Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

swerve said:
That requires US permission, & I doubt the USA would be willing to sell it to Ukraine.
Click to expand...
To be very frank the same was said about a lot of other systems, which eventually were sold to Ukraine but only after unnecessary delays and in minuscule amounts. I think a Gripen-E+F35 fleet would be compelling for both Canada and Ukraine. Going from F16+Gripen to F-35+Gripen will likely happen with Ukraine imo considering the traditional path from F16 to F35.
 
Ainen said:
F404(original) - no viable alternative at all (or develop engine yourself, which wasn't serious).
F414 - pay someone else to develop entire alternative and take all development risks. Everyone else is, by the way, is your direct competitor.
Click to expand...
Neither are practical options given the costs involved.
 
GTX said:
I suspect a Gripen focussed industrial program will deliver far less for Canadian industry than the current F-35 involvement. While I am sure Saab will offer nice offsets (for want of a better name) and even if involved in a larger proportion of the aircraft up to and including FACO, it will still be a larger % or a smaller number. Even if Canada was to be involved in production for other future operators (Ukraine perhaps), the total numbers will still be a 100 - 200 max. And remember that Saab will still be wanting work themselves, as will others such as Brazilian industry, so Canadian industry still wan't get all.

By way of comparison, Canadian industrial participation in the F-35, while probably smaller in % per aircraft terms, is still a % of a far bigger program - an estimated 2000 still to be produced.

I appreciate the political aspects and similar, but from a purely business perspective, numbers do speak.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that the politics of this have become so fraught that any business advantages are now heavily, heavily outweighed by the political issues, so much so that the business advantages have become an irrelevance.
 
TomcatViP said:
@Wotan : speaking French language is not equal to liking French culture. This casual assertion is misguided and a bit offensive for the people of those countries.
Canada's Quebec has even grew some resentment from time to time over their over representated French expatriates among immigrants.
Click to expand...
If I offended anyone, i am sorry. I did not meant it, but I spoke from my personal experience. I am the son of a Transylvanian Saxon mother. Even if my ancestors came hundreds of years ago here in Transylvania as colonists invited by the hungarian kings, they stubbornly remained german, even if the leadership was hungarian then austrian then romanian. I am just half german as ethnicity but I am fluent in german, and my son is going to a private german teaching Kindergarten and then will go to a german school/highscool from my neighbourhood, Aradu Nou/Neu-Arad, a settlement established by german colonists 300 years ago. I was presuming that colonists from french ethnicity would behave similarly in trying to preserve their culture and the affinity to their ancestor`s Land.
 
Flyaway said:
I’d argue that the politics of this have become so fraught that any business advantages are now heavily, heavily outweighed by the political issues, so much so that the business advantages have become an irrelevance.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Meanwhile despite Canada, and Sweden, both not liking trump, have just bought HIMARS. So politics is the deciding factor here, not interoperability or soveriegnty or independence or industry and very much not capability given how much of a step down Gripen E is from the F-35. F-35 is the bargaining chip, that is all.
 
Wotan said:
Well, the first Rafales flew with F404 engines.
https://flighttestfact.com/general-electric-company-f404-engines-support-french-rafale-roll-out/

I presume that the alternate switch is also a viable option.
Click to expand...
Gripen followed earlier schedule than Rafale; delay into peace dividend likely would've possibly killed the project altogether.

Furthermore, Rafale A was slightly larger than the eventual Rafale C; it was also a demonstrator, without full equipment of an eventual plane.

It's in any case harder to make lower thrust work on a much smaller fighter with one engine. Plus, it's one dependency or another dependency.
F404 and especially F414 have moderate, but very meaningful thrust advantage over competitors, which required a separate version of either EJ200 or M88 to overcome.

There's a reason all these light fighters other than F-CK and JF-17(which just didn't have access to it) use 404/414.
 
GTX said:
Technically maybe. Practically and economically, probably not...unless someone is willing to pay for the development/qualification costs.
Click to expand...
I would strongly recommend to Saab to pursue EJ200 power development/integration.

Sadly, the M88 is just a little too wimpy, it'd take a lot more development before it'd be an F414 equivalent.
 
helmutkohl said:
all this talk of re-engining the Gripen E/F is just academic. It won't happen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and from a performance point-of-view, re-engining makes no sense. But, right now, we're not living in an especially sensible world. If, as @Scott Kenny suggests, the US "makes getting an ITAR-free aircraft an issue", then Sweden (and other governments) may see the advantages ... as might Saab's marketing department.

The EJ200 might seem the obvious choice for an alternative powerplant but look at EuroJet Turbo's partner firms. Of the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy, none have shown any serious interest in the Gripen. OTOH, France and Sweden are suddenly buying each others kit again. And there are those recent Franco-Swedish future fighter discussions.

As already noted, the French Safran M88 may not be "an F414 equivalent" but the higher-thrust M88 T-REX variant does represent a potential F414 replacement for the Gripen - the M88 being physically smaller and lighter than the F414. Sure, a wet rating of 19,840 lbf is below that of the F414. But it is still respectable.

The real question is: are Stockholm and a Boeing-entangled Saab likely to see genuine advantages in offering an alternative to ITAR-covered engines? So far, they have not. Perhaps Saab is gambling that ITAR's teeth will never be applied to the F414. Still, when setting up another Gripen assembly line - whether that be in Ukraine or in Canada - would seem the ideal moment to be offering an ITAR-free engine alternative.
 
^ its not just a performance point of view, its an economics and resources point of view. Saab is a smaller company compared to say Boeing or LockMart. Changing an engine requires studies on the impacts on air flow needs, resulting in more engineering work to determine structural changes among others. The Gripen E already has a rather small market, and now another variant is being pushed.
A customer that is strongly concerned with something being ITAR free, will likely go for French or Chinese aircraft.

As for Saab and Sweden wanting to reduce ITAR risks, they already are making moves. Not with the Gripen, but their CCA and potential participation in GCAP, or the French new fighter, among others. That's a better use of resources.
 
Last edited:
helmutkohl said:
^ its not just a performance point of view, its an economics and resources point of view. [...]
A customer that is strongly concerned with something being ITAR free, will likely go for French or Chinese aircraft.
Click to expand...
But it's a place that Saab could chase.



helmutkohl said:
As for Saab and Sweden wanting to reduce ITAR risks, they already are making moves. Not with the Gripen, but their CCA and potential participation in GCAP, or the French new fighter, among others. That's a better use of resources.
Click to expand...
Likely.
 
Scott Kenny said:
But it's a place that Saab could chase.
Click to expand...
its a lateral move for them, if not a backwards one. Assuming they do find the money, this new re-engined Gripen variant would take at least 3-5 years to get a prototype running, and probably another 5 years of testing and certification, then you need some more time after that for production and delivery. It's now the late 2030s.
Canada has likely moved on by then and wants a next gen aircraft, some of which might start being delivered by that time.
Additionally, while Saab is creating this Gripen variant, customers who want a new 4th gen aircraft will be looking at newer variants of the F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, J-10, JF-17, or Flankers.
 
helmutkohl said:
^ its not just a performance point of view, its an economics and resources point of view. Saab is a smaller company compared to say Boeing or LockMart. Changing an engine requires studies on the impacts on air flow needs, resulting in more engineering work to determine structural changes among others. The Gripen E already has a rather small market, and now another variant is being pushed.
A customer that is strongly concerned with something being ITAR free, will likely go for French or Chinese aircraft.

As for Saab and Sweden wanting to reduce ITAR risks, they already are making moves. Not with the Gripen, but their CCA and potential participation in GCAP, or the French new fighter, among others. That's a better use of resources.
Click to expand...
The EU just started to throw incredibly huge amounts of money for rearming the EU and allied states.

https://filipandcompany.com/safe-pr...control-and-production-chains-under-scrutiny/

"The general rule regarding the establishment and control structure of contractors and subcontractors involved in procurement procedures related to SAFE is set out in art. 16 para. (3) of the SAFE Regulation. This paragraph lays down the general rule that the economic operators involved must be established and have executive management structures in the Union, an EEA-EFTA State or Ukraine. In addition, they must not be subject to the control of a third country or an entity from another third country."

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/safe-security-action-europe_en

- €150 bn loan envelope
- 19 Member States Submitted defence investment plans
- At least 65% of component costs must originate in the EU, Ukraine or eligible EEA/EFTA countries.

If there will be issues regarding ITAR barriers for the sale of european defense products, I am sure that EU will find several billions for financing the integration of european engines (be them M88 or EJ200) in the Gripens which will be built for Ukraina, Canada and other concerned customers. After all, this will increase the sales of european aircraft engines and keep both the strategic autonomy and highly qualified workplaces of european countries. Saab does not need to make this alone. EU has the will now.
 
Wotan said:
If there will be issues regarding ITAR barriers for the sale of european defense products, I am sure that EU will find several billions for financing the integration of european engines (be them M88 or EJ200) in the Gripens which will be built for Ukraina, Canada and other concerned customers.
Click to expand...
First of all, neither engine is suitable as is. You're building a separate variant which doesn't exist, all in order to get new gripen many years later than even tejas mk2.
 
This should not be an issue. Sweden has improved it`s licenced engines and adapted them specifically for Saab aircrafts since years. In Sweden...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/swedens-gripen-fighter-jets-getting-new-engines-ps-032826

"The original RM12, built by Swedish multinational manufacturer Volvo Aero prior to its acquisition by GKN, was derived from the General Electric (GE) F404 turbofan engine originally developed for the United States Navy’s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet. The RM12 utilizes a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) with hydromechanical backup and a redundant ignition system. The RM12EP program was initiated in 2019, and led by GKN Aerospace to enable the Gripen C/D aircraft to retain their edge as “capable and cost-effective fighter aircraft.”"

"“GKN Aerospace also produces the more powerful RM16 engine for the Gripen E model (derived from GE’s F414), which began entering Swedish air force service last October under a 60-aircraft commitment,” Flight Global reported"

https://www.gknaerospace.com/news-i...ne-with-first-run-of-rm16-engine-in-test-rig/
"
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC).
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC)."
 
slroger said:
To be very frank the same was said about a lot of other systems, which eventually were sold to Ukraine but only after unnecessary delays and in minuscule amounts. I think a Gripen-E+F35 fleet would be compelling for both Canada and Ukraine. Going from F16+Gripen to F-35+Gripen will likely happen with Ukraine imo considering the traditional path from F16 to F35.
Click to expand...
F-35's rather different. It's much more sensitive than anything which has been sold or given to Ukraine, & Trump's attitude is now rather hostile.
 
Wotan said:
This should not be an issue. Sweden has improved it`s licenced engines and adapted them specifically for Saab aircrafts since years. In Sweden...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/swedens-gripen-fighter-jets-getting-new-engines-ps-032826

"The original RM12, built by Swedish multinational manufacturer Volvo Aero prior to its acquisition by GKN, was derived from the General Electric (GE) F404 turbofan engine originally developed for the United States Navy’s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet. The RM12 utilizes a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) with hydromechanical backup and a redundant ignition system. The RM12EP program was initiated in 2019, and led by GKN Aerospace to enable the Gripen C/D aircraft to retain their edge as “capable and cost-effective fighter aircraft.”"

"“GKN Aerospace also produces the more powerful RM16 engine for the Gripen E model (derived from GE’s F414), which began entering Swedish air force service last October under a 60-aircraft commitment,” Flight Global reported"

https://www.gknaerospace.com/news-i...ne-with-first-run-of-rm16-engine-in-test-rig/
"
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC).
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC)."
Click to expand...
RM16 isn't a new Swedish variant built in Sweden, as the RM12 is. It's a tweaked variant of the F414 for Gripen E, built in the USA & supported by GKN in Sweden.

GKN's upgrading the RM12 for the Gripen C/Ds which will remain in service.
 
Wotan said:
The EU just started to throw incredibly huge amounts of money for rearming the EU and allied states.

https://filipandcompany.com/safe-pr...control-and-production-chains-under-scrutiny/

"The general rule regarding the establishment and control structure of contractors and subcontractors involved in procurement procedures related to SAFE is set out in art. 16 para. (3) of the SAFE Regulation. This paragraph lays down the general rule that the economic operators involved must be established and have executive management structures in the Union, an EEA-EFTA State or Ukraine. In addition, they must not be subject to the control of a third country or an entity from another third country."

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/safe-security-action-europe_en

- €150 bn loan envelope
- 19 Member States Submitted defence investment plans
- At least 65% of component costs must originate in the EU, Ukraine or eligible EEA/EFTA countries.

If there will be issues regarding ITAR barriers for the sale of european defense products, I am sure that EU will find several billions for financing the integration of european engines (be them M88 or EJ200) in the Gripens which will be built for Ukraina, Canada and other concerned customers. After all, this will increase the sales of european aircraft engines and keep both the strategic autonomy and highly qualified workplaces of european countries. Saab does not need to make this alone. EU has the will now.
Click to expand...

Again, as i wrote just above this post..
why should the EU throw resources into the development of a new Gripen variant that has new engines? By the time it flies, and begin deliveries, it would be in the late 2030s.
Instead of wasting money on what is basically an updated aircraft of an 80s design, the EU would be wiser to invest in one or several of the European 5th and 6th gen aircraft, Saab's A3, or other European CCAs that are supposed to emerge around the same time.
 
swerve said:
F-35's rather different. It's much more sensitive than anything which has been sold or given to Ukraine, & Trump's attitude is now rather hostile.
Click to expand...
I heard the same thing about HIMARS, F16, Meteor missiles, Abrams, Gripen. Patriots & F16 was possibly the worst backlash I received back in early March 2022 when I suggested those be sent asap. Yes I agree its sensitive but I wouldnt say much more sensitive than the Patriots Ukraine has received for example especially the battlefield comms integrated already present or classified Patriot munitions used. So I strongly believe Ukraine will eventually field combination of F35+Gripen, as you said possibly after Trump. But I suspect after Gripen C or Gripen-E is deployed there may be temptation to initiate the process for F35 to slot in as well with a small order. But most likely after the Trump presidency as you pointed out. Otherwise already SAAB AEW&Cs are integrated and working with F16, F35 will slot in and augment the whole network, make the Gripens even more lethal with its sensor suite and jamming capabilities. It doesnt have to be a large order of them as well, 12-32 alongside the Gripen-E and the CCAs.
 
Wotan said:
This should not be an issue. Sweden has improved it`s licenced engines and adapted them specifically for Saab aircrafts since years. In Sweden...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/swedens-gripen-fighter-jets-getting-new-engines-ps-032826

"The original RM12, built by Swedish multinational manufacturer Volvo Aero prior to its acquisition by GKN, was derived from the General Electric (GE) F404 turbofan engine originally developed for the United States Navy’s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet. The RM12 utilizes a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) with hydromechanical backup and a redundant ignition system. The RM12EP program was initiated in 2019, and led by GKN Aerospace to enable the Gripen C/D aircraft to retain their edge as “capable and cost-effective fighter aircraft.”"

"“GKN Aerospace also produces the more powerful RM16 engine for the Gripen E model (derived from GE’s F414), which began entering Swedish air force service last October under a 60-aircraft commitment,” Flight Global reported"

https://www.gknaerospace.com/news-i...ne-with-first-run-of-rm16-engine-in-test-rig/
"
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC).
GKN Aerospace has successfully completed the first engine run of the state-of-the-art RM16 engine that will power the JAS 39 Gripen E. This landmark enables GKN Aerospace to deliver full RM16 product support to the Swedish Armed Forces, ensuring engine availability for future Swedish Air Force missions.

The RM16 is based on the General Electric F414 aero-engine that powers the F-18 Super Hornet. GKN Aerospace has been collaborating with GE and SAAB to build up the necessary infrastructure to support the RM16. FMV selected GKN Aerospace to be the product support and MRO provider for the RM16 in 2020 with the aim to utilize synergies between the RM12 and the RM16 engine as much as possible. GKN Aerospace is OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and a long-term service provider for the RM12 engine and holder of the military type certificate (MTC)."
Click to expand...
Both the RM12 and RM16 still heavily rely on GE Aerospace parts - don't be misled into thinking that GKN's supply chain is independent of GE.
 
swerve said:
RM16 isn't a new Swedish variant built in Sweden, as the RM12 is. It's a tweaked variant of the F414 for Gripen E, built in the USA & supported by GKN in Sweden.

GKN's upgrading the RM12 for the Gripen C/Ds which will remain in service.
Click to expand...
The RM12 is still primarily a F404 - there are some unique aspects like the fan but it is still largely a F404.

THE RM16 is pretty much identical to other F414s - it's other designation is F414-GE-39E.
 
helmutkohl said:
Again, as i wrote just above this post..
why should the EU throw resources into the development of a new Gripen variant that has new engines?
Click to expand...
Furthermore: why would the two largest and most influential EU members throw wasted resources at an aircraft that could potentially cut into the sales of their own national, ITAR free, fourth generation, delta canard fighters?
 
GTX said:
The RM12 is still primarily a F404 - there are some unique aspects like the fan but it is still largely a F404.

THE RM16 is pretty much identical to other F414s - it's other designation is F414-GE-39E.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I said, the RM12 is a variant, i.e. not a new engine. It's a modified F404 made in Sweden.

But the RM16/F414-GE-39E is made in the USA.
 
The engines for the Gripen are produced at Volvo Aero (now GKN).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Aero#Products

They probably import some components, not producing 100% of the parts. That would not would be efficient from the point of view of costs.

helmutkohl said:
Again, as i wrote just above this post..
why should the EU throw resources into the development of a new Gripen variant that has new engines? By the time it flies, and begin deliveries, it would be in the late 2030s.
Instead of wasting money on what is basically an updated aircraft of an 80s design, the EU would be wiser to invest in one or several of the European 5th and 6th gen aircraft, Saab's A3, or other European CCAs that are supposed to emerge around the same time.
Click to expand...
Adapting a new existing engine would not take over 10 years... In several years the Gripen would fly using the alternate engine. The new generation of european fighters will not fly in the next 5 years and then will be much costlier to aquire and operate than a small multirole like the Gripen. As we have seen with the F-16, there will be orders in the next years for 4th generation multirole fighters. The F-16, which is much older as the Gripen, will roll from the assembly line well after 2030.
 
Last edited:
Wotan said:
Adapting a new existing engine would not take over 10 years... In several years the Gripen would fly using the alternate engine.
Click to expand...
2-3 years to get a new engine, let's cautiously add 1-2 to roll it on the aircraft. Add in some airframe upgrade, to ensure customer doesn't think he absorb additional dozen million/airframe just to get a 2027 solution in 2032.

Voila, we're now in F-35 blk.IV era, and we just spent lots of money and years trading core advantage (prices/affordability) for someone else's one (independence from US, which will still be just as faint).
 
Ainen said:
For customer, engine isn't that crucial. Engines are long life items nowadays. What actually matters is supply of weapons in case of war, and that part, at any appreciable scale, is entirely up to US favors.
Click to expand...
In the specific case of the Gripen this is not the case. There is no US monopol on the armament it can cary.
https://www.saab.com/markets/india/...ipen-e-with-the-most-modern-array-of-missiles

"“Any weapon of Indian choice can be integrated with the Gripen fighter,’’ said Mats Palmberg, Head of Gripen India Campaign. “Gripen can also be equipped with Israeli, European, American weapons, giving it an edge in the ongoing MRFA fraction of competitor costs. “Besides the Meteor, IRIS-T, A-Darter, and AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Airto-Air Missile), other missiles like the Astra, Python 4/5, Derby, AIM-9X Sidewinder, ASRAAM and others can also be easily integrated to Gripen,” stated Palmberg.

Guided bombs such as the Spice 1000, GBU-49 (American), Paveway III GBU-22/-24, Paveway II GBU-10/-12/-16, GBU-39 SDB I and II can be easily integrated to Gripen. As far as air-to-air missiles are concerned, IRIS-T, A-Darter, Python 4/5, the AIM-9X Sidewinder, and AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) have been successfully tested on Gripen."
 
Wotan said:
In the specific case of the Gripen this is not the case. There is no US monopol on the armament it can cary.
https://www.saab.com/markets/india/...ipen-e-with-the-most-modern-array-of-missiles
Click to expand...
There are 3 pools of missiles which actually don't end within 1 month in the world - it's the US, Chinese, and Russian ones. China and Russia are out of the question - i.e., it's the US or nothing.
The problem isn't monopoly; the problem is that with most, you're getting as many as you bought, and a small, unsteady stream afterwards.
 
If your fighter is already qualified to use missiles from several manufacturers than the problem is not that big. You can rotate through the types and use whatever stock you otain at the moment. And when you have over 20 air forces like the EU has than small amounts of armament from each country will sum up.
 
Wotan said:
If your fighter is already qualified to use missiles from several manufacturers than the problem is not that big. You can rotate through the types and use whatever stock you otain at the moment. And when you have over 20 air forces like the EU has than small amounts of armament from each country will sum up.
Click to expand...
I mean, how does it work in Ukraine? And Ukraine is priority no other EU FMS operator will ever hope to match.
Ultimately, there's still that one missile pool that matters: AMRAAM/Sidewinder. If you're for some reason not in US grace, even priority procurement from EU with a huge pile of cash doesn't save you, and you fight with your gun.

Meteor on Gripen will alleviate the problem to a degree, but Meteor is by default not a weapon you engage the main threat (which is, hi/lo end cruise missiles) with. Iris and ASRAAM are already in Ukraine, and both already struggle to keep up with demand.
 
In Ukraina the problem is exactly the fact that F-16 had to use american missiles. And now are they are reorienting themselves toward european missiles and european stocks of american missiles.
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/diehl-defence-iris-t-missiles-ukraine-f-16/

https://united24media.com/war-in-uk...16-fighters-with-german-iris-t-missiles-19857

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/ukra...es_additional_pac_2_aim_9_missiles-19735.html


The Gripen comes with this capability of using different types of missiles from the start.
 
Wotan said:
In Ukraina the problem is exactly the fact that F-16 had to use american missiles. And now are reorienting themselves toward european missiles and european stocks of american missiles.
Click to expand...
They already operate both Iris and Ravens. Fighters will increase the user base of the same missile pool; they won't increase the number of incoming missiles.
Almost all European missile stocks were meant to create an initial stock and nothing more; the first and last contingency plan was the US for many, many decades.

Sweden(Gripen) is one of the most obvious examples of this approach. And there's nothing bad with it - sure, it's a US dependency, but at least you have this option. Without this US dependency, you won't even get an option.
 
Wotan said:
The engines for the Gripen are produced at Volvo Aero (now GKN).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Aero#Products

They probably import some components, not producing 100% of the parts. That would not would be efficient from the point of view of costs.


Adapting a new existing engine would not take over 10 years... In several years the Gripen would fly using the alternate engine. The new generation of european fighters will not fly in the next 5 years and then will be much costlier to aquire and operate than a small multirole like the Gripen. As we have seen with the F-16, there will be orders in the next years for 4th generation multirole fighters. The F-16, which is much older as the Gripen, will roll from the assembly line well after 2030.
Click to expand...

Engines are not plug and play. It requires significant engineering to re-adjust the airflow to new type of engine, major structural changes, followed by years of testing and qualifications, then entering production. This will go well into the 2030s.

And for what? to get an aircraft that's another Rafale or Typhoon but years later?
A NATO air force operator that wants an aircraft that is more "European", will go for the Rafale or Typhoon. Other countries would consider J-10s or other non NATO aircraft.

This exercise being 100% ITAR free is an over-reaction quite frankly, and if your country is one that is really insistent on that, then you're likely a country like Iran or North Korea.

And for Saab, it is a complete waste of their resources that could be focused on making forward movements not lateral ones. There will likely be more global interest in their future CCAs or next gen manned fighter, that can be designed from the ground up with less US components, rather than modifying an 80s design.
 
Ainen said:
For customer, engine isn't that crucial. Engines are long life items nowadays. What actually matters is supply of weapons in case of war, and that part, at any appreciable scale, is entirely up to US favors.
Click to expand...
Err...while I agree weapons are of importance, I have to disagree that engines aren't crucial. Without engines and especially the ability to keep them serviceable your weapons aren't going to be used. In fact, one could argue the same for the entire platform - for instance, one might say tyres aren't crucial but good luck taking off or landing without them.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom