By: obligatory
- 9th February 2016 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen will lack mostly in supersonic range because it's tiny and you can't hang wet bags on it if you want to go over M1.0.
But we have learned that the F-35's range at M1.2 is 150 miles only.. for whatever reasons.. that ain't considerably better than Gripen NG, methinks.. despite the aircraft being twice as heavy and large..
i beg to differ, here is time in static benchmark, these differences in time seen as percentage will remain at alt.
factor in drop in thrust/fuel consumption, climb, fuel reserve, etc, and it wont be all that different in flight.
F-22 still makes it on par in range due to higher speed, but it does not better gripen NG
F22 Internal Fuel ~18448 lbs
(2 x F119)
55000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0.7 lb/lb.hr~0.48~29 min
GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~7100 lbs
(1xF414)
~15000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr~0.68~41 min
By: JakobS
- 9th February 2016 at 18:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The shock and horror at the limited range of the Gripen NG when tested by Switzerland does seem to be misplaced, given that Gripen E will carry about 40% more fuel than the NG tested. In a way the test demonstrated that Gripen C would have inadequate range but so what: SAAB was not offering Gripen C to Switzerland
In Switzerland points were only given for the capabilities that were operational on the test aircraft in question, that is why both the Gripen Demo and the Typhoon did so bad in Switzerland.
There is a common misinformation about the swiss evaluation that is being spread on the internet that says that in the first round they evaluated the planes, and then in a second evalutaion the results were adjusted based on theoretical future capabilities. That is wrong. There was two evaluations yes, but both times points were only given for operational capabilities.
That's why Gripen won despite being the "worst" of the three.
By: Loke
- 9th February 2016 at 20:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In Switzerland points were only given for the capabilities that were operational on the test aircraft in question, that is why both the Gripen Demo and the Typhoon did so bad in Switzerland.
There is a common misinformation about the swiss evaluation that is being spread on the internet that says that in the first round they evaluated the planes, and then in a second evalutaion the results were adjusted based on theoretical future capabilities. That is wrong. There was two evaluations yes, but both times points were only given for operational capabilities.
Actually I think you are wrong. Read the second part again...
First, that report that everyone think is so special is measured with swiss interests @2008, and where not even done with gripen demo. Second 2008 many crucial parts of gripen E where not chosen.
AND now the most important part of them all Gripen won in Switzerland (Read that ten times). Gripen got some 550 points EF got 650 and rafale like 730 ...(can't be arsed to find the right figures) Put those figures on a scale off 1000 an then put the economical parts in. Gripen NG where chosen by the government and the minister said it was sufficient.
Gripen won in Switzerland and Gripen won in Brazil against Rafale Eurofighter Superhornet and will keep winning. Because its a smart fighter.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 10th February 2016 at 11:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First, that report that everyone think is so special is measured with swiss interests @2008, and where not even done with gripen demo. Second 2008 many crucial parts of gripen E where not chosen.
AND now the most important part of them all Gripen won in Switzerland (Read that ten times). Gripen got some 550 points EF got 650 and rafale like 730 ...(can't be arsed to find the right figures) Put those figures on a scale off 1000 an then put the economical parts in. Gripen NG where chosen by the government and the minister said it was sufficient.
Gripen won in Switzerland and Gripen won in Brazil against Rafale Eurofighter Superhornet and will keep winning. Because its a smart fighter.
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
By: Halo
- 10th February 2016 at 12:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
Agreed in principle, but the range and performance of the Gripen E with light AA or recon loads will be in the same League as its bigger brothers.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 10th February 2016 at 12:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
Gripen-D, not Gripen-E...
The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
Gripen is not optimized for a very specific set of missions, quite on the contrary, it's a very universal aircraft.. Even the "over short distances" does not count, in general for Gripen-E.
By: Spyhawk
- 10th February 2016 at 13:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
Blablabla... still ignoring readiness credibility factors.
Also, summarizing the referendum result to costs only is nothing but a blatant lack of Swiss politics knowledge.
By: Loke
- 10th February 2016 at 14:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
STOCKHOLM (AFX) Saab think they see an Indian interest in both land and naval based Gripen aircraft in India, and plans to intensify marketing activities in the country.
It says CEO Buskhe Bloomberg News: "there is an interest," citing the news agency Saab chief.
On Tuesday, the Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist (S) in an interview with Bloomberg that Sweden and India are in contact with each other on the Gripen.
He then stated that the purpose of Prime Minister Stephen Löfvens forthcoming visit to India (this weekend, 13-14 February) is to deepen the Swedish-Indian cooperation on "trade defense"
According to Bloomberg will Buskhe to visit India during Prime Minister's visit: it says Saab's press officer in an email to the agency.
By: Loke
- 10th February 2016 at 14:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
“After 21 years, we received in the third quarter the order [from Brazil],” he says, referring to a deal to supply the nation’s air force with 36 Gripens. “The big challenge is basically the technology transfer and the building of the two-seater,” he notes, but adds: “it looks very promising: we have met all the milestones, and received the payments.”
There are currently 53 Brazilian engineers working at Saab’s Linköping site, with 25 more to arrive in April. Deliveries of 28 single-seat fighters and eight two-seat examples are scheduled to run between 2019 and 2024.
By: Spitfire9
- 10th February 2016 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
STOCKHOLM (AFX) Saab think they see an Indian interest in both land and naval based Gripen aircraft in India, and plans to intensify marketing activities in the country.
It says CEO Buskhe Bloomberg News: "there is an interest," citing the news agency Saab chief.
On Tuesday, the Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist (S) in an interview with Bloomberg that Sweden and India are in contact with each other on the Gripen.
He then stated that the purpose of Prime Minister Stephen Löfvens forthcoming visit to India (this weekend, 13-14 February) is to deepen the Swedish-Indian cooperation on "trade defense".
Under what conditions would India order Gripen? If Tejas Mk1A is going ahead, why order Gripen?
By: JakobS
- 10th February 2016 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I think you are wrong. Read the second part again...
I was talking about the whole process, not just that one report. The report summaries flying from the middle of 2008. More flying was done after that, and also there were additional specifications that Switzerland and Sweden agreed on for the Gripen E after that.
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons.
The point is that people are using that one swiss report for claiming that Gripen E was inferior to the current f-18s of Switzerland and that it also did not live up to the countries minimum requirements. That is simply not true.
By: Urban
- 10th February 2016 at 22:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons."
I would like to re quote that - Gripen will always be more balanced then rafale and typoon, for many reasons.
Gripen E will also have different things that is uniqe for Gripen but are as high technically as both Typhoon and Rafale.
Gripen will be inferior in lifting mass amount of weapons yes ! and climbing with dose weapons yes ! BUT lifting massive amount of weapons give of a huge RCS signature anyways... AND climbing fast with that load will make your fuel disappear.
Gripen E is balansed ! And have aesa that can shoot people flying along side it on 100km range....with the worlds best Rocket.
By: Sintra
- 10th February 2016 at 22:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would like to re quote that - Gripen will always be more balanced then rafale and typoon, for many reasons.
If "many reasons" amount to "cost" its a fair assesment, if not, well then no.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 10th February 2016 at 22:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gripen E is not inferior to either in terms of range with A2A config,
i'm not entirely sure what "balanced" is, the split avionics suggest faster upgrades & integration at lower cost,
hauling heavy loads over distance will always favor heavier fighters
By: alexz
- 11th February 2016 at 02:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen performance is only exceptional when being looked through a very small set of variables.
For example why just look at "supercruise" capability for for air superiority missions? Even the supercruise capability is only attainable by the NG on the coldest days of sweedish winter. Could it possibly supercruise in not brazilian tropical climate? Also not said is the dogfighting/maneuverbility of the Gripen with actual fuel load to return to base from that mission range. Would the Gripen dogfight w/o afterburner? Would its theoretical range be moot with afterburner on dogfights?
I have yet to see a Gripen e/f/ng quoted range with max weapons load; available weapons load with maximum fuel; or proof of supercruise in hot climates.
If you compare overall performance of the gripen even with say f-16v, you can see that it is not really a cost effective fighter for the price they are selling those right now.
By: garryA
- 11th February 2016 at 03:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i beg to differ, here is time in static benchmark, these differences in time seen as percentage will remain at alt.
factor in drop in thrust/fuel consumption, climb, fuel reserve, etc, and it wont be all that different in flight.
F-22 still makes it on par in range due to higher speed, but it does not better gripen NG
It actually varied alot depending alot on their engine design .
And did you took your picture from here : http://maxgreen.egloos.com/452711 ?
after see this chart , i dont think their comparison is valid
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 11th February 2016 at 04:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Garry: ahaa! THAT is what "balanced" refer to !
that CAP image is from the norwegian campaign IIRC
@Alex: No, its the C model that only made M1.1 "on a cold day"
SAAB never advertised C as supercruise capable, the demo demonstrated M1.25
the CAP mission obviously include return, but not dogfight
By: maurobaggio
- 11th February 2016 at 05:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
....??!?!?!??
Instead of asking you please to rephrase it , I guess that your doubt should be the source of this information over EJ200 TVC for the Gripen NG:
'Further Gripen upgrades under consideration by the air force( but not yet contracted out) included passive search and track system( Saab Dynamics IR-OTIS, a Russian stile infra red ball sensor mounted in front of the canopy); a helmet … ; and thrust-vectoring ( following a study involving the Eurojet EJ200 engine) since cancelled due to lack of funding.'
Mr. Jergensen, Jan Gunnar. Combat Aircraft, N° 02 page 165, March 2003.
Well, back to the very basics, Gripen A was designed for an environment where it was supposed to meet a huge number of soviet aircraft that had to cross the Baltic. Gripen would operate from many small dispersed bases. Due to the large number of bases and that Gripen would fight a lot closer to home base than the enemy so the need for fuel was't that big. As Urban has enforced, if you start to take on extra size or weight it has to be compensated for that would start a vicious circle, the Gripen was all about breaking this cycle.
Indeed the JAS 39 Gripen A / B had been developed since the early 80s, even during the Cold War, however the first JAS 39A was delivered in 1993, after the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Anyway plans to acquire 204 JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D in three batches had been remained even during the 2000's, long time after the end of the Cold War.
Meanwhile the F/A 18 E/F made its first flight in 1995, and the assemble line from F/A 18 C/D has been reset for F/A 18 E/F since 1997.
Only to remember the F/A 18E/F were developed to replace the expensive and high advanced F 14 A/B/C/D Tomcat from US Navy due to the end of the Cold War, as well as the F/A 18A/B/C/D Hornet either.
Anyway Sweden had continued with the Gripen C / D and completely ignored the changing from F/A 18C/D to a new F/A 18E/F post Cold War age, as well as its F414 engine until at least 2003 with the cancellation of the EJ 200 TVC for the new project of the Gripen NG.
As already mentioned here in this thread, if the Gripen C/D could have received the F414 and thus turned into what has been known now as Gripen E still in the 90s.
Due to these very obvious reasons Gripen A did't need the extra fuel, weapons or a larger engine. In the post 1st Cold war era the number of planes and bases was significantly reduced and the type of missions became wider so there was a need to adjust the design targets if the aircraft.... Designers are not stupid, the do tend to optimize the design.. If you would like to go max afterburner (CH) and or carry heavy loads long distances.... dont go for Gripen A-D and certainly the E/F will never "shine" here either!
After all in 2010 the fleet of JAS 39 C / D Gripen in Sweden were decreased to 100 fighters from 204 that had been ordered until 2003. Almost half of the Gripen fleet has been retired from Royal Sweden Air Force in reason of the cuts in the Military Budget , then part of the Gripens were stored and another part were leased for some countries.
Which would lead to another point: if the Gripen C / D had introduced the F414 engine and the concept of the F/A 18E/F still in the 90s like the Gripen E today, the number of JAS 39 Gripen built for Sweden could have been lower than the original 204 and it would saved financial resources from Sweden too.
The Gripen E will enter into production in 2018, almost 21 years after the F / A 18 E / F, and now Sweden will acquire 60 Gripen and to replace 100 Gripen C/D.
I have been keeping those doubts for years, but it could be resumed in this question: if the engine F 414 does wonders for the Gripen NG today, why have waited 21 years to implement this?
By: Halo
- 11th February 2016 at 07:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@maurobaggio, you are correct, if Sweden would have known about the fall of Soviet union in 1982 we certainly would have ordered 100 Gripen "NG ish" with F414 and not planned for 370 Gripen A's
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 9th February 2016 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i beg to differ, here is time in static benchmark, these differences in time seen as percentage will remain at alt.
factor in drop in thrust/fuel consumption, climb, fuel reserve, etc, and it wont be all that different in flight.
F-22 still makes it on par in range due to higher speed, but it does not better gripen NG
F22 Internal Fuel ~18448 lbs
(2 x F119)
55000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0.7 lb/lb.hr~0.48~29 min
GRIPEN NG Internal fuel ~7100 lbs
(1xF414)
~15000 lbs Mil thrust @ 0,7 lb/lb.hr~0.68~41 min
Posts: 149
By: JakobS - 9th February 2016 at 18:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In Switzerland points were only given for the capabilities that were operational on the test aircraft in question, that is why both the Gripen Demo and the Typhoon did so bad in Switzerland.
There is a common misinformation about the swiss evaluation that is being spread on the internet that says that in the first round they evaluated the planes, and then in a second evalutaion the results were adjusted based on theoretical future capabilities. That is wrong. There was two evaluations yes, but both times points were only given for operational capabilities.
That's why Gripen won despite being the "worst" of the three.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 9th February 2016 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually I think you are wrong. Read the second part again...
Posts: 121
By: Urban - 10th February 2016 at 06:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First, that report that everyone think is so special is measured with swiss interests @2008, and where not even done with gripen demo. Second 2008 many crucial parts of gripen E where not chosen.
AND now the most important part of them all Gripen won in Switzerland (Read that ten times). Gripen got some 550 points EF got 650 and rafale like 730 ...(can't be arsed to find the right figures) Put those figures on a scale off 1000 an then put the economical parts in. Gripen NG where chosen by the government and the minister said it was sufficient.
Gripen won in Switzerland and Gripen won in Brazil against Rafale Eurofighter Superhornet and will keep winning. Because its a smart fighter.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 10th February 2016 at 11:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen was rated the least capable aircraft in the competition by some margin(generally behind the SwAF's own F-18s), but was ultimately selected because it was the cheapest option... of course the deal was subsequently cancelled in a referendum for costing too much.
The point people are trying to make to you is that the Gripen is not a wonder plane. It is really only optimized for a very specific set of missions over short distances. It doesn't have the power or fuel to fulfill the role of one of the larger multi-role strikers on the market.
Posts: 208
By: Halo - 10th February 2016 at 12:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed in principle, but the range and performance of the Gripen E with light AA or recon loads will be in the same League as its bigger brothers.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 10th February 2016 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen-D, not Gripen-E... Gripen is not optimized for a very specific set of missions, quite on the contrary, it's a very universal aircraft.. Even the "over short distances" does not count, in general for Gripen-E.Posts: 175
By: Spyhawk - 10th February 2016 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Blablabla... still ignoring readiness credibility factors.
Also, summarizing the referendum result to costs only is nothing but a blatant lack of Swiss politics knowledge.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th February 2016 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-information/telegram/?NewsId=35c9ee3e-03e9-40d9-9ea2-a77a9d434011
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 10th February 2016 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reports-record-backlog-after-brazil-uae-deals-421772/
So far it looks good -- it will be interesting if Saab and the partners can keep meeting the milestones moving forward!
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 10th February 2016 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under what conditions would India order Gripen? If Tejas Mk1A is going ahead, why order Gripen?
Posts: 149
By: JakobS - 10th February 2016 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was talking about the whole process, not just that one report. The report summaries flying from the middle of 2008. More flying was done after that, and also there were additional specifications that Switzerland and Sweden agreed on for the Gripen E after that.
Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons.
The point is that people are using that one swiss report for claiming that Gripen E was inferior to the current f-18s of Switzerland and that it also did not live up to the countries minimum requirements. That is simply not true.
Posts: 121
By: Urban - 10th February 2016 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Gripen will always be inferior to planes like Rafale and Typhoon, for obvious reasons."
I would like to re quote that - Gripen will always be more balanced then rafale and typoon, for many reasons.
Gripen E will also have different things that is uniqe for Gripen but are as high technically as both Typhoon and Rafale.
Gripen will be inferior in lifting mass amount of weapons yes ! and climbing with dose weapons yes ! BUT lifting massive amount of weapons give of a huge RCS signature anyways... AND climbing fast with that load will make your fuel disappear.
Gripen E is balansed ! And have aesa that can shoot people flying along side it on 100km range....with the worlds best Rocket.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 10th February 2016 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If "many reasons" amount to "cost" its a fair assesment, if not, well then no.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 10th February 2016 at 22:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
gripen E is not inferior to either in terms of range with A2A config,
i'm not entirely sure what "balanced" is, the split avionics suggest faster upgrades & integration at lower cost,
hauling heavy loads over distance will always favor heavier fighters
Posts: 300
By: alexz - 11th February 2016 at 02:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen performance is only exceptional when being looked through a very small set of variables.
For example why just look at "supercruise" capability for for air superiority missions? Even the supercruise capability is only attainable by the NG on the coldest days of sweedish winter. Could it possibly supercruise in not brazilian tropical climate? Also not said is the dogfighting/maneuverbility of the Gripen with actual fuel load to return to base from that mission range. Would the Gripen dogfight w/o afterburner? Would its theoretical range be moot with afterburner on dogfights?
I have yet to see a Gripen e/f/ng quoted range with max weapons load; available weapons load with maximum fuel; or proof of supercruise in hot climates.
If you compare overall performance of the gripen even with say f-16v, you can see that it is not really a cost effective fighter for the price they are selling those right now.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 11th February 2016 at 03:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It actually varied alot depending alot on their engine design .
And did you took your picture from here :
http://maxgreen.egloos.com/452711 ?
after see this chart , i dont think their comparison is valid
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 11th February 2016 at 04:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Garry: ahaa! THAT is what "balanced" refer to !
that CAP image is from the norwegian campaign IIRC
@Alex: No, its the C model that only made M1.1 "on a cold day"
SAAB never advertised C as supercruise capable, the demo demonstrated M1.25
the CAP mission obviously include return, but not dogfight
Posts: 516
By: maurobaggio - 11th February 2016 at 05:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Instead of asking you please to rephrase it , I guess that your doubt should be the source of this information over EJ200 TVC for the Gripen NG:
'Further Gripen upgrades under consideration by the air force( but not yet contracted out) included passive search and track system( Saab Dynamics IR-OTIS, a Russian stile infra red ball sensor mounted in front of the canopy); a helmet … ; and thrust-vectoring ( following a study involving the Eurojet EJ200 engine) since cancelled due to lack of funding.'
Mr. Jergensen, Jan Gunnar. Combat Aircraft, N° 02 page 165, March 2003.
Indeed the JAS 39 Gripen A / B had been developed since the early 80s, even during the Cold War, however the first JAS 39A was delivered in 1993, after the end of the Cold War in 1991.
Anyway plans to acquire 204 JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D in three batches had been remained even during the 2000's, long time after the end of the Cold War.
Meanwhile the F/A 18 E/F made its first flight in 1995, and the assemble line from F/A 18 C/D has been reset for F/A 18 E/F since 1997.
Only to remember the F/A 18E/F were developed to replace the expensive and high advanced F 14 A/B/C/D Tomcat from US Navy due to the end of the Cold War, as well as the F/A 18A/B/C/D Hornet either.
Anyway Sweden had continued with the Gripen C / D and completely ignored the changing from F/A 18C/D to a new F/A 18E/F post Cold War age, as well as its F414 engine until at least 2003 with the cancellation of the EJ 200 TVC for the new project of the Gripen NG.
As already mentioned here in this thread, if the Gripen C/D could have received the F414 and thus turned into what has been known now as Gripen E still in the 90s.
After all in 2010 the fleet of JAS 39 C / D Gripen in Sweden were decreased to 100 fighters from 204 that had been ordered until 2003. Almost half of the Gripen fleet has been retired from Royal Sweden Air Force in reason of the cuts in the Military Budget , then part of the Gripens were stored and another part were leased for some countries.
Which would lead to another point: if the Gripen C / D had introduced the F414 engine and the concept of the F/A 18E/F still in the 90s like the Gripen E today, the number of JAS 39 Gripen built for Sweden could have been lower than the original 204 and it would saved financial resources from Sweden too.
The Gripen E will enter into production in 2018, almost 21 years after the F / A 18 E / F, and now Sweden will acquire 60 Gripen and to replace 100 Gripen C/D.
I have been keeping those doubts for years, but it could be resumed in this question: if the engine F 414 does wonders for the Gripen NG today, why have waited 21 years to implement this?
Posts: 208
By: Halo - 11th February 2016 at 07:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@maurobaggio, you are correct, if Sweden would have known about the fall of Soviet union in 1982 we certainly would have ordered 100 Gripen "NG ish" with F414 and not planned for 370 Gripen A's