Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • swerve
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2005
    • 13610

    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
    ... if the US could have been refused to provide its engine GE F414G, then Volvo Aero from Sweden would be able to produce its new version from RM12 for Gripen E , ....
    Err . . . . do you think that the RM12 is a Swedish-designed engine, immune from US export controls? You claim to be a defence journalist, knowledgeable in the area, & with a particular interest in & thus knowledge of the Gripen & its industrial base. Do you really not know what the RM12 is?

    It's a modified GE F404. About half of it is made in the USA, & the modifications were designed in co-operation by GE & Volvo, not all by Volvo, e.g. as I understand it the Volvo-designed FADEC had to be integrated with the engine jointly. It's subject to exactly the same US export controls as the F414.

    You keep saying "100% of ToT, it will be able to produce these at home", as if you've not read the many replies from many people who've explained to you what that means. You've been told many times that Sweden has never owned 100% of the technology of its fighter jets (e.g. engines - all foreign designs), but has still been able to design them, build them, & (despite stringent self-imposed restrictions on who it'd sell weapons to) export them, for 70 years. Yet you pretend that none of that has been said, & keep stating the same rubbish. Why? You're not going to convince anyone here. You just make yourself look foolish.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment

    • MSphere
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 8983

      Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
      Regarding the Gripen E if the US could have been refused to provide its engine GE F414G, then Volvo Aero from Sweden would be able to produce its new version from RM12 for Gripen E , as well as if the UK could refused to supply the AESA radar Raven ES- 5, the Ericsson company from Sweden could develop an AESA radar for the Gripen E.
      Would not solve anything as RM12 is based on GE F404.
      http://www.geaviation.com/engines/do...sheet-RM12.pdf

      The only viable ITAR free alternative would be Eurojet EJ200 or advanced development of SNECMA M88 with increased thrust..

      Comment

      • Loke
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2008
        • 3302

        Saab showed an GaN AESA fighter radar (prototype?) in Korea l last year:

        Saab says it is ready for volume production of a fighter radar using gallium-nitride (GaN) technology in an active, electronically scanned array (AESA). The Swedish company appears to be far ahead of competitors, none of which is known to have brought a GaN fighter radar to the same level of maturity. Saab displayed a model of the X-band radars antenna at the Seoul ADEX aerospace and defense show in October, promoting the system for South Koreas proposed KF-X fighter.
        http://aviationweek.com/defense/saab...n-radar-sensor

        I am a bit surprised they still decided to go ahead with the Selex radar for Gripen E -- but perhaps the GaN fighter radar developed in-house would simply not be ready by the time? It seems it takes very long time to develop AESA radars.

        Perhaps future Gripen E/F customers can choose between the Saab GaN radar and the Selex/Saab radar?

        Comment

        • Loke
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2008
          • 3302

          Originally posted by MSphere View Post
          Would not solve anything as RM12 is based on GE F404.
          http://www.geaviation.com/engines/do...sheet-RM12.pdf

          The only viable ITAR free alternative would be Eurojet EJ200 or advanced development of SNECMA M88 with increased thrust..
          They looked at the EJ200 and decided against it -- probably too expensive and did not offer enough advantages for the increased cost.

          Comment

          • swerve
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2005
            • 13610

            There's also the little matter of some commonality with the RM12, & Volvo already being a subcontractor on the F414. F414 was the nearest thing to a domestic engine after the RM12.
            Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
            Justinian

            Comment

            • swerve
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2005
              • 13610

              Originally posted by Loke View Post
              Saab showed an GaN AESA fighter radar (prototype?) in Korea l last year:



              http://aviationweek.com/defense/saab...n-radar-sensor

              I am a bit surprised they still decided to go ahead with the Selex radar for Gripen E -- but perhaps the GaN fighter radar developed in-house would simply not be ready by the time? It seems it takes very long time to develop AESA radars.

              Perhaps future Gripen E/F customers can choose between the Saab GaN radar and the Selex/Saab radar?
              According to that article it's limited to the power input the JAS39C can provide, & uses the back end of the latest upgrade of the JAS39C radar. Apart from using GaN, it's probably not as good as the Raven. For JAS39E it'd almost certainly be better to put GaN TRMs in the Raven array.
              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
              Justinian

              Comment

              • MSphere
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2010
                • 8983

                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                They looked at the EJ200 and decided against it -- probably too expensive and did not offer enough advantages for the increased cost.
                The ability to export without US consent is an advantage on its own.. But everything depends on the deal, I guess.. If there was a country otherwise not acceptable for the approval of the US Congress, while willing to order say 60+ airframes, then I think the integration of the EJ200 would quickly get back on the table. But I can't see such customer lining up for the Gripen.. On top of all that, there is also numerous other stuff on the aircraft which is US made.

                Comment

                • TooCool_12f
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Dec 2009
                  • 3321

                  I may be wrong, but isn't there also a thrust issue?

                  from memory, the F414 is around 11t in max thrust, EJ200 about 9 or a bit more and the M88 only recently proposed in a 9t version with enlarged front...

                  Comment

                  • Sintra
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2007
                    • 3849

                    Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                    I may be wrong, but isn't there also a thrust issue?

                    from memory, the F414 is around 11t in max thrust, EJ200 about 9 or a bit more and the M88 only recently proposed in a 9t version with enlarged front...
                    The F414GE-39 is a ten ton maximum thrust engine.

                    http://www.geaviation.com/engines/do...414-GE-39E.pdf

                    Eurojet offered severall iterations of the EJ200 to SAAB, KAI and TAI, from the vannila 9 ton engine that equips the Eurofighter to 12+ ton evolved versions.

                    Cheers
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • TooCool_12f
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2009
                      • 3321

                      interesting... didn't know that

                      thanks

                      Comment

                      • Urban
                        Rank 4 Registered User
                        • Jan 2015
                        • 121

                        About the RM12.


                        "Of the original F404 engine available today maybe 50 % left . The rest is Volvo's new development. The engine is now owned by Sweden and Volvo are OEM . Volvo has Type Certificate and the responsibilities for the engine is flight worthy and GE stands only for the spare parts needed to what is unmodified ( compressor , combustor module , gearbox , generators , etc ) ."

                        http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174...cker-och-stark

                        Comment

                        • Tonnyc
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2013
                          • 102

                          Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                          I may be wrong, but isn't there also a thrust issue?

                          from memory, the F414 is around 11t in max thrust, EJ200 about 9 or a bit more and the M88 only recently proposed in a 9t version with enlarged front...
                          You are probably remembering the F414 Enhanced engine, which is a 116 KN engine. Sintra is right too though because Saab chose to use the F-414-GE-39E to keep cost down.

                          Comment

                          • ST-21
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2008
                            • 269

                            Originally posted by Tonnyc View Post
                            You are probably remembering the F414 Enhanced engine, which is a 116 KN engine. Sintra is right too though because Saab chose to use the F-414-GE-39E to keep cost down.
                            The key here is that the F414 was an engine that could deliver off-the-shelf the 22K thrust that Saab wanted. For EJ200, that would require development and testing work for which Saab would have to foot the bill. Such an engine falls into the same category as the F141 EPE: While potential customers would welcome more thrust (providing the fuel burn doesn't go up too much), none have thought it was needed enough to be willing to pay what it would cost to get it.

                            Comment

                            • stealthflanker
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2015
                              • 1016

                              Originally posted by Urban View Post
                              About the RM12.


                              "Of the original F404 engine available today maybe 50 % left . The rest is Volvo's new development. The engine is now owned by Sweden and Volvo are OEM . Volvo has Type Certificate and the responsibilities for the engine is flight worthy and GE stands only for the spare parts needed to what is unmodified ( compressor , combustor module , gearbox , generators , etc ) ."

                              http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174...cker-och-stark
                              So.. if the 50% got blocked by some reason (embargo etc) Is there any suitable alternative ? Can say.. one grab rest 50% from somewhere ? Like say RD-33 or other EU engine ?

                              Comment

                              • Tonnyc
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2013
                                • 102

                                Originally posted by stealthflanker View Post
                                So.. if the 50% got blocked by some reason (embargo etc) Is there any suitable alternative ? Can say.. one grab rest 50% from somewhere ? Like say RD-33 or other EU engine ?
                                Engines do not work that way. But to be frank I don't understand this paranoia. The air forces in question do not seem to worry about this. Thailand Air Forces gladly use F-16. Brazilian Air Force has some French aircrafts, but a quick look shows most of their fleet use American engines. Hungary and Czech use a lot of Russian planes, but they signed the lease extension, no?

                                Comment

                                • MSphere
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Feb 2010
                                  • 8983

                                  There is much to worry about, but more for SAAB than for the particular AF.. It could be as simple as delaying the approval of US Congress which enables the potential client choose something else (for example F-35). Generally, current ITAR is morally obsolete and quite demanding due to procedural reasons. There is that well documented case of RAF C-17A having been grounded in Australia, even when Aussie stocks were full of spares which they (RAAF) could easily have provided.

                                  The current ECR initiative is aimed to make the things much simpler, most notably remove articles from the list which are dual-use items and can be purchased on civilian market, anyway..

                                  Comment

                                  • FBW
                                    FBW
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2011
                                    • 3295

                                    Originally posted by Urban View Post
                                    About the RM12.


                                    "Of the original F404 engine available today maybe 50 % left . The rest is Volvo's new development. The engine is now owned by Sweden and Volvo are OEM . Volvo has Type Certificate and the responsibilities for the engine is flight worthy and GE stands only for the spare parts needed to what is unmodified ( compressor , combustor module , gearbox , generators , etc ) ."

                                    http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174...cker-och-stark
                                    Posting that ad nauseam does not change the actual facts. The RM12 is essentially a F404 modified for single engine application (different compressor disks/ fan for better birdstrike protection, FADEC, different afterburner assembly), it has a bit more power, but the design aim was improved reliability for a single engine aircraft.

                                    As you said, GE built about half of the engine, the rest was manufactured in Sweden. That is not 50% Volvo technological input. That is why GE has a factsheet on the RM12:
                                    http://www.geaviation.com/engines/do...sheet-RM12.pdf

                                    Here is the history for the 404/RM12 development:

                                    asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/data/.../V002T02A020-88-GT-305.pdf
                                    (you have to cut and paste into google)

                                    BTW, GKN aerospace does the product support, maintenance, repair, etc. not Volvo- http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...engine-4827270

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      According to some sources the international press, Vietnam has expressed interest in aircraft Gripen E / F to replace the interceptor MiG-21 retirement. However, the price is a huge barrier.
                                      Google translated from: http://tintuc.vn/quan-su/tiem-kich-j...ng-nong-117320

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Originally posted by FBW View Post

                                        BTW, GKN aerospace does the product support, maintenance, repair, etc. not Volvo- http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...engine-4827270
                                        GKN Aerospace bought Volvo Aero, so I think it's still the same people working on the RM12.

                                        Comment

                                        • FBW
                                          FBW
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Dec 2011
                                          • 3295

                                          Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                          GKN Aerospace bought Volvo Aero, so I think it's still the same people working on the RM12.
                                          OK, that explains that. The rest as they say is history. GE was responsible for the design and engineering on the RM12, Volvo for test, manufacturing roughly 35% of the engine, and support.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X