Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[GTX]

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.

The F404 has had mods for single engine use too. This is why the RM12, -102, -103, -104 and IN20 versions exist.

 

[TinWing]

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.

I've read that as well, which makes me darkly suspicious that there are matters aside from gearbox placement.

In any event, the EJ-200 is a multinational product, requiring multiple approvals instead of just one. Asking zee Germans might be problematic for some countries than getting US State Department approval. Moreover, why supply an engine to a cheaper Eurofighter competitor?

Then there's the issue of relative performance. The 90kn EJ-200 is closer in thrust to the 85kn F404-IN20 than to the 98kn F414. Initial procurement and support costs are likely much higher for the EJ-200 as well. Possibly higher airframe attrition as well? Overall, I could make a better export argument for the Indian Tejas 1A with the F404-IN20 than for a Gripen E that has regressed to the EJ-200.

 

[TinWing]

Canada is now also looking at the Gripen, and likely Portugal too.

Canada's new banker PM is looking at looming budget issues. Limiting F-35 procurement to a single squadron of 16 instead of a full buy of 88 saves a huge amount of money. In other words, the likelihood of the Gripen E being blocked in the event of a partial F-35 cancellation is financially appealing to a beancounter and makes costcutting look like an exercise in Candian patriotism. Expect cuts in the number of Type 26 derived frigates as well after the first batch of 3 have reached a $22 billion price tag. The goal of 15 hulls was implausible to begin with.

 

[kqcke for you]

I've read that as well, which makes me darkly suspicious that there are matters aside from gearbox placement.

In any event, the EJ-200 is a multinational product, requiring multiple approvals instead of just one. Asking zee Germans might be problematic for some countries than getting US State Department approval. Moreover, why supply an engine to a cheaper Eurofighter competitor?

Because the ones who chose EJ-200 in Gripen are either Gripen user or some countries who wouldn't choose EF anyway.

Then there's the issue of relative performance. The 90kn EJ-200 is closer in thrust to the 85kn F404-IN20 than to the 98kn F414. Initial procurement and support costs are likely much higher for the EJ-200 as well. Possibly higher airframe attrition as well? Overall, I could make a better export argument for the Indian Tejas 1A with the F404-IN20 than for a Gripen E that has regressed to the EJ-200.

But then again EJ-200 gives higher dry thrust, slightly smaller SPFC and lighter. In the end its performance is better in the most used way which i would say is more important anyway

 

[Apophenia]

Canada's new banker PM is looking at looming budget issues. Limiting F-35 procurement to a single squadron of 16 instead of a full buy of 88 saves a huge amount of money. In other words, the likelihood of the Gripen E being blocked in the event of a partial F-35 cancellation is financially appealing to a beancounter and makes costcutting look like an exercise in Candian patriotism. Expect cuts in the number of Type 26 derived frigates as well after the first batch of 3 have reached a $22 billion price tag. The goal of 15 hulls was implausible to begin with.

Cost-cutting is now "an exercise in Canadian patriotism". Particularly when those cost-cuts result in less money being transferred to Canada's only self-declared adversary. So, perhaps that "banker PM" has turned out to be right the man for the job.

(And, yes, the planned River class destroyers will also be cut - or cut back - for the same reasons. Firstly, to get LM's open palm out of the equation. Secondly, because there is no longer any strategic requirement for the RCN to tag along behind the USN fulfilling American foreign policy aims. Thirdly, Canada's half-century policy of paying for 'defence-from-help' has clearly failed.)

As for F-35s, NORAD is over (even if DC eventually drops its current conviction that lovely Mr. Putin can do no wrong). With NORAD fading away, Canada no longer needs to spend on interceptors. And your "banker PM" just committed CAD 4B to buy JORN ... which, hopefully, is his government's first move in detangling Canada from NORAD.

If Canada is outside of NORAD (and the US out or partly out of NATO), FMS approval isn't the issue any more. Overall trust is. So, suddenly, Gripen makes far more sense than F-35s within the new strategic situation. Canada no longer need the range for Arctic interception. We need fighters on our land borders while severing ourselves from as many US systems as is economically practical.

 

[DWG]

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.

The Germans were pretty serious about redesigning Eurofighter as a single EJ-200 aircraft when Volker Ruhe was running the Bundesministerium der Verteidigung.

And if EJ-200 wasn't as reliable as other engines I rather think we'd have seen something in the operability stats by now.

 

[DWG]

Moreover, why supply an engine to a cheaper Eurofighter competitor?

Different consortia. Eurofighter Gmbh might have a reason not to undercut Eurofighter sales, Eurojet Turbo Gmbh would be very interested in additional EJ-200 sales.

Eurofighter: BAE Systems, Airbus (x2), Leonardo
Eurojet: RR, MTU, Avio, ITP

 

[Scott Kenny]

Are you out of your mind? Saab never had the desire to get out of foreign tech for their modern fighters. As you perfectly know, It was part of the design philosophy of the Viggen and Gripen.
Are we rewriting history here because of €800b?!

The pain meds do have me pretty well stoned out of my gourd, but I am serious.

Nobody wants to go through the efforts of pitching a plane to a country just to have the US block the sale at the last minute due to ITAR.

It would be subject to ITAR for pretty much everything else so what's the point?

What else comes from the US?

IIRC the radar and combat systems were developed in Sweden.
Sweden has the industries to make the landing gear, and the hydraulic systems.
Ejection seat? Or is that a Martin-Baker (UK) seat?

 

[NMaude]

Ejection seat? Or is that a Martin-Baker (UK) seat?

The JAS-39 uses an MB seat.

 

[Ainen]

IIRC the radar and combat systems were developed in Sweden.

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

 

[Lordarpad]

What is JORN?

 

[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.

 

[GTX]

What is JORN?

Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) is an over-the-horizon radar (OHR) network developed and operated by Australia. Canada has recently decided to purchase a copy.

 

[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 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).

 

[Avimimus]

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.

As for smaller countries like Canada - one has to look at use cases... in how many situations is a country like Canada going to need the extra capability when deployed?

The main benefits of the JSF are integration was allies and greater survivability against relatively modern SAMs. So long as we aren't attacking a country fielding S-300/S-400/NASAMs/Patriot we're unlikely to need that capability.

I could see a lot of other countries thinking along similar lines (and using the Gripen to act as am affordable way to maintain a capacity/training while waiting for the GCAP/FCAS to be developed and/or drones to mature).

 

[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.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

A high ranking member of the RCAF is proposing that Canada buys 36 F-35A and up to 150 Gripen or Rafale.

Canadian general who recommended F-35 deal now calls for purchase of other jets

Retired Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin says building Canada’s future fighter force solely on the F-35 would be “irresponsible.”

ottawacitizen.com

What is little known is that there is a defense treaty between Canada and the United States. As part of that, there is a list
of things that can be delivered to Canada without having to seek a special license. One of the parts on this list is the GE F-414.
A ratified treaty is US law. Trump cannot override US law with an executive order. It might be that Trump needs to have this treaty repealed if he wants to block the F-414. For that, he needs a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. I.E: a number of Democrat senators needs to be convinced that Canada should be mistreated. I do not see that coming.