What if Sweden/Saab went for a different set of design criteria for the Gripen

[helmutkohl]

This was a discussion that began in the Gripen thread, but rather than have this "what-if" go off topic there, I felt it would be best to have a dedicated thread here as it's an interesting "what-if"

As we know.. the Gripen replaced the larger/heavier Viggen.
its a small, light weight design, quite impressive for its category.

At the same time, Saab has expressed disappointment at the limited exports.

So what if Saab and Sweden went for a different set of design criteria.. would the outcome become different?

Some ideas that were mentioned

1. They went with a heavier design.. perhaps closer to the F-16 or even as heavy as the F-18/Rafale. Would this have been more competitive?
2. They went lighter, similar to the FA-50. Basically giving up heavy combat duty (perhaps to an imported aircraft, like the F-16).. and instead focused on the high performing trainer, and light fighter/attack market

My personal opinion is the limitation may simply be because Sweden is Sweden. Less global political influence/security relations, which would affect sales regardless if its Gripen or a heavier plane. But a lighter plane like the FA-50 could have been a good niche, as the US wasn't strongly interested in that area and Saab could have beaten Korea by a decade (or 2)

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

In the light fighter category, I think the Gripen is of the right size and dimension, but it's expensive. Was there ever a Gripen ADF-like variant proposed? Limited ground attack capability with dumb bombs and rockets would still be there. I'm sure plenty of more budget minded airforces prioritize the fighter capability, with large number of F-5s, MiG-21s and J-7s out there being evident.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The Gripen was, understandably, designed first for Swedish needs and exports only became a consideration after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which not only reduced the needs of the Swedish Air Force but also reduced the political necessity of strict neutrality. In this context, it's highly unlikely that the Swedish would produce a different design, given their desired characteristics were for an aircraft that could match the latest Soviet fighters but also be cheaper and easier to maintain than the Viggen.

The heavier design would not have met the cost goals. The smaller design would not have been sufficiently capable against MiG-29s and Su-27s.

In the light fighter category, I think the Gripen is of the right size and dimension, but it's expensive. Was there ever a Gripen ADF-like variant proposed? Limited ground attack capability with dumb bombs and rockets would still be there. I'm sure plenty of more budget minded airforces prioritize the fighter capability, with large number of F-5s, MiG-21s and J-7s out there being evident.

The Gripen carries internally fewer air-to-ground electronics than you'd think. It relies primarily on its radar, with pods adding additional ground attack capability. The primary thing you could cut is the datalink system and maybe the nav system. I'm not sure that'd reduce costs enough, though, and the datalink was intended for air-to-air.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

@CV12Hornet already adressed it - Gripen was designed in an era where Sweden focussed on local defence first. Export wasn't on their minds so there isn't really a reality where Gripen emerges much different from what it is today.

The majority of its export success came in an era where it partnered with BAe Systems to market the plane as an inbetween to Hawk & Typhoon... So maybe the blame for a lack of export success is on Saab's shoulders not being able to market the plane well enough after that deal ended?

Besides that Gripen exists in a market where F-16's and now F-35's are becoming cheap enough were with massive support networks to be viable enough where Gripens low maintenance costs aren't enough of a selling point anymore.

So maybe if Sweden produced more and marketed them better it would be a different story? That said, in a post cold-war world larger production runs seem difficult to justify! On the other hand Dassault also took a long while to get any Rafale export success the same time as when Gripen actually did. So maybe in the end Swedens cold-war needs just don't align fully with what the major market wants - that is medium sized fighters?

 

[uk 75]

One customer that would benefit from Gripen's rough runway capability is Ukraine. The Gripen would make a good Mig 29 replacement.

 

[phantomphan]

Two questions -

1) It was noted that the Gripen is lighter than the F-16 and F-35. As a consequence of entering NATO, would Sweden perhaps look at acquiring heavier aircraft such as these, or even the F-15EX / Typhoon?

2) To what an extent would it be viable, feasible, or even possible to scale up the Gripen, à la Hornet to Super Hornet?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

1) It was noted that the Gripen is lighter than the F-16 and F-35. As a consequence of entering NATO, would Sweden perhaps look at acquiring heavier aircraft such as these, or even the F-15EX / Typhoon?

2) To what an extent would it be viable, feasible, or even possible to scale up the Gripen, à la Hornet to Super Hornet?

1) They seem pretty set on keeping a local industry going so next jump will likely be a stealth platform. Possibly a 6th gen partnership.

2) That is what Gripen E is. The E and C already have basically no commonality and is to all extent a new design.

 

[zen]

So what if Saab and Sweden went for a different set of design criteria.. would the outcome become different?

Yes obviously if the requirements are different the solutions are different.

1. They went with a heavier design.. perhaps closer to the F-16 or even as heavy as the F-18/Rafale. Would this have been more competitive?

Competitive to which aircraft depends on what it's requirement are.....assuming it meets them.

2. They went lighter, similar to the FA-50. Basically giving up heavy combat duty (perhaps to an imported aircraft, like the F-16).. and instead focused on the high performing trainer

It's unclear really. Few actually buy supersonic trainers. But the MiG21 successor market had a variety of contenders.

In a practical sense, a direct Viggen replacement ought to achieve a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. Resulting in higher performance in combat WVR, and higher acceleration for BVR. It ought to also result in improved STOL.

 

[H_K]

The Lavi development makes for a very interesting parallel. Same timeframe, similar requirements.

https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1988/ICAS-88-1.6.3.pdf

The Israelis looked at every angle… small, large, single- and twin- engine. See attached PDF. Started with a small Skyhawk replacement powered by the RB.199 or F404 but the emphasis on payload/range drove size up until they ended up with a Gripen E equivalent powered by the PW1120 (same class as the EJ200 or F414).

Imagine a collaboration between Israel & Sweden… would have been quite something.

 

[zen]

Similarly Yugoslavia with the Novi Avion project.
India with LCA.
Romania had an effort
And South Africa's Carver .

All similar time frame.

The curious one is the earlier PANNAP fighter.....very Lavi like.

 

[kaiserd]

So we are talking about a Swedish F-16/J-10 equivalent? The Gripen E/F, but earlier?

When at the time Sweden didn’t have the payload/range requirements for a larger airframe and which’s extra costs may have left them unable to afford their then required overall numbers?

And in which precise instances would this change likely have made any difference in export orders/ numbers?

 

[riggerrob]

" ... Besides that Gripen exists in a market where F-16's and now F-35's are becoming cheap enough were with massive support networks to be viable enough where Gripens low maintenance costs aren't enough of a selling point anymore. ... "

Purchases and maintenance are often paid from two different shoe-boxes.
By the time they finish bribing Third-World generals, they may be no funds remaining for spare parts.

 

[Desertfox]

The Gripen fell into a nice slot, in between the bigger twins and the armed trainers, unfortunately that slot just got completely swamped by the F-16.

 

[GTX]

The Gripen deserved to be the F-5 o modern times...alas those who are after "F-5's" can't afford the Gripen.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

1. They went with a heavier design.. perhaps closer to the F-16 or even as heavy as the F-18/Rafale. Would this have been more competitive?
2. They went lighter, similar to the FA-50. Basically giving up heavy combat duty (perhaps to an imported aircraft, like the F-16).. and instead focused on the high performing trainer, and light fighter/attack market

Few questions one should consider : is the FA-50 really "lighter" than the Gripen? It really depends on what "light" means in this context but as I've explained in the T-50 thread, T-50 was actually developed with A-50(now FA-50) in mind and as such all airframes are developed and manufactured based on the A-50 standard. For that reason, it really isn't all that much "lighter" than the Gripen, at least physically. They use the - almost - same powerplants after all.

More over, one should consider how many of those "lighter" Gripens Sweden could have afforded in the first place. The premise of a trainer Gripen as discussed, is that the Swedes would've needed to procure a separate full fledged fighter jet (as some of you have already mentioned) from another country. There were 204 Gripens that were manufactured, of which half were operational and the other half went into storage, with anticipation of a future sales of those surplus aircraft. Had the Gripen been an advanced trainer-LIFT ala T-50/TA-50/FA-50, how many of them do you think the Swedes would have been able to afford in the first place? There are currently 35 air worthy SAAB 105s and it is responsible for training duties alongside double seater Gripens. A "trainer Gripen" would have been able to replace quite a significant part of training demands of a double seater fighter jet the Swedish AF would have procured no doubt, but I still don't think that a "trainer Gripen" would have been procured as much as the actual Gripen, both for the Swedish AF and as a surplus.

On the other hand, the primary user of the T-50 variant, the ROKAF, is a much bigger AF than the Flygvapnet. They alone have procured more than 140 aircrafts for its own use, none of them surplus unlike the Swedes, and there are still 20 more to come(TA-50 Block II aircrafts, which will now be fast-tracked to Poland instead). In other words, ROKAF alone procured as much as all the M-346 sales up until now, domestic and international combined. Do you think a "trainer Gripen" would have been able to achieve a same economics of scale? The biggest strength of Korean weaponry on the international market atm it is economics of scale, after all.

Most importantly, how much of the cost of Gripen is due to its more advanced capabilities? How much is it to blame the higher average wage/human cost of Sweden? The former would be important no doubt, but I feel the latter would also be quite significant, depending on which, the cost of a "trainer Gripen" wouldn't be as cheap as a FA-50.

All in all, I don't think there were much, if any other viable choice for the Swedes other than to design and procure the Gripen as is today. They've went with the best compromise. If they want to blame anything or anyone for the poor sales of Gripen lately, they haven nothing else than the size and the international influence of Sweden to blame. Also for that exact reason, I don't think a "heavier Gripen" would have been any more competitive compared to the American LWFs, Rafale and the Gripen itself.

 

[kaiserd]

Relatively few were or are actually after a modern F-5 and those that might be only have small numbers.

The F-16 fundamentally changed (and then dominated) the market the used to exist for a F-5 type aircraft.

And in fairness the Gripen wasn’t targeted at that market so SAAB/ Sweden didn’t make a “mistake” as such.
The Gripen was the smallest and cheapest aircraft that could the Viggens roles in one airframe but with higher performance and far better manoeuvrability.

If they had actually been envisaging and targeting targeting our current/ contemporary fighter market then perhaps a larger Gripen E/F airframe (getting up to F-16 size) might have been a better bet but they weren’t and can hardly be fairly critiqued for not doing so.

 

[CV12Hornet]

1) It was noted that the Gripen is lighter than the F-16 and F-35. As a consequence of entering NATO, would Sweden perhaps look at acquiring heavier aircraft such as these, or even the F-15EX / Typhoon?

Sweden is at least somewhat tied into the Tempest project; whether that'll lead to them buying Tempest or piggybacking their own option off of it remains to be seen.

 

[MadRat]

I don't see anything lightweight about a Gripen. Like was said, competed with F-16 and lost. If the USAF had F-20A it would have lost to that, too.

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO - SAAB had gotten the size & weight just right.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So we are talking about a Swedish F-16/J-10 equivalent? The Gripen E/F, but earlier?

When at the time Sweden didn’t have the payload/range requirements for a larger airframe and which’s extra costs may have left them unable to afford their then required overall numbers?

And in which precise instances would this change likely have made any difference in export orders/ numbers?

The electronics and overall low production numbers have made the Gripen a very expensive jet for its size. Gripen is something like 80-90% the cost of a new production F-16, which means that refurbished F-16s are cheaper than Gripens are.

The people who want a replacement F-5/MiG-21 are left looking at the Armed Trainer category. Which admittedly, the F-5 basically is.

 

[Apophenia]

Concerns listed over F-16s for Ukraine are that fighter's runway condition demands and maintenance requirements.

Can anyone think of any other modern fighters that could be used in Sweden's austere basing approach or rival the Gripen's designed-in accessibility for in-field maintenance, re-arming, etc.? Are such aspects being considered for the Tempest project?

 

[uk 75]

One thing that always struck me about Sweden (and Israel for thar matter) was how realistic they were about VSTOL. As far as I know neither Saab nor IAI wasted time and effort on the crazy supersonic VSTOL designs that gripped British, French, Italian and West German designers in the 1960s.

 

[perttime]

...
Can anyone think of any other modern fighters that could be used in Sweden's austere basing approach or rival the Gripen's designed-in accessibility for in-field maintenance, re-arming, etc.? ...

There doesn't seem to be any particular problems operating F/A-18C/D from highway bases.

 

[Arjen]

One thing that always struck me about Sweden (and Israel for thar matter) was how realistic they were about VSTOL. As far as I know neither Saab nor IAI wasted time and effort on the crazy supersonic VSTOL designs that gripped British, French, Italian and West German designers in the 1960s.

SAAB's designers may have tried their hand at VSTOL aircraft, but none reached prototype form - if any hardware was produced at all. Not sure about the sources.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fighter-attack-projects.683/page-3#post-81876

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fighter-attack-projects.683/page-5#post-289010

 

[Kiltonge]

IMO - SAAB had gotten the size & weight just right.

Perhaps not, since Gripen E has had to be redesigned to hold 40% more fuel and added two tonnes of weight. It's now basically an underpowered F-16.

The Gripen was a reaction to the operating costs of the Viggen, but swung the needle so far in the opposite direction that it compromised itself.

Much of the Gripen's capability, other than manoeuvrability, lies in avionics that could be fitted to any airframe.

 

[Apophenia]

There doesn't seem to be any particular problems operating F/A-18C/D from highway bases.

A side benefit of an undercarriage with naval heritage, perhaps? OTH, the Hornet wasn't designed for maintenance in austere conditions.

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps not, since Gripen E has had to be redesigned to hold 40% more fuel and added two tonnes of weight. It's now basically an underpowered F-16.

What kind of F-16 is compared with there? The sleek and light F-16A, or the sleek and a bit heavier F-16C, or neither the sleek nor lighweight F-16 with big spine and conformal tanks?

Much of the Gripen's capability, other than manoeuvrability, lies in avionics that could be fitted to any airframe.

MiG 21 with Grippen's electronics would've been a worse aircraft than the Gripen.

 

[perttime]

A side benefit of an undercarriage with naval heritage, perhaps? OTH, the Hornet wasn't designed for maintenance in austere conditions.

A crew that mainly consists of conscripts can turn around a Hornet anyway.

It was designed to be worked on, on a carrier - which isn't the most ideal environment either.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

A crew that mainly consists of conscripts can turn around a Hornet anyway.

It was designed to be worked on, on a carrier - which isn't the most ideal environment either.

How many personell per aircraft? Gripen generally uses 5 people for all maintenace and arming functions per aircraft. From what I have heard from people who actually worked on them it is incredibly easy to do somewhat major maintenace work on the aircraft. I'm unfamilliar with the Hornet though.

 

[perttime]

How many personell per aircraft? Gripen generally uses 5 people for all maintenace and arming functions per aircraft. From what I have heard from people who actually worked on them it is incredibly easy to do somewhat major maintenace work on the aircraft. I'm unfamilliar with the Hornet though.

I have not found specifics on the number of personnell, or how long it takes to turn around a Hornet.
The number of jobs should be about similar, though: refuel while engines are running and rearm. Maybe do some external checks, etc.
Different militaries seem to assign different crews for similar jobs. I saw a video of a Ukrainian towed 120mm mortar crew, and they were wondering why Finnish mortar crews have a couple of more personnel per mortar than their five. There, the answer is simple: the "extra" guys are handling ammunition for more volume of fire.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I have not found specifics on the number of personnell, or how long it takes to turn around a Hornet.
The number of jobs should be about similar, though: refuel while engines are running and rearm. Maybe do some external checks, etc.
Different militaries seem to assign different crews for similar jobs. I saw a video of a Ukrainian towed 120mm mortar crew, and they were wondering why Finnish mortar crews have a couple of more personnel per mortar than their five. There, the answer is simple: the "extra" guys are handling ammunition for more volume of fire.

From what I know Gripen is unique in that each ground crew member can perform almost all functions through their training. Airframe fitter, ground handler, armourer etc. From what I hear that is unique to Gripen/Saab in training. Others prefer that the ground crew specislise in an area. In the SAAF that was the way its done before Gripen. Most maintenance functions are also designed so that a single person could complete them thus a 5 person team could do a squadron level service as well as turn around the aircraft if needed. For instance a single person can remove the entire intake on Gripen! Not that it happens often, but it's designed to be able to be done by one person.

Again, my knowledge on Hornet is limited in terms of design for easy maintenance.

 

[perttime]

The Hornet seems to have a reputation for easy maintenance. But my knowledge on that is based on just googling F/A-18 ease of maintenance. For example, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18cd.htm mentions "modular maintenance" as a factor in making "it ideal for remote airstrip operation".

Seems like we have no basis for a real comparison. Clearly, both Gripen and Hornet can be operated from highway bases without any problems.