F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Nice read on mole cricket.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0602bekaa/

An interesting dibit from Sweden:

https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/statu ... 0441451523

SwAF is to start looking at future air combat capabilities and next generation of combat aircraft during the budgetary period of 2021-2025. Preparations are to include studies, technology development, and demonstrator activities in collaboration with one or several international partners

Gripen fanboys are already in an uproar, claiming that this just means new Gripen "G" models But they fail to explain the "international partners" part.

More likely this means that Sweden plans to operate a joint FCAS/Tempest and Gripen E fleet in the future.

Should be fun to visit bestfighter4canada if this finally dawns on them ...

They want to keep Saab's design prowess fresh. It means C/D will be replaced by something eventually, and it's not likely to be more E. They will do some work related to Tempest, with an intention to funnel tech down to E/F. Whether they end up buying it is another matter. Further T-7A related work is another task that fills that need. Historically Sweden has been forced to buy excess inventory to keep the Gripen lines open before transitioning to E. Like 14 empty C/D hulls in 2019 that were bundled into E contract. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/swedish ... line-open/

They don't like to inform people about this. Like SvD reports: "Parliament never received any information that the Swedish state ordered 14 extra Gripen hulls. Not even Allan Widman, who previously chaired the Defense Committee and now sits on the Committee and the Parliamentary Defense Committee, didn't know of the decision to build hulls for fighter aircraft that now stand idle." https://www.svd.se/riksdagen-informerad ... nya-gripen


E's and especially F's future hinges on other countries. At worst even Brazil won't commit further. At best it will sell 100+ more.

Why would the UK allow Sweden to work on Tempest without a commitment to order the plane? Would Sweden pay for its own costs to keep its engineers employed.

Interesting detail about the 14 extra hulls.

Why would the UK allow Sweden to work on Tempest without a commitment to order the plane? Would Sweden pay for its own costs to keep its engineers employed.

Interesting detail about the 14 extra hulls.

My theory about that is the following:
- IMO, it's 'clear' that Saab will eventually participate on the Tempest program (there's a considerable number of 'hints' pointing to that) however Saab won't openly/publicly participate on the Tempest (at least not in the near term) because doing it would clearly jeopardize any chances of winning new orders for the Gripen (which are already very small) since this would be a clear indicator that the Gripen, namely the E/F variants aren't that good or advanced for the future battlefield (something which is obvious and 'crystal clear', but I digress). And then imagine how the Brazilians (the only Gripen E customer and partner) would look like fools if Saab decided to move on to the Tempest even before finishing the aircraft (Gripen E)

At the same time the Gripen loosing any chances to secure future orders isn't that good for BAE either since this British company is also a Gripen partner with Saab and incidentally the main Tempest contractor. So here's IMO the reason why the UK (thru BAE) will allow Sweden (thru Saab) to work on the Tempest even without any 'official commitments' (now or in the near to mid-term future) to order the aircraft.

Well, my 2 cents anyway

Well, Canada has participated in the F-35 as a partner (and paid around 500 mil as its share for the R&D) and hasn't indeed committed.

Well, Canada has participated in the F-35 as a partner (and paid around 500 mil as its share for the R&D) and hasn't indeed committed.

That is due to a change of government, when the incoming government made it an election issue. Canada's original plan was to procure F-35s.

My theory about that is the following:
- IMO, it's 'clear' that Saab will eventually participate on the Tempest program (there's a considerable number of 'hints' pointing to that) however Saab won't openly/publicly participate on the Tempest (at least not in the near term) because doing it would clearly jeopardize any chances of winning new orders for the Gripen (which are already very small) since this would be a clear indicator that the Gripen, namely the E/F variants aren't that good or advanced for the future battlefield (something which is obvious and 'crystal clear', but I digress). And then imagine how the Brazilians (the only Gripen E customer and partner) would look like fools if Saab decided to move on to the Tempest even before finishing the aircraft (Gripen E)

Makes sense to me. We'll see if Sweden pays enough to get a second assembly line.

Gripen NG could still be plausible. They stuck with physical size and jamming for RCS management on Gripen E. There is plenty of room for improvement, and Saab could capitalize on a European engine source. A single-engine from the Tempest program would help sustain, not hurt, the Tempest program. Piggybacking off Tempest could help fill in expertise they lack with materials, shaping, and electronics.

Intrestingly enough they are offering Gripen C for Slovakia and Bulgaria!

https://twitter.com/warnesyworld/status ... 7125149697
https://twitter.com/warnesyworld/status ... 5409185792
https://twitter.com/Roger_Larsson/statu ... 8947710981

https://twitter.com/warnesyworld/status ... 1824335875
https://twitter.com/warnesyworld/status ... 4910084096

Gripen NG could still be plausible. They stuck with physical size and jamming for RCS management on Gripen E. There is plenty of room for improvement, and Saab could capitalize on a European engine source.

What do you mean with the above?

The Gripen NG is the Gripen E. Or more precisely the Gripen NG is the concept/prototype of the Gripen E.

A single-engine from the Tempest program would help sustain, not hurt, the Tempest program. Piggybacking off Tempest could help fill in expertise they lack with materials, shaping, and electronics.

If Sweden wants its Air Force to remain a fighting effective force in the future - and remember that they have Russia as a 'next door' threat - then upgrading the Gripen with Tempest components is definitely not the solution!
The fact is that 4th and 4.5th gen aircraft have their days numbered, specially as 'front-line' fighter aircraft and the Gripen due to its small size is even more limited compared to its other 4.5th competitors. It's not for nothing that the vast majority of nations that manufacture fighter aircraft are developing or procuring 5th gen fighter aircraft, such as UK with Tempest, France/Germany with FCAS/NGF, Russia with Su-57, China with J-20 and J-31...

Intrestingly enough they are offering Gripen C for Slovakia and Bulgaria!

Well, they are not offering Gripen C for Slovakia that's for sure since Slovakia purchased the F-16V.

Here:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article5153.html

What do you mean with the above?

The Gripen NG is the Gripen E. Or more precisely the Gripen NG is the concept/prototype of the Gripen E.

FS2020, what Gripen NG started as, was just too expensive, hence the morphing of the program into a non-stealth Gripen. Saab could not afford the stealth, restructuring of the fuselage into a chisel-point, small internal bays, an aligned canard to the main wing, a revised v-tail arrangement, and topped off with a high TWR provided by the EPE version of F414.

What do you mean with the above?

The Gripen NG is the Gripen E. Or more precisely the Gripen NG is the concept/prototype of the Gripen E.

FS2020, what Gripen NG started as, was just too expensive, hence the morphing of the program into a non-stealth Gripen. Saab could not afford the stealth, restructuring of the fuselage into a chisel-point, small internal bays, an aligned canard to the main wing, a revised v-tail arrangement, and topped off with a high TWR provided by the EPE version of F414.

With all due respect, I strongly believe that something like a 'Stealth Gripen' never existed or was actually planned!

There may have been ideas 'floating around' about 'something' that could have been very remotely based on the Gripen as some sort of 'baseline' or 'starting point' but this thing if it ever existed would always ended up being a totally and completely different aircraft compared to the Gripen. Resuming, such 'aircraft' (if it ever existed) would never be a Gripen NG/E/Whatever...

What do you mean with the above?

The Gripen NG is the Gripen E. Or more precisely the Gripen NG is the concept/prototype of the Gripen E.

FS2020, what Gripen NG started as, was just too expensive, hence the morphing of the program into a non-stealth Gripen. Saab could not afford the stealth, restructuring of the fuselage into a chisel-point, small internal bays, an aligned canard to the main wing, a revised v-tail arrangement, and topped off with a high TWR provided by the EPE version of F414.

With all due respect, I strongly believe that something like a 'Stealth Gripen' never existed or was actually planned!

There may have been ideas 'floating around' about 'something' that could have been very remotely based on the Gripen as some sort of 'baseline' or 'starting point' but this thing if it ever existed would always ended up being a totally and completely different aircraft compared to the Gripen. Resuming, such 'aircraft' (if it ever existed) would never be a Gripen NG/E/Whatever...

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/han-gor- ... re-6438631

There were some studies on a stealth Gripen, or more precisely a Gripen sized stealth airplane. (the one in the background)
FS2020 were a tad bigger, and flew as a (scale) demonstrator ot LiU.
Gripen is not a stealth airplane, but it is as stealthy as it can be, for it's shape and weapons load. And that is all I can say about that.....
/Forrest