Thai Air Force seals deal for Swedish Gripen jets

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3320828/us-f-16s-lose-out-thai-air-force-seals-us600-million-deal-swedish-gripen-jets

by belter • 11 months ago

205 253 11 months ago

scmp.com

verdverm3• 11 months ago

A lot of countries are learning lessons from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the world's reaponses

alephnerd4• 11 months ago

Thailand wanted the F-35 [0], but the we will not give it to them given how close the Thai government has become to China after the junta [1].

Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand [2]

As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...

[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/china-thailand-submarin...

[2] https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...

Hikikomori6• 11 months ago

I for one welcome our new Chinese overloads.

axus• 11 months ago

Interesting that Cambodia is the recent adversary they want the jets for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Cambodia%E2%80%93Thailand...

My brief research says Cambodia was using old Soviet and Chinese stuff, with some UAV support.

MaxPock• 11 months ago

The real joke is that the US or Biden cared about democracy in Thailand.

pimlottc• 11 months ago

What do you mean specifically here?

alephnerd4• 11 months ago

He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump.

In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]

Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)

The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].

European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...

[1] https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio...

[3] https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...

glial• 11 months ago

“Selling the F-35, or American systems for that matter, will certainly become more complicated for American companies,” said Gesine Weber, a Paris-based fellow at transatlantic think tank German Marshall Fund.

“An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.”

“If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.”

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-...

bamboozled4• 11 months ago

The USA has left Ukraine in the lurch after signing the Budapest memorandum. They should’ve kept their Nukes and Russia wouldn’t have been able to invade and steal all their land, kidnap and auction off children , commit massacres etc.

Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies.

Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…

varispeed2• 11 months ago

US has become an unreliable ally. Siding with war criminal, lack of intelligence services response, potential leaks to the hostile states and ability to ground planes and other weapons remotely, means US equipment has become a non-starter.

See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.

Waterluvian6• 11 months ago

The United States is an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. I welcome the ongoing cultural divorce and am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.

verdverm3• 11 months ago

The United States has become an unreliable security partner

ridiculous politics, open bribery and extortion... which impacts other countries. The decoupling has begun, spurred by Americas adversaries and our own abhorrent behavior

fabian2k• 11 months ago

No idea what the reasons are in this specific case, but these kinds of military procurements are inherently tied to the political side.

Planes like this quickly become paperweights if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition. And most buyers won't be able to get significant parts of the construction into their countries. So you must trust the political stability of the country you're buying from, that they're still your friend in a decade or a few and support your planes.

Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners.

neonate• 11 months ago

https://archive.md/y6jr5

culi3• 11 months ago

Today, Thailand decided to go with Swedish Gripen jets over F-16s. A week ago, Spain chose the Eurofighter over the F-35[0] and Switzerland seems to be considering a similar move.[1] Before that the Pentagon halved its funding for the F-35 program.[2] Criticism of the F-35's status as a "hangar queen" have been around a long time[3] and seem to be increasingly prominent.

California—the world's 4th largest economy—'s biggest export is airplane parts.[4] Is California in for a reckoning as the world seems to be increasingly rejecting US weapons technology?

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/spain-rejects-f-35-for-europ...

[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/switzerland-weighs-cuts-...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-slashe...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210317192541/https://www.washi...

[4] https://www.worldstopexports.com/californias-top-10-exports/

dralley7• 11 months ago

Before that the Pentagon halved its funding for the F-35 program.[2]

This is so misleading. They cut this year's orders of the F-35 in half. That's not even close to the same thing as cutting funding for the program in half. Part of that funding was even reallocated towards streamlining the supply chains and improving maintainence practices.

mongol• 11 months ago

Brazil chose Gripen very soon after it Snowden leaks had revealed had intercepted Dilma Rouseff personal communications. I will be lazy here and paste a ChatGPT summary since I recalled the outline but not the details:

It’s very likely it played a significant role in the final choice — not necessarily as the only reason, but as a decisive tie-breaker.

Here’s why:

1. Timing was suspiciously close

Snowden’s NSA revelations came out in mid-2013.

Rousseff’s UN speech condemning U.S. spying was in September 2013.

Brazil announced the Saab Gripen NG selection in December 2013 — just three months later.

2. Boeing’s bid was politically radioactive Even if the Air Force had rated the F/A-18 highly, the president would have had to approve the purchase. After the scandal, a U.S. fighter buy would have looked domestically like ignoring a national insult.

3. Public and congressional pressure Brazilian media hammered the NSA issue for months, and opposition politicians would have used a U.S. aircraft deal as evidence of weakness or hypocrisy.

4. The other contenders were “good enough” Gripen NG wasn’t the cheapest in sticker price (Rafale was more expensive), but it was competitive in capability and far stronger in technology transfer terms. That made it easy to justify dropping the U.S. option without taking a big performance hit.

My assessment: If the NSA scandal hadn’t happened, Boeing would still have faced challenges on tech transfer, but it would likely have been the Gripen or F/A-18 in the final decision. With the scandal, the F/A-18 had near-zero chance — the scandal probably moved the Gripen from “contender” to “winner.”

daveaiello2• 11 months ago

This deal is for four (4) jets, according to the SCMP.

With respect to everybody reading this, I'm not prepared to read anything into a purchase of four jets.

John23832• 11 months ago

Total thai airfare is 112 capable aircraft. That includes the various types. 4 fighters in the context of a small airforce is a lot.

daveaiello2• 11 months ago

I can appreciate that perspective as well.

hunglee2• 11 months ago

You basically cannot trust the US at this point - Trump is so mercurial, that any possible scenario, however ostensibly unrealistic, now has to be factored into the equation. Doesn't get better when Trump gets removed in 3 years, it has been proven now that US democracy can produce any kind of result and hence persistent unreliability most now be the default

Fordec2• 11 months ago

If removed in 3 years. So many societal norms are being broken, what's one more. It sounds hyperbolic to say out loud because it usually is, but we're dealing with any possible scenario here.

RajT882• 11 months ago

Trump will be gone in 3 years, dead or degraded into a bowl of racist jello.

It seems clear that the plan is to game the system as much as possible before then so Republicans never have to win an election again. If they can do that, they don't need Trump - the Trump administration will live on.

rozap• 11 months ago

It sounded hyperbolic for the 50 last newsworthy things he has done. Americans seems to think the current order is a given when in reality it's much more precarious.

firefax3• 11 months ago

If removed in 3 years. So many societal norms are being broken, what's one more.

Are you American? I don't think you understand our culture if you go down this road. Trump operates in the gray -- gray enabled in part by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive as being "soft" on immigration. Is it a kindness to create instability in one's homeland, then look the other way if they flee as long as they don't insist on the same legal protections as others?

Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps, and one that is difficult to put into words without sounding theatrical or shrill.

__d• 11 months ago

Trump himself might not stay on as president, but one of his proxies could stand and win, assuming that there continues to be no viable opposition.

Vance is the obvious candidate, but I don’t think the 2028 strategy will become clear until after the 2026 mid-terms.

bamboozled4• 11 months ago

Will take decades to repair if that’s even possible, lots of reform. I can’t believe the USA could even have a king but here we are.

I wonder if some major states like California will secede eventually .

Buttons8402• 11 months ago

This gerrymandering debacle does seem to increase political tensions around and between states, especially if it spreads to multiple states and everyone starts gerrymandering, making all states politically binary in their representation. The sides for a succession / civil war become clear.

Just yesterday federal agents were in California against the will of the California state government, and gathered outside a building where the governor was speaking, so threats of violence / force are on the table already.

ImJamal• 11 months ago

The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 (Texas v. White) that a state cannot secede.

mensetmanusman2• 11 months ago

Good, the EU needs its own defense industry.

zppln2• 11 months ago

More specifically, we could use our own engine. Gripen E still rely on the GE F414. Europe has nothing to rival the P&W F135.

cm2187• 11 months ago

My limited understanding is that the F135 is massively over-powered to be capable of VTOL + push through the bulky shape of the F35, resulting in a disappointing range. I don't know that it would make sense to use it on a different platform.

rjsw• 11 months ago

The Gripen could have been designed around one Eurojet EJ200 or Snecma M88.

ta202405284• 11 months ago

No longer: Gripens are now offered with the Rolls Royce EJ230 engine.

jeffrallen2• 11 months ago

Ooh, now do Switzerland! We stupidly chose the stupid F-35, an airplane that couldn't even fly even if the Americans ssh'd in to let it.

john-h-k• 11 months ago

The F35 overran on time and budget, sure, but it’s still an insanely good aircraft. I think the public perception that it’s a “failure” is a mistake

jeffrallen2• 11 months ago

Then maybe ask the pilots who doubt whether it can keep them alive, let alone accomplish a mission. Or look at the ready time versus maintenance time ratio.

Military hardware exists to achieve a certain mission. Having some insanely great engineering figures Mena's nothing if the hardware is too unreliable to get the job done.

bigyabai3• 11 months ago

"insanely good" is still an exaggeration. It performs worse than the Gripen to carry a smaller payload a shorter distance, all sacrifices for a stealth feature you won't need outside hostile airspace or to launch standoff attacks. It is a suitable fit for America's JSF program, and a pretty dubious platform for almost everyone else.

You don't see the F-35 in deployment abroad too often because it's not really needed unless you intend to molest neighboring airspace. Unless you're Washington or Tel Aviv, it's hard justifying the cost.

namuol• 11 months ago

Cambodia nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for his administration’s apparent role in their recent ceasefire negotiations with Thailand: https://www.khmertimeskh.com/501734313/cambodia-officially-n...

Unclear if this is some kind of reactionary retaliation for perceived favorability toward Cambodia or if Trump’s apparently favorability toward Cambodia is retaliation for what he may have already known about Thailand’s shift toward EU weaponry. They’re hardly the first country to start shopping around, so the latter wouldn’t surprise me.

throwaway5752• 11 months ago

This is not some reciprocal action, it's just logical fallout that the US is no longer reliable as a military ally under this administration, and capable of electing similar leadership in the future. Much, much more of this is ahead. It will impact the USD.

nxobject• 11 months ago

Looks like Thailand's no longer in a rush to get a "final" tariff deal, even if we're stuck at a 19% rate. (I think our flag carrier might be refreshing its fleet exclusively with Boeing to sweeten the deal.)

sureglymop2• 11 months ago

Switzerland also has an open fixed-price deal for 36 F-35s.

The US are trying to alter the deal and raise the price to ~1 billion USD more than agreed to.

I wish Switzerland would do the same and cancel the deal.

On top of that Switzerland should go a step further and impose a tax on gold exported to the united states if they don't stop with their silly little 39% tariffs on imported Swiss goods. Just ridiculous and embarrassing to sever long running trade relationships out of ignorance.

mcmcmc2• 11 months ago

There is no such thing as a tariff on exports. Tariffs are specifically an import tax intended to increase domestic demand for domestically produced goods by shifting it away from imported goods

blktiger• 11 months ago

I think he meant export taxes or export duties.

mrandish• 11 months ago

There is no such thing as a tariff on exports.

That's correct, or at least it was until this week. Did you happen to see the recent announcement where NVidia and AMD are now apparently required to pay 15% of the revenue from GPUs exported to China to the U.S. government? This is apparently GPUs which were, prior to this new 15% payment, "too harmful to our national security" to export to China.

Frankly, I only saw the headlines and haven't looked into it myself yet - mostly because it makes my head hurt trying to even tally the laws, policies and trade agreements doing this would probably violate. So, I'm admittedly unclear on the details but it sure sounds like an "export tariff".

graeme• 11 months ago

Not correct actually. Checked dictionary, tariff applies to an import or an export.

It just isn't commonly done to apply an export tariff.

csomar• 11 months ago

Tariff is just a different name for "tax". You can tax imports, and you can also tax exports. You can also tax anything that moves, or doesn't.

insane_dreamer2• 11 months ago

There is no such thing as a tariff on exports

Tell that to Nvidia and AMD

mrtksn• 11 months ago

Swiss appear to believe that if they kiss hard enough they will get favorable terms, so they confirmed that the f-35 deal is still on. This f-45 thing was always a way to pledge allegiance and pay your duty to USA for the protection more than actually intending to use the aircraft.

Swiss also pride themselves to European but having their own way of doing things, and as a result they aren't going to join EU.

Tough times, wishing them the best luck.

sureglymop2• 11 months ago

There are more things that make the whole ordeal more controversial. For one, the swiss people voted for the procurement of a new fleet of fighter jets with a majority of 50.1%. They later voted to approve a budget of 6 billion swiss franks for this. The current proposed price by the US now exceeds that budget.

Also, this procurement process was driven by former Swiss Defence Minister Viola Amherd who has since stepped down from her position.

While the deal may still be own, it will probably be altered such that it is within budget (lower quantity).

Tough times indeed.

gpt5• 11 months ago

The US are trying to alter the deal

I don't understand why people claim that. Here are the actual facts/timeline:

Nov 2021: Switzerland agreed contract terms with the U.S. government for 36 F-35A and budgeted CHF 6.035 bn. Under U.S. FMS (Foreign military sales) rules, LOA (letter of offer) values are estimates and the buyer owes actual full cost, so this was not an enforceable CHF-fixed total.

May 2022: The Swiss Federal Audit Office warned of legal uncertainty around any fixed price, but the warning was ignored internally.

Sep 2022: Parliament authorized; LOA signed Sep 19, 2022.

Jun 2025: Switzerland announced the U.S. disputes a binding fixed price and sought a diplomatic solution. U.S. officials pointed to inflation/raw-material/energy costs that have changed.

Aug 2025: Switzerland announced it cannot legally enforce a fixed price and is estimating additional costs (+CHF 650 m–1.3 bn).

wbl3• 11 months ago

Good timeline but would be better to put in that inflation was pretty big over that period as well.

deadbabe• 11 months ago

How does one become a broker for military jets and does it pay well?

poniko• 11 months ago

When we want to sell fighter jets and Karl Gustav rockets we send the King of Sweden to pander the deal. There have been some debacle over a few suitcases with bribes as well but hey that's probably a good paying job.

bdhcuidbebe3• 11 months ago

In Sweden, by being prime minister, aka arms dealer

Göran Persson selling JAS to south africa: https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/Rx6p1r/ja...

magdalena andersson wants to sell JAs to phillipines: https://www.svd.se/a/y6lrBg/sverige-kan-salja-jas-gripen-til...

the current Ulf Kristersson government is making money under the table selling jas to hungary: https://www.placera.se/telegram/saab-statssekreterare-kopte-...

sweden also sold jas to brazil.

notice how sweden is selling arms to dictators and crap countries?

actionfromafar• 11 months ago

900 dollar profit. Heads should roll.

Stevvo• 11 months ago

All of those countries are democracies. Hungary is a member of the EU and NATO. "Crap countries" is just vague racism.

impossiblefork4• 11 months ago

We don't just sell Gripens to Brazil. They're our friends.

Animats3• 11 months ago

The Gripen is a good choice for geographically small countries. It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support. Saab commercial for the Gripen: [1]

The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. From now on, air forces have to be able to operate from improvised bases, or build very strong bunkers at major bases.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E

echelon3• 11 months ago

It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads

I can understand this argument.

The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases.

But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case.

Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.

freeopinion3• 11 months ago

I admit I didn't read the article. Is the Gripen 40% cheaper so that countries can own more of them?

Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.

dgrin91• 11 months ago

Yes but it's a question of finding targets. Why was Ukraine able to decimate the Russian Air Force? Partly because they are all based out of big, well known bases. Even in wartime they have to be in a big base.

A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again

simne2• 11 months ago

The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens

Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory.

Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.

Animats3• 11 months ago

The USAF argues over this internally. See [1], and a reply, [2].

Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3]

There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4]

If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points.

[1] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Jo...

[2] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-air...

[3] https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/A...

[4] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete...

maxglute• 11 months ago

The on paper assumption / sales pitch that remains valid in most scenarios is increased survivability of shooters = more sorties. If hardware can operate from austere conditions you can squeeze in a few more missions, which may be tactically/operationally significant, but there's limitations on modern airframes, still need to go back to a well resourced large base (5th gen also requires conditioned shelters) for maintenance, i.e. it's still fundamentally a bandaid solution. The logistics tail is also larger <- this gets slept on (or underplayed in public facing messaging).

It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints.

There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.

victorbjorklund3• 11 months ago

Easier to spot a plane in one of X airports vs spot a plane on any road anywhere in the country hiden in the woods

ivape• 11 months ago

Is there an equivalent to drone dog fighting? In that case, we may as well shift warfare to that.

trenchpilgrim4• 11 months ago

Sorta - in Ukraine there have been instances of drones killing other drones, mostly by ramming them. But it's all very new.

simne2• 11 months ago

What you mean? Aerobatic?

- Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots.

- Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win.

Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.

walrus012• 11 months ago

Yes, there's already Ukrainian fpv flown quadcopters which are optimized to intercept, as a munition, common flying wing camera surveillance platforms. I've seen probably 20 or 30 different videos now taken from the view of the quadcopter, with detonator contact wires sticking out the front, diving into the rear of a large Russian flying wing UAV.

trenchpilgrim4• 11 months ago

How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation?

USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.

cutemonster3• 11 months ago

If a plane can land anywhere to refuel and takes off again in 10 minutes, the other side needs a fast kill chain to catch the plane.

But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler.

Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955

And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.

bell-cot2• 11 months ago

In terms of military resources required, there's a vast difference between keeping a close eye on the other side's few known airfields, and keeping a close eye on every park, parking lot, farm field, forest clearing, etc., etc. in their country.

walrus012• 11 months ago

How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation?

If operating from an airfield that has been improvised out of a straight stretch of highway, the grouping of vehicles that contain all of the necessary ground support equipment and munitions resupply can be disguised to resemble an ordinary civilian cargo box truck, or tractor trailer combo.

Unless the attacking force is willing to begin with the resources needed, and repercussions of airstriking everything that looks like a civilian cargo truck moving in the region, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group of vehicle and men that compromise the ground support equipment element. Particularly when you might have multiple groups of such roaming randomly around an area.

79522• 11 months ago

Maybe large industrial or commercial units would be the ideal place for inprovised bases now.

victorbjorklund3• 11 months ago

You can land it on any road and hide it under trees etc. Is it perfect? No, but probably hell lot harder to spot it in a random forest on a random road on the countryside than finding one of a few airports

gerdesj2• 11 months ago

"It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support."

Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way.

Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on.

I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.

gliptic• 11 months ago

I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning).

The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.

qingcharles• 11 months ago

Which RAF bases are around there? I used to live at the end of the Filton airstrip and I came home one day to a Harrier hovering directly over my house. It moved off towards Filton, but I didn't see where it went. I didn't think about what RAF bases are in the West Country.

implements• 11 months ago

The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet …

Also, the French: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar which was designed to be useable from improvised runways, hence the extremely robust landing gear.

79522• 11 months ago

Not sure if ever made a lot of sense to land harrier in an unprepared location though. Lots of risk of foreign object damage to the engines. And logistically more difficult for refueling/rearming. Much better to use it on short but prepared strips.

dralley7• 11 months ago

I have to imagine that Gripen is an order of magnitude cheaper to operate than the Harrier though

hubraumhugo• 11 months ago

It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads

The Swiss Air Force is regularly practicing starting and landing on highways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8

geon3• 11 months ago

While sweden has a lot of straight road stretches specifically designed to serve as emergency airfields, it is a lot easier to find 500 m of suitable road than 1600.

geon3• 11 months ago

If large air bases are hard to protect, wouldn’t the Gripen be good also for large countries?

Havoc• 11 months ago

A better metric is likely how far out you want/need to project power rather than country size. The answer for that is very different depending on whether you're sweden or the usa

dilyevsky• 11 months ago

Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out.

Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones

breppp• 11 months ago

The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases

While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present)

Edited: STOVL not VTOL

bigyabai3• 11 months ago

Only the F-35B, and it has to sacrifice performance in speed and maneuverability to get there. The Gripen still boasts a number of advantages (and higher G-loading) if you aren't penetrating hostile airspace.

Onavo• 11 months ago

It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support.

This is an oft quoted gimmick. Most planes can take off just fine from a normal paved road. As a rule of thumb, if the road can supported a heavy container truck, it can support an aircraft of equivalent weight. (Transportation class and airliners are a different story entirely as they are extremely heavy).

A good runway is one that's without debris. The only other factor that makes a plane good for taking off on different surfaces is the location and design of the engine intake. You want to avoid rocks being sucked into the engine.

But generally speaking, if you have a nice clean paved road that can support heavy usage by semis trucks, most random fighter jets can take off from it just fine.

dreamcompiler• 11 months ago

The road also needs to be wide enough, flat enough, and without overhead wires.

philwelch4• 11 months ago

There’s another approach, which the US is very experienced with: have your airbase far away from the enemy, perhaps in Missouri, and do a lot of in-air refueling.

Ukraine has been successful attacking Russian airbases with drones because they can sneak entire truckloads of drones and drone pilots into Russian-controlled territory. And even that was a massive operation that took over a year to plan. Israel carried out similar drone operations against Iran, so we know it’s not a fluke and this approach can be effective, but it’s harder to pull off the longer the distances become.

more_corn• 11 months ago

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that nobody wants to do business with a damned bully.

reactordev• 11 months ago

I mean, I would buy a Gripen over an F-16 anyday. However, the view from the F-16 cockpit is matched only by the F-22/F-35. damn near 360 degree bubble view.

bdhcuidbebe3• 11 months ago

Disgusting war profitering.

Sweden should not make such deals with a country attacking their neighbor.

itsmartapuntocm• 11 months ago

Good thing Sweden isn’t selling jets to Cambodia then.

ta202405284• 11 months ago

Any idea if its with the GE engine or the Roll Royce engine recently announced?

Thai Air Force seals deal for Swedish Gripen jets

Related Stories