Re-engine F-18Cs & Ds Hornets and Jas-39 Gripens

[Webmaster]

I think you need some serious redesigning of the airframe, intakes, restructuring/reinforcing and sort out the balance problems. The difference is too big. The engine is too big for the airframe, and its power will rip it apart. I like the idea, but it's just not feasible. Maybe one F110 instead of the two F404s in the Hornet, but even then you need lots of redesign.

[Valiant1]

Then I would suggest that the US Air Force by the Typhoon's engines, which are definitely more powerful than the F404s plus have the added advantage of supercruise.  I feel the EF200's would bring the F-18 Hornet and the Gripen on a whole new playing field.

[Raptor]

Yeah, i was thinking along the lines of technical problems too. The Gripen is too light a fighter to match against The Fighting Falcon for a pure heavy hardware battle...

[Gripen]

the Gripen weighs 14,600lbs empty and 18,298lbs full load

its RM12 delivers 80.49KN of thrust

the Eurofighter and Rafale have two engines (Eurojet and SNECMA respectivly) and they are both slower then the Gripen, and the lightweight Gripen can carry the same amout of weapons as the Eurofighter (14,330lb air to air)

compared to the F-16, the Gripen is faster- then again the Falcon was designed for the international market, and the Gripen was built to defend Sweeden and other places in Europe, but as sweeden built it, they only needed a plane to impress their people, not half the world, so it is kind of hard to compare the F-16 and the Gripen- yes they are both fighters, but they were designed for different purposes.

[Raptor]

Too true. But the F-16 was built as a general purpose plane, not a light multi-role fighter like the Gripen. Again, in a stand-off fight, your Gripen is disadvantaged.

[Gripen]

Question: Whats the shortest space a F-16 combat loaded can take off in

I know a Gripen can do 800Metres or 2,265ft

F-16s can do it in what?

Repsonse time is important

[Raptor]

F-16s can scramble on combat-ready mode in a very short time. They can carry out a lot of tasks. From stunt flying to Air-superiority roles. It's a great jet.

[Gripen]

yes it is, but look at what happened with the Sept 11 attacks, the airforce had F-16s up in the air but they were going the wrong way.

if that happens in combat, no matter who or what they are fighting, i know who would win

[Raptor]

no comment. Raptor out.

[Valiant1]

I think we got off the subject a bit.   I realize it doesn't matter - the US is looking to retire the F-18C & D models anyway because they're being replaced by the F-35.  It's too bad, though, the Hornet could be a really great dogfighter, if it were not for the feeble engines. 

Like the Super Hornet, the GE F404 was chosing for its maintainability and reliability, not for its power.  I think Saab did it better by taking the F404 and improving it by giving the engine an extra 1,000 lbs. of thrust so the Gripen could have an equal thrust-to-weight ratio.  Who knows, maybe they're still making improvements on the engine to give the Gripen the edge in combat. 

I still think the EF200 would be an excellent option IF it has the same dimensions and diameter as the F404 - anyone know if it does?  Because, I feel, if it were the same dimensions,  it wouldn't require a lot of tinkering with the Gripen's airframe, maybe just where the engine would hook up.

Having said that, and since there's no hope for the F-18 C&D models, maybe the US Navy can provide more powerful engines w/supercruise for the Super Hornet - both Hornets do have excellent maneuverability and low-speed handling, but both lack in the power category. 

I feel bad for any US Navy fighter pilot flying the Super Bug against any variant of the Flanker because about the only that may go for the Bug is avionics and pilot skills, but who's to say the Flanker pilot doesn't have any skills?

[Webmaster]

Some of you might not have read a post that was made earlier by Greekpilot in this thread: JA37 Vs JAS39.

Eurojet's (EJ200 manufacturer) answer to the question whether there would be the possibility of an EJ200 powered Gripen.

Dear Mr. Ioannidis,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Saab has years ago already investigated the technical and operational
feasibility for re-engineering JAS 39 Gripen with the EJ200 engine.
Both Saab and EUROJET Turbo GmbH concluded that a re-engineering only
shall be considered if there is a customer demand available. From a
technical point of view, the EJ200 engine would fit into the engine bay
of JAS39 Gripen with minor changes applied to the interface connections.
The commercial feasibility of re-engineering JAS39 Gripen would be
supported, if required, by individual business case calculations.

The Thrust vectoring nozzle is offered as an optional item for any of
the EJ200 engine standards.

I hope this answer can help.

Yours sincerely,
Katarina Elbogen

Katarina Elbogen
Executive PR and Political Affairs
EUROJET Turbo GmbH

[Valiant1]

Webmaster, having posted that letter, what do the Swedish fighter pilots think?  Are they satisfied with the F404's power or do they feel replacing it with the more powerful EJ200 with the optional thrust vectoring take the Gripen to a whole new level?

Maybe it's the Swedish fighter pilots and those nations who bought the Gripen, who should be the ones to vote whether or not to re-engine the Gripen. 

I don't know how many times I've said it but the Gripen is truly a remarkable aircraft - it would be even more with the addition of the EF-200 w/thrust vectoring. 

I would lobby for the Gripen to be bought by the USAF if I were the Secretary of Defense.  We bought the Harrier, why not the Gripen?  Too bad I'm not.