9 ms·

Sweden will reportedly be supplying Ukraine with Saab-built Gripen fighters.[1][2] Maybe. Apparently Sweden has been holding off on transfer of 14 Gripens while

Sweden will reportedly be supplying Ukraine with Saab-built Gripen fighters.[1][2] Maybe. Apparently Sweden has been holding off on transfer of 14 Gripens while Ukraine was learning to use and service F-16s. The Gripen has advantages for Ukraine. It's a more rugged aircraft, with lower maintenance demands and lower operating cost. It can operate from very basic airstrips and roads. Saab boasts about this.[3] Their pitch mentions that servicing an aircraft between missions requires just one trained tech assisted by five other workers. The USAF likes to operate from big, well-equipped, secure air bases, and US aircraft tend to be designed for that environment. The US has, in the past, tried to discourage other countries from buying the Gripen, to protect US manufacturers. That sales advantage just disappeared. [1] https://min.news/en/military/a409faa4bc530b328f75ed6ccff23b7e.html https://min.news/en/military/a409faa4bc530b328f75ed6ccff23b7... [2] https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/04/saab-ceo-pushes-for-sooner-rather-than-later-swedish-gripen-jets-for-ukraine/ https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/03/04/saab-ceo-pushes-for-s... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E

guerrilla 2y ago
Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.
- whymeogod 2y ago
  I thought the US lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Am I misunderstanding something in your post?
  - arkensaw 2y ago
    Yes I think you are misunderstanding. The leaner forces in all of the cases above are not the US, but the opposition.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Politically, not militarily. Same in Afghanistan. US could and did easily win the conventional parts of both conflicts. They lost because they didn’t know what to do after that or didn’t want to escalate it into a full scale war (Vietnam).
  - csomar 2y ago
    The US might have lost lots of wars but it is a clear winner in the propaganda front (at least until recently). The parent is a manifestation of that.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      No, you both misunderstood what I said. Lean forces win. The US isn't one. My question is why then does the US waste on bulky investments.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. Vietnam wasn’t a conventional conflict either. If you’re willing to lose complete control of most of “your” country and sustain 10x higher casualties than your opponent you might have a chance, but that’s an extremely steep price to pay.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    > The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. So, they won.
  - MisterSandman 2y ago
    That’s the most interesting way to warp reality that I’ve seen. Afghanistan won, period. It doesn’t matter how Americans would like to advertise their loss - you didn’t “lose interest”, you lost, abandoned the people who were helping you, and have left thousands of innocent civilians to fend for themselves. Afghanistan is, and should be treated as, the biggest failure of the American “empire”.
    - rurp 2y ago
      If you really think the US went all in on Afghanistan with a world war level effort to conquer the country then I don't know what to tell you. After the initial invasion period the country really was a sideshow and became increasingly less prioritized over the years. By the end of the occupation US forces had shrunk to a minuscule size compared to what an invading army would look like. That doesn't mean that the war was handled well, it clearly wasn't. But looking at a small force and confusing that with the entire might of the US military is baffling to me. "Losing interest" is a perfectly reasonable description of what happened.
    - ashoeafoot 2y ago
      Now, now iraq and syria were pretty big defeats too. Red lines over which third world dictators stepoed pretty invurnerable.
    - 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
willvarfar 2y ago
Various components in the Gripen, particularly the engine which Volvo licensed from GE, are from the US and the US has a veto on them. It is currently blocking sale of Gripen to Colombia, for example.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Are there any other compatible engines for the platform?
  - graeme 2y ago
    None at present to my knowledge. The French Rafale is the only western jet fighter without any US components.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Thanks. This leads me to the conclusion reverse engineering and production of these GE engines is a priority.
      - nradov 2y ago
        You've got to be kidding. Reverse engineering the GE F414 for local production and maintenance is just completely impractical, or maybe impossible. It would be faster and cheaper to adapt something like the Eurojet EJ200 to fit into the Gripen.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Are you saying the Europeans or Chinese cannot reverse engineer an aerospace engine for mass production? I have no particular preference where it’s done, any sufficiently advanced country will do. I suppose any afterburning turbofan engine will do if it fits? Again, not particularly opinionated. Just get out from under US control using the path of least resistance.

guerrilla 2y ago

Fascinating. What's with the US approach then? In general, it seems like lean forces tend to win. Afghanistan (twice) and Vietnam, for example. The Houthis as another example.

whymeogod 2y ago
I thought the US lost in Afghanistan and Vietnam. Am I misunderstanding something in your post?
- arkensaw 2y ago
  Yes I think you are misunderstanding. The leaner forces in all of the cases above are not the US, but the opposition.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  Politically, not militarily. Same in Afghanistan. US could and did easily win the conventional parts of both conflicts. They lost because they didn’t know what to do after that or didn’t want to escalate it into a full scale war (Vietnam).
- csomar 2y ago
  The US might have lost lots of wars but it is a clear winner in the propaganda front (at least until recently). The parent is a manifestation of that.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    No, you both misunderstood what I said. Lean forces win. The US isn't one. My question is why then does the US waste on bulky investments.
wqaatwt 2y ago
The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. Vietnam wasn’t a conventional conflict either. If you’re willing to lose complete control of most of “your” country and sustain 10x higher casualties than your opponent you might have a chance, but that’s an extremely steep price to pay.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  > The Taliban/Mujahideen didn’t win per se, they just survived long enough for the foreign “empires” to lose interest. So, they won.
- MisterSandman 2y ago
  That’s the most interesting way to warp reality that I’ve seen. Afghanistan won, period. It doesn’t matter how Americans would like to advertise their loss - you didn’t “lose interest”, you lost, abandoned the people who were helping you, and have left thousands of innocent civilians to fend for themselves. Afghanistan is, and should be treated as, the biggest failure of the American “empire”.
  - rurp 2y ago
    If you really think the US went all in on Afghanistan with a world war level effort to conquer the country then I don't know what to tell you. After the initial invasion period the country really was a sideshow and became increasingly less prioritized over the years. By the end of the occupation US forces had shrunk to a minuscule size compared to what an invading army would look like. That doesn't mean that the war was handled well, it clearly wasn't. But looking at a small force and confusing that with the entire might of the US military is baffling to me. "Losing interest" is a perfectly reasonable description of what happened.
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    Now, now iraq and syria were pretty big defeats too. Red lines over which third world dictators stepoed pretty invurnerable.
  - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

willvarfar 2y ago

Various components in the Gripen, particularly the engine which Volvo licensed from GE, are from the US and the US has a veto on them. It is currently blocking sale of Gripen to Colombia, for example.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Are there any other compatible engines for the platform?
- graeme 2y ago
  None at present to my knowledge. The French Rafale is the only western jet fighter without any US components.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Thanks. This leads me to the conclusion reverse engineering and production of these GE engines is a priority.
    - nradov 2y ago
      You've got to be kidding. Reverse engineering the GE F414 for local production and maintenance is just completely impractical, or maybe impossible. It would be faster and cheaper to adapt something like the Eurojet EJ200 to fit into the Gripen.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Are you saying the Europeans or Chinese cannot reverse engineer an aerospace engine for mass production? I have no particular preference where it’s done, any sufficiently advanced country will do. I suppose any afterburning turbofan engine will do if it fits? Again, not particularly opinionated. Just get out from under US control using the path of least resistance.