Saab positions Gripen E as Canada’s next-generation fighter

Saab Group is confident that its single-engine Gripen E remains a viable contender for Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft fleet, even though there are currently no immediate plans for Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) pilots to actually fly the aircraft.

The Saab JAS 39 Gripen is one of only two single-engine fighters in the Canadian competition. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 is the other. Saab Photo

This was according to Richard Smith, head of Gripen marketing and sales during a May 16 briefing on Gripen market opportunities worldwide.

He confirmed the planned visits included “site surveys and also some more senior visits as well, but at the moment, no plans for a flight evaluation.”

He offered no details on who specifically would be visiting, but welcomed a suggestion that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could be on the list.

Canada is one of a number of countries Saab is targeting as a customer for the Mach 2 delta wing/canard fighter, the first variation of which entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997.

Development of the Gripen E, featuring a General Electric F414G engine and an upgraded electronic warfare system (EWS), began about 2014 and it was first flown in June 2017. It is now said to be on track for delivery to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces.

Smith said he expected that “continued dialogue so far this year” with Canadian government representatives was setting the stage for an early draft proposal, possibly in the third quarter of 2018, followed by the government’s request for proposal for 80 aircraft early next year.

He said the Gripen is suitable for all RCAF operations, including the high north, the Arctic and forward operating bases, which he said are “very similar to what we have in Sweden.”

He later added that Saab would “tailor” its offering to Canada, as it would to other prospective customers with different operating environments.

“Value for money, the industrial packages, that’s what makes the Gripen rather unique and rather attractive.”

On the seminal Canadian question about the reliability of a single-engine aircraft in Arctic and maritime missions, Gripen test pilot Mikhal Olsson said it had never been an issue.

“I’ve been flying fighter aircraft since 1996 and I’ve been stationed . . . up in the Arctic,” he said.

“I’ve been flying over the Atlantic, I’ve been flying across the sea eastbound to India (Saab is proposing the Gripen for the India Air Force), and every time I’ve been in a single-engine jet. I’ve never, ever, been worried about the engine [due to built-in redundancies]. “We have a really reliable system.”

Olsson also said that as a “smart fighter” with net-centric technologies, a new sensor suite and long-range weapons, the E model is tailored to an “much more hostile and . . . much more unpredictable” operational environment where “new conflicts arise and disappear much quicker that we’ve seen before.”

Gripen EWS sales director Inga Bergstrom added that electronic warfare was not the aircraft’s primary function.

Rather, EWS was “an enabler to . . . a successful mission” and because it was upgradeable software, it could deal with evolving threats.

Asked about having to compete in some markets with used aircraft, Smith said these were, at best, an interim solution.


“We’re going to operate it for 30 to 40 years,” he replied. “Second-hand fighters . . . need to be replaced after maybe 10 years, and the capability that we bring is somewhat different to those old fighters. . . . Even though there has been, as you say, some headwind recently, I remain very optimistic about the outlook for Gripen both short term and longer term.”

Jonas Hjelm, head of Aeronautics at Saab, acknowledged that although the company can’t compete with used fighters because of the price difference, he agreed that the upgradeable Gripen could be operated for potentially more than 40 years without having to go through a new acquisition process, so the total package “makes sense for very many of the countries that are now in process of actually selecting a new fighter system.”

Asked how the Gripen could compete with “stealth” platforms, Hjelm declined comment on competitors’ aircraft but conceded that it was a difficult challenge.

Calling stealth a “fashion word,” he said that while the newest Gripen variants have “stealth features,” Saab has chosen “different paths to have a low signature.”

Besides, with “every smart technique you come up with to defend yourself, there will be a pushback from the other side to detect you . . . . We continue all the time to see what we can develop . . . to become more invisible.”

34 thoughts on “Saab positions Gripen E as Canada’s next-generation fighter

  1. Hmmm. I’ve loved the Gripen for years (I think it’s an amazing aircraft) but also think stealth is the game changer… Just ask India or Japan what they think.

    1. Stealth is looking more and more like a transient technology. With many nations investing in new radar tech and IRST, radar stealth will soon cease to be the silver bullet it was advertised to be. Why do you think F-22 production was stopped at less then 200?

    2. My choice would be the Gripen E that could be built here and create thousands of jobs and give our aircraft industry a good boost. We could also build them for South American countries. To protect our country we need interceptors not bombers. We may need some F35’s to do our NATO duty but the Gripen E is $7800. Hour U.S.. to operate and the Super Hornet is $24,400. Hour U.S. to operate. The Gripen E can be re-armed in 10 minutes, can land on a highway due to it’s STOL ability and it’s 30 million per unit less expensive. The faster Gripen is a far better interceptor than the slower less agile Hornet and much more cost effective.
      The Gripen can be in the air instead of on the ground due to it’s relatively less expensive operating cost and with the ability to build them in Canada it’s a no brainer. Plus Boeing doesn’t do us any favours in the aircraft business going against Bombardier. The Gripen even has a larger, roomier cock pit and apparently it’s very easy to fly. I think the Swede’s have done a fantastic, intelligent job on the Gripen E. Unless I’m missing something, let’s get them on order….

      1. Brazil is a co-build partner with SAAB on the Gripen E & F model. There goes Canada’s home built Gripen sales to South America. Once again, Canada is late to the party. Thanks to your Liberal government. Who could have gone with the Gripen, years ago.

    3. Hello…? why on earth would we buy bombers, the F35 is slow compared to the JAS 39 E. We need fast interceptors with a
      country that is the second largest in the world, geographically
      and the largest coastline of all the countries in the world.

    4. Funny, India isn’t buying stealth aircraft and Japan is probably succumbing to the same diplomatic pressure that WikiLeaks revealed that the USA exerted on Norway:
      And the leaked documents themselves:

      If the F-35 wasn’t a complete piece of “Ship High In Transit” then the USA wouldn’t have had to resort to underhanded tactics like this. Norway would have selected it on merit, but Norway didn’t because the F-35 isn’t.

  2. Love it when someone gives factual details and also explain that stealth features will cause push backs from the opposition . A constant challenge he said , not a guarantee of unbeatable technology . This Saab EF is a super plane for Canada as it will surely be possible to assemble and possibility even manufacture a few parts , say the landing gear etc . This may give ongoing jobs for Canadians especially if other South American countries become customers . These planes can also land on roadways if necessary and the 414 engine is very reliable !.

  3. The Saab Gripen E has all of the requirements for our NORAD roles. Hope to see further engagement such as air show displays and information. The article is a clear headed reply to Canada’s needs.

  4. The Gripen seems to be a no-brainer choice. Acquisition costs are much less – which is great – yes – but the differentiator for the Saab Gripen is its extremely low maintenance and operation costs, its far far superior operational readiness statistics, its 10 minute turn around times with a very small service/ maintenance and a very light logistical footprint.

    Combine that with it’s ‘open architecture’ software design that makes upgrades easy and quick because weapons integration is separate from avionics and you’ve got a KISS platform that maximizes a country’s ability to keep up a maximum # of up to date fighter aircraft flying and always available.

    The super quick and easy and relatively inexpensive maintenance, logistical and turn around advantages also allows and Air Force to almost double or triple the number of aircraft that can be Captain operation, because you can use multiple Pilots for each aircraft and simply rotate them when a pilot/ Squadron returns from a sortie. Turn around and rearmament and refueling times are as low as 10 minutes, and engines can be swapped out in the field on remote roadways with 7 to 10 maintenance personnel.

    There are no other Advanced aircraft that have these features in advantages. Yes 35, for example, is still not operational and it’s per hour Carstar orders of magnitude higher man for the Gripen. The maintenance of the stealth coatings is a nightmare and the plains are almost worthless if and when Advanced detection radars come online.

    Canada could likely buy and fly 160 Gripen for half the total cost of 80 F-35s. The typhoon and Raphael options aren’t quite as bad in this regard as the F-35, but they’re still significantly more expensive and operationally less efficient than the Gripen and none of the other options offer the remote Bass and small logistical footprint advantages or the short takeoff and Landing advantages of the Gripen.

  5. Good to know we are looking elsewhere than the usual. Sweden and other countries have proven they can build aircraft just as well as any one. Buy Swedish Canada!

  6. The best fighter is the one that’s in the air. Low unit, flight, and maintenance costs, quick maintenance turnaround time, and the ability to use highways as secondary operating bases keep this one on the job. This is the plane we need.

  7. What a refreshing idea. This looks like a very good choice considering the capability and the overall costs. This Company has been known for years as a quality builder and has produced products that are durable and worthy of consideration. An expensive exercise so choosing the right plane is essential and having it last long is good too.

  8. I firmly believe that by acquiring 100 Gripen E’ along with about 4o F35′ when the 35 has matured sufficiently to have all of its current kinks to be ironed out.
    This would give the RCAF a tremendous amount of flexibility and capability to confidently enter into any situation with the ability to complete their assigned mission but also to get back to base in one piece. At less than 70 million per tail and the lowest operational cost of any fighter of its class its a real winner. Lastly the benefits of having a Canadian aerospace industry would bring massive jobs to Canada.

  9. Fact of the matter is we need to have the latest stealth capable platforms wether you like it or not.With the latest generation of Russian built AA missile systems like the S400 a Gripen or similar aircraft will not survive.I agree with the idea of equipping one or two squadrons with the F 35 and augmenting them with 100 – 120 Gripens or similar aircraft.

    1. Invisible airplanes does not exist – period. Russians used 3-band doppler radar on their S-300V1 systems in 1986 and made a jokes about invisible targets. Do you think they did not updated their S-400 system do make detection even better? How do I know that? I served on S-300 in Soviet army. On other hand they really dislike SAAB because of their jamming abilities – that’s what makes airplane more “invisible” than any super duper expensive designs.

    2. Fact of the matter is that you think that Canada will continue to play the role of the Americans’ attack dogs for the wars that THEY start or get involved in. Don’t you get sick of being dragged into these conflicts? This is NOT our obligation under NATO, because NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance, not an offensive one. What’s next, the RCAF gets absorbed by the USAF? It’s bad enough when the commander of NORAD is ALWAYS an American. WTF is the point of NORAD anymore anyway? We’re just as defended as a NATO member as we are by NORAD except that under NORAD, the USAF gets to tell the RCAF what to do in OUR OWN AIRSPACE! I’d rather abandon NORAD because there are no Soviet bombers coming anymore and IF the Russians try to invade Canadian territory, ALL of NATO will respond, not just the USA.

      It’s clear that you haven’t done your homework and are just parroting what the US-controlled media is telling you. Me, I decided to research this on my own using things like DOT&E reports, articles from respected publications like Jane’s and other sources that have nothing to gain by lying. This is what I’ve discovered:

      At a Red Flag event in Alaska, it was immediately clear that the Rafale and Gripen-C saw right through the “stealth” of the F-22 and had no trouble acquiring it whatsoever. Also, with their advanced (and unique) EW suites, their active radar jamming rendered them undetectable by the much-vaunted sensor package of the Raptor. It was reported by F-22 pilots that Raptors couldn’t engage Rafales OR Gripens BVR (the comfort zone of the F-22 and F-35 BTW) because they couldn’t detect them until they were WVR. In fact, the Gripen-C was SO hard to detect that it would reach GUN-RANGE before the F-22 knew that it was there. In real-life, that’s an “invincible” F-22 Raptor KILLED by a Gripen-C.

      Incidentally, the Gripen-E will have a lower passive RCS and an EVEN BETTER EW suite compared to the Gripen-C. Keep in mind also that the F-22 has the RCS of a marble while the F-35 has the RCS of a golf ball. Anything that can easily detect the F-22 will have a lot of fun against the F-35 as IRIS-T after IRIS-T splash several F-35s in succession.

      Don’t believe me? Here’s the document from the Australian government, It’s on their website. The part I am referencing is page #45, paragraph #2:

      Oh, and the F-22 was detected by the Rafales and Gripens DESPITE the use of IRS-T being prohibited during said exercises. It mentions that in the paragraph as well.

      Other people will feed you the same crap that you’ve already been fed and won’t back it up with ANY evidence. I prefer people to take me seriously.

  10. The problem is you are all missing the ”greater issue”…… It isn’t about the qualities of the aircraft, it’s about the offsets in money that will be the greatest influence; I love that fighter too, it is a much more sensible solution, but when was the last time you saw a ”sensible” government? So, the actual situation ( it may change rapidly), there is a ”cooling” in U.S. and Canada relations; there was this obscure deal for the C series between Airbus and Bombardier; there is now this U.K. firm in charge of structuring the RCAF needs for the final procurement official copy; then, there is Brexit, which, if there is no deal, could leave the U.K. in search of transactions; BAE needs money these days;….So, if nothing else, the Eurofighter could be a more than third rate contender; but again, will the Boeing- Canada relations stay coolish? one thing I read is Boeing isn’t putting all its chips on this one, probably being a bit skittish with the offsets; But, in the end, all this can change in one day…..So, the jury is out……

    1. The EF-2000 is extremely expensive to buy and operate. It’s also reputed to be a maintenance nightmare. Furthermore, the EF-2000 is about 90% fighter with VERY limited attack capability which makes sense since the countries operating it had separate planes for attack roles. Italy, Germany and the UK ALL operate the Panavia Tornado IDS for interdiction and strike roles. Spain uses the Super Hornet for attack and Italy also uses the AMX.for attack duties. I’ve researched this for about three years in-depth and I’ll give you a list of the rankings I compiled based on numbers and data acquired from non-biased sources:
      5) F-35 – Expensive, useless and spies on operators
      4) – F/A-18E/F – Worse than the CF-18 at aerial combat
      3) EF-2000 – Expensive and not versatile enough
      2) Rafale – Only uses French weapons, dropped out anyway
      1) JAS-39E – Cheap, versatile, deadly & 100% tech transfer

      Over the total life of the aircraft, we could have 5+ JAS-39E Gripens for the same price as EACH F-35, 4 for each EF-2000, 3 for each Rafale and 2 for each F/A-18E. No matter how you slice it, for the same cost, every choice OTHER than the Gripen makes the RCAF weaker because none of those planes can handle being outnumbered by the Gripen.

  11. last time I checked the F35 wasn’t built by Boeing..and a cooling of US/Canada relatios..really?..the Canadian and US military work almost completely integrated now so buying the F 35 from our closest ally and traditional arms supplier makes way more sense,not to mention availability of parts and support.Like I mentioned earlier augementing an F 35 force with Gripens is an option I suppose as well.

    1. We could augment a largely Gripen force with few F35 for NATO responsibilities overseas. Bombers might be required, in limited numbers, but we require fast interceptors to protect Canada’s vast geography and coastlines, not bombers. They are too slow, as well.

      1. We don’t need the F-35 for NATO operations. The Gripen is fully compatible with the NATO-standard Link-16 data link system, virtually ALL weapons that NATO uses AND it uses the NATO-standard “probe-and-drogue” refuelling system, UNLIKE the F-35.

        Nope, this time around, the Americans have nothing to offer us that would suit our purposes except to keep Canada under their thumbs.

    2. “last time I checked the F35 wasn’t built by Boeing”
      You need to pay better attention to things. Boeing ONLY asked for a tariff of 80%. It was the US government that imposed the almost 300% tariff which caused Bombardier to panic and GIVE AWAY the CSeries to Airbus. It’s no surprise that the F-35 supporters are the LEAST informed.

      The US government is NOT our friend.. They just look at us as another non-threatening “ally” to exploit. Just look at what “FREE TRADE” did to us. How many companies are left in the Canadian commercial landscape that are ACTUALLY Canadian? Here’s a an incomplete list of what we’ve lost so far:
      Adventure Electronics
      Atlantic Electronics
      Majestic Sound Superstore
      The Hudson Bay Company
      Future Shop
      Jolly Jumper
      Laura Secord
      … and those are just the ones I remember off of the top of my head. The Americans have turned Canada into a branch economy with a good chunk of every dollar we spend HERE going THERE. At what point do you say “enough is enough!”, or do you love the USA more than Canada?

  12. Personally as a Canadian l would like for Canada to purchase this a/c. The US and Boeing chose to spit in our faces and I see the F35 as a Tundra Dart. The EU is open for trade unlike some neighbours, lets put our money in other friendly pockets.

  13. Impressive fighter for the cost . I am not sure about having both the Gripen E and the F35 as our frontline fighters . Both are equally impressive with their respective roles . Myself I am leaning towards the French Rafale for Canada’s next fighter jet . I just hope our leaders can make a decision sooner than later . They have been dumping alot of cash into the F35 project though …
    As for wish-listing , a 100 new jet fighters and 15 new “type” 26 Frigates for our Navy 🙂 would be a start …

  14. 74 Gripen E/F…in four Sqns and a OTU 416 Sqn 14a/c @Yellowknife,
    409 Sqn,14a/c @ Cold lake, 425 Sqn,14a/c@ Baggotville, 433 Sq,14a/c @ Goose Bay.

    38 Typhoon T4…in one Sqn and a OTU as the NATO Expeditionary Sqn.
    401Sqn 20a/c at Bagottville

    410 Sqn OTU/OCU:
    18 Gripen E/F
    18 Typhoon T4

  15. I want to ask what are we planning for? In the past 20yr we have engaged less equipment and less potent adversaries meaning expeditionary skirmishes, and if this is what is we plan for then the Gripen is a logical choice. I believe that for the foreseeable future these types of situations are more likely. To be practical about the purchase and potential use.

    If we end up with open conflict(s) with either China or Russian, this is at a whole different level and which will escalate quickly past the fighter jet.

    Further, when we have equally distributed jets within Canada then wouldn’t it make for sense to have an interceptor type jets, i.e. very fast and long range? Just putting that out there, it is a very big country.

  16. To my last paragraph what I was suggesting what that Canada may need another type of aircraft other than what is currently available on the market as far as I know, meaning a true interceptor, like the MiG -31?

    1. GM leaving Ontario and in particular Oshawa, both the federal and provincial governments along with investors such as Saab, Bombardier, L3 etc…,could take over the GM,Oshawa plant and grounds for the manufacture and assembly of the Gripen E/F. Canada would need 150 aircraft. As for stealth, forget the F35. We can build stealth drones at a fraction of the price which can be controlled over the battle space at either NDHQ, or from the cockpit of a Gripen. If GM wants to be paid for the land and buildings in Oshawa they can deduct it form the 4 billion dollars they got from us just a few years ago. This is how you play hardball with American corporation who worship at the alter of greed and have no regard what-so-ever for the people they hurt. Additionally we would along with our partners be able to sell Gripen’s around the world to countries who do not want to be chained to U.S. companies.
      The Gripen alone without the need for the F35 is all Canada really needs. This is also a superior product for upgrading the RCAF.

      1. The F35 is slow and if advancements in radar can make it more visible than currently advertised, they will go to the bone yard in the desert very prematurely. I would much rather see Canada spend our money on the light weight 1530 mph Mach II+ sports car of the sky. A plane with STOL capabilities, a plane that has very inexpensive hourly operational cost of $7800. hour compared to some fighters that can be in the $50,000. hour range. A fighter that was engineered to implement modified software as part of it’s design and can be maintained by fewer crew members, in much shorter times than the complex, expensive to maintain F35. The Gripen E is a no brainer and a much better fighter for the future of Canada. At least it’s capable of air superiority. The F35 without stealth is a pig, they made a real boner with that design. I would even consider one….To top it off, apparently there isn’t much difference between their radar signatures either.

  17. Hello…? why on earth would we buy bombers, the F35 is slow compared to the JAS 39 E. We need fast interceptors with a
    country that is the second largest in the world, geographically
    and the largest coastline of all the countries in the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *