How does the Gripen E’s F414 engine compare to engines in rival fighters (F-16, Rafale, Typhoon) in thrust and fuel efficiency?
Executive summary
The Gripen E uses a single General Electric F414‑GE‑39E turbofan that Saab and GE describe as “more powerful” than the Gripen’s legacy engine and as a key enabler of increased range and payload [1] [2]. Against rivals, the F414 offers lower peak thrust than twin‑engine fighters such as the Rafale (Safran M88 pair) and Eurofighter Typhoon (twin Eurojet engines) and — according to older comparative reporting — is generally judged to be less fuel‑efficient than the Rafale and Typhoon powerplants, though published, directly comparable specific‑fuel‑consumption figures are not available in the provided reporting [3] [4].
1. The Gripen E’s engine in context: design and manufacturer claims
Saab emphasises that the Gripen E steps up to the GE F414‑GE‑39E, a derivative of a family used widely in Western fighters, and credits the engine’s improved aerodynamics, high‑pressure turbine and cooling flow for greater durability, more airflow than the F404 fan, and increased range without needing afterburner at some high speeds — claims presented by Saab and GE as performance and life‑cycle‑cost advantages [1] [2].
2. Raw thrust comparison: single F414 vs twin rivals
Multiple sources put the F414 for the Gripen E at roughly 22,000 pounds of thrust (lbf), which is markedly lower than the combined output of twin‑engine fighters: one article cites the Rafale’s twin Safran M88s producing about 150 kN (≈33,700 lbf) in afterburner compared with about 98 kN (≈22,000 lbf) for the single F414, and another source gives the Rafale pair at roughly 34,000 lbf combined while the Gripen’s single F414 is around 22,000 lbf; the F‑16 Block 70/72 options (GE F110 or PW229) can deliver up to about 29,000 lbf from a single engine, giving some F‑16 variants higher single‑engine thrust than the Gripen E’s F414 [3] [5] [6]. These comparisons underline that twin‑engine platforms have a raw thrust advantage and larger fighters translate that into heavier payloads and more internal fuel [3].
3. Fuel efficiency: reported judgments and limits of the data
A Jane’s‑based summary cited by reporting long associated the GE F414 family with being “less efficient in specific fuel consumption” than the engines fitted to similar‑sized Rafale and Eurofighter aircraft, and used that as a partial explanation for higher fuel burn in other GE‑engined types [4]. However, the provided sources do not include standardized specific‑fuel‑consumption (SFC) curves or mission‑profile fuel burn numbers for each engine, so a rigorous apples‑to‑apples efficiency ranking across cruise, combat and afterburner conditions cannot be derived from the available reporting; those detailed thermo‑performance tables are absent from the cited material [4].
4. Operational implications: range, payload and life‑cycle tradeoffs
Saab frames the F414’s improvements plus the Gripen E’s increased internal fuel (up to 40% more) as a package that raises range and lowers life‑cycle cost, implying that aircraft‑level design choices (airframe fuel capacity, mission fit) and engine durability can offset lower peak thrust or higher SFC in practice [2]. Opposing viewpoints in the reporting stress that twin‑engine fighters like the Rafale or Typhoon gain more total thrust and often more internal fuel and payload capacity — factors that matter for heavy strike, carrier operations or sustained high‑power flight — and that this can outweigh single‑engine economy in some mission sets [3].
5. Hidden agendas and reporting caveats
Manufacturers’ statements (Saab/GE) naturally emphasize favorable attributes such as durability and range, while comparative pieces and defense commentary sometimes repurpose thrust numbers to argue platform superiority; older industry summaries (Jane’s) caution about uncertain data for some types and point out modelling limits, so many conclusions rest on incomplete or non‑uniform data sets [4]. The public reporting here mixes manufacturer claims, enthusiast blogs and secondary analysis — all useful but insufficient to compute precise SFC rankings or mission fuel burn without primary engine test data or authorized performance charts, which the sources do not provide [1] [7].
6. Bottom line
The Gripen E’s F414 is a modern, more powerful single engine for a light multirole fighter and delivers around 22,000 lbf, but it is outclassed in raw combined thrust by twin‑engine Rafale and Typhoon designs and — per earlier industry analysis — tends to be evaluated as less fuel‑efficient than Rafale and Eurofighter engines; however, Saab argues that engine improvements plus increased internal fuel yield competitive range and lifecycle economics, and the absence of standardized SFC data in the cited reporting prevents a definitive numeric ranking across all flight regimes [1] [2] [3] [4].