last ~50 years.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think Sweden would have a good niche for military engines in the 7500-12500lb thrust class. (yes, 10k +/-)

Alternatively, 5k dry/~8k afterburning
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. AFAICR, there are at least three modern engines (plus older engines like the Adour) in this class, with one of them (TEI’s) still under testing.

I can’t remember many details, but I know China started a project to develop an indigenous engine for the L‑15 after the war in Ukraine broke out. You could reasonably exclude Ivchenko, but even then, this is a very niche market. The Russians have also come up with an improved copy of the AI-222-25 for their trainers (and probably under development, lower-tier CCAs).

There’s also an engine from HAL, though its future is still uncertain as far as I know. Japan has the XF5 from IHI, which hasn't found adoption beyond equipping the X-2 Shinshin...

Even if future CCAs from Europe change things, I doubt it; there haven’t been any mid‑tier CCAs so far. Everyone either opts for a cheap, semi-disposable “large cruise missile” or an expensive, high-performance, manned-fighter-like CCA.
 
Last edited:
AndersJ said:
For better or worse, I think JAS 39 Gripen was the last indigenous Swedish military jet we'll ever see. Now that we're in NATO there is no way you'll be able to convince the Swedish general public to pay up for another one.

In addition, if Gripen was expensive to research and design, imagine what the development costs would be for a new state-of-the-art multirole stealth fighter? Then split that on a production run of maybe max 200 aircraft for the SwAF. The only record that would break is the most expensive fighter per unit cost ever.

Then the alternative of doing it together with other EU countries? Maybe. But imagine getting France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. (especially France ;) ) sitting down at the same table to agree on what to build? And the result being something good and not another 2 kg Swiss Army knife (Panavia Tornado) you can't fit in your pocket?

No, I think we would be better off co-operating with the US and perhaps doing parts of whatever is in the pipeline. Something joint like the T-7A Red Hawk. But the US are big enough on their own so they would probably not think it worth the while. Doing something together with the British and/or Germans OTOH, that might work. But the whole EU? What could possibly go wrong......
Click to expand...
At least Sweden has other defense systems that sell really well, like the CV90.
These days the GlobalEye is emerging to be the preferred European alternative to the E-7 Wedgetail.

as for talk of Sweden developing a new engine just for the Gripen.
it's probably more cost and time effective for them to adapt the Gripen to another engine, such as the EJ-200, than to design a new engine.
 
snne said:
I don’t think so. AFAICR, there are at least three modern engines (plus older engines like the Adour) in this class, with one of them (TEI’s) still under testing.
Click to expand...
But those are expensive.

I'm talking about something a little more durable than a cruise missile engine.
 
TomcatViP said:
https://www.nyteknik.se/industri/sn...t-forsta-jas-39-gripen-e-en-milstolpe/4400170
(I am pretty sure that with all the talking for ever going on the Gripen E, many wouldn´t even believe it´s not yet in service in the manufacturer country ;) )
Click to expand...
Article from 2016. Covid and all but there won't be six squadrons in SwAF service by 2026...

General Helgesson looked forward to receiving the first Gripen E in 2023 which will equip six squadrons by 2026. It will be a national asset that will protect sovereign independence and empower the nation towards a more secure future
Click to expand...
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/gripen-e-the-smart-fighter-unveiled
Perhaps it is time to also revise the sales forecast.
“With its lower R&D, we are in position to capture a large percentage of the potential market of 450 aircraft with Belgium, Switzerland and India being targeted.”
Click to expand...
 
Ozair said:
Article from 2016. Covid and all but there won't be six squadrons in SwAF service by 2026...
Click to expand...

I think the author got that wrong. Original plans were for a force of 40 Gripen C/D and 60 Gripen E in 6 squadrons. Now they want to keep 60 Gripen C/D along with 60 Gripen E in 7 squadrons. There never were plans to have 6 Gripen E squadrons.
 
So there is an on-going new conference right now in Linköping (started 251022 at 15:00 Swedish time) with the Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson and Volodymyr Zelenskyy where it has been revealed that Ukraine is to procure in-between 100 to 150 JAS 39 Gripen E from Sweden. Good times ahead for both nations and congratulations Ukraine! :)

I hope the EU will release the Meteor as well. That would be a game-changer, and Gripen Es with Meteors would provide Ukraine with air superiority, especially with a few SAAB ASC 890 Erieye providing early warning and targeting info.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom