That was moving fast indeed…

About the engine. Would it be possible to adopt the GEF414 EDE instead of the GEF414G?

I would think there’s more than one way to increase the engine performance in everything from 5-20% but if that eventually means exactly the same EDE (XTE77/SE2) that has been tested by GE I am not even going to guess…

But Saab did say this:

“The F414G delivers 25% more power than the RM12 and has significant growth potential.”

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/Publications/GripenNews/Archive/Gripen_News_Demo_Special_Edition_2008.htm

For more info on the EDE:

F414 Growth Demonstrator Engine Completes Testing
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20061212.html

Right now tho, I’m going to be happy for cost and performance reasons that Saab got a flying F414G 🙂 It’s pretty cool actually.

Saab MAW-300

Fighter platforms is Malaysian SU-30MKM and Saab’s Gripen Demonstrator.

Saab Microwave Systems and Selex is working on a long term solution M-AESA array with a new European source of T/R modules.

OK, that has nothing to do with anything else. THALES provides a aesa array for the Demonstrator program in the short term.

The Radar is a continued Saab design and they select arrays for the radars based on many factors. I don’t believe Raytheon was ignored over export control reasons especially since we’re talking about a antenna not a whole radar system.

The defense treaties with the States is excellent but sometimes the product available right now is not suitable for a flying demonstrator. They now need to demo the new version of the PS/05 radar and needed a suitable flyable array. Thales won this round. That selected array won’t otoh go into the Gripen NG.

There’s additional news to come such as the proposed aesa radar for the Indian tender.

Saab want antennas from its foreign radar partners. Until the M-AESA work is complete and they can source it themselves.

The only concern remaining now is the issue of low thrust, which the IAF claims. As per official Swedish Defence Material Administration, the empty weight of Gripen is 7000 kgs, max. external load is 5,300 kgs and MTOW is 14,000 kgs. This leaves only 1700 kgs for internal fuel, which cannot be the case as even Tejas carries > 2200 kgs fuel. Subtracting 800 kgs more internal fuel to make it fuel-less, we can arrive at 6,300 kgs.

This figure is inclusive of engine weight, as further subtracting 1,100 kgs of the weight of GE-414 would yield the implausible figure of 5,200 kgs.

Gripen is larger than Tejas with lesser composite percentage. Its wing area is ~ 25.5 sq. m and taking per canard area of Su-30 as ref+1, total wing area of Gripen is >33 sq. m. This is not much lesser than Tejas’ 38.4 sq. m wing area.

Thus, even inclusive of engines, Tejas’ empty weight must be less than 6,300 kgs of Gripen. Thus, figure of placard of Singapore Air Show must be inaccurate, and the figure of 5,680 kgs as in the DefExpo 2008 was accurate. Note that this figure is inclusive of GE-F404 engine.

However, as discussed earlier, as per the unlabelled placard posted earlier (ref. from BR forum), MTOW of Tejas was 13,500 kgs; internal fuel was ~ 2482 kgs and max. external stores as we know is 4,000 kgs. This equates to 7,100 kgs of weight inclusive of engine, which is greater than even 6,500 kgs as per Singapore Air Show.
In this context, we finally take the figures listed on ADA’s website itself : clean weight of 8500 kgs, external load of >4000 kgs. Subtracting internal fuel weight from clean weight gives ~6,000 kgs (which is again 1 tonne less than Gripen) inclusive of engine, avionics, canon etc. Note that the site independently lists empty weight as 5,500 kgs.

Whatever be the case, empty weight of Tejas is between 5500 and 6000 kgs only, which still makes it >1 ton lighter than Gripen and 0.5 tons lighter than T-50 in present configuration.

Seems you totally ignore that Tejas is 90cm shorter than the Gripen 39A/C which is a decent amount of extra space for central fuselage fueltanks.

Also, fuel weight is not a constant. If differs in temperature and density that’s why the FMV page you linked to on the Gripen lists the fuel in litres. That’s how a serious official source would write it. Not playing around with guesses, rumours and weights that changes over its operative use.

3000 liters is official for Gripen 39A/C. Which when using the most commonly used density factor of 0.8 puts it at 2400 kgs.

(The effective use of that fuel also depends on factors such as airframe drag and engine consumtion. The RM12 is less fuel hungry to a minor extent than the F404 versions fitted to the Tejas.)

There’s a higher amount of composite in the 39C version than in the 39A, that’s how the jet can now take 5300kg of patyload as opposed to 3600 on the 39A. With MTOW at 14t on 39C as opposed to 12t on 39A. The amount of composite, and what type of material (!) for the 39C is not publically available.

There’s plenty of confusing numbers mixing up 39A with 39C numbers on the net. One such is the most mentioned fuel weight. Which is actually for a average peace time load on the 39A. The 39C has no peace setting and can use the 3000L at all time.

Either way, you simply CAN’T compare two designs the way you do and maybe it would be a good idea to actually wait until the Tejas is inducted or at least until official numbers on its specifications is available rather than talking about rumours and wild guesses.

Vidsel Base, Sweden

December 2004 to February 2005

The Viggen and Draken canopies opens straight up. The ladder was brought to the side selected for dismount (normally the left side).

Either way, Lansen and JAS Gripen got right-hand support for the road network which they also got own service pockets for on the right side in take-off direction, the Lansen type is smaller and more square while the Gripen pockets is, well here’s a pic.

lol at the guys talking like the US lost 10,000’ds of jobs.

The 767 line would close soon anyway and workers moved to high rate production of 787 and other models. The USAF order would only have meant ~1% extra annually for Boeing.

Now you get a new factory and ****loads more employed at Northrop.

A good deal compared to some of the European procurements of US equipment over the years IMO.

Mick, Good points there. NORDCAPS pooling would be very interesting IMO.

Is there any info out on how much Britain alone paid for their lease ?

There’s agreements in the works with Norway covering many areas to be signed this year…hopefully they keep C-17s in mind too should SAC go all worthless.

The SwMOD change in procurement handling is mostly negative towards R&D projects. Like you said the SEP got pulled but the ambition to buy a comparable vehicle at around 500 units is still there. In short, the government want the industry to take a greater burdon or the Armed forces will be directed to buy perhaps less suitable but ‘good enough’ equipment off the shelf. The gov has stated that they no not want to cut the size of the armed forces. Of course politicians change their minds all the time. 😡

Edit:

2 year US Dollar vs Swedish Krona

20% rebate 🙂