Question for those who may know more on the Gripen development plans- was the idea of conformal fuel tanks for the Gripen ever taken forward? FG has an article from 2001 that talks about an enhanced Gripen that would feature CFTs. Or was this subsumed into the Gripen NG/E program wherein the additional fuel was to be included internally ?

For the original Gripen A there was a study on it in the late 90’s. There are some drawings of it in one of all the books my father have, but it was decided after the pre-study that it was not very effective.

It has still not been decided what to do with the Gripen C/D when the Gripen E is inducted.

They can be cannibalized to reduce the cost of the Gripen E, by reusing parts.
They can be kept in service, to increase the numbers of the Air Force,
or sold/leased to another country.

Seems a waste to cannibalize them.

Cannibalize is probably the wrong word, the ~ 100 components will be removed carefully. The planes can still be sold afterwards, but the buyer have to complement the planes with catapult chair, pitot tube etc (in other words the government will have to pay for those components in order to find a buyer and thus removing all of the money saved by reusing the parts).

The Air Force is working on a solution to use parts from old planes in storage to keep more of the C/D’s than planned. Not all the components from the A/B’s can bes used however so they will need additional funds.

I could definitely see the C/D working into the 2030’s, nothing wrong with them. It’s not like Russia is fielding only modern fighters anyway. Maybe 64 C/D’s and 64 E/F’s would be a great combo. Place the 4th base at Karlsborg or Uppsala.

Especially since the Gripen E has turned into something with very few parts in common with C/D. It’d probably be financially better to give away the C/Ds than cannibalise ’em for parts for E. Support contracts could be worth more than the value of the re-usable parts.

Yeah but the government is thinking with their a$$ as usual. They categorically refuse to give the Air Force any more money so they can afford to not use components from the C/D’s. Being able to make money from the planes in the future is just not in their field of view.

Just get the F-35 and be done with it. Don’t see no reason to host B61’s if you don’t have a believable way of delivering it.

Second hand Gripens from Swedish Air Force could be a good choice for Austria IMO. Should be quite a few airframes with relatively low hours available in the 2020-2030 timeframe, unless our government finally realize what a a big waste it is not to keep them.

If the US Air Force will decide on the basis of technology and performance the partnership between Northrop Grumman/Raytheon AND Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries will most definitely win.

SNC/TAI’s Freedom Trainer offers more technology and is able to withstand more G’s than its competitors.

Any source for that ?

I believe that weapons useable to quell an insurgency are blocked,
but weapons mostly useable for defending a country are OK.
Gripen is not sold to the Middle East, GlobalEye is OK.
Recoilless weapons like the AT-4 would not be allowed, but ATGMs probably would be OK.
A deal involving refurbishing ATGM in Saudi Arabia got canned because some other rules got
circumvented by some government employeees forming a secret company for part of the deal.
As a result, an agreement of cooperation with Saudi Arabia was cancelled, and the ATGM deal canned.

I think one can says that anything that can be used lethal on the own population in case of an uprising is banned.

I agree it will take more — however I am not sure all the 4 points I mentioned are already on the table!? Has there been any reports indicating this?

The one I would be very skeptic about is the UAV, it will need more and big partners, but the others will be on the table.

There have been some swedish articles about a year ago about the growler version for future procurement offers, but I can’t for the life of me remember where (it was in a real paper, so I can’t look for it on the net for you). The swedish air force is interested in it (politicians aside…) and looks for a partner so they can squeeze it into the budget (which is looking unlikely since they lack billions of SEK, but politicians is always warm to keep Saab going). It is now offered in all procurements along with the regular E-version. Not sure how much one will have to cough up for it, but it’s built much on existing hardware.

Erieye is also offered along with gripen in all the deals and have been for long, but the question is if Finland wants it. I have no doubt that FiAF would really like a few ones, regardless of which fighter it choses, but it has to fit in the budget. A deal to share more AWACS data with us is already in talks as part of the increased defense corporation. Same with the airfields. Both of these however could be done regardless of which fighter is chosen.

I’m not really feeling the wind for Gripen in Finland at the moment, which is why I think the ships would be a good idea. One should never underestimate the impact offsets like that can have for politicians.