Gripen E/F

[jetman365]

Will the Gripen C/D still be sold once the E/F version is avalible? I was just curious since the F-16 C/D is still being sold even though there is a E/F.

[swerve]

Will the Gripen C/D still be sold once the E/F version is avalible? I was just curious since the F-16 C/D is still being sold even though there is a E/F.

The E/F is a UAE-specific version, developed for the UAE at their expense, & for which any other buyer would have to pay a royalty to the UAE. Some buyers may prefer not to do that - and perhaps the UAE does not want it sold to some buyers (does anyone know if the UAE has a veto?).

[Maskirovka]

Will the Gripen C/D still be sold once the E/F version is avalible? I was just curious since the F-16 C/D is still being sold even though there is a E/F.


IIRC Sweden still has some surplus 50-60 A/Bs they want to sell. These are the first planes built so they should be 10-15 years old but are probably still a desired aircraft. If the customer wants to upgrade them to C/D standard I think it costs 15-20 million US dollar/ac. Don´t know if the swedish airforce would want to profit on them (otherwise they would be scrapped) but if not, and the customer just pays for the upgrades, spares, ammo, training etc I see no reason why these used Gripens could´nt be sold for under 50 mill. $/ air craft.

If SAAB get orders on the next generation Gripen I find it highly unlikely they would keep building the older model...

[Grand Danois]

I understand the proposed Gripen E/F model is a child of the Danish/Norwegian requirements for their F-16 replacements.

Some models for the future role of the Royal Danish Air Force are being discussed.

Currently RDAF is working under a model were it is tasked with patrolling national air space and being able to provide a rapid reaction fighter sqn (8+8). We could call this the "Global Air Warrior" model.

Increased thrust, range & improved avionics is required of the E/F over the C/D. However, this is a reflection of this particular model.

Another model is the "Nightwatch" model, where a buy of 12-18 of the cheapest fighter to patrol national air space and maintain minimal capability. Too little for warfighting, too little excess capability. Just patrolling.

This does not require the fancy gadgets of the E/F. The Norwegians would differ, but they have a different geography and its electorate is more aware of their (different) security environment.

There are intermediate models with mixes of attack helos...

If the "Nightwatch" model is chosen, I don't see the need for developing the E/F. If the "Global Air Warrior" model is chosen, Gripen E/F is in for a tough run on a value for money basis...

So the C/Ds could theoretically have a chance for export over the E/F.

Saab should hope for the (Danish) Social Democratic Party winning the next elections, which are due inside a year. (It is unlikely, yet a possibility that they may get in Govt.)

[buglerbilly]

Y'all may have seen this? The on-going and various developments of Gripen............article from DID.............

Sweden to Modernize its JAS-39 Gripen Fleet

17-Oct-2007 18:07

It has been a good couple of days for Saab. Fresh off a come-from-behind win in Thailand, the firm has signed a SEK 3.9 billion ($600 million) contract with the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV) to upgrade 31 Swedish Air Force JAS-39 A/B Gripens to the very latest JAS-39 C/D standard.

The FMV has also given the go ahead for the next-generation 'Gripen Demo' variant, whose development program includes the development of a new Gripen test flying platform and a new Gripen avionics set. FMV Gripen Demo funds in this contract can be added to an earlier SEK 1 billion (currently $150 million) award, as an offset to Saab's participation in the European nEUROn unmanned fighter program.

Gripen Demo will be a heavier aircraft (empty weight adds 300 kg to 8,100 kg, max. takeoff weight rises from 14,000 kg to 16,000 kg) with increased external and internal fuel capacity (internal fuel rises 38%, and…) and an increase from 8 to 10 weapon/fuel pylons. To offset this extra weight, Gripen Demo will use a higher-thrust GE/Volvo F414 engine variant, replacing the GE/Volvo F404 variant in current aircraft and giving the aircraft a 25%-35% power boost. Other improvements include an next-generation AESA radar (probably drawing on Ericsson's "Nora" project), along with improved computing and avionics overall, including satellite communication, Link 16 capability added to the Gripen's existing datalink, and improved electronic warfare via jammer pod integration and other measures. Gripen Demo's corporate participants include Saab, General Electric together with Volvo (F414 engine), Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, APPH, Martin-Baker and Terma.

Gripen Demo is designed to pave the way for future variants (JAS-39 E/F, DK, N et. al.). A next-generation Gripen is critical to the long-term viability and competitiveness of Sweden's fighter fleet, and also to a number of contracts Saab is fighting for abroad. Norway signed a $25 million Letter of Agreement regarding Gripen Demo in April 2007, for instance, as part of the 3-way competition (F-35, JAS-39, Eurofighter) to replace its F-16s.

Regards,

BUG

[Grand Danois]

To expand further, the "Gripen-Demo" two-seater testbed is supposed to fly in 2008. The aircraft is provided by the Swedish AF.

The Letter of Agreement apparently include integration of Norwegian weapons (NSM?) onto the Gripen Demo platform.

But if the RDAF drops to 12-18 jets, the numbers have become too smal to fight an air war anyway, so sinking tax payer money into such a project could be very wasteful, when you can use what is already there...(?)

[Ryttare]

As always it will be the customer that decides what they will buy. Gripen Demo includes as it's most important parts a new engine with more thrust, a new AESA radar, 38% more internal fuel and two more hardpoints and bigger payload.

Some customers might not be interested in all of this, and just choose some of it. The SwAF has since a long time planned for an upgrade to AESA at 2018 of the existing fighters. Now I hear that they might upgrade to the F414 but possibly not the extra internal fuel, payload and hardpoints.

But if the difference in price for newbuilt Gripen NG's vs the old ones wont be too big, and it seems to me that it wont, Gripen NG will take over the sales.

[jetman365]

Thank for the replies. So if a nation bought Gripen NG they could choose not to have the extra fuel or weapon pylons? I thought that they would have to buy it with the extra equipment.

[Maskirovka]

Thank for the replies. So if a nation bought Gripen NG they could choose not to have the extra fuel or weapon pylons? I thought that they would have to buy it with the extra equipment.

Wait sec. The next generation Gripen is called "Future Gripen" as a workconcept. The main reason it was developed was to increase the range of the previous Gripens. SAAB came up with three solutions, one being a huge under the belly tank, that could not be dropped but could be removed, another one was CFT like on the F-16. Those solutions were dropped because they would be a negative factor on the planes maneuverability etc. So they went for the 3rd option, move the rear wheels from the body to the wingroots, thus freeing the space where the wheels use to be to more fuel. This solution was the most expensive but it did´nt effect the planes draft, man maneuverability etc.

This means, every nation buying the "future Gripen" does get the extra fuel (it´s a new airframe). And the they get extra weapon pylons (were the old wheels used to sit).
I suppose you could get the old engine and old radar if you wanted to, but why would you?


This is not official, just drawings from a fan;
Before
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2322/undstunden78je.jpg

After moving landinggears
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7599/undstunden83ic.jpg

Concept 1 belly CFT (rejected)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/48/undstunden12wz.jpg

Concept 2 F-16 type CFT (rejected)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1396/undstunden26bx.jpg
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5831/undstunden37va.jpg

(from http://undstunden.blogspot.com/2006/05/tankebanor-kring-och-visualiseringar.html)

[ainanup23]

Will the Gripen C/D still be sold once the E/F version is avalible? I was just curious since the F-16 C/D is still being sold even though there is a E/F.

Never mind aircraft manufacturers like Saab seems have learnt from their cousin in the automobile cousins keep selling the older platform by upgrading the platform with new accessories. In this case the accessories are weapon systems, avonics etc and make these flying birds more lethal.

The new versions are good news since this will add spice to its contention, given it is in the race for the IAF`s $ 10 billion and pitted against stalwarts like the F-16s and F-18s . If you go purely by technology for the next generation of air fighting the main rivals are Typhoons, Gripen and the Mig-31s.

[Grand Danois]

So the Future Gripen will have


A new engine.


New avionics; radar; computers; EW suite, different integration of EW.


A radically different layout of landing gear; very different internal fuel layout: basically a completely new airframe has to be designed.


The story of the Super Hornet over again? This is a completely different aircraft from the Gripen. A new aircraft.

A JAS 41! :D

What did the JAS 39 cost to develop?

[Ryttare]

This means, every nation buying the "future Gripen" does get the extra fuel (it´s a new airframe). And the they get extra weapon pylons (were the old wheels used to sit).


No, to my knowledge it will be the same basic airframe as before. The new landing gear will be housed in pods outside the wing root, and the new tanks will be there the landing gear is today. If you for some reason don't want the extra fuel and pylons you should be able to keep the old configuration.

Now this is speculation, and probably future customers would prefer to get it all. More interesting is if you want to upgrade existing Gripens to get all these features or just some of them.

[Ryttare]

So the Future Gripen will have


A new engine.


New avionics; radar; computers; EW suite, different integration of EW.


A radically different layout of landing gear; very different internal fuel layout: basically a completely new airframe has to be designed.


The story of the Super Hornet over again? This is a completely different aircraft from the Gripen. A new aircraft.

A JAS 41! :D

What did the JAS 39 cost to develop?

I think this has been posted before, it shows the development costs for Gripen and other fighters.

http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utvkostnadqy8.jpg

You have to remember that Gripen already has gone through two major redesigns. First the B that meant a lengthened airframe for the second seat, then C/D that had to get a totally new airframe for IFR and higher MTOW.

The new engine will be the F414 that is very well tested on the Super Hornet and has the same outer dimensions as the old engine. The biggest change AFAIK for the new Gripen is a new fuel tank pressurizing system. But the dimensions for the aircraft will be the same, exept for the bulges for the new landing gear. So the comparisation with Super Hornet is not valid IMHO.

[Grand Danois]

I think this has been posted before, it shows the development costs for Gripen and other fighters.

http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utvkostnadqy8.jpg

You have to remember that Gripen already has gone through two major redesigns. First the B that meant a lengthened airframe for the second seat, then C/D that had to get a totally new airframe for IFR and higher MTOW.

The new engine will be the F414 that is very well tested on the Super Hornet and has the same outer dimensions as the old engine. The biggest change AFAIK for the new Gripen is a new fuel tank pressurizing system. But the dimensions for the aircraft will be the same, exept for the bulges for the new landing gear. So the comparisation with Super Hornet is not valid IMHO.

Well, you say it yourself: new engine; new design of airframe; new avionics; etc...

Not a new aircraft? :D

[swerve]

I think this has been posted before, it shows the development costs for Gripen and other fighters.

http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utvkostnadqy8.jpg

....

I suspect the Gripen figure is optimistic, but I'm sure that it really did cost a great deal less than any of the others. It hasn't had a new engine developed for it, & the cost of improving the F404 must have been a fraction of the cost of developing either the M88 or EJ200. Saab also has a long tradition of very cost-efficient fighter design & development.

BTW, the 31-12-2006 SAR predicts the fixed costs of JSF at $43 billion.

[Ryttare]

Well, you say it yourself: new engine; new design of airframe; new avionics; etc...

Not a new aircraft? :D

I know you danes like to taunt us swedes, but I wont fall for it :p:

If you want to stop playing with words and implying things and instead add something more substancial I'm prepared to discuss.

[Grand Danois]

I think this has been posted before, it shows the development costs for Gripen and other fighters.

http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utvkostnadqy8.jpg


Here is the source:

The cost of non-Europe in the
area of security and defence (http://www.bicc.de/publications/other/study_for_ep/bicc_study_for_ep.pdf)

p. 27.

According to the document, EF and JSF are 10 x more expensive to develop.

How the author arrived at these numbers is unknown.

[Grand Danois]

I know you danes like to taunt us swedes, but I wont fall for it :p:

If you want to stop playing with words and implying things and instead add something more substancial I'm prepared to discuss.

Well, you are well informed of the E/F changes in the Gripen.

The A to B redesign would have been expected in the initial design of the A/B. The same re the MTOW redesign. Planned for.

Altering the landing gear layout is more radical than those...

If you upgrade a C/D to a E/F, how much is left of the original aircraft?

[Ryttare]

Here is the source:

The cost of non-Europe in the
area of security and defence (http://www.bicc.de/publications/other/study_for_ep/bicc_study_for_ep.pdf)

p. 21.

According to the document, EF and JSF are 10 x more expensive to develop.

How the author arrived at these numbers is unknown.

The reference is to something called Unisys, wich I have to admit I don't know much about. I've seen this posted before and I don't remember it being challenged. If you have better data available I would really appreciate if you would want to share it.

[Grand Danois]

The reference is to something called Unisys, wich I have to admit I don't know much about. I've seen this posted before and I don't remember it being challenged. If you have better data available I would really appreciate if you would want to share it.

Didn't challenge the numbers. Just used seeing incomparable entities ending up being compared. Natural suspicion. And what do you get for the x 10 development cost. Certainly not a x 10 aircraft, but then what?

[Ryttare]

Well, you are well informed of the E/F changes in the Gripen.

The A to B redesign would have been expected in the initial design of the A/B. The same re the MTOW redesign. Planned for.

Altering the landing gear layout is more radical than those...

If you upgrade a C/D to a E/F, how much is left of the original aircraft?

The B version were envisioned from the beginning, but not ordered or payed for before the A were being manufactured. Increased payload, IFR and NATO pylons with C/D were not a part of the original plan. Plans for a stronger engine and AESA radar was on the other hand envisioned early in development. The extra internal fuel has been a more recent idea, but I think it has found a quite smart solution.

I havent heard anyone calling F-16 with new engines and CFT a completely new aircraft. And whats the difference between a fuel tank on top of the fuselage or wings and pods for landing gear underneath the wing? And F-16 exists with two totally different engines and it's still the same plane, even if it's characteristics may differ somewhat.

[Grand Danois]

I havent heard anyone calling F-16 with new engines and CFT a completely new aircraft. And whats the difference between a fuel tank on top of the fuselage or wings and pods for landing gear underneath the wing? And F-16 exists with two totally different engines and it's still the same plane, even if it's characteristics may differ somewhat.

Good point. ;)

Though I can't think of any radical redesign of the landing gear config of the F-16 and a CFT is CFT - not more internal fuel. There are several types of radars and other avionics used on the F-16 too. And also thinking of the F-16XL - which was still an F-16...

So is the E/F an evolution or a revolution?

[Ryttare]

Didn't challenge the numbers. Just used seeing incomparable entities ending up being compared. Natural suspicion. And what do you get for the x 10 development cost. Certainly not a x 10 aircraft, but then what?

I posted it because you asked for what the development cost of Gripen was. I didn't bother editing out the others because I just didn't bother.

But the difference in development cost between Eurofighter and JSF on one hand and Gripen and Rafale has probably many reasons. One is probably that both Eurofighter and JSF are multinational projects, which tend to increase costs. For Eurofighter it's probably also that they started pretty much from scratch in their design, while Saab and Dassault much more built on earlier designs.

For JSF the task to from one basic airframe build three different planes with very different characteristics was probably very challenging. It might also be so that as the plan was to build many planes they thought they could spend more.

[Grand Danois]

I posted it because you asked for what the development cost of Gripen was. I didn't bother editing out the others because I just didn't bother.

But the difference in development cost between Eurofighter and JSF on one hand and Gripen and Rafale has probably many reasons. One is probably that both Eurofighter and JSF are multinational projects, which tend to increase costs. For Eurofighter it's probably also that they started pretty much from scratch in their design, while Saab and Dassault much more built on earlier designs.

For JSF the task to from one basic airframe build three different planes with very different characteristics was probably very challenging. It might also be so that as the plan was to build many planes they thought they could spend more.

Multinational doesn't give that kind of cost overuns. There is much more R&T in EF, JSF et al, while the Gripen relies on what is already on the shelf, i.e. design an airframe, then do the subsystems integration. That would expalin much.

[swerve]

The reference is to something called Unisys, wich I have to admit I don't know much about. I've seen this posted before and I don't remember it being challenged. If you have better data available I would really appreciate if you would want to share it.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/inst_sp/docs/de_3_final_%20report.pdf

Big file

Some explanation - http://www.dmkn.de/1779/seeverkehr.nsf/f1b7ca69b19cbb26c12569180032a5cc/2da9085a905d84fcc125708900397407!OpenDocument

[Ryttare]

Good point. ;)

Though I can't think of any radical redesign of the landing gear config of the F-16 and a CFT is CFT - not more internal fuel. There are several types of radars and other avionics used on the F-16 too. And also thinking of the F-16XL - which was still an F-16...

So is the E/F an evolution or a revolution?

I see it as an evolution. The revolution was with C/D because it was the step from a domestic fighter for swedish needs to a NATO compatible exportable plane. Compare the increased payload from 3'500 kg to 5'300 kg with C/D, to probably around 6'000 kg with with NG. Ok, the MTOW increases from 14'000 to 16'000, but still.

What makes the new design reasonably simple is that both the new fuel tanks and landing gear is very close to the CoG.

But I have to admit that things still can happen and the devil is in the details. I've been told that what almost killed the whole idea was the fuel tank pressurizing system that had to be totally redesigned.

[Ryttare]

Multinational doesn't give that kind of cost overuns. There is much more R&T in EF, JSF et al, while the Gripen relies on what is already on the shelf, i.e. design an airframe, then do the subsystems integration. That would expalin much.

Yes, the use of COTS in Gripen is an important part in keeping the costs down and it was also a way of reducing risks by using proven stuff.

But it doesn't explain all of it, and certainly not that EF has twice the development costs of Rafale.

[Ryttare]

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/inst_sp/docs/de_3_final_%20report.pdf

Big file

Some explanation - http://www.dmkn.de/1779/seeverkehr.nsf/f1b7ca69b19cbb26c12569180032a5cc/2da9085a905d84fcc125708900397407!OpenDocument

Thanks Swerve. My german is very weak, but I will try using a translator.

[Grand Danois]

Nice little presentation on the Gripen and the future.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/62D68B1C-720B-4EBC-A6B0-FC0F112FC21F/3102/gripen_md_johan_lehander_at_fboro_2006.pdf

[ainanup23]

Nice little presentation on the Gripen and the future.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/62D68B1C-720B-4EBC-A6B0-FC0F112FC21F/3102/gripen_md_johan_lehander_at_fboro_2006.pdf

Well undoubtly the presentation was nice in brief . Do u have something on the typhoon and the Mig-31s. They are the main competitor in the race for IAF`s $ 10 billion deal. As I mentioned earlier the American babies stand no chance in the race technologically speaking. Diplomacy have their own pressures. Commercial success will boost Gripen`s chances in winning major fighter deals , but it should have something distinct to stand out in the crowd. Take the SU-30 MKI , they have the thrust vectoring thing.

[rjmaz1]

The worst thing Saab could do to the Gripen would be to add more internal fuel, put in a bigger low bypass engine, lengthen the fuselage etc. You would have to completely redesign the wing, fuselage and landing gear to support the larger weight and internal volume.

The F-16 experienced similar growth. Weight and drag went up and the wing area stayed the same. The original Block 15's were extremely agile and light while the current Block 52's are significantly worse from a performance perspective.

If Saab put AESA into the Gripen similar to the Block 60 F-16 then it would be very good and performance would not be reduced. Using light avionics you could increase the firepower of the Gripen without addign weight.

If Saab put some small conformal tanks on the Gripen range would be increased slightly and it would actually travel faster compared to an aircraft with underwing fuel tanks. Having this as an option would be good for sales.

If Saab wanted a higher performance engine for the Gripen it has a couple options for lower byspass higher thrust designs but it has to seriously consider the consequences of putting in a low bypass engine.

The General electric F404 are fairly reliable but have average power to weight ratio considering its large size. This is because its a high bypass ratio engine by fighter jet standards which gives it fairly average supersonic and high altitude performance. A high bypass design however provides excellent subsonic and low altitude performance for short runways. The F404 is perfectly suited even though its quite old now. The F414 is the perfect step up, its the same size and weight but just runs hotter using new technology to produce more thrust without a reduction in fuel consumption.

A hot running low bypass F-119 style engine that could fit the Gripen may potentially offer over 50% more thrust while being lighter and smaller than the F404. It would instantly allow the Gripen to supercruise and put it into a whole new class. The down side though is that a low bypass design is less fuel effecient when travelling at subsonic speeds and will reduce endurance. I think this would be a bad thing. This is why passenger aircraft have high bypass engines as they consume very little fuel for the amount of thrust they put out. They are also better suited to subsonic speeds and have poor thrust levels considering their massive size.

Saab is obviously adding AESA. The APG-80 from the Block 60 F-16 could fit and would definitely increase performance.

[ainanup23]

The worst thing Saab could do to the Gripen would be to add more internal fuel, put in a bigger low bypass engine, lengthen the fuselage etc. You would have to completely redesign the wing, fuselage and landing gear to support the larger weight and internal volume.

The F-16 experienced similar growth. Weight and drag went up and the wing area stayed the same. The original Block 15's were extremely agile and light while the current Block 52's are significantly worse from a performance perspective.

If Saab put AESA into the Gripen similar to the Block 60 F-16 then it would be very good and performance would not be reduced. Using light avionics you could increase the firepower of the Gripen without addign weight.

If Saab put some small conformal tanks on the Gripen range would be increased slightly and it would actually travel faster compared to an aircraft with underwing fuel tanks. Having this as an option would be good for sales.

If Saab wanted a higher performance engine for the Gripen it has a couple options for lower byspass higher thrust designs but it has to seriously consider the consequences of putting in a low bypass engine.

The General electric F404 are fairly reliable but have average power to weight ratio considering its large size. This is because its a high bypass ratio engine by fighter jet standards which gives it fairly average supersonic and high altitude performance. A high bypass design however provides excellent subsonic and low altitude performance for short runways. The F404 is perfectly suited even though its quite old now. The F414 is the perfect step up, its the same size and weight but just runs hotter using new technology to produce more thrust without a reduction in fuel consumption.

A hot running low bypass F-119 style engine that could fit the Gripen may potentially offer over 50% more thrust while being lighter and smaller than the F404. It would instantly allow the Gripen to supercruise and put it into a whole new class. The down side though is that a low bypass design is less fuel effecient when travelling at subsonic speeds and will reduce endurance. I think this would be a bad thing. This is why passenger aircraft have high bypass engines as they consume very little fuel for the amount of thrust they put out. They are also better suited to subsonic speeds and have poor thrust levels considering their massive size.

Saab is obviously adding AESA. The APG-80 from the Block 60 F-16 could fit and would definitely increase performance..

If Saab is successful in adding AESA to the Gripen then you have a punch to this fighting falcon. The Rafale has been a commercial failure and among the European developer Typhoon remain a tough competitor, but it`s of different class being twin-engined and heavier. Japaneses Air Force is eyeing the Typhoon as the F-22 is being denied to them. Gripen can be a choice for them but it remains 2 be seen as how well and fast Saab is able to integrate the new AESA under development with Ericson.

[Grand Danois]

Saab is obviously adding AESA. The APG-80 from the Block 60 F-16 could fit and would definitely increase performance.

Ericsson is working with CEC-Marconi (?) on developing an AESA version of the PS-05/A currently equipping the Gripen. The demonstrator is called NORA and is based on US technology (Raytheon, iirc).

[Ryttare]

The worst thing Saab could do to the Gripen would be to add more internal fuel, put in a bigger low bypass engine, lengthen the fuselage etc. You would have to completely redesign the wing, fuselage and landing gear to support the larger weight and internal volume.

The empty weight will increase with 300 kg, but the fuselage will remain the same length and other outher dimensions. The landing gear will be different with bígger wheels and brakes.


If Saab wanted a higher performance engine for the Gripen it has a couple options for lower byspass higher thrust designs but it has to seriously consider the consequences of putting in a low bypass engine.

The General electric F404 are fairly reliable but have average power to weight ratio considering its large size. This is because its a high bypass ratio engine by fighter jet standards which gives it fairly average supersonic and high altitude performance. A high bypass design however provides excellent subsonic and low altitude performance for short runways. The F404 is perfectly suited even though its quite old now. The F414 is the perfect step up, its the same size and weight but just runs hotter using new technology to produce more thrust without a reduction in fuel consumption.

Reportedly there has been a number of different engines considered, like the EJ200 and an upgraded RM12. The F414 seems to be the simplest, most low risk choice with a good growth path and it's a no brainer from a technical point that it been chosen. Saab has aid that they are very satisfied with it's fuel economy.


A hot running low bypass F-119 style engine that could fit the Gripen may potentially offer over 50% more thrust while being lighter and smaller than the F404. It would instantly allow the Gripen to supercruise and put it into a whole new class. The down side though is that a low bypass design is less fuel effecient when travelling at subsonic speeds and will reduce endurance. I think this would be a bad thing. This is why passenger aircraft have high bypass engines as they consume very little fuel for the amount of thrust they put out. They are also better suited to subsonic speeds and have poor thrust levels considering their massive size.


Gripen already has supercruise, admittedly not in the F-22 class, and F414 would hopefully increase that.
The demand from the customers seems to be to get longer loiter times, and a relatively high bypass engine is logical. Having a more fuel efficient engine gives more time on afterburner so practical performance would probably be better anyway.

But it's not just a matter of engines, air intakes are also important. If you would combine a relatively high bypass engine with relatively small intakes, couldn't that give the best of two worlds? Good fuel economy at low speed and low thrust, and good thrust at high speed? Granted, for hauling big payloads with high thrust at low speeds it wouldn't be optimal. But Gripen is no bomb truck for deep strikes anyway, it's more geared towards CAS, CAP, maritime patrol and anti shipping. Also with a powerful engine like the F414 it might be quite capable anyway.

[Ryttare]

Ericsson is working with CEC-Marconi (?) on developing an AESA version of the PS-05/A currently equipping the Gripen. The demonstrator is called NORA and is based on US technology (Raytheon, iirc).

The NORA AESA is a bit difficult to define, because it seems to be many different possible solutions depending on the time frame. One is to work together with Selex (former Marconi) on an all European solution, but it will not be available for some years. In the short term the path is to work with american partners, exactly in what way I don't know. Raytheon has offered to equip Gripen with a modified version of one of it's AESA's.

[Scorpion82]

AFAIK Raytheon was just selected to provide a single array which is used on the demonstrator, while Ericsson and Selex are working on an entire european array to equipe production models of the NORA.

[tphuang]

.

If Saab is successful in adding AESA to the Gripen then you have a punch to this fighting falcon. The Rafale has been a commercial failure and among the European developer Typhoon remain a tough competitor, but it`s of different class being twin-engined and heavier. Japaneses Air Force is eyeing the Typhoon as the F-22 is being denied to them. Gripen can be a choice for them but it remains 2 be seen as how well and fast Saab is able to integrate the new AESA under development with Ericson.
there is no way something like Gripen can possibly match the requirements of JASDF if you look at who they are up against.

[swerve]

AFAIK Raytheon was just selected to provide a single array which is used on the demonstrator, while Ericsson and Selex are working on an entire european array to equipe production models of the NORA.

Isnt't the Raytheon array is being used in the same way as Thales used their array of US T/R modules, i.e. stick it on the front of their radar & use it as a development tool, allowing them to test the software modifications necessary for AESA? Thales ditched theirs as soon as they had all-European T/R modules. IIRC, Ericsson produced their own experimental array a while ago, & flew it in a testbed (C-130?). Selex already has an AESA fighter radar, so between them, they should be able to push things along pretty quickly, funding permitting. European-sourced T/R modules are no longer a problem.

[Grand Danois]

The NORA AESA is a bit difficult to define, because it seems to be many different possible solutions depending on the time frame. One is to work together with Selex (former Marconi) on an all European solution, but it will not be available for some years. In the short term the path is to work with american partners, exactly in what way I don't know. Raytheon has offered to equip Gripen with a modified version of one of it's AESA's.

Ah yes, Selex was the name. (Hence the question mark in my post.)

[Grand Danois]

Well undoubtly the presentation was nice in brief . Do u have something on the typhoon and the Mig-31s. They are the main competitor in the race for IAF`s $ 10 billion deal. As I mentioned earlier the American babies stand no chance in the race technologically speaking. Diplomacy have their own pressures. Commercial success will boost Gripen`s chances in winning major fighter deals , but it should have something distinct to stand out in the crowd. Take the SU-30 MKI , they have the thrust vectoring thing.

I've downloaded the presentations of the Typhoon/Gripen/JSF for the Norwegian fighter competition from the web. They must still be out there somewhere, I guess.

EDIT: Ah, dug the url up, they're no more on the web. I only have them as pdf.

[swerve]

The NORA AESA is a bit difficult to define, because it seems to be many different possible solutions depending on the time frame. One is to work together with Selex (former Marconi) on an all European solution, but it will not be available for some years. In the short term the path is to work with american partners, exactly in what way I don't know. Raytheon has offered to equip Gripen with a modified version of one of it's AESA's.

Selex is partly the former Marconi, but also the former FIAR. Selex is a subsidiary of Finmeccanica. The division working with Saab is Selex SI, in Italy, & the two radar divisions seem to have remained rather separate - though being part of the same company obviously counts for something, e.g. a Selex mini-AESA surface search radar developed in the UK being integrated onto Italian UAVs.

[Scorpion82]

Isnt't the Raytheon array is being used in the same way as Thales used their array of US T/R modules, i.e. stick it on the front of their radar & use it as a development tool, allowing them to test the software modifications necessary for AESA? Thales ditched theirs as soon as they had all-European T/R modules. IIRC, Ericsson produced their own experimental array a while ago, & flew it in a testbed (C-130?). Selex already has an AESA fighter radar, so between them, they should be able to push things along pretty quickly, funding permitting. European-sourced T/R modules are no longer a problem.

That's the way I understood it. The Raytheon array was quicker available and initial tests start on the ground before first flight tests are conducted.

[rattmuff]

Ericsson is working with CEC-Marconi (?) on developing an AESA version of the PS-05/A currently equipping the Gripen. The demonstrator is called NORA and is based on US technology (Raytheon, iirc).

*keeping this thread alive* :D
NORA isn't just going to be a radar as the name is short for Not Only a RAdar. It's meant to become a complete EW-suit including alot of cool stuff.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/surveillance/saab2/
There isn't much information on NORA around. :(

[Scorpion82]

*keeping this thread alive* :D
NORA isn't just going to be a radar as the name is short for Not Only a RAdar. It's meant to become a complete EW-suit including alot of cool stuff.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/surveillance/saab2/
There isn't much information on NORA around. :(

The NORA is not a complete EWS. The term Nor Only a Radar applies to new capabilities of the AESA system. This includes EW and jamming, as well as DL capabilities. NORA will be a part of the entirely new MIDAS (Multifunction Defensive Avionics System), but its not the EWS itself. MIDAS is planned for 2013, but I don't know if this schedule can be hold. MIDAS will also use new AESA devices distributed around the airframe instead of current RWR and ECM equipment.

[rattmuff]

Finally there's a official designation... "Gripen NG". :D

[SlyDog]

Well...according to http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm will the occurence off "Gripen Demo Roll out" Taking place in Linköping 23:rd of April.

[zeven]

how will NORA AESA and MIDAS (Multifunction Defensive Avionics System), stand agianst F-35s systems??

mod edit:

None of us will know. These systems are classified for good reason, so trying to "compare" them is futile.

[SlyDog]

how will NORA AESA and MIDAS (Multifunction Defensive Avionics System), stand agianst F-35s systems??

I have no idea, but some info have i found.


Ozzy Blizzard, zeven and other - since i think discussion in "Gripen - Red Flag"-thread (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5261&page=6) went to much "off topic" - about AESA-radar etc, I think its better to go further here instead.





yes JAS NG will operate AESA system.
i´m not sure, but some says the irsystem will be integraded yes.

it will be a first gen system with only conventional radar functions, therefore it will be significantly less capable than the AN/APG 81.



I think this is "old news" - the document are few year old. The reliability of the source are uncertain" :roll:

http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gripenradarroadmapka1.jpg

[zeven]

thanks, alot..

[swerve]

...- about AESA-radar etc, I think its better to go further here instead.
...
I think this is "old news" - the document are few year old. The reliability of the source are uncertain" :roll:


This is a presentation by the Gripen MD at Farnborough 2006, now on the Gripen website -
Gripen presentation (http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/62D68B1C-720B-4EBC-A6B0-FC0F112FC21F/3102/gripen_md_johan_lehander_at_fboro_2006.pdf)

As you see, AESA is mentioned as part of the NG - but no timetable.

[SlyDog]

swerve: This presentation (http://www.ntva.no/seminarer/manus/eddy-270207.pdf) are a somewhat more extended version of the presentation you provided. It dosnt "say" more about AESA - but more details about Gripen "all around"

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think this is "old news" - the document are few year old. The reliability of the source are uncertain" :roll:

http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gripenradarroadmapka1.jpg

I wasnt just refering to a document, i've had this argument before.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7135&page=5

Refer to post #74.

[SlyDog]

I didnt thougt you was refering to a document.

I just show the "roadmap".

You mean this:

Making an AEW&C sized radar system is not the same as making a fighter sized system. I'm sure it will help, but it will not allow the sweeds to produce a system of the calibur of the AN/APG 81. An AESA's real capability does not lay in the array hardware itself, its the signal proscessor and the software that give the system its teeth, therefore just because you have an active array does not mean you have a system as capable as the AN/APG 77/79/81 series. Eurofighter fans continually make this mistake, sighting CAPTOR as the answer to the APG 79 just because they are both AESA's, when in reality its 1st gen vs 3rd gen.


And you know which model or kind of processor and software that will be used in gripen?...I dont have a slitest idea really. I don´t make any clames.

I show the document and thinking about the last 3-4 paragraphs at the page - when diffrent "functions" (in NORA) are expected to be implemented. Not more. Not degree of sofistication etc.

But I' m aware about moore´s law.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And you know which model or kind of processor and software that will be used in gripen?...I dont have a slitest idea really. I don´t make any clames.

I show the document and thinking about the last 3-4 paragraphs at the page - when diffrent "functions" (in NORA) are expected to be implemented. Not more. Not degree of sofistication etc.

But I' m aware about moore´s law.

I dont know what proscessor the NORA will use, but i doubt it will be more capable than the one being utilize in the APG 81 at the time of its intoduction. pluss there's the real issue of the software.

[zeven]

ozzy Blizzard

so when will APG 81, be operational?

Nora will be sometime between (2010-2015 ) but the final product will be operational around 2018-2020. if i´m not misstaken, i´ve hard to believe APG 81 will be far superior then, 10 years of further development.

ps. ok true, APG 81 might have an advantage for a couple of years if the plane will be operational around 2010-2013.. but F-35 are supposed to operatate by foreign airforces around 2016 right??

[Ozzy Blizzard]

ozzy Blizzard

so when will APG 81, be operational?

Nora will be sometime between (2010-2015 ) but the final product will be operational around 2018-2020. if i´m not misstaken, i´ve hard to believe APG 81 will be far superior then, 10 years of further development.

ps. ok true, APG 81 might have an advantage for a couple of years if the plane will be operational around 2010-2013.. but F-35 are supposed to operatate by foreign airforces around 2016 right??

AN/APG 81 should be operational when F-35 is, arround 2013 i think. Raytheon is into its 3rd generation of fighter ESA's, how many have erikson made again? The US are 3 genrations ahead of most of the world (2 gens ahead of the russians and french) and they have the biggest AESA R&D budget in the world, but the sweeds will leapfrog them with what % of the money and what % of the knwo how??? They have to do a hell of alot of R&D work before they get themselves an APG 79/77/81, even if they can put an active array on the front of a gripen and keep it cool.

Some AESA's are more equal than others. The original AN/AWG-9 was a hell of alot less capable than the AN/APG-71, even though they are both plannar mechanically scanned array's.

[zeven]

i think the swedes have managed to make excellent radar equipment and other technology parts, for the same cost as Lockheed martins cocktailparty´s so i wouldn´t be suprised if Ericsson will do it agian, and they did the erieye didn´t they?? the only reason americans got the advatage is because of the money. and sweden has never been to inferior in the past, the dobbler ericsson radar that is operational today, is one of the best of that kind.

so let us just wait and see, when it´s operational.

if you look at the stealth technology, the swedes make their test run with their stealth corvettes Visby when the americans still was on the paper/plan stage.

you assume to much, that might backfire someday..

ps.
but i know usa, are in the fron here, just look at F-22.
what i´m trying to say is. when the swedes are done, it will be very good, they will not integrade a second hand version.

[SlyDog]

By the way, when it comes to avionics - its really fascinating how fast everything change. When I was an electronic engineer student, our class were invited to one of Saabs "manufacturing plants". It must have been somewhere between 1998 and 1999. A guide showed us few "Electronic boxes" and said: Here are a newdeveloped modul that "taking over" the job from three boxes of the same size. (Something like 22 x 22 x 10 cm). This is of course not uniqe for "Gripen". But it is really fascinating to see the tecnological development in such concrete way. Diffrence in age between the systems was behaps something like 5-6 years.

[zeven]

i know, and to upgrade gripen from now on will be very easy, it can be done, in a matter of hours, not month like before..

[gf0012-aust]

i know, and to upgrade gripen from now on will be very easy, it can be done, in a matter of hours, not month like before..

Modular upgrades have been available in combat planes for the last 6-7 years. It takes literally less than 2 minutes to swap out the module.

[zeven]

very true, so that kind of "kill" the arguement, that F-35 at all times and overall will have better avionics, am i right??

[Ozzy Blizzard]

very true, so that kind of "kill" the arguement, that F-35 at all times and overall will have better avionics, am i right??

Why??? You have to develope the module upgrade first!

Look, Erikson have a fraction of the funds, a fraction of the people, a fraction of the know how nad a fraction of the real experiance, pluss they are 3 generations behind in radar tech. There's no way in hell they're going to develope a radar as capable as the AN/APG 81 will be in 2018 (it will have gone through several software upgrades by then, F-22A has allready had 3, and software is the real teeth of an AESA), and grippen NG will not have several systems that F-35 will have. So even if all the other stuff like the combat management system is comperable to the F-35's (which again i doubt) inferior AESA + missing avionic systems such as EOTS and DAS = inferior avionics "at all times and overall".

I have no doubt the sweeds will make a capable fighter. I was very impressed with the combination of Erieye/Gripen/AIM-120 combination and the fact that it was first implemented by a nation the size of Sweeden. However, your claiming comparing Gripen NG, which was allways designed with cost and maintinance constraints in mind, with arguably the most advanced and sophistocated fighter on the planet. Considering the people who are makeing it and the money behind it, there no shame in haveing inferior anything to the F-35, as much as your nationalistic investment in the platform may not allow you to see that.

[zeven]

Aussi Digger, i´ve never said Gripen or EF was superior,

but talking about the avionics, ehm i don´t know everything the planes have, neither do you, and to. so we can still assume, all the fancy gadgets that F-35 got, might not be important for Gripen or /EF, but who know they might give F-35 a fair fight anyway, we relly don´t know yet.

the claim about more funds and more ppl, ehm i can agree with you to a certain point, but not all the way,

just look at cars, do you think Volvo are inferior to Ford?
don´t think you do.

but until they meet eachother in let say Red Flag, i do believe F-35 is superior, but tactics/senario/pilots/supportsystem and so on, alot of things that can turn it around,

and i still believe that f-35 would have big time trouble if they wanted to let say try go get airsupiority over Sweden.

or over England, without any help of F-22

in your world, it would be a waste of money to buy anything els except F-35 because it wouldn´t stand a chance, i believe history have shown us wrong many times.

[Falstaff]

Futile attempt, zeven... You won't get Ozzy anywhere near stating European stuff might be as good as American stuff. The best concession you'll get is "I don't believe it" ;)
Although the Europeans developed radar technology much earlier, although European companies have developed and fielded AESA radars for decades and are well aware of the algorithms, although there are excellent engineers and computer scientists around, we'll never achieve anything.
As if scientific research was some kind of brute force attack.

[zeven]

Falstaff,

i´ve realized this, and i agree with you,

[Aussie Digger]

Aussi Digger, i´ve never said Gripen or EF was superior,

but talking about the avionics, ehm i don´t know everything the planes have, neither do you, and to. so we can still assume, all the fancy gadgets that F-35 got, might not be important for Gripen or /EF, but who know they might give F-35 a fair fight anyway, we relly don´t know yet.

There are a number of systems we DO know about.

Gripen uses the Litening targetting pod at present (Litening II model I believe). Whilst the F-35 will use an internally mounted version of the Sniper XR targetting pod. The Litening II pod is inferior in capability to the Sniper XR targetting pod at present, which is why the Litening AT was developed and the Litening 4G is under development. The F-35 however will feature a development of the Sniper XR, building on it's features. Gripen International have yet to qualify even the AT variant at present, I believe...

the claim about more funds and more ppl, ehm i can agree with you to a certain point, but not all the way,

Yes, but the US has the luxury of multiple companies, designing and manufacturing current AESA radar systems, which are ackowledged as the finest current fighter radars in the world. They are also working on the next generation of radar systems, the APG-81 and evolved APG-77 sets being the most obvious of this.

The US has an enormous headstart having already fielded operational APG-63 (V2/3) AESA, APG-80 (AESA), APG-79 AESA and APG-77 AESA in tactical fighters. Neither SAAB, Eurofighter Consortium or Dassault have even managed to field their first fighter AESA fire control radar systems...

APG-81 will be a next generation variant and fielded at the same time the Euro-canards are fielding their first...

just look at cars, do you think Volvo are inferior to Ford?
don´t think you do.

Cars are established technology. Volvo is not attempting to build their first ever car and then compare it with Ford's advanced next generation vehicle...

but until they meet eachother in let say Red Flag, i do believe F-35 is superior, but tactics/senario/pilots/supportsystem and so on, alot of things that can turn it around,

You are quite right. Circumstances are rarely ever "fair" and they aren't in Red Flag either. No aircraft user is going to allow 2 fighter aircraft to go "head to head" and employ their entire capability against another aircraft just to discover which is "better" when you are discussing foreign airforces.

The Indian's deploying their SU-30MKI's to Red Flag have even forbidden their pilots to even USE their radar systems... Yet fanboys everywhere will be decrying to the heavens how "superior" they are...

and i still believe that f-35 would have big time trouble if they wanted to let say try go get airsupiority over Sweden.

or over England, without any help of F-22

Don't bother believing the sky is blue either. It'd make just as much sense...

in your world, it would be a waste of money to buy anything els except F-35 because it wouldn´t stand a chance, i believe history have shown us wrong many times.

No. Perhaps you should try to understand these posts somewhat. Let them sink in a bit. No-one here has said the Gripen is a bad fighter. You have often said the F-35 IS, or will be and you refuse to accept the reality of the situation. The Gripen is simply outclassed in the majority of aspects by the F-35. It IS a newer aircraft so why is that so surprising? The Gripen is superior to the Viggen in most areas too. Does that upset you?

You base these ludicrous accusations on the premise it is a "bombtruck" yet ignore the question, or are incapable of answering, what these missing qualities are that would make it an air to air fighter...

It is a multi-role fighter. Just like the Gripen. Just like the F/A-18. Just like the Eurofighter, Rafale, F-16, Su-30, SU-35, whatever.

Not one of these aircraft are designed for one specific role. The sooner you realise this the more productive our discussions will be.