F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[ricnunes]

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.

Such studies/projects/plans if they were ever built then they would never be a Gripen. Yes, if they were built then they would have had the Gripen as a starting point but nevertheless they wouldn't be the Gripen (or the Gripen E for that matter) and that's my point above.
Saying that such studies/projects/plans if they were ever built were to be a Gripen would akin to say that the Hornet (F/A-18) is a F-5 Tiger II (since the Hornet design had its origins in the F-5).

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

And the exact same thing can be said about the Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon, so I kinda missed your point above.

Nonetheless the Gripen or Gripen E RCS (as well as any of the aircraft mentioned on the paragraph above) is much, much higher than a true stealth aircraft like the F-22, F-35 or even the Chinese J-20. And this not to mention that the Gripen (as well as any of the aircraft mentioned on the paragraph above) can only carry its weapons/ordinance externally which will inevitably increase its (clean) RCS even further.

[madrat]

Unless I had hard data about RCS, it would be conjecture about it's RCS.

As for your analogy between F-5 and Super Hornet, it is irrelevant. Before Gripes NG was revealed, the only information in the public sector pointed to FS2020. Only when Saab failed to find investment did Gripen E become the public face of the program. Saab intentionally remained vague on exactly what Gripen NG would be, but what they were revealing pointed at what FS2020 seemed to possess, not what eventually was Gripen E. In fact, they just kind of glass over the whole original NG premise, which was to be supercruising and stealth not an improvement on an already low RCS.

[ricnunes]

Before Gripes NG was revealed, the only information in the public sector pointed to FS2020. Only when Saab failed to find investment did Gripen E become the public face of the program. Saab intentionally remained vague on exactly what Gripen NG would be, but what they were revealing pointed at what FS2020 seemed to possess, not what eventually was Gripen E. In fact, they just kind of glass over the whole original NG premise, which was to be supercruising and stealth not an improvement on an already low RCS.

@madrat,

My understanding is that FS2020 and Gripen NG were/are two quite different concepts/aircraft.

The Gripen NG is in fact the Gripen E/F while the FS2020 - and like linkomart also stated - would be a bit larger and 'stealth' aircraft equipped with internal weapons bay.
Basically like this:


Yes, the FS2020 would somehow be based on the Gripen - and I stated this in my previous posts - but it would be a quite different aircraft although with 'same starting point', just like and hence my analogy between the F-5 and Hornet

I'm not disputing that due to the lack of funds the FS2020 program never went ahead and as such another different, simpler and cheaper program - the Gripen NG - was selected instead. But then again it seems that FS2020 and Gripen NG are (or were to be in the case of FS2020) two very different programs although with the same origin ('baseline' Gripen).

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Saying that such studies/projects/plans if they were ever built were to be a Gripen would akin to say that the Hornet (F/A-18) is a F-5 Tiger II (since the Hornet design had its origins in the F-5).

I actually love pointing out that the Super Hornet is the final design evolution of the T-38.

[eagle3000]

I actually love pointing out that the Super Hornet is the final design evolution of the T-38.

Time for an update I think. The T-7 is now the final design evolution of the T-38, or rather the N-156.
It's basically a mini-Super Hornet:

T-X_vs_F-18E.png (45.86 KiB) Viewed 52406 times

The most obvious difference is the smaller LERX, probably because the T-7 didn't need to fill the gap from a legacy Hornet front section to a bigger Super Hornet fuselage.

This design really has gone full circle.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Except that, unlike the Super Hornet, T-7 has no ability to directly trace design lineage. Even if something shows it can, it may be a final evolution but the SHornet is still the ultimate evolution. Trainer to trainer would be a cool symbology though.

[marauder2048]

Before Gripes NG was revealed, the only information in the public sector pointed to FS2020. Only when Saab failed to find investment did Gripen E become the public face of the program. Saab intentionally remained vague on exactly what Gripen NG would be, but what they were revealing pointed at what FS2020 seemed to possess, not what eventually was Gripen E. In fact, they just kind of glass over the whole original NG premise, which was to be supercruising and stealth not an improvement on an already low RCS.

@madrat,

My understanding is that FS2020 and Gripen NG were/are two quite different concepts/aircraft.

Or it was deliberate dissembling i.e. a typical "freeze the market" ploy.

[madrat]

Or it was deliberate dissembling i.e. a typical "freeze the market" ploy.

No doubt in my mind it was a bait scheme.

[ricnunes]

Or it was deliberate dissembling i.e. a typical "freeze the market" ploy.

No doubt in my mind it was a bait scheme.

Yes, I agree that's quite a possibility indeed

[linkomart]

I agree ricnunes, A Gripen stealth airplane would be a new airplane.
However you can re use internal stuff such as engine, APU, Hydraulics etc...

That said, FS 2020 was a study where no re-use was planned, the requirements were different and there was no plan to use Gripen as a base. (AFAIK)

Gripen NG, Gripen Demo etc. are Gripen upgrade projects.

[loke]

How Sweden's austere air base system influenced the Gripen design:

If an air strip is damaged by a bomb, the latest Gripen E can land in 600m (1,970ft) and take off in 500m, says Saab. The landing strip only needs to be 16m wide. That short take-off and landing ability also allows the fighter to fly from taxiways, small civil airfields or highways.

To land on short airstrips, but also to increase manoeuvrability, the Gripen was given a canard. The canard allows the fighter to increase its angle of attack and create more lift at slower speeds during landing.

“You also do what we call a direct landing, which is similar to what the US Navy does on carriers,” says Eddy de la Motte, head of the business unit for Saab Gripen E/F. “You don’t have a flare. You basically fly the aircraft into the ground. You have to be able to sustain higher vertical velocities than a normal land-based aircraft.”

Once the aircraft has touched down it needs to be stopped quickly. On the predecessor Saab 37 Viggen a thrust reverser was used to slow and halt the aircraft. “It’s a very exciting system to use,” says Mikael Olsson, head of flight testing for Saab and a former Viggen pilot.

Saab decided to forgo the thrust reverser on the Gripen, instead using the canard and wheel brakes to stop quickly. “We use the canard and the wing rudders to create aerodynamic downforce to make the brakes more effective,” says de la Motte. “It’s like what you do on Formula 1 or NASCAR.”

Gripens taxi using their own power to flightline positions for maintenance, refuelling and rearming. “You can actually make a U-turn on the road if necessary,” says de la Motte.

Instead of aircraft being serviced at fixed repair depots, mobile maintenance crews, driving vans and military trucks, bring fuel, munitions and parts to the aircraft’s position. Refuelling and rearming – including reloading the gun and attaching air-to-air missiles – can be done in less than 10min with one enlisted technician and five conscript mechanics, claims Saab. Maintenance equipment fits in a single small shipping container.

“In terms of a turnaround – landing, doing refuelling, rearming and taking off again – how do you minimise that time?” says de la Motte. “Obviously, you try to make the aircraft self-contained. For instance, we use an auxiliary power unit, which was quite unique for the military fighter aircraft of that generation. One reason why we did that was to eliminate lots of ground support equipment.”

To eliminate additional ground equipment, the aircraft handles many of its start-up systems and diagnostic checks internally. “The aircraft tells the ground personnel whether it has a problem or a potential problem,” says de la Motte.
Weapon system checks are also streamlined. “We don’t have to go to specific positions close to the runway and take out the safety pins,” says de la Motte. “We have a master arm switch instead.”

Maintenance areas of the jet must also be accessible with winter gloves on as much service work is performed outdoors in the cold of Nordic winters. Access panels are opened and closed with push button latches. The service panel and refuelling hatch are located in the same area to save the crew walking around time.

“It was a must that it was easy for a conscript with only one year of training and education,” says Olsson. “For example, changing an engine in the woods or on the bases, the requirements were you should do that in an hour.”

The engine can be detached from the airframe by removing just a few bolts, disconnecting the fuel, hydraulic lines and gearbox, and lowering it using hand-cranked fishing rod-like winches, a tool that also can be used to hoist missiles into their pylons. “That kind of thinking has dominated the design process from the beginning,” says de la Motte.

Still, while international cooperation has increased, in recent years the focus on dispersed operations has been renewed, with Sweden operating a mix of both defensive strategies.

“Design requirements, the requirements in terms of dispersed basing, they have stayed the same,” says de la Motte. “They haven’t been relaxed or changed.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 16.article

[XanderCrews]

Saab Aeronáutica Montagens (SAM) has begun the production of sections for the Gripen E/F fighter at its facility at São Bernardo do Campo, in the southern suburbs of São Paulo in Brazil. Initially, the aerostructures plant is producing tail cones and front fuselages for the single-seat Gripen E, which will be dispatched to both the Swedish assembly line in Linköping and the Brazilian line. The latter is located at the Embraer plant at Gavião Peixoto to the northwest of São Paulo.

Production has been established with around 70 employees, many of whom have undergone training in Sweden prior to establishing the production plant in Brazil. The creation of the SAM facility is an element of the 100 percent technology transfer agreement made when Brazil signed a contract to build and produce the Gripen E/F for the Força Aérea Brasileira (FAB, Brazilian air force) in 2014.

By 2024 SAM expects to have around 200 employees. The plant will expand its sub-assembly work to include the front and rear fuselage sections, airbrakes, and center wing box for the two-seat version, for which Brazil is leading the development through the Gripen Design and Development Network (GDDN) center opened at Gavião Peixoto in November 2019. The first two-seater is currently under assembly in Sweden by a joint Brazilian/Swedish team.

Under current plans, the FAB will receive 28 single-seat Gripen Es—to be designated F-39E in FAB service— and eight two-seat F-39Fs. Follow-on batches could add a further 72 aircraft to the figure. The first F-39E aircraft for Brazil—which was also the first production Gripen E—took to the air on August 26, 2019, and was formally handed over last September, although it stayed in Sweden for tests. It is due to be transported to Brazil shortly to begin the operations of the new flight test center established next to the GDDN facility. The first Gripen F two-seater is expected to fly at Linköping next year.

After this initial pair for Brazil, the next 11 are due to be built and assembled in Sweden for delivery to the FAB in late 2021. The remaining 23 aircraft on order will be assembled at Gavião Peixoto, of which the first eight will mostly be built in Sweden before being shipped in subassembly form for completion.

In the meantime, the Linköping-based Gripen E test fleet has grown to seven aircraft, comprising three development aircraft (39-8, -9, and -10) and the first four production machines. The latest, 6004, made its first flight on June 30. According to Mikael Olsson, head of flight test and verification, the trials fleet is currently engaged on an intensive envelope expansion campaign, while at the same time testing the aircraft’s operational systems. Olsson also noted that, in addition to trial flights beginning soon in Brazil, a third test location would be established in Sweden by the air force and the country's FMV defense materiel administration.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... en-fighter

[ricnunes]

Under current plans, the FAB will receive 28 single-seat Gripen Es—to be designated F-39E in FAB service— and eight two-seat F-39Fs. Follow-on batches could add a further 72 aircraft to the figure.

Could, should, would...
First the plan was for 120 aircraft. Now it "could - should - would" be 108 aircraft. Well, one thing is for sure: at this pace when the Gripen finally enters in service with the Brazilian Air Force the plan will be for... ...36 aircraft.

After this initial pair for Brazil, the next 11 are due to be built and assembled in Sweden for delivery to the FAB in late 2021. The remaining 23 aircraft on order will be assembled at Gavião Peixoto, of which the first eight will mostly be built in Sweden before being shipped in subassembly form for completion.

So that's only 15 Gripens (out of 36) which will be "fully built" in Brazil (and there's a lot to say about such "fully built in Brazil").

[pron]

I think the new EW pod system from Saab have been up here before, but here is the link to more information about it.

The core technologies in Arexis are:
Ultra-wideband digital receivers
Digital radio frequency memory devices for jamming
Gallium Nitride (GaN) solid state Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) jammer transmitters
Interferometric direction finding systems

https://saab.com/stories/2020-07/outsma ... ic-attack/

Now they have come up with ESTL countermeasures pod with AIM-9 and AIM-120 interface.
Countermeasures pod with missile approach warning to counter RF and IR threats. ESTL is a highly effective countermeasures self protection pod for use on any fixed wing aircraft.
https://saab.com/air/electronic-warfare ... tems/estl/

[twintiger]

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Looking at the Gripen (A&C) CFPH for BY2005 it was 35,882 SEK, this equals 43,195 SEK or USD 4,970 today. This is in the same ballpark as the Jane's 2012 CPFH for the Gripen C of USD 4,700 (BY2012).
https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files ... 281%29.pdf

So far so good.

But then look at the breakdown of some of the other aircraft costs in the Swedish Armed Forces 2005 Annual Report - notably the JA 37 Viggen, particularly its Maintenance Costs. 679k SEK for 14 Viggen flights is only USD 78,000. As the Swedish Defense Annual Reports separately cover personnel costs, does this confirm that the CPFH for the Gripen C just includes Maintenance Assets and Fuel costs, but excludes personnel costs and other base costs?

If you apply that same criteria to the F-35A, you should only include Unit Operations and Maintenance costs from the 2020 DoD report to the US President. That would result in a current Basic CPFH for the F-35A of USD 15,429 (BY2012) compared with the Gripen of USD 4,700 (BY2012), using Jane's criteria.