Gripen E/F
- Thread starter jetman365
- Start date
The E/F is a UAE-specific version, developed for the UAE at their expense, & for which any other buyer would have to pay a royalty to the UAE. Some buyers may prefer not to do that - and perhaps the UAE does not want it sold to some buyers (does anyone know if the UAE has a veto?).
Maskirovka
Banned Member
IIRC Sweden still has some surplus 50-60 A/Bs they want to sell. These are the first planes built so they should be 10-15 years old but are probably still a desired aircraft. If the customer wants to upgrade them to C/D standard I think it costs 15-20 million US dollar/ac. Don´t know if the swedish airforce would want to profit on them (otherwise they would be scrapped) but if not, and the customer just pays for the upgrades, spares, ammo, training etc I see no reason why these used Gripens could´nt be sold for under 50 mill. $/ air craft.
If SAAB get orders on the next generation Gripen I find it highly unlikely they would keep building the older model...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I understand the proposed Gripen E/F model is a child of the Danish/Norwegian requirements for their F-16 replacements.
Some models for the future role of the Royal Danish Air Force are being discussed.
Currently RDAF is working under a model were it is tasked with patrolling national air space and being able to provide a rapid reaction fighter sqn (8+8). We could call this the "Global Air Warrior" model.
Increased thrust, range & improved avionics is required of the E/F over the C/D. However, this is a reflection of this particular model.
Another model is the "Nightwatch" model, where a buy of 12-18 of the cheapest fighter to patrol national air space and maintain minimal capability. Too little for warfighting, too little excess capability. Just patrolling.
This does not require the fancy gadgets of the E/F. The Norwegians would differ, but they have a different geography and its electorate is more aware of their (different) security environment.
There are intermediate models with mixes of attack helos...
If the "Nightwatch" model is chosen, I don't see the need for developing the E/F. If the "Global Air Warrior" model is chosen, Gripen E/F is in for a tough run on a value for money basis...
So the C/Ds could theoretically have a chance for export over the E/F.
Saab should hope for the (Danish) Social Democratic Party winning the next elections, which are due inside a year. (It is unlikely, yet a possibility that they may get in Govt.)
Some models for the future role of the Royal Danish Air Force are being discussed.
Currently RDAF is working under a model were it is tasked with patrolling national air space and being able to provide a rapid reaction fighter sqn (8+8). We could call this the "Global Air Warrior" model.
Increased thrust, range & improved avionics is required of the E/F over the C/D. However, this is a reflection of this particular model.
Another model is the "Nightwatch" model, where a buy of 12-18 of the cheapest fighter to patrol national air space and maintain minimal capability. Too little for warfighting, too little excess capability. Just patrolling.
This does not require the fancy gadgets of the E/F. The Norwegians would differ, but they have a different geography and its electorate is more aware of their (different) security environment.
There are intermediate models with mixes of attack helos...
If the "Nightwatch" model is chosen, I don't see the need for developing the E/F. If the "Global Air Warrior" model is chosen, Gripen E/F is in for a tough run on a value for money basis...
So the C/Ds could theoretically have a chance for export over the E/F.
Saab should hope for the (Danish) Social Democratic Party winning the next elections, which are due inside a year. (It is unlikely, yet a possibility that they may get in Govt.)
Last edited:
Y'all may have seen this? The on-going and various developments of Gripen............article from DID.............
BUG
Regards,
BUG
Grand Danois
Entertainer
To expand further, the "Gripen-Demo" two-seater testbed is supposed to fly in 2008. The aircraft is provided by the Swedish AF.
The Letter of Agreement apparently include integration of Norwegian weapons (NSM?) onto the Gripen Demo platform.
But if the RDAF drops to 12-18 jets, the numbers have become too smal to fight an air war anyway, so sinking tax payer money into such a project could be very wasteful, when you can use what is already there...(?)
The Letter of Agreement apparently include integration of Norwegian weapons (NSM?) onto the Gripen Demo platform.
But if the RDAF drops to 12-18 jets, the numbers have become too smal to fight an air war anyway, so sinking tax payer money into such a project could be very wasteful, when you can use what is already there...(?)
As always it will be the customer that decides what they will buy. Gripen Demo includes as it's most important parts a new engine with more thrust, a new AESA radar, 38% more internal fuel and two more hardpoints and bigger payload.
Some customers might not be interested in all of this, and just choose some of it. The SwAF has since a long time planned for an upgrade to AESA at 2018 of the existing fighters. Now I hear that they might upgrade to the F414 but possibly not the extra internal fuel, payload and hardpoints.
But if the difference in price for newbuilt Gripen NG's vs the old ones wont be too big, and it seems to me that it wont, Gripen NG will take over the sales.
Some customers might not be interested in all of this, and just choose some of it. The SwAF has since a long time planned for an upgrade to AESA at 2018 of the existing fighters. Now I hear that they might upgrade to the F414 but possibly not the extra internal fuel, payload and hardpoints.
But if the difference in price for newbuilt Gripen NG's vs the old ones wont be too big, and it seems to me that it wont, Gripen NG will take over the sales.
Maskirovka
Banned Member
Wait sec. The next generation Gripen is called "Future Gripen" as a workconcept. The main reason it was developed was to increase the range of the previous Gripens. SAAB came up with three solutions, one being a huge under the belly tank, that could not be dropped but could be removed, another one was CFT like on the F-16. Those solutions were dropped because they would be a negative factor on the planes maneuverability etc. So they went for the 3rd option, move the rear wheels from the body to the wingroots, thus freeing the space where the wheels use to be to more fuel. This solution was the most expensive but it did´nt effect the planes draft, man maneuverability etc.
This means, every nation buying the "future Gripen" does get the extra fuel (it´s a new airframe). And the they get extra weapon pylons (were the old wheels used to sit).
I suppose you could get the old engine and old radar if you wanted to, but why would you?
This is not official, just drawings from a fan;
Before
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2322/undstunden78je.jpg
After moving landinggears
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7599/undstunden83ic.jpg
Concept 1 belly CFT (rejected)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/48/undstunden12wz.jpg
Concept 2 F-16 type CFT (rejected)
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1396/undstunden26bx.jpg
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5831/undstunden37va.jpg
(from http://undstunden.blogspot.com/2006/05/tankebanor-kring-och-visualiseringar.html)
Never mind aircraft manufacturers like Saab seems have learnt from their cousin in the automobile cousins keep selling the older platform by upgrading the platform with new accessories. In this case the accessories are weapon systems, avonics etc and make these flying birds more lethal.
The new versions are good news since this will add spice to its contention, given it is in the race for the IAF`s $ 10 billion and pitted against stalwarts like the F-16s and F-18s . If you go purely by technology for the next generation of air fighting the main rivals are Typhoons, Gripen and the Mig-31s.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
So the Future Gripen will have
The story of the Super Hornet over again? This is a completely different aircraft from the Gripen. A new aircraft.
A JAS 41!
What did the JAS 39 cost to develop?
- A new engine.
- New avionics; radar; computers; EW suite, different integration of EW.
- A radically different layout of landing gear; very different internal fuel layout: basically a completely new airframe has to be designed.
The story of the Super Hornet over again? This is a completely different aircraft from the Gripen. A new aircraft.
A JAS 41!
What did the JAS 39 cost to develop?
No, to my knowledge it will be the same basic airframe as before. The new landing gear will be housed in pods outside the wing root, and the new tanks will be there the landing gear is today. If you for some reason don't want the extra fuel and pylons you should be able to keep the old configuration.
Now this is speculation, and probably future customers would prefer to get it all. More interesting is if you want to upgrade existing Gripens to get all these features or just some of them.
I think this has been posted before, it shows the development costs for Gripen and other fighters.So the Future Gripen will have
- A new engine.
- New avionics; radar; computers; EW suite, different integration of EW.
- A radically different layout of landing gear; very different internal fuel layout: basically a completely new airframe has to be designed.
The story of the Super Hornet over again? This is a completely different aircraft from the Gripen. A new aircraft.
A JAS 41!
What did the JAS 39 cost to develop?
http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=utvkostnadqy8.jpg
You have to remember that Gripen already has gone through two major redesigns. First the B that meant a lengthened airframe for the second seat, then C/D that had to get a totally new airframe for IFR and higher MTOW.
The new engine will be the F414 that is very well tested on the Super Hornet and has the same outer dimensions as the old engine. The biggest change AFAIK for the new Gripen is a new fuel tank pressurizing system. But the dimensions for the aircraft will be the same, exept for the bulges for the new landing gear. So the comparisation with Super Hornet is not valid IMHO.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Well, you say it yourself: new engine; new design of airframe; new avionics; etc...
Not a new aircraft?
I suspect the Gripen figure is optimistic, but I'm sure that it really did cost a great deal less than any of the others. It hasn't had a new engine developed for it, & the cost of improving the F404 must have been a fraction of the cost of developing either the M88 or EJ200. Saab also has a long tradition of very cost-efficient fighter design & development.
BTW, the 31-12-2006 SAR predicts the fixed costs of JSF at $43 billion.
I know you danes like to taunt us swedes, but I wont fall for itWell, you say it yourself: new engine; new design of airframe; new avionics; etc...
Not a new aircraft?
: If you want to stop playing with words and implying things and instead add something more substancial I'm prepared to discuss.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Here is the source:
The cost of non-Europe in the
area of security and defence
p. 27.
According to the document, EF and JSF are 10 x more expensive to develop.
How the author arrived at these numbers is unknown.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Well, you are well informed of the E/F changes in the Gripen.I know you danes like to taunt us swedes, but I wont fall for it
If you want to stop playing with words and implying things and instead add something more substancial I'm prepared to discuss.
The A to B redesign would have been expected in the initial design of the A/B. The same re the MTOW redesign. Planned for.
Altering the landing gear layout is more radical than those...
If you upgrade a C/D to a E/F, how much is left of the original aircraft?
The reference is to something called Unisys, wich I have to admit I don't know much about. I've seen this posted before and I don't remember it being challenged. If you have better data available I would really appreciate if you would want to share it.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Didn't challenge the numbers. Just used seeing incomparable entities ending up being compared. Natural suspicion. And what do you get for the x 10 development cost. Certainly not a x 10 aircraft, but then what?