Rafale vs. Gripen - Which Fighter Jet Rules the Skies?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- Explore the Aerial Titans: Dassault Rafale vs. Saab Gripen - Dive into the realm of advanced fighter jets with our latest content, where we pit the formidable Dassault Rafale against the agile Saab Gripen. Witness how these airborne predators, born from the pinnacle of human ingenuity, redefine the boundaries of aerial warfare.
🚀 *Key Highlights:*
- *Origins & Development:* Trace the evolution of the Rafale from its 1980s French roots, designed for versatility across multiple roles, against the Gripen, Sweden's late-1980s brainchild, focusing on agility and cost-effectiveness.
- *Performance Dynamics:* Compare the Rafale's impressive Mach 1.8 speed and 1,000 km combat radius with the Gripen's Mach 2 capability and 800 km range, highlighting their operational versatility.
- *Technological Edge:* Delve into the cutting-edge RBE2 AESA radar of the Rafale and the Gripen's PS-05/A radar, showcasing their advanced avionics and electronic warfare capabilities.
- *Cost & Lifecycle:* Analyze the economic aspects, from the Gripen's cost-effective appeal to the Rafale's broader capabilities and lifecycle costs.
- *Global Impact:* Review their international market presence and combat records, from the Rafale's deployment in Afghanistan, Libya, and Mali to the Gripen's role in the Afghan and Libyan Civil Wars.
Join us in this high-flying discussion and share your thoughts on which jet reigns supreme in the skies. Subscribe for more insights into the world of military aviation!
#DassaultRafale #SaabGripen #FighterJets #MilitaryAviation #AerialWarfare #AviationTechnology #AirForce #DefenseStrategy #AircraftComparison
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv 
Наука
As French I'd say both are very good and complementary planes and if Europe was only equiped with those two we wouldn't have to fear anyone.
Although I am Swedish, there is no doubt in my mind that Rafale is the superior machine. However, you have to weigh in the background. The Gripen was designed to defend its home territory whereas France has a larger span of strategic ambitions and responsibilities. Sweden being a much smaller nation had to be very cost minded as well. In the end, I don’t think that the machine itself will determine success. Pilot skills and training is probably more important. I hope that French and Swedish pilots train together already!
What about the Euro fighter Typhoon ? I think the Typhoon is also very capable fighter aircraft. But still I think Rafale is better than the Euro fighter Typhoon.
@@KamrulIslam-dc1zn
Best of all would be the combination of the three planes, all have an edge on particular strategic or tactic dimensions that make them complementary.
Having the Grippen hidden in alert near the front for interception or CAS, Rafale doing it's grass top flying long range raids and Typhoons covering from hight altitude.
Quite a nice combination.
@@BzhToine These three Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon are great combination, all members of the NATO , we observe absence of Russian Air force activity in the UKRAINE war .
Why does it say Gripen can't match Rafale top speed of Mach 1.8 when it says Gripen can fly Mach 2? Confusing.
exactly
It's acceleration
Gripen E is better choice 👍 Single Engine over Mach 2 ✌️
@@douglasang3527 except that very few pilots don't fear a single engine failure on a single engine plane, and what it means for the remainder of your mission, if not your life.
That’s the FIRST thing I noticed too. 💯
Some of the figures in the video seem to be for Gripen C. For instance, combat radius for E model is 1300 km, not 800 km as stated in the video. Also, the radar PS-05/A mentioned is in Gripen C. For the E, Raven ES-05 is used. Later models will upgraded with SAABs own radar.
I'm all for the rafale if you catch my drift ! But for the love of god ! The Gripen in all it's iterations is a very very very good plane ! super cost effective super good and easy maintenance super good use in difficult terrain and unprepared airfields .... and Saab is an incredible weapons manufacturer ! I still don't understand why some countries spend billions on F-35 (we all know why )when buying a Gripen C or D E or F is more then they need and can do a lot ! these videos a just there to generate buzz and make horrible mistakes on purpose .. Gripen for Ukraine would be perfect !
@@OpenViewsToWorld.. Totally agree 👏👍
While you are correct to point out the difference in specs, operational cost of the Grippen E are also much higher.
and that Raven radar is better than of Rafale. it has scaning radius of almost 200 degrees. Gripen is better jet
@@zagrepcanin82 mmmh don't think so, even if the Gripen E has been improved, the latest iterations and upgrades put on the Rafale F4 put the French jet on another level (F35 like helmet, 1t. AASM bomb, improved radar, SPECTRA, OSF, Talios designation pod). And the video didn't mention the very advanced stealth abilities of the Rafale, of course not as good as an F35 but already enough to disappear from a S7-35 jet's radar (Egypt made the test, the Russian jet as attacker lost track of the Rafale as the "prey" and got "destroyed" by the Dassault jet)
The Rafale's range is more than 3,600 km
as for users.
France: 153/192
• United Arab Emirates: 0/80
• Egypt: 24/55
• Indonesia: 0/42
• Qatar: 36/36
• India: 36/62
• Greece: 4/12
Total: 253 out of 479
Used aircraft:
• Greece: 12/12
• Croatia: 1/12
A little more than the list stated, right?
Not (with some exception, let’s be fair) precisely the type of countries I would hand out a gen4++ fighter. Anyway, this is far less impressive than the client list of the much more survivable and genuinely stealthy F-35.
@@jasc4364 I'm not sure a plane that crashes so often during training can be called "survivable".
The US sure can make exceptionnal aircrafts like the YF22, but they do sell a shitty plane to the countries that accepted to blend in their military complex. And it's going for improvements in the near future.
Didn’t know Indonesia purchased the Rafale. Good for them!
@@jasc4364you don't get it, it is already huge to have secured 300 Rafale sales abroad when you face the extraordinary leverage of the US when it comes to defence procurement
Rafale has a ferry range of 3,700km with 3 drop tanks,
If you have all your plains at airports and they get attacked you are there without planes. A Gripen was designed to land on and take off from small roads, making it easier to hide it from the enemy.
Excellent. My two favourite jets. Gunna enjoy this. ! 😀
"Grippen don't mach the speed of Rafale" after we have seen that the maximum speed of the Rafale is Mach 1.80 and that of the Grippen is Mach 2 ???
He always gets things wrong plus the grippen is basically a point defence fighter and France has a completely different strategy
Rafale supercruise is higher than gripen while top speed of gripen with after burner stay higher than rafale’s
@@shanequeen5003You should learn to spell ”Gripen”.
@@Le-Cardinal that's it
Royal Thai Air Force (Thailand) is also operating Gripen.
Since When?
I believe Thai Air Force is the only one operating both the F-16 and Gripen C (since approximately 2010).
Greece, Croatia, Indonesia, etc... are also operating Rafale.
If Saab Gripen E is so bad i wonder how it did win over worlds 200 most advanced aircrafts solo Reward 2023. In the Airshow RIAT...... But all other aircrafts like Rafael i assume only did have a bad air day ......
It's not bad at all, but it's a light fighter with limited carrying capacity and range. And the Rafale is not.
@@adrien5834 Gripen E can only use 7 Metro in one load . Is that not good ? I dont know any aircraft today who would survive 7of them.
@@anderskarlsson5910 Do you know what its range is when carrying 7 Meteors?
@@adrien5834 Gripen E is not light fighter jet...
@@pichupuche2474 It's not? It's a single engine with a maximum take off weight of 16,500 kg. That's less than an F-16 Block 52.
Technically speaking, the Swedish Gripen, the French Rafale, and the Eurofighter, with their powerful twin engines and Ceasar radar, put the EF-2000 at the top of the European delta trio. However, in actuality, the reverse is true: At Red Flag 2006, the Gripen A went undefeated against all of its opponents. In three encounters (5 F-16 vs. 3 Gripens), the Gripen C defeated the Norwegian F-16 Block 52+ with only one loss. Two of the three F-15s were brought down by a single Gripen C during Operation Loyal Arrow. The soaring eagle's strong engines allowed it to escape. Furthermore, recently, during a war game, China J-11 lost to Thailand Gripen C. As for the latest Gripen E model, the following claims are self-explanatory: The wingtips are the crown jewel of this aircraft. They house the most advanced EW gear in the world. ESM receivers with interferometric passive targeting (don't need radar nor IRST to shoot Meteor missiles at air-to-air targets) and GaN AESA jammer units, both with 360° horizontal and vertical (spherical) coverage. The fintop unit has GaN AESA EA capability against search radars and coms. This is all public information from FMV and SAAB; you just need to know where to find it. No other fighter EW system has this capability today; this includes the F22 and F35.
Bro the rafale slap the grippen what are you talking abt
@@nighthawk6755: You lack the appropriate argument in your statement. Compare the Rafale OSF, SPECTRA and RBE2-AA to the Gripen E Skyward G, Arexis EW and the RAVEN-ES and simply draw a conclusion!
EF 2000 is at the top in interception only. top speed climb rate and manouevrability at high speed. design for that since the begining. for all the other aspect of jetfighter use that's rafale ground assist, deep strike, dog fight, EW.... rafale is just good in air superiority.
The euro fighter gets slapped by everything that flies, even the latest Mirage 2000 slaps it.
@@olivierpuyou3621 : Interesting! German EF-2000 slapped a Raptor (F-22) in dogfight.
I would say in this case its up to the pilots and type of mission😊
it would be interesting to see a comparison of these to f16.
The full name is JAS 39 Gripen, where JAS is an abbreviation of Jakt/Attack/Spaning or Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance. The electronics in the Gripen E is more modern than that of the Rafale. I.E: single direction datalink vs bidirectional datalink, GaN vs GaAs transistors. The Rafale electronics is of course due for an upgrade.
As far as I know, there has been no exercises where Gripen is pitted against Rafale.
The truth is that these videos, when they include the Gripen NG, in which its current version is also called Gripen E/F, Use the configurations and technical sheets of previous Gripens such as the first version A/B and C/D or C/D MS20 So in these parameters you end up noticing that the Gripen is far below even an F-16 in the first versions up to the Block 50/52 version The Gripen NG or Gripen E/F version consists of a fighter in the so-called 4.5G or 4++ plus generation As well as the Rafale F-4 and others like Su-35 Eurofighter Tyfoon Tranche 3 F-15EX F-16 Block 70/72 F/A-G 18 Super Hornet MiG-35
Now in terms of comparison between Rafale F-4 and Gripen NG it is as follows
Rafale F-4 has a maximum takeoff ceiling above 22,100 feet compared to 19,700 for the Gripen NG, obviously the Rafale is a BI engine but the Gripen NG is not far behind
Maximum flight ceiling of the Rafale F-4 is estimated to reach 78 to 81 thousand feet while the Gripen NG varies between 76 to 79 thousand feet as you can see the Gripen NG is not far behind
The Rafale F-4, being a heavy and bi-engine fighter, can carry up to 13 tons of equipment compared to 10 tons for the Gripen NG, 3 tons more
Both Gripen NG and Rafale carry the same types of advanced weapons on the market today
RCS here comes the big surprise, the Gripen NG manages to be the least stealthy of all in its same Generation 0.1 against the 0.4 of the Rafale F-4
If the load capacity of the Rafale F-4 is superior, the RCS of the Gripen NG compensates for this disadvantage
The radar of the Gripen NG and Rafale F-4 are AESA but the Gripen NG has an advantage as it has more specific modules in its systems and electronic subsystems
Both have super cruise Mach with the Gripen being Mach 2.1 compared to the Mach 2.0 of the Rafale F-4
Both sustain 9x G-force
Now in terms of price and cost-benefit, the Gripen NG is way ahead of the Rafale F-4 Each Gripen NG costs a full 180 million dollars compared to 278 million for the complete Rafale F-4 Which is practically 2 Gripens NG
Maintenance is cheaper due to its operating cost, whereas the Rafale F-4 is much more complex and expensive. Countries that have the Rafale F-4 in their air force operate a maximum of 3 Rafale per day countries that operate the Gripen operate 6 fighters per day
In a war situation, suppose that country A has 40 Rafale F-4s and country B has 20 Gripen NG Although the number of Rafale is greater, its operability will be lower compared to Gripen NG from Country B, which could sustain 20 Gripen NG in the air against 12 or 16 Rafale in the Air This is the disadvantage of having a fighter of these dimensions They are in fact very powerful fighters, but they are fighters for countries that have an abundance of money where they can afford it. On the other hand, the Gripen NG is for countries that don't have much imaginable conditions.
Boa explanação irmão. Os gringos tem muita má vontade em relação ao nosso Gripen. Mas como vc mesmo disse, sabemos o porquê..
How do you explain France just bought 42 F4.1 rafale for 5 billion euros ? cost per unit 120M euros (129M dollars )....even if you add weapon pods and services we are far from 278M(dollars) per unit.... could you elaborate here on your outlandish prices ?
@@OpenViewsToWorld
I'm talking about complete fighters, what a complete fighter would be, each complete fighter unit comes equipped with its weapons, electronic warfare kits, spare parts, training and simulator They are only included when the purchase is large, don't you think it's too strange that an F-35 costs 88 million when the F-22 costs almost 700 million per unit, an empty fighter will obviously cost 40 50 60 100 Easy millions, but when it comes to placing weapons, integration of electronic warfare kits, spare parts, maintenance, training of mechanics and pilots, the price of the fighter tends to rise Either you will play in the middle of an airspace in a Rafale war with no weapons just cannon or you will go to war with the Rafale armed to the teeth reminding you that today the fight is BVR I go up first I see you first and shoot first then we are talking about long-range combat, Dog-Fight only happens as a last resort
129m is a complete fighter cost maybe a little 2-5m extra if you want to change a few things electronics (indian specs are interesting a lot of israeli mods ) or extra space for fuel in wings or such but fundamentally you get a ready to fly plane. most fleets use the same weapons for different planes ....so it's a bit irrelevant to add them to the deal as a per plane cost (obviously more planes means more weapons and more maintenance cost for them) but i guarantee countries don't buy full pay loads for each planes that would be completely nuts they will probably buy 1 full payload for 3 planes and even that is shared buy other planes (most countries that buy rafale have Mirage2000)...spare parts ....yet another mystery that cannot be compared as we don't have access to all contracts ... i get you want to set a certain package deal for a full cost for one plane ...too many variables make it nearly impossible to compare (sometimes countries add infrastructure modifications costs in the entire package (Croatia ) 1billion euros for 12 second hand refurbished planes...( compare that to the 42 new ones 5billions euros for France it's impossible ) or some don't (Switzerland )the figures that come out are badly interpreted by journalist that mostly have no idea what they are talking about. The cost of the plane isn't just the machine and We definitely agree on that but for me it's the only thing you can compare ( and even that comparison is a bad one because they generally don't have the same missions and capabilities ) @@paulo.s.kennedy
@@OpenViewsToWorld
Exactly
Rafale is a twin engine, while Gripen is single engine, I would say Rafale is like a F/A-18EF, with both land and carrier version.. while Gripen is like a F-16V.. sort of..
Lighter, single engine
Les deux avions sont dans le même camp et ne s'affronteront jamais. Ils ne sont pas vraiment comparables mais ils peuvent être complémentaires.
Not sure they can be compared, 2 different fighters with different types of missions
As a french, i think we should buy a good pack of Gripen E to replace our M2000.
It's like rafale but more compacts and able to land on roads, to be hidden easily, and less expensive while staying absolute top notch.
They are Nato and meteor compatible with the rafale
Can we say that the Gripen is the guerilla warfare tactical fighter aircraft. The Russian Su57, Su35 , Mig29, Mig35 has not been proven to be invincible. Russian Air force is absent in Ukraine war as an offensive combat force, or , is it the Russians are planning to maintain it's military forces prepared for war in other fronts such as Poland , Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia
@@KamrulIslam-dc1zn good definition "guerilla jet"
Gripen pode pousar em rodovias e tem o custo de hora mais baratos e todos.
Operational cost per flight hour:
- Gripen E, 9.000$/h
- Rafale, 17.000$/h
- F16 block 50, 18.000$/h
- Eurofighter Typhoon, 18.000
- F/A-18 Super Hornet, 24.000$/h
- F35A, 31.000$/h
super hornet is 10-12 thousand dollars per hour
I worked as a contract employee for Dassault long ago, so I'm a little biased because everyone there was so nice!
GRIPEN HAS IT.
The running costs for the Gripen is supposed to be just over 4000 Euros an hour while the Rafale is 20,000 Euros an hour. The ground crew requirements are way less for the Gripen, it's also easier to maintain plus it can take off from most roads. I know what I'd vote for. For comparison the F35 costs 3 times as much to buy and around 40,000 Euros an hour to run.
Currently, the Rafale F4 is in the process of being made available to the French forces, it is the first European aircraft equipped with artificial intelligence, even in the world! with the F5 version, it will be the first aircraft capable of detecting stealth aircraft like the F22 or the F35, as well as very small drones, this revolutionary radar, RBE2 XG or TARAMMAA, managed by another artificial intelligence! the Gripen will always be far behind the Rafale in terms of capacity and electronic warfare! LOL
in the end you pick a Rafale or a Gripen depending if you country has a problem with the west block or not
becouse if you do, the Rafale is your only choice
As an Asia relating to budgetary constrained I would rather choose Gripen because its afforadable in terms of maintenance and aside from that its advanced electronic warfare system is quite similar to rafale that is capable to counter act an enemies aircraft like Chinese JF-17 for example.
No Spectra cellule is far behind Grippen one. This video is very nice with the Gripen.
last i heard is mach 1.8 slower then mach 2 plus haha
Make a video comparing the Gripen and the Korean FA50
Philippines has the FA50 and soon Gripen E.
@@useyourname210 good for them !
They are just different Jet fighters for different needs and they fight on the same side
Rafale Leeds in France...
At the end, and surely not just watching this video (Rafale 1.8 Mach is superior to Gripen's Mach 2 top speed: WHAT?:....), my go to would be the Gripen E
Lols! You're cheering for the Gripen and yet you exhibit bias when you start talking about the F-35 with gusto.
@@steampunkster2023 where are my technical statements regarding the F-35? A mouthful of nothing...
Today, speed is less important than Radar cross section (Stealth) and missiles, especially BVR. If the enemy can see you before you can see him or he has an air-air missile that has a longer range than you, then you lose. Also survivability and electronic warfare systems that can evade missiles, can jam enenmy missiles, jam enemy radars, jam enemy communications, etc., are important.
@@ramaswamyadisesh6848 Sure. And stealth fighters are great for BVR. Problem is the capacity, short, of their internal bays (eg, F-35A overhauled - 6 internal "hardpoints"), reason why jets with higher payload like the F16, Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter, Superhornet, F15 (with the EX II starting to be delivered) were not set aside as they are needed to support the 5th gen. Cheers.
Rafal has more payload, more range , spare parts availability and servicing facility from one source. And hence Rafal is better, But, Saab Gripen is also a great multi role fighter aircraft. Main disadvantage with Saab Gripen is non availability of spare parts from single source.
it's rafale, not rafal. it's french, not english
@@Maddog-xc2zv I know RAFALE is french , I am aware that Franch manufacture the best fighter aircraft because The Mirage 2000 has served the Indian Air force very capable and the Mirage 3 has served the Pakistan Air force very capable.
@@KamrulIslam-dc1zn nice you know. Those Mirage are a bit old, no? new versions are available and also already "old" (2000-5 mk2). You're talking about, most recent export versions, of the 2000 H for India (which also uses Dassault Rafale, I know it, not sure which block only) and 2000 E of Pakistan do not share the same radar as the french counterpart, radars were downgraded - I believe India even replaced the one that come with the 2000E and most likely the same with your Rafale. Cheers. I'm not so dumb as you think.
@@KamrulIslam-dc1zn Next time try to use it's proper name, then. Be respectful.
@@Maddog-xc2zv Thank you for your nice reply . I was not aware that the Mirage 2000 has new version. France is a super power. France does not use U.S.A or U.K made fighter aircraft, it is the policy of the France Govt to use only the France made fighter aircraft, So France manufacture very capable 4th generation RAFALE fighter aircraft. The Indian Govt has acquired some Rafale fighter aircraft for the Indian Air force. In the year 1960 the IAF acquired some Mirage 2000 multi role fighter aircraft, but the same year the Pakistan Air force acquired some Mirage 3 bomber aircraft. The Mirage 2000 performed better than the Mirage 3. I think the Bangladesh Air force will acquire some Rafale fighter aircraft.
I think rafale will excel between the two mrf. but rafale is so expensive.
The Rafael is probably one of France’s best fighters.
I t will be for sure as the Rafale sales are already close to the already bestseller Mirage family and its lifetime is far from its end
Rafael? is that the Arcangel? Because the french plane is called and written RAFALE. Or maybe you confused it with Israeli Rafael Military Manufacturers...
I am from Singapore I like both plane
Personally I like both.
Sweden 🇸🇪👍💪👊
I don't know if you have ever heard these aircraft. You can tell straight away. THAT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. It's not a rumble, It's a very distinct sound. If you can hear it and it's not friendly and it's aiming at you you're fucked.
Gripen
Rafale :
1.Sayap Delta nya lebih Stabil
2.lebih banyak boom yang di angkut di banding jas Gripen
Avionics nya jauh dengan spectra terlebih, rafale didesain untuk perang modern bukan dogfight, lebih dekat kepada f35 omnirole juga seri f4 dirancang memburu pesawat siluman Dan antisipasi nuklir
Rafale es un verdadero avión de guerra, el gripen es un avión de entrenamientos avanzado similar al KAi FA 50.
El Rafale es el ganador.
Gripen isn't a trainer fighter, it is a modern equivalent of low cost fighter like F5 and mig-21
The Gripen is 1/3 the price. Is the Rafale 3x better? I doubt it.
Rafale wins actual wars.
And now that the world is becoming a much more dangerous place to live in, Rafale exports raise up despite their price.
Rafale is 5x better.
@@AveAtqueVale01 It's sarcasm and I'm Swiss ! And by the way, why do you insult the French? You angry, hateful little troll. Tell me what is your country.
@@antibash691 Funny how Gripen is cheaper and beats the Rafale. xD
@@phixter Take your blue pill and go back to your world of illusions. With every commercial confrontation between the two planes, the Rafale wins. And wins the contract. No need to say more. 😂
Don't forget cost pr hour in flight time. F-35 as expected on top with over $30.000, Eurofighter and rafael +- half the price. And then Grippen with a cost pr hrs. flighetime $8000. Grippen landing on road as well. Lots of road in Sweden made as air field for use in a crisis
Grippen is made with components of different countries, so supply of spare parts, even weapons from one source is not guaranteed, and, repairing and servicing of the fighter aircraft maybe difficult.
The 2:35 mark shows an US Navy F-18 landing on the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier.
Gripen ng voa supersônico sem pós combustão ou seja supercruze o Rafael não
Gripen is by far the superior aircraft due to much lower cost and easy maintenance and the all round performance it has. With the Gripen new E variant their Ecm and EW system is now fully integrated to Nato and better what Rafael has.
You seem to like the Gripen a lot and it is a great aircraft at reasonable cost with low maintenace print but even if the video try to not show the differences, they are huge:
The Rafale has a far wider range of possible weapons to use (AA2M bombs, GBU bombs, MICA IR/EM A/A missiles, METEOR A/A missiles, SCALP A/G missile, EXOCET A/S missile, ASMP-A strategic bomb) it is the stealthiest gen4++ aircraft (stealth enought to disappear from an Egyptian Su35 radar), has the best weight/takeoff weight ratio on the world market (Rafale F4 15t. payload vs. Gripen E/F 9t. payload), it is air carrier compatible, it has a better range (Rafale in A/A config. 1800km, up to 11 hours in operation with airtankers vs. Gripen E/F 1300km) and it costs much less to purchase than the Gripen
I don't understand why people keep comparing systems and supporting one over another one like fanboys. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE SYSTEMS they are just a response to a specific/multiples problems the manufacturers try to solve for its country. Example a Ferrari will go slower then a basic tractor in a country with no roads. The tractor is a better fit then and cheaper. All those systems depend on the geographical location of their country of origin, the problems they face, thier doctrine, their missions & tasks to perform, the allies they have, the frequency of missions, the environment where the system should be integrated, the budget, etc...Each system is good for what it was designed for, some of them outperform and do more ( at what costs???) but the most important factor is that the system must be reliable and must do what it is supposed to do over and over , the rest is just *noze* contest.
In my opinion these comparisons will only make sense when one aircraft faces the other in a hypothetical battle between them. All other comparisons are theoretical! In any case, the experts say that the Rafale has no rival and is the only fighter plane that "knocked down" an F22 in a NATO exercise! Also no one has the Rafale's radius of action. And only that it has two engines compared to the Gripen (for those who know) is enough!
Rafale vs. Gripen, seriously ?! Saab has made a good plane in his category but it does not compete in the Rafale category, one is for the air police or a low-budget army, the other is for war.
Exactly, right on !
In a real war scenario things like low maintainability, short turnover and having enough jets available is crucial. Other than France I wouldn’t bet on other Rafale users to keep enough aircraft in the skies during an all out war.
If a SU 35 invades my air space the Rafale will be my weapon of choice, to defend the skies. You forgot to mention South African air force operates the J-39 Gripen. Salu2!
May be as a platform grippen is better but if you consider platform and ecosystem Rafale is much better.
Adulas kahit F 16 di uubra ma iiwan......
Personally, the plane who has much loitering time, and longer range wins.
rafale E is 1300km range, not 800km. So you see how you can bias a video to it's interest: conclusion, at the end buy US planes, it's the video message
@@Maddog-xc2zv F-35 is a very costly and complex aircraft. No country can afford it. And even if they do, the US still won't share it's tech to that country they sold it to, nor trust that country if it has a shady reputation. (Remember when the US sold Tomcats sold to Iran? They don't want to make the same mistake again.) so how will that country make its own repairs if they bought one? Wait for the next logistics parts package?
A country like Israel would afford to buy F35s but integrated with its own *indigenous* technology, and without VTOL. Furthermore, F-35s are considered "light fighters", and not air superiority class. So weighing the pros and cons, a country would rather buy Rafales or Gripens or even old F-16s, which are still combat worthy today, to add complementary fighters in their hangers than being it half-empty with F-35s.
Also, the video isn't bias. They're talking about Rafale v Gripen. Why do you insert the F-35? That's irrelevant.
@@steampunkster2023 where did i insert the F-35? can you even read? What I meant is that this video is biased, and it is, because two european fighters are compared but both are crap for the author, meaning this a promotion for the sell of US fighters. Learn how to read and also how to interpret sentences. Geez, lazy people...
@@Maddog-xc2zv btw, Denmark wants to recall their order of your favorite fighter because L&M is slow in delivering their planes.
Sad.
@@steampunkster2023 Sad is having monopolies on guns or weapons. Hope the EU imposes a % of EU military material in EU military budget. Btw, the States do the same.
日本語では、「疾風」対「有翼獅子」でした。
Wala ng mas. Sophisticated pa sa GRIPEN. E. The best
What now? Serbia bought 12 new f4.2 and 6 Chinese j10 block3 and another 12 used f3r bursts and 14 sm mig29 that they already have. And again better than us. Their missiles can shoot at 150 km, and we French will not be given a meteor. I guess he won't give them those rockets either, but they have r77m on their sights and are still shooting at 200km. This is a nightmare.
Le Rafale est au dessus du gripen,mais le gripen reste un magnifique avion polyvalent pour les petites nations qui veulent un avion disponible pour divers missions différentes
Gripen is the most efficient option for what it costs
well if you are surrounded by country with outdated military Gripen is good enough for defence though it has short combat range,
The new Gripen has a range similar to that of the Rafale
@@J.C.21 You said "most efficient for what it cost" but the new Gripen are more expensive than F16, it's even more expensive than F35 (if you don’t include operational and maintenance cost according to some Brazilian critics since they are buying Super Gripen).
@@jonlaurenzreyes1902It is difficult to analyze the Brazilian contract, considering that it includes the transfer of several technologies and the purchase of many weapons, such as the meteor missile. and also because it is an airplane with a lot of changes, but you will agree with me that just because of the engine, which is much less powerful than the f16's, the Gripen's flight time should be cheaper than the f16's.
@@J.C.21 Super Gripen is still more expensive than F16 even without the technology transfer that's why Sweden offers the upgraded Gripen instead of Super Gripen on Philippines because the cost of Super Gripen is not within the budget requirements. (The contender of 14 upgraded Gripen is 8 F16 blk 70/72).
❤
Каркустка страктакта барзактория бакраска бурструкт фиграния фидачкот..
Ce n'est pas sérieux de comparer le Gripen au Rafale, a choisir les pilotes de chasse préfèrent le Rafale pour rester en vie !
Effectivement, cette vidéo est très très fair play avec le Gripen et laisse à penser aux neophytes que le Gripen n'est pas loin derrière le Rafale alors qu'il y a un monde entre les 2.
Rafale jets
No Doubt both are hi-tech capable fighters but Rafale takes the lead. ☝️😊
...and by very far.
Rafale
Rafale is more battle proven
Yes Rafale edges out..!!
this crap report
agree
Personally, I prefer the SAAB JAS-39E Gripen because I believe that it's as close to dethroning the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II as it can get while still being reasonably affordable. PLUS, it's got a HIGHER readiness rate when compared to the Lightning II or the Dassault Rafale. That & having a MUCH shorter take-off & landing run plus a SMALLER ground crew consisting of 1 Non-Commissioned technician & 4-5 conscript techs, as well. Of course, I'd be happy to make do with the SAAB JAS-39C+ Gripen anytime!
Gripen E/F, the C+ is to be overhauled to E/F standards. Source SAAB official webpage
Гуфиниякта гадраст.
Cost and air to air, Gripen wins.
Bombing stuff, Rafale wins.
Which do you want?
The Rafale has more thrust and climbs faster. It all depends on who's missile finds the other first.
Nope! Rafale climbs 300 m/sek and Gripen E climbs 330 m/sek!
BOOTH
So very little real information given, just a lot of general marketing-speak without making any attempt at arriving at a solid conclusion. And how many different ways can you mispronounce Rafale? Useless.
I am from India and i vote for Rafale
This channel gets things wrong all the time; both these jets are equal in performance other than size and 1 or 2 engines and cost.
Rafale has only one competitor at worldwide level and it's not the Gripen but the F35. Gripen is outclassed by Rafale on every fields.
@@Rilcy2003 lol. the Gripen E? Do you have a fever, mate?
@@Maddog-xc2zv Single-engine versus Twin-engine. Advanced Spectra cell versus standard cell. 100% french/Free-ITAR plane versus US dependant plane. I can continue with many others key figures.
Dassault => French
Thales => French
Safran => French
MBDA => Half-French
Airbus => Half-french
I can continue with many others leading companies.
@@Rilcy2003 I guess you'll state the E/F EW suite is also french... even the lesser advanced versions of the C/D. Sure.
ASA vs AESA, are you joking .... Gripen for budget but still worth and good to buy.. but rafale is one step ahead from gripen actually with more budget you need to buy and maintance than Gripen
Rafale all the way 💪🇨🇵🇭🇷
Gripen, alla dagar.
we can return to the tests carried out in Switzerland, the 3 planes tested: Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen, they had to carry out 2 missions and a return to the base between the two to refuel with kerosene, all within a given time, the Gripen did not even succeed in a single mission, the Eurofighter, only one of the two missions, only the Rafale did everything, even refueling within the allotted time! so what is the point of a plane capable of nothing????? and 2 Rafale carry more weapons (19,000 kg) than 3 Gripen (15,900 kg Gripen NG)!! the Gripen cannot fly over the sea without risk, the engine remains an American engine (F414)! The Rafale is a true multi-role! much less certain than a Gripen! and Radar and SPECTRA are significantly more advanced than the systems on the Gripen! tank equipped with a lot of foreign equipment, these export sales can be prohibited and not for the 100% French Rafale, even Martin Baker's ejection seat is built by a joint company of which 50% is French!!
...and still the Gripen beats the Rafale in air trials. funny.
😂😂😂 lot of bs my friend
Dont read fantasy fiction
I agree, the video is very very nice with the Gripen ! There is no competition between the Rafale and the Gripen. The Rafale outclass the Gripen in every fields. All the countries that really need an effective jet fighter choose the Rafale (=> India, Greece, etc...). Only country with limited budget and no real threat choose the Gripen (=> Brazil, Hungary, etc...).
@@Rilcy2003 difficult to compare!!!! you are right, these two planes are very different, the gripen is a light, low cost plane but with average performance, an old Mirage2000 largely dominates the more recent gripen, in all areas of flight, even in carrying weapons, the Mirage 2000 carries 7.2 tonnes of weapons, the gripen “e” carries only 5.3 tonnes! almost 2 tonnes of difference, it's enormous, it's the weight of an Opel Insignia station wagon! difficult to compare a ferrari and a fiat 600!! a Rafale carries 9500 kg of weapons, 3200 kg more than the Gripen, with less Rafale, 20 Rafale against 30 gripen, we do more work!! 190 tons of bomb or missile, 30 gripen carries only 159 tons!! it’s 31 tonnes more, it’s huge!! to be at the same level of armament, it is almost 36 Gripen to do the work of 20 Rafale!! even if the Gripen is less expensive than the Rafale, $50 million for the Gripen E compared to $65 million for the Rafale! but the Rafale is much more scalable and advanced than this poor gripen, which generally only does representation!! I just read a document on Thailand, they said they think the F35A will be cheaper than the gripen!! honestly, I don't know where they looked for their information!! LOL especially since the F35 is full of failures, and not the gripen, its maintenance will cost more and will be longer, significantly longer on an F35, whether it is the A, the B or the C!! Besides, there were quite a few problems in the USA, the F35s, all the F35s remained on the ground because there were no longer enough spare parts, given the number of parts changes LOL the maintenance is terrible on the F35s!! the funny thing, the F35 has a huge fault, it fears water, short circuit problems, and during the monsoon in Thailand, it will rain for a lot of days!!! LOL
Another one who can’t pronounce rafale properly. In the age on internet and google, it’s inexcusable. The presentation is otherwise adequate.
Too much buzzword bullshit.
SU-35
S.400 destroed Air Gripen Rafal Eurofajter itd.
Rafale eveytime and everywhere !
F4R standard and soon F5 standard.
Neither
I suppose the SU-57, F-35 and F-22 rule them both. How's the J-20?
Su-57. Never seen one doing sh!t like the armata tank than now will not be produced because "it's more expensive than the T-90". BS. They're both crap, that's why production is only for prototypes and no export unit was sold.
Nimble and manoverabily I would take the Gripen any day of the week. My choise would be an upgrade of F-20 Northop Tigershark. The true attack of the sky. Ask Jeagar.
I think the Rafale is even more manoverable than any of the Gripen models, its dogfighting performances an agility are truly amazing (the Rafale is kown for that abilities worldwide) and it even surpasses the F22 nimble (see the 2009 Redflag in Qatar)
Rafale Wins
S400 and SU35 are smiling😎
First they need to take care of the Mig 29 and SU 25 of the Ukrainian Air Force.
@@BzhToine Ukraine had hundreds of Su27, Mig29 and other Soviet jets and helicopters two years ago.
Kiev also had thousands of Soviet tanks.
They lost everything, and have to beg for some Western machines now😅
@@StPiter111
Sure, they also had a full divsion of mobile infantry, 5 star destroyers, The Baron Arkonen and it's troops and Shepard with it's Normandy.
@@BzhToine Our dark Lord, Imperator Palpatine will crush the rebellion😎😎
P. S. Ukraine had the biggest Soviet army as they were close to Nato. Soviet Ukraine had armadas of tanks and jets. It's an open info😅
P. P. S. Ukraine also got a huge amount of Soviet weapons and ammo from all Eastern European countries in 2022/2023😅
It's all gone now😁
@@StPiter111
You're welcome to give us the exact numbers and your sources on Ukraine military hardware in 2022.
Because it's also well known that since 35 years, a good part of this material had been sold, canibalised, reformed or used during the decade of war since 2014.
S400 rules the sky
we've been seing. what are they destroing? flies?
@@Maddog-xc2zv aww, MSNBC didn't report Uki casualties?
@@usun_politics1033 I was talking of a real airforce, not a former USSR collection of old frame planes. But I don't blame you for missing my point, when even Russia's 5th gen SU-57 (which Russian can't mass produce - a crap like the armata, then they say t-90 is better because is cheaper) is far from having the complete roll a 5th gen plane should have; for stealth, not that the su-57 rcs is a great deal, is really pretty bad, we already had the F-117 operational on the early 90's. By the way, how many systems SAM systems deployed to Ukraine or near have been destroyed? MSNBC does not report destroyed Bradley's in Ukraine at a date they were not even sent. You're propaganda is so bad, geez...
@@Maddog-xc2zv your magic NATO air force was never tested against any modern layered air defense. NATO army and air had the last real war in Korea. What NATO is capable of now is not clear or proved by anything.
@@usun_politics1033 no? glad you told me. You can't recall Syria, can you? You're so blinded by propaganda you can't even see your own nose. Get informed before making baseless comments, your selling yourself as the image of a moron or so to all reading your uninformed statements. At least do your homework, some light research as bare minimum...
Rafale is better than gripen ….every army knows it
LOL F35 shits all over these 2 trash cans
Well, obviously, these are 4 gen. The F35 is a 5th with some of the best technology stealth in mind. These don't
F35 would be taken down even before f35 could detect the gripen f35 got the largest rcs on the planet in the stealth category gripen would shit on even on the f22 because usa cant rly modell aircraft they got the smallest possible rcs in HEAD-on aspect but in a half side or full side aspect or when bay opened they will be showen up on radar as a fricking brick at 400km
5th gen should be able to supercruise, f35 can not... it should be classified 4.5+, no?
@@steevoy9966 Super cruise isn't a requirement. In fact, it is largely detrimental for a 5th gen fighter to be able to super cruise as that would damage the RAM, and require airframe changes that would diminish the stealth capabilities.
what was the price again? xD
A Rafale took out an F22. Its not only better, its the best.
Neither one rules the skies.
neather of these jets would stand up to a mig or rapture
Gripen in Afghanistan? Never heard of it.
Gripes is useless..
Yet better that rafale by a mile.
🇭🇷❤️Because Croatia is buying Rafale. Best plane 4th generation. All the best for Croarmy🇭🇷❤️
Croatia is the smallest country that owns Rafale, we should be proud of that without a doubt!
Rafale is the best warplane
Gripen
Rafale