Gripen E enters serial production

So it seems SAAB quietly began production of the Gripen E in the first week of January. IOC is slated for 2023. Naturally they are talking to a few potential sales customers too with the Swiss fighter replacement back on the agenda and Finland another possibility. They are also talking to Canada and looking at Croatia's requirements after the used Israeli F-16 deal fell through. It also seems launch customers Sweden and Brazil are seriously looking at second production batches. All around not a bad start I'd say. Of note is a statement in the last paragraph of the FG article in response to a question regarding future fighter directions. So far the Franco/German led consortium hasn't been speaking to SAAB at least in any detail about its FCAS project. However they say they have had very fruitful discussions with the UK regarding Tempest. I cant say I'm surprised in this. Too me Sweden is a natural fit for Tempest and clearly if you dont belong in the EU the French and Germans aren't interested in talking to you.

a reply to: thebozeian

When people look at the Gripen E there is much to like IMO.

Good looking specs.Impressive avionics and weapons.
Not sure single engine will be a selling point these days.

The more they sell, the cheaper it gets. They are fighting the same math that Dassault is with Rafale. Not a knock on either. Just difficult math.

a reply to: Blackfinger
Single engine operation no longer matters like it did 30-40 years ago. Reliability is now vastly greater and the only reason you go for two engines is if you need a lot of thrust. But then we are talking really large fighters like F-22 or bigger. The added complexity and structural weight of putting two engines in a small to medium sized fighter negates any perceived gain in reliability. Case in point of how things changed would be the evolution of the basic F-5 small twin engine fighter to the later F-20 Tigershark prototype. Same basic aircraft, half the engines, same or better reliability. And then there is the F-35. Single engine operation doesn't appear to be hampering its sales in the slightest. The F-16 wasn't shabby in the sales department either and ended up outselling the twin engined Hornet by a healthy margin. If for example you look at the RAAF's history with first the Mirage III and later the F/A-18 family Blackfinger, we lost probably more than a dozen Mirages at least to engine failure alone. Yet with the Hornets I count only 5 aircraft losses across 3 major sub variants in nearly 35 years of operations. And of those I can only think of one that was due to engine failure, which was a single engine failure leading to the write off anyway of an EA-18G.

Apart from large aircraft thrust requirements, I can think of four other reasons you would stipulate 2 engines. One, you dont have the design, manufacturing or metallurgy skills to build a really high thrust reliable engine. Two, you are building a large and complex aircraft where engine thrust is beyond current engine designs. Three, you need a very large electrical generator capacity for DEWS, advanced sensors, AESA etc that is not practically achievable with current generator or accessory drive technological capability. Given we are just starting to see in the last couple of years new and highly advanced breakthroughs appearing in generator efficiency, you can probably negate that one for the time being anyway. Lastly fourth, for reasons both political and conservatively risk averse thinking on the engineering front, your customer has stipulated two engines.