Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Continuing with the car analogy:

Mission, deliver a few packages into gang territory (GT).

First up, Smart Cars (SmC): 8 SmCs leave the dock and proceed towards the GT. On the way they meet up with a police escort that will chase any Gang Members (GM) away that harass the SmC. Meanwhile, on the other side of the GT, several of your friends are driving near the GT blasting “Jamming” music to distract and confuse GMs in the GT. Some of the GMs evade the cops or are in hiding and surprise the SmC. This causes a few of the SmCs to flee before they can deliver their packages. The rest of the SmCs manage to deliver their packages, unite with the rest of their friends and the cops at a local pit stop outside of the GT since they did not have the room to bring lunch with them. They then get back on the road and return to the dock.

Next up, the Porche: 4 Porche Cayenne SUVs slip into the GT unnoticed since they had info on the GMs locations. On the way they discover more, previously unnoticed GMs and “deal” with them or avoid them. They all deliver their packages and return to the dock. On the way back, they the eat lunch on the road since they had the room to spare and don’t have to stop.

So let’s compare:
8 SmC + 1-2 Cop Escorts + 1-2 "Jammers" + the need to stop for lunch
Vs
4 Porche Cayenne
 
I'm pretty sure the -39 plays well with NATO comms/datalinks, or else it would be a non-starter on the international market. Other than that, it would probably avoid 'first day of war' type missions when other coalition LO aircraft are available.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Continuing with the car analogy:

Mission, deliver a few packages into gang territory (GT).

First up, Smart Cars (SmC): 8 SmCs leave the dock and proceed towards the GT. On the way they meet up with a police escort that will chase any Gang Members (GM) away that harass the SmC. Meanwhile, on the other side of the GT, several of your friends are driving near the GT blasting “Jamming” music to distract and confuse GMs in the GT. Some of the GMs evade the cops or are in hiding and surprise the SmC. This causes a few of the SmCs to flee before they can deliver their packages. The rest of the SmCs manage to deliver their packages, unite with the rest of their friends and the cops at a local pit stop outside of the GT since they did not have the room to bring lunch with them. They then get back on the road and return to the dock.

Next up, the Porche: 4 Porche Cayenne SUVs slip into the GT unnoticed since they had info on the GMs locations. On the way they discover more, previously unnoticed GMs and “deal” with them or avoid them. They all deliver their packages and return to the dock. On the way back, they the eat lunch on the road since they had the room to spare and don’t have to stop.

So let’s compare:
8 SmC 1-2 Cop Escorts 1-2 "Jammers" the need to stop for lunch
Vs
4 Porche Cayenne
Click to expand...

This is a valid comparison, but note that you have now redefined the mission. If you define the mission around the Cayenne's capabilities, then guess what? The Cayenne looks, and is, real good. And if you absolutely need all those capabilities, more power to you. But does everyone need those capabilities enough to justify that the 4 Cayennes are going to cost at least as much as the 8 SmC & cop escort and will need much more specialised mechanics? Note that I didn't include the jammers. That's because the United States Car Force, unlike the US Boat Force, lately hasn't been doing much at all with jamming, trusting for the future on the Cayenne's slickness. I also note that every time we've used Cayenne type vehicles against defended turf, in reality we've also had a lot of boomboxes being driven around. In fact, when one of our regular vehicles got disabling flats in bad guy turf over on the continent, one of reasons noted was that the guys with boomboxes had been diverted to cover the drive of one of the Carreras (Quote in Automotion Week: "When the most expensive car in the world heads for the wrong side of the tracks, it gets all the boomboxes it wants").

The Smcs also would have all the information on the GM's locations since they've been using CBs and cell phones in cars for a long time and are quire familiar with how to use them and to share auto club maps.

The question is, is delivering packages deep in GT on the first day of the "unpleasantness" what the automotive club in question is buying its cars for? If so, ya need the Cayenne. If you're looking for something different, maybe that Miata can help you out. Plus, you'd be able to afford lunch.

Remember, this is not a dig at Porsches; when you need them:



"Porsche, there is no substitue"
 

Attachments

  • rb.jpg
    rb.jpg
    71.7 KB · Views: 685
AeroFranz said:
I'm pretty sure the -39 plays well with NATO comms/datalinks, or else it would be a non-starter on the international market. Other than that, it would probably avoid 'first day of war' type missions when other coalition LO aircraft are available.
Click to expand...

Treu; totally compatible where necessary.
 
isn't a proper serial NG gripen supposed to fly in a year or two? how come there are still no CG images available that show off the airframe changes? Texts so far have said it would be a bit longer and have wider wing roots, resulting in overall bigger wingspan. But i'd love to see those changes in official images/schematics.
 
totoro said:
isn't a proper serial NG gripen supposed to fly in a year or two? how come there are still no CG images available that show off the airframe changes? Texts so far have said it would be a bit longer and have wider wing roots, resulting in overall bigger wingspan. But i'd love to see those changes in official images/schematics.
Click to expand...

The first from-scratch Gripen E flies next year. The demonstrator, where you can see most of the external changes has been flying since 2008. There are scads of images available of the full production version. Google is your friend.
 
the demonstrator allegedly doesn't feature all the external changes, that's why i posed the question here. the prototype of E model is supposed to feature both the longer fusealge and wider wingspan, which i am very interested in seeing.

either that, or the whole thing about different dimensions was some journalist miscommunication and E model won't in fact be longer/have wider wingspan.
 
totoro said:
the demonstrator allegedly doesn't feature all the external changes, that's why i posed the question here. the prototype of E model is supposed to feature both the longer fusealge and wider wingspan, which i am very interested in seeing.

either that, or the whole thing about different dimensions was some journalist miscommunication and E model won't in fact be longer/have wider wingspan.
Click to expand...


To a certain extent, I agree with what you're saying. Ten years ago the advanced Gripen design was made from the two seat variant, but was single seat and had the rear cockpit covered over to use for more internal volume and had more L.O. features, such as a nozzle similar to the F-35's. I've seen so many differing descriptions of what the E will be, I don't think we'll know what it will have until it actually rolls out. At this point, I thought the current E was the same length as the current model, just with the new landing gear, beefed up wing and updated power plant (larger inlets) and of course the avionics/systems upgrades.
 
SD - If I had to take a bet today I would probably expect a minimum-change JAS 39E (that is, differing from the C as the Demo differs from a D), but the Swedes can play things close to their vests if they want to. It does have a larger wingspan because the new fuselage/fairing design places the wing attach points farther apart.


TWANG


That was the sound of the car analogy failing under strain.


The only such that I would ever use is to illustrate requirements. Suppose that I need to pull the boat and haul the kids' posse around but don't want to be limited to boring driving. I can buy a Cayenne, or a GMC Terrain and a Scion FR-S for the same money - and assuming that I split my miles between the two, my operating costs are lower as well.


(By the way, yes, it was a big mistake to cancel the A-6F.)
 
LowObservable said:
(By the way, yes, it was a big mistake to cancel the A-6F.)
Click to expand...

Canceling the A-6F was the wrong decision but for the right reasons. If the A-12 had actually arrived when planned, that would have been too soon after the introduction of the A-6F to justify the costs of both so sadly the decision made sense.

Now, the cancellation of the A-12 was the right decision for the wrong reasons, hence the ongoing court saga.
 
LowObservable said:
SD - If I had to take a bet today I would probably expect a minimum-change JAS 39E (that is, differing from the C as the Demo differs from a D), but the Swedes can play things close to their vests if they want to. It does have a larger wingspan because the new fuselage/fairing design places the wing attach points farther apart.
Click to expand...

Wingspan is the same. The main landing gear retraction method has been changed and moved further out into a new faired area to allow for more underfuselage stations, among other reasons.

I'm attaching one of Saab's marketing blurbs. The reason for the two T/W improvement figures is because the E carries carries more fuel internally than the C does with an external tank.
 

Attachments

  • jas39c-ecompare.jpg
    jas39c-ecompare.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 536
F-14D said:
Canceling the A-6F was the wrong decision but for the right reasons. If the A-12 had actually arrived when planned, that would have been too soon after the introduction of the A-6F to justify the costs of both so sadly the decision made sense.

Now, the cancellation of the A-12 was the right decision for the wrong reasons, hence the ongoing court saga.
Click to expand...

Did the United States Navy pass on the Grumman A-6G Intruder II because it was developing A-X, which would become A/F-X?
 
finally, i found a promo pdf from the official source.

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/About%20Saab/Newsroom/Press%20kit/130614-Next%20Generation%20Gripen-Original.pdf

In the text it says E model will be slightly larger but at the end of the document there are clear numbers which i copied here:

fuselage length: 15.2 meters
wingspan 8.6 meters.

the document does say C model is 14.9 meters long, so it seems they have mixed up the single seater and twin seater, but nevertheless, it would appear the intention of slightly larger dimensions is there. i guess then 15.2 meters could be F length, while E model length is some 14.4 meters or so?

anyway, 30 cm longer fuselage (will that mean that F model will have a meter longer fuselage over C model??) and 20 cm greater wingspan (in other texts this is explained; wings themselves will remain the same, but the wing roots will be remodelled and made broader.)
 
totoro

You forgot the pitot tube on C/D which is about 70cm. 14.9m (a bit less) is with pitot tube on C. And E is 37cm longer.
F would stay practically the same as D. 15.5m
 
SAAB EDS had a presentation in late september which exposed some details about upcoming products, which has somewhat flown under the radar (pun intented ;)).

EDS is moving their entire product portfolio over to common GaN AESA platform (Erieye, Giraffe, Arthur et al). First order for the new platform is for the new Gripen EW system, which will have a completely redesigned EW system, using the GaN antennas for electronic attack and directional datalink.

Also interesting to note is that the picture of Gripen E on page 9 seems to have a divertless intakes and a chined radome (I think the picture used is fan art, so might not be that indicative of anything).

PDF:
http://saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/About%20Saab/Investor%20relations/Financial%20presentations/2013/Saab_CMD2013_MJohansson.pdf
 
Third generation of EW on Gripen. Not bad. Note that it is called an ISTaR system.
 
The Swiss have a functioning democracy, with an electorate more involved in politics than in many other countries. Switzerland is also a stable, very successful society. They have been at it for centuries, on a continent that until quite recently has been plagued by conflict.
 
Pioneer said:
Apart from what Bill Sweetman has remarked about the Mirage III vs. Draken decision.
Click to expand...


Sorry Trident, but can you direct me to what Bill Sweetman remarked please?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...


Sorry, didn't see your request earlier:


http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:a65f861c-b28a-4f9f-b52a-57bdae9afe29
 
flanker said:
Stupid decision. Getting a plane that is worse than the existing F-18's. They are replacing F-5's, but still. You would think they would get a plane that was atleast on the level with F-18.

/rafalemafia
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Their F-18's are air combat only, with lightweight pylons and all. The Gripen is a true multi-role aircraft.

The Gripen with its maintenance concept and austerity also fits the Swiss militia system better and the Swiss have no real credible threat, so spending even more would not be wise. Besides, the new Gripen radar may easily be better than the F-18's and the Gripen isn't exactly inferior in manoeuvring either.
 
A few weeks ago, SAAB received some criticism in the Swiss press because SAAB was touting the idea that the prospective Swiss Gripen buy is a good thing. With the upcoming referendum in mind. The Swedish government has denied any knowledge of Sweden’s efforts to impact the Swiss referendum.

Reports from Swedish radio now state that the Swiss government has asked for assistance from the Swedish government to convince Swiss voters that, again, the prospective Swiss Gripen buy is a good thing.

From defense-aerospace:
Sweden’s Plan to Impact Swiss Gripen Deal


(Source: Radio Sweden; published Feb 12, 2014)

Swedish Radio News has obtained documents outlining Sweden’s plans to impact a referendum in Switzerland which could determine whether or not the Swiss air force purchases 22 new Jas Gripen fighter jets. A number of defence authorities, several members of the Swedish Cabinet Office as well as seven Swedish ministers have been made aware of the plans.

The issue of foreign meddling in the Swiss referendum is highly controversial. That became clear a few weeks ago when rumours spread that Gripen manufacturer Saab had financed campaigners who are in favour of the Swiss air force deal. Saab faced a lot of criticism and media attention then.

Now, several Swedish ministers are denying any knowledge of the secret deal which the Swedish state is involved in. One of them is Minister for Trade, Ewa Björling.
“I don’t know anything about that. I think that question should be put to Saab and to FXM, the Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency,” Björling tells Swedish Radio News. She adds that, to her knowledge, the government is not involved in any such activities.

Carl Bildt, Sweden’s minister for foreign affairs, also denies any knowledge of Sweden’s efforts to impact the Swiss referendum.
“No, we’re not involved in the Swiss referendum,” says Bildt. He adds that the Swedish embassy in Switzerland does cooperate with the Swiss Department of Defence, but that is par for the course, says Bildt.

Asked whether Sweden is involved in any attempts to secure a yes vote in the referendum, Bildt says: “I don’t know and there’s no way I could know about all the Swedish activities within a referendum campaign. I hardly know what’s going on in the Swedish election campaign.”

But in the past few months, Björling and Bildt, along with five other Swedish ministers, have received classified reports from the Swedish ambassador in Switzerland, Per Thöresson. Those reports outline the entire Swedish operation.

In the letters, Thöresson explains that the Swiss minister for defence, Ueli Maurer, had asked Sweden to assist Switzerland on the referendum. His wish was for Sweden to arrange as many activities as possible that would encourage the Swiss people to vote in favour of the Jas Gripen deal.

The activities started this autumn. There were many talks and meetings, including one where Thöresson, Saab representatives, Swedish and Swiss army officers and representatives of various authorities discussed the plans for Sweden’s involvement.

The Swedish embassy would arrange an exclusive interview with Bildt and place positive articles about Sweden in Swiss media. Sweden would also arrange a series of concerts and seminars.

Thöresson wanted Swiss television to cover Maurer’s participation in this year’s Vasa ski race in Sweden. And Maurer wanted to arrange regular air shows with Gripen jets in Switzerland, including during the Alpine Ski World Cup in March. The idea is to give the Swiss people as positive an image as possible of Sweden.

According to Thöresson’s classified letter, Maurer had “given his blessing” to the detailed plan. In a letter dated December 17th, Thöresson wrote: “The only thing that’s left to do now is to win the referendum.”

Reporters from Swedish Radio asked Thöresson about the secret plan. He answered: “This is not a list intended to impact public opinion, it’s a list of all the events that we have planned and I have deemed that other people should be informed about those plans so that we, on the Swedish side, can coordinate our activities, and so that we don’t send out contradictory signals.”

Thöresson did not want to answer follow-up questions from Swedish Radio News, saying he cannot comment on classified documents. (ends)
Click to expand...
 
“You have a budget and you have to prioritize,” said Swiss Air Force spokesman Juerg Nussbaum. While Switzerland monitors airspace around the clock, intervention only occurs during routine business hours starting at 8 a.m., he said.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-17/invading-switzerland-try-before-8-or-after-5.html

I wonder if the Swiss Air Force has Bank holidays off as well? :eek:
 
Swiss Banks. Bank Holidays. In a perfect world, they'd be mandatory.
Triton said:
I wonder if the Swiss Air Force has Bank holidays off as well? :eek:
Click to expand...
 
Google translated snippet from an interview with the chief engineer for Gripen E claims structural changes to decrease RCS: http://www.air-cosmos.com/defense/saab-veut-rendre-le-gripen-plus-furtif.html

We knew he had to carry more fuel, more weapons, while with a weapons system completely renovated. But the Gripen E, the latest evolution of the Swedish JAS39 single engine being developed by Saab in Sweden and Switzerland, should also be more stealthy. "We are contractually obligated to reduce radar signature of the aircraft," said Björn Johansson today, chief engineer of the Gripen E program during a press conference held in Linköping in the stronghold the Swedish manufacturer.

If the means used to achieve this goal have obviously not been exposed in detail, however, the engineer noted that this increased stealth would be achieved "by a combination of structural changes and new materials."
 
They'll likely give it the SuperHornet treatment:
1. Sawtooth edging on some access panels
2. Inlet blocker
3. Aligned edges
4. RAM on panel edges
 
The Gripen already have RAM covered inlets (and the inlet are shaped in such a way that no blocker is necessary).

Additionally Gripen C has,
i) RAM on leading/trailing edges/radar bulkhead
ii) conductive canopy

i.e. more ore less the 'standard' 4.5g-fighter treatment.

Looking forward to see if the new structural changes will be anything significant. The new radar will decrease signature, but for it to make a military relevant difference the signature reduction measures need to more than that.
 
Agreed. Apart from the the wingtip rail design I don't see much structural changes at all regarding signature. The canard roots are interesting though, appears to house antennas, similar to the rafale.
 
Jane's: Gripen E not reliant on Swiss referendum

The Swedish government is fully committed to the Saab Gripen E combat aircraft programme, irrespective of the outcome of a Swiss national referendum on the planned procurement of the type, company officials said on 11 March.

Speaking at the company's Linköping production facility near Stockholm, Saab's Swiss campaign leader for the Gripen E, Richard Smith, said that the contract signed with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (Försvarets materielverk - FMV) to deliver 60 Gripen E aircraft to the Swedish Air Force (SwAF) will continue regardless of how the Swiss vote in the referendum scheduled for mid-May.

"[If there is a 'no' vote], the Swedish programme continues unaffected," he said. Smith's comments provide an increased level of security for the Gripen E programme, which had originally been dependent on Saab securing a strategic partner to help fund development.
Click to expand...
More at the link.
 
Aviation Week/BillSweetman's further take on the new aircraft:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_17_2014_p28-671785.xml

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_17_2014_p28-671791.xml

I must confess, I continue to be impressed by this aircraft (if they deliver).
 
Quiet!


If it gets around that it is possible to do R&D on schedule and on fixed-price contracts, the defense business as we know it will be dead.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom