Saab’s “System of Systems” and Canada’s Strategic Choice!

1. ALLAN SAID: Sal, Is Saab’s “System of Systems” Real?

SAL-9000 SAID: Yes. Saab’s concept of distributed, networked combat is operational and evolving... not theoretical.

The core idea is that no single platform must do everything. Instead, aircraft, radar, ships, command nodes, and allied systems form a resilient, distributed mesh. 

If one node is lost, the system continues functioning.

What already exists:

• Gripen E/F is designed as a networked combat node, not a standalone centrepiece.

• GlobalEye AEW&C operational and deployed.

• Giraffe and Sea Giraffe radars in service worldwide.

• Integrated air, sea, and land command systems already fielded.

Gripen E is built to:

• Fuse data from aircraft, ships, ground radar, and NATO assets.

• Share tracks without constant satellite dependence.

• Operate under GPS denial and electronic warfare conditions.

The design assumption is... contested environments... degraded communications... and electronic attack... conditions highly relevant to Arctic operations!

---

2. Why This Matters for Canada.

Sovereignty.

With Saab architecture:

• Mission software can be modified domestically.

• Data routing is not locked to foreign servers.

• Upgrades do not require external political approval.

This provides greater operational autonomy compared to highly centralized architectures.

---

Arctic Suitability.

Canada’s northern defence requires:

• Long-range sensing.

• Interoperability with NORAD.

• Independent operational capacity.

• Aircraft able to act as relays across sparse terrain.

Saab’s distributed model was designed for dispersed geography, harsh climates, and intermittent connectivity.

---

Industrial Participation.

A Saab partnership typically includes:

• Domestic software and systems integration.

• Long-term sustainment participation.

• Export-relevant technical expertise.

This aligns with Canada’s industrial objectives beyond symbolic offsets.

---

Strategic Flexibility.

A distributed system:

• Scales incrementally.

• Integrates with NATO without full dependency.

• Evolves through continuous upgrades rather than large block cycles.

This reduces long-term structural risk across a 40-year fleet life.

---

System Architecture Comparison.

Saab Distributed Model vs F-35 Ecosystem.

Core Design Philosophy.

Saab.

• Distributed nodes.

• Resilient to network degradation.

• Assumes communications disruption.

F-35.

• Centralized ecosystem.

• Highly integrated.

• Performs best with intact network support.

---

Aircraft Design DNA.

Saab Gripen E.

Saab JAS 39 Gripen E.

• Sensor, shooter, and relay.

• Designed for austere bases and dispersed ops.

• Operates with small ground crews.

• Electronic warfare is integrated as a primary defensive posture.

• Maintains effectiveness under degraded network conditions.

Gripen remains valuable even when partially disconnected.

---

F-35 Lightning II.

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

• Built for deep sensor fusion.

• Centralized mission data architecture.

• Strong reliance on shared threat libraries and persistent connectivity.

• Sustainment and updates are deeply integrated into the broader ecosystem.

When fully connected, the capability is exceptional.

When disconnected, performance degrades more significantly than in distributed architectures.

---

Operational Reality for Canada: A Natural Geographic Split.

Arctic & Sovereignty Mission → Gripen.

Gripen is well-suited for:

• Short, icy runways.

• Cold-weather dispersal.

• Intercept and denial missions.

• Acting as sensor relays across sparse terrain.

Day-to-day NORAD intercepts and northern patrols would logically lean toward Gripen.

---

Southern Canada & NATO → F-35

F-35 fits best where:

• Infrastructure is dense.

• Logistics are stable.

• Persistent connectivity exists.

• NATO interoperability is primary.

Southern bases and expeditionary deployments align with the F-35’s strengths.

---

How a Mixed Fleet Would Likely Self-Organize

• Gripen absorbs high-frequency sovereignty and intercept missions.

• F-35 deploys for high-end NATO roles and coalition operations.

• Fleet wear is balanced.

• Canada maintains both autonomy and alliance integration.

This is not “Gripen vs F-35.”

It is distributed resilience alongside centralized excellence.

---

The Core Distinction.

Gripen is designed to be flexible and resilient on its own...

The F-35 is designed to be exceptional within a highly integrated system.

Both approaches are valid...

They are optimized for different operational environments.

For Canada:

• Northern defence benefits from flexibility and sovereignty.

• Southern/NATO operations benefit from deep integration and interoperability.

That division aligns naturally with Canada’s geography, alliance commitments, and long-term strategic posture!

 

DUMP THE F-35!

Sal, I believe Canada will be taking the Saab Gripen instead of the F-35... except for a few wrinkles... the largest of which is the U.S.-made engines for the jet, which gives the U.S. a veto over a lot of stuff. 

Is Rolls-Royce, or anyone else not American, stepping up with an engine for this plane?

Sal-9000 said: Good question. You’re right to identify the U.S.–made engine as a key clamp on the Saab JAS 39 Gripen’s appeal to a country like Canada: 

As currently configured, the Gripen-E/F uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E (a variant of the F414), and that gives the U.S. effective export / re-export control — i.e. veto power. Start+2E-International Relations+2

That said — yes: there is real discussion about replacing the U.S. engine with a non-American alternative, notably from Rolls‑Royce.

✅ What we know: Gripen’s current engine and U.S. export dependence

The Gripen E/F as built today uses the GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. Start+2Start+2

That means sales of Gripen to third countries can — and have — been blocked if the U.S. chooses to withhold engine export licenses. E-International Relations+2The National Interest+2

The dependence on a U.S. engine is widely recognized as one of Gripen’s main “Achilles’ heels” in export campaigns. National Security Journal+2E-International Relations+2

🔄 Are there non-US engine alternatives? 

Rolls-Royce (and Europe) have been floated!

***

Historically, before settling on the F414, when developing Gripen the makers considered using the Eurojet EJ200 — the same engine (or family) used on the Eurofighter Typhoon — for the Gripen. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

More recently, there have been media/defence-industry reports (especially around late 2025) claiming that Sweden and Rolls-Royce are exploring a new engine variant — sometimes referred to as the Rolls‑Royce EJ230 — as a replacement for the GE-engine on Gripen E/F. Reddit+2E-International Relations+2

The reason for such a shift would be to eliminate the U.S. “export-veto” problem, making Gripen more attractive on the export market, including potentially for Canada. E-International Relations+2Defense Express+2

⚠️ The complication: Not yet a done deal — technical, political, and timelines still to be worked out!

As of early 2025, multiple sources still emphasize that “the Gripen E-series features a new and more powerful engine, F414-GE-39E.” Start+2Start+2

Re-engineering a fighter designed around one engine to accommodate another is nontrivial: “Proposed implementations” of the EJ200/EJ230 would require modification of airframe, intakes, maybe avionics integration, certification, etc. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

For a buyer like Canada, even if Rolls-Royce or another European engine becomes available, there would still be a gap: Certification + supply-chain establishment + political decisions, etc.

🎯 Bottom line — Possible path, but not guaranteed

Yes — non-American engine options (especially from Rolls-Royce / Eurojet) for Gripen have long been both technically discussed and actively considered, and such an engine could dramatically lessen the “U.S. lever” over export.

But as of now, Gripen E/F remains tied to the GE F414, and nothing publicly confirms that a European-powered variant is production-ready or has been formally adopted for export sales.

So if Canada (or another country) wants Gripen with no U.S. oversight on the engines, they’d likely have to demand that as part of a procurement contract — and wait several years (and substantial engineering) for a Euro-powered Gripen to mature.

If you like — I can do a quick “status check (as of late 2025)” and list which countries/operators are seriously testing or ordering a non-US-engined Gripen, along with estimated timelines.

Do you want me to build that list for you now?

You said: Yes

Sal-9000 said: Short version: as of December 2025, there is no country that is actually testing, ordering, or funding a Gripen with a non-U.S. engine. 

Every real Gripen E/F program on the table is still tied to the GE F414, and all the “Rolls-Royce EJ230” talk is concept / lobbying, not a live, funded program.

1. Where things really stand today:

All operational and ordered Gripen E/Fs use the U.S.-made GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. 

Saab itself still describes the Gripen E-series as powered by the F414-GE-39E. Simple Flying+1

This gives Washington a de facto veto over exports and re-exports. 

That’s exactly what we’ve just seen with Colombia, where the U.S. refused permission for F414 exports, threatening to kill the Gripen E/F deal. Meta-Defense.fr+1

So your basic worry is 100% correct: the current Gripen E is under an American thumb.

2. Who could step up? (Rolls-Royce / Eurojet and the EJ230)

The non-U.S. candidate everyone talks about is Eurojet's EJ200 family, which powers the Eurofighter Typhoon. Rolls-Royce is a major partner in that consortium, so it’s often simplified as “a Rolls-Royce engine.”

As far back as 1998, Eurojet proposed an uprated EJ230 (about 102 kN / ~23,000 lb thrust, with thrust-vectoring nozzle) specifically for a thrust-vectored Gripen test program. 

That was a real proposal, mentioned by Flightglobal at the time. Flight Global

The idea has resurfaced in 2024–25 analyses: Several commentators describe an EJ230-powered Gripen as a way to cut U.S. export control leverage, especially for countries nervous about a Washington veto. UK Defence Forum+1

So: Yes, the engine tech exists and Eurojet/Rolls-Royce are clearly interested in that niche. 

But interest ≠ contract.

3. Countries where a non-US-engined Gripen is being talked about!

Here’s your “status board” as of late 2025:

🇸🇪 Sweden / Saab (home team)

Reality: All Swedish Air Force Gripen E aircraft are F414-powered. No official announcement of an EJ230 (or any other Euro-engine) testbed or re-engine program. Simple Flying+1

What’s being discussed:

Industry and enthusiast forums often speculate about a “EuroGripen” or EJ230-powered variant for export customers, but even the specialists acknowledge it would only happen if someone bankrolls the development. UK Defence Forum+1

Status: Conceptual only. No funded re-engine program.

🇨🇦 Canada. (your scenario)

Several Canadian defence commentaries have explicitly said what you’re saying out loud:

“Replace the GE F414 engine with the Rolls-Royce EJ230 to prevent a U.S. veto of the purchase” — in the context of a Gripen option or mixed fleet for the RCAF. Canadian Defence Review+1

These are policy / op-ed proposals, not government decisions.

There is no Canadian government document committing money to an EJ230-Gripen program, and Saab hasn’t announced such a variant for Canada.

Status for Canada:

Talked about in think-pieces and advocacy articles; zero evidence of an actual Canadian-funded EJ230-Gripen program.

🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇨🇴 Colombia, 🇵🇪 Peru, 🇵🇹 Portugal, etc.

Ukraine: The October 2025 Sweden–Ukraine letter of intent for up to 150 Gripens refers to standard Gripen E; all open sources still assume the F414 engine. Reuters

Colombia / Peru / Portugal: all the export drama and commentary explicitly revolve around the U.S. veto via the F414; if there were a serious non-U.S. engine alternative in play you’d expect it to be mentioned front and centre, but it isn’t. Defense Express+2Bulgarian Military Industry Review+2

Status: No public sign that any of these countries have ordered, or are flight-testing, a Gripen with a Eurojet/RR engine. 

All current talk is still about the F414 and the risk of U.S. veto.

4. Why this hasn’t happened. (yet)

To actually free Gripen from the U.S. engine, Saab would need:

A paying launch customer (Canada?), big enough to justify:

* Redesign of intakes and systems integration.

* Full flight-test and certification campaign.

* New logistics and maintenance pipeline

A political decision in Sweden to risk annoying Washington in return for greater export independence.

We do see the UK exploring exactly this playbook on another F414-based fighter — the Korean KF-21 — where a British engine is being floated specifically to avoid U.S. vetoes on exports. Army Recognition

That tells you the strategy is real and technically plausible; it just hasn’t crossed the line from talk to contract in the Gripen’s case.

5. Bottom line for your Canada-Gripen scenario:

Today: Every real Gripen E/F program is still chained to the U.S.-made F414.

Rolls-Royce / Eurojet: Absolutely interested and often mentioned (EJ230), but no active Gripen re-engine program is publicly funded or in flight test.

Countries “seriously testing or ordering” a non-US-engined Gripen:

✅ Number: 0 as of December 2025.

If Canada ever really did pivot from the F-35 to Gripen and wanted to avoid a U.S. veto, it would almost certainly have to be as part of the deal:

“We’ll buy X Gripens, built in North America, if you commit to an EJ230 (or equivalent) Euro-powered variant and we co-fund the integration.” 

Until then, it’s all in the realm of smart ideas and op-eds, not hardware!

This should be Canada's next fighter-jet!

Canada's next generation fighter jet!