Potential of Gripen M, the naval variant...

[FirstSpear]

The following post was just published on AWST's Ares blog:

What do you think are the possibilities of a naval Gripen in NATO countries' fleets. Could this be a more affordable joint platform for some of the second tier members of the Alliance (ie excluding US, UK, Fr, Ger, Italy).

What export potential outside Europe do you see?
------------------------------

Two Swedish delegations have recently visited the Brazilian aircraft carrier Sao Paulo in support of plans to develop a naval version of the JAS 39E/F Gripen fighter. A government team toured the ship in August, followed by a Saab-Embraer technical/engineering group in September.

Informally known as the Gripen M (Maritime or Marinha), the carrier-based version has been under study in parallel with the E/F since the program's early years. In 2013, in the run-up to Brazil's selection of the JAS 39E/F as its next fighter (with a contract due at year-end), Saab said that its company-funded study had brought the Gripen M to the point where it could be offered as a fixed-price development program, costing $250 million and taking five years from launch to production deliveries.

Saab and Brazil have already agreed that Embraer will lead the development of the two-seat JAS 39F, subject to the final contract, and development of the Gripen M could broaden that partnership. Ownership of an operational aircraft carrier is clearly a prerequisite for a Gripen M partner, and both India and Brazil have been approached.

Brazil's Sao Paulo carrier, formerly the French navy's Foch, has taken a long time to upgrade and restore to operational condition, but the Brazilian navy has persisted both with the ship and its current air wing, including a major upgrade of its AF-1 Skyhawk fighters with a new Elta radar and glass cockpit. One report suggests that Brazil expects the ship and its air wing to be operational in time to support security for the 2016 Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro.

 

[John Fedup]

Besides the US and France, I believe Brazil is the only country operating a CATOBAR carrier. Unless Brazil plans to put a ski ramp on to the ex-Foch or buy a ski-ramp equipped STOBAR carrier I would think the Gripen would have to be modified for catapult operation. This would be expensive and Brazil would be the only customer.

 

[RobWilliams]

Gripen NG is planned to be both STOBAR/CATOBAR capable (the naval versions that is) from the outset anyway.

Besides which the naval air players in Europe have already picked their prize horse for their platforms with the F35B and Rafale M. Sea Gripen doesn't fill any capability gaps in Europe.

 

[Volkodav]

If SAAB were smart they and their US partner for the Talon replacement (Boeing?) would develop a carrier version of this advanced trainer version to reduce costs for potential customers such as Brazil and India (their second indigenous carrier is meant to be CATOBAR).

 

[the concerned]

Why would India want anything to do with the naval gripen it already has mig-29's and is looking to introduce LCA's next plus if it needed anything more capable then I'm sure they would look at the Rafale as the air force is going to be getting that. What Saab could do is look at it some more so that when they look towards building a replacement for the gripen then they would have some knowledge on naval aircraft other than that I don't see anyone looking.

 

[RobWilliams]

The only hope Saab has for a naval Gripen will be some deal with Brazil which - IMHO - seems very likely if they truly desire for fixed wing naval aviation.

I'd imagine Brazil would get significant bonuses in a naval Gripen similar to the arrangement of the two seater Gripen in that Saab has said if anyone else wants a twin seater then Brazil can be the manufacturer, i'd imagine the same would be with the naval Gripen.

 

[Volkodav]

Why would India want anything to do with the naval gripen it already has mig-29's and is looking to introduce LCA's next plus if it needed anything more capable then I'm sure they would look at the Rafale as the air force is going to be getting that. What Saab could do is look at it some more so that when they look towards building a replacement for the gripen then they would have some knowledge on naval aircraft other than that I don't see anyone looking.

Because India has a habit of reinventing the wheel with every acquisition. The second indigenous carrier is to be CATOBAR which means F/A-18E/F, F-35C, Rafale M or navalised Gripen, if it goes ahead. Otherwise they will have to fund the development of another option, i.e. a CATOBAR Mig 29 or LCA, off their own bat.

If you read my post it started with the suggestion that SAAB develop a supersonic trainer version for the USN as an extension of the T-38 replacement, which they have expressed interest in, for the USN. i.e. like the T-35 Goshawk version of the Hawk 60. A run of a hundred or so supersonic trainers for the USN to supplement the T-35C and cater for the fact there isn't a conversion trainer for the F-35 could be a leg up for the Sea Gripen.

It was an off the cuff idea but the premise is that I can not see a Sea Gripen getting off the ground without a major project such as USN trainer etc. If, by some miracle this was to occur, then the Gripen would become a fully sorted and supported affordable option for the only potential customers, Brazil and India.

Please note, in my original post I also said "this advanced trainer version to reduce costs for potential customers such as Brazil and India". i.e. pure speculation on how the original premise of this thread, a navalised Gripen for Brazil could actually occur and the added speculation that if it existed and was affordable that it could be attractive to India.

 

[FirstSpear]

the lesser stable mate in a joint NATO projection force?

If SAAB were smart they and their US partner for the Talon replacement (Boeing?) would develop a carrier version of this advanced trainer version to reduce costs for potential customers such as Brazil and India (their second indigenous carrier is meant to be CATOBAR).

I agree with you there. In fact, I don't put it past the UK government to foul things up again and need to operate in the STOBAR mode something else than the F35B. So, we'll see if the Talon replacement doesn't stay armed if carrier capable and then enjoy greater opportunities in the market than anticipated.

Other European countries, the smaller ones, could also operate that type as a less expensive little brother to Rafale M and other stable mates in joint operations during out of area projections. As it stands, the most these countries can do is operate over North Africa from Corsica or Sardinia and operate from the Baltics in air police roles. Not much of a contribution to NATO power projection...

 

[CB90]

Because India has a habit of reinventing the wheel with every acquisition. The second indigenous carrier is to be CATOBAR which means F/A-18E/F, F-35C, Rafale M or navalised Gripen, if it goes ahead. Otherwise they will have to fund the development of another option, i.e. a CATOBAR Mig 29 or LCA, off their own bat.

If you read my post it started with the suggestion that SAAB develop a supersonic trainer version for the USN as an extension of the T-38 replacement, which they have expressed interest in, for the USN. i.e. like the T-35 Goshawk version of the Hawk 60. A run of a hundred or so supersonic trainers for the USN to supplement the T-35C and cater for the fact there isn't a conversion trainer for the F-35 could be a leg up for the Sea Gripen.

It was an off the cuff idea but the premise is that I can not see a Sea Gripen getting off the ground without a major project such as USN trainer etc. If, by some miracle this was to occur, then the Gripen would become a fully sorted and supported affordable option for the only potential customers, Brazil and India.

USAF operates T-38s for their jet trainer.
USN operates T-45 Goshawks.
T-38s are old, but T-45C's are still relatively new, and so has quite a long time (decade) before the Navy will be looking for replacements.

The lack of a F-35 trainer isn't likely to affect trainer plans.

 

[Volkodav]

USAF operates T-38s for their jet trainer.
USN operates T-45 Goshawks.
T-38s are old, but T-45C's are still relatively new, and so has quite a long time (decade) before the Navy will be looking for replacements.

The lack of a F-35 trainer isn't likely to affect trainer plans.

After 2030 I believe, definitely lots of ifs and maybes for a USN Gripen, probably more chance of a perfectly good enough USAF Goshawk