JAS-39 news roundup

[erik_g]

No doubt the folks at SAAB are pretty smart but it's still a long way from doing no-flare landings on a mile long strip of roadway to doing the same on a pitching carrier deck. Any modifications would result in a significant weight gain to an aircraft that already isn't exactly endowed with a surplus of thrust. Can it be done? Of course. Will the end result be worth the time and money invested in it? That is not a sure thing.

According to an old news report they calculated with an additional 400 kg for the required carrier adaptations with the resulting penalty in payload. Sure, the Gripen is not the hottest aircraft around, but neither was the Skyhawk, which would probably be the class of aircraft a Carrier Gripen would replace. There is always a risk involved when developing new products. But the marketing person inside me say it is an opportunity. That´s one of the reasons Brazil went with Gripen. It´s good enough to get the job done and the fact that is is still being developed (E/F) it is an opportunity for their industry to get aboard the "pointy jet" business since they have the ambition of creating their own 5th gen aircraft in the future.

Personally, while I´d like to see a carrier version being built, I sure don´t want to pay for it. I´d rather take more land based aircraft for my air force so that we can hold our own over the Baltic sea if the manure hits the fan so to speak. More Gripens and a lot of Meteor AAM´s. Cruise missiles and a new anti-ship missile would be great too. While Santa is listening, a few more new submarines, ASW helicopters, more corvettes and a new generation of missile boats too.

By the way, the strip of road is HALF a mile, 800 m. And it´s covered in snow and ice... and it´s snowing.

I remember hearing those stories from old Viggen drivers, how they landed on those strips of road in the winter and not reflecting over the fact that it was entirely covered in ice until they climbed down the ladder and promptly slipped and fell.. :-D

[11bee]

By the way, the strip of road is HALF a mile, 800 m. And it´s covered in snow and ice... and it´s snowing.

I remember hearing those stories from old Viggen drivers, how they landed on those strips of road in the winter and not reflecting over the fact that it was entirely covered in ice until they climbed down the ladder and promptly slipped and fell.. :-D

Any naval aviator would kill to have such an easy runway to land on :)

Not to take anything away from the Swedes but that is no comparison to landing on a carrier deck during perfect conditions, let alone at night, in the weather. That being said, I always thought the dispersed ops that the Swedes do (did?) was pretty cool and if the cold war ever went hot, it would have been a very useful capability.

[erik_g]

But landing on the carrier is the work of the pilot, not the engineers.. besides, the carrier pilots have electronic help that guides them nowadays - the same system is used by the SwAF for landing on the road bases actually. But imagine landing your severely underpowered 50's jet with an engine that probably will flame out when you need it the most, without HUD, without any electronic help, and the only help you have are a few lamps you cannot see for all the rain.. damn, those guys must have been insane.. :-)

[TaiidanTomcat]

But landing on the carrier is the work of the pilot, not the engineers..

If the pilot wants to land on the carrier more than once, in one piece the work is on the engineers

besides, the carrier pilots have electronic help that guides them nowadays - the same system is used by the SwAF for landing on the road bases actually. But imagine landing your severely underpowered 50's jet with an engine that probably will flame out when you need it the most, without HUD, without any electronic help, and the only help you have are a few lamps you cannot see for all the rain.. damn, those guys must have been insane.. :-)

No one doubts that you can control a gripen well enough to put it on a flight deck, Im sure a competant pilot could do a touch and go if someone gave them a carrier to try it on, provided he doesn't sink too hard. But even way back before the 50's most (im leaving myself a little wiggle room, I would like to say "all" ) aircraft were designed from the ground up for carrier duty. I would also look at the accident and attrition rate back then. Underpowered is a good word as well, You are looking at an airplane that is going to weigh more than an F-16 coming in with about 70 percent of the thrust of an F110/F100. Its going to need an automatic landing system like the new MAGIC CARPET

According to an old news report they calculated with an additional 400 kg for the required carrier adaptations with the resulting penalty in payload.

So SAAB said that they could get an F-16 weight class fighter to land on an aircraft carrier with the addition of only 400KG (880lbs) and you believe that?

As of right now NG is in the honeymoon phase: Its a paper airplane-- Its demonstrated potential via a prototype or concept demonstrator and everything is looking rosy. All planes have this phase. Then they start flight testing with a genuine prototype and suddenly issues start to crop up. Now I am not saying those issues can't be fixed, but as of right now the prototype has not even been finished yet. Ive seen several very pretty brochures from SAAB that can't even agree on the weight of the NG now, but they know its on;y 400 Kilos to make it carrier suitable?

Landing on aircraft carrier causes unique requirements to meet all the forces of the "crash landing"

and the force of the catapult. The aircraft and (its systems) has to stand up to this repeatedly. When it lands the mounts have to not shoot through the top of the wings and fuselage. It really can't be overstated enough how hard this is on airplanes and their internal gear. Its actually the opposite of ice where stopping is the problem. Stopping is not a problem if you catch the wire and everything works as planned-- Its the sudden stop where things get real tricky

Sure, the Gripen is not the hottest aircraft around, but neither was the Skyhawk, which would probably be the class of aircraft a Carrier Gripen would replace. There is always a risk involved when developing new products. But the marketing person inside me say it is an opportunity.

I don't know about marketing, but I know it would cost a lot, and Brazil would probably pay an awful lot of money to design and build it all to get about a dozen of them, and they would have about the bring back ability of an A-4 as well, that is to say, not a whole lot. I guess it beats nothing, and obviously NG will have better avionics and be a better performer, but the cost would be intense even IF they can actually make it work. I would also say that due to attrition you may want to spend even more on some replacements...

That´s one of the reasons Brazil went with Gripen. It´s good enough to get the job done and the fact that is is still being developed (E/F) it is an opportunity for their industry to get aboard the "pointy jet" business since they have the ambition of creating their own 5th gen aircraft in the future.

agreed

[erik_g]

Well, even if the fuselage will be "mere" 400kg heavier, the penalty in payload, and bring-back capability is another question.

I don´t think navalization of the Gripen is impossible, it´s just an engineering challenge. But of course, it will have limitations. The question is if those limitations are so serious that it will severely limit the usefulness of the aircraft, and if the cost for overcoming those limitations will be worth paying. As I said before, I am not interested in paying since there is no carrier in the Swedish Navy. The closest thing we got is the island of Gotland, and the old Gripen operates there on a regular basis.

As for the Gripen E, sure there will be more snags just as there have been snags all along. I have a hard time imagining anything serious and deal breaking. I would be surprised if they make all the Brazilian and Israeli stuff that the Brazilians want, integrate flawlessly on the first try. But that´s probably one reason why they are hiring more programmers. (Do a unix hack, win a trip to SAAB and fly their simulator).

Btw, the RM 12 might have 70% of the thrust of the GE F110, but the aircraft weight is 70% of the F-16. If you compare the official figures for loaded weight and MTOW on Wikipedia. When I spoke about under powered aircraft of the 50s I was thinking about aircraft like the Banshee, that weighed about as much as a Gripen (9-12000 kg vs 8-14000kg) but had two engines delivering a total amount of less than 30KN. The RM12 has a dry thrust of about 54KN, and 80.5KN. You don´t seriously consider the Banshee and the Gripen being in the same performance class, right?

Edited November 27, 2014 by erik_g

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well, even if the fuselage will be "mere" 400kg heavier, the penalty in payload, and bring-back capability is another question.

I don´t think navalization of the Gripen is impossible, it´s just an engineering challenge. But of course, it will have limitations. The question is if those limitations are so serious that it will severely limit the usefulness of the aircraft, and if the cost for overcoming those limitations will be worth paying.

A fine summary

Btw, the RM 12 might have 70% of the thrust of the GE F110, but the aircraft weight is 70% of the F-16. If you compare the official figures for loaded weight and MTOW on Wikipedia.

But we are talking about the NG, not the original Gripen. The NG weighs more, and although the thrust has improved with the new engine, the T/W is lower. The current weights are in the F-16s class, but with less thrust.

Numbers from SAAB for NG (2009) here:

Empty weight 15 700 lb

Basic flight design weight 20 000 lb

MTOW 36 400 lb

Internal fuel 7 300 lb

Numbers from SAAB (2014):

MASS WHEN EMPTY 8,000 kg (17,600 lb)

INTERNAL FUEL CAPACITY 3,400 kg (7,480 lb)

MAX. TAKE-OFF WEIGHT 16,500 kg (36,300 lb)

MAX. THRUST 98 kN --- 13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner (Numbers from GE)

F-16 Block 50 stats (from USAF):

Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)

Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,200 kg)

Powerplant: 1 × F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan

Dry thrust: 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN)

Thrust with afterburner: 28,600 lbf

When I spoke about under powered aircraft of the 50s I was thinking about aircraft like the Banshee, that weighed about as much as a Gripen (9-12000 kg vs 8-14000kg) but had two engines delivering a total amount of less than 30KN. The RM12 has a dry thrust of about 54KN, and 80.5KN. You don´t seriously consider the Banshee and the Gripen being in the same performance class, right?

Nope, but you are talking Gripens, and I'm talking Gripen NGs. And its looking like the NG is not going to be the same animal even if they both have stripes. Again, I still want to see how it all shapes up first, the Brochure I got those numbers from still quotes the Operating cost as $4700 per hour which is laughable, so How real any of those numbers will end up being (other than those provided by GE which have thousands of F414s in service, and is known) remains to be seen. Like I said its all fun and games and loud boasts until they start actually flying.

[-Neu-]

But landing on the carrier is the work of the pilot, not the engineers.. besides, the carrier pilots have electronic help that guides them nowadays - the same system is used by the SwAF for landing on the road bases actually. But imagine landing your severely underpowered 50's jet with an engine that probably will flame out when you need it the most, without HUD, without any electronic help, and the only help you have are a few lamps you cannot see for all the rain.. damn, those guys must have been insane.. :-)

You do realize that carrier aircraft in the 1950s and 60s the Crash rate was 50 per 100,000 hours? That's 20 times the rate we have now. It was a different era. We barely tolerate 2.5 today...

[erik_g]

But we are talking about the NG, not the original Gripen. The NG weighs more, and although the thrust has improved with the new engine, the T/W is lower. The current weights are in the F-16s class, but with less thrust.

The illustrations I have seen of the Sea Gripen all show the smaller fuselage, so I went with that. Not that it matters much anyway, as long as you can maintain enough speed to remain flying. In that case I think either fuselage/engine have enough thrust. The question is not if it can land/take off but how much useful load it can bring and bring back. But there is no point in discussing since we won´t know until there is a thing like the Sea Gripen. You´re pessimistic about it, I am cautiously optimistic with some reservations. Let´s leave it at that.

Nope, but you are talking Gripens, and I'm talking Gripen NGs. And its looking like the NG is not going to be the same animal even if they both have stripes. Again, I still want to see how it all shapes up first, the Brochure I got those numbers from still quotes the Operating cost as $4700 per hour which is laughable, so How real any of those numbers will end up being (other than those provided by GE which have thousands of F414s in service, and is known) remains to be seen. Like I said its all fun and games and loud boasts until they start actually flying.

I think those figures are based on real, live and flying Gripens. Unfortunately I don´t know if they are true or not. I once looked through the annual report of the SwAF to see if they had the maintenance costs listed somewhere, but they hadn't. Not unless you want to include the cost of hangars, airfields, tow trucks and stuff like that in the equation. The marketing says the new one will cost about the same. But I guess we´ll see. But one thing is clear, the Gripen is a reliable and easy to maintain aircraft. Just look at the 14 aircraft of the Czech air force. They are policing Iceland, policing Czech republic (and Slovakia, I believe) while being able to maintain regular training flights. The Gripen was from the outset built to be easy and cheap to operate, part because it had to be able to operate in very austere conditions, part because it´s predecessor was very complicated and expensive to operate. The goal was to have an aircraft that could do the same job, carry the same payload with the same performance or better at roughly half the price. The Gripen is 40% cheaper to operate than the Viggen was.

I think it´s the small details that makes the difference. I have two examples I heard from a technician: The first is the flame holder. When the Gripen entered service it was soon found out that the flame holder wasn't up to spec. It wore out too quick and to replace it you had to take out the engine and remove the after burner assembly and change the complete flame holder assembly. This was of course very costly, so someone put their thinking cap on and the result was a new modular flame holder. When it is worn out a technician armed with a tool can climb into the burner from the back and simply detach the worn out part, replacing it with a new. No need to remove the engine, no need to even remove and replace the complete flame holder. The new one even has an increased life span. This flame holder is in use by the Finnish and Swiss Hornets as well.

The other example is that the manufacturing tolerances are such that panels from one aircraft fit any other aircraft without trimming. A damaged panel can be temporarily replaced by a panel from another aircraft and then be switched back when a real spare arrives. It might not sound so special, but apparently this was not the case with older aircraft. I honestly don´t know if the same goes for the Hornet or the F-16. SAAB does make a big deal of it, so it is obviously something they take pride in.

Also, engine replacement takes 59 minutes, fika pause not included.

You do realize that carrier aircraft in the 1950s and 60s the Crash rate was 50 per 100,000 hours? That's 20 times the rate we have now. It was a different era. We barely tolerate 2.5 today...

Yeah, progress is a good thing, right? When my grandfather started out in the aircraft building business he built dive bombers still partially covered in fabric. Before he retired he was working on computerized mach 2 (1.8 really, but anyway) fighters with composite material parts.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The illustrations I have seen of the Sea Gripen all show the smaller fuselage, so I went with that.

Thats interesting

Not that it matters much anyway, as long as you can maintain enough speed to remain flying. In that case I think either fuselage/engine have enough thrust. The question is not if it can land/take off

No that is the question. Can Gripen be made to survive cats and traps on a carrier and the current answer is no. And I would take the weight estimate to convert it for carrier use as "extremely optomistic" and "boastful" Which sounds a lot nicer than other words I would like to use.

but how much useful load it can bring and bring back. But there is no point in discussing since we won´t know until there is a thing like the Sea Gripen. You´re pessimistic about it, I am cautiously optimistic with some reservations. Let´s leave it at that.

I don't think you understand the kind of forces an aircraft has to survive to land on a modern carrier. And I'll just leave it at that.

I think those figures are based on real, live and flying Gripens. Unfortunately I don´t know if they are true or not. I once looked through the annual report of the SwAF to see if they had the maintenance costs listed somewhere, but they hadn't. Not unless you want to include the cost of hangars, airfields, tow trucks and stuff like that in the equation. The marketing says the new one will cost about the same. But I guess we´ll see.

Well, I'll just say it like this:

1. That report is from 2008 and was specifically commissioned by SAAB

2. even at the time, people in the know did not believe it and SAAB was called out on it-- And that was before current levels of inflation.

"Hon. Laurie Hawn:

Your suggested operating cost of $4,000 to $4,500 an hour is frankly not believable with just the cost of fuel, let alone throwing in spares and all the other things you talked about. I don't think that's an accurate figure at all. Your answers are understandable, and I get that."

3. You can't run civilan lear jets for that cheap, and the idea that the price for an NG in 2020 would cost the same as a Gripen in 2008, well thats more than a little insulting.

"These figures are approximate and are based on in-year Canadian dollars. The acquisition price of one Gripen, the fly-away price, is about $55 million. That depends on configuration, but that's a real number.

The other critical financial issue for any nation operating this aircraft is the cost per flight hour over the aircraft's full life cycle of about 40 years, the in-service support cost. The figure we use is not produced by Saab but comes from a wholly independent source, the Swedish air force, which monitors very precisely all of the criteria to come up with the in-service cost figure. The in-service cost per flight hour for Gripen is between $4,000 and $4,500 in Canadian dollars. So for a full fleet of 65 Gripen NG, the cost per year would be between $44 million and $50 million Canadian for a full fleet of 65 aircraft.

If you take round figures, in terms of acquisition and in-service costs, a fleet of 65 Gripen NG will cost you just under $6 billion Canadian. That's about $3.75 billion Canadian to acquire the aircraft, and $2 billion to operate them over 40 years, or just under $6 billion for the whole package for life."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4865088&Language=E&Mode=1

But one thing is clear, the Gripen is a reliable and easy to maintain aircraft. Just look at the 14 aircraft of the Czech air force. They are policing Iceland, policing Czech republic (and Slovakia, I believe) while being able to maintain regular training flights. The Gripen was from the outset built to be easy and cheap to operate, part because it had to be able to operate in very austere conditions, part because it´s predecessor was very complicated and expensive to operate. The goal was to have an aircraft that could do the same job, carry the same payload with the same performance or better at roughly half the price. The Gripen is 40% cheaper to operate than the Viggen was.

CPFH is calculated in a lot of different ways, by different people and different air forces. I'm not saying that Gripen is not relatively inexpensive compared to other aircraft. But that also has to be balanced with capability.-- In the end it is a light fighter, it shouldn't cost what a medium fighter does as it is.

Again a lot of stuff we don't know about the NG, but SAAB has a reputation. If the cost of operation is considered a major selling point (and it is with this aircraft in particular more than any other factor) and they are "knowingly in error" where those numbers are concerned, its a little nasty and underhanded.

The other example is that the manufacturing tolerances are such that panels from one aircraft fit any other aircraft without trimming. A damaged panel can be temporarily replaced by a panel from another aircraft and then be switched back when a real spare arrives. It might not sound so special, but apparently this was not the case with older aircraft. I honestly don´t know if the same goes for the Hornet or the F-16. SAAB does make a big deal of it, so it is obviously something they take pride in.

thats standard.

[GreyGhost]

Navalizing an aircraft isn't just about the stresses involved with the air ops but also adapting it to the harsh environment naval aircraft are subjected to.

-Gregg

[11bee]

Navalizing an aircraft isn't just about the stresses involved with the air ops but also adapting it to the harsh environment naval aircraft are subjected to.

-Gregg

Great point, I forgot about that aspect entirely. I believe that there is a certain helicopter out there (NH90?) that was just found to have severe corrosion issues after being deployed for only a short time at sea.

[Aigore]

Regarding operating costs for Gripen C, the problem is in the parameters really.....What's counted as part of the operating cost? That may well vary from air force to air force. As for the SwAF the last figure in is from this year and it pegs it at about $7500.

The parameters are: personel and fuelcosts and service costs including service, spare parts, service equipment, service dokuments and manuals and education of the service personel. Then there are costs that are in conjuction but not entirely part of the same budget like flight suits, weapons. They are per se needed but not really considered actual operational cost.

FMV on operstional costs (Swedish)

Now making a land based fighter into a carrier based one seems to take some effort.....However it's not black magic but engineering. As long there is someone paying for it you could make my Volvo carrier based :P Could cost a bit but the concept is appealing......

Sure Gripen is a light fighter but you do get a light fighter doing pretty much a medium fighter job and it is a true multirole machine in the essence of the word. What many fails to see is that its a system that is greater than its parts... looking at the wiki data one Gripen on its own is not that impressive. What is impressive though is its data link, information processing, situational awareness, sensor suite and the ability to cross link all data over a number of units and share sensors from land , sea and air. All those systems are as hush hush as they are impressive and all that electronic witchcraft comes with a pretty affordable price tag........but that doesn't always mean cheap.

And the NG will be even meaner.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Regarding operating costs for Gripen C, the problem is in the parameters really.....What's counted as part of the operating cost? That may well vary from air force to air force. As for the SwAF the last figure in is from this year and it pegs it at about $7500.

The parameters are: personel and fuelcosts and service costs including service, spare parts, service equipment, service dokuments and manuals and education of the service personel. Then there are costs that are in conjuction but not entirely part of the same budget like flight suits, weapons. They are per se needed but not really considered actual operational cost.

FMV on operstional costs (Swedish)

Like I said, everyone calculates it differently, but it sure isn't $4700 and it sure isn't $4700 12 years later with a more advanced model. Unless there is a magical place where inflation isn't a thing.

Now making a land based fighter into a carrier based one seems to take some effort.....However it's not black magic but engineering. As long there is someone paying for it you could make my Volvo carrier based :PCould cost a bit but the concept is appealing......

You could, but at what point it quits being a volvo and becomes something else entirely is up for grabs. Call it a semantic argument, but if end up with massive changes to the aircraft you can call it what you want, its still a different airplane. And it is engineering of course, but how much experience do the swedes have engineering carrier aircraft? The Americans have done it for well over a half century and we still make mistakes. I don't think you can make an NG carrier compatible without so many changes and differences it might as well be a different aircraft.

For some reason all the yanks on this board are skeptical.

Sure Gripen is a light fighter but you do get a light fighter doing pretty much a medium fighter job and it is a true multirole machine in the essence of the word. What many fails to see is that its a system that is greater than its parts... looking at the wiki data one Gripen on its own is not that impressive. What is impressive though is its data link, information processing, situational awareness, sensor suite and the ability to cross link all data over a number of units and share sensors from land , sea and air. All those systems are as hush hush as they are impressive and all that electronic witchcraft comes with a pretty affordable price tag........but that doesn't always mean cheap.

Well the NG isn't cheap, and its no longer light so no worries there.

Edited November 29, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Aigore]

LoL....we do have a problem with low inflation in Sweden...actually bordering on deflation.

Nothing to do with military hardware, specially the the flying kind is cheap. Tho however you don't want or like the NG to be cheaper than the competition it might well be the case...

I sometimes believe you yanks just don't get the idea of small and complex in the same sentence :P

We do because we have to...the design philosophy differs so much between USA and Sweden that you just don't get it with the Gripen. The necessity of making a small, cheap and intricate fighter system is vital because we can't afford several systems. Tho you keep disbelieving how cheap it is it still is cheap and very very efficient and reliable.

Yes this sounds very fan boyish....tho I think you start sounding more like Gripen bashers than keeping it objective.

The point I'm trying to get through without sounding religious about it is that the system package you get with Gripen makes perfect economic sense when you stop counting the numbers in the specs of an individual Gripen and start looking at it from a system perspective.

Looking at the individual fighter is a too near sighted view and you miss the big picture.

In the end it makes great sense for smaller airforces...and less so for bigger. it would not be easily integrated into a large airforces existing defenssystem or doctrine

Not sure how to explain it.....soon it gets meta physical :D

I heard from a mate in the SwAF when he had been to a Red flag exercise a few years ago. Now, what happens during Red Flag stays at Red Flag..but he told me this anecdote about one morning:

They either shared a hangar or had space at the tarmac, don't remember, with Japanese F-15s. As usual they got up, had breakfast went to the briefing at wich thd pilot tapped in the mission parameters into a drive. They pooped about as usual and had a "fika" before the mission start. 20 minutes before lift off they look at eachother and collectively decide it's time to get cracking. in those 20 minutes the preflight is done, the planes fueled and loaded, mission parameters are loaded into the computers and with 5 minutes before lift off the coffe thermoses are handed to the pilots and they close the canopies and rolls away...

The Japanese has been doing the same for the last 2 hours and with 3 times the personnel per aircraft!

Now I know there's a slight difference in generation and all between the machines but that's not the point, the point is the philosophy behind the design of making something as complex as a jet fighter so easy that you get it ready for combat with a minimum of personnel in less than 15 minutes.....

[Troll]

I know what you're writing about, Aigore...

When I did my military service as a conscript crew chief on the Viggen, we had a Italian aviation journalist visiting. He refused to beleive a team of 5 conscripts changed the weapon load and refueled the kite in 15 minutes, block on to block off... :-D

SAAB know he meaning of serviceability!

Jorgen "Troll" Toll

:trolls:/>

Edited November 29, 2014 by Troll

[TaiidanTomcat]

oops

Brazil’s economic troubles appear to be dampening the Brazilian air force's hopes of recapitalising its entire outdated fighter force, with one official saying the final number of Saab Gripen NGs may be closer to 40 than the original F-X2 programme target of 108 new fighters.

Maj Brig Waldeísio Ferreira Campos, vice-director of the air force’s air education and training command, has his doubts that the Brazilian government will be able to procure the expected total number of Gripens. “I don’t know. Maybe we will go to 40, but not 100,” he told Flightglobal at the Dubai Air Chiefs Conference on 7 November.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-doubts-raised-about-brazils-lofty-gripen-goa-418761/

[Aigore]

Oops indeed....

Guess we'll just have to wait and see how things unfold.

[erik_g]

The first Gripen E is still a few years down the road, and the last one of the initial 36 for the FAB even more, so the economy might be looking better then. Remember that the only order they have are for 36 a/c, and that one still stands, with Brazilian engineers already in place in Linköping participating in the design and production. With their own production line they have the ability to slow down and increase production as they see fit. They also have an incentive of keeping the production line open.

There is also still interest in the Gripen from a long row of other countries.

I also hope that the Sw Govmnt get their act together and order more than the 60 a/c so far ordered. We should not have less than 100 I think.

[Aigore]

The first Gripen E is still a few years down the road, and the last one of the initial 36 for the FAB even more, so the economy might be looking better then. Remember that the only order they have are for 36 a/c, and that one still stands, with Brazilian engineers already in place in Linköping participating in the design and production. With their own production line they have the ability to slow down and increase production as they see fit. They also have an incentive of keeping the production line open.

There is also still interest in the Gripen from a long row of other countries.

I also hope that the Sw Govmnt get their act together and order more than the 60 a/c so far ordered. We should not have less than 100 I think.

600 is a good number, that's what I've always said :P

[ross blackford]

:D, I remember a Volvo being shot off a carrier deck years ago in an advert. Was that your volvo Aigore? :lol: :lol:

,

Ross.

[Aigore]

:D/>, I remember a Volvo being shot off a carrier deck years ago in an advert. Was that your volvo Aigore? :lol:/> :lol:/>

:cheers:/>,

Ross.

LoL, nope ( checking parking space outside the window),the black beauty's still outside

[Aigore]

It finally happened, the E has rolled out.....the first of three prototypes.

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Tags/Tag.aspx?TagId=11&Name=Gripen%20E/F

[TaiidanTomcat]

It finally happened, the E has rolled out.....the first of three prototypes.

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Tags/Tag.aspx?TagId=11&Name=Gripen%20E/F

I watched it live. 90 minutes for 5 minutes of airplane-- and then it looked almost exactly like the regular Gripen!

I did like the projections on it though very cool, wish they had more of it.

Other than though I agree about the finally part

[Aigore]

I watched it live. 90 minutes for 5 minutes of airplane-- and then it looked almost exactly like the regular Gripen!

I did like the projections on it though very cool, wish they had more of it.

Other than though I agree about the finally part

It was boring like he** :P No girls-no show :P

I've been looking it over and well, the proportions are really off. It's wider and beefier....I couldn't for tbe life of me find that extra meter in length until I started looking at the rear end. The rear is longer...compare the rear end of the flaps to the pod in the tailfin on C vs E.

[janman]

I really would like to see a good set of comparison photos between the legacy model and the new "E" Gripen.

For my eyes Gripen has always looked like a toy fighter. Not at all menacing or brutal, but I think the new one certainly has gained more muscles. :)

I have a strong feeling (I wouldn't have said this a year ago and it has never been my outright favourite!) that we are looking at the next fighter aircraft of our air force. The strong political signs and the wide media coverage can not hide that anymore.