Rumor: Boeing and SAAB to offer Gripen as T-38 replacement

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Source: Aviation Week http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 615489.xml

Boeing And Saab To Propose Gripen For T-X
By Bill Sweetman william.sweetman@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First

September 11, 2013
Credit: Stefan Kalm/Saab
Boeing and Saab will announce “in weeks rather than months” that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement, according to sources familiar with the deal. Saab is apparently confident that the two companies will be able to undercut the cost of the closest rival contender, the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50.

Other details of the deal are being closely held. The T-X program, aimed at acquiring some 350 trainers to replace the Northrop Grumman T-38, has been on hold due to budget cuts but is expected to restart in the 2015 budget.

The move is a major change to the line-up for the competition, for which Northrop Grumman has teamed with BAE Systems, offering the Hawk, and Alenia has joined forces with General Dynamics to promote the M-346.

Until now, Boeing had stated its intention to offer an all-new aircraft. However, a link with Saab became a possibility when the Swedish government launched development of the new JAS 39E version at the beginning of this year. Although the Swedish plan is formally contingent on Switzerland confirming its order for the fighter (in a referendum that is expected early next year), the Swiss deal has continued to pass milestones on the way to that decision. The JAS 39E is due to enter service in 2018.

Sweden and Switzerland both plan to order only JAS 39E single-seaters, but the two-seat 39F is a straightforward development.

The JAS 39F is fractionally larger and more powerful than the T-50, but also is more modern, with a wide-screen cockpit like that of the F-35 and a fully integrated helmet-mounted display. It is expected to cost less to acquire than the previous C/D variant and has been designed for easy maintenance and low operating costs. Swiss air force leaders say that its cost per flight hour is expected to be half that of the Typhoon and Rafale, its competitor for the Swiss order.

While no formal T-X requirement has been issued, Saab and Boeing’s action indicates that they believe any requirement under which the T-50 qualifies also could be met by the Gripen.

One industry source notes that a T-X Gripen also would be suitable for aggressor training, or as a companion trainer for F-22s and F-35s — which, unlike earlier USAF fighters, are not being acquired in two-seat versions. (The USAF has added T-38s to F-22 units in that role.) Beyond that, a source close to USAF leadership notes that “it is not a long step to an affordable air defense fighter to replace (Air National) Guard F-15/F-16 units.”

Boeing issued a statement that neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the Saab deal.

[ehusmann]

Now that would be interesting.....
Just depends on how the USAF will look at this replacement IMHO. If the USAF sees it as a 1-on-1 replacement of the pure trainers, I think the Gripen doesn't stand a chance against purpose build trainers. However, if the USAF will consider the other options mentioned as well (trainer with fighter units etc) then the Gripen might have a tremendous edge against real trainers.

Wonder how this will go forward once the program is restarted!

Erwin

[SquAdmin]

Why would a slightly modified Gripen be less capable than a purpose built trainer? Although I'm wondering if Gripens wouldn't be much more expensive than its competitors...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ehusmann]

I didn't say it was less capable, I said it will not stand a chance against purpose build trainers. Why? Exactly because of the cost.
A Gripen twinstick might be just as effective as a trainer (although maybe a little more complex), but it will be much more costly than a purpose build trainer. Such planes will not be developed with advanced weapon systems and characteristics needed for high performance combat missions. I cannot imagine a trainer costing 50 to 100 million to purchase. So if the USAF will only look at a pure T-38 trainer replacement the Gripen will loose on cost.

Erwin

[Flyboy]

Maybe it's just me, but.... How can the Grippen which is deemed more expensive than the F-35 suddely be a cheeper trainer than the T-50 or equivalent planes. Are trainers nowadays so expensive?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[nils]

i think the Gripen might be a bit to advanced for the trainer role, of it is to replace the T-38.
why doesnt Lockheed step up with the KAI T-50, or a trainer derivative of the F-16C/D?

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Let's wait and see what Boeing and SAAB will come up with, shall we? If and when they will make a formal proposal based on the Gripen, we'll know about capabilities and cost. I do think however that a potential order for several hundred Gripens will definitely drive down the cost. And even more if the Gripen would be chosen as a F-15/F-16 replacement within ANG and AFRES.

[Erik_7Xi]

Isn't it interesting that none of the T-X contenders are actually American aircraft, even though they are tendered through US based aircraft companies?
A factor in this may be that none of the US based companies, who do not have an off-the-shelf offering already, may simply not feel like investing R&D costs into a program that may very well be cancelled due to the current budget pressures.

[ehusmann]

Boeing was to bid with a new build trainer, but apparantly is not going to do that.

Erwin

[marcelburger]

It is more than a rumour. A Saab spokesperson said this week that if they go ahead with Boeing it would mean a downgraded version of the current Gripen, so a lot cheaper to buy but with the same flying characteristics. Saab still hopes to sell the new Gripen-E/F to many other countries, especially in Asia. Offering the same aircraft as a trainer would undermine the fighter image.

[SquAdmin]

it would mean a downgraded version of the current Gripen, so a lot cheaper to buy but with the same flying characteristics.

So, that would be the .... JAS-39B again?

If this is how the game will be played, Lockheed should consider a downgraded version of the F-16D instead of the T-50. In fact, they could just pick them from AMARG and refurbish them

[marcelburger]

Probably a downgraded JAS 39B or D with a new designation like SK 70, or T-70 for the export market, but that is highly speculating.

[hammarö]

Hello.

The plane is called JAS 39F or F-35. Is a directly evolution of JAS 39E.

See (with several comments)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 710599#%21

The plane has to be a new trainer of JAS 39, not a complicated fighter beast. The reason is to learn to fly with use of the canard, early in it is way. From beginning programmed in C by Americans, and later after the juvenile problems by Suedes. The problems solved with Gripen, programming solutions could be used by Eurofighter, with the ownership by BAe.

The evolution through JA 35 Draken is very important, with the spin tests etc.

A trainer must be a plane who could "fly". Pilots often use sailplanes in early stage. Canard JAS 39F must be a good inflight trainer, with shortage inflight time. Starting directly on jet.

[SquAdmin]

On page 2 of the article you referred to, SAAB comments on this rumour:

“With the new development of the Gripen E version we expect it to remain in that position for many years to come. But a great fighter aircraft does not necessarily make a good trainer. We remain focused on the continued development of the Gripen E and the fighter will never be a trainer,” Sindahl says.

[hammarö]

The plane is now a think. And could be an offer to USAF. USAF deside what they will have. From maybee four planes.

And Saab says

But a great fighter aircraft does not necessarily make a good trainer. We remain focused on the continued development of the Gripen E and the fighter will never be a trainer,” Sindahl says. “As we stated previously, Saab always keeps its doors open to new business opportunities and if any of those should be further realized, they would be announced at the appropriate time.”

But basic aerodynamics is basic.

And you can also find that Saab has change the first text. They adapt the formula for the buyer.