Saab carried out the first flight tests with its new advanced Electronic Attack Jammer Pod (EAJP) this week.
The firm say that the pod’s interfaces with the aircraft’s hardware and software as well as cockpit control and monitoring were tested during the flight.
“The purpose of Saab’s new EAJP pod is to protect aircraft against radars by sophisticated jamming functions, thereby blocking the opponent’s ability to attack them. The first flight marks an important step of the pod’s development programme.
Saab is sharpening its electronic attack capabilities and the new advanced pod is an important element of this development. The EAJP is a strong complement to the built-in electronic attack capabilities of the highly advanced on-board electronic warfare system on Saab’s new Gripen E/F fighter. It can also be used on other aircraft types. The pod forms part of Saab’s Arexis family of electronic warfare systems.”
“We performed the flight tests with a Gripen fighter and this new pod is an important part of the development of our new electronic attack capability”, says Anders Carp, Senior Vice President and Head of Saab’s business area Surveillance.
Electronic warfare systems are also used for self-protection by passively detecting hostile radar systems and missiles, protecting the aircraft or platform by using active and passive countermeasures. Offensive electronic warfare, also known as electronic attack, involves actively sending jamming signals to disrupt the sensors in the enemy’s air defence systems so they do no longer constitute a threat.
Excellent piece of kit all round.
Perfect for air policing duties as well as carrying ant ship missiles to protect the UK coastline saving unnecessary flying hours on our more expensive Typhoons. Around half the price I believe?
Another obvious option -https://augengeradeaus.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/20191105_Airbus_Eurofigher_SEAD_Praes_2-768×425.jpg
That does look impressive, but where the Saab offering scores is that the Gripen has very advanced EW features built in, and this pod will enhance that. The two seat Gripen has already been developed for a warfighting role.
The Eurofighter ECR is still on the drawing board, so to speak, the two seater trainer will need to be adapted, and the whole project will need to overcome the substantial political inertia in Germany that so often plagues defence procurement plans!
It was Germany that put the halt on the EuroDASS development. The aircraft’s DASS was supposed to be incrementally improved every couple of years, but Germany cancelled the contract. This has a knock on effect for the other partners, as any development must be agreed by all partners, so became yet another political football.
The German Airforce has finally got their Government to agree the aircraft needs updating. This has come on the back of them doing the Baltic air policing and facing off against Russia. Their Typhoon is at least a step behind ours and in some parts way back (no Pirate IRST for starters).
Hi DaveyB, your suggestion of adapting the Typhoon T1s for EW is interesting. It’s a shame Eurofighter hasn’t been able to develop the Typhoon as quickly as possible due to all the political speedbumps, as any future work will have to compete for money with F35 procurement and the R&D for Tempest within the fast jet sphere, not to mention competing projects across air warfare more generally, and the wider defence budget, and at a macro level, the national spending decisions taken by government.
The question of maritime strike is an interesting one, whether to leave it to the F35s of add the functionality to the Typhoon. I imagine we will probably leave it to the F35, allowing the US to push the development and leave us to choose whichever anti-ship missile they clear for use on the aircraft.
Do you have any links on the effective radar range of the SAAB EW suite or the new Jammer Pod?
No, that would be secret info. But what I can say is the aircraft’s capabilities without the extra jammers is good enough to support a couple of aircraft. With the addition of the extra ECM gear it puts it in the same area as the current Growler. However, the Growler is getting the next generation jammer, which will push it further ahead again.
I’ve always said that the T1 Typhoons that we mothballed, should be reactivated for the electronic warfare role along with acting as a mothership for a couple of drones. This is due to the complexities of electronic warfare, it really is too much work for a single pilot and requires second operator to concentrate on this role.
Thanks – the effective range is most likely confidential. The Growler’s new NGJ had power issues initially, and whilst that runs independent of the aircraft engines via a ram-air approach, it is effectively drag and requires engine power to drive the jet and the jammers. Gripen uses an onboard auxiliary power source fed from the jet fuel, so the effect of running these jammers is likely consequential on the effective aircraft range and/or the jammer’s power output. interestingly, both aircraft use the same jet engine, however the Growler runs 2 of them, so ‘in theory’ it should still be able to extend its reach over the Gripen F (EW).
supposedly RAF Typhoons will, at some point, be getting a version of the AESA radar with an electronic warfare capability. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/berlin-targets-eurofighter-aesa-deal-and-top-up-buy-462067/
The Gripen would be great, but we can’t even decide how many F35s to buy, so I can’t see us operating a third fast jet type. Too bad, as you say, with anti-ship missiles already integrated, it would be a useful cheap fighter to task with a number of awkward missions that Typhoon and F35 are either not currently fitted out for (such as maritime strike), or would be uneconomical (say, CAS in places like Afghanistan where the counter-air threat is non-existent but the environment is tough on high end machinery).
I think it’s a crime that our Typhoons arent fitted out for maritime strike, more so that we dont even have any anti-ship missiles apart from the ancient Harpoon!
With so few fast jets in our inventory I’d have thought it would be common sense that every single Typhoon was able to fight air to air, attack ground targets – both CAS and strike – and maritime strike. I’ll forgive the F35 a bit as it’s so new.
It shows how the government and MoD were so focused on the war on terror, on bombing jihadis on the ground with impunity, that they forgot other forms of warfare existed.
Steve R – If the need arises it wouldn’t be too hard to integrate Maritime Strike onto the Typhoon.https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-eurofighter-tests-six-appeal-with-marte-er-mi-418866/
What about upgrading the hawk and using that as a trainer and light attack, policing etc. Then you are not introducing a third type. Back to hawk 200?
I think we should.
Seems pointless using £100million Typhoon or Lightning jets to drop bombs in jihadis, not only costing more but wearing down the airframes, when a Hawk could do so for less than 1/3 the cost.
We should have a few combat squadrons of Hawks for CAS roles. Hawk can be armed with Sidewinders or ASRAAM so they can defend themselves from enemy aircraft. Could be a good asset to have in a war once F35 an Typhoon have established air superiority.
I wonder if a more robust CAS capability will be a consideration when the time comes for the Hawk to be replaced with a clean sheet design.
A Hawk couldn’t keep up with a Blackjack which would be a bit embarrassing which Russia Today would love.
Hi Marquis, I know many of us on this forum admire the Swedes, but I’m sometimes surprised at the enthusiasm for the Gripen. Isn’t it really just a Swedish F-16? Or “cannon-fodder”, as an RAF Typhoon once pilot joked with me at an air-show! Another commented that the performance of Typhoon made the F-16 (or Gripen by inference) feel like a trainer!
In an era of scarce resources, the RAF has focussed on its core assets – Typhoon and Lightning. You can use these aircraft in a close-air-support role, if needed (not ideal, I agree), but you can’t use the Gripen to super-cruise at 40, 000 feet through the heavily armed airspace of a hostile state actor – neither can you use low-observable technology to take down an air-defence network.
In the context of Afghanistan or Syria, lower end assets (and tragically their pilots) have fallen victim to Jihadist MANPADS – a Jordanian F-16, and at least one Russian SU-25 spring to mind.
Through the TyTAN initiative, the operating costs of Typhoon are today much reduced, the aircraft is quick over the target, and it’s performance at high-altitude gives the pilot a degree of invulnerability – plus its outstanding targeting kit minimises the risk of civilian casualties.
If I had the CAPEX to spend, I think I’d just invest in another squadron of Typhoons – and re-establish 19 squadron!
Two sides to every story!
“Several years ago the Gripen pilots got tired of being made fun of byGerman Typhoon pilots and came to play with their wartime electronic warfare and gave them a hell of a hard time,” Bronk said. One of the Gripens was “reportedly able to appear on the left wing of a Typhoon without being detected” by using its “extremely respected” jamming ability, Bronk said.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-built-a-russian-fighter-jet-killer-and-stealth-is-irrelevant-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
Hi Alan,
Firstly yes given the limited funds available, if there’s any money spare, the MOD should try and speed up the F35 buy and if possible increase the Typhoon fleet (while at the same time seeding the Tempest R&D), rather than investing in a third type. Developing new capabilities for the existing fleet of Typhoon is a must, eg EuroDASS, Praetorian, the upgraded EJ200 engines etc. What takes precedence for funding out of all of that is a tough decision.
However, in fairness to the Gripen, it is more than a Swedish F16. True, it won’t supercruise at 40,000ft through enemy airspace with a meaningful warload (I think it is rated M1.2 with 2 missiles?) but then neither can the Typhoon – RAF Typhoons managed M0.9 over Libya bombed up.
Yes, Typhoon pilots are reported to regularly boast about Gripens being cannon fodder, but as Nigel Collins in the comment below refers to, there have been credible reports of Gripens often restricting use of their EW capability in these engagements, and when they did go into war mode, the Typhoon pilots got a nasty surprise. Furthermore, the Gripen has an AESA radar with arguably the widest detection angle for a AESA radar on the market, a powerful IRST and Meteor integration. It is still a very capable A2A fighter. The Typhoon may be better at dogfighting, but how many times has it been said (ironically in defence of the much more expensive F35) that modern air warfare is not about dogfights – this philosophy is after all what drove the RAF to consider removing cannon from the Typhoon years ago before they realised that it would screw the flight handling.
The Gripen doesn’t employ stealth, but it does have extremely sophisticated EW systems which allows it to do a similar job – penetrating hostile airspace. The specialist SEAD version would also greatly enable operations in hostile airspace, both for other Gripens and different NATO types, including Typhoon and F35. The Gripen’s reconnaissance capability is also very strong, as witnessed in Libya where it provided extremely useful service to NATO forces. And it also has excellent datalinks which allows Gripens to use target cueing from other aircraft without needing to switch their radar on.
I think that the MANPAD threat to Gripen would be more or less the same as that to Typhoon or F35, to be honest, as they tend to run off IR.
I agree the moment to consider Gripen for RAF service has gone, and as I say above, the RAF has enough on its plate to balance Typhoon upgrades and F35 procurement, but the Gripen is still a great aircraft, and I think it would make a perfect accompaniment to the Typhoon in a high-low mix, or even in a troika with Typhoon and F35, if one were feeling flush!
It also is a great aircraft for smaller nations who don’t need the added performance, range and payload of the Typhoon/Rafale etc.
Unfortunately the trend is moving at a rapid pace toward single fast jet type air forces the world over, and with the price of the F35A continuing to drop, it’s hard to see where Saab can score more sales.
It has also been tested with Meteor.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/05/24/gripen-e-testing-ahead-of-schedule-vendor-claims/
I found this post which was quite interesting albeit from 1998 which suggests the possibility of a Gripen fitted with the EJ2000 engine.
Given the expected increase in power since this was originally posted and Saab coming on board with Tempest whether this would make a second-tier platform more likely? It would certainly help to reduce additional maintenance costs.
“The company says that a 700h flight test programme is being planned to explore thrust vectoring on a standard Gripen airframe for the export market. Eurojet has proposed to Saab a 102kN (23,000lb)-thrust version of its engine, called the EJ230”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurojet-aims-ej200-variant-at-thrust-vectored-gripen-37567/
Gripen would be a good fit and look in the colours of the Scottish Defence Forces.
Maybe other NATO counties can buy these to take some pressure off the USN’s Growler fleet.
Yes true but with many Airforces going over to the F35 the need maybe limited,its certainly worth considering for the Gripen users though.
It’s true that the F35 can operate without ECM support. However, having a Growler operating nearby significantly increases the capability of a strike package. As it can blanket an area with white noise or discrete and targeted spoofing. This could allow the F35s to operate unnoticed.