Your right of course, it is wishful thinking that the Gripen NG could actually achieve those ranges. The actual reports from Brazil and the Swiss eval have shown that the actual combat radius to be far lower than what Saab has stated.

What actual reports from Brazil?

In Switzerland I believe the point was that they were looking at a scenario that required flying at supersonic speeds, thus Gripen E will be limited to the supersonic drop tank only. Also, flying supersonic of course the fuel consumption is much higher than subsonic. Thus the “Swiss reports” probably do not say much about the specific (optimal) scenario that Saab described.

It is furthermore my understanding that the Swiss in the end decided Gripen E range was sufficient to meet their requirements.

THe most recent from Saab on Gripen E’s range:

The maximum combat radius for Gripen NG on an air-to-surface configuration is approximately 800 nm (1,500 km). This is defined as flying to a target, releasing air-to-surface weapons, and then returning to home base. The actual combat radius depends on the configuration of the aircraft’s external stores, its profiles and the availability of reserve fuel tanks.

Presumably this is with the maximum number of external tanks, and with a relatively light load of a2g munitions.

Another profile:

Mission: CAP
Radius of action: 500NM
Time on station: 100 minutes

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-ng/technical-brochure-gripen-ng-english-ver.2-jan-2015_low.pdf

Edit: this last one is actually slightly less than what was indicated in 2014 in the AviationNews database:

Combat Air Patrol, 2 hrs. on station: 559 mi. (900km)

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf

Still these should probably be considered as “ballpark figures”

Not sure if it’s actually be all that surprising. It gives the Gripen E a fuel fraction of around 0.43 by using up most of the available payload, leaving just enough for 4 missiles (and a recce pod if desired), putting it at its MTOW. It’s almost like the Rafale carrying 3 2000 L tanks, except the Rafale can still carry thousands of pounds of weapons still.

Rafale is much bigger than Gripen E, and furthermore Rafale is one of the (Western) fighters with the most impressive range/payload specs out there.

However the impressiveness of Rafale should not diminish the impressiveness of Gripen E! Which is, after all, in a lighter weight class. It is a bit like in boxing; there is a reason why there are different weight classes in boxing, and comparing a boxer in a light weight class with a boxer in a higher weight class is very tricky (and may even reflect poorly on the person doing the comparison, unless done carefully….)

If the Gripen E can do a mission with 1,300 km radius with 30 minutes on-station I think that is pretty impressive for such a tiny bird.

However it is not really something Canada is interested in, for a number of reasons as already mentioned.

Actually, if you want a long range western fighter, there are two choices: the Rafale and the F-35.

What about the latest F-15E with CFTs?

Brazil has revealed plans to invest nearly $5bn in the Gripen NG project, which has already secured BRL1.5bn ($413.2m) as part of the 2017 budget.

The project includes the procurement of 36 Gripen NG fighter aircraft to equip the Brazilian Air Force.

Delivery of the aircraft will begin in 2019 and will continue throughout 2024.

Brazilian Defense Minister Raul Jungmann said: “The resources are guaranteed for the project to follow its schedule, which is going very well.

“The understanding of the Brazilian Air Force was that the best project for Brazil, for the defence of Brazil, was the Gripen.

“Today, we can prove that, in fact we have taken the best option.”

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsbrazil-plans-to-invest-5bn-in-gripen-ng-project-5682445

HS reproduces an anonymous source in the government circles that says that if two planes with equivalent properties facing each other in the final, so weigh heavier security policy than price.

google translated from: http://online.vasabladet.fi/Artikel/Visa/123550

The US is more important to ensure Finland’s security than Sweden (who cannot even defend herself); thus the most likely winners (in order of probability) will be:

1. F-35
2. SH
3. Gripen E

Rafale and Typhoon are out; too expensive, and no reliable security partners.

If one is planning for potential war situations and not just for “peace” then there may be strong arguments for having more than one air base in any case: Redundancy.

If you put all your eggs in one basket then you are creating a potential weakness in your defence. If that one base is destroyed then all your air force is gone as well…