Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[Kat Tsun]

Uhh, they never did. FYI at the height of the Cold War (1960s) Sweden had the fourth largest air force in the world for a decade, flying 900-1000 airplanes, most of them were domestic design, built in Sweden.

The "domestic design" of an aircraft incorporating British radars and ejection seats, American engines and digital stores management, and German weapons is a bit questionable, but not terribly so when looking at stuff like F-CK-1, F-2, or Lavi. There's less indigenous Swedish equipment in Gripen than in either Draken or Viggen, but it's a good stepping stone to a fully autochthonic aviation industry than either of those.

What I meant was Gripen went from being funded by internal SwAF demand in the late '80's, to being essentially solely propped up by the dim prospect of exports in the early '90's. Then JSF happened and now the exports are gone forever.

The Swedish aviation industry is dead primarily because the Swedish government stopped funding it. Had Sweden bought the full order of something like 300 or 400 aircraft, there would be no problem, because Saab would have made its money back.

Japan did this properly and has a aviation industry that went from assembling knock-down F-4 Phantoms to part-wise indigenous airframes with foreign components (F-15J and later F-2) to now building fully indigenous aircraft (F-X), although F-X is being done collaboratively. I guess the Japanese aren't very confident in their engine making ability, which is a fair cop.

Flygsystem 2020 could have been a sort of European version of the KF-21 if Sweden had chose to fund its industrial development instead of idk banks or something.

Gripen-E could be a moderate upgrade in the early 00's to improve the viability of the Gripen's ultimately late 1970's design heritage, while FS 2020 develops a "stealth" fighter akin to the Boramae. Perfectly within Sweden's capabilities as a assembler of primarily imported components, but perhaps incorporating an indigenous AESA or something developed entirely by Ericsson and Saab and not reliant on foreign support. FS 2020 would presumably use American or English engines, but a Swedish radar and stealth airframe, and Swedish computer and combat system, would be entirely within the capacities of Saab or Ericsson in the modern era.

It's very sad because, like you said, Sweden once had one of the largest air forces in the world. Now it's comparable to the BRD's Luftwaffe.

Exports were not the original driving force behind Gripen back in the 1980s. It was designed for Swedish needs, with only an eye on the export market as that market was necessarily small due to Sweden's non-alignment and political implications thereof.
Then the Cold War ended, SAAB couldn't guarantee the Flygvapnet wouldn't reduce its orders but it opened up a new export vista and they became increasingly important. At the 1995 Paris Air Show, SAAB and BAe announced Saab-BAe Gripen AB for worldwide sales. But leases and 66 aircraft and a bunch of corruption scandals wasn't how it was meant to turn out. But the hubris didn't die as more nations began searching for new aircraft in the 2000s and the number of chances increased; in September 2013, CEO Håkan Buskhe envisioned 400-450 Gripen sales. The breakthrough hasn't happened yet and indeed it's come up short despite the long list of interested buyers and fighter contests it's been in.

Yeah, though how people thought the Gripen could compete on the export market in the first place is a mystery to me tbh. You'd think in an era of diminished weapons sales, you'd see greater focus on internal markets and trying to prop up those industries like Korea and Japan did and still do, but that just didn't happen. Then again, the modern Swedish government has consistently shown it doesn't care much about its military defense, so perhaps it's just a Western and Northern European thing.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, though how people thought the Gripen could compete on the export market in the first place is a mystery to me tbh. You'd think in an era of diminished weapons sales, you'd see greater focus on internal markets and trying to prop up those industries like Korea and Japan did and still do, but that just didn't happen. Then again, the modern Swedish government has consistently shown it doesn't care much about its military defense, so perhaps it's just a Western and Northern European thing.

The events in Ukraine seem to have changed that, but there's been enough lack-of-investment and outright divestment that it will take a decade or more to catch back up to where they were in 1990.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The events in Ukraine seem to have changed that, but there's been enough lack-of-investment and outright divestment that it will take a decade or more to catch back up to where they were in 1990.

It's gone forever at this point. They'll join the German aviation industry and just buy F-35, and maybe GCAP, at some point.

GCAP will probably just be a MOU for purchase and funding rather than true partnership. Since Sweden never opted to give their fighter its own radar, and instead bought an Anglo-Italian radar, they won't be able to contribute seriously to the program. They have nothing of value left beyond airframe fabrication and even that is likely at a 1970's level of tolerances.

 

[kaiserd]

It's gone forever at this point. They'll join the German aviation industry and just buy F-35, and maybe GCAP, at some point.

GCAP will probably just be a MOU for purchase and funding rather than true partnership. Since Sweden never opted to give their fighter its own radar, and instead bought an Anglo-Italian radar, they won't be able to contribute seriously to the program. They have nothing of value left beyond airframe fabrication and even that is likely at a 1970's level of tolerances.

With respect that 2nd paragraph is almost complete factually wrong. Sweden has a very advanced radar industry and technology and has a long and continuing record of equipping their own fighters with their own radars. And Boeing “borrowed” advanced lean airframe construction techniques etc. re: their T-7 program (for which Saab is a partner).

Conjecture whatever you want but no need for stating things that aren’t remotely true/ accurate.

 

[TomcatViP]

Why would an Admin not remove something factually wrong? Doesn't bother some to do it when it's factually true.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The "domestic design" of an aircraft incorporating British radars and ejection seats, American engines and digital stores management, and German weapons is a bit questionable, but not terribly so when looking at stuff like F-CK-1, F-2, or Lavi.

F-2 has been described as LM engineers to be "F-16 only in its nameplate". It is literally a indigenous Japanese design, also with considerable aerodynamic changes including a completely new wing.

What I meant was Gripen went from being funded by internal SwAF demand in the late '80's, to being essentially solely propped up by the dim prospect of exports in the early '90's. Then JSF happened and now the exports are gone forever.

It was F-16, not F-35 that virtually killed Gripen export prospects.

Japan did this properly and has a aviation industry that went from assembling knock-down F-4 Phantoms to part-wise indigenous airframes with foreign components (F-15J and later F-2) to now building fully indigenous aircraft (F-X), although F-X is being done collaboratively. I guess the Japanese aren't very confident in their engine making ability, which is a fair cop.

FS-X faced serious political sabotage from the US and had way more hiccups as a result. Planned production was for more than 200 aircrafts that ultimately shrunk to just 90. That's even less than how much Gripen Swedish AF was operating at one point.

GCAP will probably just be a MOU for purchase and funding rather than true partnership.

That's just plain wrong. Do some research.

 

[Jemiba]

In the last posts there are lots of words like "probably", "maybe", "could", "guess" and so on, it's an exchange of
opinions , not hard facts. And as long, as the tone stays reasonable, why not.
Just as a reminder : Answer the argument, please, not the one, who came up with it.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Sweden has a very advanced radar industry and technology and has a long and continuing record of equipping their own fighters with their own radars.

The Swedes developed indigenous combat computers/fire control systems for the AJ.37, yes, while the Draken used a Hughes fire control system. The Viggen used the PS46, which was the most indigenous Swedish aviation radar ever built, because AFAIK it used essentially no foreign components.

On the other hand, the Gripen's radar uses enough Blue Vixen components to be export restricted, even if Blue Vixen itself uses a Swedish computer chip, and of course the engine is still American.

REFILE-Saab dismisses prospect of Gripen jet fighters sale to Argentina

Sweden's Saab AB on Monday ruled out facilitating the sale of Gripen fighter aircraft to Argentina as the result of a deal to build and export combat jets from Brazil.

www.reuters.com

Argentina has expressed interest in buying 24 Gripen fighter jets from its Latin American neighbour once Brazil is able to export them, early next decade.

Such a deal would face an almost certain veto from Britain, which provides some 30 percent of the Gripen’s content, including the radar on its next-generation Gripen E/F.

Saab said it was not involved in any discussions involving the removal of UK content from the Gripen, a step considered unavoidable before the jet could be exported to Argentina.

“Nobody has asked us to do that and we are not considering it,” a spokesman said during a defence media briefing, asked whether Saab could remove UK-supplied systems, which would involve extensive engineering changes in the aircraft.

Not sure what "30 percent" means (volume? mass? cost?), but the engine is American and would count for significant percentages of all of that, as well. Sweden's genuinely advanced radar industry is more competitive in the artillery counter-battery radar, shipboard multi-function radar, and ground air defense volume search radar markets, than the aviation fire control radar market.

And Boeing “borrowed” advanced lean airframe construction techniques etc. re: their T-7 program (for which Saab is a partner).

Yet, Sweden could make much more than simple trainers back in 1980.

F-2 has been described as LM engineers to be "F-16 only in its nameplate". It is literally a indigenous Japanese design, also with considerable aerodynamic changes including a completely new wing.

Yes, it's majorly indigenous, but massive sub-assemblies are still going to be American designed, mainly related to the engine, because engine design and fabrication is the hardest part of building modern tactical aircraft. Anyone can use a wind tunnel but good luck with single crystal blade growth.

As long as it uses the General Electric F110, it can't be considered fully indigenous. So it's a good thing Japan just builds planes for itself instead of for other people, which is the point I was making: Sweden simply didn't build planes for itself in the 1990's and now it can barely build any planes.

Its aviation industry has actively regressed to a earlier state, now more reliant on imports and foreign expertise, than it previously was.

It was F-16, not F-35 that virtually killed Gripen export prospects.

Not really. F-16 was a known quantity at the time, as was the potential for massive fire sales of Falcons, like the Leopard 2 had.

Gripen simply never had particularly high export prospects to begin with. Historically, the major foreign operators of Swedish tactical fighters were Denmark and Finland, so countries that neighbor Sweden, and this is the most likely export route of Gripen had the full indigenous orders been completed.

Now, these two countries operate JSF (Denmark now, Finland in the future).

A realistic expectation of exports would have considered this, and focused on finishing the order for the maximum number of Gripens the SwAF wanted in the 1990's, but instead of focusing on the development on their own indigenous capacities the Swedish government just told Saab to eat a sock and didn't even bother buying enough planes to keep them viable.

We might have seen FS 2020 get built with a limited order (30-50 airframes, possibly) if things had been different.

That's just plain wrong. Do some research.

Sweden joining UK-Japan-Italy fighter effort seen as unlikely by industry partners - Breaking Defense

According to Andrew Howard, Leonardo UK’s Director for Future combat Air/GCAP UK, Sweden is “not seen as an integral part of the partnership at this time.”

breakingdefense.com

Addressing the media at the event on March 15, senior leadership from GCAP’s defense industrial base stated it remained “undecided” at this moment in time whether Sweden will be allowed to join Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom in developing a sixth-generation combat fighter by 2035.

But, according to Andrew Howard, Leonardo UK’s Director for Future combat Air/GCAP UK, Sweden is “not seen as an integral part of the partnership at this time.”

“I think it’s well understood that the UK had done some early work with Sweden exploring the possibility of partnership,” Howard said. “As you can see, very evidently, they’re not part of the GCAP team. And they’re not seen as an integral point as a partnership at this point in time. It’s a different type of exploratory activity that government took earlier on, so it’s not envisaged today.”

Sweden currently has little to contribute in terms of technology because its aviation industry is dead. It's been making Gripens for the past 30 years, so it would need to learn a lot about modern aircraft building techniques (mainly in terms of management of panel gaps and RAM) and stealth shaping in general, to avoid simply producing a "Super Gripen" al a the Su-57's "Super Flanker".

Japan and Britain are clearly the main partners, with Italy trying to do...something. Most likely radars or defensive aid systems through Leonardo, because that's about all Italy can bring to the table, aside from airframe, which most any of the three players can do. Italian aviation industry isn't known for its engines, either.

Sweden, if it paid in like Italy has, could scramble to learn as much as possible from GCAP and probably reinvigorate its aviation industry. Perhaps enough to make a serious stealth light fighter akin to Boramae in the coming decades (FS 2040?) but it's an open question if that will happen right now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's gone forever at this point. They'll join the German aviation industry and just buy F-35, and maybe GCAP, at some point.

GCAP will probably just be a MOU for purchase and funding rather than true partnership. Since Sweden never opted to give their fighter its own radar, and instead bought an Anglo-Italian radar, they won't be able to contribute seriously to the program. They have nothing of value left beyond airframe fabrication and even that is likely at a 1970's level of tolerances.

You're being rather pessimistic.

Sweden does make good radars, but as you noted those are mostly not in aircraft at this time.

 

[Kat Tsun]

You're being rather pessimistic.

I'm not saying Sweden won't have an "arms industry" or be militarily industrially irrelevant lol. That would be pessimistic.

I'm just saying they won't make their own 5th generation aircraft, and will just import one, simply because they bet big on Gripen and lost. Saab's management wrote checks its sales department couldn't cash. Technology has now moved beyond Gripen. Heck, it's moved beyond Typhoon, and possibly even Su-57, as we're in the age of JSF, GCAP, FC-31, and J-20 now.

Which is unfortunate because, at one time, it was a possibility. Had Sweden bit the bullet and paid for Gripen, giving Saab enough cash to infuse its engineering arm with new funds, and seriously worked on its FS 2020 for the past 25 years to get prototypes and RCS rigs built, it may very well have produced something similar to KF-21 or at least come pretty close, like the BAe Replica.

It would just be bloody expensive, and hard to justify when looking at JSF, and that was in the 1990's.

Imagine justifying it when every major and minor Western European country is operating JSFs on some level. All except France anyway.

Sweden does make good radars, but as you noted those are mostly not in aircraft at this time.

A wholly new aviation combat radar is probably beyond their ability, at least at this time, but maybe something can be cobbled together.

For example, Blue Vixen used a Ericsson-built computer chip in it for the logic element (P80), but the British still control the very boring parts of the PS-05, like the motors that rotate the antenna. Sweden can obviously still do the sexy stuff like the logic chips, datalinks, and AESA transceivers, but apparently struggles(-ed?) when it comes to more mundane elements.

overscan has a post on this subject in another thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-jas-39-gripen-avionics-swedish-datalinks.93/

Swedes have a proven track record when it comes to battle management systems and combat information datalinks, too. This hasn't been sacrificed either (AFAIK). Since they made one of the MFRs for the LCS, but the LCS combat system is derived from Aegis AIUI, they are still competitive in that space as well.

What has been sacrificed is the potential pathway to a "majority indigenous" tactical fighter like the KF-21 or F-2, and I'm honestly not sure if Sweden could support a serious tactical fighter engine industry at all, tbh. They will be beheld to French, British, or American turbine firms in that regard.

Modern Flygvapnet operations simply don't expect the massive attrition rates of tactical fighters they did in the 1980's, as the primary purpose of the Viggen was in the E.1 strike wing for attacking Soviet landing forces, so there was little impetus to replace the Gripen 1:1 for Viggen, and that's why it's so few in number. So I don't expect an indigenous Swedish fighter to pop up, because if they decide they need only 80 or 40 or whatever many airframes, they will just go with GCAP or JSF sometime down the road. GCAP is shaping up to be the F-15 to JSF's F-16, after all.

As much as Saab wants to be in on GCAP, the government won't pony up fat stacks to let them get there, because it's expensive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A wholly new aviation combat radar is probably beyond their ability, at least at this time, but maybe something can be cobbled together.

For example, Blue Vixen used a Ericsson-built computer chip in it for the logic element (P80), but the British still control the very boring parts of the PS-05, like the motors that rotate the antenna. Sweden can obviously still do the sexy stuff like the logic chips, datalinks, and AESA transceivers, but apparently struggles(-ed?) when it comes to more mundane elements.

overscan has a post on this subject in another thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-jas-39-gripen-avionics-swedish-datalinks.93/

Thank you, will check that out.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Yes, it's majorly indigenous, but massive sub-assemblies are still going to be American designed, mainly related to the engine, because engine design and fabrication is the hardest part of building modern tactical aircraft. Anyone can use a wind tunnel but good luck with single crystal blade growth.

As long as it uses the General Electric F110, it can't be considered fully indigenous. So it's a good thing Japan just builds planes for itself instead of for other people, which is the point I was making: Sweden simply didn't build planes for itself in the 1990's and now it can barely build any planes.

Its aviation industry has actively regressed to a earlier state, now more reliant on imports and foreign expertise, than it previously was.

Yeah, but then it's still not right to list F-2 alongside other fighters you've mentioned and categorize it the same way.

Gripen simply never had particularly high export prospects to begin with.

This I agree with.

Not really. F-16 was a known quantity at the time, as was the potential for massive fire sales of Falcons, like the Leopard 2 had.

Though what they would've thought as a known quantity, and their market expectations, doesn't neccesarily correspond to the reality. That's why market analysis is not an oracle. In the actual world it was rather the case that F-16 won over most potential markets Saab hoped to sell Gripen. This was even more so the case when Gripen E/F faced off F-16V. More importantly, F-35 was not even a same class of fighter to begin with, less so the same generation, as it would be very obvious to you as well.

Historically, the major foreign operators of Swedish tactical fighters were Denmark and Finland, so countries that neighbor Sweden, and this is the most likely export route of Gripen had the full indigenous orders been completed.

Them being historical customers doesn't necessarily mean that they will stay one. Denmark is also JSF level 3 partner. More importantly, SAAB lost out in new markets and there they've lost to F-16s and Rafales. That should be a clear indication of what the market expects and what's "wrong" with Gripen.

Sweden currently has little to contribute in terms of technology because its aviation industry is dead. It's been making Gripens for the past 30 years, so it would need to learn a lot about modern aircraft building techniques (mainly in terms of management of panel gaps and RAM) and stealth shaping in general, to avoid simply producing a "Super Gripen" al a the Su-57's "Super Flanker".

Japan and Britain are clearly the main partners, with Italy trying to do...something. Most likely radars or defensive aid systems through Leonardo, because that's about all Italy can bring to the table, aside from airframe, which most any of the three players can do. Italian aviation industry isn't known for its engines, either.

Sweden, if it paid in like Italy has, could scramble to learn as much as possible from GCAP and probably reinvigorate its aviation industry. Perhaps enough to make a serious stealth light fighter akin to Boramae in the coming decades (FS 2040?) but it's an open question if that will happen right now.

Obviously, considering the fact that by now almost everyone in the know are aware that Sweden is officially no-more a partenr of FCAS, and that they were not a GCAP partner to begin with, if you simply say "GCAP will probably be ##", I will understand your remark as your notion regarding GCAP as a programme, not as your opinion regarding possible Swedish involvement.

Also, the reason there wouldn't be much ways for Sweden to possibly contribute for GCAP wouldn't be because their aerospace industry is "dead", imo. It shrunk, surely, but that is different from it being "dead". It would rather be due to the fact that the overarching Anglo-Japanese capabilities are pretty much complete in terms of what you need to build a fighter jet. With 3 partners still undecided of workshare details and possibilities of major hiccups remaining, I don't see a room for another major partner. Though this is different from saying that Sweden has nothing to bring to the table.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

A wholly new aviation combat radar is probably beyond their ability, at least at this time, but maybe something can be cobbled together.

For example, Blue Vixen used a Ericsson-built computer chip in it for the logic element (P80), but the British still control the very boring parts of the PS-05, like the motors that rotate the antenna. Sweden can obviously still do the sexy stuff like the logic chips, datalinks, and AESA transceivers, but apparently struggles(-ed?) when it comes to more mundane elements.

That seems still very early to judge. When they can revamp both the fron-end and back-end for PS-O5/A Mk.4 and Mk.5, I am pretty sure that there still is the capability. Hensoldt and Indra are basically reiterating on the radar that has its roots in Edinburgh design as well, and so are French and Brits, still reiterating their old design from the 90s/00s. The only difference is that the French and the Anglo-Japanese have an actual programme being funded, meant for a radar with completely new architecture while the Swede and Germans don't. Though this doesn't necessarily mean that such is beyond their abilities.

If you were to say, that without such programmes they eventually will lose said abilities and that currently they are not in political and financial position in which they could pursue such programme, that I might agree with.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Yeah, but then it's still not right to list F-2 alongside other fighters you've mentioned and categorize it the same way.

That's fair. F-2 has an indigenous combat computer, fire control radar, airframe, and probably the majority of other components, at least excluding the engine. Major electronic and battle systems of F-CK-1 and Lavi were export controlled by the U.S. at the end of the day. I suppose it would be about as indigenous as Viggen in that case.

Gripen is less "indigenous" than Viggen because the radar is export controlled by Britain, whereas I think Viggen's radar had no such foreign elements, but that would be a question for lawyers ultimately.

Though what they would've thought as a known quantity, and their market expectations, doesn't neccesarily correspond to the reality. That's why market analysis is not an oracle. In the actual world it was rather the case that F-16 won over most potential markets Saab hoped to sell Gripen. This was even more so the case when Gripen E/F faced off F-16V. More importantly, F-35 was not even a same class of fighter to begin with, less so the same generation, as it would be very obvious to you as well.

It doesn't need to be the same generation, it merely needs to be available around the same time period, which it was. Gripen began taking orders around the same time as JSF, and when compared to F-16 or F/A-18C, it had little to bring to the table besides it being physically small. Great for Sweden, bad for anyone else, besides South Africa and the Brazilians I guess.

Saab was just desperate to make up canceled Flygvapnet orders in the 1990's, when those orders probably shouldn't have been canceled, because they were key to Saab seriously moving forward. They kind of managed this, but only after running around the world, wasting money on failed bids, and even then it was just barely approaching what the Flygvapnet's initial order was (~180 airframes?), as of the mid-2010's.

If the original orders had been optioned, Saab would have had something between 200-300 Gripens by the mid-2000's instead. Many more aircraft and much sooner. This could have let them continue development on a future fighter instead.

Them being historical customers doesn't necessarily mean that they will stay one. Denmark is also JSF level 3 partner. More importantly, SAAB lost out in new markets and there they've lost to F-16s and Rafales. That should be a clear indication of what the market expects and what's "wrong" with Gripen.

I think it's more to say that the Swedish government and Saab both should have anticipated very few export orders, based on historic evidence, and the FMV and Parliament should have continued development and funding based solely on the assumption that the majority of airframes produced would necessarily need to be domestic orders. Going from ~200 airframes to ~75 is a big gap in revenue.

This leads Saab to rapidly scramble for any and all exports it could manage, which turned out to be less than the planned airframe numbers anyway, over a period of time several years longer than initially anticipated. Ideally you'd have both the exports and the domestic airframes, but the Swedish government can only control how many planes it's going to buy, not how many other people will buy. This is why FS 2020 died stillborn as a series of studies, rather than serious construction of laboratory hardware and RCS test stands.

The first proper FS2020 period was defined by seeking Turkish support in the TAI TFX. It kind of worked but Turkey shut the door fast.

Türkiye, SAAB ile masaya oturdu

Başbakan Erdoğan'ın "Görüşün, değerlendirin" talimatıyla harekete geçen özel bir teknik ekip, İsveç'e giderek, mali sıkıntıdaki SAAB ile görüşme yaptı

web.archive.org

The second FS2020 period was defined by seeking Japanese (and British) support in the GCAP. Which worked about as well as Italy's initial attempt did. Now it's unclear if there will be a third chance, especially given Boramae is finished, but the door is still open for GCAP in some form. Just not a form that Saab would be happy with.

Also, the reason there wouldn't be much ways for Sweden to possibly contribute for GCAP wouldn't be because their aerospace industry is "dead", imo. It shrunk, surely, but that is different from it being "dead".

When I say "dead", I mean "the difficulties in moving past Gripen are less than the difficulties in merely staying the course".

Perhaps "stuck" is a better term? I'm not sure there's a difference for a business whose job is to sell products, though.

The difficulties the Russian aviation industry faces in moving into proper 5th generation aircraft territory are perhaps equally insurmountable as Saab's, given how big Su-57's panel gaps are. That said, I don't think anyone would describe Sukhoi as a particular hotbed of aviation ingenuity at the moment. Same deal with Saab.

If there are any choices at all, the Swedish government is looking at sticking to its guns and continuing Gripen upgrades for the foreseeable future, funding a small unit of JSFs, GCAPs or similar 5th generation fighter to provide modern aviation capacities to the Flygvapnet (eventually, it will be necessary), or developing a indigenous stealth fighter akin to FS 2020 with imported engines. Of those three choices moving forward, one is decidedly less palatable than the other two, given the post-Cold War history of the Swedish arms industry, one is a fantasy worthy of old techno-thriller novels, and the government has already convinced itself the first one is the cheapest of the options.

Försvaret: Minst 60 Super-Jas behövs - Sverige - Göteborgs-Posten

Sverige behöver minst 60 stridsflygplan av den kommande så kallade Super-Jasmodellen.

web.archive.org

Sweden needs at least 60 combat aircraft of the upcoming so-called Super-Jas model.

This was emphasized by the Swedish Armed Forces in a public hearing in the Riksdag today.According to Lieutenant General Jan Salestrand, it is a minimum.-Sweden needs 60-80 combat aircraft to meet the technical and operational threat picture, said ÖB Sverker Göranson.The Ministry of Defense's State Secretary Carl von der Esch stated that the total cost per year for the system is estimated to be three billion from next year, i.e. a total of SEK 90 billion.

Of the repository's total material allocation 2013-2042 of around SEK 400 billion, it is estimated that 75 billion will be used by Super-Jas. The calculations are based on 60 plans.The armed forces also gave an account of the alternatives that were examined before the decision was made to recommend 60-80 planes of the E-model. Keeping the current 100 planes of the C/D model would cost a total of SEK 60 billion until 2042. Buying 60 foreign planes would cost SEK 110 billion.

However, according to the Swedish Armed Forces, the current C/D model would not fare very well against the plans that can be expected to be encountered in the 2020s and 2030s.- It would have been shot down before it even saw anything, said Lars Hemrich, lieutenant colonel in the air force.

The upgrade to the E-model is estimated to increase the Gripen plane's time in the air and capacity to carry weapons by 50 percent, among other things.The government has requested a mandate from the Riksdag to buy 40-60 planes. The decision is made in December. If the number becomes 60, according to ÖB, the air defense must be supplemented with, for example, more ground-based air defense.

The armed forces could not explain in more detail what other investments are needed and what they would cost if the number of Super-Jas, the so-called E-model of the Jas 39 Gripen, becomes 60.

The first Super-Jas planes are expected to be operational from 2023 and used until 2042.

Super JAS is the colloquial name for the -E/F Gripens. The Swedish government has managed to convince itself this is a better option than importing a similar number of JSFs, and for supporting Saab at its present stasis since 199X, it's fine. For now, this is the plan: buy more Gripens and let Saab figure out the rest. It could change, of course, but it would take an immense amount of sustained effort and money to make FS2020 happen at this point.

Italy managed to reverse course sharply, but the Swedish government has limited interest in this, at least so far. I suspect Italy joining GCAP as a major partner may have been the door shutting in Saab's face with regards to learning how to figure out how to make a VLO fighter.

It would rather be due to the fact that the overarching Anglo-Japanese capabilities are pretty much complete in terms of what you need to build a fighter jet. With 3 partners still undecided of workshare details and possibilities of major hiccups remaining, I don't see a room for another major partner. Though this is different from saying that Sweden has nothing to bring to the table.

No, Sweden could definitely bring something to the table, mainly in the form of weapons development and export oriented datalinks or something. Bofors, Ericsson and Saab certainly have things to offer in this regard.

The problem is that Saab (not "Sweden") is looking at GCAP, and previously TFX, as learning opportunities to discover how to make a stealth aircraft. Between JSF's present total victory in the F-16 operator space, and GCAP's (likely) replacement of both export F-15/F-15E and Typhoon airframes, there's not a lot of serious opportunities for Saab to learn how to make 5th gen aircraft from friendly foreign nations though. Which is what they want, really, they want someone to show them how to do it, so they don't have to beg the FMV for a new RCS lab and cross their fingers with the hope the Royal Diet funds everything.

Because being honest, it's not like the Royal Diet is going to fund a RCS testing facility and +15 year development program into aerostructures and radar reflection research, and it's not like Saab has that kind of internal revenue anyway. That ship sailed in the early 1990's with the 204 initial Gripen orders, but that's what it would take to move beyond Gripen indigenously, since that's what the British did with Replica.

If Saab were to enter as a major partner, I suspect its main "demand" would be to have a composite aerostructures lab and RCS testing facility, so it can figure out how to put the panels very close together so they don't make the porcupine too spiky, and possibly a minor portion of base airframe orders, but with multiple panels.

It probably wouldn't be able to negotiate even that, though, without significant investment from the Swedish government itself.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It doesn't need to be the same generation, it merely needs to be available around the same time period, which it was. Gripen began taking orders around the same time as JSF, and when compared to F-16 or F/A-18C, it had little to bring to the table besides it being physically small. Great for Sweden, bad for anyone else, besides South Africa and the Brazilians I guess.

Worse, from the Gripen E/F POV, is that the F-35A is roughly the same cost.

Gripen A-Ds were roughly the cost of same-era F-16s or F18s.

When I say "dead", I mean "the difficulties in moving past Gripen are less than the difficulties in merely staying the course".


Perhaps "stuck" is a better term? I'm not sure there's a difference for a business whose job is to sell products, though.

This business major uses the term "dying" for such a condition.

The difficulties the Russian aviation industry faces in moving into proper 5th generation aircraft territory are perhaps equally insurmountable as Saab's, given how big Su-57's panel gaps are. That said, I don't think anyone would describe Sukhoi as a particular hotbed of aviation ingenuity at the moment. Same deal with Saab.

That's a function of QA culture and pride in workmanship. Which can be corrected over time.

 

[helmutkohl]

The discussion on the potential of the Gripen E/F thus far has been interesting.

I also agree with two of the sentiments made earlier. the Gripen E/F and F-35 are two different classes of aircraft. They are of two different generations and two very different weight size, meaning two very different types of operational costs.
That said, despite these differences, it's been shown that they are competing for the same markets, such as in some of the smaller and mid-sized European countries like Switzerland and Finland.

You also have that classic debate, more smaller light and cheaper to operate Gripens,
or less, but more capable F-35s that are more expensive to run.

I think for most European produced planes, they won't beat their US counterparts on acquisition costs. the F-16 was usually cheaper than the Mirage-2000, and I don't expect the Gripen (any variant) to be cheaper than a similar level F-16. Where the savings lie is usually going to be long term operational costs. The Gripen is cheaper to operate than the F-35 and F-16.

But to be honest, even if Sweden did produce more units in the 90s, I don't think it would make much difference.
At the end of the day, arms acquisitions for major items like combat aircraft, also have a strategic aspect. Such as building alliances.
On that end, the Swedes don't have much to offer as they are a small country. Also since many of the components are foreign, they also face some restrictions on who they can export to. The Viggen had no export success, and the Draken was only exported to a small number of countries.

In contrast, buying from the US offers access to the huge US network of supplies as well as support.
France another permanent security council member, offers countries an alternative to the US that is still western.
So the French fill another niche, selling to countries that want western, but want a second alternative to US systems.
Countries such as Greece, which needs something non-US to counter Turkey. Indonesia or UAE which want the best from the US but can't receive them, so they turn to France. Or Egypt, and Qatar, which want to buy strategic relations to multiple key countries. Sweden unfortunately can't offer that.

That said, I don't think Brazil and Sweden are the only customers of the E/F either. I predict that there will at least be one or two more that emerge in the next decade.

As for a successor to the Gripen. I also agree that it's probably too late for Saab/Sweden in joining the UK-JP-ITA 6th gen project if they are intended to be a major influencer on its design. At this point, perhaps their role will be limited to simply investment and maybe contracts to produce certain parts. Similar to how the F-35 had Tier 1,2 and 3 partners. UK and JP will be the Tier 1, but perhaps Sweden could be Tier 2?

Another idea is for Saab to work with KAI on the Boramae. They could replace Indonesia and help KAI fund/produce the stealthier block 3 version with the IWB, stealthier systems, etc. The Boramae at least, shares many commonalities with the Gripen E/F, such as engine, missiles, etc.

 

[Manuducati]

Here’s Why Saab’s Gripen E Fighter’s Wing Suddenly Grew In Size

The Gripen E is now flying with a more trapezoid-shaped wing of increased area and it’s set to become standard on production aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

 

[WatcherZero]

Haha we were right, aerodynamic modification first applied to SN 6002 in late 2021 and will now be retrofitted to the already completed aircraft as the revised production standard.

 

[zen]

They'll join the German aviation industry and just buy F-35, and maybe GCAP, at some point.

The word of warning I'd give to anyone putting Germany forward as collaborative or merger partner with the Swedes is that after the fiasco of submarines, Swedes are not going to trust Germans to that extent again.

 

[red admiral]

If it's around heavier stores loads then the extra pitch control authority provides an expanded CG range then I guess. e.g. heavier stores on the inboard pylons give more forward CG position

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Elaborate pls - exactly which one you think is baseless...?
Some of it are my reasonable assumptions, as noted, others are fairly well-known, public facts, so if something is a baseless claim is calling all of them baseless (unless you have absolutely zero clue about the topic, that is, in which case you can either just reply with some dodgy BS or don't reply at all, I will know it either way.)

More advanced software? TARAS better than MADL? Your obsession for Meteor and IRIS-T and clueless judgement concerning fighter sales? I ain't sure what you're smoking but it must be a strong one. Even more surprising that there are some on this forum who are buying into this crap. I think we were done with this in the early 2010s.

 

[kqcke for you]

The word of warning I'd give to anyone putting Germany forward as collaborative or merger partner with the Swedes is that after the fiasco of submarines, Swedes are not going to trust Germans to that extent again.

I believe this isn't so strong as TKMS Had the right to do it as its owner (even if its not right) and one could even say that sweden maybe got more out of IT than others believe. But i would say that TKMS still is the Red flag.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I've had to go through this whole conversation again so that I could wrap my head around.

The Swedish aviation industry is dead primarily because the Swedish government stopped funding it. Had Sweden bought the full order of something like 300 or 400 aircraft, there would be no problem, because Saab would have made its money back.

I think it's more to say that the Swedish government and Saab both should have anticipated very few export orders, based on historic evidence, and the FMV and Parliament should have continued development and funding based solely on the assumption that the majority of airframes produced would necessarily need to be domestic orders. Going from ~200 airframes to ~75 is a big gap in revenue.

Saab was just desperate to make up canceled Flygvapnet orders in the 1990's, when those orders probably shouldn't have been canceled, because they were key to Saab seriously moving forward. They kind of managed this, but only after running around the world, wasting money on failed bids, and even then it was just barely approaching what the Flygvapnet's initial order was (~180 airframes?), as of the mid-2010's.

If the original orders had been optioned, Saab would have had something between 200-300 Gripens by the mid-2000's instead. Many more aircraft and much sooner. This could have let them continue development on a future fighter instead.

Though that's what they've actually did? (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-jas-39a-b-c-d-gripen.37320/post-461254)
Swedish government foot the bill to produce more than 200 Gripens, of which a huge number was planes that the Flygvapnet didn't even need in the era of peace dividens, and was produced solely for the sake of keeping domestic arms and aerospace industry afloat.

Even then, this was met with a lot of criticism. As you'll be able to see, by 2014 32 were dismantelled after being cannibalized for parts and 24 were pending its future. More recently SAAB offered PAF 14 aircrafts out of this surplus for the price of 12.

It is simply naive and unrealistic to think that there was any chance that Sweden would have been able to afford more than whay they've already funded.

I guess the Japanese aren't very confident in their engine making ability, which is a fair cop.

They seem to be pretty confident to my eyes, especially since their decades-long investments are now finally coming to fruition in recent years with them able to field an actually operable military engines.

Since Sweden never opted to give their fighter its own radar, and instead bought an Anglo-Italian radar, they won't be able to contribute seriously to the program.

More like just British radar, since you know that PS-05/A has its roots in Edinbrugh and Erricson.

Had Sweden bit the bullet and paid for Gripen, giving Saab enough cash to infuse its engineering arm with new funds, and seriously worked on its FS 2020 for the past 25 years to get prototypes and RCS rigs built, it may very well have produced something similar to KF-21 or at least come pretty close, like the BAe Replica.

BAe Replica is much more closer to the Japanese X-2 than it will ever be to the KF-21, and once more, it's a bad analogy.

It doesn't need to be the same generation, it merely needs to be available around the same time period, which it was. Gripen began taking orders around the same time as JSF, and when compared to F-16 or F/A-18C, it had little to bring to the table besides it being physically small. Great for Sweden, bad for anyone else, besides South Africa and the Brazilians I guess.

That's what I'm saying though. Gripen and other jets are different classes of fighters and although we see SAAB entering international fighter jet competition with their much more under-weight candidate, this light weight is not what air forces actually want, especially for the price.

When I say "dead", I mean "the difficulties in moving past Gripen are less than the difficulties in merely staying the course".

Perhaps "stuck" is a better term? I'm not sure there's a difference for a business whose job is to sell products, though.

Dead is the word you'd use when there is no activity, ability whatsoever left in the industry to support its future plans and activities. It is very much too early to call SAAB that way, and being "stuck" and "dead" are certainly very different from one another.

That said, despite these differences, it's been shown that they are competing for the same markets, such as in some of the smaller and mid-sized European countries like Switzerland and Finland.

You also have that classic debate, more smaller light and cheaper to operate Gripens,
or less, but more capable F-35s that are more expensive to run.

I think for most European produced planes, they won't beat their US counterparts on acquisition costs. the F-16 was usually cheaper than the Mirage-2000, and I don't expect the Gripen (any variant) to be cheaper than a similar level F-16. Where the savings lie is usually going to be long term operational costs. The Gripen is cheaper to operate than the F-35 and F-16.

The real question is if Gripen was supposed to compete in this market segment in the first place. Ever since the LWF resulted in F-16 and YF-17, this seems to be the weight class of fighters that most countries have in mind when it comes to "lo" of the hi-lo mix, bar the exception of Mirage 2000. The reality is that every other truly light weight fighters since the F-16, starting from F-20 to Tejas, FA-50 and JF-17, are all much less capable but also much cheaper option. Even then the F-20 failed (we've already had the discussion about it before) and others are basically competing in a different market segment as to Gripen. This problem was only coumpounded ever since Gripen evolved into NG. Both the unit and program cost, especially the latter, is virtually the same compared to the likes of F-16V.

This is also the reason SAAB usually focuses on the TLCC, but the thing is, most emerging markets/developing countries, which should be the biggest market for Gripen, are more concerned about the cash they've got in hand right now, rather than what they will have going forward. Long-term planning is often lacking in those countries, and the nature of "developing" countries is that they are often hopeful that their growing economy will be able to fund the more expensive LCC in the future.

Then the developed countries most of the times prefer bigger platforms, and as I've said, current bottom line seems to be F-16 sized jets. So the Gripen is wrong size, wrong cost and is competing in the wrong market.

Another idea is for Saab to work with KAI on the Boramae. They could replace Indonesia and help KAI fund/produce the stealthier block 3 version with the IWB, stealthier systems, etc. The Boramae at least, shares many commonalities with the Gripen E/F, such as engine, missiles, etc.

The thing is, SAAB was very much enthusiastic in participating in KF-X, although this never materialized. Even then they were involved in the radar development in assistance providers and I see the potential for Sweden to be developmental partner for future Block 3, which is currently planned to be developed by 2033 and a new next-generation fighter that will follow, often dubbed the KF-XX. Indonesia is currently only contracted to be program partners until block I development. They were supposed to continue participating in the program during production, but their reluctance in continuing their support got themselves removed from the KF-21 supply chain. So I think Sweden participating in KF-X block III or KF-XX can very much be a possibility.

 

[TomcatViP]

Swedish FMV receives first series standard Gripen E for testing

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has received from Saab the first series production standard JAS 39 Gripen E combat aircraft for operational testing.

www.janes.com

Notice how production rate at Saab are twice the advertised rate at Dassault-Aviation: 24 a/c per year instead of a seldom reached 12.

 

[H_K]

Notice how production rate at Saab are twice the advertised rate at Dassault-Aviation: 24 a/c per year instead of a seldom reached 12.

Four Pinocchios.

1) Saab are referring to their production line capacity, not actual delivery rates. Actual Gripen E deliveries have been dismal - 4 Gripens in 2022 and 5 so far this year. With less than 90 aircraft remaining in the backlog to be delivered over 2024-2030, Saab needs to produce only ~15 aircraft/year.

2) Rafale production has been higher than 12 for every one of the last 5 years (average 18/yr) and Dassault is ramping up production to meet the large Rafale backlog (~170 aircraft) which is double the Gripen backlog

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Four Pinocchios.

1) Saab are referring to their production line capacity, not actual delivery rates. Actual Gripen E deliveries have been dismal - 4 Gripens in 2022 and 5 so far this year. With less than 90 aircraft remaining in the backlog to be delivered over 2024-2030, Saab needs to produce only ~15 aircraft/year.

2) Rafale production has been higher than 12 for every one of the last 5 years (average 18/yr) and Dassault is ramping up production to meet the backlog which is double the Gripen backlog

Yeah, on top of that, not all of those 90 aircrafts are to be completely produced in Sweden since there's a license production agreement with Brazil.

Currently the most important, deciding factor will be Brazilian AF commitment to the F-39 programme when it comes to the future of Gripen E/F. They've officially announced that they are interested in procuring more of these jets but the actual orders are not coming in. Even if the orders come, it probably will be license produced in Brazil. Although SAAB will still be the most important piece of puzzle in the entire F-39 supply chain, it's a given that additional orders from Brazil would not pump SAAB's production line up like the Flygvapnet orders did.

Also regarding Rafale, I've once read that the orders from abroad has enabled AdlA and Dassault to increase rate of production which led to decrease in unit cost after more than a decade in production. The decrease in cost again benefited them when it comes to securing additional export deals so it really did them wonders. So although MMRCA was undeniably a hot mess overall, it really is impressive what Dassault and France was able to pull of ever since.

 

[kqcke for you]

Some 100-200 Jets Order (in total) would be very good for gripen.

 

[kqcke for you]

If they could get atleast itar free then they May have a little bit better chances. If they May Had some more Common components with european jets like Eurofighter or Rafale then it may would look mutch better.

 

[TomcatViP]

I am not sure Saab is going after dictators and regimes that NATO wouldn't back.
ITAR free for their fighter is a bit non-sensical. Remember how the self proclaimed King of ITAR-free lost against them in Brazil...

Regarding H_K post, honestly, when did Dassault-Aviation reached beyond 12 airframe per year for the Rafale, counting only new built airframe

 

[Sundog]

Also, just one last thing to post on the F-35 versus Gripen debate. The F-35s will all integrate with each other and U.S. forces. The Gripen wouldn't have that sort of integration with U.S. forces and that's a huge force multiplier that can't be overlooked.

 

[GTX]

Might Turkey Seek Gripens From Sweden If Denied Eurofighters?

The Gripen undoubtedly fits the bill as an adequate alternative for many of the roles Ankara envisioned the Eurofighter fulfilling.

www.forbes.com

 

[jensy]

Might Turkey Seek Gripens From Sweden If Denied Eurofighters?

The Gripen undoubtedly fits the bill as an adequate alternative for many of the roles Ankara envisioned the Eurofighter fulfilling.

www.forbes.com

"Reports in November revealed Turkey entered negotiations with Britain and France for the most advanced version of the Eurofighter."

Quite the scoop they've got!

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758884514452193417

View: https://twitter.com/Fighterman_FFRC/status/1758884514452193417

 

[GTX]

Brazilian air force plans a new squadron of Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighters | Defense News March 2024 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2024 | Archive News year

Brazilian air force plans a new squadron of Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighters

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[Ainen]

View attachment 720273

Interesting and straightforward weapon configuration.
Arguably the best modern ambusher.