playloud wrote:The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration is listing the dry thrust at >14,388 lbf (>64,000 kN).

How they would achieve greater thrust than a standard F414 at MIL, but the same at MAX, I have no idea.

Yeap, that dry thrust value seems a bit off/"fishy".

But the funny thing here is that even with considering that dry thrust value to be correct, the thing (Gripen E) is still way under-powered!

For example and doing a quick math, the F-35 which carries much, much more fuel than the Gripen E (all internally) and being heavier manages to have a better Thrust-to-Weight Ratio.

For example consider both aircraft with full internal fuel and without weapons:

- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700

- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154

- F-35 Internal Fuel (kg): 8391

--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.59

- Gripen E mil thrust (kg): 6526

- Gripen E Empty weight (kg): 8000

- Gripen E Internal Fuel (kg): 3400

--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.57

- F-35 mil thrust (kg): 12700

- F-35 Empty weight (kg): 13154

- F-35 with 50% Internal Fuel (kg): 4195.5 (795.5 kg more than the Gripen with full internal fuel!)

--> Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 0.73

The F-35 carries almost 2.5 times the amount of internal fuel compared to the Gripen E.

With AB the TWR diference slightly increases and a F-35 with 50% fuel still carries much more fuel than the Gripen E with full internal fuel while its TWR drastically increases (0.73 with mil thrust) compared to the Gripen E with full internal fuel. This last point IMO proves even more that the Gripen E is way under-powered!

“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.