Rise of the Sea Gripen

I read some highly interesting stuff on F414, namely that the difference between the EDE & EPE was merely adding a couple of compressor blades,
which means you could use that dirt cheap EDE (extended durance) regularly,
and only add those performance boosting stuff (EPE -extended performance)
-if and when push comes to shove

Had GE self funded the development of EPE to be made available by now, they might have broken even with orders for Tejas-2, Gripen NG and FA-50.

Yep. The F414 produces a bit more trust than the EJ200 and Volvo has an existing relationship with General Electric. From a technical standpoint the GE F400 series and the EJ200 series are basically interchangeable. If a customer insisted on a Gripen NG or Super Hornet with a EJ230/270 (if they ever get funded) or a Typhoon with a F414 it would be an non-issue from an engineering standpoint. There might be some political reservations, but it could be done fairly easily.

Agree the F414 is the best fit for Gripen NG.
Minor nitpick; Had a quick peek at the GE and RR websites, the F404/414 (35in diameter) is fatter than the EJ200 (29in) so I’m not sure here’s enough space to fit them in a Typhoon. /End nitpick.

I read some highly interesting stuff on F414, namely that the difference between the EDE & EPE was merely adding a couple of compressor blades,
which means you could use that dirt cheap EDE (extended durance) regularly,
and only add those performance boosting stuff (EPE -extended performance)
-if and when push comes to shove

Recognizing that the F/A-18E/F will assume new roles and missions over its lifetime,
as well as face an uncertain and ever changing threat environment,
GE designed the F414 with thrust growth potential to meet these anticipated needs.
Already envisioned for the F414’s first growth step was a 10 percent thrust increase that could be available by 2005.
Increased performance would be achieved with an improved core having an all blisk compressor and higher temperature turbine alloys to
withstand a modest temperature increase.
The second growth step would provide 15 percent more thrust than the initial F414 – about 25,000 pounds of thrust
(or roughly 111 kilo- Newtons ). This engine would use the improved Step A core with a larger fan and low-pressure turbine.
It would still fit within the existing F/A-18E/F engine installation, however.

The final growth step – Step C – would produce an engine with 30 percent more thrust than the F414 – just under 29,000 pounds,
or about 128 kilo- Newtons. This thrust level is nearly equal to the F110 Increased Performance Engine.
To reach this impressive thrust level will demand further airflow growth from the fan,
a modest temperature increase, a new two-stage low pressure turbine and a new afterburner.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2001/05/08/129821/ge-bids-for-enhanced-f414-ede-funding-by-2003.html
The F414 EDE changes promise 2% better specific fuel consumption (SFC)
and either a 15% boost in thrust or threefold increase in component durability, says George Bolln, GE F404/414 general manager.
————————–
Longer term, GE is proposing a two-stage fan with a forward swept all-blisk fan, a 10% pressure ratio increase and,
if combined with the EDE’s HPT and HPC, a 4% SFC improvement and 20% boost in thrust over the existing 22,000lb-thrust (98kN) F414.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85882&page=7

RD-33 has better fuel efficiency than the f404 and the M88 in dry thrust AFAIK.
Worse with AB, but then again, is more powerful than either.

in terms of thrusting RD-33 and RD-93 would rank much higher, putting it behind the F414 and EJ2000, and they have to be thrusty because the airplanes they were designed for are much larger and heavier than the ones EJ-2000 and F404 were designed for

RD-33 has better fuel efficiency than the f404 and the M88 in dry thrust AFAIK.
Worse with AB, but then again, is more powerful than either.

They had the option of EJ200 for Gripen NG. That possibility was examined, & determined to be technically feasible (the engine fitted without significant airframe modifications, just like F414), but F414 had commercial, industrial & I think logistical advantages. I think it was cheaper, & it already had some Swedish content (design & manufacture of components) which IIRC GE was willing to increase, so Volvo Flygmotor adds a bit more to its small share of every F414 sold worldwide. And it’s the most similar engine to the RM12 (Swedish-modified F404 assembled in Sweden with many Swedish parts) of current Gripens.

isn’t the F414 more fuel efficient than the EJ2000 as well? thats what i recall as the reason for F414 spanking EJ2000 for Tejas. If we were to put engines of that class in a ranking of efficiency.. it’d be like this:

F414 > EJ2000 > M88 > F404 > RD-93 > RD-33. unknown where the new chinese one will fit since its going at a snails pace.

They had the option of EJ200 for Gripen NG. That possibility was examined, & determined to be technically feasible (the engine fitted without significant airframe modifications, just like F414), but F414 had commercial, industrial & I think logistical advantages. I think it was cheaper, & it already had some Swedish content (design & manufacture of components) which IIRC GE was willing to increase, so Volvo Flygmotor adds a bit more to its small share of every F414 sold worldwide. And it’s the most similar engine to the RM12 (Swedish-modified F404 assembled in Sweden with many Swedish parts) of current Gripens.

Yep. The F414 produces a bit more trust than the EJ200 and Volvo has an existing relationship with General Electric. From a technical standpoint the GE F400 series and the EJ200 series are basically interchangeable. If a customer insisted on a Gripen NG or Super Hornet with a EJ230/270 (if they ever get funded) or a Typhoon with a F414 it would be an non-issue from an engineering standpoint. There might be some political reservations, but it could be done fairly easily.

EJ-200 hasnt been used in single engine fighter application. and it produces 20,000 thrust. not enough for heavier Gripen-NG.

Yes they would, they’ve done it before: The Gripen today is fitted with yet another american engine. They just don’t have too many options.

They had the option of EJ200 for Gripen NG. That possibility was examined, & determined to be technically feasible (the engine fitted without significant airframe modifications, just like F414), but F414 had commercial, industrial & I think logistical advantages. I think it was cheaper, & it already had some Swedish content (design & manufacture of components) which IIRC GE was willing to increase, so Volvo Flygmotor adds a bit more to its small share of every F414 sold worldwide. And it’s the most similar engine to the RM12 (Swedish-modified F404 assembled in Sweden with many Swedish parts) of current Gripens.

I agree! It will probably more along the lines of $120 to $130 million.

I wish the Sea Gripen well. The basic Harrier design was an elegant and simple one, which worked. The F35B is far too large and expensive for most purposes, if indeed it ever gets into service. How many countries can afford to spend over $100 million on a single plane?

Except that isn’t what it is going to cost.

I wish the Sea Gripen well. The basic Harrier design was an elegant and simple one, which worked. The F35B is far too large and expensive for most purposes, if indeed it ever gets into service. How many countries can afford to spend over $100 million on a single plane?

Completely different class. SeaGripen is a lightweight fighter for ships in the 25k-45k range. Its max takeoff is about half that of the F-35C or Super Hornet. That being said, compared to Harriers or upgraded Skyhawks or SuEs, its a quantum leap in capability. If the F-35C is cancelled, the RN/RAF will go with Super Hornets or Rafales.

And change roles just as easily. A Rafale on CAP sees something, a strike package or a RECON flight could be there fairly easily.

Air Forces usually have the same problems as the Armies they descended from, they’re designed for large scale continental wars and have trouble thinking beyond that.

I like your thinking.

Swedish defense company Saab is to conduct studies on future enhancements to its Gripen, multi-role combat jets flown by the Swedish air force.

Nice picture, but that is a pretty vague statement. Nearly all manufacturers are trying to improve their products. The potential market for the SeaGripen is pretty small for now, until “Harrier Carrier” countries decide that either they can’t get a hold of F-35Bs or that they decide that they are better off with a small CATOBAR carrier. That group of countries is small and the jet to use on it would need to be made first to make that kind of leap of faith.

I guess it depends on how well this is received after it cuts its teeth in production and operation: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&feature=colike

With the problems now surfacing with F35C tail hook to main wheel arrested recovery problem, I think it would be a good time for Saab to promote the Sea Gripen again.

Problems aside how does the capabilities of these two a/c match up?

Completely different class. SeaGripen is a lightweight fighter for ships in the 25k-45k range. Its max takeoff is about half that of the F-35C or Super Hornet. That being said, compared to Harriers or upgraded Skyhawks or SuEs, its a quantum leap in capability. If the F-35C is cancelled, the RN/RAF will go with Super Hornets or Rafales.

Not if you’re the AMI, which would quite like to see Italy have no naval air power, if it meant the real enemy, i.e. the MM, was stripped of its fighters.

The RAF has a similar attitude. It loved showing off its ability to bomb Libya with Tornados flying all the way from England – using our entire tanker force for a single small raid, with a response time of several hours. 😡

CdG’s aircraft, meanwhile, were putting bombs on target 20 minutes after takeoff, & could be back & refuelling & re-arming soon afterwards. They could also loiter, waiting for targets.

And change roles just as easily. A Rafale on CAP sees something, a strike package or a RECON flight could be there fairly easily.

Air Forces usually have the same problems as the Armies they descended from, they’re designed for large scale continental wars and have trouble thinking beyond that.

Saab undertaking Gripen upgrades

Swedish defense company Saab is to conduct studies on future enhancements to its Gripen, multi-role combat jets flown by the Swedish air force.

However: If things don’t get sorted out with F-35B, then Sea Gripen becomes almost irresistible, -as the alternative of having NO naval air power is too crippling to even contemplate

Not if you’re the AMI, which would quite like to see Italy have no naval air power, if it meant the real enemy, i.e. the MM, was stripped of its fighters.

The RAF has a similar attitude. It loved showing off its ability to bomb Libya with Tornados flying all the way from England – using our entire tanker force for a single small raid, with a response time of several hours. 😡

CdG’s aircraft, meanwhile, were putting bombs on target 20 minutes after takeoff, & could be back & refuelling & re-arming soon afterwards. They could also loiter, waiting for targets.

In answer to the above post I was just speculating whether or not intended buyers of the F35C may have to look for another A/C to fulfil their requirement if the tail hook issue could not be sorted, however,

The tail hook on F-35C is merely a quick-fix, and i can’t imagine F-35C being switched for Sea Gripen for any Carrier that can handle F-35C.

If the problem is easily fixed then it’s obvious they won’t have to.

With the problems now surfacing with F35C tail hook to main wheel arrested recovery problem, I think it would be a good time for Saab to promote the Sea Gripen again.

Problems aside how does the capabilities of these two a/c match up?

Why?

The tail hook on F-35C is merely a quick-fix, and i can’t imagine F-35C being switched for Sea Gripen for any Carrier that can handle F-35C.

However: If things don’t get sorted out with F-35B, then Sea Gripen becomes almost irresistible, -as the alternative of having NO naval air power is too crippling to even contemplate

Problems aside how does the capabilities of these two a/c match up?

Who knows? None is operational, and maybe none will be.