The Differences Between SAAB GRIPEN and F-35 Fighter Jets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2024
- The Differences Between SAAB GRIPEN and F-35 Fighter Jets
► SIMILAR VIDEOS: • 20 Surprising Facts Ab...
► 10+ Incredible Facts About Sweden's SAAB GRIPEN Fighter Jet: • 10+ Incredible Facts A...
► The United States Military Power: • How Much Power Does US...
• SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/SubscribeFtdFacts
• SUPPORT US! Become A Channel Member: / @ftdfacts
Sweden's SAAB Gripen and America's F-35 fighter jets are compared side by side in the episode.
FOLLOW US:
Leroy Kenton: / ftdonline
Dave Walpole: / dave.r.walpole
Facebook: / ftdonline
Twitter: / ftdonline
#facts #FtdFacts #SaabGripen #FighterJet #AmazingFacts #InterestingFacts #top10 #Airforce #SwedishAirForce
American Stealth Specialist: F-35S radar cross section is no bigger than a flock of birds.
Russian Radar Specialist: Not many supersonic flocks of bird.
They don't appear on radar as birds, they are similarly difficult to detect compared to birds...
While that is true, but there are cruise missiles and artillery shells that could show up on radar with the same signature size as a stealth aircraft.
I don't think you understand how stealth works, though reducing the aircraft signature, it also sends out multi point direction reflection of radar, thus confusing detection radars.
I think yall don't understand how a joke works
@@scrublord3345 Well, maybe the joke wasn't understood because it was stealthy. Or just under the radar.
Gripen för fan
FÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖFAAAAEN
Gripen = JA för fan
Ja fan
Ajjemen!
Absolut! Gripen för i helvete!
**Spottar ut snuset**
I actually have seen a South African Gripen fly over the beach in Onrus in the western cape. It was flying low and was so loud,really impressive aircraft.
The Gripen is a good fit for Canada, fast intercepter that covers a large area.
The biggest question is what role the airplane will have in a combat situation... For a small country witch defend it self then Gripen is the way to go... Smaller, manuverable, and you can have 4 Gripen in the air for en hour for the price of one F35, sure for an offensive role then F35 is the way to go...
@@angelotselentis8770 Canada traditionally won't operate attack missions, defensive sorties only. Also Canada while huge in size is actually small in population, around 35 40 million people. Since the end of world war 2 Canada has concentrated on defense and peace keeping for which we are highly respected by Nato.
I don't think that the U.S would permit to Canada chose the Gripen...
@@guruxara7994 They wouldn't be able to stop us. Having said that, I'm sure lil baby trump would sulk and put a trade embargo on our maple syrup or something stupid like that.
🇨🇦🇨🇦👍
This video is confusing the viewers. There are two versions of Gripen which is very different, almost different fighters. Gripen C/F, which have been in service for many years and Gripen E/F, which will be delivered to the air forces this year. The later is a bigger, faster, stealther and more capable fighter that cost almost as much as F 35 to buy, but a fraction to operate. More than 3/4 of the cost of fighters is operating cost. The range of Gripen E is 4000+ km. F 35 have less. At SAAB they claim GripenE can detect all stealth fighters and drones at sufficient range to kill them. Gripen E, on the other hand, with 360degree AESA, where of firecontrol part have 220 degrees, can hide in the no-detect zone, flying perpendicular to the line between the two airplanes, while guiding the missile. Due to what I know, which not include secret knowledge, Gripen E/F is the best fighter in most scenarios, but F-35 shines in some strike scenarious. Joint STRIKE fighter tell this by it's name too. The slight difference in max veapons load is not important.
I don't believe the "marketing" of Saab to begin with. There are too many people, who claim to be able to detect stealth aircrafts, which don't even had once physical contact with a stealth airframe (most systems are classified anyway)
But interesting that you brought up range: because range doesn't matter in case of any aggressors scenarios. However it (oppose to my previous comment) matters in one scenario, where the Gripen might be rather at the same level of the F-35: air patrolling!
Wait, 360 degrees AESA and 220 degrees fire control? I think both fire control and surveillance coverage are 200 degrees due to the swash-plate AESA.
Anyways that is still way higher than those of previous fighters’ 120 degrees coverage.
Max weapons load isn’t important? So extra fuel, weapons pods, jamming pods and whatever else doesn’t add functionality?
Arne Lidmark Finally someone with some knowledge aboat these two planes , thank you !! I just want to add some things aboat the payload . If the F35 want to remain it's "stealth" , it can only carry it's weapons inside the airframe !! That means it can only use 4 hardpoints compared to the Gripen E's 10 !!! That is a HUGE advantage , and means that the Gripen E/F will ALWAYS win against the F35 (due to Gripen's extremely effective weaponsystems like the Meteor and Irst)
C/D AND E/F YOU MEANT.
I like the gripen, but i am from Sweden so it's not so vierd
Totte H I think neither Americans nor Swedish can be impartial, so let other people talk....
Islamic republic of sweden... hahahaha
*weird
Darko oh... please
The F-35 is a multirole stealth air craft.
The JAS-39 Gripen E is a multirole fighter made to combat stealth air craft.
Well i think the JAS-39 is better.
Gripen got an electronic warfare system which makes it stealth in the sense that it jams radar
Yeah, most modern fighters do. It really is a weapons race.
@@nope-jj1rw true
Stealth is about RCS, jamming is about making it harder for munitions to lock onto your aircraft.
All modern planes have EW.
EW and stealth work in synergy however, so the F-35 does not only have a more powerful EW system since its integrated into the F-35s radar, but it also needs less power to mask itself due to its low RCS.
Nooooo Gripen is not stelth 😂 It is a 4 gen plane therefor not stelth.
*I like Gripen.*
Because US has sold their F16 jet fighter to my country(Indonesia)
but next several year they did embargo
# That is like you offering a Toyota car to me, but next year you don't sale the sparepart( No aftersales service) warranty..
NO WAY.
Its hard to do business with a politically unstable country. Eventually the world will figure this out. Trade deals should be trade deals and not subject to the whim of a new government.
@@ericjakob ..."political unstable" or simply "reckless" ?
Maybe your country was being an asshole. If you're going to be assholes, buy from assholes, like China.
"Stealth technology can be applied later"
NO!
Stealth is not like armour, applying stealth often requires a specially designed fuselage, you cannot simply change the air-frame of a plane entirely in a retrofit.
Also, in terms of armament, adding in armament hard points SIGNIFICANTLY increases the radar cross-section, nullifying the stealth capabilities greatly. Because of this, all fuel and armaments need to be stored internally, adding a further limitation to armament capability outside of just takeoff weight. YES, you can add hard points, but as I have said, it removes a lot of the stealthiness of the plane.
Just a quick point about some minor details.
Agree. The engine is the most difficult thing on an aircraft to hide from radar (think about a big front-facing vertical surface or two with spinning blades giving off tons of heat), and you can't do that without designing the airframe from the first bolt to do that.
@Ex Animus But the new radar technology does not rely on the radar bouncing back, unlike current tech. Radar absorbent skin will, in theory, become far less effective once these new radar systems have been developed. As will most other methods of distributing radar and making the RCS shorter.
Actually now that I am thinking about it, it would make sense to hold back certain modifications. If spied out, not all of your technological edge is gone right away. Pretty silly to reveal all your cards in 'peace' times, your enemy will create counter to everything they see. Therefore, showing off the plane but hiding the exact weaponry and stealth technology could very well be on purpose.
Well why STEALTH?
Gripen E has a RCS lower then 0,1 = STEALTH.
The EW suite is more important...and Gripen E has one of the best EW suites in the world.
Jörgen Persson i believe that the RCS of 0.1m2 is either way false propaganda or just misinformation. No other traditional plane would come close to it (even PakFA had a rumored RCS of 0.5m2).
Further such similarly low radar cross section could only be achieved if the aircraft is naked. I don’t know about Swedish combat pilots- but other air forces prefer to carry some weapons like missiles with their jets. Gone is your small RCS of the Gripen!
Let me also reply to your “new radar technologies”: if you understand only a bit about science (physics), you quickly realize that the Chinese quantum radar and the Russian equivalent are just thought models and aren’t at all real. The pictures of those systems are cheap mock up models which look like the housings of contemporary radars (AESA).
Yes- with advances of signal processing and microprocessing radar becomes more capable. However this applies even more to conventional jets. Hence yes- in future stealth becomes more vulnerable, but traditional systems are becoming close to obsolete in a reasonable defended airspace.
Jamming and electronic warfare is also probably easier to counter- as it is a far more leveled playing field, where anyone made quite some advances (and expect to have a lot of expertise). For example operators of Russian jets (e.g. IAF), usually liberally using jammers and other EW techniques (even in joint exercises)!
Well that was a useless video. Tons of technical inaccuracies, and on top of that you are comparing the old C/D Gripens to the F-35, which in no way are technologically comparable. The Gripen E will be a much closer match, but also has the same acquisition cost of about $85 million USD.
If only research cost of F-35 is so exorbitant than we would have a clear winner, but a trillion for research aren't part of acquisition cost.
I've noticed tons of technical inaccuracies in several of this guys videos. Plus it's obvious he doesn't do his research well enough when he doesn't even know how Lockheed is pronounced. It's not "Lockhead". And you are right, comparing the Gripin to the F35 isn't a fair comparison for either aircraft. And the reason Israel has had problems with the stealth aspect of the F35 is because they always fly with externally mounted armament. This guy really needs to do real research instead of the half ass crap he does.
@@justinnoel6273 well Israel has been flying f35 over Syria and Iran in bombing operations and to kill anti. Aircraft and radar stations and has been extremely effective so far
@@Verpal yes but many countrys are buying f35 witch more than makes up for the cost of development we will be making money off this aircraft for the next 20 to 30 years
@@joshualance6005 didn't say they haven't been effective. Just laughing at them crying about the stealth not working when they have all that external load.
7:07 - The Gripen E \ F that Brazil acquired has a 40% increase in its tanks and can take extra tanks which increases its flight range to 4000 km due to the great extent of its national territory. The combat radius of the Gripen E is 1,230km and the combat radius F-35 is only 1,090km.
7:40 - in terms of the engine, you just forgot to mention that the Gripen E uses the Volvo RM 12 engine which is a version of the General Electric F440 "improved" and that, has "supercruize". Unlike the F-35 in all 3 versions, they use the F-135 Pratt & Whitney engine and the F-136 General Electric and Rolls-Royce which are unable to reach supersonic speed without the use of post-combustion and this does a difference ...
As for the costs of both aircraft ... you can't compare, you can put 6 Gripen E hunting in net for each 1 F-35 in the air.
Supercruising has to do with aerodynamics and the engine intake, not necessarily the engine itself. Consider that the F135 engine makes the same power as 2 F/A18 404 engines added together.
One of the reasons the F18 isn't mach 2 capable is the lack of a variable geometry intake
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 That's why the Gripen E/F is superior to the F-35A and F/A-18 in many (most) ways hahaha
@@erikdavidantonio5368 supercruise is useful, but it doesn't make or break an aircraft. Especially if you can't see it on radar while it has lock on you. Mach 2 was a requirement in old jets because air to air missiles had limited range and reliability, not anymore
I think you should check the engines again, RM12 used in the 39 A-D is the modified F-404 we re-exported to GE to become their latest iteration, while the 39 E/F uses a different one.
So many falsehoods in your post...
1. Gripen E only gets 1 230 km combat radius when it pretty much forgoes all weaponry in favor of fuel tanks. F-35 has nearly the same combat radius on internal fuel alone.
2. Gripen E can't supercruise whatsoever.
3. Gripen E is actually more expensive than F-35.
Main advantage of Gripen that is often overlooked is that it does not need AWACS. Once one Gripen detects a signal, the others see it too.
Gripen is mainly designed to fit Swedens needs: fly out over the baltic sea and shoot down Migs. It would do that pretty well, especially after recently being fitted with Meteor.
@Noomis Ipad the meteor is PLANNED but not operational for the F35 the Gripen was the first to fly with it and is mission ready.
@Noomis Ipad" ...and your budget"! Shoot down russkis to a better price.
JAS-39 most certainly needs AWACS because its own sensors are too weak. Hence why SAAB had to include two Globaleyes in the Finnish tender to even make the plane competitive (and it still lost).
F-35 is the only plane that does not "need" AWACS in the strict sense.
@@grahamdrew5512 The Meteor is also PLANNED but not operational for the JAS-39E, which only testfired it in June 2022. It is only operational on the JAS-39C, which is limited by its lack of AESA radar. You need to stop drinking SAABs marketing bullshit. Half the stuff SAAB claims JAS-39E can do are nothing but plans and ideas, not actually operational abilities.
Sincerely, a Swede.
@@johanlassen6448 so it just needs some electornics update. It's easier to maintain, cheaper and more reliable than F-35. It's like ~C8 ZO6 vs SF-90
I like the Gripen, cause it is more economical to operate and its been around so the bugs have been worked out. 💪🏽🇸🇪
Do you mean Ergonomic?
@@noway6633 No, economical it's way cheaper to run and produce than the F-35
@@noway6633 erginomic means smoother, or easier to use
It depends what dose a military need overall the F-35 is superior but in certain cases such as WVR or economics the SAAB exceeds the F-35 in leaps and bounds.
Chicken Dynamite the suicide bomber That’s what the f16 is for
The NG and E are the same aircraft... Also, it's hardly just a "fuel capacity and more armaments" improvement from the C, it's pretty much an entirely different aircraft...
Rasmus Johansson I totally agree with you !!!
Yea the E is larger, and it's new Electronic warfare suite is crazy
Yep.
So much americans biased against this great aircraft...
The planes dimensions are even fully diffrent. From C/D - E/F
As an affordable all rounder the gripen is awesome. The F35 seems more dedicated to ground strike and is super expensive.
The gripen is more expensive than the f35A if you consider per unit costs.
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 if you look at the deployed cost from Australia. 17 billion for 72 airframes, this does not seem to be true. I understand the wiki quotes a very low unit price for F35, but this does not appear to be true.
@@greybuckleton those procurement costs include trainning, maintenance équipement, etc
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 but those things are needed to field the platform. So if you want to fly the F35 it's going to cost over 236m each. Australia already had a large airforce of American aircraft, so it not like they were building capabilities from scratch. The Czech Republic was offered 24 Grippens for 1.8 billion or 75 million each, so the price to deploy Grippen is much lower. The running costs are also very important and again F35 is apparently very expensive whilst the Grippen is very cheap.
@@greybuckleton Canada makes money off the F35 program. They build parts, it's part of the whole point of being a part of the program is that we all make some money off each other to offset running costs
I’ve been watching news and reading everything I can on fighters that Canada is considering and I would be going with the Gripen . I look at the speed of the aircraft and cost to run. I also think it’s time not to purchase from the US every time we purchase aircraft.
...and still you did. Politics stinks.
The grippen didn’t kill the f-35 of once in trials because it can’t detect it, the Americans used this as a chance to show off the aim-260 JATM which acts almost as an air-air ballistic missile by flying high in the atmosphere and dive bombing targets.
Read the results of the test program ffs, the RCAF found that the f-35 had better sensors, jammers, weapon options, survivability and MANOEUVRABLITY.
But how can the turkey out turn the grippen? It sucks at dog-fighting? Simple, it has the f-18s wing design which gives it one of the best nose turning abilities at all ranges while also having a engine twice as powerful meaning you’re never out of speed or a sitting duck.
And it can turn better, in fact, the RCAF found that the grippen had to have no missiles bombs or fuel tanks to even have a chance, how? Turns out that carrying weapons internally removes the drag they have meaning a combat loaded f-35 can still reach its top speed and maximum turn rate while the grippen would be ripped in half while attempting those manoeuvres combat loaded due to drag.
The f-35 can do it all, jamming, dogfighting, SEAD and DEAD, BVR missile fights, deep penatration bombing, and anti shipping missions.
There is no field in which the grippen beats the f-35, at international war games it has a 28:1 kill ration when fighting jets backed by AWACS and SAM’s.
And the grippen is more expensive per unit! An f-35a is predicted to cost 75 million by 2026 when it gets delivered, the Grippen will remain 100 million dollars it may be more expensive to operate but it’s not going to cost more overall.
And while you grippen fans may live to talk about how the f-35 sucks at cold weather I say it’s been deployed to Alaska for months on end, with no issues.
And there is no point in talking about the grippen jamming abilities as the f-35s barracuda electronic warfare suite can selectively jam any radar it detects, and you can’t detect it’s radar due to the AESA nitride-cooled radar.
There is no winning, f-35s have faced j-20s over the SCS and sent them running in fear of losing some of their only operational 5th gens.
The f-35 I’d to the grippen what the grippen is to the f-4 and the harrier.
I think Matsimus did a good video about how these two fighters could complement each other really well in an airforce like Canadas and should be bought together
Bald Zeus link plz I am so willing to watch that. Too bad RUclips demonetized his channel :(
@@thomaszhang3101 You know, I looked for it but couldn't find it anymore. Maybe he removed it? It's too bad because I liked the video
@@Bald_Zeus No , it's still there !! Just search for Matsimus Gripen !!
@@jontus9925 I still can't find it!
@@Bald_Zeus Sorry , I just checked and it's gone ! Crazy , I really liked that vid and Matsimus !!!
First off bro, you need to ELIMINATE the Gripens A-D variants all together; reason being that they're all 20th century birds that will be extinct soon. The GRIPEN-E is a completely new generation bird that was commissioned in 2011 & made it's maiden flight in 2017. In other words the previous generation Gripens CANNOT be upgraded to become a Gripen-E; they are in essence apples and oranges period. Suffice it to say then, that you comparisons should be between the F-35 Lightning ii & the Saab GRIPEN-E exclusively. Understood?
So true
Another reason not to buy a ton for them. The F35 is an airplane for those few nations that want to be able to ATTACK other nations with unannounced surprise attacks, thus violating their sovereignity. If you just want to defend yourself against attacks, and only retaliate if and when war has actually been declared, a superior number of Saab Gripen airplanes on the same budget would in all cases be preferrable. For any nation that does not firstly have nuclear weapons or nerve-gas-cluster-bombs and secondly is ready to use them in a surprise first-strike attack the F35 is basically a white elephant, it's like gold-plating your guns. Unless you are India, Israel, or a NATO-country the F35 is overkill and not worth its price.
@KunTao Lai Lai if everything is classified, then how do you know about it? i mean if a random guy can spread top secret information on youtube, then it's not really a secret...
Gripen E is so badass
KunTao Lai Lai, I did a book report on the night hawk back 8n high school (1991), the first have blues flew in 1973! That’s not state secrets...
11:47
“I’m like man the subgroup” Let me help you out bro “I’m like man the SAAB Gripen” //Best regards Sweden 🇸🇪
Gripen favorite. Agilidade, velocidade, alta tecnologia, data link de ULTIMA geração por um baixo custo. Perfect
Muita confiança para um jato de um fabricante que nunca teve um caça em combate.
You forgot Australia and I’m pretty sure Austria doesn’t have f35s so I’m really hoping you didn’t mix up Australia for Austria cause that’s like me mixing up Canada with Czechoslovakia
Yeah Astralia.I get this feeling of deja vu, it's the F111 all over again, horrendously expensive and inferior to other available planes (TSR2). As for stealth technllogy, the Gripen has radar masking capabilities. One aspect that was not addressed was the operational turnaround. The Gripen can land refuel, rearm and carry out systems checks a d be airborne in 10 minutes while the F35 takes significantly longer, hours even, meaning the Gripen can spend much more time in the air. Another factor is that the Gripen upgrades are software not hardware, and can be carried out in minutes, not hours or days. I believe that the RAAF would be better served by cancelling its order for the remaining F35's and placing an order for a greater number of Gripens.
Alan Read too late for that we’ve been investing in the f35 since the early 2000s but f111 was a very good aircraft while still very expensive it still gave us capabilities that others in the surrounding area didn’t have particularly Indonesia
@@alanread5578 what a load of crap, the TSR 2 was only ever a Prototype that never entered service. Yes the F111 had early problems but in the end turned into a superb Aircraft and was the only Aircraft in its class so i dont know what other planes ylou could be talking about
The F111 had twice the range with twice the Payload of Aircraft like the F4 and Tornado.
@@Harldin To Michael Coote,
Sure the TSR2 never actually made it into full production, but not for the reason that you imply. It was a far superior aircraft technically than the F111, but production was halted largely because the Australian government was 'coerced' into buying the F111 by the US government, and the UK government decided, against the recommendations of the RAF, that without that expected order, they wouldn't, not couldn't proceed with production, and that all planes already built should be scrapped.
What czechoslovakia? It doesn’t exist... only Czech Rep. and Slovakia exist.
I'm guessing that you promised your Mom that you would get a job and this video is the result.
Brootal execution. Cracked me up.
Did he hurt your feelings?
kevin augustsson No, but he waisted me time and I am getting older each day.
@@RKnVa I'm sorry to hear that
kevin augustsson I think I’ll be okay.
Saab Grippen by the new modell E is now by far superior in most aspects except payload.
That said you can have 2,5 Saab Grippen for the same price so as said superior
As mentioned earlier the F35 under full payload must carry outside ordinance and with that good by stealth.
What is most amazing imo? Sweden is a nation of 'only' 10 million people who produce some of the finest machines on Planet Earth.
Exakt ;-)
@@gbgtompa see this before but this does not really understand his subject. for example when he talks of weapons load he ignores the fact at the load he discusses the F35 is no longer stealth because much of the ordinance has to be carried externally. If only internal load is considered its load isn't that much bigger than the Grippens. He also seems unaware of the massive upgrade to the E in electronics and radar. He is also incorrect about the engine of the E which a more powerful GE engine with 20% more power if I remember correctly. There other issues since some claim the E to be partially stealth. The is also plane to plane integration on the F35 along with other capabilities. Personally I am suspicious about how long stealth will be useful although at present there is not doubt a serious advantage, on the other hand if compromised the F35 has made a load of concessions in order to get it.
Superior to the F-35? No.
The Gripen can't attain a radar track on the F-35 (front aspect) until a range of 22nmi. At this range, the Gripen is well within the 32nmi No-Escape-Zone of the F-35's AIM-120 Ds.
Using Skyward G IRST, the Gripen can detect the F-35 out to maybe as far as 100nmi, and fire MICA IR guided missiles at it at 43nmi. But that's outside the NEZ and the F-35 can defend against it. The NEZ of MICA is around 18nmi, again, compared to 32nmi of the AIM-120D. Also while using pure IR for situational awareness, the Gripen has no idea of the distance to the target, and thus doesn't know if its inside the enemy NEZ. The Gripen has an advantage in WVR combat, due to its higher turn rate, smaller turn radius and superior IRIS-T missiles, (thrust to weight ratios are similar and depend on fuel load at that instant) but the chances of it getting that close are pretty slim.
I love the Gripen. It's the best dog fighter out there IMO. It's more than capable of taking on other 4th gen jets like F-16s and, Su-27's and hold its own. It could even stand a chance against the Eurofighter. It's a great match up against most jets, just not the F-35. The F-35 is bested only by the F-22. It's far more capable than any 4th gen jet. But against most targets, it's overkill. Probably makes more sense in most situations to spend that money on a larger fleet of Gripens.
The Gripen NG was later changed to gripen E/F, where the F is a two-seated E. F was NOT made specifically for Brazil!!
The F version was, the Swedish airforce had zero interest in an F model as they already had a D model and we only use those as trainers. But now when the F version exists it can, of course, be sold to anybody that wants it.
@@kjelllindberg6987 Ok, didn't know that, thanks!
The F model will be the best for the EWS/Wild weasel not just trainers...They can put the Recce Pod on with extra jamming pods and make it similar in function to the Growler only better...
I'd invest in the Grippen and invest the difference into UAV, autonomous drones and telepresence operated drones and planes. The days of risking pilots lives in the planes themselves are coming to a close and Canada tends to hold onto military equipment far too long so moderating the investment in piloted fighters would be wise.
Basically a good Idea, where it not that the F35 is made to integrate drones and there abilities.
The Grippen is, although capable now, soon like F5 and F16 obsolete.
To have a better comparison, look at your neighbors.
If you are Brazil, the apex predator of South America, go Grippen, nobody can challenge you.
If you are one of the Balkan, like Latvia, next to former USSR Russia, go broke on F35 AND drones.
I know this comment is 3 years younger than your post, But with the Russia-Ukraine war now unfolding It is very relevant.
And apparently, most countries are now choosing F35 over anything else.
@@hendrikmoons8218 I think the point is that the Grippen would be far less expensive hence there may be more funds available for long duration drones which of course are proving their worth in this most recent conflict regardless of interoperability between fighters and drones and though Canada is across the Arctic from Russia, it's hardly under the same threat as the European border states. Of course this is moot as the CF-35's appear to be the choice.
The US, China, Europe, and Russia. All think that true drone aerial warfare will be a dream until the 2090’s.
Next gen fighters will use datalink (which the f-35 has over all over jets) to control loyal wingmen but these will act as stealthy extra missile carriers with perhaps bombs or maybe allow for refuelling.
But the age of manned fighters has some 70 years at least
I'm on f-35's side
I think it's a little bit similar to comparing various approaches when it comes to other weapons. Like the Sherman tank vs the Tiger tank in WWII. The Tiger was a better performing tank from individual perspective, but the Sherman made up that with numbers and operational cost.
Also realize that maintainability and turnaround time on the ground between missions is a very important factor. The Gripen was designed originally to be serviced by conscripts on the ground, which is important from the perspective of keeping the units in the air.
Yeah. With the F-35 being like the Tiger, not the Sherman or the T-34. In the end, the F-35 will be better like the King Tiger beat the Sherman, however in the meantime it wastes huge amounts of money which could also have been invested in infrastructure,...
Sherman was the better performing tank...
And I fail to see the comparison. The F-35 is not only far superior in performance, but has a much clearer and more secure upgrade path, has more room for upgrades, is properly funded and logistically secure all while costing the same or even less.
You guys need to stop buying into the hype of the "exotic less known aircraft". JAS-39E is a failed project.
Sincerely, a Swede.
Canada should make its own 5or 6TH fighter. they have the technology in areospace and AI
Saab has offered to give Canada the technology to make it completely their own fighter
UK is trying that rn
No it doesn't. The last Canadian aircraft designed and built was the Challenger, and it almost broke Bombardier. The capability is gone.
F35: Im stealthy
AAM with optical sensor: *Allow me to introduce myself*
Lol ya
But are you comparing the Gripen D with f35? Shouldn't you be using the Gripen E? If so, then the engine is the ge 414, not the volvo.
Why compare the old version of the Gripen?? Compare our new Gripen E (Next generation) wich has nothing but the looks with the old A B and C:s. The new one is way larger, faster , higher payload, extremely low radarshadow, smarter!!!
Because its not in service yet
Sorry - but the difference in RCS between the Gripen and a F-35 is significant. The Gripen is RCS reduced, due to its composite materials. It still shines (in radars) like a lighthouse - especially when it carries any weapon (the purpose of a combat plane???).
@@Dominikmj Didn't know golfballs glow like lighthouses..
Besides that, the new radar on Gripen Next Generation had no problem finding the F-35, we saw that in Trident Juncture earlier this autumn towards norwegian F-35:s.
@@Dominikmj Have you heard of Electronic Warfare ???
@@jasonjones6328 Gripen E is actually in service now in limited numbers.
Gripen: perfect QRF aircraft
F-35: technically, you can’t hit me if I don’t exist in your radar, even though you can see me with your own eyes
hmm wht about infrared guidance missiles
@@huzaifahmulla3947 so you’re firing IR missiles blindly? Hoping it finds something to hit? Lol
Gripen: GUN TIME
The JAS 39E and F variants under development are to adopt the F414G powerplant, a variant of the General Electric F414. The F414G can produce 20% greater thrust than the current RM12 engine, enabling the Gripen to supercruise (maintain speed beyond the sound barrier without the use of afterburners) at a speed of Mach 1.1 while carrying an air-to-air combat payload. In 2010, Volvo Aero stated it was capable of further developing its RM12 engine to better match the performance of the F414G, and claimed that developing the RM12 would be a less expensive option. Prior to Saab's selection of the F414G, the Eurojet EJ200 had also been under consideration for the Gripen; proposed implementations included the use of thrust vectoring.
1. Gripen E can't supercruise even with F414G. Not even the lighter Gripen NG (prototype variant) using the same engine could supercruise.
2. Gripen NG was the plane that could do Mach 1.1 with air-to-air combat payload. It also only reached Mach 1.1 with afterburner, then maintained it with milpower. That is not supercruise, because supercruise requires a plane to be able to REACH supersonic speed (Mach 1.3+ BTW, as Mach 1.1-1.2 is transonic). Gripen E is a full ton heavier than Gripen NG while using the same engine. So if Gripen NG could not supercruise, then neither can Gripen E. Hence why SAAB dropped that piece of marketing BS in recent years.
3. Volvo Aero makes a lot of statements but none of them have come to fruition.
I’m probably biased when I say that I prefer Gripen, because I am a swede
Nah, it's actually better... so...
It's an excellent low cost alternative. A very capable aircraft and certainly worthy of respect. Sadly this video, like many fails to compare properly. In a wartime config , meaning while carrying fuel, weapons and so on, the top speeds and maneuverability of both aircraft are misrepresented here. The F35 is not the slug some would have us believe, sadly not is the gripen as fast or agile while carrying stores. You don't go to war at quarter fuel not carrying weapons.
You would be most the patriotic dumbasses that frequent the net.
Sure.
hydralic circuits? and cant pronounce lockheed? ,dude knows nothing about airplanes
Yeah what's that? I thought that maybe he meant electric servos as opposed to hydraulic?
I was skeptical of this comment and then I agreed later on. Max takeoff weight does not tell you if an aircraft can carry more. It's the difference between empty and max takeoff.
Edit 1: And he calls the fuel tanks, fuel containers
Edit 2: And he is just doing top trumps
@@neovo903 it is basically a pointless comparison (even though I think he is making a serious try)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_circuit
As soon as I heard him say lockhead Martin I said to myself," I'm sure this guy knows his stuff."
F-35A has dropped to 75 million per unit. Below even the projected drop. Sources vary because of the dates when they were written. These two fighters are tied for my favorite, so I don't mean to sway away from Gripen. I do, however, want to update this information to show the promising future for the F-35.
The gripen is much better for smaller countries with smaller military budgets
It's better for any country, the F-35 isn't viable in real warfare situations, it is too expansive to operate and to maintain... And also has a lot of restrictions from the US government...
@Guru Xara correct, The f35 only works for USA because they have the correct arsenal to operate it properly.
@@augustinomoedu1711 Exactly.
@@guruxara7994 what restrictions are you talking about?
@@sivonparansun I would assume, political restriction. Once you join the program you are more or less expected to unquestionably side with the US. Which make sense considering that it is the US that selling the plane, but many countries would prefer to remain diplomatically autonomous
Austria's next fighter. Should've been in the first place
The Gripen F is NOT a special version for the Brazilian airforce. The F model is the two seater version of the Gripen E (also known as Gripen NG).
The special version to Brazilian Air force is gripen E
@@DanLomonaco Gripen E is not "special" for the Brazilian air force. It's the production model of the Gripen NG.
Needs a 2 engine model for the gripen aka SUPER GRIPEN
I hear the gripen everyday and its sonds like a monster😬
I hear the MIG 21 BISON everyday and sometimes it sounds very horrible 😂😎🙌
2:40 You made a pretty big mistake here... You said "Austria" instead of "Australia". Austria can't even afford to keep their 15 Eurofighter Typhoons up in the air so I highly doubt that we can afford the F35 ;-)
The Gripen would definitely be easier to build becausde they come in a flat pack and you put them together with just one Allen Key. ;-)
Clint Crout
That why it is soo cheap to maintain 👍🏻
Greetings -/ Ikea
This guys smoked a joint right before he started video look at his eyez 😳
For sure
Purple Hazzzze
We have this one here in Brazil now !
The F35A is the standard takeoff and landing version for the Air Force. The F35B is the STOVL or short take off & vertical landing for the Marines. The F35C has bigger wings and tail surfaces for added fuel at sea and more control for carrier landings for the Navy.
C model also has significantly heavier landing gear, dual nose wheel for catapult launch, a heavier tail hook, and folding wings,
... standard vertical* take-off and landing version (ALL airplanes do take-off and land) ...
@@einundsiebenziger5488
Not vertical takeoff, vertical landing by the B version. It does a short takeoff. A version takes off from land, B model takes of from a smaller carrier, C model is catapult launched from a large carrier. The 3 variants of the F35 takeoff and land in different ways.
Why did you compare their ferry ranges and not specific combat ranges like air to air? In that the F-35A has a range of 1407 kms, the Gripen E has a range of 900 kms, that's a pretty massive difference, you clearly used Wikipedia for this, since many "specs" you list are directly from there, so I looked at the article itself, and this information on different combat ranges is there as well.
So either you only skimmed the article if at all, and didn't actually research the fighters themselves, or you're misleading your audience intentionally by cherry picking specs to favor the aircraft you have a bias for.
You also don't bother going into air to ground capabilities either, since this is a video comparing multi-role fighters, I would imagine that would be very important.
Gripen has a 1500km combat range though, not 900. And a total range of 4000km. He is not even comparing using the new version lol.
@@Mrsuperdestroyer Wrong, for air to air the JAS-39E has a range of 900 kms, you are talking about air to ground missions.
@@Mrsuperdestroyer aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
Sources fail to state what configuration the aircraft was using to achieve a combat radius of 900 nm. Such undefined stats are useless in a comparison. The Gripen E holds 7500 pounds of fuel. The F-35A holds 18,498 pounds of fuel. The Gripen aerodynamic performance significantly drops with an external payload. To say the Gripen E has any sort of range advantage is nonsense of the highest caliber. The only way that aircraft can fly farther than an F-35A is with external fuel tanks.
@@Nine-TailedFox4 You're right the sources doesn't really suggest what the air configuration is exactly, it only says "Combat Air Patrol" I think in order to find out exactly what that entails we have to look at other Gripens configurations they could mean something like 4 Meteors, 2 AIM-2000As(IRIS-T), and 1 EFT, or 2 Meteors, 2 AIM-2000As, and 3 EFTs. I guess I'm only speculating and looking at images of other Gripens typical loadouts.
However, 900 kms is what I keep seeing anytime I look for it for air combat ranges.
"Lockhead Martin" instead of Lockheed Martin - LOL
I kind of like the $60,000,000 Saab all weather multi-role hatchback
"Lock-head"?!?!?! It's "LockHEED"
Yes you righ boi
He's half correct - it's Loughead originally was changed probably easier to say by Americans, it's a name common here in Scotland pronounced Loch-Heed. ruclips.net/video/dRiWBRS3OC8/видео.html
Also, he said Saab griPPen, it's pronounced GrEEpen (but I'll give him a pass there because the Swedish language is hard)
Israel never said they felt stealth would be defeated in 5 to 10 years, what they said they are planning that it could be, going forward from there. Even if stealth is detected, to target stealth is a whole different set of problems.
I wonder what the wing load is for the two in a slow, low altitude, tight turn?
Saab all the way👊🏾👌🏾, plus they’ll be built here. Then collaborate on the twin engine Gripen Arrow 🤔💪🏾!
Come on Canada 🇨🇦
🇨🇦👍
HHMMMMM l like it :)
Better still Canada is one of the leading countries for software and AI. We could upgrade software to make the same a/c much more effective.
Looking at the three aircraft Canada was concidering , F-35. Gripen and Hornet I like the Gtipen and the Hornet, Countries with smaller budgets need to get the most number of aircraft for the dollars. Wr went with the Hornet before for its two engines for reliability flying over our north but as engines are better now the Gripen would probably do fine.
I‘m from Switzerland and we are looking forward bying the Grippen
Don't buy gripen... Go for JF-17 Thunder of pakistan as it can act like 6th generation fightet jet.
@@AvinashKumar-je5kw hell no the jf 17 is garbage compared to the gripen
@@cryo4042 JF-17 is the only fighter aircraft in the world which has space technology. It's a 6th generation aircraft. It can carry big atomic bombs even F-35 is the copy of JF-17. New jf-17 block III will be able to fly in the space also and It would have egle eye camra which can see underground things also.
JF-17 is made in Pakistan which the most developed nation in the Science and Technology.
So go for JF-17
@@AvinashKumar-je5kw no it's not ,,,Pakistan is a shit hole ,,
Really? Switzerland is another major operator of the Hornet F/A-18s just like Finland, and I think the Finnish are getting F-35s instead
Just a little correction, even tho the Gripen 39 its a really good fighter in terms of quality-price, Argentina is not interested on it due to the fact it has British parts in its fuselage and wings, so that would make it impossible for us to buy it due to British embargoes.
What is this thing about British-Argentina?
@@rrsharizam falklands
@@rrsharizam Falklands
Gripen better...she’s my waifu
Mah dude haha
Who doesn't like a cheap waifu :)
the new saab gripen 2019 is best haha :)
You left out super cruise with out afterburners.
The Gripen E/F Don´t has The Volvo Engine it has the General Electric F414 engine!
No. Volvo has the licences to make this Engine in the Sweden. Volvo improved in 20% this engine power, then its not the same turbo fan.
When comparing performances (speed, service ceiling, etc), you need to consider weapon loads. Gripen carries them externally and will drag down the performance, while F-35 carries them internally.
Also, you need to consider that other countries also are developing stealth fighters. Lightning II has better chance against Russian PAK FA than Gripen.
the huge drag and wing load differences are why even with twice the power the F35 can't beat mach 1.6 The euro canards are so much more efficient and slick they can go mach 2 using less power and a LOT less gas. MTOW is a better metric for bombers like the F35 and Speed and sustained turn are for interceptors...Canada is looking for an interceptor that can drop bombs when needed not a bomber that can't get to the intercept quickly. Gripen carries a bigger loadout unless the F35 uses it's pylons and gives away all stealth. So as per SOPs bombers fly at sub mach and that is fine but Interceptors need SPEED. the F35 is a brick. MTOW for the Gripen is plenty good enough and it can do it all on a shorter runway.
Hmm.. this is like treating a 1995 Ford Fiesta and a 2018 Ford Fiesta as the same car "only upgraded"...
Not a great example. To me a Ford is a Ford after 3 or 4 years. If you want anything that lasts longer you'd better go Japanese.
The main problems with this video are 1: Conflates or "averages together" the Gripen C/D and the Gripen E/F. This just doesn't work, it throws everything off, such as giving the lower costs of the C and the claimed abilities of the E. 2: Makes no mention of sensor fusion. 3: Equates the nations that are "interested" in the Gripen with the nations that have actually bought the F35. 4: Uses poor judgement in its comparisons, such as comparing ferry range instead of combat radius. There are other issues, but these are the main ones.
Forgot to mention the vast difference in detection range between the 2. 180 miles v 40 miles. The huge difference in payload capability and the fact that the F-35 keeps most of its weapons inside and not hanging from the wings which is why it is so stealthy. A ton of surfaces for radar to bounce off of aka missles mounted under the wing hurts most fighters for this reason. Another missed point...the F-35 can carry a massive nuke inside and the SAAB is not nuke capable.
If a nuke is needed...Who cares about planes :-D Russians already got radars that can detect "stealth"-planes & same mistake again, calling this flying whale a fighter as any airshow-video shows a plane that is completly out of energy after 1 high-g manouver...To big to fail
@@ChipMIK It is not a fighter. It is a Fighter Bomber and believing that dog fighting is the future is the mistake of the narrow minded. Fast fighters with less abilities is the dino past. If planes get within 10 miles it will be an anomaly, not the norm. Versatility and variety of roles available within each platform is the high tech future. Overall uses with support craft and tech is the future.
@@googletaqiyya184 Så anything within 10 miles at night or with clouds in the area you just shoot out of the sky in a crisis-area like near the iraninan border (as an example of current crisis-places in the world of today. )
Yes and you forgot to mention that Gripen e has the best EW suite built on GaN technology...and way better payload.
F35 can only carry 5700lb or 2600 kg internally....that´s too little to be effective.. .
Soo F35 can carry a nuke??..thats´good ...or???
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc GaN är närmast standard idag på moderna system.
EW på Gripen E är långt ifrån det system som finns på F35.
Om man ska ha samma räckvidd så tar F35 mer vapenlast jämfört med Gripen E då det flygplanet måste ta stor extern bränslemängd och att man har en maxkapacitet på vikt som kan hängas under flygplanet - det har jag förklarat för dig flera gånger tidigare.
our Gripen F here in Brazil is really beast and since it's so cheap i'd say it's the best bang for your buck but i'd love to see us acquire a few F35s as well...
How is the Gripen on deployment? Oh, it never deployed? That's great.
@@PappyGunn thankfully it never needed to be deployed by us, hopefully that will be the case for years to come
The F-35 is for countries who want superior planes and are willing to deal with the cost and some quirks and bugs.
The Gripen is for countries who are more budget oriented and want a capable plane for cheap.
Both are great planes. Personally I’d choose an F-35, but the Gripen is definitely a formidable aircraft.
SAAB's software techonolgy is by far better than Lockheed. I can fucking guarantee it as a Swede.
Lockheed is just overpriced after watching this video.
I personally couldn't agree more!
I believe its pronounced LockHEED, and ArMaments, and 1,988 mi is for sure not 320,000 km.
F35-C has larger wings which is “helpful for going after ground targets”
🤦♂️
🤦♂️
This is embarrassing.........Did he say “fuel containers” 🤦♂️
I was just about to comment on exactly the same thing. Going slow has absolutely ZERO role to play in it's ground attack capabilities. This dude should stick to Top 10 celebrity haircut videos and stay away from aircraft........
@@PhillMagGamerDad True
@@PhillMagGamerDad agreed. The only advantage is loiter time, low speed means less fuel burn and it can help with CAS and COIN operations utelizi g the 25mic. Not that I see this aircraft performing A10 like gun runs all that often.
Jody makes videos lol.
I giggled also at the recurring pronunciation of "arnaments" instead of armament. Had to stop watching. At least he didn't call it "ordinance" instead of "ordnance".
It seems like most people miss the point of the f35. It's not intended to be a dog fighter.
Is any plane nowadays? As far as I know basically any plane is mainly equipped for "Beyond Horizon Engagements" and the dogfighting capabileties are just an afterthought
It's better to be better at Dogfighting then long range cause a agile jet can dodge long range missiles and get close to kill the slower less agile F-35.
@@forzaisspeed You can't "dodge" missiles. Tactics are what beat missiles, but good tactics come from good information systems, and the F-35 easily outdoes every other modern fighter in that regard.
@@dumdumbinks274
1st you can dodge missiles.
2nd the F-35 is not that agile and its to slow to help with dodging them.
@@forzaisspeed
1. Explain how you're going to dodge a missile that can pull 60Gs when you can only pull 15Gs at most assuming you are in incredibly good shape.
2. The F-35 is more maneuverable than the F-16.
It's pronounced "lock heeed" as a fellow Canadian I do expect you to get it right.
Do head you mean😎
🇨🇦👍
i don't know how are you comparing these two together? the f35 supposed to be used on such way that the gripen is not, if you put them in a dog fight, the gripen would win easy, yet the scenario where the f35 is used, the gripen would not even see the f35 coming!
you can compare the grepen to an f16, not the f35.
@M ZAKRIA it takes someone who is really interested in modern warfare to understand 🙄
www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8a66ta/out_of_the_shadows_rnlaf_experiences_with_the/
For Dutch F-35 Block 3F, "F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range manoeuvring'".
F-35A fights like a Hornet with a turbo.
@@TheSilvax Your dogfight comment is not neccisarily true. That goes to pilot skill mostly but the f 35 has some serious advantages over the gripen. I mean serious ones. First would be missiles but comparing what the aim 9x can do is just mean. You know this really hard to explain i really don't feel like typing all this out. Lets just the more likely scenerio is the f 35 will beat it in almost every way having said it will end up in mutual kill. They will kill eachother. An f35 can fire at an air target behind it.
@@brandonstrife9738 Will, even if it ended up in a mutual kill for both it is not a mutual loss situation, losing such sophisticated aircraft for a gripen which you can replace and might even have many of, over expensive f35 that you might have few for special tasks, would be a strategic failure.
what I mean, that on the drawing table, the designers of the F35 did not mean to have a dog fight capable aircraft, such an aircraft would have to be more visible to the radar, instead it has to be stealth, and can detect and aim at more targets and for much more destances than the other pilots can see, its like a sniper of some sort!
The Gripin being more agile can dodge long range missiles from the F-35 the slower bad tuning F-35 does not stand a chance with the Gripin long range or dogfight.
Please do Sukoi Su 57 vs F-22 Raptor. Knowing you won’t be bias *cough* Infographic Show *cough* 👍
Bernard Elmargi The SU-57 project is practically cancled at this point.
The difference between the F35 and the SAAB Gripen is that the 5th gen F35 always wins fighter competitions when its pitched against the 4.5 gen Gripen. People that fly 5th gen fighters know exactly why.
Yeah the Gripen has such a bright future as a platform that Sweden signed up for the Tempest program. That's pretty much all you need to know if you're in the market for a fighter for the next 50 years. Like Canada.
"Theres tons of countries currently interested in buying the saab gripen" yeah every single country currently forced to buy u.s planes at ridiculous prices and deal with all their bullshit and munition and parts shortages that come with it. You dont simply buy a plane from the U.S. You have to pay the huge cost to buy one and than basically agree to become a Pro U.S franchisee at all costs or else you dont get no more parts or munitions. fuck I'd rather have 200 old mig29's and be free to do what I want than have 75 f35's be broke as fuck and have a U.S noose around my neck.
dutch dettweiler its free real estate
dutch dettweiler agree
Who tf asked?
TGC_Ghost its a comment section u are suppose to write things
TGC_Ghost plus its about the video
The information concerning the versions of Gripen is somewhat wrong here.
C/D are the single seat- and twin seat versions dating to the 90s. This is the currently operational flavor of Gripen
E/F are quite significantly improved versions. To the point that it's almost a different aircraft. The airframe is different, the engine is different, the avionics are completely new, the sensors are completely new, weapons hardpoints have moved and their number has increased, the plane has improved speed, combat radius, fuel capacity and thrust to weight ratio.
The question that really is worth posing is if Gripen E/F is better or equal to F35. It is quite obvious that the C/D version is soundly beaten by F35, even if you believe the most fierce F35 critics.
To the reasonable question (Could Gripen E be equal or superior to F35) the answer is almost certainly that nobody knows.
Neither craft has any revealing flaws and it comes to the fact that how modern air combat between two technically advanced nations would turn out is not known.
What you can say is that with Gripen the armament matters a bit more. It is a non-stealth fighter, so regardless how effective your stealth is, Gripen wants to stay further away from the enemy. What this means in practice is that you want advanced radar and good BVR missiles. As a matter of fact Gripen has these, in the form of Meteor missile, which appears to be worth the hype it has gathered.
A stealth fighter relies more on being able to sneak closer to the enemy and launching a relatively more mundane weapon against them. An AIM-120 AMRAAM in this case. Being stealthy also comes with the drawback of having smaller weapons capacity and relying on passive sensors for detection.
It's amazing to read all this technical information about these aircraft. I had no idea that there were so many people out there who are fighter pilots and are sharing their intimate knowledge on the subject. All those opinions based on such wide experience of actual hands on skills and design . To be able to have all that knowledge and share it with us . I once sat in the cockpit of an F16 for about 10 minutes but that doesn't make me a technical expert by any means.
I wrote similiar thing above, the E/F version is a new aircraft and significantly improved. I fully agree that a superior armament like the Meteor and advanced radar somewhat give a lot of advantages. As far as I know the Gripen has a low signature because of the size also the Brazilian Air Force has developed a new nano coating that gives a stealth capability or at least helps a little bit this matter as the stealth capabilities alos relies in the shape of ther plane and when the Gripen was developed this technology was not part of the package.
But difficult to say what is in fact better... although a lot of improvements in the "new" Gripen the F35 has a lot of things too...
Perhaps the costs could be a beater as is 4 x cheaper and flight cost way far cheaper...but in the end will be possible to know in real life in a real combat...most likely not to happen
Austria don't use F-35. Period
Actually, they did: SAAB Draken.
Put Two Jassm ER at 500nm in range and you'll see that it's not worth paying 2.5x for one plane to do the same thing as the other far away from enemy air defenses.
Where can I buy a used gripen ?
Looking for a low mileage deal
You can always get an A or B version, those are for sale or lease. If you are a qualified customer...
"Lock head"??? It's not the thumbnail that people get people butt hurt. It's willful ignorance.
Unless all of your followers are from America, Canada or UK, please say in kilos & tons aswell. Cus i only hear a differance of a number i dont understand. Thank you.
Canada uses kilos. We've been metric since 1976.
This is hilarious so many inaccuracies!
Lockhead Martin
How does that respond to my point
Canada needs a Twin Engine long-range fighter in its mix. ( It's a long walk home from Nunavut if that single-engine ices up on a Northern Long Range mission) If we buy the Gripen there will be enough left in the budget for a couple of squadrons of twin-engine fighters What are Canada's choices?
Robert when was the last time a jet crashed or had to land because the engine died, kicked the bucket or malfunctioned? 2 engines is an excuse. Canada needs the Gripen E. It cost effective, 5th generation and there are economic benefits. The Saab Gripen goes a long way further than buying old tech from the US or paying for stealth which is really not required. Canada needs 100 Gripen E and 20 Gripen F for training.
Gripen comes in flat packs with some assembly required.
Hahha
Yes, but it does come with its own Allen key.
Instructions in Swedish only.
How can anything cost ONE TRILLION $ ? An entire space program is costing about 10% of that (Space X). Absurdly wasteful.
Because F35 cost estimates, unlike previous projects, include everything associated with the aircraft over its long expected service life. It includes the R&D, aircraft, weapons, fuel, training etc. The F35 is going to be the backbone aircraft for like a dozen nations, meaning it is essentially a double digit % of several nations air-forces over the course of decades.
Previous projects usually just factored in the unit & R&D costs, and maybe a few key other things.
@@TheNinjaDC Also note that previous projects - at least US projects - only budgeted for 10 year periods. There were no lifetime estimates, probably because the rate of tech development was much faster during the Cold war and nobody expected aircraft to serve for 50 years at the time of introduction.
@@dumdumbinks274 Do you believe rate of technology improvement has significantly dropped? In my view it has increased over the years. To some extent this can be countered by continously upgrading an aircraft with new technology. On the other hand that means R&D costs will continue for 50 more years.
@@Rohan4711 Compared to the 1950s and 1960s - yes. Tech development was so fast that many fighters were obsolete only a couple years after entering service. These days it takes at least a decade. Though you could argue that the technology gap required to make an older fighter obsolete has increased rather than the rate of development being slower.
WOW until this video I didn't know that any fighter can go 320000km with one tank, and I am especially surprised that Jas 39 can do it!?!?!? :D
320000??? Uh what?
One thing to consider when you look at the VTOL-version of the F-35 is Gripens STOL capabillity. If you can find 500 meters of reasonable straight road, SAAB 39 can land, rearm and refuel there. So while the F-35 requires a big safe-space to operate from, the SAAB 39 can have their base packed up onto trucks and be on the move within minutes after the fighter is back up in the air again.
So if your opponent can shell your airbase with artillery your F-35s are useless, but since the SAAB 39 can have their airbase on the move it is not as vulnerable to artillery shelling.
Yeah, this why air to air refueling was invented, so airpower could be deployed from safe airfields. If your fighters are operating from roads and your airbases are getting shelled, you're doing it wrong. Did you know 2 versions on the F35 can operate from ships (shorter than 500 meters)?
@@PappyGunn Good luck with air to air re-arming. And we have a submarine that was able to sink a carrier battle-group undiscovered if they were allowed to use our tactics (at least during training exercise with USA).
But it is also a matter what you are arming for. The Swedish air-force is tasked mostly with keeping invading Russian ships from crossing the Baltic sea, a sea small enough they can make several trips across without refueling.
My guess you are American, so you just assume your enemy is in a far away country where they cant reach you. I am well within missile-range from Russia. My next door neighbour Finland is within ballistic artillery range. We know the moment Russia declares war our military bases and airfields will be obliterated, ant there is nothing we can do about it.
We have one naval-base inside a mountain, That will probably survive, and we will have enough advance warning to get our aircrafts airborne before the missiles hit the tarmac, but in that type of conflict stationary installations is pointless.
It is the same with the army, our gear is dispersed all over the country so it can "disappear" when the initial shelling start, and the fortresses you may visit are all museums and not active, the last of them was decommissioned in 2002.
The F-35 is a very high end electronic warfare and strike aircraft. The stealth is so it can operate in environments of air defenses where a Gripen would be lucky to survive.
You have to do a cost comparison. One F35 costs about the same as 4-5 Gripens.
So it would be 1 Vs 5, unless money is not considered a factor
@@xifel72 Not even close. A Gripen-E costs about the same as an F-35A and the F-35A is far more capable. Even back in 2001 the Gripen was expensive... offered to Poland for $69 million per unit and they chose the cheaper F-16. The only cost advantage the Gripen has over the F-35 is in terms of maintenance, but even then you're getting 2 Gripens per F-35 at best.
You shout read about the outcome of the Red Flag exercise, F35 was not superior to Gripen....
@@xifel72 OK, you and your buddies can fly the 4 Gripen. I'll fly the F35. See you at beer call after we each take out the IADS.
@@PappyGunn In terms of dogfights the Gripen E would probably win. The aircraft is about half the total weight of the f35 with cannards supporting it's maneuverability. The f35 functions more like a strike aircraft, equipped with stealth technology to make it difficult for active radar to spot it. Once the aircraft is spotted and merges into one circle the f35 is dead.
Well, you compered wrong version. The new Gripen is Jas 39 Gripen E 😊
Yes and except for stealth, it is definitely better...
A few things should be mentioned. If we are talking about Gripen E, then this comparison is slightly different. It has a radar jammer, which is arguably a better option than stealth mode.
F-35 can still be spotted with IR cameras as it has a bigger heat signature than Gripen. You can't put as many weapons/ammo on a stealth fighter without breaking stealth mode.
As mentioned, Gripen have far less cost and maintenance hours, which means the fighters and their pilots can be in the air a lot more. This means the pilots will be more experienced.
Gripen can mount virtually any weapon from the western part of the world no problem, while F-35 can only mount USA weapon systems. Gripen can also land and take off on normal roads.
The F-35 has a "radar jammer" as well. It actually has one of the most advanced electronic warfare suites of any modern fighter.
IRST has much shorter range than radar. Against stealth aircraft they end up tracking the target at roughly the same range as radar.
The F-35 has room for up to 6 AIM-120s internally, and can carry 2 AIM-9X externally without breaking stealth for air to air combat. That's the same load as the JAS-39E.
Gripen's maintenance is a bit lower yes, but that's because it's less capable.
F-35 is much newer, hence why it hasn't been integrated with European weapons yet. The Gripen has been around since the early 90s.
also, remember that both aircraft may have secret technology that hasn't been revealed yet
Q: Have the SAAB Gripen "combat" with the F-35 in Red Flag? That is the most interesting question!
F-35 would probably achieve a BVR kill before even appearing on the radar of the Gripen.
taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f35-red-flag-exercise
My favorite quote in the article: "Hey bud, you need to turn around. You're about to die. There's a threat off your nose."
@@metwo1492 This sounds a lot like PROPAGANDA! Maybe because the U.S government spend 1.5 fucking trillions in this jet.
@@guruxara7994 Got any proof of that?
Not with the Gripen E version. That would be the interesting one to compare with. Gripen E is not operational yet, only a few test aircrafts are currently flying. I guess it will take a few years before we will see them in a red flag event.
Also it will matter a lot on how the parameters are set up. F-35 stealth and good ability to fight beyond visual range vs Gripen dogfighting ability. Number of aircrafts cooperating on each side will also make a major difference.
Imagine saying Austria instead of Australia
awesome vid the subtitles just needs some work...
Finally no computer voice, thumbs up!
@~~2:20 Ahhhh, the good old Lock"head" company, easy to confuse with the Aeronautics corporation Lockheed Martin.
Maekar I Targaryen lol lol...
The f-35 engine will be updated in 5yrs alone with radar up grade
It's more likely that new decoys will be developed since they can be small when it comes to mimicking a stealth aircraft.
They are literally incomparable bro
I honestly think the Gripen is the best choice for Canada during the current fighter competition. The Gripen is way more reliable and can take off from remote northern airfields with minimal infrastructure. The F-35 cannot fly in thunderstorms, let alone the brutal arctic conditions, or the storms that often hit the Atlantic. The Gripen on the other hand was designed to be able to fly in these conditions. In terms of flight performance, the Gripen is better in almost every way. It can fly 600 kilometres an hour faster than the F-35, has far superior maneuverability, has significantly longer range. Most importantly, the Gripen can supercruise longer, allowing it to intercept threats across Canada faster. Canada is a massive country and speed and range are everything when it comes to stopping a threat before it can do serious damage. SAAB has also said that they will build the fighter in Canada and for cheaper, helping out our aerospace industry and creating jobs. A stealth attack jet that sacrifices so much just isn’t useful for Canada.
That makes too much sense for Justin Singh
This Swedish plane jas 39 gripen fighter, reminds me of the movie Transformer. Nitro Zeus.
And starscream as a f 22
Anything but the f-35.....yes I am biased
Can't beat the bang for the buck and overall utility of the Gripen especially for long range patrol and survivability of dual engine redundancy. Tack on the the ease of maintenance (ie. modular component swapping) and operability from harsher environments and its an easy choice.
It only has one engine same as F35…..
Harsher than what? Canada has operated the US built F18 for decades, from FOLs far in the Arctic. Sweden has nothing like that climate.
Is this a comparison with the old gripen C or new gripen E?