SAAB promotes Sea Gripen to Brazil & India

[MAKO69]

Catching some waves on the www, found and thought I'd share.

 

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2013-news/may-2013-navy-world-naval-forces-maritime-industry-technology-news/1044-saab-promotes-its-qsea-gripenq-a-possible-naval-variant-of-the-gripen-ng-fighter-jet-.html

[+MigBuster]

Suppose it comes down to how much needs to be modified - if its a case of moving hook position and painting it Smurf blue then it could be a goer.

[+JonathanRL]

You will notice that the skins seem rather familiar ;-)

[+JediMaster]

It will take a lot more than a hook, folding wings, redesigned gears, enhanced corrosion protection, local airframe strengthening, and lots of testing.

 

It will take money.

[MAKO69]

It will take a lot more than a hook, folding wings, redesigned gears, enhanced corrosion protection, local airframe strengthening, and lots of testing.

 

It will take money.

I'm sure it will take some buckage, but the fact remains that it is a little robust strike fighter that was designed to work out of ruff strips and back country roads. I think the gear might be all set. Have you seen how thick the mains and front gear are, and if you see the next gen concept Gripen the gear look even more robust. I think this plane is over engineered to begin with. This might be one of those planes that may be easier to convert, modify, or build new carrier capable from the current design. 

[+JediMaster]

Gear strengthening is probably the least difficult part of navalizing a plane, really.

[Centurion-1]

Found this pic on the net, couldn't resist.. 

[B52STRATO]

I hope that Saab will not be faced with the "F-35C syndrome".

[fallenphoenix1986]

Unless they decide it has to land like a daintly little fairy (vertically) then I think they'll manage. From a technical point of view it should be do-able, don't see a business case for it myself though, the only potential markets for a light naval fighter are Brazil & India and unfortunaly for Saab the Indians have it covered indigenously with the already built naval variant of the Tejas.

 

Craig

[+JediMaster]

That's the B, not the C. The C's major issue was the relative placement of the hook and main wheels causing it to miss catching the cables on touchdown.

[+CrazyhorseB34]

This will never see the light of day.

[+SayethWhaaaa]

That's the B, not the C. The C's major issue was the relative placement of the hook and main wheels causing it to miss catching the cables on touchdown.

Would that really be a big deal to rectify, considering all variants are already capable of landing unassisted within 300 feet?

[+daddyairplanes]

"Same engine as the F/A-18". Interesting as a second choice if the F-35C manages to get itself cancelled.....

[+JediMaster]

Would that really be a big deal to rectify, considering all variants are already capable of landing unassisted within 300 feet?

 

Given the size and margins of landing on a moving carrier deck, I think you'll find most pilots who've done traps answer a resounding "yes!"

 

The problem is that the F-35's main gear is farther aft than pretty much any other carrier-designed plane has been. From rear wheels to tip of the exhaust is a very short distance relatively speaking, and I guess no one realized that the gear hitting the cables and causing them to pop up off the deck is what allowed the hooks to work on nose wheel-equipped planes (as opposed to the old tail draggers) until the C kept failing to catch the wires.

 

The design was of course largely based on the needs of the 35B (CoG and all that). The Harrier never had a hook (plus had that bicycle layout) and no other carrier jets have ever been STOVL.

 

So you can make the convincing argument that had the design not been mandated to work for both uses the main gear would've been farther forward in the naval model and it wouldn't have occurred. A definite "joint design" fail.

[fallenphoenix1986]

Surely  a stinger hook would make some sense in the case of the F-35, would allow for a longer hook arm length than provided by the current design thus increasing the distance from gear to hook tip.

 

Craig

[+JediMaster]

All I've seen is "the hook has been redesigned." I've not seen any before/after pics or heard any actual details on the changes.

[+SayethWhaaaa]

Oops. Jedi, even though I quoted you directly, I was thinking of the Gripen when I spoke of the 300ft thing. Not the F-35C. It was late, i was tired, brain had already shut down...

[+JediMaster]

Well, the comment still applies. Whichever plane it is, stopping in 300 ft on a flat stationary runway isn't the same thing as doing it on a moving, possibly pitching and/or wet deck! I think a hook is just the only safe way.