Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Well known former Gripen pilot and military analyst Wiseman on the Drive Article:

This is the best article I have read about the JAS 39E Gripen so far. Highly recommended.

https://twitter.com/wisemanswisdoms/sta ... 1964648450

I think this is very interesting -- Wiseman has been known to very clearly state his opinion on Swedish defence systems, materials, structures etc., whether it is positive or negative.

Can you show me where Wiseman have been critical against the Gripen?
The article you ref. are more or less like a rewritten sales brochure from Saab as I read it.

It is like a sales brochure from Saab, mainly because the weak points are not highlighted.

The thing is that a number of people of this forum keep claiming that a lot of the sales brochure info from Saab are lies. I don't think Wiseman would have praised an article if he found it to be full of lies. Do you?

Furthermore, I don't think he would have praised the article if he had disagreed with the overall conclusion of the article.

Of course Gripen E has a lot of weaknesses. The question is, what are the strengths of Gripen E? And can Sweden take advantage of those strengths and compensate for the weaknesses? His conclusion is yes, on the basis of what he knows first hand on the aircraft, and of working in the Swedish Air Force for many years. I strongly doubt he is even reading sales brochures from Saab and comparing the articles to them... He is reading the articles and comparing the contents to what he knows first hand about Gripen E.

Anyway, before the usual suspects arrive in this thread: I am aware that Saab marketing is often "over the top", and some of the information they provide is not quite reflecting the reality. I think that's a pity because people like Wiseman who understand the operational requirements of Sweden and also know a lot about Gripen E clearly seems to appreciate the way it is developing, in spite of the slight delay, and in spite of e.g. the weight growth, which if one of the favorite topics of naysayers on this forum.

Also, just to repeat myself: Gripen was initially developed for Sweden. Gripen E is of course better suited for Sweden and Swedish tactics & conops that most other countries. So no surprise if other countries (including Finland) conclude that Gripen E is not the right a/c for them.

Can you show me where Wiseman have been critical against the Gripen?
The article you ref. are more or less like a rewritten sales brochure from Saab as I read it.

That article doesn't question anything. They should try provide at least some context when bold claims about greatness of selected approaches or specific features are presented. Or at least include "According to Saab" every time. Now it seems just implausible when things that go against common wisdom are accepted verbatim. So the overall impression is like "stealth, yeah we wouldn't have wanted it anyway", which everybody knows is a gross misrepresentation.
What you asked has proven almost impossible. Swedes on the internet in this realm are among the least self-critical. Smug and arrogant. But I guess that's also the usual fighter jock mo.

The only problem they voluntarily admit is in the funding.

Though also Saab's sales deputy director (British) is eager to promote David Axe/trash-tier anti-F-35 stories. Very uncouth.

I'd rather they go with an approach like "The Little Engine That Could". That would be more humble and it would be following the evergreen marketing wisdom of underpromise, overdeliver instead of setting too high expectations that are sure to fall flat and just end up costing the Swedish taxpayer. The current scheme and its most active sellers don't seem in any way sympathetic. Only those that are more reserved (like their Finnish organization) manage to impress.

Anyway, before the usual suspects arrive in this thread: I am aware that Saab marketing is often "over the top", and some of the information they provide is not quite reflecting the reality. I think that's a pity because people like Wiseman who understand the operational requirements of Sweden and also know a lot about Gripen E clearly seems to appreciate the way it is developing, in spite of the slight delay, and in spite of e.g. the weight growth, which if one of the favorite topics of naysayers on this forum.

One of the article's claims is that the avionics on the Gripen E are revolutionary and easy to update. The Gripen E flew back in 2017. Don't you think 4 years is a long time to get the avionics right, especially when it's based on the same planform as the Gripen C? They should already have the majority of the flight dynamics on hand. 4 years doesn't sound fast or revolutionary to me.

Theoretically the pilot can fire missiles at enemy fighters at extreme ranges and then hide in their radar's "doppler notch," while still guiding missiles to their intended target.

I'm pretty sure the guy writing the article has no idea how this actually works in real life even though he's trying to explain it. One, notching does not work against advanced AESA radars. Two, to notch a radar you need to be flying perpendicular to the radar, which the Gripen's radar doesn't have the field of view to make this possible. Finally, you can just network with another fighter and have them provide data (like the rest of us civilized pilots do) instead of trying to fight by yourself, which makes the entire argument superfluous.

Gripen E itself does not feature geometric stealthy design features, ...Saab decided the better approach is to stay in-step with the competition by using rapidly evolving technologies other than stealth to help win the war...

The Gripen is designed to be rapidly deployable in the field at austere bases with a small logistics footprint and maintained by a small team that can quickly service and regenerate fighters.

So Saab's approach to counter stealth is to land on roads? Wow, that's revolutionary. Honestly, I need less sales brochure and more tangible facts.

Using the “cloak” of an advanced and reconfigurable electronic warfare system rather than investing in an inherently stealthy — but far more costly — configuration supports Saab’s philosophy of presenting a price tag that Sweden, and its customers, can afford.

EW has never existed before the Gripen. Bow down before mighty Saab.

“The most impressive part of our new EWS is the resolution and sensitivity. When it comes to detecting and identifying contacts, this part of the overall mission system is vital and one of our most advanced features. As a pilot, I want 360-degree coverage all around me,

I am not aware of any 4th gen aircraft flying in a 1st tier military today that doesn't possess 360 degree coverage with a missile warning system. Maybe I'm spoiled because I'm American?

Saab has chosen the Targo II Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) for the Gripen E. Unlike the F-35, for example, the cockpit blends the HMD and WAD with a Head-Up Display (HUD). “We prefer the redundancy of a large HUD and an HMD. We had a lot of discussions, but we weren’t ready to go with a non-HUD layout [as in the F-35]. Also, sometimes pilots may want to fly the jet without having to wear the HMD, so we offer choice.”

Nice spin that Saab couldn't afford a more advanced system. Note that the Targo doesn't even display the aircraft's pitch. But why get caught in the details when you can have controlled flight into terrain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLcy ... bitSystems

The Gripen has sometimes attracted criticism over raw performance. It’s a small airframe that can be called upon to lug heavy load-outs. The Gripen E is heavier than its predecessor, with additional pylons, and increased fuel capacity, but this is offset by an uprated engine in the shape of the GE F414, versus the F404 in previous models.

This horse has been beaten to glue on this forum. I appreciate that the author left out that the even with the Gripen E's new engine, the T:W ratio got worse than the Gripen C. Good job white knighting.

Nordlander says the Gripen E was designed to match, and where possible exceed, the performance of the Gripen C, despite the increase in size and weight. “We have not lost anything in terms of performance,” he asserts. “In fact, in a clean or light fighter configuration without heavy external stores, the performance is actually better than the Gripen C.

Wait, so what happens when you're not in a light fighter configuration? You're saying the fighter performs worse than a Gripen C? Which means it performs worse than an F-16 with CFTs.

Sometimes it is impossible for the pilot to detect if there is a store on the aircraft or not. In fact, if I am flying in a configuration with a few missiles, I cannot feel the difference in performance and handling qualities over a completely clean jet.

LOL, this guy is lying through his teeth or has never flown with externals in his life. This is some of the largest cow manure I've ever read. Let's put 50,000lbs extra on the Gripen and it'll fly just like a clean plane because the aerodynamics are that good. Nevermind it's too heavy to take off. Who actually believes this?

Swedish industry has a reputation for quietly going about its business

Nice way of saying they can't get sales.

While the Gripen E-Series was born in an age where stealth fighters are proliferating around the globe, it offers a well-rounded array of higher-end capabilities in a relatively small, mature, and simpler package. As such, this wolf in sheep’s clothing has a lot to howl about.

Ironic ending. The Gripen is the end all and be all, but it's also not really the best and its niche is being cheap while providing substantial quality. Just make up your mind. Either it's the best, or it is not the best but cheap and good value for money.

Ironic ending. The Gripen is the end all and be all, but it's also not really the best and its niche is being cheap while providing substantial quality. Just make up your mind. Either it's the best, or it is not the best but cheap and good value for money.

Yeah, but you know... "best article I have read about the JAS 39E Gripen so far"
What a circle jerk among the Swedes commenting in that thread.

It is like a sales brochure from Saab, mainly because the weak points are not highlighted.

And also some of the previous "Strong points" go unmentioned and adjusted as well...

The thing is that a number of people of this forum keep claiming that a lot of the sales brochure info from Saab are lies.

Yes the brochures do not match up with reality, in the same Drive article Wiseman praises, no super cruise is mentioned (how curious) and what was once a hard 40 percent additional fuel I've had to read about in every brochure for 14 years, is now "approximately 30 percent"

So the lying is probably why we think they lie

I don't think Wiseman would have praised an article if he found it to be full of lies. Do you?

is this an actual argument?

Furthermore, I don't think he would have praised the article if he had disagreed with the overall conclusion of the article.

What?

Of course Gripen E has a lot of weaknesses.

indeed

The question is, what are the strengths of Gripen E?

its really hard to tell thanks to the lies. That's always been my problem. its not that there is nothing beyond the hype, its that hype makes it extremely hard to find the substance. This is the most overhyped airplane on the internet. keypublishing for example has had hundreds upon hundreds of pages for an airplane that had never flown a single test sortie. if we go by 2006-2017 we have 11 years of spewing hype (most of which has disappeared or been downgraded), to compare just a few years of actual flight test, that we are not given any results of, except for those given by literal Saab salesmen.

its appalling.

And can Sweden take advantage of those strengths and compensate for the weaknesses? His conclusion is yes, on the basis of what he knows first hand on the aircraft, and of working in the Swedish Air Force for many years. I strongly doubt he is even reading sales brochures from Saab and comparing the articles to them... He is reading the articles and comparing the contents to what he knows first hand about Gripen E.

once again, are you serious?

Anyway, before the usual suspects arrive in this thread

I am aware that Saab marketing is often "over the top", and some of the information they provide is not quite reflecting the reality. I think that's a pity because people like Wiseman who understand the operational requirements of Sweden and also know a lot about Gripen E clearly seems to appreciate the way it is developing, in spite of the slight delay, and in spite of e.g. the weight growth, which if one of the favorite topics of naysayers on this forum.

I have a right to be a "naysayer" Gripen E has failed many times on many occasions by Saab's own measurement. The numbers are then adjusted and the Gripen hive mind pretends that what they said was true for 11 years or more, is no longer relevant in light of the "new reality" its constant "expectation management" from a program that was supposed to "over deliver"

Yes, because we are told all the amazing things this airplane can do (before it even flown a single test flight) with marketing even you say is "over the top" and then we, the bad guy naysayers, notice that when we get access to the reality, that suddenly it doesn't match up to the brochure claims at all.

The nature of honesty, means that when a human detects multiple lies, we tend to question other things we were told by the same folks was "true"

I honestly don't even think the Gripen E will hit its sales and production goals, which throws the entire costs savings concept into the unknown. I don't believe any of saab's hourly cost claims, already as many "counter" numbers have trickled to the surface, even the much regurgitated Janes study missed the F-16 CPFH given by the USAF, the reality was triple what it cost It was "off" by 300 percent. Theres other issue like how Sweden is going to handle having a "dual fleet" of Gripen types. The future sales and just how many will even be made and exported.

Also, just to repeat myself: Gripen was initially developed for Sweden. Gripen E is of course better suited for Sweden and Swedish tactics & conops that most other countries. So no surprise if other countries (including Finland) conclude that Gripen E is not the right a/c for them.

Sweden being of course the SECOND adopter of the Gripen E, despite its fans telling me it was like striking oil, and a license to get rich selling the worlds best airplane. I hope wiseman isn't too attached to his reputation.

The bottom line is that I am more than happy to call Saab out. They should have muzzled that marketing department a LOOOOOONG time ago, because its continually embarrassing the program. the Gripen fans who have not swallowed the kool aide, do indeed see its kool aide.

I don't think theres very much mystery to the Gripen E. Its a gripen with more gas, more pylons, better avionics. Its meant to compete with the F-16 (it still falls short of this in many ways) Why the internet decides to complicate things I have no idea. imagine I have an F-15. I give it new fuel tanks that add 10 percent more fuel, and While I'm at it I give it a new cockpit display and a new radar. I'm betting it performs like an F-15 with more fuel (an easily measurable amount in fact), a new radar, and an easier display. even if the radar spun and created a wider FOV, then the radar is just capable of a wider FOV. its not the "eye of sauran" and Its not some amazeballs mystery fighter 6th generation super plane. In fact the only way I can confuse the subject is if do it deliberately so, via media subterfuge and by soaking and marinating it in hype for over a decade, like "6th generation" and "super cruise" and now it turns out that 40 percent more fuel, might be more like "approximately 30 percent more" and other "actually, on second thought..." things. Even the F414 engine which is very much a known commodity in service for decades in the thousands, overnight became some kind of an "unknown" I wonder whats powering this super fighter to amazing super cruising speed!? Well the same thing that powers the Super Hornet. The same engine we have loads of documentation on. we have an engine we've known for decades married to an airplane we've known for decades. Spoiler alert: there are no spoilers. In fact the whole point was to have no surprises. Calmly turning a "B" into a "B+" an evolution, not a revolution. In fact the small, measured improvements, and not swinging for the fences was considered the NG/E programs greatest strength. "The greatest thing about the Gripen E is it performs very much like a Gripen C" wow, yeah that's kind of the problem. When we talk about the Gripen E's strengths, don't forget to compare it to... well... a Gripen. Comparing Gripen C to E, I am once again faced with no surprises. Saab may have blown its wad on the Gripen C in fact. Was Saab ever claiming the Gripen C was hard to upgrade? or that its software wasn't adaptable? or that it was costly?


All This brings up the very uncomfortable thought that so much of what we were promised with this airplane was never true in the first place. Not that it was true, and then thing had to adjust, but that it never occurred at all, that the second the airplane was actually built and actually flown, it didn't match up with the brochure to the point that all previous claims could be safely discarded and started anew around 2018, and finally based in reality after nearly 12 years of unverifiable big claims. The big picture with Gripen, is again maybe it really is great for Sweden and Swedens unique way of operating, but my goodness, why on earth are we trying to export this highly specialized machine? are we surprised it keeps falling short in sales and competitions? why did we try to make an export version of the Gripen to compete with f-16 in the first place?

I'd rather they go with an approach like "The Little Engine That Could". That would be more humble and it would be following the evergreen marketing wisdom of underpromise, overdeliver instead of setting too high expectations that are sure to fall flat and just end up costing the Swedish taxpayer. The current scheme and its most active sellers don't seem in any way sympathetic.

They do that too.

Ironic ending. The Gripen is the end all and be all, but it's also not really the best and its niche is being cheap while providing substantial quality. Just make up your mind. Either it's the best, or it is not the best but cheap and good value for money.

Thats always been the problem with the Gripen "narrative" we can't decide if this is a humble "good enough" fighter at a very respectable cost, or if its world beating/world leading ahead of its time super fighter at fraction of the cost of the airplanes it vastly outperforms.

It can't be both a respectable 3d place bronze medal and the greatest gold/platinum medal ever created.

We are still learning about where Gripen E fits on the dreams of the internet the last 15 years vs reality

I'm am "deeply concerned" about what the costs are going to end up being, especially over time and I am not the only one by a wide mile. It may never meet its costs goals, several nations have rejected it on this reason alone. which is "shocking" as this is the reason it exists.

*The Gripen E's closest contemporary is the F-16 especially the late blocks but it also competes with SH/Growler

*It competes against other European fighters made by Dassault and Airbus which have a huge head start on it

*It may even be in trouble with the used F-16s and other options that actually outgrippen the gripen, like the Hawks in
South Africa. Theres a plethora of up and coming lighter fighters that like the Gripen model, are "good enough" at a fraction of the cost. some of them even have F414s already.

*competing against 5th generation F-35s is a silly waste of money, but hey why not. these are the makers of the "smart fighter" who then make REALLY dumb decisions. Even Bill Sweetman Saab should stop wasting its time on F-35 competitions years back.

make no mistake there are protentional pitfalls with Gripen E. Its not yet in service, I know that will change sometime this year likely, but its still a very risky option. I don't think the market was there, which means the sales aren't there which means the cost savings by volume dissipate. It may well be a niche aircraft. It won in brazil largely thanks to tech transfer and jobs, along with some political flubs on the US's part. It won in Switzerland because it was the cheapest option, despite being 3rd of 3. 4th of 4 if we count the F-18 they used to eval it with.

I don't think the Gripen E is going to explode on the runway, I don't think its going to be a hangar queen. What I think is going to happen is it won't meet what we wanted from it, and it will cost more. Simply put, one will pay more and get less. I don't think we will ever see a stop to any of the glowing media reports, I'm sure like now we will be happily lied to about true costs, we will be told its endlessly cheap and amazing while never be really told what it costs or where it suffers. it won't be an "obvious" disaster, it will just be underwhelming in reality and more costly than a lot of people have been lead to believe. The bar will be lowered, endlessly. if we combine all the gripen variants exports sales leases barely top 100 total, after 30 years of sales. People consider this an "export success" because the Mighty Hungarian empire leased a dozen of them, and South Africa bought even more and then mothballed a bunch of them and used other aircraft instead. this is a huge success by Gripen standards even though it flies in the face of what has always been claimed.

One has to really wonder if it was all worth it. If mistakes and decisions that were made on the Gripen NG aren't going to permanently hamstring what could have been. I'm aware one can make claims about any aircraft in such a way, especially F-35 for example but F-35 and Gripen E are "problematic" in very different ways. a lot of the F-35s "show stopping" problems will be a distant memory in a few years. How can I make such a wild guess? years of experience of watching that play out over and over already Todays "OMG expensive! show stopper!" is tomorrows "Oh yeah I remember that"

ETA:

I reserve the right to be wrong, Gripen E may make a big sale that "turns it around" there's still countries up for grabs, but as of right now this does not look good vs the time, effort, and money invested into it.

It is like a sales brochure from Saab, mainly because the weak points are not highlighted.

The thing is that a number of people of this forum keep claiming that a lot of the sales brochure info from Saab are lies. I don't think Wiseman would have praised an article if he found it to be full of lies. Do you?

Furthermore, I don't think he would have praised the article if he had disagreed with the overall conclusion of the article.

A pilot is trained to make his platform of choice dance, maximize its potential and mitigate its weaknesses. That does not necessarily translate into understanding its technical merits relative to other platforms, especially of something allegedly significantly evolved from its original form. A lot of information presented as stuff you already knew is obsolete or just plain wrong, it being what you believe to be the case doesn't reshape reality.

Hunter gleefully sucks from Linkoping's teat since it's all he can process on a good day anyway, plus they won't let him go up in Gripen backseats anymore if he disparages his patrons. But hey he hasn't laundered a Minnie Chan article through Eurasian Times again lately...

It is like a sales brochure from Saab, mainly because the weak points are not highlighted.

The thing is that a number of people of this forum keep claiming that a lot of the sales brochure info from Saab are lies. I don't think Wiseman would have praised an article if he found it to be full of lies. Do you?

Furthermore, I don't think he would have praised the article if he had disagreed with the overall conclusion of the article.

A pilot is trained to make his platform of choice dance, maximize its potential and mitigate its weaknesses. That does not necessarily translate into understanding its technical merits relative to other platforms, especially of something allegedly significantly evolved from its original form. A lot of information presented as stuff you already knew is obsolete or just plain wrong, it being what you believe to be the case doesn't reshape reality.

Hunter gleefully sucks from Linkoping's teat since it's all he can process on a good day anyway, plus they won't let him go up in Gripen backseats anymore if he disparages his patrons. But hey he hasn't laundered a Minnie Chan article through Eurasian Times again lately...

Money and perks aside we have no idea what Wiseman even found in calling it "best" was it the most comprehensive? the most accurate? Whatever, I am told its now authentic based on his reputation... lol ok

Having read all the NEBULOUS : https://www.google.com/search?q=nebulou ... 4112615091 PR about the Gripping Gripen I want MORE - MORE FACTS - MORE DETAILS about ACTUAL FACTS and not just NEBULOUSITY! I'm INTERESTED. NOT!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... 0f33a436c2

nothing groundbreaking, but a very (overly) simple article about Finland's options.

is it just me, or does it seem like the American options and the Swedish option are most talked about? Rafale And Typhoon seem to never come up.

F-35, Rafale, Typhoon seem to be the only single type options. Super Hornet/Growler and Gripen/Global eye, offer more complicated arrangements. As Europe now decides to go for EW its important to remember the US has played this game on many occasions. one of the reason "Stealth" was invented was because it gets really hard to coordinate mass amounts of escorts and other specialized aircraft in big scale attacks, and one quickly ends up with single points of failure. Sucks to ground an entire attack because your EW plane broke. Its also very expensive. This is why the F-35 when taken as a whole is a great thing. Early on there was a plan that only 1 in 3 F-35s would have the EOTS sensor. This was quickly and rightly rectified to include all F-35s. It is nice to have one type, with one group of pilots to worry about and great coverage instead of a single point of failure. Gonna take a growler up on every 4 ship patrol? or a global eye? sounds fun.

Dassault follows very tight lipped approach everywhere and Finland isn't an exception. They don't see appealing to the public as meaningful. So they basically only appear at the yearly air show.

Typhoon does feature quite consistently. At one point it was referred in publics as all-one seaters offer, but it's not certain that the BAFO will be, because they can still change it however they wish.

Probably as two engine and rather expensive airframes they need to stick with the basics. French offer also might have some trouble with French weapons, unless they devise some innovative scheme.

Due to keeping quiet, public thinks that Rafale has the lowest chances. But I don't think that's remotely possible due to its previous Swiss results. But we'll have another chance to update our world view once Switzerland selects in Q2. I think Typhoon and Rafale have slightly higher chances of winning in Switzerland than in Finland. In Finland so much of the performance might come from the weapon selection - and the effect of Growler and GlobalEye as rare resources - that it's very hard to accurately assess based on any previous knowledge.

Ending up with Growler would be very interesting. For example seeing how hard it would be to stay out of international commitments if there was such rare ability available in Europe. There would be immense political pressure. But I have no idea whether 12-14 G's can provide as much performance add as for example AN/ASQ-239 spread around 4x larger number of frames.

Ending up with Growler would be very interesting. For example seeing how hard it would be to stay out of international commitments if there was such rare ability available in Europe. There would be immense political pressure. But I have no idea whether 12-14 G's can provide as much performance add as for example AN/ASQ-239 spread around 4x larger number of frames.

Thats a good point about the politics... it also offers a chance to do the same kind of "non kinetic" actions in alliance like the Swedish peeping toms over Libya in 2011.

They can get really busy. There's certain assets in all forces that get over used, while others get under used. And some aircraft or systems deploy A LOT. Leads to some burnout and resentment and high turnover. I've seen it first hand and its not always what you think. The most stunning thing about being in the military was that things that seemed cool are not. And things that didn't seem cool are where the action is. EW units get used a lot, deployed a lot, theyre always in demand whereas more "mainstream" units get longer breaks between rotations. Growlers are expensive, specialized and they require specialized crews, Even In Afghanistan (which is not at all considered high tech) EW was in high demand





Like i said you think you're going to something "high speed" and then you end up staring at rivets on a ship. Then the "boring" units are deploying groundside constantly and getting to do actual high speed stuff. Marine Artillery saw a hellaciously busy deployment schedule the last 10 years while a lot of the infantry units didn't even get to leave the boat, We had arty units that shot their howitzers until they had burned out the barrels just a few years back in Raqqa, Syria.

So long story short, if you go with that large fleet of shooters, small fleet of electronic enablers, you will put a large amount of stress on a small amount of people and gear. That's up for Finland to decide of course, but like I said we discovered the costs add up pretty quickly, to the point where an airplane that is invisible to radar and "self escorting" becomes worth every penny, and even saves some pennies

A pilot is trained to make his platform of choice dance, maximize its potential and mitigate its weaknesses. That does not necessarily translate into understanding its technical merits relative to other platforms

I'll have to disagree with you here. A pilot should be intimately familiar with what other platforms can do. This increases survivability because it allows you to exploit the other platform's weaknesses while maximizing your own. We are professionals and our job is to be aware of the capabilities of every single platform we fly against or with.

Other than that I've already listed my issues with the article and author.

I think this sentence in "The Drive" article says a lot about Gripen E:

It perhaps deserves to be known as the Super Gripen, given that its advance is akin to how the F/A-18 Hornet evolved into the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

I think that's pretty much what it is. Only thing is that Super Hornet entered service over 20 years earlier than Gripen E, although I admit that SH really became "Super" only with Block II when it got AN/APG-79, new computers and displays, JHMCS, new countermeasures systems. But that still happened about 15 years before Gripen E becomes operational. Same with Dassault Rafale. It got AESA and otherwise very similar avionics systems and architecture over 10 years before Gripen E. And F-35A IOC was 5 years ago and Gripen E is still in development phase. Even F-16V Block 70 has been fully available for a while now and older F-16s can be upgraded to that standard or they can be new-built.

I think that's the main problem for Gripen. It's very late to the party and doesn't really offer much what competitors already didn't. Many of the vaunted features have been operational in competitors for years or even decades. It's smaller and lighter which offers some (minor IMO) advantages but also a lot of disadvantages like shorter range and lower payload. Heavier loadouts also affect it much more than larger and more powerful competitors. Of course it's likely cheaper to acquire and operate, but the difference doesn't seem to be that big. It should be really significant difference to compensate for the lower performance and thus larger number of airframes and pilots needed to get similar overall force effectiveness.

Ironic ending. The Gripen is the end all and be all, but it's also not really the best and its niche is being cheap while providing substantial quality. Just make up your mind. Either it's the best, or it is not the best but cheap and good value for money.

What's even more ironic is that the Gripen E is neither the best or cheap and good value for money.