F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[ricnunes]

Can't achieve 3000km ferry range on 5300 lbs of internal fuel. Don't think any F404 powered aircraft has done that on internal fuel alone. As an indicative guide, the ol' scooters (Singapore version with the F404) can manage 3000km with 3 drop tanks.

Ferry range is obviously with 3 bags.
3x 300 gal in case of Gripen A-D
2x 450, 1x 300 gal in case of Gripen E/F.

Yes, I concur that it's obvious that the Gripen ferry range is with 3 EFTs.
A ferry range is usually with a max number of External Fuel Tanks possible.

That's a 33% increase to go with the 40% increase of internal fuel. You'd expect roughly a 30% increase in range with those figures.Yes, weight taken into account.

The problem is that the 30% increase on ferry range isn't (solely) obtained by a 40% internal fuel and like it was said above there's also the external fuel on this equation.
The Gripen E carries a total of 3400 kg or around 7495 lb on internal fuel. With the configuration that you mentioned above (2 x 450 gallons ETFs and 1 x 300 gallon EFT) and doing some rough math, it means that 300 gallons of Jet Fuel is around 2000 lb and 450 gallons of Jet Fuel is 3000 lb which means 6000lb (2*450 gallons) + 2000lb (1*300 gallons) or more precisely 8000 lb of External Fuel (more than 100% of compared to the internal fuel), this compared to 6000lb (3*300 gallon EFTs) of external fuel carried by the Gripen C.
This means that in a ferry configuration the Gripen E will carry more than 25% of external fuel compared to the Gripen C and 40% more internal fuel also compared to the Gripen C or resuming the Gripen E carries 65% more (almost two thirds more) of total fuel compared to the Gripen C (this in the same ferry configuration) and this just to have an extended/increased range of 30% (compared to the Gripen C).

According to my own estimate, Gripen E enjoys a range increase of about 26% on internal fuel. This is based on weight and available fuel, taking into account reserve fuel and assuming unchanged L/D and SFC. But a percent here or there doesn't make a noticeable difference.

Due to what I mentioned above, I doubt that the 40% internal fuel increase (only) of the Gripen E will grant it a range increase of about 26%.

[eagle3000]

This means that in a ferry configuration the Gripen E will carry more than 25% of external fuel compared to the Gripen C and 40% more internal fuel also compared to the Gripen C or resuming the Gripen E carries 65% more (almost two thirds more) of total fuel compared to the Gripen C (this in the same ferry configuration) and this just to have an extended/increased range of 30% (compared to the Gripen C).

How does 25% more external fuel (actually its around 36% more) and 40% more internal fuel translate to 65% more totally?
It doesn't of course.

Internal its around 2420 vs 3400 kg, 40% more.
External, it's 3x 1100 liter vs 2x 1700 liter + 1x 1100 liter. Thats 3300 vs 4500 liter or 2640 vs 3600 kg.
So internal and external, its 5060 kg vs 7000 kg. 38% more.
All numbers are approx.

Due to what I mentioned above, I doubt that the 40% internal fuel increase (only) of the Gripen E will grant it a range increase of about 26%.

It does. According to manufacturers numbers, test pilots statement and also my calculations. Pretty clear thing.
And unless a combat radius, where you can play with all sorts of parameters to get the optimal result, ferry range is a very straightforward mission. If the manufacturer says ferry range is 4000 km, its 4000 km.

[lukfi]

Nothing was ignored they were evaluating the offers given to them. The proposal from SAAB included NO A-A missiles - it is not relevant what Gripen could potentially carry but what Slovakia was allowed to procure.

Do you know of any information that would indicate Slovakia would not be allowed to procure other missiles? MBDA MICA and Meteor are both sold to non-NATO countries, so I don't see a reason why Slovakia who is in NATO and EU could not buy it if they wanted.

If they evaluated the F-16 was the better package then any concluding report would be written towards the one they want - which is why you are getting so upset over it - however this doesn't mean the information isn't factual it just means that you may need the full evaluation report to understand it fully.

Perhaps that's what you're not understanding. This document was supposed to be the analysis based on which the selection would be made, not a concluding report explaining a choice that was made. But it's written in such a one-sided way, it fooled you into believing it was the latter. So even if the numbers are factual, we are basically in agreement that they may be cherry-picked to show the benefits of the F-16, while benefits of the Gripen were not mentioned.

So…

Seeing the Gripen C vs. F-16V graphic is striking. Hard to imagine an aircraft designed all those years later inferior in so many ways.

^ the graphic was made precisely to make you think that. When actually there are many features and parameters of a plane that affect its real world combat usefulness, but hey look a nice graphic!

There are ways

Thanks for the links. One thing that caught my eye was the mention of a polyurethane coating of the airframe. Specifically this part:

Both aircraft coatings still exhibit poor wear and temperature resistance and have needed time-intensive recoatings more frequently than desired.

I know the reapplication of stealth coating was/is a major cost item on the F-22 and B-2, and was under the impression that the F-35 used a "permanent" coating that doesn't have to be reapplied. Is that not the case?

[basher54321]

Do you know of any information that would indicate Slovakia would not be allowed to procure other missiles? MBDA MICA and Meteor are both sold to non-NATO countries, so I don't see a reason why Slovakia who is in NATO and EU could not buy it if they wanted.

Nothing in the documents would confirm one way or the other - however consider this, do they evaluate the F-16 on anything not part of the Lockheed offer .......for example they could also add that procurement of the F-16 could potentially lead to being allowed to purchase F-35s in the future - like Poland have done as one example. The decision to procure F-16s looks entirely based on what was actually offered.

The report does outline the level of evaluation that went into it - the claim of higher Mach at high altitude on a report like that should only be taken from a real world evaluation.

[XanderCrews]

Perhaps that's what you're not understanding. This document was supposed to be the analysis based on which the selection would be made, not a concluding report explaining a choice that was made. But it's written in such a one-sided way, it fooled you into believing it was the latter. So even if the numbers are factual, we are basically in agreement that they may be cherry-picked to show the benefits of the F-16, while benefits of the Gripen were not mentioned.

So…

the graphic was made precisely to make you think that. When actually there are many features and parameters of a plane that affect its real world combat usefulness, but hey look a nice graphic!

Behold a Saab Gripen fan crying about biased and cherry picked marketing...



I already wrote extensively about this, you're very late to the party. remember all my posts that pointed out how saab lies and there is little to no oversight to contradict their claims and people like yourself buy it? Moreover this graphic is meant to show a specific and already evaluated trait. The purpose is to be straightforward and not clutter it with other data...

nice attempt at turning it all around though. not obvious at all...

[ricnunes]

How does 25% more external fuel (actually its around 36% more) and 40% more internal fuel translate to 65% more totally?
It doesn't of course.

Yes, I did a mistake. Summed the percentage of internal fuel with external fuel which is obviously wrong because the fuel quantities internally and externally are quite different.

Internal its around 2420 vs 3400 kg, 40% more.
External, it's 3x 1100 liter vs 2x 1700 liter + 1x 1100 liter. Thats 3300 vs 4500 liter or 2640 vs 3600 kg.
So internal and external, its 5060 kg vs 7000 kg. 38% more.
All numbers are approx.

Yes, the values that I used in my previous post are quite similar as yours but you made a mistake above: 5060 kg vs 7000 kg is not 38% more. Instead it's 27% more.

Which is one more reason why I don't buy these Saab values when it comes to range. More on that below.

Due to what I mentioned above, I doubt that the 40% internal fuel increase (only) of the Gripen E will grant it a range increase of about 26%.

It does. According to manufacturers numbers, test pilots statement and also my calculations. Pretty clear thing.
And unless a combat radius, where you can play with all sorts of parameters to get the optimal result, ferry range is a very straightforward mission. If the manufacturer says ferry range is 4000 km, its 4000 km.

So lets see:
Saab claims for the Gripen E a ferry range of 4000 km (with internal and external fuel) versus a 3200 km ferry range for the Gripen C (also with internal and external fuel). So Saab claims a 20% increase on ferry range for the Gripen E over the Gripen C but all of this only with 27% more fuel (internal and external). So the weight of the extra internal fuel + weight of extra external fuel + extra drag of the bigger external fuel tanks only have a impact of 7% of all the (27%) extra fuel?? I find that hard to believe!

Regarding the test pilot and manufacturer values that you're referring to above, it's actually quite simple to find where did they get that. They get that from Saab's projected values for the Gripen NG when this was though to only weight 7000 kg as opposed to 8000 kg now - this a 12.5% more weight for the exact same engine.
Here:


and here:


Resuming due to weight increases (from what was projected Gripen NG), I'm sure that the actual Gripen E values are somehow bellow those (very) optimistic Saab projections that you can see above.

[XanderCrews]

I am in no hurry to start yet another Gripen thread on a forum that has about 3 or 4 going all at once seemingly. but I will say this. I think its safe to say that everyone, lover, hater or neutral, would truly benefit from a clean slate starting in 2017, and completely forgetting the 10 years of basically invented numbers from 2006-2016, forget the gripen demo (which despite moving the undercarriage around is not a production representative prototype at all) a lot of the numbers, tests, and verification is for a version of the Gripen that never did and never will exist anyway.

as of January the Gripen E had 150 test hours.

in a perfect world we would look at the gripen E from 2017 on, and demand proof, details and confirmation as much as possible while dismissing past claims as exactly what they are-- irrelevant and invented guesstimates. basically say the Gripen E "started" on its first flight and treat it without bias and that the airplane prove the claims, we would not use the old numbers and false claims and would not try and draw conclusions about Gripen e, from the Gripen A-D. we would be HIGHLY skeptical.

But thats not the world we live in and we havn't live through 10 years of Bs claims to simple start relying on reality now.


A quick primer:

The F-35 going overweight and subsequently overbudget is not quite the same things as it is with Gripen E. Before you start calling me a hypocrite or accusing me of a double standard, remember that my rum makes me immune to your insults, but also the fact that these aircraft have different objectives.

The JSF program going overtime and overbudget surprised no one. Its a DoD program after all and tradition requires it. (Besides Gripen E was supposed to be the opposite but I digress) early on it was accepted that the budget projects were woefully off, but that was not a deal breaker as the F-35's primary objective was not to be cheap but to deliver an affordable Fifth generation fighter that could also land on a ship and STOVL.

The F-35 could fail on budget, what it couldn't fail on was performance and capability. It could not fail on LO. It could no fail on STOVL. The overages were considered acceptable, and besides with the timeline being what it is savings can still be realized actually. when the option was "ditch STOVL and save money" or "spend more and get STOVL" they spent more. No brainer. We also saw more capability added to the F-35 throughout its development (for example a larger bomb bay, and more sensors) these were considered worth additional expense.

The Gripen E is a different story. It exists to be light and cheap and operationally inexpensive. Don't believe me? try talking about the Gripen or reading a story where cost isn't the primary subject. The foundation for this has been laid down for decades and with a plan. The original narrative of the Gripen was one of value. The Gripen was not as good as the F-16 but it was about 80 percent as good, while only costing 50 percent and had its own neat little advantage like roadside operations (which of course hinges more on the people than the airplane, but Saab made it seem unique) and a fast turn around time (nevermind that it has 2 fewer pylons than the F-16.)

I bring this up because asking a gripen fan to describe it without mentioning money or cost is impossible as its whipped out early and often whenever it falls short in capability or performance (especially when comparing it with its rivals and peers)
Can't do what a CF-18 can? well who cares its cheap! what happens when its not cheap?

My point is this, For the JSF program cost was a secondary consideration (Boeing learned this the hard way in the battle of the x-planes) and for the Gripen cost is always and forever its entire reason to exist. "of course you can buy an F-16," says Salesman Sven" but it will cost more he continues. the fact that the Gripen is Understated is part of its Mystique in fact. "It doesn't have bells and whistles and gold plating yet is still very good. " its the classic underdog narrative its "punches above its weight" etc etc. its tongue in cheek: Did you know this little Swedish light fighter is secretly the best airplane? better than those boisterous and overkill Americans in fact-- they do it better than the best!

If the Gripen fails on cost it fails completely especially as saab is producing a Gen 4.5 fighter 20 years after they hit the scene:



Gripen E weighs 1000 kilos more than the target, thats not good. its no longer a "light" fighter.
Gripen E costs more than an f-35A thats not good, the F-35 is famously expensive
Gripen E will be less to operate, well 2 out of 3 have failed where will this one land? you should know my opinion by now

I'm not even being a monster. I'm judging saab's fighter on saab's criteria. there is nothing special enough about the Gripen E that warrants that price for a gen 4.5 fighter in the 2020s, and I'm betting whoever picks it is going to have some very unique reasons to do so, namely jobs or lack of other options etc. whats the point of a cheap light fighter that isn't cheap or light? to pay more for less?

[XanderCrews]

Ok, so you have a source for the weight of the Gripen Demo? Because they didn't just change the engine, it also got new landing gears, moved further out into the wings (which is what allows the Gripen E to carry 1000 kg more fuel than the Charlie) and two more weapons stations under the fuselage (also made possible by the changing the position of the landing gear).

I don't know if I've ever seen the Gripen Demo weight. I don't think moving the undercarriage and adding 2 pylons would add 2200 pounds, but if it did they sure weren't forthcoming and continued for years to list the Gripen E as 7000 kilos and then eventually a few hundred kilo more here and there until finally we are 8000 kilos for now.

[eagle3000]

Yes, the values that I used in my previous post are quite similar as yours but you made a mistake above: 5060 kg vs 7000 kg is not 38% more. Instead it's 27% more.

Which is one more reason why I don't buy these Saab values when it comes to range. More on that below.

5060 times 1.27 is 6426
5060 times 1.38 is 6983
So Gripen E carries around 38% more fuel

So lets see:
Saab claims for the Gripen E a ferry range of 4000 km (with internal and external fuel) versus a 3200 km ferry range for the Gripen C (also with internal and external fuel). So Saab claims a 20% increase on ferry range for the Gripen E over the Gripen C but all of this only with 27% more fuel (internal and external). So the weight of the extra internal fuel + weight of extra external fuel + extra drag of the bigger external fuel tanks only have a impact of 7% of all the (27%) extra fuel?? I find that hard to believe!

Weight and drag have an effect, that's why 38% more fuel translates to "only" 25-30% more range.
4000 km is 25% more than 3200 km.

Regarding the test pilot and manufacturer values that you're referring to above, it's actually quite simple to find where did they get that. They get that from Saab's projected values for the Gripen NG when this was though to only weight 7000 kg as opposed to 8000 kg now - this a 12.5% more weight for the exact same engine.
Here:
and here:
Resuming due to weight increases (from what was projected Gripen NG), I'm sure that the actual Gripen E values are somehow bellow those (very) optimistic Saab projections that you can see above.

I think it's safe to assume they have better data available than 10 year old powerpoints.
They have flown the jet with external stores, so they would have noticed if the estimated values are totally or even a little off. If that were the case, they would not claim a 25-30% range increase.

[XanderCrews]

I think it's safe to assume they have better data available than 10 year old powerpoints.
They have flown the jet with external stores, so they would have noticed if the estimated values are totally or even a little off. If that were the case, they would not claim a 25-30% range increase.

yes because they would never claim something they didn't do unlike all the other times they claimed something they didn't do. Lies sure are interesting.

Edit: obviously they know more about the jet now than they did in 2007. but I can't agree with the logic. We are talking about the company that reinveted the cdefinition of super cruise... but they wouldn't doggedly adhere to range estimates that weren't accurate?

where is the line?

There is clearly going to be a range increase. that was the whole point afterall. I'm not sure about the exact increase and saab gives me no reasons to trust them

[mikc]

and the Gripen E costs 85 million flyaway in 2016 according to Saab.

Gripen E was never going to cost 85 million.

Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge SAAB does not present flyaway prices. You throw this numbers around like it’s some kind of truth and basing all your arguments around it just because The National Interest had that figure in an article.

https://www.fmv.se/projekt/jas-39-gripen/

“It has been called Sweden's largest industrial project. With the investment in the JAS 39E Gripen, the FMV project will turn over just over SEK 47 billion from 2013 to 2026. A further developed Gripen that adds completely new features is the fastest and most cost-effective way for Sweden to gain access to the improved armament, protection and scope capabilities necessary to meet the threats of the future.
…
Development work on the new JAS39E Gripen is now underway, but at FMV the work is also ongoing on the maintenance and implementation of ordered upgrades of the current JAS 39C / D Gripen.
…
The Gripen work at FMV is not just about the aircraft but as much about what is around. Training equipment, simulators, aircraft support systems, training and how the aircraft is to be handled on the ground.”

The total cost for the gripen project, 2013-2026 is ~47 billion SEK (2020) ( = ~5 billion $, 5 Billion $ /60 Gripen = 83,3 million $), according to FMV.

THAT NOT FLY AWAY, that includes everything. The funny part is that it also includes maintaining and developing the Gripen C/D system.

Let’s look at SAAB’s reports

SAAB year report 2013
“Order intake in 2013 included orders from FMV for
the development of Gripen E and serial production of 60 Gripen E
to Sweden, of which approximately SEK 25.4 billion was attributable to Aeronautics.
..
The total order value of Electronic Defense Systems attributable to these orders amounted to approximately SEK 3.2 billion.
..
The the total order value for Support and Services attributable to these two orders amounted to approximately SEK 1.3 billion
”

25,4 + 3,2 + 1,3 = 29,9 billion SEK = 4,57 B $ in (2013 $ rate) / 60 = 76 M $ per Gripen for SAAB. That’s all!

Further smaller orders have been placed subsequent years for support and maintenance systems, HMD etc. due to changed requirements from the customer, FMV.

SAAB year report 2015
“In 2015, the agreement was signed with the Brazilian the government regarding development and production of 36 Gripen NG. Of the total order on
SEK 39.3 billion was approximately SEK 35.5 billion related to Aeronautics
…
SEK 1.7 billion related to the Brazilian government's order of Gripen (Electronic Defense Systems)
…
SEK 2.1 billion was related to Support and Services “

4.68 billion $ was the contract value (in 2015). 130 M $ / Gripen. This includes the development of Gripen F, TOT, setting up a production facility in Brazil, training equipment, simulators, aircraft support systems, training, counter purchase etc

Due to currency changes, the contract values have changed when comparing SEK and $, from Swedish contract late 2013 (6,54 SEK/$), Brazil contract sept 2015 (8,41 SEK/$) and current (9,41 SEK/$) but the currency exposure in the order backlog is hedged through netting and with currency derivatives (mainly forward exchange contracts), which means that changes in exchange rates do not affect the order backlog’s future results.

The cost in dollars to produce a Gripen fighter though has probably decreased over the years since 2013 mainly due to the fact that the majority of the development and production is done in Sweden with labour costs payed in SEK. Equipment like radar, chair, IRST, engine, electronic components etc. would be procured in dollar so does not affect the production cost.

So, do you have a SAAB source for your numbers?

[Corsair1963]

Canada is "never" going to acquire the Gripen.....Just not a political option!

[kimjongnumbaun]

Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge SAAB does not present flyaway prices. You throw this numbers around like it’s some kind of truth and basing all your arguments around it just because The National Interest had that figure in an article.

"At $85 million apiece, the Gripen E is significantly cheaper than the F-35, making it an attractive alternative."

https://www.businessinsider.com/saab-f- ... n-e-2016-7

Repeated here.

"Saab says that its $85 million Gripen E"

http://mil-embedded.com/news/gripen-e-s ... st-flight/

[Corsair1963]

Do you have a source for that? To my knowledge SAAB does not present flyaway prices. You throw this numbers around like it’s some kind of truth and basing all your arguments around it just because The National Interest had that figure in an article.

"At $85 million apiece, the Gripen E is significantly cheaper than the F-35, making it an attractive alternative."

https://www.businessinsider.com/saab-f- ... n-e-2016-7

Repeated here.

"Saab says that its $85 million Gripen E"

http://mil-embedded.com/news/gripen-e-s ... st-flight/

The F-35A is under $80 Million. So, how is the $85 Million Gripen cheaper??? (what did I miss)

[ricnunes]

5060 times 1.27 is 6426
5060 times 1.38 is 6983
So Gripen E carries around 38% more fuel

Yes, indeed another mistake on my part. The mistake was that I applied a rule of three but using the 7000 value as being equivalent to 100% instead of the 5060 value (as it should).

Weight and drag have an effect, that's why 38% more fuel translates to "only" 25-30% more range.
4000 km is 25% more than 3200 km.

Despite my mistake above, the logic still remains: You're basically saying that 38% more fuel (internal and external) only has a penalty of 8% to 13% which I simply won't buy it - External Fuel is quite inefficient while the bigger 450 gallon tanks should have bigger drag than the 300 gallon tank and while the weight of internal fuel and internal fuel tanks and the weight of the new airframe does outweight the gain in engine thrust, this for the Gripen E compared to the Gripen C.
I would say that it would be lucky if half of those 38% extra fuel (19%) would translate in actual range increase.
Lets then say that those 38% extra fuel results in 20% (rounding up a bit more) range increase - This would be a ferry range of around 3840 km which IMO is in line with the impact that the extra weight increase (again for the same engine) that the Gripen E suffers.

I think it's safe to assume they have better data available than 10 year old powerpoints.
They have flown the jet with external stores, so they would have noticed if the estimated values are totally or even a little off. If that were the case, they would not claim a 25-30% range increase.

If they are quoting the exact same values projected well before the actual aircraft (Gripen E) has ever been build and the aircraft (Gripen E) gained weight compared to what was projected but at the same time gain absolutely nothing in order to compensate for the extra weight such as more fuel or a more powerful engine then initially projected then I think it's safe to assume that these Saab values are bogus with the intent of having better PR (something that Saab has been doing a lot over this last decade or so!).