Brazilian F-X2 deal gives fresh impetus to Saab's Sea Gripen concept

Jane's Defence Weekly ^ | 18 December 2013 | Gareth Jennings

[sukhoi-30mki]

Brazil's decision to procure the Saab JAS 39 Gripen E to satisfy its F-X2 fighter replacement programme has breathed new life into the company's Sea Gripen concept, a source told IHS Jane's on 19 December.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said that the deal for 36 aircraft for the Brazilian Air Force "opens up a whole new realm of possibilities" for the Sea Gripen, with the Navy having a notional requirement for 24 aircraft to operate from its Sao Paulo aircraft carrier.

Having targeted the concept at Brazilian and Indian naval requirements, Saab now has a programmatic and industrial presence in one of those countries giving it an invaluable foothold with which to promote its Sea Gripen.

Further to the opportunities afforded by the F-X2 deal, the source told IHS Jane's that discussions with India have been taking place behind the scenes. "There has been a conversation with the Indian Navy, which is looking at the Sea Gripen separate to the [Indian Air Force] MMRCA [Medium MultiRole Combat Aircraft requirement]," he said, adding: "The Indian Navy [interest in Sea Gripen] never went away."

First revealed by Saab in 2010, the Sea Gripen concept features a number of navalised enhancements to the baseline Gripen E fighter to make it suitable for carrier operations. These include a strengthened undercarriage, bigger brakes, and a beefed-up tail hook.

The standard Gripen already has a large number of the attributes for carrier operations, such as a high precision landing capability, a high pitch and roll rate authority and precision glide slope control, a reinforced airframe and enhanced anti-corrosion protection. Its undercarriage and airframe is already capable of a sink rate of 15 ft/s, though this would need to be increased to about 25 ft/s for carrier operations.

As Saab is pi

[sukhoi-30mki]

[yarddog]

I have an old Janes book of fighters and I remember it rated the Gripen very high. Of course that was an old model but it looks a lot like this one.

[BenLurkin]

Arrestor hook. Intersting.

[USNBandit]

Its undercarriage and airframe is already capable of a sink rate of 15 ft/s, though this would need to be increased to about 25 ft/s for carrier operations.

Should be easy enough.....oh wait, the V is squared?....that uh, that's going to be a bit harder.

[BenLurkin]

I have a dumb question — why put on an arrestor hook if carrier landings are out of the question? For short runways on land?

[Tallguy]

“Of course that was an old model but it looks a lot like this one.”

Can’t go by ‘looks’ very much on late generation aircraft. Most of the Block improvements are in the form of electronics and software upgrades.

That said, naval-ized aircraft often have different features. Aside from the obvious — beefed up landing gear & and arresting hook feature — you also have changes in the wing geometry. A bigger area and a thicker wing yields better low-speed & landing characteristics. As an added bonus you have more room to store fuel.

[Tallguy]

Cratered runways can be utilized with portable arresting gear. There were some F-16 Fighting Falcons that were build with arresting hooks. They couldn’t operate from carriers, but the USAF spec must have been considering the possibility of bomb-damaged runways.

[USNBandit]

Most tactical aircraft have some kind of arresting hook for damaged or malfunctioning aircraft. They aren't intended for regular use, such as damaged or short runway operations.

Most common use would be for a high speed abort or a landing where the brakes are malfunctioning. Most of these light weight style arresting hooks have a ground speed limit and many of them can't guarantee stopping an aircraft without damage.

An F-16 hook, isn't it cute.

An F-15 hook.

They aren't intended for boat use and neither are the landing gear.

[BenLurkin]

Ah!

[USNBandit]

I flew F-5 Tiger IIs as an adversary in the Navy for several years. It had a hook, but we only planned on using it to stop from running off the end of a runway, or a brake malfunction. If the only arresting gear was at the approach end of the runway we intended to also deploy our drag chute because the max engagement speed was 135 and our touchdown speed was closer to 150-155. There wasn’t much to keep the hook from bouncing back up and slapping the belly of the plane once the hook caught the wire.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks sukhoi-30mki.