Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[Kiltonge]

Expecting Sweden (which didn't even think as recently as two years ago that there are incoming elections in US) to "clean out" Gripen to the last bolt is absolutely surreal.

SAAB was repeatedly stung by the US engine export veto in the 1970s due to JT8D in Viggen. So they didn't really have to do much "thinking" to realise that would be a problem when competing against F-16s on the export market, but here we are.

SNECMA offered an uprated M88 for Gripen around the mid-90s but nothing was done.

 

[Ainen]

SAAB was repeatedly stung by the US engine export veto in the 1970s due to JT8D in Viggen. So they didn't really have to do much "thinking" to realise that would be a problem when competing against F-16s on the export market, but here we are.

Well, as you rightfully notice, it was still too much thinking.

 

[DWG]

What else comes from the US?

The FCS in the originals, though it's been redeveloped for the E/F and I don't know if that's all Swedish.

 

[timmymagic]

France (which at great expense kept uninterrupted industrial development since ancien regime) isn't really out, as US decide where and when SCALPs fly.

US has no control over SCALP/Storm Shadow launch or targeting. Storm Shadow MLU is in fact entirely ITAR free and can operate without GNSS. The US restricted Ukrainian use of Storm Shadow/SCALP in Russia 'proper' not via any technical means, but by political. They told the Ukrainian's that if they used it on Russia, which UK and France had both cleared, they would withhold further supplies of other military equipment/intelligence from the US....and that was under Biden. They did relent in the end, but only on limited targets.

Regarding the EJ-200 idea - I read at the time that the EJ-200 wasn't developed with single engine reliability in mind and therefore wasn't suitable for a single engine plane.

Reportedly the EJ200 is the most reliable engine the RAF have ever seen. I've never heard of an aircraft losing an engine since service entry.

There's no such thing as designing an engine for 'single engined reliability' in mind...you make engines as reliable as you can as standard...

 

[timmymagic]

The FCS in the originals, though it's been redeveloped for the E/F and I don't know if that's all Swedish.

Didn't BAE have to step in to try and sort the absolute horlicks that the US contractor had made of the FCS?

 

[red admiral]

There's no such thing as designing an engine for 'single engined reliability' in mind...you make engines as reliable as you can as standard...

This isn't correct. The aircraft level safety target (losses per flight hour) cascades down to sub systems like the engine, which has quite an impact for one engine Vs multi engine. There's also a number of other airworthiness criteria that flow into single engine Vs multi engine.

It's quite expensive to unpick and re-qualify various components once fixed in design.

 

[timmymagic]

This isn't correct. The aircraft level safety target (losses per flight hour) cascades down to sub systems like the engine, which has quite an impact for one engine Vs multi engine. There's also a number of other airworthiness criteria that flow into single engine Vs multi engine.

It's quite expensive to unpick and re-qualify various components once fixed in design.

Was the F414 or F404 designed for single engine operations...

 

[Ozair]

Was the F414 or F404 designed for single engine operations...

It was modified for single engine operations.

Specific requirements for the engine in the JAS 39 application have led to unique design features in the F404/RM12 compared to the basic F404-GE-400 which powers the US Navy/McDonnell Douglas F-18 aircraft. As the JAS 39 is a single engine aircraft, the engine employs certain single engine features including a redundant control and ignition system with two failsafe backup modes and a highly reliable gear-type fuel pump.

Source

 

[eagle]

Yes and I assume the F414G has similar modifications.
One of the changes to the RM12 iirc was they changed the cone from roundish to sharp. Apparently to better chop up birds, but I'm not sure if that's true...

 

[Sintra]

Regarding the EJ-200 idea - I read at the time that the EJ-200 wasn't developed with single engine reliability in mind and therefore wasn't suitable for a single engine plane.

Nah, it was a direct competition between the GE F-414 and the EJ-200. General Electric won.

 

[NMaude]

SAAB should seriously consider looking at the EJ200 as an alternative to the F414 to further reduce ITAR content of the JAS-39E/F.

 

[Ozair]

SAAB should seriously consider looking at the EJ200 as an alternative to the F414 to further reduce ITAR content of the JAS-39E/F.

That ship has sailed. Who are Saab going to attract now that wouldn't have bought because of the F414 present? Adding a second engine would also significantly increase the overall sustainment costs of the platform and the future of European defence isn't a warmed over Gripen.

 

[red admiral]

Was the F414 or F404 designed for single engine operations...

Not for F404, which is why Sweden had to spend time and money to develop a variant for Gripen.

I expect that GE carried over these changes into F414 (or some F414 variants)

 

[BlackBat242]

Was the F414 or F404 designed for single engine operations...

Not for F404, which is why Sweden had to spend time and money to develop a variant for Gripen.

I expect that GE carried over these changes into F414 (or some F414 variants)

Funny - the F404-GE-100 was flown in the F-20 in a single-engine installation on 30 August 1982... and the two prototypes flew 1,500 times before they were mothballed.

From 1984-1989 Singapore upgraded most of its A-4B/Cs (originally 142 combined in A-4S and A-4S-1 configurations), replacing their J65 engines with F404-GE-100D nonafterburning engines. Again, one engine per aircraft.

The Gripen prototype was intended to fly in 1987, but was delayed until 1988.

So yes, there WERE already single-engine-certified F404s flying (some in full-time service) before the first Gripen was built.

 

[zen]

Brief word on single engine solutions, as early as the late 50's it was recognised that the bulk of engine failures for single engine aircraft related to ancillary systems, rather than the engine.
The solution was to double up such systems so if one failed, the backup would keep things running.
Fuel and oil pumps, etc....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also, the point in time to fly any Gripen variants on EJ200 was probably C/Ds.

 

[NMaude]

Also, the point in time to fly any Gripen variants on EJ200 was probably C/Ds.

Given how countries that had been looking at acquiring the F-35 but are now seriously reconsidering due to the antics of the Trump administration along with this alleged F-35 "Kill Switch" the JAS-39 may be coming back into contention and being able to offer an EJ200 powered version (No GE F414 and associated ITAR issues) would make the deal deal sweeter by removing a way that the US state-department to scupper any potential JAS-39 export deals.

 

[Lordarpad]

From what I am hearing:

• Canada is talking Gripen (it came 2nd in the competition)
• Portugal seems to be thinking Rafale
• Germany is an interesting one. A lot will depend here on the conversation about France's nuclear brolly.
• Finland would appear to be having an internal conversation as well and may jump to Gripen as well.

As regards engine, how much hassle would the single engine conversion of the EJ200 be? Especially in the light of the US apparently vetoing the sale to Colombia this might be of interest again.

 

[TomcatViP]

Germany is building an entire facility for F-35 center fuselage that would certainly ramp up if NG is selected for F/A-XX. That's means talks of Germany switching to something else than fielding more F-35 are probably not facts based.

 

[Archibald]

I can see a few reasons why long term partners in the F-35 won't bail out.

-Sunk cost fallacy (for example a country like The Netherlands has been IN the F-35 for more than two decades);

-F-35 sensor fusion coalition: in the present and future, you'd better be in that out, particularly for NATO countries;

-The apeal of stealth: F-35 is the first mass produced, readily available stealth fighter a F-16 partner can afford;

-More broadly: severe financial penalties when trying to bail out. The proverbial tiny letters clauses at the bottom of the contract
"there is no escape clause"

- Whatever Trump antics, F-35 is a decades spanning, 3000 airframe steamroller of a program. Too big to fail by partners bailing out.

 

[Geo]

All countries that have contracts for the F-35 will buy the F-35.
The idea of replacing a 70s platform with an 80s platform (besides with an American engine) is infantile.

 

[Lordarpad]

Germany is reviewing the decision - that is clearly happening. Merz is very suspicious of the USA after the antics of recent months. A factory can be cancelled or repurposed.

 

[Lordarpad]

And this is not about Trump's antics. This is about the trust in the USA that has been lost and that will take several decades to rebuild. Ye have no idea how dsturbed we are here ihn the EU

 

[Ainen]

All countries that have contracts for the F-35 will buy the F-35.
The idea of replacing a 70s platform with an 80s platform (besides with an American engine) is infantile.

90s, and basically remade anew ca. 2020.
It can't be made stealth, but it's newer than F-35.

 

[Avimimus]

Germany is reviewing the decision - that is clearly happening. Merz is very suspicious of the USA after the antics of recent months. A factory can be cancelled or repurposed.

Isn't the central issue that Germany isn't certain about the future of the nuclear sharing agreement? The F-35s were there to provide a nuclear deterrence, that was their purpose. If the U.S. can't be trusted to share warheads than they need to look to a design that can deliver French made nuclear warheads (not American ones).

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

In gripen C (including its MLU AESA) yes.
In Gripen E - Finmeccanica-Selex(UK)

IIRC, the Raven radar is a cooperation between SAAB and Selex with the backend coming from SAAB and it is the same or a variant of the backend used for the Gripen C MS20.
This does away with the filter that removes radar echoes because they are too small. As a result, the backend has to handle thousands of echoes. This was done to handle stealth aircraft and SAAB (at least initially) claimed that this would allow 150% longer detection range for stealth targets.

 

[DWG]

Didn't BAE have to step in to try and sort the absolute horlicks that the US contractor had made of the FCS?

The US contractor was Lear Astronics, which apparently GEC-Marconi bought in 1987 (I'd completely forgotten that), though it continued trading as Lear Astronics until at least 1997 (found an ad), and probably until after the BAe takeover of GEC-Marconi to form BAE Systems in 1999. I'm not aware of any significant contact between Flight Controls at GEC/Marconi/BAE Systems Rochester and Lear Astronics. It could have happened, but would Lear management have wanted to risk turning a two-way ITAR mess (US-Sweden) into a three-way (US-Sweden-UK) one?

 

[snne]

Guess what? Now with the real cost known, the Norwegians believe that their 56 F-35As will cost them a lot more. A LOT MORE. NOK326B ($31,24B) during the next 30 years. That is $558M per aircraft or $18,6M per year.
If it flies 200 hours per year, that is $95k per flight hour.
They do include the cost of running the base in that number.

Still, holy bejesus...! That's the GDP of a small nation!

 

[alberchico]

https://armyrecognition.com/news/ae...ia-in-fighter-jet-competition-against-us-f-16
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/colombia-selects-saab-gripen-us-engine-veto

 

[starviking]

When fair calculations are applied, then the F-35 is 3 x expensive than Gripen and therefore you can replace 52 F-35 with 150 Gripen. I think that if they want to go with Rafale, the number will be smaller,

Great post, though don’t forget the costs of the pilot to fly the aircraft are also significant, and will drive that Gripen figure down - as will the RCAF strategic requirements.

 

[Archibald]

Better to put an EJ200 or a M88.

 

[Desertfox]

https://armyrecognition.com/news/ae...ia-in-fighter-jet-competition-against-us-f-16
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/colombia-selects-saab-gripen-us-engine-veto

"Yes, we will sell you F-16s, no you can not buy F404s..." Talk about sending mixed messages

 

[TomcatViP]

But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

The number that are raised by @A.P.Richelieu are coming from where? Most countries that evaluated the Gripen Vs the Lightning choose the latter on Cost AND efficiency basis (not just cost Vs Efficiency).
A Stealth strike force is more lean, less subject to attrition and more deadly that one that is not. It´s hard to see how cost effective a Gripen can be facing similar environment. I read the argument with Simulated training flights. But that is because Stealth is a thing you want to protect, hence not train full scale a couple hundred miles only from your potential adversaries.

It is important to try to make sense beyond just the key words.

 

[Ainen]

But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

Point can be made, that single, weaker country will get more use of more diverse asset system compared to a single stop F-35 force, if the latter can't expect to be saved by the US.

F-35 is large(difficult to hide), expensive asset, tied down by non-dispersable maintenance. It can operate from dispersed locations for a short while, but it'll cease naturally soon enough.

F-35 is ultimately an offensive, "1st day strike fighter". Granted, it'll produce better results on ship to ship basis, all things being equal. Which may not be equal - if directly fighting chinese J-20 force(with enablers) with small F-35(without enablers) force is equally hopeless, F-35 doesn't justify itself.
Especially if REDFOR is expected to just crush advanced logistics, and will have easier time finding big aircraft on the ground.


Combining more attritable/dispersable "2nd day"(see KF-21 topic) aircraft in ground-controled ambush role with survivable SAM network(procured from savings - or, one may say, it's better to procure gripens from SAM savings!) will give better effect on OPFOR if you're all by yourself - ironically giving a country more "value": country can fend off for itself, it's an asset. If saving or conquering Romania takes same number of divisions(WW1 german joke) - military value is less, no matter how much of a "good ally" you are.

"2nd day" in this case is more than 1 aspect(vulnerability to being detected). Taking off on a 2nd, 3rd and 15th day is also something.

Finally, while we write that F-35 is just a better aircraft - it isn't better aircraft across the board. Gripen has specific advantages exactly as an underdog.


Vietnam/Ukraine experience.

p.s. also, it's clear that one way or another, regardless of stealth fights, su-57s just don't operate as 1st day strike fighters. Whether it's because their stealth is insufficient, or they aren't designed to, or they are, but Russia can't accept risk of losing one - is secondary here. And this is also an argument against a small F-35 fleet - even if you have capability, can you accept losses? And even more ironically - can United States accept your losses? No one will care about Sweden's objections (and frankly there's little to lose there anyway), but US may prefer keeping their core advantages against China.

 

[Desertfox]

But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

The number that are raised are by @A.P.Richelieu are coming from where?

Who is planning on taking on J-20s with Gripens?

F-16s are already flying in Su-57 territory and have survived so far, so Gripens can operate there.

 

[red admiral]

When fair calculations are applied, then the F-35 is 3 x expensive than Gripen and therefore you can replace 52 F-35 with 150 Gripen. I think that if they want to go with Rafale, the number will be smaller,

You can use other open source numbers to prove that Gripen is more expensive.

It's really difficult to do a "fair" comparison when you don't have access to any of the real numbers. Hence it's better to just look at what is published from the various source selection competitions.

 

[GTX]

https://www.twz.com/air/jas-39-gripen-e-f-chosen-as-colombias-next-fighter

 

[Arjen]

It appears the F414 inside the Gripen E/F isn't a problem then.

 

[Avimimus]

A cool idea, but impracticable.

It would require changes to the internal airflow ducting, the rear fuselage, and the development of an updated Adour to match the afterburning thrust of the F414.

Lots of work - at least 5 years, if not more.

Better to put an EJ200 or a M88.

I suppose I was thinking of SAAB's offer to South Korea (but I suppose that was FS2020 derived). The idea of partnering with SAAB to produce our own airframes around Gripen avionics would be popular in Canada, but the price tag and timeframe likely wouldn't be.

P.S. I'm partly being humorous about the old guard in Canada insisting that everything has two engines (after our negative experiences with single-engined designs). Our conditions are closer to those operating Siberia - so I've always found it unsurprising that the VVS moved away from single-engined designs as soon as they could afford it.

 

[Arjen]

If I understand correctly, isn't the RM16 - the F414 variant for the Gripen E/F - made in Sweden?