# Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen

As the article for the Gripen was sitting at nearly 340 kB vice the recommended 100kB, I have split off the Potential operators and failed bids section into its own article List of Saab JAS 39 Gripen Potential Operators and Failed Bids - the new article is already sitting at over 110 kB and could still probably be condensed somewhat but the main article is now significantly less unwieldy to edit.
The main article could still probably be split again as it is still sitting at nearly 230 kB - I would propose splitting off all of the content related to the Gripen E/F as its own article, but I'd like to get some consensus on this before this is done. MK Regular (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree on making subarticles about both the bidding processes and the E/F model. The Swedish website did make the E/F content a separate article a long time ago, as they consider it a different model.
But you can’t just split an article without leaving a trace of the cut out content, MK Regular. There still needs to be a section left giving a brief description on the subtopic and a link to the subarticle. It’s been over three months without anyone noticing, so well done on concealing the information, I guess.
I also suggest that the two sections Operators and Operational history be merged, as well as  the bidding processes into one top level section/headline. I haven’t looked into the Manual of Style for aviation, but I think that makes sense and would make all history and data about nations relationship to Gripen be under one single headline. In this case it is big, so the main article will only display a brief history for every nation and the number of planes and which unit(s) they belong to. The subarticle then describes all details and history. If that gets too big too, then we split individual nations relationship to Gripen.
That way the main article focus on the aircraft itself, while subarticle(s) deal with nations procurement and owner relationship to the aircraft. Regards. --Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I added a link when I made the split (the edit history shows it in my second edit from 15 May 2025), but it seems to have been removed sometime since then. I'll make a provisional change to re-add the link in a section under Operators, but a proper edit that summarizes the content of the split article will need to be made at some point. MK Regular (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Link re-added under Operational history as Operators is explicitly for countries which have placed a firm order for the aircraft as per the aviation Manual of Style.
I'm not sure if Operators and Operational history can be merged into a single section, but I agree that it would make sense. I don't think that a split to move individual nations' operational histories into individual articles is required if the Gripen E/F is split off, as that would take multiple countries with it.
Unfortunately I don't have the resources to do a full split for the Gripen E/F at this point, especially since it may required changes to split the E/F content in the failed bids article. MK Regular (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The sound clip is supposed to be "Gripen" in Swedish, but the clip says "JAS trettionio (39) Gripen". 83.252.57.100 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not erroneuously pronouced, they just say the full name. Regards. --Mungo fraans ïttrë rumden (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

1) I edited PS-05/A to ES-05 because that's what the first link (357) says. Smh.
2) I pointed out that the second link (358) redirects users to the Leonardo home page and that comment of mine was deleted.
3) I pointed out that the Saab SPEAR EW variant will be different to the one that the UK RAF will be getting, but this comment was deleted even though the link (363) clearly states this.
I'd appreciate the person who undid my edits to justify reversing them. 86.130.136.106 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The first one is an error, and I'll self-revert that. The second, we have a template to use for this instead: {{dead link}}, The third does not seem relevant, as the RAF does not use Gripen. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
"The first one is an error, and I'll self-revert that." OK, you've done that, thank you. I didn't use the 'dead link' feature because it's not a dead link (i.e. 404 site not found), but rather the link redirects to the company's home page, so the link is no longer relevant as opposed to being dead. Can I just delete that link? Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by "The third does not seem relevant, as the RAF does not use Gripen". No, but the RAF WILL be using the SPEAR EW decoy on its Typhoons when SPEAR EW comes into service. I added my comment for clarification to point out that the SPEAR EW variant that the Swedish Air Force Gripens will receive will be different to the one that the RAF Typhoons will receive, as stated in the article I provided a link for (link 363) which states: "The Spear EW version under development by Saab will differ from that aimed at the UK Royal Air Force, and is based on a different requirement by a potential customer." It's no big deal if that comment remains deleted, after all people can read the linked article, but I figured the comment was useful for clarification and to reduce potential confusion. Take care. 86.130.136.106 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I've just realised re link 358 that the first link takes you to Leonardo's home page, but the second Archive link DOES work. Is it possible remove the hyperlink from the first link, but otherwise keep the link the same? 86.130.136.106 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The fact Typhoon's SPEAR EW is different than the one for Gripen would be worthy of noting on SPEAR EW, if it existed. It isn't noteworthy with regards to Gripen. As for the dead link, the fact the page now redirects instead of being the source it was when it was placed in the article does mean it's a dead link. The archive link working is good, but you do not remove the original link - that's why it has the seperate archive link. There should be a "dead link" notation in the citation, I'll see what I can do about that. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
"The fact Typhoon's SPEAR EW is different than the one for Gripen would be worthy of noting on SPEAR EW, if it existed. It isn't noteworthy with regards to Gripen." I can't say I understand your reasoning, but whatever, I don't want to argue the toss, so I'm happy to leave things as they are.
"As for the dead link, the fact the page now redirects instead of being the source it was when it was placed in the article does mean it's a dead link." To me a 'dead link' is one that leads to a '404 Page Not Found' (or equivalent) notification. A better term needs to be invented for links like this imo, but again, whatever, I'm not going to argue the toss.
"The archive link working is good, but you do not remove the original link - that's why it has the seperate archive link [Me: Agreed]. There should be a "dead link" notation in the citation, I'll see what I can do about that." You've made changes to link 358, but now the situtation is reversed compared to before; namely the first link now redirects to the archived version (which is good), whereas the link called 'the original' redirects to the Leonardo homepage. This is the REVERSE of the situation before. It would make sense imo to remove the hyperlink from the words 'the original'. 86.130.136.106 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thats on me forgetting that url-status=usurped was an option. I'll see if I can make that work. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
OK, thanks, things are a LOT better now. This is a very nit-picky comment, but link 358 now reads as "Archived from the original on 4 January 2020". This is ambiguous. Does this mean that (a) the archived version was created on 4 Jan 2020 or (b) that the original was created on that date? If (a) then imo this should read as follows "Archived version created on 4 January 2020 from the original". If (b) then imo this should read as follows "Archived from the original created on 4 January 2020". I suspect (b) is what was meant by the person who created this link. Like I say this is nit-picky, but nevertheless avoiding ambiguity is a good thing imo.
Btw, regarding a better term than 'dead link' for this type of link, I propose the term 'redirects to homepage'. Whether Wikipedia will introduce such a term (or even considers it necessary) remains to be seen. Take care. ~2025-31520-88 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It means the archive version was created on 4 January 2020. It doesn't seem ambigious at all to me; if you still think so you should bring it up on WP:VPP as any change would have to affect a lot of templates. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
"It doesn't seem ambigious at all to me". Yeah, you're right, my previous comment was absolute gibberish, I don't know what I was thinking writing all that. Anyway, thanks, everything has been fixed now. Take care. ~2025-31924-51 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Pls add the Columbia deal Adaptor40 (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It already has been. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)