Saab Gripen news

[optimist]

As this thread descends into more sillynesss, I haven't posted much, but a couple of things, We know what is generally referred to the third world, regardless that everyone can make their own chart,

Just because the general public likes to call the Hobart class destroyer a “battleship” doesn’t mean we should keep playing along. They should do their research. I brought up the 3 world model because its wrong as it relates to the Gripen no matter how ricnunes uses it

If he used it correctly and referred to 3rd world as neutral countries then he’s wrong because it is used by US allies, namely Thailand, Brazil, Columbia etc.


If he incorrectly used it as an economic classification, then its still wrong because so far the Gripen is exclusively used by upper middle income countries (sometimes incorrectly referred to as 2nd world)

continuous radar missile guidance has long past, sensors in the battle space can give updates, Sometimes it's not even the launching platform that first cues the missile, Welcome to 2025

so youre saying it doesnt matter what the shooter is, is it a Gripen or an F-35 or F-15EX, what you really need is a complex network of sensors and data linked platforms that can relay targeting data to whatever shooter is available.

When the rubber hits the road in competitions, Gripen's truths come out, It generally loses

thats true, as an aircraft I have always said the Gripen is a solid mid tier fighter. Good for middle income countries. But there are better options out there. However as part of a system of integrated networked platforms, it can be deadly.

Since the cold war, 3rd world refers to poverty or developing nations, although it is now not PC

It's simpler than that, it is wrong to say that a swashplate is a gift from god, with modern networked LOAL missiles, Step one, get close enough and be the first to launch, In today's battlespace that needs stealth

You are saying what you wish the Gripen was, The middle income nations aren't buying it, The Griffin has two orders, Sweden and Brazil

[ricnunes]

If he used it correctly and referred to 3rd world as neutral countries then he’s wrong because it is used by US allies, namely Thailand, Brazil, Columbia etc.

Since the cold war, 3rd world refers to poverty or developing nations, although it is now not PC

Exactly!

It's plain ridiculous and even "desperate" to try to even argue that Thailand is part of the first world

Even if we ignore the economical part and focus instead in terms of alliances, countries like Thailand, Brazil and even Colombia nowadays are still not that allied to the US. Their stance towards the USA is more "neutral" than "allied". Yes, there is cooperation in many fields including military between these countries and USA but close allies they are not.
Close allies to the USA are NATO countries plus others such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and a few others. And Colombia for example and nowadays isn't that close to the USA as it used to be. The same can be said about Brazil as well, which is getting closer and closer (by the day) to China or even to Russia. For instance in South America the closest country that could be considered a US ally would be Chile.

And it's plain stupid to consider Thailand or Brazil countries that are as allied to the USA as for example, Australia or Japan.

Resuming, countries like Thailand, Brazil or Colombia would never be allowed to buy F-35's (just like MOST OTHER countries worldwide for that matter), that's a FACT! Only the US allies or "closest allies" (a term that maybe people like juggernautalpha may prefer to use) will have access to the F-35, at least until sometime well into the future.
Besides it's also A FACT that Thailand REQUESTED the USA TO BUY F-35s but this was DENIED by the USA! Of course juggernautalpha will continue to ignore this FACT (hence why I now avoid to argue with him).

And before the "usual suspect" comes here saying that I have a problem with other people's opinions, the above is not a personal opinion, they are facts!

[juggernautalpha]

So let me get this straight, you think the only reason why Thailand, Brazil and others are not buying the F-35 is because they’re not allowed.

What about the Philippines, one of the closest US allies on Earth. One of the few with a Mutual defense treaty and a GSOMIA agreement just like Japan and South Korea. some NATO countries don’t even have that. They also have bipartisan support in increased foreign military financing from the US. They’re often called American’s little brother in Asia. They’re in negotiations with Saab for Gripen-E but why not F-35? Yet we have F-35 being offered to India, a known Russian ally, but not Thailand, not Brazil and not the Philippines?

But we’re getting off topic, the point I want to address is your claim that the F-35 and the Gripen have the same operating cost, please provide any relevant references for that. I’ve already provided several to the contrary

[optimist]

How soon they forget Filipino chumming up to China
"former President Rodrigo Duterte expressed a desire for U.S. troops to leave and sought an "independent foreign policy,""

your posts are misguided and full of half-truths, clueless is another term

[juggernautalpha]

Your posts are misguided and full of half-truths, clueless is another term

Duterte didn’t succeed did he? In the end he couldn’t get rid of the EDCA agreement, he couldn’t abolish the MDT he couldn’t get rid of the Balikatan and other excercises. In fact before the end of his term, Duterte had to agree to the largest ever Balikatan exercise to date.

But no matter, even during Duterte’s time, The Philippines was still considered a closer ally to the US than India which is being offered the F-35

All of this is simply to point that the Gripen’s operating cost is cheaper than the F-35. Do you believe they are equal, yes or no. Lets keep it simple, if you believe the F-35 and Gripen will cost the same to operate, then give me references

[ricnunes]

Duterte didn’t succeed did he? In the end he couldn’t get rid of the EDCA agreement, he couldn’t abolish the MDT he couldn’t get rid of the Balikatan and other excercises. In fact before the end of his term, Duterte had to agree to the largest ever Balikatan exercise to date.

It didn't succeed because China started to occupy areas of the South China Seas that are claimed by The Philippines.

And we could go on with other examples in past such as The Philippines government voting against the renewal of the U.S.-Philippine base treaty which prompted the US Forces to leave Clark Air Base.
This clear shows beyond any reasonable doubt that The Philippines are not that reliable partner/ally and for sure it's a country which the USA would NEVER thrust F-35's with!

And no, The Philippines is NOT NEARLY as close ally as again Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc... Saying otherwise is lying with all teeth which I'm suspecting is something you're doing again (which it's far from being the first time).
So, what's next? Indonesia?

Moreover and for example, Canada and the European Union countries relations with the USA are currently sourer BUT this doesn't mean that Canada and the European Union countries (and the same applies to Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc...) will turn to China like The Philippines tried to!

But no matter, even during Duterte’s time, The Philippines was still considered a closer ally to the US than India which is being offered the F-35

All of this is simply to point that the Gripen’s operating cost is cheaper than the F-35. Do you believe they are equal, yes or no. Lets keep it simple, if you believe the F-35 and Gripen will cost the same to operate, then give me references

More lies
First, NO, India is NOT being offered the F-35! All there was, was a rant by Trump himself about that possibility but this was never a real possibility on the table.
Secondly, YES any country that can operate the Gripen E will be able to operate the F-35, this on a resources level! The diference being that there are countries which are blocked from the F-35 for security reasons like Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Thailand, The Philippines, yes India as well, etc...

[juggernautalpha]

So show me your references Ricnunes. You always do this, You go back and forth with me, and I show you all kinds of supporting documentations while you have nothing. You do the usual, wait for someone to agree with you then complement that guy to get some sympathy. Thats all you do here.

The references I sent you are not some Ho-Hum tabloid articles, they’re from Aviation week, Janes, sandbox news and asian defense review. So where’s your retort.

By the way only 5 countries in the Indopaycom have mutual defense treaties with the US,
Japan, SKorea, Australia, New Zeland and the Philippines. And of them only 3 have GSOMIA agreements for classified information sharing, Japan, SKorea and the Philippines. So don’t say Singapore is a closer ally,

do you know how many joint military exercises the Philippines has with the US? In 2026 alone 500 joint training exercises are scheduled, some of them are very big with more than 12,000 US personnel involved. Read here: https://news.usni.org/2025/08/22/u-s-ph ... nce%201958.

Meanwhile Singapore has 5, Exercise Pacific Griffin (naval), the annual Tiger Balm (army), Valiant Mark (marines), Commando Sling (air force), and Exercise Forging Sabre (air force), so don’t tell me Singapore is closer. And Tiger Balm, the biggest of them only involves 1000 US personnel

But we’re getting out of hand, show me one reference that will say the F-35 and Gripen-E cost the same to operate, I’ll wait

[ricnunes]

So show me your references Ricnunes. You always do this, You go back and forth with me, and I show you all kinds of supporting documentations while you have nothing. You do the usual, wait for someone to agree with you then complement that guy to get some sympathy. Thats all you do here.

What? It's you who ignore other people's sources!
You ignored the source about the actual Brazilian Gripen E contract (from a Brazilian newspaper) and if I post further sources then I'm sure that you'll just keep continue to ignore them as well. However, I'll indulge you one more last time:

Here's the details about the Finnish F-35 contract:
https://ilmavoimat.fi/en/-/the-lockheed ... le-fighter

Now compare the total of the Finnish F-35 contract (8.378 billion euros for 64 aircraft) values above with the total of the Brazilian Gripen E contract value ($7.42 billion USD for 36 aircraft) which again, you can read here:
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-t ... space-hub/

And do your math!

Also, about Thailand requesting F-35s and having them denied, here you go:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-05-25/

If you want more references, sources, whatever then google it! I'm done with you (since I know that arguing with you leaves us to nowhere). Bye, bye!

[juggernautalpha]

Cause you’re answering things I never asked, we’re talking about operating cost. You’re suddenly shifting to purchasing cost, the Brazilian contract involves joint production and tech transfer and I never denied that Thailand requested for F-35s but were denied so why are you bringing that up?

What I want from you is to support your claim that the Gripen-E and F-35 cost the same to operate. Don’t run away, defend your answer. I know as soon as someone agrees with you, you’ll come running back here to shower that person with compliments, all I need to do is wait

[hornetfinn]

Cause you’re answering things I never asked, we’re talking about operating cost. You’re suddenly shifting to purchasing cost, the Brazilian contract involves joint production and tech transfer and I never denied that Thailand requested for F-35s but were denied so why are you bringing that up?

What I want from you is to support your claim that the Gripen-E and F-35 cost the same to operate. Don’t run away, defend your answer.

Well, you are the one who brought the purchasing cost up. Gripen deals were only for the fighters and support package and AFAIK none included weapons. Finnish F-35 order included AMRAAM and AIM-9X missiles for those aircraft as well, so that's naturally going to rise the cost.

Finland also directly compared Gripen E and F-35A operational costs under identical conditions and requirements. That has been the only source for true apples to apples comparison done anywhere. They found that:

Affordability
The F-35 solution fitted to the allocated funding frame was the most cost-effective. The F-35 had the lowest procurement cost when considering all aspects of the offer. The operating and sustainment costs of the system will fall below the 254 million euro yearly budget. F-35 operations and lifespan development will be feasible with the Defence Forces’ resources.

No offer was significantly less expensive than others in operating and sustainment costs.

Given the huge difference in capabilities, having such similar acquisition and operating costs was very bad for Saab which put huge amount of hope in that their "cheapness" and that F-35 would've been too expensive for Finland to buy and operate.-

[hornetfinn]

Besides that, there are a lot of credible publications pointing to the Gripen being cheaper to operate than a lot of 4th gens and not all are from Saab’s data. And simply dismissing them because they’re from Saab is no different from Russian bots who dismiss everything from “western media” because it doesn’t enforce their narrative. Besides, defense publications will not blindly publish this without credible references.

-Aviation week report sponsored by Saab
https://breaking-news.com.ua/en/news/wo ... -jets/amp/

-Czezh defense publication, unsponsored
https://www.czdefence.com/article/czech ... urs-a-year

-Janes report sponsored by Saab
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operationa ... ers-janes/

-Thai airforce evaluation between F-16V and Gripen-E
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/comp ... ock-70-72/

-Alex Hollings from Sandbox news
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N0kzULN20 ... JveCBuZXdz

Now if you really want to make a case that the F-35 and Gripen have similar operating cost, then show me a publication that will directly say that.

So you got reports sponsored by Saab and one website which directly quotes those same Saab reports and couple of random websites? That "Thai air force evaluation between F-16V and Gripen-E" has nothing to do with Thai Air Force at all and is just some hobbyist website in Malaysia. Alex Hollings doesn't have any insight into the flight hour costs of these aircraft any more than anyone here has.

[juggernautalpha]

I understand that the capability disparity between F-35 and Gripen-E is significant, Im not denying that. The Finish evaluation was, like you said, unique to Finland’s requirements.

So you got reports sponsored by Saab and one website which directly quotes those same Saab reports and couple of random websites? That "Thai air force evaluation between F-16V and Gripen-E" has nothing to do with Thai Air Force at all and is just some hobbyist website in Malaysia. Alex Hollings doesn't have any insight into the flight hour costs of these aircraft any more than anyone here has.

if we should not believe data sponsored by Saab even when scrutinized by respected defense media outlets, then we should also not believe data published by Lockheed or Northrop or any manufacturer. If the F-35 is so cheap then why is it used exclusively by High income countries while the Gripen is used by Middle income countries

[ricnunes]

So you got reports sponsored by Saab and one website which directly quotes those same Saab reports and couple of random websites? That "Thai air force evaluation between F-16V and Gripen-E" has nothing to do with Thai Air Force at all and is just some hobbyist website in Malaysia. Alex Hollings doesn't have any insight into the flight hour costs of these aircraft any more than anyone here has.

Ditto hornetfinn!

On top of that, juggernautalpha continues with the same and already debunked BS sources stating that the Gripen has a CPFH of only USD $4,700 while ignoring all the official, verifiable and true/accurate sources!

USD $4,700 doesn't even pay for the fuel that the Gripen uses per hour let alone together with all the other expenses such as lubricants, spare parts, wages for the maintenance team, etc...

[optimist]

Let me know when Finland say that their comp was wrong, saying the F-35 was cheaper and better than the Gripen package they offered

What is a 20:1 LER over the Gripen worth?

[juggernautalpha]

Ditto hornetfinn!

2 things can be true, for Finland, they saw that the F-35 wasn’t substantially more expensive than other offers specifically for Finland and their force . But for all the other middle income countries, their evaluations proved otherwise.

You won’t debunk Janes, Aviation week, Asiandefense review and sandbox news just because the evaluation of a specific country tailored to their specific requirements agrees with your narrative.

We know the Finnish evaluation is Unique to Finland because in this article,
Published in 2023, “ Lockheed agrees to $30,000 per flight hour cost for F-35A by FY2023” this is actually higher than Saab’s assessment that the F-35 cost $17,000 per hour to operate.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 48.article

Meanwhile according to Bloomberg, the studio behind TopGun Maverick had to pay $11,374 per hr to fly Superhornets. This is also higher than Saab’s assessment of $10,989.

https://www.bosshunting.com.au/motors/p ... -jet-cost/

In fact when you look at the SHornet cost published by the DOD and the figures published by Saab, they’re awfully close. This is why I choose not to be dismissive of data published by well respected defense outlets like Janes