Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Lordarpad said:
One thing that occurred to me is that with more French cooperation there could also be Mica integration. Given the increased range of Mica over Iris-T, it might well make a better sidearm for ground attack missions. Also Hammer integration and in general more EU sovereignty.
Click to expand...
how many hardpoints are big/strong enough for FC/ASW Stratus missiles on the Gripen E ?
 
Lordarpad said:
One thing that occurred to me is that with more French cooperation there could also be Mica integration. Given the increased range of Mica over Iris-T, it might well make a better sidearm for ground attack missions. Also Hammer integration and in general more EU sovereignty.
Click to expand...
There is no point.

Missile choice, from independence perspective, is weapon pool you have. I.e. immediate stock+daddy emergency supply option. Immediate stock is independent from the day you got them onto national soil, AMRAAM or MICA doesn't matter.

Problem with French weapons is of course France itself - it just doesn't have all that many. Their MICA pool is small, old and stretched. Note what Ukrainian mirages fly with, and in which numbers - this is french "backup" for you.

You, of course, can buy more upfront - but same will work with AMRAAMs, just better.
 
Titus K said:
how many hardpoints are big/strong enough for FC/ASW Stratus missiles on the Gripen E ?
Click to expand...
Depends... how big/heavy is the missile? The French wiki says 800 kg. As a Storm Shadow/SCALP replacement I'd expect it to be much heavier.
Gripen's outer wing hardpoints are rated for 600 kg. So 2-4 missiles, depending on whether it also fits under the fuselage.
Taurus f.e. must be carried on the inner wing pylons.
 
eagle said:
Depends... how big/heavy is the missile? The French wiki says 800 kg. As a Storm Shadow/SCALP replacement I'd expect it to be much heavier.
Gripen's outer wing hardpoints are rated for 600 kg. So 2-4 missiles, depending on whether it also fits under the fuselage.
Taurus f.e. must be carried on the inner wing pylons.
Click to expand...
plus under the fuselage?
 
eagle said:
Depends... how big/heavy is the missile? The French wiki says 800 kg. As a Storm Shadow/SCALP replacement I'd expect it to be much heavier.
Gripen's outer wing hardpoints are rated for 600 kg. So 2-4 missiles, depending on whether it also fits under the fuselage.
Taurus f.e. must be carried on the inner wing pylons.
Click to expand...
Outer ones have been higher rated in the new revised wing design for new build aircraft, was done to allow 4 underwing RBS-15's to be carried. Last I heard the outer pylons are now stressed for approx 750kg loads though was told they were looking at even higher potentially as there were usable margins still.
 
norseman said:
Outer ones have been higher rated in the new revised wing design for new build aircraft, was done to allow 4 underwing RBS-15's to be carried. Last I heard the outer pylons are now stressed for approx 750kg loads though was told they were looking at even higher potentially as there were usable margins still.
Click to expand...

I thought Saab was going to reduce the weight of the latest RBS15 to 600 kg specifically to allow 4 of them being carried by the Gripen:
https://www.flightglobal.com/gripen-e-to-gain-enhanced-anti-ship-missile/123559.articleThe article is from 2017 though so maybe outdated. And Saab lists the weight of the latest RBS15 Gungnir as 650 kg...
If they could uprate the pylons for 900kg plus, that would be nice.
 
G68fRuOWoAA_HZW

https://twitter.com/x/status/1994848411238240322
View: https://x.com/SA_Defensa/status/1994848411238240322?s=20


First Meteor launches from BAF JAS-39E.
As a bonus - clear standby intercept loadout.
 
Large was more in respect to its size. Size increase is equal to more aerodynamic loads, hence a trajectory more dependent of the nature of the airstream surrounding the launcher at a time when missiles fins aren´t at their optimal regime.
Intuitively, you would want an ejector rack to push that log far away. The missile in the picture above looks dramatically close to the cockpit, large canard surface and nose. But obviously, relatively, the small size of the Gripen, and big size of the Meteor accentuate the effect.
 
Last edited:
Max Villman (a fmr Gripen pilot) is out with a "new" - it was available to his channel members on Nov 7 already - video about possible Gripen parts production (and assembly?) in Ukraine. The whole commentary is based on a quite short mention in an interview with the Ukrainian ambassador to Sweden and comes with many a caveat. It's less about the "how" and "what" than about building a European defense infrastructure that wholly integrates Ukraine. I'll attach both the clip with the ambassador and Villman's video sort of just in case I missed anything more newsworthy in these.

https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/ambassadoren-bekraftar-planer-pa-saab-fabrik-i-ukraina
View: https://youtu.be/oLN1fTUjT9w
 
View: https://youtu.be/Drw_cXC0cEE


Max Villman and SAAB test pilot Jussi Halmetoja go through the latest on Gripen "Erik" and then some, Dec 30, 2025. Some notes based on one viewing:

New Es being delivered, participated in the latest CRUZEX where they caught the US ANG, well, off guard. E with its sensor, weapons, networking, avionics package well placed to fill the gap between legacy and future competitors. Fast evolution cycle designed from the ground up, modular, few interdependencies between critical functions of the fighter.

UAV integration in the works, something will be flying with the Gripen in two to three years' time. Automation eases situational awareness and a more generous time budget for the pilots, AI distills complexity in a more manageable UX. Project Beyond with Helsing has made fast progress and has the potential of driving development costs into a more manageable trajectory, not unlike in the civilian tech sector. Legacy ideas of stealth and signature management are somewhat incompatible with the current threat environment. Geometric stealth is already somewhat compromised compared to the aughts so SAAB is leaning more into joint air power concepts, EW couples with kinetic distributed sensor fusion; this will have tactical implications. Fuller NATO integration in the works, Nordics, Poland in the focus.

C/D updates also in the pipeline, block 2 delivered, 3, 4, 5 in various states of development, relevancy up to 2035 to 2040. Radar optimization towards cruise missiles and UAVs, 3 and 4 dealing with tactical systems, Taurus, engines. Whether C/D or E cost effectiveness in terms of purchase and life cycle is in the center of development. Halmetoja refused to put figures on it but says the system is more economical than any of its competitors by far; this provides another market opportunity as it enables mixed fleets.

The fighter is thought about as an enabler in its entirety, not just an AI platform. Production tempo of the E is rising both in Sweden and Brazil, working towards FOC. AMRAAM, SEAD, complex, network weapons integration being worked on. compared to C/D, roughly 30% more power (supercruise possible in some conditions, in quite a clean configuration), 30% more fuel, 30% more weapons (9+1 stations/pylons). WAD, HOTAS, HUD all mentioned, networked low band IRST. F version being worked on, somewhat to Brazilian specifications.

Disclaimer: I may have gotten something wrong or omitted stuff due to forgetfulness.
 
Test pilot Jussi Halmetoja is a really good ambassador for SAAB, and it was refreshing to hear that Gripen Es “shot down” US ANG F-15 s in the CRUZEX exercise. A bit like when the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland “sunk” CVN-76 Ronald Reagan with virtual torpedoes a while back. You underestimate Swedish engineering at your own peril!

On a more serious note: I think a really strong point Jussi makes for the Gripen E is about the clear separation of flight critical HW & SW and other non-flight critical things like radar, sensors and EW, and that the SW upgrade paths for these are now totally independent and that it’s therefore now very easy to experiment with new SW (and even HW) in the non-critical parts.

Also notice that he mentions that “some smart SAAB engineers” figured that this was the way of the future some 10-15 years ago and that it’s now all implemented in the Gripen E. And like he says, this allows Gripen E operators to “code in the morning, fly in the afternoon” which is not what operators of the F-35 can look forward to as I understand it, given the tight control the US insists on for F-35 SW and what seems to be horrendous SW upgrade and turnaround times.

Compared to this, Jussi says that operators of the Gripen E system will have full access to sensor HW and SW and can upgrade radar and EW modes of operation independent of SAAB. I wonder how that will work for operators on the F-35? Lockheed has AFAIK not delegated access to any SW source code? And notice Jussi is not only talking about threat libraries and executable SW as I understand it but that SAAB will allow full customer access to HW and the source code for non-critical systems like the radar and EW. And as an old EW engineer, I can see huge advantages with this.

So why is this so important? Well notice what Jussi says about any future conflict: The first thing that will happen is that everyone will change frequencies and modes of operation on their sensors, radars and flip the switch to wartime mode. In that case being quick on your feet and being able to assess what worked and what didn’t when your aircraft return from their first sorties, and being able to upgrade your SW accordingly may well be the difference between a successful next mission or being shot down. Consequently, if you win or lose the war could hinge on such a banal detail as if you managed to do a sensible last upgrade on your radar and EW systems before flying the next mission.

Another thing one can think about is if you going forward will really need stealth on your “mothership” and if you can’t get good or even better bangs for the buck by having drones/loyal wingman platforms with stealth, since in order to control, you need to emit, and if you emit you divulge your position anyway. So maybe a quite future proof concept is a Gripen controlling stealth type un-manned platforms, and not spending an enormous amount on a single high value platform like the F-35? At least that’s what Jussi is talking about from circa 15 min into the video as I understand it.

Finally, I see SAAB are now calling it the “F-39E Gripen” which of course is a smart marketing move given that 39 > 35 and thus implying it’s of a later generation than the F-35. Well played, SAAB! ;)
 
Last edited:
AndersJ said:
Finally, I see SAAB are now calling it the “F-39E Gripen” which of course is a smart marketing move given that 39 > 35 and thus implying it’s of a later generation than the F-35. Well played, SAAB! ;)
Click to expand...
And anyone fooled by such garbage should be nowhere near any procurement decisions.
 
galgot said:
No worries, these positions are already taken by peoples believing "generation marketing".
Click to expand...
Except people do use "generations" as a descriptor in Air Forces and Industry and it is a useful way of categorising platforms. It is not used to make decisions though.
 
Justin Bronk of the RUSI said "Gripen E is about seven years late in intended deliveries to the Swedish Air Force". What caused that delay? The Swedish government's budget problem?

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16638/html/
"... The same goes for the Swedes, who are fantastic at delivering things on a budget and as close as possible to sovereign, alongside the French with the Rafale. Gripen E is about seven years late in intended deliveries to the Swedish Air Force. The Rafale is massively late for deliveries to the Armée de l’Air; again, that is back-and-forth responsibility between deferments of in-year spending, as we have done, by the French versus Dassault, with the French Government’s agreement, giving export customers delivery licences and slots for Croatia, Serbia or wherever. This is a problem in all fighter aircraft programmes; it is worth bearing that in mind. "
 
datafuser said:
Justin Bronk of the RUSI said "Gripen E is about seven years late in intended deliveries to the Swedish Air Force". What caused that delay? The Swedish government's budget problem?

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16638/html/
"... The same goes for the Swedes, who are fantastic at delivering things on a budget and as close as possible to sovereign, alongside the French with the Rafale. Gripen E is about seven years late in intended deliveries to the Swedish Air Force. The Rafale is massively late for deliveries to the Armée de l’Air; again, that is back-and-forth responsibility between deferments of in-year spending, as we have done, by the French versus Dassault, with the French Government’s agreement, giving export customers delivery licences and slots for Croatia, Serbia or wherever. This is a problem in all fighter aircraft programmes; it is worth bearing that in mind. "
Click to expand...
Aa far as i know its a 4 year delay. Orginal plan when the contract was first signed was for the last plane to be delivered in 2026, now its in 2030.

Swden didnt really"need" new planes either since the last Gripen C was delivered in 2015.

Lots of things changed in geopolitics since 2014. Original plan was to "rebuild" 60 Gripen C to E standard, and scrap the rest of the Gripen C. That would mean that the Swedish Air Force would be in a weaker state for much of the 2020:s. Every year from 2014
the geopolitical situation in Europe gets worse and in the 2020 defence whitepaper its decided the Swedish Air Force can not go from ~95 Gripen C/D to 60 Gripen E as earlier planed. Instead the AF must grow to 120 fighters by upgrading and keeping 60 C/D until 2040. So the delivery plan was changed so that the AF can take delivery of a more mature platform and have more time to train pilots and ground crew for a smoother transition to Gripen E and less capability gap for the air force in general.
 
Regarding deliveries for the Swedish Air Force atleast 4 planes were delivered until december. SwAF number 601, 609, 610 and 611.

Ive read "rumors" on Swedish defence forums that actually a big part of the ordered airframes have already rolled of the production line at Saab Linköping. Then i stumbeld upon this page today where some guy making skins for the game War Thunder wrote:

"The first flight of the Gripen E took place on the 15th of June, 2017, at SAAB's airfield in Linköping. the aircraft, 39-8, was flown by SAAB test pilot Marcus Wandt, and the flight lasted 40 minutes over Östergötland.

Four years later in 2021, the first six serial-produced Gripen Es were completed, with four being sent to Brazil, and two to the Swedish Air Force. The first two Gripen Es were delivered to Brazil in 2022.

Another four years later on the 20th of October, 2025, the first Gripen E "609" (serial number 39-6038) touched down at Skaraborgs Flygflottilj.

As of December 2025, three Gripen Es have taken off from SAAB in Linköping, that being 39-6038 (609), 39-6040 (610) and 39611 (611)."

https://live.warthunder.com/user/87795889/Unless this guy is pulling the Saab internal serial numbers out of his ass, it would mean that atleast 40 airframes have rolled of the production line. Number (39)-6001 was for Brazil, 6002 and 6003 are the 2 splinter cammo ones.

Edit: seems like the guy above was correct.

"An event was held by the Skaraborg Wing (F7) at Såtenäs in the southwest of the country on October 20, 2025, to mark the official entry of the Saab JAS 39E Gripen into Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) service. The logbook of the first aircraft (396038 ‘609’) was handed over by Peter Wiklund, chief test pilot of the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (Försvarets materielverk, FMV), to the commander of the Swedish Air Force, Major General Jonas Wikman, after he delivered the aircraft to Såtenäs"
 
Last edited:
An expert interviewed by Ukraine's news agency states that it's possible a small number of Gripens will arrive (with Meteors, no less) in a month's time. Sounds a bit vague and he doesn't say just how likely this is to happen; would require pilot, etc. training to be well advanced. Don't know if I would've signaled this ahead of time if I were privy to such information but then again we'd know pretty soon if VKS and their sundry glide bombs were suddenly seriously challenged in the air.

RBC-Ukraine said:
Kryvolap does not rule out the possibility of receiving a small squadron of Gripen jets equipped with Meteor missiles as early as March this year, which would allow Ukraine to repel Russian Su-37 bombers armed with KABs (guided aerial bombs).
Click to expand...

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/the-world-s-best-what-250-gripen-and-rafale-1770735079.html
 
Big_Zukini said:
Who you intercepting clean with the Jas Queen? We gun fighting in 2026?
Click to expand...
Intercept configuration is either 2 SRAAM(drag factor is ~nil, wingtip payloads tend to be effectively zero) or 2+2(maybe with supersonic tank). We'd need curves for definite answer, but overall it's unlikely that a rather lean, area-ruled aircraft will start losing to F-35 before heavier configurations.
It isn't impossible(F-18 is a thing), just unlikely.
Big_Zukini said:
F-35 clean can pack AMRAAMs, Meteors, AIM-9s.
Click to expand...
AMRAAMs only.
Big_Zukini said:
And if the Grip wants something like the EOTS it needs a pod.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it isn't that much of a problem for a day 2 aircraft;
it's defense design isn't anyhow compromised by pod.
Furthermore, as of right now - targeting pod can be better than F-35 EOTS, and rather likely this is endemic situation(it's just easier for one of manufacturers to update their pods when compared to LM synchronizing internal update on a stealth aircraft, taking into account entire fleet of different blocks.

Big_Zukini said:
Also yeah he may be biased but numbers are numbers.
Click to expand...
I am subscribed to him, and i think i can track when he uses them with or without bias. He's an interesting source, just not for this particular discussion.
Nothing personal - and, as with most aviation enthusiasts, SAAB marketing team itself is at fault here; we have a great example on the previous page)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Modern engine reliability is orders of magnitude better than when Canada made that requirement.

F110/CFM56s basically don't come off the airframe for the life of the airframe. Airline pilots go entire careers without having a real engine-out emergency.
Click to expand...
True,
but CFM56 is built on a very mature core, and under less stress than a military modern jet one.
 
UpForce said:
Don't know if I would've signaled this ahead of time if I were privy to such information but then again we'd know pretty soon if VKS and their sundry glide bombs were suddenly seriously challenged in the air.
Click to expand...
Assuming we're talking about Gripen C, as the Es are still incredibly limited in number, how exactly are they supposed to Challenge the VKS any more than the F-16s they received, at most a handful of Meteors won't make that big of an impact. Especially against MiG-31BMs, Su-35S and Su-57S that sling R-77-1, R-77M and R-37Ms around.

And for the defense against drones and missiles, the most valuable capability provided by other donated aircraft like MiG-29s, F-16s or Mirage 2000s, it's not like Meteor is particularly suited for this.

The Gripen doesn't have any outstanding feature that makes it anywhere close to a viable offensive tool, not even strictly talking about other aircraft but also SAM systems. Nor does it provide anything other aircraft in Ukrainian service don't from a defensive talking point. It also introduces yet another system, yet another supply chain and yet another maintenance ecosystem in a struggling Frankenairforce.

It's another case of the Gripen not being able to make a good case for itself, similar to most export bids it participated in.
 
Ainen said:
AMRAAMs only.
Click to expand...

British F-35s (Along with Italian ones) will soon be carrying the Meteor.

As for the Meteor being used by the Griffen in Ukraine it does have a no-escape zone about three times larger than the AIM-120's due to its' ramjet propulsion.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom