Gripen E specific fuel consumption?
Executive summary
The open reporting provided does not contain an authoritative, published specific fuel consumption (SFC) value for the Gripen E or its F414‑GE‑39E engine; Saab and public technical summaries instead describe fuel capacity, supercruise capability and relative efficiency improvements versus predecessor engines [1] [2] [3]. What can be said with confidence from the sources is that SFC for jet fighters is a situational figure (varies with power setting, altitude and afterburner use) and that estimates in open forums exist but are not official Saab/GE data [4] [5].
1. What the sources actually state about Gripen E fuel efficiency
Saab and commercial summaries emphasise improved fuel efficiency through a new, more powerful F414‑GE‑39E engine and design changes that increase internal fuel by about 40%, enabling supercruise without afterburner and extended range — claims repeated in Saab’s technical pages and industry write‑ups [1] [2] [3]. GE promotional material for F414 variants cites design improvements and an Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) that reduces fuel consumption relative to earlier variants by virtue of a larger fan and improved core airflow [6]. Independent reporting cites the Gripen’s low cost‑per‑flight‑hour accounting for fuel advantages among other factors [5].
2. What the sources do not provide: a numerical SFC
None of the supplied Saab, GE or industry briefings in the dataset give a raw specific fuel consumption (SFC or TSFC) number for the F414‑GE‑39E or a published SFC curve for the Gripen E airborne at different regimes, and Jane’s‑derived CPFH data is modeled rather than giving engine SFC coefficients [1] [6] [5]. That absence means there is no authoritative, sourced numeric SFC to cite from the provided material; forum posts and community calculations propose figures but are not primary manufacturer or engine‑test data [4] [7].
3. Forum estimates and how people try to back‑into SFC
Online community threads attempt to infer SFC by combining published fuel loads and thrust figures: examples include a forum calculation that treats an F414 dry thrust and a quoted internal fuel load to derive a time‑to‑exhaust and thereby a back‑calculated TSFC (an example TSFC of “2 lb/(h·lbf)” appears in a community post) — but that post is explicitly a user estimate and debated within the thread for using inconsistent power regimes for the math [4]. Such back‑of‑envelope approaches illustrate the method (fuel mass ÷ (thrust × time) gives a TSFC proxy) but are sensitive to which thrust setting (idle, military power, supercruise, afterburner) is used [4].
4. Why a single SFC number would be misleading
Published material repeatedly notes the Gripen E’s ability to supercruise (sustain supersonic flight without afterburner) and that the F414 variant reduces the need for afterburner at many speeds — operational features that change fuel burn substantially between regimes [1] [8] [2]. Engine SFC is not a single constant: it changes with altitude, Mach number, and throttle; manufacturers typically publish SFC curves for different regimes in technical manuals, which are not present in the provided sources [1] [6].
5. Practical takeaways and how analysts estimate consumption
From the available material the defensible conclusions are: the Gripen E carries roughly 3.4 tonnes (≈7,300–7,500 lb) of internal fuel after the NG/E upgrade and a 40% internal fuel increase is repeatedly reported [2] [3], Saab and GE frame the F414‑E as more fuel‑efficient than prior engines [1] [6], and independent cost studies use modeled fuel burn to rank the Gripen favorably on operating cost [5]. For a verified TSFC value or SFC curves, the necessary primary sources would be GE engine technical data or Saab flight‑test reports; those are not in the documents supplied here.