Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[Ainen]

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.

I mostly meant that after engines are procured, they're already yours.
Ukraine flies Soviet aircraft; Iran flies American aircraft (for almost half a century at this point). It's troublesome, but you can engineer your way around OEM.

It still makes more sense to buy a good engine and risk having to solve its maintenance, rather than to invest in an alternative option just for this contingency.
Especially in Gripen(and Swedish MIC more broadly), which was never about independence in the first place. France and Eurofighter built their engines because it helped them to make jets exactly the way they wanted, with available industrial capacity (which in turn benefited).
Gripen was built around an available engine, not the other way around.
Nor are there any substantial industrial benefits. Only additional wasted money.

If Gripen runs into refusal to supply (which can come from the US, sure, but so it can come from all other suppliers - UK, for example), it's just basic weakness of this aircraft model. You can't fix it by changing one (long-lasting) component.

 

[galgot]

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.

Ahem... Except when you want to export something which includes components for the US can block the sale.
Not really an over-reaction, just depends if you want to depend of the good will of an US admin to be able to sale your stuff or not.

That said, yes all this talking of re-engining the Gripen is useless except for what ifs.
For Saab, the next engine change will be for the next new jet they design. Note they used European engines in the past, the Draken engine was an Avon. So it will depend on what is on the market, what they need, and what experience they got dealing with the country from which they use the engine design.

 

[GTX]

I mostly meant that after engines are procured, they're already yours.

Ah, but you still need spare parts to keep them serviceable.

It still makes more sense to buy a good engine and risk having to solve its maintenance, rather than to invest in an alternative option just for this contingency.

Solving maintenance isn't a small thing. I agree with your point re the futility of investing in alternate options though.

If Gripen runs into refusal to supply (which can come from the US, sure, but so it can come from all other suppliers - UK, for example), it's just basic weakness of this aircraft model. You can't fix it by changing one (long-lasting) component.

Agreed

 

[galgot]

I mostly meant that after engines are procured, they're already yours.
Ukraine flies Soviet aircraft; Iran flies American aircraft (for almost half a century at this point). It's troublesome, but you can engineer your way around OEM.

It still makes more sense to buy a good engine and risk having to solve its maintenance, rather than to invest in an alternative option just for this contingency.
Especially in Gripen(and Swedish MIC more broadly), which was never about independence in the first place. France and Eurofighter built their engines because it helped them to make jets exactly the way they wanted, with available industrial capacity (which in turn benefited).
Gripen was built around an available engine, not the other way around.
Nor are there any substantial industrial benefits. Only additional wasted money.

If Gripen runs into refusal to supply (which can come from the US, sure, but so it can come from all other suppliers - UK, for example), it's just basic weakness of this aircraft model. You can't fix it by changing one (long-lasting) component.

Also because it help if you want to export it as you want.

 

[helmutkohl]

Ahem... Except when you want to export something which includes components for the US can block the sale.
Not really an over-reaction, just depends if you want to depend of the good will of an US admin to be able to sale your stuff or not.

That said, yes all this talking of re-engining the Gripen is useless except for what ifs.
For Saab, the next engine change will be for the next new jet they design. Note they used European engines in the past, the Draken engine was an Avon. So it will depend on what is on the market, what they need, and what experience they got dealing with the country from which they use the engine design.

being ITAR free does reduce one lever the US can use against a sale, but it is not the only lever. If the US really wanted to , they could use other means to prevent something from going through. For example, attempts of Israel selling things such as Harpy drones or Phalcon to China, despite them thinking it could go through as it had little to no US parts, the US blocked it through other means such as the threat of suspending defense cooperation. Similar to other countries that wanted the Su-35, entirely Russian, yet the US managed to use the threat of CAATSA sanctions and other punitive measures to prevent a sale.

Then there are non US parts that can be used blocked by others too. Imagine Argentina wanting the Gripen (either the Gripen E or this hypothetical EJ200 version), but its export is blocked not by the US, but the UK, as was done with the FA-50 that targeted the ejection seats.

Its much more complicated than some here make it out to be, where simply replacing the engine makes gives it a bigger market.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ahem... Except when you want to export something which includes components for the US can block the sale.
Not really an over-reaction, just depends if you want to depend of the good will of an US admin to be able to sale your stuff or not.

Exactly.

Which potential Gripen sales got stopped by the US, again?

That said, yes all this talking of re-engining the Gripen is useless except for what ifs.

Likely.

Should have gone for EJ200 for the E/F at design step, instead of F414. But they didn't.

For Saab, the next engine change will be for the next new jet they design. Note they used European engines in the past, the Draken engine was an Avon. So it will depend on what is on the market, what they need, and what experience they got dealing with the country from which they use the engine design.

Hopefully the fast CCA will have a European engine.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Which potential Gripen sales got stopped by the US, again?

Obama admin blocked several Israeli attempts to sell F-16A/B.
The precedent exists.

 

[galgot]

being ITAR free does reduce one lever the US can use against a sale, but it is not the only lever. If the US really wanted to , they could use other means to prevent something from going through. For example, attempts of Israel selling things such as Harpy drones or Phalcon to China, despite them thinking it could go through as it had little to no US parts, the US blocked it through other means such as the threat of suspending defense cooperation. Similar to other countries that wanted the Su-35, entirely Russian, yet the US managed to use the threat of CAATSA sanctions and other punitive measures to prevent a sale.

Then there are non US parts that can be used blocked by others too. Imagine Argentina wanting the Gripen (either the Gripen E or this hypothetical EJ200 version), but its export is blocked not by the US, but the UK, as was done with the FA-50 that targeted the ejection seats.

Its much more complicated than some here make it out to be, where simply replacing the engine makes gives it a bigger market.

Of course it's not that simple, never said ITAR free is the magic solution for exporting stuff.
That said, it is obviously EASIER to export stuff free of US components, it's anyway easier to export stuff when you build the complete kit with all the components.
An example was France selling SCALPs to Egypt, it was first blocked because it included some US components because the US was worried an Israeli neighbour having a "cruise missile" . The delivery could finally go through when these components were replaced by French made ones.

 

[galgot]

Exactly.

Which potential Gripen sales got stopped by the US, again?

Don't know... I'm not the one who brought up here a possible blocking of the sale of Gripen to Canada because of ITAR and that US engine.

And anyway, as said earlier, it would be a complete stupid and detrimental move for US def industry and US influence.
Not a thing a normal admin would do. But that is the thing, we are not in the "normal". Most decisions are driven by irrationals ideas and personal emotions more than by real strategy and long term views.
So... nothing would surprise me tbh.

 

[GTX]

Indeed, if you have already the maintenance facility and the necessary technical documentation you can in most cases produce your own replacement parts and make engines/airframes maitenance and repairs. The GKN Aerospace in Sweden can do this for the RM12 and RM 16 engines.

Easily said/written...far more complex in reality.