Saab Gripen

[Supertom]

Hey all,

For some reason I can't find any decent pics (or any pics at all) of CFTs fitten on the Saab Gripen.  Anyone here have any better luck?

[John Howling Mouse]

Not even anywhere on their "home" pages?

http://www.gripen.com/4.caf6c1f8a90236a77fff12047.html

[BlackOps]

Was looking at a Gripen kit I recently picked up and had an idea...of course now I need another Gripen kit  Thought I would mock one up in the computer until I can start my model.




Jeff G.

[Deino]

MPM Preview - BEST CHOICE 1/48 JAS 39C Gripen

http://kits.kitreview.com/mpmpreviewbg_9.htm

Deino      

[SebastianP]

I'm considering building a twin-seater Gripen as a Wild Weasel, seeing as it's mentioned in the Vectorsite article on the SAAB 39. From what I can tell, the modifications wouldn't be all that severe, really, since the aircraft as is has a pretty capable electronic warfare suite.

There are a couple of places I'd need input, though - the first being the color scheme, since the Swedish scheme uses colors I can't seem to replicate; and the second being the principal armament: HARM or ALARM? I've got both types in my spares box raring to go, since their parent aircraft either ended up as scrap or bomb trucks...

So, who'd reasonably buy dedicated Wild Weasel Gripens, and how would they arm them?

SP

[Hatchet]

So, who'd reasonably buy dedicated Wild Weasel Gripens, and how would they arm them?

Hey Sebastian, two of my fav subjects, Gripen and Weasels

Armament first: Generally I'd go with ALARMs and possibly some kind of CBU. Maybe add an ECM pod too. Some users would probably go for HARMs tho'.

Users: that's a bit tougher, but then again it IS what if! Sweden is an obvious choice, South Africa too. Then there's Brazil, Denmark and Belgium, and RAF isn't all that far out there either. Other than that, go for countries who have F-16s and will need to replace them in the near future, or maybe countries in the JSF program.

Looking forward to seeing more of this. I'm gonna build a Gripen Weasel myself sometime, probably in Swedish markings.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Wow!! Gripen and Wild Weasel!! Two subjects I particulary enjoy!!


For the configuration, it all depends on the other weapons, tanks and pods it will carry.

But I think about 2 jammer pods instead of the Sidewinders, in the tops of the wings. On the outter wing's pylons, I could see 2X2 ALARM missiles. I think it is not possible to put 2 Harm on a MER, but with the more little ALARM, it could be done. And for the iner wing's pylons, I think 2 fuel tanls are good for allowed longer CAP missions... And after all, 4 ALARMs are probably enough!!
But of course, you coukd put 4 HARM, one under each wing's pylon. But I think that having the same number of missile PLUS 2 tanks is better

Oh yes, I just have a question: does the two seater have a gun?? If not, could you replace it with a second lateral underfuselage pylon?? It cuold allowed the carriage of 2 other ECM and jammer pods!!

And on the centerline pylon, maybe a fuel tank, an ECM pod or one or two couples of Small Diameter Bombs...


And for the country, what about Mexico? They will have to replace the old F-5 one of these days!!
Argentine could be a good possibility too... I don't see Brazil because they already chose the Mirage 2000, but Argantina had to replace soon their older Mirage 5 and Dagger, and all those little jet they still use...
The Gripen could be a good choice for such a country, which still want a strategic place in South America but wich has no money to buy a twin-engines or a stealth fighter!!

[SebastianP]

Thanks for all the nice info and ideas...

The loadout will probably end up being ALARMs inboard, and either BL-755 or CBU-87 cluster bombs outboard, with AIM-9s on the tips since IRIS-T isn't done yet. Since the plane itself is pretty much packed with countermeasures, including an on-board jammer with towed decoy emitters, a BOZ pod (which is a real option) is probably overkill, and I'd have to steal it from somewhere...

SP

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

So, what do you think about it? My first thought was: nice idea, but sadly no place for the landing gear... And then a friend give some links to me, and it appears that this idea is much more realistic that I initially thought!
Clic here for more info!!

For my part, this little big bird sounds very good!!!
Just imagine Iceland, Swiss or New Zealand ( ) with such a Super Gripen!!!

Oh jeez, I love the idea!!


Someone who want to do the conversion?

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Anyways, why aren't more aircraft designed with an internal laser designator, that way one doesn't have to be carried in an external pod???

Because it is VERY difficult to maintain!! I mean, a laser pod is something very fragile and breakable, and it needs a lot of high-tech parts to be effetcive...
When a fighter return from a bomb mission, it could be ready in few hours for another mission, with new bombs... And when the optical system or the refrigeration system of your pod is over, you just have to change it et voilà!!
But if the system is internal, you have to keep the entire plane in the ground until the thing is repaired...
In other world, the technology is not mature enough for a 100% operational internal laser designator...

Moreover, the second problem is the place: a laser designator/FLIR is much bigger than an air-to-air FLIR or OSF like those on the Russian fighters or the Rafale... You have to find the place in your fighter for it, and this plane is taken on the fuel or ammos reserves...
And when you are in an air-to-air mission, the weight of the internal designators are bad points for your speed and manoeuvrability, while the designator is useless in air-to-air...

But in bomber or attack mission, you already have tons of bombs and missiles under the wings that unable you to go at supersonic speeds or in a dog fight, so the pod is not a real disadvantage anymore...


The fact is that when the UAE asked Lockheed for an internal designator for their F-16E/F Block 60, Lockheed start working on this but cancelled it finaly because of the problems I talk about...


Nowaday, the more sofisticated internal optronic system is the French OSF on the Rafale... The system is a TV/IIR/laser system a generation or two better than the Typhoon's one... It has all-weather and BVR abilities and it is totally stealth... But of course, it is bigger than any other western internal optronic system...
For the moment, it is not very good in air-to-ground, but a second generation OSF is in studies in order to deal with that...

This OSF-2 will probably enter in operationnal service a couple of years after the F-35 internal FLIR/laser designator... Those two systems (don't know the F-35's one's name) will be from similar generation and probably able to do everything a designator pod could do today, and even more!!
But it will be in years from now, when the technology will be, they hope so, able to support a 100% operational internal designator.  

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

For me, the Gripen is just the F-20 of the 21th century... with success!!
The fact that it was selected in Thailand to replace the F-5 keep me in my idea!

For that, I could easily imagine a lot of F-5 customers replacing them with Gripen!
My first idea was to have a Brazilian Gripen (replacing the F-5, while the Rafale replace the Mirage), but there is plenty of other countries for fictionnal Gripen!


If we talk about modified variants of the Gripen, I had several ideas. And as SAAB are good guys, they already made our dreams come true by developing the
Super Gripen, so we just have to have BIGGER dreams!!


Enhanced Super Gripen:

Just take the Super Gripen that is under studies in the real world, and add to them several items and modifictions.
-First idea: make a single seater based onthe twin seater! It allowed more fuel, more ECM and electronic goodies and maybe more ammunitions for the gun. And why not a semi-recessed laser designator pod ala F-35?
-CFT on the back and an IRST on the nose. That was proposed by SAAB and a moke-up (or artist view, don't remember) of a Gripen was shown like that in Paris Air Show some years ago. It's such a pity those elements were not used on the Super Gripen
-In the additional goodies, I imagined a stealthier exhaust, similar to the F-16 LOAN one. Maybe the wings could be enlarged in order to have two additional pylons for air-air missiles, but it probably require to much work.
To finish, I always thought that F-35's like engine inlet would have been cool on the Gripen!!



Naval Gripen
In 2008, the Indian government canceled its order for the light LCA combat aircraft, but still needed a light high performance aircraft for its soon to come new carriers.

After the Super Gripen successfully won the MRCA deal in India in 2010, SAAB made a joint venture with HAL and Northrop in order to develop a carrier capable Gripen.

At everyone surprise, India announced in 2012 that the Gripen Joint Venture won this new deal, and was preferred over the F-35, the Rafale and a second batch of Mig-29K!

The Naval Gripen is based on the Super Gripen, using its ventral CFT to put the bigger landing gears instead of the additional fuel capability. It has a totally new designed nose, shorter and looking downward.
Its engine is a F414 engine rated at 120kN, while the wings were enlarged in order to recover the fuel lost in the ventral tank. Two additional pylons are placed under the wings, but limited to air-air missiles or light ECM pods.

It is launched by a ski jump and recover by an arrestor hook, just like the Mig-29K.

The Naval Gripen became the standard aircraft in the light carrier vessel package that India proposed at exportation.
They were exported to Argentina, alongside two Air Defence Ship (small carriers build in India), in order to deal with the new French build Brazilian carrier and its Rafale M.
Italy tried to sell a dedicate variant of the ADS to South Africa, while SAAB proposed the Naval Gripen, but the deal was canceled due to tensions between India and South Africa (the deal was later replaced by french build aircrafts and ship).
The second and last navy to operate the Naval Gripen on carrier was the Israelian one, that bought and modified the former USS Kennedy after the Iran War.

Nevertheless, due to its increased power and payload, some Naval Gripen were sold to several land based air forces, such as Mexico, Argentina, Kuwait and Finland

[Daryl J.]

How about having the US create an independent Adversary/Aggressor branch that would be well versed in a multitude of airframes including the Gripen.   Yes it doesn't fit the financial or situational models reality currently affords, but it would still be a great excuse to put a Gripen in wrap around New Blue.  


Daryl J.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Well, that's not a bad idea!!

After all, the Agresor squadron will need a F-16 replacement one day or another, and the F-35 certainly is too big, too expensive and not very maneuverable for this role.
Even if some Agressor could be F-35, in order to simulate PAK-FA for example, the Gripen will certainly better fit the role!!

This idea could work with Korean T-50 too!

[elmayerle]

PD7, I'd be tempted to call the T-50, esp. if they do a single-seat variant, the F-20 ofthe 21st century since so bloody many of its systems trace back to the F-20 (engine, radar/fire control, etc.).

I've always felt that the only company that didn't make a profit off the F-20 work was Northrop.  Really, if Northrop's management had been honest and funded a larger wing, to get the wing loading down to a reasonable level, they likely wouldn't have lost three in G-LOC related crashes and would've likely sold far better.

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

You're right Elmayerle, but I was talking about the commercial point of view, not the technical one!! (Sorry for the misunderstanding )
I wanted to say that the Gripen is what the F-20 had to be (but didn't succeed in): a single engine high performance replacement for the F-5!!

The T-50 is technically closer to the F-20, but for the moment it doesn't present itself as a F-5 replacement, it is more a T-38 replacement (but I'm sure the combat variant will change that )


But you're perfectly right, the future F-50 (if it became real one day) would be a perfect F-20 replacement (and probably a better one, as it could carry more and certainly have more fuel)