Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Lordarpad said:
Germany is an interesting one. A lot will depend here on the conversation about France's nuclear brolly.
Click to expand...
Avimimus said:
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).
Click to expand...
It's a seriously impressive feat how one man single-handedly resurrected the euro-nuke idea which was basically dead in the water just befor he came into office.
 
Last edited:
A.P.Richelieu said:
If you do not trust the Gripen E to detect them first, then you can let the F-35s detect the perfidious commie b-rds and inform the Gripens (flying silent with full EW) through the data link allowing the Gripens to launch meteors in an ambush.
Click to expand...
That is not possible since in EMCON stealth mode, MIDS on F-35 operates as transmit only. And TIDLS is not interoperable with MADL. If you want those kind of capabilities, you'd need gateway terminal system like the NG Freedom, which for now has only been available to the US. I'd think they'll offer the sales of such systems for partner nations in the future for MIDS interoperability, but now it's something not possible.

A.P.Richelieu said:
FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:
  1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
  2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
  3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.
Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.
Click to expand...
No, it was an actual study that did exist, as it has been confirmed by SAAB's offers to South Korea during the early 2010s as a way to co-develop KF-X. There are several slides of the presentation SAAB made to ROKAF that I've uploaded on this forum. The SAAB internal designation of the famous canard-delta single engine stealth fighter design with 2 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs is the P306.

Mach42 said:
Wishful thinking, but it would be nice if Sweden and Korea worked together to develop an "affordable" 6th gen based on the KF-21. Maybe go from the F414 to a European or a joint Volvo/Hanwha solution.
Click to expand...
It's up to Sweden really. Korea has been very publicly going around different countries in search for KF-X block 3/KF-21EX development partners, as well as partner company for the 18000lbf class turbofan in development. Though this is something to be discussed on another thread.
 
TomcatViP said:
One should buy a global map before typing ;)

View attachment 765583


Sourced from:

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/colombia/sweden
Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.
Click to expand...
Yeah add to the map San Andres Island. Colombia only has one old tanker for in flight refueling, and Colombia is one of the countries with more bird species of the world.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
No, SAAB was told by the Swiss that they should not bother.
Click to expand...
... If they don't have an operational aircraft, which they didn't. So they dropped out.

A.P.Richelieu said:
The demand was that the aircraft was in operation.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Gripen E is only in operation this year,
Click to expand...

Yes, but this year is not 2018. It's 2025.

A.P.Richelieu said:
And then they select the Block 4 which does not work, and is likely to incur delays.
Click to expand...

By that logic they could only have bought F-35 Block 3, C/D Gripen, Rafale F3, EF T3 (sans AESA), SH Block 2. Sounds like a clever plan. You think a manufacturer will produce a 10 year old standard for a small export customer? :rolleyes:
 
eagle said:
By that logic they could only have bought F-35 Block 3, C/D Gripen, Rafale F3, EF T3 (sans AESA), SH Block 2. Sounds like a clever plan. You think a manufacturer will produce a 10 year old standard for a small export customer? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No, it just shows that the demand to have an operational aircraft was not useful.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
It's up to Sweden really. Korea has been very publicly going around different countries in search for KF-X block 3/KF-21EX development partners, as well as partner company for the 18000lbf class turbofan in development.
Click to expand...
I think the main obstacle in achieving this is that they’re looking for a financer, not a co-developer. At least, this is how the Koreans have behaved in the past. However, my impression is that there hasn’t been any change in this direction.

Otherwise, both Turkey or Sweden would have loved to decrease risks and collaboratively develop what ultimately became the KF-21.

In Turkey's case, acc. to what we've heard over the years from people who were involved, the requirements of both countries matched almost perfectly back then but Korea insisted on Turkey becoming a partner only in brackets (as in, like Indonesia).
 
Lordarpad said:
the cost/flighthour issue applies here too. F-35 is estimated at 40k$/h, Rafale at 12.5k$/h, Gripen at 4.5k$/h
Click to expand...
I think it's best not to quote numbers unless they come from the same air force as they are not comparable and just meaningless.

They can vary by more than an order of magnitude even for the same aircraft. e.g. numbers for Typhoon in RAF service vary between £6k/hr and £70k/hr depending what you want to include.
 
Lordarpad said:
the cost/flighthour issue applies here too. F-35 is estimated at 40k$/h, Rafale at 12.5k$/h, Gripen at 4.5k$/h
Click to expand...
The Gripen numbers were for Gripen C, not Gripen E.
It was a long time ago, so inflation has eroded those numbers.
The numbers are for the Swedish Air Force and maintenance is mostly done by conscripts.
When I was in the Swedish Army, (a long time ago) they paid me less than $2 per day. They of course paid for food and lodging as well. Nowadays, they make $15 a day. If you put a well paid mechanic earning $300 a day doing the job of a conscript, then it will be more expensive.
If you don’t have your spare parts and service handled properly it will cost you. Flying the South African Gripen was much more expensive than for the Swedish Air Force, because they did everything ”their way”. The cost was reduced significantly after agreeing to a service contract.
And as someone pointed out. Different Air Forces calculate CPFH in a different way.
 
Apparently Sweden has been offering to possible F-35 buyers a Gripen-E but with its' GE F414G engine replaced with the Eurojet EJ230:


The Swedish manufacturer, Saab, confirmed to Global Defense Corp on 10 April that the Saab Gripen export customers receive all of the same high-end capabilities as the Swedish primary combat aircraft operator, responding to comments made by US President Donald Trump earlier in March when he referred to a ‘toned-down' version of the F-47 Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) combat aircraft for non-US customers. #Sweden #Gripen #Canada #Portugal #Colombia #Tariffs #tradewar #Saab #Trump #military #trending #canadianAirForce
Click to expand...
 
red admiral said:
No. I assume the customer is left to pay for its development and its integration into Gripen at hefty cost. I wonder whether there's even anyone in the Eurojet companies available to do this given they're also developing new fighter engines for GCAP and SCAF..
Click to expand...
If s new engine is going to be designed, then it would probably be better to take up GKNs initial proposal to build something better than an RM12, assuming the can do so without depending on US parts.
So far the US has not stopped a single Gripen project by blocking the engine.
They would not approve an AESA radar before the Norwegians made their choice.
 
NMaude said:
Apparently Sweden has been offering to possible F-35 buyers a Gripen-E but with its' GE F414G engine replaced with the Eurojet EJ230:
Click to expand...

YouTube recommended this video to me. I didn't watch it but searched cursorily for corroborating information elsewhere. At the time, I found none. As much as I'd like to see an entirely "Euro" version of the Gripen, it's a delicate proposition at best. Hope the Swedes are covertly working on that (years ago somewhere I already proposed a Ukrainian C/D tooling based version produced with Aero Vochody and such but didn't envision a re-engining) but I don't see the US approving any more sales of the current version (and there are several ongoing efforts) should a better, independent, competing alternative become available.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Does the EJ230 actually exist?
Click to expand...
It's certainly been proposed as the early growth option for the EJ200.

Which kinda brings me to another question: WHY hasn't there been a push from Typhoon users for uprated engines? The US has certainly kept increasing fighter engine power. Is it because Typhoon hasn't had as much weight gain?
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's certainly been proposed as the early growth option for the EJ200.

Which kinda brings me to another question: WHY hasn't there been a push from Typhoon users for uprated engines? The US has certainly kept increasing fighter engine power. Is it because Typhoon hasn't had as much weight gain?
Click to expand...
Because there wasn't a need? No big weight gains (or drag), no largely increased electrical ussages and no real need for extra Ränge until now. Any development was "wasted" money until now but LTE should be also including that.
 
Same exact story for Rafale, despite being a bomb truck from F2 standard, with weaker engines.
 
UpForce said:
YouTube recommended this video to me. I didn't watch it but searched cursorily for corroborating information elsewhere. At the time, I found none. As much as I'd like to see an entirely "Euro" version of the Gripen, it's a delicate proposition at best. Hope the Swedes are covertly working on that (years ago somewhere I already proposed a Ukrainian C/D tooling based version produced with Aero Vochody and such but didn't envision a re-engining) but I don't see the US approving any more sales of the current version (and there are several ongoing efforts) should a better, independent, competing alternative become available.
Click to expand...
So far, the US has not said anything that they want to block the engine.
As far as I understand, SAAB has a license to export the engine, with the exception of a list of countries like Russia, China and North Korea. The US can probably add to this list for security reasons, but not because they want to sell F-16s.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
As far as I understand, SAAB has a license to export the engine, with the exception of a list of countries like Russia, China and North Korea.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised at that - even GE can't export the F414 without applying to the State Dept on a case by case basis.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
That link is dead, at least to me.
Click to expand...
Disable your script blockers and CTRL+F5. Then it will whine about you using an adblocker, but click past that.

Not a lot of details, basically says that the EJ230 pitch didn't have as good a bid package. Had the thrust (72/102kN), but had fewer spares available (there are MANY F414s out there), was less more expensive, and apparently GE was willing to either set up a factory in India or license production in India.

edit:eek:ops.
 
Last edited:
A.P.Richelieu said:
That link is dead, at least to me.
Click to expand...

The relevant bits ...

EJ230 Engine: Eurojet’s High-Thrust Contender That Lost Out to GE F414 for Tejas MkII and AMCA MkI

April 16, 2025

The EJ230, an advanced uprated variant of the proven Eurojet EJ200 engine, was once in the running to power India’s next-generation fighter platforms - the Tejas MkII and AMCA MkI. Designed to offer enhanced performance over the baseline EJ200 that powers the Eurofighter Typhoon, the EJ230 delivers a maximum wet thrust of approximately 102 kN, with a dry thrust rating of around 72 kN.

These performance figures placed the EJ230 firmly within the thrust class required by the Indian Air Force (IAF) for its upcoming fighter platforms, making it a serious contender during the tendering process for the Tejas MkII and the first variant of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

Despite its impressive thrust-to-weight ratio, modular construction, and growth potential, the EJ230 ultimately lost out to the General Electric F414 engine. The F414, which powers several frontline fighters globally including the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Saab Gripen E, was selected for its lower cost, existing supply chain, and its ability to meet India’s performance and production requirements under the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

Sources indicate that the GE F414 offered a more economical package and was also backed by stronger industrial partnership terms, giving it an edge over Eurojet’s bid. The Eurojet consortium, led by Rolls-Royce and MTU Aero Engines, had proposed co-development and technology transfer, but GE’s offer underlined cost-efficiency and timely delivery as decisive factors.

[...]
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • EJ320.jpg
    EJ320.jpg
    136 KB · Views: 27
A.P.Richelieu said:
So far, the US has not said anything that they want to block the engine.
As far as I understand, SAAB has a license to export the engine, with the exception of a list of countries like Russia, China and North Korea. The US can probably add to this list for security reasons, but not because they want to sell F-16s.
Click to expand...

As Kiltonge implied, there are even recent examples of the kinds of US political and administrative scrutiny F414 exports are under. As the current US power structure is displaying significant personalized, mercurial, authoritarian and extortive tendencies, it could very well react in a retaliatory manner toward Sweden and SAAB solely upon the prospect of losing US national export control leverage over Gripen.

Thus Sweden and SAAB (and their non-US allies) have to weigh carefully the pros and cons of maintaining increasingly precarious anticipatory deference to the US regime in this regard. These quite unprecedented considerations are hardly Gripen-specific but apply to it as well. Also, Gripen E/F is just entering the service even with Sweden's own air force and I think they've also stated (or implied) that decisions about its successor will not be taken until 2031. I wonder whether the current environment and its long-term ramifications will expedite this process.

I have to admit to not even having considered juxtaposing Gripen E/F to the F-16, me referring to a "a better, independent, competing alternative" was solely in the context of a speculative "Euro" version of Gripen not under any US export purview.
 
UpForce said:
I have to admit to not even having considered juxtaposing Gripen E/F to the F-16, me referring to a "a better, independent, competing alternative" was solely in the context of a speculative "Euro" version of Gripen not under any US export purview.
Click to expand...
Germany screwed turkish eurogfighter order again literally yesterday.
To become functionally independent in aircraft manufacturing, you have to become France or even Russia(even Rafale isn't completely clean).
 
Ainen said:
To become functionally independent in aircraft manufacturing, you have to become France or even Russia(even Rafale isn't completely clean).
Click to expand...
And then you May never be fully independent on outsider because there is a good chance that even a lot of the critical base materials come from outside.
 
TomcatViP said:
Wouldn't that be easier to respect the rules of law and act fully as a democracy?

Don't damn the Germams for this.
Click to expand...

The thing is, we’d have much more leverage on Turkey once Eurofighter is confirmed. Blocking the deal could mean they go for someone else who is less likely to care about Turkish internal politics.
 
Thailand selects Gripen E/F as its next gen fighter:

https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press...r-force-confirms-selection-of-saabs-gripen-ef
  • The deal involves twelve aircraft to be delivered over a ten-year period.
  • In addition to the aircraft themselves, Thailand will be involved in development and maintenance, and pilots and technicians will receive training.
Click to expand...

https://www.sverigesradio.se/artikel/saabs-vd-otroligt-positivt-for-vara-andra-kampanjer
Elsewhere, the press reported a 4 aircraft deal for €550M
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Elsewhere, the press reported a 4 aircraft deal for €550M
Click to expand...
I guess it's the confirmation of the news that came out last year. It was mentioned that they will procure 4 E/F by 2029 and have a follow-up order to increase it to 12-aircraft strong force by 2034 so that they could replace F-16s operated by 102 Sqdr. from 2028.

Sensible choice. Not only the legacy Gripens, but also the backbone of their air force is built by SAAB using their system. Only makes sense to continue with more Gripens.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
I guess it's the confirmation of the news that came out last year. It was mentioned that they will procure 4 E/F by 2029 and have a follow-up order to increase it to 12-aircraft strong force by 2034 so that they could replace F-16s operated by 102 Sqdr. from 2028.

Sensible choice. Not only the legacy Gripens, but also the backbone of their air force is built by SAAB using their system. Only makes sense to continue with more Gripens.
Click to expand...
Will the Gripen E even still be in production in 2034? I agree it makes sense to consolidate around a single type, unlike Thailand's regional neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia who seem to like Fighter jet soup.

Problem is the Thais have a lot of aircraft to replace. Unless their air force is going to shrink radically, or the F-5s, alphajets and early Blk F-16s are going to stay around longer, then an additional 12 Gripen E, which are different enough already to the C currently in service, is not going to be enough.

I expect a second airframe to bulk out the fleet, something like the FA-50, makes more sense but will the Thais have the funding...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom