Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which countries have chosen Gripen over F-35 and why?
Executive summary
Several countries have bought the Saab JAS 39 Gripen instead of the Lockheed Martin F‑35 for reasons that include lower acquisition and lifecycle costs, easier logistics for dispersed operations, and political/industrial alignment; examples cited in the reporting include Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary and past/near‑miss competitions in Canada, Portugal, Switzerland and others [1] [2] [3]. Some recent reporting also emphasizes new politics-driven interest in Gripen from Canada and Portugal amid reconsideration of F‑35 purchases [4] [3].
1. Who actually operates Gripen instead of F‑35 — the concrete list
Publicly documented NATO and partner operators using the Gripen rather than the F‑35 include Sweden (the producing nation), the Czech Republic and Hungary, which operate Gripens on NATO missions rather than switching to the F‑35 [1]. Sources also note past Swiss decisions where Gripen was selected by voters/businesses before a referendum scuttled the purchase, and historic exports such as to South Africa [3] [5]. Reporting frames several countries (Canada, Portugal, Netherlands, Switzerland and Nordic states) as arenas where Gripen and F‑35 have competed, with Gripen winning some contests and losing others [2] [3] [6].
2. Cost and sustainment: the economic argument for Gripen
A persistent theme in the sources is that Gripen offers much lower acquisition and life‑cycle costs compared with the F‑35, making it attractive to states with constrained defence budgets; one example cited places Gripen per‑jet and fleet sustainment costs well below F‑35 program estimates and links cost concerns to renewed interest in alternatives in Canada and Portugal [5] [3] [4]. Journalists highlight Gripen’s lower logistical needs and easier maintenance profile—selling points for nations that prioritize affordable, sustainable air defence [1] [3].
3. Interoperability and operational trade‑offs
Pro‑F‑35 arguments stress its stealth, advanced sensors and deep interoperability with U.S. platforms; opponents note that Gripen users have nonetheless operated alongside NATO forces without reported interoperability problems, and that Gripen’s design favors dispersed operations and quick turnarounds [1] [2]. In short, countries weighing Gripen over F‑35 trade stealth and certain high‑end capabilities for lower cost, simpler logistics, and different operational concepts—an explicit trade presented across the reporting [1] [2].
4. Politics, industrial offsets and strategic signaling
Several sources show political considerations shaping decisions: U.S. foreign‑policy shifts and industrial/political pressure around F‑35 supply have prompted Canada and Portugal to re‑examine F‑35 commitments and consider European alternatives like Gripen [4] [3]. Saab’s pitch often leans heavily on local assembly and industrial partnerships (for example, proposals to build aircraft domestically), a persuasive offer for governments seeking domestic jobs and technology transfer [6] [3].
5. Notable competitions and why Gripen lost or won
Gripen has both won and lost high‑profile contests. Switzerland initially selected Gripen in a procurement process, but a referendum later blocked the buy; in other competitions (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Nordic bids, Canada) Gripen has been a serious contender but sometimes lost to political or capability arguments favoring other aircraft, including the F‑35 [3] [2] [6]. The reporting frames outcomes as contingent on national priorities: cost, interoperability, industrial benefits, and domestic political dynamics [2] [3].
6. Recent shifts and headline cases to watch (Canada, Portugal, Ukraine angle)
Recent pieces report renewed Gripen momentum: Canada and Portugal reconsidering F‑35 choices amid U.S. policy shifts and Saab courting those markets [4] [3]. Separately, reporting on a Swedish letter of intent with Ukraine for dozens to possibly over 100 Gripen‑E jets has amplified Gripen’s profile, which could reshape future export dynamics and financing conversations [6]. These developments are framed as politically driven as much as capability‑driven [6] [4].
7. Limitations, disagreements and what reporting doesn’t say
Available sources document operators, campaign dynamics and the cost/operational trade‑offs, but they do not provide a single authoritative ranking of “who chose Gripen over F‑35” in every bilateral procurement nor exhaustive lifecycle‑cost numbers reconciled across nations; some claims (e.g., exact per‑aircraft lifetime cost comparisons or combat performance verdicts) differ by outlet and are contested in the defence community (p1_s7; [7] not in supplied list). Where sources disagree—on performance metrics or the weight of interoperability vs cost—reporting presents both views [1] [2].
Conclusion: Gripen’s appeal rests on affordability, ease of sustainment, industrial offsets and flexible operational concepts; nations that emphasize those factors (and political independence from U.S. supply chains) have chosen or seriously considered Gripen instead of the F‑35, while others prioritize stealth and deep U.S. interoperability and have opted for the F‑35 [1] [3] [4].