Interesting article, I didn't know SAAB was still investing in this variant. India and Brazil seems to be the only prospects. Would be interesting to see if this will ever see the day of light.

Saab is continuing to refine the design of its Gripen Maritime carrier-optimised fighter, as it eyes long-term possibilities for the proposed variant in Brazil and India.

Based on the in-development Gripen E, the model would be capable of operating from aircraft carriers configured either for short-take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) or catapult-assisted take-off but with arrested recovery (CATOBAR) operations.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-446635/

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting article, I didn't know SAAB was still investing in this variant. India and Brazil seems to be the only prospects. Would be interesting to see if this will ever see the day of light.

Not picking on you but the correct phrase is light of day.

Dutchy wrote:

Interesting article, I didn't know SAAB was still investing in this variant. India and Brazil seems to be the only prospects.

I saw the report the other day and frankly I’m not sure why Saab are bothering. India clearly has other aircraft on their mind and the Gripen M is the only single engine aircraft in the selection. Given the Indian Navies reluctance to take the Tejas, based on payload range considerations, I’m not sure the Gripen M has much of a chance.

Brazil are withdrawing their carrier from service and still have no firm acquisition plan for a replacement so the Gripen M is a long shot until they actually find a platform to fly off. I did see an article a few months back stating Brazil was struggling to keep some A-4s in service to maintain carrier proficiency. I expect if that gets too costly Brazil will lose too much knowledge and CATOBAR ops will become too expensive to restart.

but Brazil disposed their aircraft carrier, São Paulo, so it needs to buy a new aircraft cariier first, so to need and maritime version of the Gripen

LPSHobby wrote:

but Brazil disposed their aircraft carrier, São Paulo, so it needs to buy a new aircraft cariier first, so to need and maritime version of the Gripen

That's what I was thinking. That pretty much leaves only India. :/ I can't see where this would be a useful aircraft.

Their only realistic customer is India and even that is a very long shot.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

LPSHobby wrote:

but Brazil disposed their aircraft carrier, São Paulo, so it needs to buy a new aircraft cariier first, so to need and maritime version of the Gripen

That's what I was thinking. That pretty much leaves only India. :/ I can't see where this would be a useful aircraft.

Brazil is still looking at building new carriers with EIS in 2029 (however unlikely that may be). The premature retirement of Sao Paulo or induction of the Ocean hasn't changed those plans.

VSMUT wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

LPSHobby wrote:

but Brazil disposed their aircraft carrier, São Paulo, so it needs to buy a new aircraft cariier first, so to need and maritime version of the Gripen

That's what I was thinking. That pretty much leaves only India. :/ I can't see where this would be a useful aircraft.

Brazil is still looking at building new carriers with EIS in 2029 (however unlikely that may be). The premature retirement of Sao Paulo or induction of the Ocean hasn't changed those plans.

Will the Gripen even be in production in 2029? Or are they gambling on the possibility they will be ordered in 2020-ish?

The photoshop picture in the OP is interesting marketing:
- A carrier TO with 2x IRIS-T, 4x AIM-120, 2x RBS-15 and a fuel tank.
- New digital camo and the underside cockpit paint trick.

Just need someone to put up the money to make it happen, right?

Dutchy wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

That's what I was thinking. That pretty much leaves only India. :/ I can't see where this would be a useful aircraft.

Brazil is still looking at building new carriers with EIS in 2029 (however unlikely that may be). The premature retirement of Sao Paulo or induction of the Ocean hasn't changed those plans.

Will the Gripen even be in production in 2029? Or are they gambling on the possibility they will be ordered in 2020-ish?

Most likely, as the Gripen production setup is much more flexible than those of the Super Hornet and F-35. Brazil will probably keep the Embraer line open for a long time to come, given that they ultimately have a requirement for around 100 aircraft. There are potential exports to South America too. Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay and Ecuador have all shown interest in Brazilian built Gripens.
And who says that the Brazilian Navy can't order them in advance? India received MiG-29Ks several years before they received the carrier, and the UK officially received it's F-35Bs before their first carrier was even launched, and those ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks aren't getting any younger.

VSMUT wrote:

Most likely, as the Gripen production setup is much more flexible than those of the Super Hornet and F-35. Brazil will probably keep the Embraer line open for a long time to come, given that they ultimately have a requirement for around 100 aircraft. There are potential exports to South America too. Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay and Ecuador have all shown interest in Brazilian built Gripens.

That export list is clouded with problems. Mexico and Uruguay now don’t operate any fighter aircraft and neither has aspirations to do so, other priorities are too great. Ecuador’s air force is falling apart and the acquisition of new fighter aircraft is far down on the list of wants given the internal problems and ongoing drug wars. Argentina has retired everything bar the A-4s and has little money to buy anything. Peru is an outside chance but I’d expect them to acquire something second hand before they looked at a new build. If Argentina and Peru really wanted new build then a KA-50/JF-17/Tejas would better serve their needs than a Gripen at twice the price.

VSMUT wrote:

And who says that the Brazilian Navy can't order them in advance? India received MiG-29Ks several years before they received the carrier, and the UK officially received it's F-35Bs before their first carrier was even launched, and those ex-Kuwaiti Skyhawks aren't getting any younger.

The problem with that is Brazil doesn’t currently know what their next carrier will be including the landing configuration. In the above cases you specified those nations at least knew what they were getting. The lead time for a carrier is great, typically 10+ years, and if Brazil wants CATOBAR they are going to struggle to find a manufacturer making steam systems for their use. It is doubtful the US would transfer EMALS so a STOBAR/STOVL option becomes more likely, and likely cheaper to operate given the time.

I also can’t see Brazil building the carrier themselves, their shipping industry isn’t well organised and they build few large container or bulk vessels. Expecting them to domestically build a 30,000+ tonne carrier from scratch is clearly beyond their current capability. In that context, where does a new carrier come from and therefore why bother developing and ordering a Gripen M when the aircraft won’t see a Brazilian Aircraft Carrier for likely 15 years.

Brazil has a program for the next carrier. Its called Poseidon.

But it will only starts (if it starts) after the Prosub (Brazilian Nuclear Submarine Program) that will be finished only in 2029/2030.

So dont expect Brazil having a carrier before 2035/2040.

I wonder if Brazil could get involved with France as they start another round of studies on how to replace the Charles De Gaulle? Perhaps put some money into R&D and pay to have a second one constructed? Perhaps they could both get together with India and come up with one solid design that they can all build?

Ozair wrote:

That export list is clouded with problems. Mexico and Uruguay now don’t operate any fighter aircraft and neither has aspirations to do so, other priorities are too great. Ecuador’s air force is falling apart and the acquisition of new fighter aircraft is far down on the list of wants given the internal problems and ongoing drug wars. Argentina has retired everything bar the A-4s and has little money to buy anything. Peru is an outside chance but I’d expect them to acquire something second hand before they looked at a new build. If Argentina and Peru really wanted new build then a KA-50/JF-17/Tejas would better serve their needs than a Gripen at twice the price.

Not to mention that the UK would automatically withhold export permits and certificates for any Gripen sale to Argentina; that means no radar, no avionics, landing gear, ejection seat, etc. And if Brazil tried to do that under the table, they would do the same to Brazil. Export permits and end user certificates agreements is pretty serious business; there are legal and geopolitical consequences for ignoring those agreements. If Brazil did try to break the end user certificates and export permits, everyone will start denying Embraer export permits and end user certificates agreements for the various components they have to import for their commercial aircraft; that could spell disaster for Embraer.

Ozair wrote:

I also can’t see Brazil building the carrier themselves, their shipping industry isn’t well organised and they build few large container or bulk vessels. Expecting them to domestically build a 30,000+ tonne carrier from scratch is clearly beyond their current capability. In that context, where does a new carrier come from and therefore why bother developing and ordering a Gripen M when the aircraft won’t see a Brazilian Aircraft Carrier for likely 15 years.

I doubt that Brazil will ever operate a carrier in the near future. Brazil's economy is still struggling, and new aircraft carriers are extremely expensive affairs.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I wonder if Brazil could get involved with France as they start another round of studies on how to replace the Charles De Gaulle? Perhaps put some money into R&D and pay to have a second one constructed? Perhaps they could both get together with India and come up with one solid design that they can all build?

DCNS has been pushing an evolved, conventionally powered version of the Charles De Gaulle for Brazil for some time. General Dynamics has also been marketing the EMALS system to Brazil for the same ship. The design is being offered to the French and Indian navies as well. Such a design offers few risks and should be relatively quick and cheap to construct.

Ozair wrote:

That export list is clouded with problems.

Why do you think the list was preceded by the word "potential"?

BTW, most of South America is increasing defence spending. And lets not kid ourselves, had it been a Lockheed Martin product, you and Pointblank would have been on the spot right away promoting fighter jets as sensible and realistic options for those very same nations.

Ozair wrote:

I also can’t see Brazil building the carrier themselves, their shipping industry isn’t well organised and they build few large container or bulk vessels.

Same goes for the US BTW

They have stated that they are looking to build them with another nation, not that they are going to build them on their own.

VSMUT wrote:

DCNS has been pushing an evolved, conventionally powered version of the Charles De Gaulle for Brazil for some time. General Dynamics has also been marketing the EMALS system to Brazil for the same ship. The design is being offered to the French and Indian navies as well. Such a design offers few risks and should be relatively quick and cheap to construct.

A new French carrier has been on hold since 2013 when it was cancelled in the 2013 Military white paper. The article from which you posted the image clearly states there is no funding allocated to a new carrier at this stage.

Navy Recognition understands that both the French Navy and Naval Group (formerly DCNS) were hopefull for new aircraft carrier studies to be funded as early as possible because there is a very slim window of opportunity: If studies were/are funded between the end of 2017 and the end of 2018, there is a chance for the potential "Charles de Gaulle replacement" to be ready in time for the next refit of Charles de Gaulle. France's sole aircraft carrier is currently undergoing its mid-life refit. Refits are scheduled every 7 years on average.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ement.html

There is zero chance that a new French carrier will be ready for service in seven years time despite the French Navy and Naval group’s optimism.

VSMUT wrote:

Why do you think the list was preceded by the word "potential"?

In your context potential means pipedream then… Seriously, the word potential implies something that may actually happen while what you’re suggesting is significantly more unlikely.

VSMUT wrote:

BTW, most of South America is increasing defence spending.

Really… and this is based on what evidence?

In 2015 Mexico spent approximately 0.67% of GDP on defence, in 2016 it dropped to 0.55% and traditionally the level is closer to 0.4%.

In 2016 Brazil spent 1.318% of GDP on defence. In 2015 it was 1.364%, in 2010 it was 1.539% and in 2000 it was 1.731%

In 2015 Peru spent 1.686% of GDP on defence but only 1.291 in 2016 right in line with their ten year average.

Uruguay’s spending on defence is essentially flat, trending slightly upwards to return to the 2010 level.

Ecuador’s defence spending continues to plummet from 3.095% of GDP in 2011 to 2.195% in 2016.

As for other South American nations, Colomiba is essentially flat, Venezuela is dropping, Chile is spending almost half what they did in 2003 and continues to drop.

Is there actually a single nation in South America increasing their budget?

FYI, all the GDP spending on defence info can be found here, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS ... view=chart I would suggest you review the facts before making similar claims in the future.

VSMUT wrote:

And lets not kid ourselves, had it been a Lockheed Martin product, you and Pointblank would have been on the spot right away promoting fighter jets as sensible and realistic options for those very same nations.

You are clearly elevating the quality of your posts by making statements like this...

VSMUT wrote:

Same goes for the US BTW

That comment makes absolutely no sense… In the last ten years the US has built

the LPD-17 class (9 of them) 25kt
the American class LHA (2 of them) 45kt
The Ford class Aircraft carrier (one of them) 100kt
The Zumwalt class (3 of them) 14kt

You clearly don’t need a domestic shipping industry building masses of super-sized bulk carriers when you have an established naval shipbuilding industry…

The hypothesis of acquisition or construction of an aircraft carrier by Brazil should be discarded. The country has a combination that seems deadly for grandiose military projects:
- Low income;
- Lack of natural enemies;
- Democracy

In spite of this, in paper the Grippen seems very interesting for the simplicity, low weight, configuration canard and small wingspan, that makes unnecessary the resource of the foldable wings.

SAAB is a remarkable company and wish them the best of luck.

Is it correct to assume that nothing can be done to HMS Ocean to enable fixed-wing operations off its deck?

Phosphorus wrote:

Is it correct to assume that nothing can be done to HMS Ocean to enable fixed-wing operations off its deck?

Ocean was never designed for fixed wing operations; even operating the Harrier was out of the question. No ski ramp, too small, and way too slow. She was designed for rotary wing operations only.

Ozair wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Same goes for the US BTW

That comment makes absolutely no sense… In the last ten years the US has built

the LPD-17 class (9 of them) 25kt
the American class LHA (2 of them) 45kt
The Ford class Aircraft carrier (one of them) 100kt
The Zumwalt class (3 of them) 14kt

You clearly don’t need a domestic shipping industry building masses of super-sized bulk carriers when you have an established naval shipbuilding industry…

I would note that bulk carriers are actually fairly simple ships to build... there's not much to them. A single, two stroke diesel engine with no reduction gearing, a single fixed pitch propeller, simple hull configuration with very few curves, with a design focus that is more geared towards capacity, ease of construction and low cost. For the most part, they are designed for maximum volume, and to reach their design cruise speed once they leave port, and stay at that speed until they reach the destination.