Saab Gripen news

loke · by **loke** » 27 Mar 2020, 10:59

Not really news anymore, but some interesting information:

Company officials told MONCh during EW Europe, being held in Stockholm 14-15 May, that flight trials of the company's AREXIS electronic warfare pod would be performed on-board a Saab JAS-39C GRIPEN fighter.
The pod covers a waveband of 150 megahertz to four gigahertz. Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) architecture is used in its design. This enables the pod to rapidly switch between innovative jamming waveforms and to perform electronic beam steering using its antennas. This is a particularly useful attribute when the aircraft carrying the pod needs to perform off-boresight jamming. Such an approach is highly relevant when the aircraft must remain outside the main lobe of a radar while still needing to jam the radar.
Electronic beam-steering allows amming to be injected into the radar’s side lobes, thus helping to mask the aircraft from detection.
Saab has taken an innovative approach for the AREXIS design. Company officials stated that the pod is designed not only to protect individual aircraft, but also a strike package of four-to-five jets ingressing and egressing a target. The presence of forward and rearward facing antennas on the pod enables the aircraft to continue providing both spot and barrage jamming when a package of aircraft is leaving contested airspace, as well as during its approach to the target. To this end, the company is billing AREXIS as an escort jammer as much as for individual aircraft self-protection.

In terms of concepts of operations Saab foresees the pod helping to provide a layered approach to aircraft self-protection, effectively spanning the tactical and operational levels of electronic warfare application. In this sense, AREXIS can be used as a stand-off jammer and for the collection of ELINT (Electronic Intelligence).

ELINT can be recorded for analysis after a mission, or transmitted in real time using the aircraft’s communications systems. Saab has employed a modular approach to the pod’s design with the ELINT function a capability that can be added by customers if so desired.

Company officials continued that the pod is fully compatible with the US Department of Defense’s MIL-STD-1553 databus protocol. This will enable AREXIS to outfit a multitude of combat aircraft which employ this protocol. Moreover, due to the high level of autonomy in the pod’s architecture it can equip a single-seat fighter with Saab stating that the addition of the apparatus will not adversely affect the pilot’s workload. Interestingly, Saab’s work on the MFS-EW Integrated Self-Protection System (ISPS) for the Saab JAS-39E/F fighter has been instrumental in the pod’s realisation.

Much of the technology equipping the pod has been derived from technology utilised for the MFS-EW. Saab sources added that a prototype of the JAS-39E’s ISPS is already equipping one of the JAS-39E prototype aircraft, and that flight testing is underway. The pod’s development is being financed by Saab, although the firm is actively seeking customers for the product. Although not confirmed by Saab, Germany has been touted as one potential buyer. Saab expects to complete AREXIS flight testing in 2020.

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/ew-c4i-c ... rexis.html

Going all the way down to 150 MHz.

Another news report claimed Arexis can go up to 18GHz, and a third saying that Arexis actually is a two-pod system. So perhaps one low-band covering 150MHz-4GHz, and one covering 4-18GHz.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 27 Mar 2020, 12:53

loke wrote:Another news report claimed Arexis can go up to 18GHz, and a third saying that Arexis actually is a two-pod system. So perhaps one low-band covering 150MHz-4GHz, and one covering 4-18GHz.

Thank you for the info loke!

I think the latter is more plausible as covering 150MHz all to way up to 18 GHz would require either extremely wideband T/R modules or several different types of modules in one pod which would take up a lot of space. Wideband modules would be difficult as that hurts both output power and sensitivity. GaN tech helps here but best performance is still achieved with reasonably narrowband modules. With GaN tech it might be possible to effectively cover 150 MHz to 4 GHz using one or two different types of modules. NGJ is supposed to be 3 different pods and even then at least the NGJ-MB has two different apertures for different wavelengths.

loke · by **loke** » 16 Apr 2020, 17:13

Liebherr has successfully tested its prototype air cooling system in Saab’s new advanced Electronic Attack Jammer Pod (EAJP) which is being trialled on the Gripen fighter aircraft (pictured).

The company was selected by Saab in November 2017 to deliver the air cooling system and consequently, Liebherr has developed two product lines for pod applications.

These include one based on air cycle whilst the other works on vapor cycle configurations with systems operating at 1kW up to 4kW.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air- ... aabs-eajp/

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 20 Apr 2020, 06:37

Some interesting info about that Falcon Strike 2015 exercise between Thai Gripen-C and Chinese J-11s.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/flanker ... -exercise/

Medium range (beyond visual range/ BVR) domain:
Gripen first, J-11A second:
BVR missile: AIM-120 missile – 80km range versus RVV-AE missile – 50km range
Radar: 160km range, track 10 targets versus 120km range, track 10 targets
Radar cross section: 1.5-2m2 versus 10-12m2
Simultaneous target engagement: 4 versus 1
Electronic warfare systems: 1 internal and 2 external podded systems versus 1 external podded system
Towed decoy: present versus not present
Decoys: flares and chaff versus flares and chaff
Warning systems: radar warning and missile launch warning and missile approach warning versus radar warning and missile approach warning
Datalinks: 2 versus 1
Night vision: present versus not present

Close range (within visual range/WVR) domain: various factors were coded as “average” to “capable” to “strong” in ascending levels of relative capability

Gripen first, J-11A second:
G limit: +9/-2 versus +8/-2
Engine thrust: “capable” versus “strong”
Avionics systems: “strong” versus “average”
Sustained performance/turn rate: “capable” versus “strong”
Instantaneous performance/turn rate: “strong” versus “average”
WVR missile: AIM-9L missile -“capable” versus R-73 missile-“strong”
Helmet mounted display/sight (HMD/S): “strong” versus “capable”
Structural factors:

Gripen first, J-11A second:
Combat radius: 900 km versus 1500 km
Air to air refueling: present versus not present
Payload: 6 tons versus 4 tons
Aircraft role: air to air and air to surface and reconnaissance versus air to air only

Nothing really surprising, but interesting nonetheless. RCS and missile range figures are definitely interesting...

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 20 Apr 2020, 07:01

Oh well, just found that much of this info has already been posted but I had forgotten:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=434570#p434570

Anyway, there is some additional info in the article I quoted.

loke · by **loke** » 20 Apr 2020, 10:25

I believe Thailand has MS19 -- the newer MS20 (used by Sweden) includes a much improved radar performance, Meteor integration, and several other improvements.

Thailand should also upgrade to a better short-range missile (either the latest AIM-9, or IRIS-T); and perhaps train a bit more?

However, technology is also less decisive in WVR engagements, allowing pilot training to potentially play a greater part in overcoming any WVR imbalances.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 20 Apr 2020, 11:10

loke wrote:I believe Thailand has MS19 -- the newer MS20 (used by Sweden) includes a much improved radar performance, Meteor integration, and several other improvements.

Thailand should also upgrade to a better short-range missile (either the latest AIM-9, or IRIS-T); and perhaps train a bit more?
However, technology is also less decisive in WVR engagements, allowing pilot training to potentially play a greater part in overcoming any WVR imbalances.

That exercise was in 2015 and MS20 was first introduced to Swedish Air Force the next year. So they definitely had MS19. They have also bought IRIS-T to their Gripens (and F-5s and F-16s) already in 2011 but it seems like they didn't have them for that exercise. Probably they just got them then and might not have had full capability to utilize them until later. Or they didn't want to show those to Chinese.

loke · by **loke** » 27 Apr 2020, 18:25

Youtube videos on Gripen design:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGtl0spPK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f32tX64W4bo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jagz2ZNJpNc&t=183s

What do the experts think; does this guy know what he talks about? Aerodynamics is a black box to me...

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 28 Apr 2020, 13:47

loke wrote:Youtube videos on Gripen design:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGtl0spPK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f32tX64W4bo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jagz2ZNJpNc&t=183s

What do the experts think; does this guy know what he talks about? Aerodynamics is a black box to me...

I'm not an expert.
He throws a lot of assumptions up, (I watched the first video). Some are right, some are wrong. In my humble opinion. What bothers me is that he talks as if he knows, but he is, quite frankly, only guessing on the most points, or reading what others on the internet have said.

my 5 cent.

hythelday · by **hythelday** » 10 Jul 2020, 07:34

Saab starts Gripen jet production in Brazil
George Allison, July 7, 2020

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/saab-st ... in-brazil/

This site builds sections of Gripen, which will then be delivered to the final assembly facilities at the Embraer plant in Gavião Peixoto, São Paulo, Brazil and to Linköping, Sweden.

The tail cone and front fuselage of the single-seat version of the Gripen fighter are the first aerostructures to enter into production at SAM. Subsequently, the aerodynamic brakes, rear fuselage, wing box and front fuselage for the two-seater version will also be manufactured at SAM. (SAAB's Brazil plant)

loke · by **loke** » 05 Mar 2021, 13:40

Gripens in exercise with Bones:

The purpose of the joint exercise is to increase the Armed Forces' ability to work together with priority partners. The US is an important partner for Sweden and therefore regular joint exercises and trainings are carried out, which also strengthens the Armed Forces' defense capabilities. It also contributes to increased stability and security.

"Joint exercise is important to increase our military capabilities. Firstly, to ensure interoperability and, on the other, to ensure common methods and procedures. We are starting to get very good routine on this as we have experience from previous joint exercises," says Air Force Chief and Exercise Leader Carl-Johan Edström.

During today's exercise, jas 39 Gripen has escorted american B-1B Lancer in Swedish airspace over central Sweden. At the time, ground units, which are an important component for being able to lead in air support, also participated.

auto-translated from: https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuel ... -bombflyg/

Picture at the link.

loke · by **loke** » 17 Mar 2021, 13:02

Article (in Portuguese) about the status of Gripen in Brazil. 350 Brazilian engineers and technicians will receive training in Sweden.

The development of the plane was delayed between 2015 and 2016 due to the recession, and the delivery of the last Gripen went from 2024 to 2026 according to the last estimate.

(auto-translated)

Some nice images at the link:

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/202 ... asil.shtml

loke · by **loke** » 18 Mar 2021, 16:29

hornetfinn wrote:Some interesting info about that Falcon Strike 2015 exercise between Thai Gripen-C and Chinese J-11s.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/flanker ... -exercise/

Medium range (beyond visual range/ BVR) domain:
Gripen first, J-11A second:
BVR missile: AIM-120 missile – 80km range versus RVV-AE missile – 50km range
Radar: 160km range, track 10 targets versus 120km range, track 10 targets
Radar cross section: 1.5-2m2 versus 10-12m2
Simultaneous target engagement: 4 versus 1
Electronic warfare systems: 1 internal and 2 external podded systems versus 1 external podded system
Towed decoy: present versus not present
Decoys: flares and chaff versus flares and chaff
Warning systems: radar warning and missile launch warning and missile approach warning versus radar warning and missile approach warning
Datalinks: 2 versus 1
Night vision: present versus not present

Close range (within visual range/WVR) domain: various factors were coded as “average” to “capable” to “strong” in ascending levels of relative capability

Gripen first, J-11A second:
G limit: +9/-2 versus +8/-2
Engine thrust: “capable” versus “strong”
Avionics systems: “strong” versus “average”
Sustained performance/turn rate: “capable” versus “strong”
Instantaneous performance/turn rate: “strong” versus “average”
WVR missile: AIM-9L missile -“capable” versus R-73 missile-“strong”
Helmet mounted display/sight (HMD/S): “strong” versus “capable”
Structural factors:

Gripen first, J-11A second:
Combat radius: 900 km versus 1500 km
Air to air refueling: present versus not present
Payload: 6 tons versus 4 tons
Aircraft role: air to air and air to surface and reconnaissance versus air to air only

Nothing really surprising, but interesting nonetheless. RCS and missile range figures are definitely interesting...

According to a Czech site, the Thai Gripen did not have HMD in 2015:

What needs to be mentioned is the fact that both sides have tried to learn from all aspects of the exercise. In the case of the Thai Air Force, the result of maneuver air battles had the same effect as in the case of the Swiss Air Force. It carried out very intensive training in the late 1990s with its then completely new F / A-18C / D aircraft against the MiG-29 of the German Luftwaffe, which were just before decommissioning. And just a very bad result against the German Twenty-nine in maneuver air combat was the impetus for the acquisition of modern AIM-9X missiles and JHMCS helmet sights, plus intensified training in this area. The Swiss pilots were later among the toughest opponents in a number of exercises. A similar effect was probably brought by the Falcon Strike exercise for RTAF, for which it was an impulse to purchase HMD Cobra helmet sights, which the Thai Air Force received in 2018 in an unknown number. Likewise, training in maneuvering air combat has probably intensified, with which Thai pilots have not yet had the necessary experience.

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... ch&pto=aue

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 18 Mar 2021, 18:24

loke wrote:Article (in Portuguese) about the status of Gripen in Brazil. 350 Brazilian engineers and technicians will receive training in Sweden.

The development of the plane was delayed between 2015 and 2016 due to the recession, and the delivery of the last Gripen went from 2024 to 2026 according to the last estimate.

Thats gotta be wrong. I'm emphatically told that the Gripen doesn't suffer delays, weight gain, or cost escalations

linkomart wrote:He throws a lot of assumptions up, (I watched the first video). Some are right, some are wrong. In my humble opinion. What bothers me is that he talks as if he knows, but he is, quite frankly, only guessing on the most points, or reading what others on the internet have said.

Gripen fans in a nutshell.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 19 Mar 2021, 06:30

Fans in a nutshell. Doesn't matter wich "side" they are on.

best regards.