SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

Moving towards a PW-229 evolution probably better suited a bigger Gripen than F414, even in an EPE version. Too little, too late IMHO.
No possible way to make it fit. Don't forget the Gripen NG is a tweaked Gripen... not an all-new airframe like the Super Hornet. Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 3,280

No possible way to make it fit. Don't forget the Gripen NG is a tweaked Gripen... not an all-new airframe like the Super Hornet. Clearly the F414 isn't an ideal engine for Gripen NG, but that is what you get when you build your aircraft from off the shelf parts.
To me it seems like a very good fit. Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG... It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...
Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

9 years

Posts: 3,381

Don't feed the troll.
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 8,850

To me it seems like a very good fit. Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG... It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...
He's basically trying to say that Gripen would be perfect if it was powered by F135, weighed as much as the F-35, looked like an F-35, flown like an F-35, had EOTS and EODAS and was built by LockMart. Then it would be well suited for everything.. :eagerness:
Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years

Posts: 6,983

nah, i think he was joining @madrat's line of thought, in an attempt to belittle gripen E, but firstly, an F414 EPE has more power than PW-229, so the entire theory is illogical, secondly, a wider diameter would negatively affect area distribution which as current is better than any other fighter, and thirdly this aerodynamics T/D more than compensate T/W, in addition it would have required a lot more work. i think its right on the spot design wise, but far too late, this is what C should have been, when sweden anyway had no urgent need for more fighters, due to soviet meltdown
Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 3,104

Oblig- what are you smoking? -229 is more powerful than the proposed -414 EPE, that btw, is not the Gripen's engine and won't be unless a customer want to pick up development costs. Add- the F414 is the perfect engine for the Gripen. Mature, large production run, compact, powerful, low bypass. The EPE, if ever funded ( say USN) would be a beast for the Gripen E/F (with 11-1 thrust to weight it would be an impressive engine). For now, the F414G is a good choice.

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

To me it seems like a very good fit. Or are you saying that the whole a/c should have been designed to meet a different set of requirements and therefore be completely different? Well then it would not have been Gripen NG... It's a bit like saying that the engine in a Volkswagen Golf is not ideal to the Golf...
Yes, my point is simply that the 229 is a substantially larger and heavier engine that quite simply would not fit without a major airframe redesign. (Something Saab is avoiding to control costs.) It is like asking why VW doesn't put its 5.2L v10 engine from the R8 into a Golf. Edit, of course ideally an airframe and an engine would be designed in concert, as I am sure was the case when the Gripen was first designed with the f404 in mind. The problem in this case is that when Saab set out to design the Gripen NG it's extra fuel, avionics, etc drove the weight much higher, necessitating a more powerful engine. The F414 is 20% more powerful than the F404, but not really as powerful as Saab would like. Hypothetically Saab could pay GE to produce the uprated F414epe variant of the f414, but that of course costs money. That is my point about Saab being limited to what is available off the shelf.

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

He's basically trying to say that Gripen would be perfect if it was powered by F135, weighed as much as the F-35, looked like an F-35, flown like an F-35, had EOTS and EODAS and was built by LockMart. Then it would be well suited for everything.. :eagerness:
No, I was saying it wouldn't fit. Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine. Simple enough for you?

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 3,280

Edit, of course ideally an airframe and an engine would be designed in concert, as I am sure was the case when the Gripen was first designed with the f404 in mind. The problem in this case is that when Saab set out to design the Gripen NG it's extra fuel, avionics, etc drove the weight much higher, necessitating a more powerful engine. The F414 is 20% more powerful than the F404, but not really as powerful as Saab would like.
How do you know that the F414 is not as powerful as Saab would like? I am not saying you are incorrect; I simply don't know, however I am curious to know how you obtained that piece of information? Edit: Although supercruise at Mach1.1 in an a2a config may not be particularly useful; does that not seem to indicate that the F414 is adequate for Gripen NG? Or is SC not a good indication for whether it is underpowered or not? Edit2: empty weight of NG is (I believe) 17% more than empty weight of Gripen C. MTOW is also 17% more than MTOW for Gripen C. Engine is 20% more powerful. Is that so shabby?
Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 3,765

i'm thinking brazilians are aiming to complete the carrier for duty 2030-35, when Etendards are eligible for elderly home with ICU for each bed
The Brasilians are aiming for a NEW carrier in 2030/2035. The main fighter of the "São Paulo" is (and will be for a very long time) the A-4 Skyhawk, twelve of the airframes are being through a massive upgrade and "rehab". And there´s a clear gap between Brasilian military aspirations and their budget, this is (by far and wide) the biggest problem for the Brasilians to develop and deploy a Saab Kraken.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 2,597

The SAAB deal with Brazil is under scrutiny. Corruption alegations involving former president Lula da Silva. Source in portuguese. http://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/delegado-da-policia-federal-afirma-que-lula-investigado-na-zelotes-18606601
Translation of part referring to SAAB: NB Luis Claudio is the son of ex-president Lula 'Lula was also asked whether payments made to Luis Claudio were some kind of consideration for services rendered by the former president of the company Saab, which won the bid for the purchase of fighter jets to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB). Lula said it was "absurd" and denied having acted accordingly.' Way I read it is the investigators were querying whether payments made to Luis Claudio by the former president of SAAB were connected with SAAB getting the Gripen contract. Why would he be making payments to Lula's son?

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 224

Way I read it is the investigators were querying whether payments made to Luis Claudio by the former president of SAAB were connected with SAAB getting the Gripen contract. Why would he be making payments to Lula's son?
I can´t aswer that without being banned for a month as I was before over the same subject and guess what? I was right. Where there´s smoke there´s fire, especially in Brazil
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 8,850

As sad as it is, I don't think that any major deal can be won today without some kind of corruption involved.. People have bribed for much less than deals woth billions..
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 8,850

No, I was saying it wouldn't fit. Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine. Simple enough for you?
Actually, no... obviously not simple enough.. The F414 is not visibly bigger than F404, they both have fan diameter of 89 cm and are 391 cm in length.. How is that engine not ideal for Gripen NG is beyond me. :confused:

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

Actually, no... obviously not simple enough.. The F414 is not visibly bigger than F404, they both have fan diameter of 89 cm and are 391 cm in length.. How is that engine not ideal for Gripen NG is beyond me. :confused:
I am reminded once again never to assume you know what the discussion is about...

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 224

As sad as it is, I don't think that any major deal can be won today without some kind of corruption involved.. People have bribed for much less than deals woth billions..
But in Brazil this is obscene. The Elf scandal is peanuts compared to Petrobras. The japanese economy minister renounced over one hundred Thousand dollars, this is pocket money for a corrupt brazilian politician. An employee of a brazilian politician was arrested in 2005 with one hundred Thousand dollars in his underwear. It became a joke in Brazil, kind of a symbol of corruption.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 2,597

No, I was saying it wouldn't fit. Bigger engine too big for hole in plane for engine. Simple enough for you?
Very simple. Unfortunately what you say is almost certainly completely wrong. Only way that what you say is not completely wrong is if GE are mistaken in the dimensions they give on their web site which are exactly the dimensions quoted by msphere. You say the F414 is a bigger engine than the F404. GE say it is not.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 224

The Brasilians are aiming for a NEW carrier in 2030/2035. The main fighter of the "São Paulo" is (and will be for a very long time) the A-4 Skyhawk, twelve of the airframes are being through a massive upgrade and "rehab". And there´s a clear gap between Brasilian military aspirations and their budget, this is (by far and wide) the biggest problem for the Brasilians to develop and deploy a Saab Kraken.
Talk is cheap and the brazilian navy talks a lot.

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

How do you know that the F414 is not as powerful as Saab would like? I am not saying you are incorrect; I simply don't know, however I am curious to know how you obtained that piece of information? Edit: Although supercruise at Mach1.1 in an a2a config may not be particularly useful; does that not seem to indicate that the F414 is adequate for Gripen NG? Or is SC not a good indication for whether it is underpowered or not? Edit2: empty weight of NG is (I believe) 17% more than empty weight of Gripen C. MTOW is also 17% more than MTOW for Gripen C. Engine is 20% more powerful. Is that so shabby?
I can't read Saab's mind(s) but if you look at some of the fighters currently in production the Gripen NG falls at the very low-end of the range. I suspect if the F414EPE were to become available Saab would be very quick to jump on it. F-15E Empty Weight: 31,700 Thrust: 58,000 Power/Weight: 1.83 Eurofighter Empty Weight: 24,250 Thrust: 40,460 Power/Weight: 1.67 Rafale Empty Weight: 21,270 Thrust: 34,000 Power/Weight: 1.60 F-16 Empty Weight: 18,900 Thrust: 28,600 Power/Weight: 1.51 F-35A Empty Weight: 29,098 Thrust: 43,000 Power/Weight: 1.48 Super Hornet Empty Weight: 32,081 Thrust: 44,000 Power/Weight: 1.37 Su-30MKI Empty Weight: 40,565 Thrust: 55,120 Power/Weight: 1.36 JF-17 Empty Weight: 14,520 Thrust: 19,000 Power/Weight: 1.31 Gripen NG Empty Weight: 17,600 Thrust: 22,000 Power/Weight: 1.25 Gripen Empty Weight: 14,990 Thrust: 18,100 Power/Weight: 1.21