You are right, and you really should have bought the new Swedish sub the A26 class. Your Government showed incredible incompetence in the handling of buying Subs.
Well what your seing is a gripen variant, maybe a C/D or E/F variant, but what was offered by Saab Jas to the Phil. Air Force was the Saab Jas 39 Gripen C/D MS20 varint an up graded version of the Gripen C/D variant, so we are expecting a better and stronger, and perhaps powerful enough to deterr, and defend our Country against Foreign Intruders, well the F-16 Vipers was the favored one, but due to budget concerns, and overprice units of the F-16 Vipers, it's hardly to become a done deal.
@@-RJ-hw6qq SU-35 has no place in that conversation. As for 4.5 gen jets, Gripen E is the least impressive of all Western designs, outperformed by Eurofighter with ECRS Mk 2 as well as Eurofighter with CAPTOR AESA, Rafale F4, F/A-18E Block III, and even F-16V.
Considering the increase in weight it might appear less agile even though it has a more powerful engine I suppose, but the improved performance in other areas are more important
@@strikebr I think that with the word _sluggish_ he was referring more about the agiility and maneuverability of the jet than its speed. And you're wrong btw... Yes, the F-35 has a max speed of "only" Mach 1.6. But... The Gripen E/F can reach Mach 2 only when flying clean or with a pair of IRIS-T missiles on the wingtip hardpoints. When armed and prepped for combat with a typical combat loadout, the Gripen cannot go anywhere near Mach 2 and its max speed will actually be lower than that of the F-35. Meanwhile, all variants of the F-35 can hit and sustain Mach 1.6 when flying with a full internal Air-to-Air or Air-to-Ground/Surface weapons load. Finally, regarding supercruise... The Gripen E/F in practice doesn't have any real supercruise capability. Yes, the Gripen NG tech demonstrator aircraft flew at Mach 1.2 on dry thrust alone in 2008. But that was demonstrated with a pretty much clean jet and in the ideal very cold air of the swedish winter. Also, Gripen NG is not the same thing as Gripen E/F. And you might not have noticed this, but Saab has not claimed supercruise as one of the capabilities of the Gripen E/F in a very long time. They have been quiet about it for many years, since the first Gripen E prototypes started flying. Go check out Saab's online page on the Gripen E for example... You will not see the word supercruise mentioned, not even once. Same thing on all of their downloadable files on the Gripen E/F and in all of their marketing events too. In other words, basically supercruise was something they promised initially but couldn't deliver on the final product. So, if the Gripen E/F has any "supercruise" capability, then its only at most circa Mach 1.1 with a couple of air-to-air missiles, which is useless and meaningless (only possible when carrying 2 short range missiles plus much greater drag and fuel consumption than flying at .8-.9 Mach for only a small increase in speed = not worth it), and its something that jets like the F-15E/K/SG/SA/QA/EX and the Block 50/52/70/72 F-16s can do as well when flying with a pair of missiles and without CFTs.
@@turnnburn6892 Dude, big texts don't scare me. Why do you try so hard to discredit the Gripen E? I don't like the F35 and I'm not cutting it down. Your favorite plane is expensive to keep flying, and 20 years after launch, it still has problems to solve. I highly doubt your winged computer has the same agility as a Gripen E. We bought those planes and also the technology transfer, which Uncle Sam never does.
@@strikebr 1. False, Gripen can't reach Mach 2 with a weapons load. 2. Gripen can't supercruise. Not even the 1 ton lighter Gripen NG (prototype with the same engine) could supercruise as it had to use afterburner to get to supersonic speed, even by SAAB:s admission. Since then, SAAB has completely dropped any pretext of supercruise and even started talking about how speed is "unimportant" in modern air combat. It really should not come as a surprise that Gripen can't supercruise as it uses the same engine as on the Super Hornet. The engine is not designed for supercruise. So unless you mean to tell us that SAAB sprinkled some magic pixie dust on it I think that alone should suffice. Turn N'Burn is totally correct. Sincerely, a Swede i.e. the guys that make your planes.
the brazilian version looks bigger and bolder and had a different engine, maybe because its a continental country, I dont know but looks a bigger dog than this.
One of the most durable and powerful fighter jets to be built..
Kahit ano lintik tagal na nyan
André is a tough pilot, piloting this for 5 minutes would be like running a marathon.
The most ideal, if not the perfect fighter for the Philippine Air Force at this time. I hope my country will select the Gripen over the F-16
Yes, Gripen is a better choice, and it will be a completely new upgraded (engine + radar + more) Gripen C.
Didn't you chose the FA-50?
Beautiful
Thanks. 🙂
Australia should buy these to supplement the Super Hornets and F35. It’s perfect for Australian conditions and needs.
You are right, and you really should have bought the new Swedish sub the A26 class. Your Government showed incredible incompetence in the handling of buying Subs.
Not useful to Brazil, not to Australia. Range is limited and cargo capacity is also limited
@@donquixote1502 true just look at the French nuclear deal.
Seriously, three fighter types? Are you daft, perhaps? What makes it "perfect for Australian conditions and needs", pray tell?
Very nice
hermoso avion!!
Yeah it looks great.
E pousou com os motores ainda frios. Vou comprar um pra mim
Brilliant
Thank you! :)
Like a hot knife cutting through butter.
Saab grippen was built to counter..,moonsoon?
That is what the Philippines need. Not the C/D variant to compete for the F16V Block 70
Well what your seing is a gripen variant, maybe a C/D or E/F variant, but what was offered by Saab Jas to the Phil. Air Force was the Saab Jas 39 Gripen C/D MS20 varint an up graded version of the Gripen C/D variant, so we are expecting a better and stronger, and perhaps powerful enough to deterr, and defend our Country against Foreign Intruders, well the F-16 Vipers was the favored one, but due to budget concerns, and overprice units of the F-16 Vipers, it's hardly to become a done deal.
Gripen E is one of the most advanced 4++ generation aircraft along with Rafale and Su-35.
When equipped with Meteors, it can take any enemy down!
Mas pabor din ako sa Gripen E kumpara sa F-16
Agreed. You should ask for the E version
@@-RJ-hw6qq SU-35 has no place in that conversation.
As for 4.5 gen jets, Gripen E is the least impressive of all Western designs, outperformed by Eurofighter with ECRS Mk 2 as well as Eurofighter with CAPTOR AESA, Rafale F4, F/A-18E Block III, and even F-16V.
Canada should build 300 Gripen, in Canada!
Красивая машина
André does not fly beautiful. He flies brutal. 👍🔥😎
Agree
Secara betoel aku sich yes..!
this one isnt cheaper
รัสเซียกับยูเครนจะจบกันที่การใช้เครื่องบินริบนี้ละครับ ผมเดา
Sweden doesn’t sell sell weapons to Russia.
While technologically this E model Gripen is superior to the earlier models, in terms of performance, it seems a bit sluggish.
Are you nuts? The F35 can't reach mach 2, Gripen can and have supercruise.
Considering the increase in weight it might appear less agile even though it has a more powerful engine I suppose, but the improved performance in other areas are more important
@@strikebr
I think that with the word _sluggish_ he was referring more about the agiility and maneuverability of the jet than its speed.
And you're wrong btw...
Yes, the F-35 has a max speed of "only" Mach 1.6.
But...
The Gripen E/F can reach Mach 2 only when flying clean or with a pair of IRIS-T missiles on the wingtip hardpoints.
When armed and prepped for combat with a typical combat loadout, the Gripen cannot go anywhere near Mach 2 and its max speed will actually be lower than that of the F-35.
Meanwhile, all variants of the F-35 can hit and sustain Mach 1.6 when flying with a full internal Air-to-Air or Air-to-Ground/Surface weapons load.
Finally, regarding supercruise...
The Gripen E/F in practice doesn't have any real supercruise capability.
Yes, the Gripen NG tech demonstrator aircraft flew at Mach 1.2 on dry thrust alone in 2008. But that was demonstrated with a pretty much clean jet and in the ideal very cold air of the swedish winter.
Also, Gripen NG is not the same thing as Gripen E/F.
And you might not have noticed this, but Saab has not claimed supercruise as one of the capabilities of the Gripen E/F in a very long time.
They have been quiet about it for many years, since the first Gripen E prototypes started flying.
Go check out Saab's online page on the Gripen E for example... You will not see the word supercruise mentioned, not even once. Same thing on all of their downloadable files on the Gripen E/F and in all of their marketing events too.
In other words, basically supercruise was something they promised initially but couldn't deliver on the final product.
So, if the Gripen E/F has any "supercruise" capability, then its only at most circa Mach 1.1 with a couple of air-to-air missiles, which is useless and meaningless (only possible when carrying 2 short range missiles plus much greater drag and fuel consumption than flying at .8-.9 Mach for only a small increase in speed = not worth it), and its something that jets like the F-15E/K/SG/SA/QA/EX and the Block 50/52/70/72 F-16s can do as well when flying with a pair of missiles and without CFTs.
@@turnnburn6892 Dude, big texts don't scare me.
Why do you try so hard to discredit the Gripen E?
I don't like the F35 and I'm not cutting it down.
Your favorite plane is expensive to keep flying, and 20 years after launch, it still has problems to solve.
I highly doubt your winged computer has the same agility as a Gripen E. We bought those planes and also the technology transfer, which Uncle Sam never does.
@@strikebr
1. False, Gripen can't reach Mach 2 with a weapons load.
2. Gripen can't supercruise. Not even the 1 ton lighter Gripen NG (prototype with the same engine) could supercruise as it had to use afterburner to get to supersonic speed, even by SAAB:s admission. Since then, SAAB has completely dropped any pretext of supercruise and even started talking about how speed is "unimportant" in modern air combat.
It really should not come as a surprise that Gripen can't supercruise as it uses the same engine as on the Super Hornet. The engine is not designed for supercruise. So unless you mean to tell us that SAAB sprinkled some magic pixie dust on it I think that alone should suffice.
Turn N'Burn is totally correct.
Sincerely, a Swede i.e. the guys that make your planes.
Sad for sabb most successful fighter jet in the world..
Why do you think so?
Forgive me for correcting you 😌 it’s SAAB not SABB… 😉
Successful?
the brazilian version looks bigger and bolder and had a different engine, maybe because its a continental country, I dont know but looks a bigger dog than this.
This is the same version as those Brazil bought, same engine, same size(airframe) and so on.
Sittichoke 🅱️ea®️Arunrat 🤟
NATO? NATO has zero Gripens
Czech Republic and Hungary both operate Gripens.
กok