F-16 Or Gripen: Which Would Be More Useful For Ukraine? (WarGames 93) | DCS

[@grimreapers]

Ukraine-Russia Series: Mig-31 vs NATO Black Sea AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHeyq52NZ5p8qqs R-37M Long Range Shootdown: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2SvfHqCadxsh5Y Drone Swarm vs NATO Defense: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rXWlgIaabtZ2etU Patrio PAC-3/IRIS-T vs Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGa9aWSfjJ2MhLs MANPAD/IRIS-T vs Russian Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGq1anqLi8iHr80 AGM-158C LRASM vs Sevastopol: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXW9oHeIna58iNk A-10s Operating in S-400 Nets: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3Pad5-bqMxnaNE Modernized Su-27 vs Su-35: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZ3PfXewmrlleNU Modernized F15/F16 vs Su-35: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4XSq4d-l6aLjNU Can Su-57 Defend Russia From F-22/35: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e17SdGaEnN12b5Y IMPROVED Stealth vs Russian Bombers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5jafYpqjrCpjLc Ukraine Using Hellfire Missile?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZCUint6idKDhtk US Harpoons vs Russian Navy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZrIlmtpeLyFmac Ukraine Using APKWS?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHPbh2yPqqaZl9k Ukraine US HARMs vs Russian S-400: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4TcdoKOqM-KpZo Patriot/NASAMS vs Supersonic Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2LUaKh6ms6hd5Y Fulcrum/Flanker vs Foxbat/Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJm7l6uZbpl9d7c NASAMS vs Russian Cruise Missiles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pnuskJVvas-tps0 Russian KH-47M2 vs Polish Air Force: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ_Vh6ungZqkb9k Su-27 & Drone vs Snake Island: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipDSg6KLZ6asnNE Su-25s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKq5Z2iYiq-tqNk NATO Eurofighters vs Crimean AWACS: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5qtY5d8h81sa8k Patriot, Gepard & Gripen vs KH-65: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJnblaWEn86aZ8k A-10s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGHXi6KlZdp_npY USN Tomahawk Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqfTmmuud96ajJo USAF Stealth Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3vFl2x4mN2hrZI Ukrainian Jets Strike Kerch Bridge: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2mppqCrj7eYeJY F-22 Raptors vs Russian Fighters: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaDQg5ajp9x9jc0 Raptor/Eagle vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZbUiqCriKqiY5o USAF Bombers vs Mariupol Defenses: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3TWk6KFfJWEi5Y Ukraine Bombs Snake Island: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eImZammDgMmemJo Stealth Fighters vs Russian Bombers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKrQamOgo7Z3qaM Sinking Of Moskva #3: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHrNoKx_nsqCsLs Sinking Of Moskva #2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZ_Nl5WglKqqjZY Sinking Of Moskva #1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKnamWmDfLF9hMU Russia Nukes Britain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKvOZWiIe7aqd5o Ukraine Uses Danish F-16s: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2izmp6opZWEl7s Ukraine Uses Polish Mig-29s: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHTMZad3ft-ohbc Russian-Britain Missile Attack: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKiseJmXl9utfqM Ghost Of Kyiv: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6PGpWuMadNkY7c Belgorod Raid: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4LcnIeuqZuZqtk Eurofighter/Fulcrum vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4Hcepymes2aiJI US Strike vs Odessa kzbin.info/www/bejne/gZbMgHudr86WbLs Russian Helo Rocket Lob: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2KbeJp9o7WSqa8 Russian Su-25 vs US Patriot SAM: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6TTZ2yQecSnhZI Understanding Russian SAMs: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGXbhauCg7-Lmdk Ukrainian Jets Road Operations: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnPTq4SentODmNk Russian 40 Mile Convoy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKPCXmV8gcefeM0 Flanker vs Super Flanker: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jICkpoJ8ga96oZY

[@Anarchy_420]

Yo Cap please check open source data for AIM-260! Literally one of the first things about it that pops up is its speed! Which is Mach 5! I kno its changed a couple times or just taken down with no info at all over time lol however months ago open source data was Mach 5 and now its back! Please check for yourself! Mach 5 hypersonic!😅👍

[@Anarchy_420]

Yo Cap PLEASE Blue tinted smoke for U.S. Missiles!🙏

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

Wouldn't the Russian helicopters have had short-range heat seeking missiles? Seems like that would have substantially complicated the use of guns against them at close range. Also, it is generally Russian doctrine to not fly their helos or other aircraft beyond the protective envelope of their air defenses. They operate very differently than we do, in that respect. Their aircraft stay close to their ground forces, generally speaking, in Ukraine, and worldwide, really. They also stay low, fire rockets and the like from maximum range at those low altitudes, and they do so very close to the front line, which means they are still under an air defense envelope. Anything short of an F-22 is going to really struggle in that environment, even the venerable F-16.

[@Anarchy_420]

@@Gabriel_McMillan lol is that why they've lost so many Ka-50's

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

Also, if you ever find yourselves in a situation where you are out of range of your AWACS, and you are going into combat with 4 x Mig-31s and an AWACS, I would suggest attempting to destroy the AWACS before engaging the Mig-31s, just try to pick it off and then retreat and regroup, or better yet, wait for the Mig-31s to come within range of your AWACS, after getting their attention by destroying their AWACS.

[@georgetincher7859]

In the end, it doesn't matter which aircraft is most ideal for Ukraine's present situation. What matters is which aircraft is available in sufficient numbers to be an actual option. The Gripen simply exists in too smaller quantities to be a realistic option. The Swedes barely have enough (74 C models) to meet their own requirements. The Czechs have 14. Hungary has 14. South Africa has about 26. And Thailand has a dozen or so. Brazil thus far only has about 5 of the Gripen-E. Nobody who has Gripens will sell or donate them to Ukraine because there are so few of them they can't afford to. So it doesn't matter how good the Gripen may be when operating from roads or how easy it is for conscripts to service. It isn't a realistic option. On the other hand, there are thousands of F-16s operating throughout the world today. And many countries who operate them are currently in the process of replacing them with the F-35. That largely makes the F-16 the default choice.

[@alexd5197]

Sad truth of the matter that packing up the whole support equipment in a shipping container is such a huge advantage but theres just not enough of them.

[@osvagt]

Pure logic...but time will tell, and I hope for the 'hard to put together'-alternative.

[@isserdigan2835]

@@franklincarroll6772 lol Sweden doesnt have capability to produce 30 in a month. Not even Lockheed produce F16 that fast

[@franklincarroll6772]

@@isserdigan2835 Gripen production facilities also exist in Brazil, genius. I spoke with Saab's VP of aeronautical marketing and she assured me 30 a month was possible if demand existed.

[@franklincarroll6772]

How is it a think tank missed this point? Not possible. Obviously there is something wrong with your thinking. Saab can produce over a hundred planes a year. Enough to meet Ukraine's needs.

[@SonB288]

Great fight. Just one nitpick - I assume you added the AIM-260 for balance (and also because it's a great mod, well done) but there is no way the US would supply it to Ukraine. It's so classified they're even having to build new secure storage facilities. A better actual comparison would be the latest AMRAAM, because we know Ukraine's getting that for NASAMS once they burn through Western legacy stocks.

[@Anarchy_420]

The problem with that is they have The AIM-120D modeled with only a range of 90 miles when realistically it's more on the 105 miles range...

[@memelephant]

Was about to comment this. No way they would risk that falling under russian hands

[@exidy-yt]

News articles I've read say that the F-16s offered to Ukraine will have AIM-120s not 260s so I believe you are correct.

[@martinpalmer6203]

well that and the Aim260 doesn't even exist :)

[@jamison884]

@@martinpalmer6203 It exists. It just isn't operational yet.

[@OscarZheng50]

ukrainian f16s would most likely use AIM 120s not AIM 260s, its not operational yet and i don't think the US will be willing to give their precious AIM 260s to ukraine to use

[@kalle5548]

I have a feeling the Meteor is considerably better IRL, but these parameters are the official "spec", and since SAAB pretty much built the Gripen software modularity, it could probably be armed with the AIM260 if the Swedish airforce wants and the US allows them to, I think Gripen is simply the better platform for Ukraine, only problem is numbers

[@johanlassen6448]

Yes that's why JAS-39E only managed to testfire Meteor in June 2022. Because it's "so easy to integrate". Get off the SAAB coolaid man.

[@anderspettersson9885]

And pilot training...

[@inso80]

@@anderspettersson9885 And the electronics suite. And support logistics, and landing and takeoff capabilities.....

[@jonasw8157]

@@inso80 What do you mean? Gripen can land and take off anywhere?

[@inso80]

@@jonasw8157 I mean it has superior landing and takeoff capabilities. It can use compacted dirt roads to takeoff and land. It's support equipment is designed to be transported in containers. This sort of capability has been in Swedish fighters for a long time. Up here in the north, we got many fancy aviation tricks. Now tell me, what gave you the impression that I said that it could take off and land from anywhere or are you willfully trying to find absurd meanings in my post?

[@SonnyKnutson]

I noticed a much better communication from the pilots on the 2nd go. They also got to "practice" the mission to better know what to expect for the 2nd round.

[@riphopfer5816]

One thing that this doesn’t take into account is the fact that the F-16 requires pristine runways for takeoff and landing, while the Gripen can take off from, let’s just say, less than optimal conditions. I don’t know about dirt, exactly, but certainly the runways don’t need to be absolutely debris-free.

[@Captain_Coleslaw]

The Gripen can take off on dirt if its compacted. Well, i bet it could do grass too, but has to be somewhat hard and level

[@lordsqueak]

Yeah this is a fair point. I was gonna make a comment, but I'll tack on to this one. For Ukraine to use the Gripen, opens up the possibility to operate it from more places. Maybe like a taxiway of a bombed airfield or a road, for example. It's easy and quick to maintain. (doesn't need as much training to get a crew together.) So it could fly to the front and have a road base to quickly rearm and refuel and then fly back home at the end of the day. (basically making the ability to supercruise moot.) But that should translate to more missions per plane per day. (optimally) I'm not sure how optimized the F-16 is at flying low. but I think flying really low is how the Ukrainians would be using the planes. So that's a factor as well. and also, both planes doesn't look russian, so less risk of friendly man pads fire. ;)

[@isserdigan2835]

I think they need both. As F-16 can fly from Lviv away from the frontline while carrying more loadout and fuel. Where a Gripen might struggle staying up due to lower fuel capacity

[@lordsqueak]

@@isserdigan2835 The point I was trying to make is that Gripen doesn't have to go all the way back to the home base. It can land at a temporary road base, refuel and rearm and be on it's way quickly. So it doesn't need to stay up with a heavy load. The way this conflict is playing out, it looks like both sides are being very careful with the few planes they have. Flying low to avoid anti air, and be careful to not get shot down. I don't think flying long missions is all that relevant. So I think Gripen could work quite well in this scenario. Load up what you need for a quick hit and run mission. Land at a road base near'ish to the front, and resupply, and go on the next mission. At the end of the day, fly back to home base for maintenance. I think used that way, you would be able to do more with less planes. And the road base crew doesn't need to be specialists, just normal trained personell. It would be interesting to see GR tackle such a strategy.

[@pogo1140]

@@lordsqueak Back during WW 2, it was not uncommon for fighters to fly from their home base to a forward base in the morning to refuel and from there strike at Japanese targets, then land at the forward base and either refuel and go home.

[@King_Dusty_Of_Pookytopia]

In war games the Grippen is well known for sporting dominant avionics.

[@lenn55]

Gripen would be a good choice mainly because of it's ability to operate from roads and highways.

[@christophero55]

As others have mentioned the Gripen is meant to be maintained fairly easily by conscripts and can operate from roadways-as-runways. Lower operating costs as well.

[@DanSnis]

well, miles per gallon isn't something they considerate. Just how many times you have to stop at a gas station ;)

[@ThorSuzuki1]

Is it really realistic though adding the AIM-260 as it is not even in production yet? Would the US really want to send their latest stuf over there?

[@alf3071]

well it would be good for testing the weapon in real war conditions

[@SonB288]

Yeah, the thing is also so classified, it would never be risked in a warzone unless the US is directly involved. One captured AIM-260 and you can bet every scrap of data will be on the way to China.

[@hemendraravi4787]

same can be said for meteor n gripen E

[@hemendraravi4787]

@@alf3071 u mean free way to give russians aim260s

[@grimreapers]

I couldn't find any info about what would be sent, so I just decided to set everything to best possible weapons.

[@ktwei]

General people need to understand. Fighter planes are complicated weapon system. They are not cars you borrow for a while.

[@iseriver3982]

You've explained it so clearly

[@r200ti]

The real problem is they would get shot down 2 a penny. The us would love to sell all the F-16's it doesnt want anymore. If they were willing to see there aircraft shot down in vast numbers they would of trained plenty of Ukrainian pilots by now and of course there are a lot of NATO pilots they could put on extened leave to help pilot them. But again, having hundreds shot down will look incredibly bad.

[@rmp5s]

Hey man, can I borrow your F-16? I'm moving house next week. 🤣

[@willwozniak2826]

@@rmp5s I wanna borrow a B 21 RAIDER or a F22 RAPTOR.....my tax dollars pay for all this advanced stuff

[@rmp5s]

@@willwozniak2826 I mean...the logic checks out. Hahaha

[@jamison884]

Thanks Cap! I freakin love the video as always sir. For entertainment purposes, the AIM-260 and Meteor are the best choices for this video (100%!). However, I know the US wouldn't actually supply Ukraine with the AIM-260 (I don't think they would send the AIM-120D either, to be honest - C7 perhaps, but more likely the C5, which is also what the NASAMS use if I recall). There was actually a video just today showing a US-supplied AGM-88 HARM stuck into the road and un-exploded. It apparently lost its lock and went down in Russian-controlled Donetsk. The US wouldn't have sent the HARM if they thought Russia could take advantage of reverse-engineering it, so no big deal in this case, but having the AIM-260 in theater for Russia to study is way too dangerous for them. I assume the EU would feel the same for the Meteor. Either way, as I said, it was needed for this video! Perhaps this opens it up to a second video with less capable missiles in play?

[@lluvik2450]

well if they form part of NATO then I think they would give ukraine at least somewhat up to date stuff since if russia attacked ukraine again it would then be russia vs the whole of NATO

[@jamison884]

@@lluvik2450 If Ukraine were part of NATO there would be US pilots flying rather than donated jets. It's just the way it is, as the US would risk using their own brand new top-secret equipment to keep their own forces safe, but they wouldn't risk it in this scenario. This is also the same reason why they don't export their depleted uranium tank shells and tank armor to virtually every country (Abrams).

[@christophero55]

Agreed. AIM-120C7 is the most advanced missile they would send, I believe.

[@christophero55]

That being said would the Meteor be supplied either? I doubt it would.

[@jouniairplanevideos]

Before Watching I would say Gripen, due it's amazing EW suite, runway performance, cold weather performance, adapted to weapons from all western countries and size. update 1: unfair comparison, f16 has weapons wich aren't in use at the moment. So Ukraine can't use it on a F16... You should have use amraam vs amraam or amraam vs meteor. Gripen E can fly with 6 and 3 fuel tanks i believe. Update 2: the Gripen has a bigger canon too, so again a pro to the Gripen. Gripens are down due high altitude flying wich aren't used at the moment back in Ukraine. F16 got SU35 and Mig 31as bandid, Gripen SU 35 and Mig 31 but these Gripens were down to 4. Also different. The Gripen has EW superior to the SU35S so why don't you guys use that as bandid only? Mig 31 is a fast jet but isn't very usefull at low altitude... Also very big for low level flying in my opinion. Please do this again but with the same or comparable missiles please. Now it look like decided battle before we actually start. Could you also include road take offs please?

[@hemendraravi4787]

tbh ukraine is not gonna get the best gripen and meteor missile. they will probably get aim120 c-5 at best and aim9m or aim9x block 1

[@jouniairplanevideos]

@@hemendraravi4787 it would still be able to carry 4 on 2 hardpoints if 2 bags were used. So the belly pylon could get armory too.

[@jouniairplanevideos]

@@babayaga8605 russia can't start a ww3, because they screwed there army already in ukraine. russians won't want to die for putler

[@thejdmguru621]

The Gripen is my favourite single engined modern fighter jet, my airforce uses them and I’ve witnessed a Gripen do a supersonic flyby, it’s got good manoeuvrability and has a good power to weight ratio.

[@Eo_Tunun]

I wonder what the Gripen's round would have looked like if you had gone for more likely correct range data for the Meteors, which probably should be like 15% to 20% greater. 😉 Have both raids flown with Squadron Leader Matrix who obviously has the best overview and control of the situations and with a more realistic Meteor on the Gripen and there may be proof of any concept in that.

[@BenVaserlan]

Gripen because it is designed to be used on without much support on ill-prepared austere airstrips or roads used for that purpose. Also the Gripen can fire meteor and has a good EW capability.

[@thalo215]

Great video. Couple of thoughts. It's more likely that Saab would likely push the Gripen-E. It has more fuel and more hard points. Likely loadout would be 2 bags on wings with a Meteor on each wing and 3 under the fuselage with any of the other missiles available on wingtips. It has a very good to excellent EW suite integrated into the jet and a better engine. Obviously as seen the BK-27 is a superior cannon. In this configuration it has a better weapons load over the Viper. Another consideration that can't be overlooked is cost. A Gripen has a lower cost per flight hour than the Viper.

[@jouniairplanevideos]

Saab has pictures of 2 meteors or amraams on one pylon/hardpoint. Basicly it could carry 7 missiles

[@hemendraravi4787]

highly doubt they would give their best tech , thats like revealing ur secerets to the russians

[@lordsqueak]

I doubt they would send Gripen-E, simply because they have a lot of Gripen-C, but not a lot of E models. Can't send what you haven't made yet. (for future contracts, yes it makes sense.) I think more important than cost per flight hour, is that you can rearm and refuel with normal trained conscripts. So you don't need much training to do it. And another advantage is that you can have more road-crew bases. So you could rearm and refuel near the front line, and go back to the home base at the end of the day. Meaning you can run more sorties per day. (optimally) I think that maybe , being able to carry 4 or 7 missiles doesn't much matter, since you're typically doing simple missions. (hit one target) So I think being able to quickly get back into the air for another mission might be more valuable. Both sides are being very careful with how they use their aircraft, due to threats and the fact that they don't have much of them left. That's going to affect the kinds of missions you can do with the aircraft. I hope Cap reads this, because I think this video was perhaps not the best representation of how Ukraine would use the planes. I would love to see a scenario that tries to take that into account. the Ukrainians have to deal with russian SAM's, so they stay very low. Meanwhile the russians have to deal with manpads so they also stay low and typically lob missiles/rockets from a distance. All in all, the need to stay low and the threat of anti air prevents both sides from carrying out long missions. Maybe I'm completely wrong about this,, but it does look like that's what they are doing. ♥

[@TheNecromancer6666]

One correction, the Meteor will perform better low down then any rocket powered missile. It can easily climb out and sustain high speeds down low. So of all imaginable weapons its the best down low. Yeah it will loose Range while firing up. But it will do so a lot less then any rocket powered missile.

[@Wien1938]

I'm certain the GR modelling for Meteor is wrong.

[@andieslandies]

Having read a variety of reports that suggest the Grippen is a good choice for Ukraine, and having watched a lot of your 'best interceptor' videos, I'm inspired to comment...It's not a negative comment on this, or any of your videos, I'm watching them, and I looove them a lot! The best platform for a task is, however, not solely determined by airborne performance. If you had an aircraft with an incomparable air-to-air and air-to-ground performance envelope extending all the way from Mach 0.5 to Mach 7.0, and carrying the longest range and most accurate ordnance for both tasks at once...but...that aircraft required a six mile runway paved 100mm deep with 24K gold, 1,000 ground crew to refuel, and 3 hours from 'scramble' to 'rotate' it would probably be pretty useless. That's clearly an over the top scenario but it touches on factors that are as true for the question you're looking at today as they were for your 'best interceptor' videos, and can't be seen in the air. I massively love and enjoy your work!

[@jari2018]

gripen is only good if you got before a war and trained on it -so the best for ukraine are planes they already got . Same with modern tanks - if you dont have any at wars start it most likey you wont get any since all new modern tech takes years to train and come by - so newer throw old hardware away unless its more than 50 year over it last date

[@lluvik2450]

i absolutely love the gripen's hud. You can see the viggen's legacy in it and I just love the way they represent the pitch angles

[@Shrimping]

Feeling very valued today, thank you Cap.

[@palker4]

You do realize that your Meteor model is complete bunk, right? The ramjet has much greater thrust at low altitudes cause higher air density, from the info i got from the video it seems like your model has constant thrust at all altitudes so it flies at reasonable speed up high but then is completely anemic down low

[@robertsimmonds1477]

As some have said here - so much that isn’t right. The Gripen can be operated by a skeleton crew and use strips/taxiways - the F-16 can’t. And historically the US doesn’t give the best weapons to even its closest allies: hence the Europeans and Israel develop their own EW/Radar and weapons. So, good fun to watch but not in any way even politically accurate.

[@feartheellipsis6608]

RUSI have already said that the Gripen was specifically designed for this kind of war and was a better decision.

[@littlegrabbiZZ9PZA]

The Gripen is the Nordic response to the Mig 29. A short range (extendable to medium-ish with bags) interceptor with secondary ground attack capability designed for minimum maintenance between overhauls and to operate from grass airfields as long as they don't get *too* bumpy. While the F16 fills a similar role, it lacks the rough field capability and low maintenance, otherwise they're built for the same task and perform adequately at both. That being said, I believe the GR Meteor lacks one of the system's greatest advantage, variable thrust. It's much better at mid-course maneuvers than the AIM 290, allowing much better retargeting over datalink. The 290 needs to already be going in the generally correct direction after booster burnout, the Meteor will just throttle up and turn. It does lose range doing this, but much less than an unpowered missile would.

[@voradfils]

Meteor is probably very good at low altitude in real life. Drag will be high like any other missile but since it's air-breathing, thrust goes up as well.

[@znail4675]

Yes, in real life Meteor is better at low altitude then AMRAAM, but not because of air-breathing, the key is that it can throttle down the thrust. Missiles have low range at low altitude due to the drag being high and that increases by speed cubed. AMRAAM gets all it's acceleration in the first few seconds then the thick atmosphere slows it down fast. Meteor can ride on low thrust and limit the drag for much longer range. The max range for AMRAAM requires the missile to be fired ballistically almost out of the atmosphere.

[@voradfils]

@@znail4675 The way I phrased the thing was somewhat misleading, but makes sense in context. The problem here in the game is that its thrust does not increase at low altitude, which leaves it stuck at 600 knots. I suspect the real missile would opt for something like M2 - 2.5 and sustain that as long as possible.

[@christiangilensparr6225]

I would love to see a re-run, but this time with Gripen-E and F-15, there should be a big difference 😎✌🏻

[@max2008abhi]

The f-16 won't do well in Ukraine because it's a runway queen and needs a paved runway for operation. Gripen on the other hand is a good fit because it was designed for road based operations which is more common in Ukraine.

[@Utubesuperstar]

I absolutely adore violets bloodlust Cap: you know we could have a pop at the awacs it’s perfectly legal Violet: already burning at angels 40 going after it

[@yahnump]

Never set cookie down where a toddler can see it. Never fly an AWACS where Violet can reach it.

[@Utubesuperstar]

@@yahnump she’s a being of pure willpower

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

Hard to beat the Viper at any one aspect of combat. There are many jets that could fill this role, but the two chosen to battle it out are both world class. The Viper doesn't just do everything well, it does everything like it was specially designed for that task. CAP, CAS, SEAD, dogfighting...the list is long and distinguished (so's my Johnson) (name the movie that quote was from) but the Gripen is right there too. Coin toss

[@totalnerd5674]

The Achille's Heel for the Viper being sent to Ukraine is the landing gear. Ukrainian runways are too rough for the Viper's little wheels, and they will need to smooth them out before they can be sent. Also, we can just send way more F-16s if need be.

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

@@totalnerd5674 Good point. Hell, I have landed the Viper on smooth, perfect runways and damaged the landing gear from a little too hard of a landing. If you're lucky it's only a flat tire, but too rough and the entire gear collapses. Now, this is DCS and not the real world, so I will have to defer to someone who is knowledgeable. Like an ex crew chief or someone like that

[@artnull13]

Top Gun - Slider

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

@@artnull13 lol YES! You sir are the winner of the internets today. Congrats. And don't let ANYONE tell you that obscure movie quotes are worthless. You just proved them all wrong.

[@brianpreece4410]

Cool watch cap. I would actually imagine the Gripen would be a better logistical pick for Ukraine given the lower reliance on long and pristine runways. The amount of suitable runways in Ukraine for the f16 decreases every day. F16 is an older platform (depending on which version) so not a lot of risk in losing a platform to Russian intelligence. I think gripen is a more flexible platform and fits Ukraine's needs more. At the end of the day, it boils down to nato choosing whether or not to supply aircraft in the first place.

[@artnull13]

Boils down to where the money is coming from. If it’s from lend-lease I doubt the US would be happy to send Sweden their money despite it being the logical choice.

[@alexd5197]

Theres just not enough gripens out there in the world its def the better option but theres thousands of F-16s floating around and the parts for them

[@megalamanooblol]

@@alexd5197 Plus at some point most of EU operated F-16s, the amount of personnel that can train Ukrainian pilots, technicians and planners I imagine is way greater than for Gripen.

[@thearisen7301]

People are right to note Gripen's smaller maintenance reqs and non standard runways but there just aren't very many of them and getting some is quite difficult since Sweden is converting C models to the E standard. F-16 is available which is the best feature.

[@jorehir]

Considering that the Gripen is logistically way better, that it probably has a better electronic warfare suite (TBC), and that the AIM-260 doesn't quite exist, i think the Gripen remains the better plane for Ukraine.

[@rhasanen]

Gripen has probably the best EW suite in an operational fighter. There is not loads of data on it but the only international exercise Gripen pilots were allowed to turn on the EW suite they obliterated the opposing force. Version E has a more capable EW and ECW than previous versions as well capacity to track enemies without using radar and no it is not the squad link system I refer to but the IR detection system that spans much wider portion of the sky than radars manage. US opted out of using a similar system for F35 citing cost and weight limitations.

[@TheAmbex]

I think it's most likely that any Gripens sent to Ukraine would be the A-D models. Sweden is in the process of replacing them with the newer E/F as it is. Not sure about the F-16, but in both planes cases I doubt anyone would want to risk the Meteor or the 260 falling into Russian hands. Odds are both would get equipped with the 120C/D.

[@thomasbengtsson4034]

Well, they say that IF they would send Gripen, they would consider using the Czech C/D-model they've rented from Sweden. Czech republic is going for F-35 and won't need the Gripens. But that's a very big IF... :)

[@jensolsson9666]

All A/B has been upgraded to C/D

[@ThePereubu1710]

Haven't watched but I'd say Grippen due to the relatively low maintenance requirements and it's ability to run from temporary bases. Wonder if that's what you decide? Edit: Hm....that doesn't bode well for any future air combat for Ukraine does it?

[@charlcoetzee281]

Agree. Gripen was built to fly off roads and to be maintained by essentially conscripts. Much more flexible in deploying.

[@totalnerd5674]

Do you think the F/A-18 Legacy Hornet would be comparable in that respect? The US Marines, Finnish & Canadian Air Forces are in the middle of retiring them in favor of the F-35s, so we'll have a lot more of them to spare than the Gripen.

[@ThePereubu1710]

@@totalnerd5674 I don't think it's so much to do with how many spare aircraft there are. The Ukrainians, who are all trained to fly and maintain Soviet era aircraft, will need something simple to replace them. From my understanding US aircraft take a large crew to manage and maintain plus large quantities of specialised equipment. The Grippen was designed to be the opposite.

[@h2ogun26]

First time seeing gripen’s hud and i really like the way they show the bearing!

[@runner1086]

Just so you know ! Gripen has the capability to use Nato ordonance. That was one of the things that was asked for when they orderd the build of Gripen. So this run you made is invalid when it comes to the Gripen. But a nice video anyway. The fact is i have a hard time chosin betveen these two panes, i do like them both.

[@OctaviusRomulus]

Matrix's expertise and calm demeanor is, once again, impressive.

[@Thunderb3Martin]

Nice touch having Czech aniversary camo:). Thanks for this from Martin. Czech Republic

[@iankphone]

Advantage Grippen: built to operate and be maintained in austere conditions by minimal ground crew. F-16 - delicate high maintenance flower with that toxic hydrazine APU.

[@jaredjohnson8553]

The Gripen is definitely a sexy looking plane. If it's going up against the F-16 though...that's by FAR the best looking American plane. So in a looks competition between them I think, sadly, the Gripen loses out. It pains me to say that.

[@megalamanooblol]

F-16 is beauty, but the best looking US jet ? Has to be F-22, Raptor rule of cool is just off the charts.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

Before watching, and for a long-endurance sortie like this, I'm going for the F16. Longer legs, longer range missiles. I shall now watch the mission and be prepared to eat my words......Well, root me silly. I was right. To be fair though, the Gripen was designed to provide air-defence for Sweden, which doesn't need a lot of legs or a lot of sustained combat capacity; Short, repeat sorties from rough terrain runways, and it's pretty good at that. The F16 was... oh, wait, designed to be a short range, day only dogfighter. Turns out it's been in service since the 70's and can still do almost anything pretty well. Bit of a CLASSIC design then. And much underrated. And the METEOR? Looks great on paper, but that whole "you've got to be 8 miles up and firing downhill" stuff really limits it's tactical flexibility. Was it just designed so Eurofighters could shoot down Bears over the North Sea, with like 6 hours warning time?

[@palker4]

no sane military would adopt a missile that can be only fired at high altitude is outranged by everything at low altitudes. Meteor ramjet model is wrong.

[@jagheterbanan]

This is just a game, the Gripen and Meteor are not accurately modeled and the entire scenario is unrealistic. Don’t draw conclusions on what would happen IRL from DCS.

[@Cue_D_ball]

One thing for sure is that the Swede save the black bird coming out of the Soviet union. So I’ll pick the Swedes aircraft over the F 16. That’s my reason.

[@MatsGarage]

As a Swede I am biased towards the Gripen of course. I think the Gripen would be a better fit for Ukraine being able to operate from temporary airfields and roads etc. I dont think range is that much of a deal as I imagine Ukraine will only operate them inside their own borders. Then on the other hand there arent enough Gripens around to really make a difference. Say Ukraine needs 100 airplanes, thats the whole Swedish avaible airforce. Never going to happen while there is a war on in Europe. So in that case the F16 has the edge, and I do think the F16 is the better looking airplane.

[@petrihadtosignupforthis8158]

Well, it always works when you turn around the requirement - F16 does not qualify due to runway requirements. How about F35B with VTOL? Running stealth hit&runs, VTOL landing for reload near some forest, say highway rest stop. Then maybe STVOL take-off on highway to save time and fuel and keep going? Then back to Europe for maintenance.

[@jetfighter200]

i doubt that the ukraine would get F16 with brand new Aim260 ...

[@Kaelland]

I don't think using the AIM-260 makes this a "fair test." The AIM-260 isn't even fully deployed in US service, so there's no chance it would be sent to Ukraine as part of an F-16 package. It's far more likely that they would get some variant of the AIM-120. It would make the test fair (or at least closer to fair) to give the F-16s the missiles Ukraine would be likely to get with the aircraft. As for which version of F-16 they'd be likely to get, it depends on where they get it from. For example, Norway just retired their F-16A fleet and replaced it with F-35s. Norway sold a dozen of their F-16s to Draken International, and Romania has expressed interest in buying the rest of them. And Romania needs them since they are in dire need of replacements for their MiG-21 fleet. If any other operator of the F-16 were to retire their F-16 fleet, those planes may become available for sale or trade. Whether those would be available for Ukrainian purchase, specifically, is questionable. The US government hasn't been keen to even let Poland transfer MiGs to Ukraine, so it's likely they would block the sale or transfer of F-16s to Ukraine unless things change drastically and soon.

[@Jaxymann]

It's strange to me that Ukraine doesn't have Gripens already. For a very capable 4.5 Generation fighter jet, it's one of the cheapest modern combat aircraft in the world to operate, and far more economical than Eurofighters and F35s which is important for a country like Ukraine that doesn't have all the money in the world to spend on its defence budget. Even the C-model is more than a match for most of Russia's frontline fighters (older MiGs-29 and Flankers), and as well as being interoperable with NATO forces and weapon systems some of which like Hungary & the Czechs also operate Gripens, it is massively flexible in being able to operate from roadways and other unprepared surfaces with minimal support crew.

[@angrypandaification]

Grrrrumpnik! Fun times thanks for the great video lads.

[@zahnatom]

i wonder how the Meteor is programmed to be launched... because i just have a feeling that it'll use all of its booster to gain altitude to get around that low altitute performance. somehow i also feel like it shouldn't be *that* slow down low but eh thats just my opinion sidenote: why weren't the MWS and RWR working?

[@garethwigglesworth8187]

Gripen over f16 definitely

[@runem5429]

I definitely think the Gripen is a much better fighter to give to Ukraine in the short term. And I think this mission is very unlike anything it would be doing in that war. Also it seems like your modelling of the Meteor does not have the boost part of it's engine..? Anyone know if the firing from low altitude is actually a problem for the real missile, I don't see why it would be...

[@michelchaman6495]

omg 11:12 that sound of the guns on the gripen wowzers its soo good.

[@adriveranes9454]

The aim 260 is not exist ..and the r77m and r37m yes this is the difference...and the correct comparison is the su 35 whit k77 and mig 31 in high altitude..30000 miter whit r 37m...

[@SonB288]

Also, slight request - you used to stop following missiles just before they hit so we could see the impact. Any chance you could start doing that again? I'm a simple man who just wants to see explosions.

[@grimreapers]

New bug in game means that view no longer works most of the time, the camera just goes weird.

[@chrisinstasis7986]

Best use of the MGS exclamation sound effect ever seen on KZbin. 😂

[@stanleytolle416]

Really the importance is which aircraft can operate in Ukraine. The F-16 can't operate in Ukraine because it requires fully developed airfields with complex maitaince equipment operated by highly trained maintaince crew. The Gripen is designed to operate by improvised airfields like two lane roads or even grass or packed dirt. The maitaince set up is fully truck mounted and mobile. All maintaince on the Gripen, including engine changes, has been greatly simplified so that all maitaince can be done in field locations by crews that require only short term training. The Gripen is not a slouch when it comes to combat abilities being tuned to fight a conflict with the Russian armed forces. It's has the ability to do air to air as well as air to ground against the Russians including dealing with the Russian anti-aircraft systems. For these reasons the Gripen is the aircraft Ukraine should get.

[@totalnerd5674]

Since the Marines still use legacy F/A-18 and Harrier II, which are being replaced with F-35, could they be sent to Ukraine once they are retired? I feel like a ground attack mission would be nice to see, and the Harrier would be especially useful for its VTOL. If you choose to test the Harrier, I think it should have a loadout of a few Mavericks and some of the "Sidearm" Antiradar missiles, so that it can properly defend itself from SHORAD.

[@gantulgaganhuyag717]

Crash rate for harrier with properly trained pilots were too high. Ukrainian pilots will not have enough time to train on it and be useful

[@totalnerd5674]

@@gantulgaganhuyag717 Oh, yeah, that is correct...

[@pogo1140]

The USMC not long ago had more F/A-18C/D's down for maintenance than were available for missions. The parts situation has not changed much with them having to raid the scrap yards for parts

[@totalnerd5674]

@@pogo1140 Well I suppose such an old platform may not be so viable, then... Still, even just 30 Hornets being supported by spares from the other 100 should be able to make a difference, and if they are on their last legs, then they may as well see some use before being scrapped. That being said, combat fatigue will burn through whatever they've got... you are probably right...

[@megalamanooblol]

@@totalnerd5674 Will 30 worn down Hornets really make that much of a difference tho ?

[@AceofCrazy89]

I feel like the f18 would be a better option due to the strengthened landing gear

[@pogo1140]

It would be if you could find low flight time units. The Blue Angels converted to F/A-18E partially because of the lack of spare parts. The Marines have been raiding the storage depots for parts.

[@AceofCrazy89]

@@pogo1140 I know the swiss operate them as do the Canadians and australians. I know those countries are buying f-35's maybe theyd be able to give their aircraft to Ukraine.

[@AceofCrazy89]

@@pogo1140 Also the super hornet's are still being made so I feel that parts wouldnt be too much of an issue

[@deanschneider8775]

A bit of debris on runways keeps F16 grounded. So it is target practice only. At least the F-18 could take off. Gripen Jas-39, even better, with 'shoot and scoot' refuel/rearm potential on stretches of highway. Along with less training from the technicians needed.

[@justSkitBra]

Gripen in real life would eat the sukhoi no problem, its jamming suite is perfectly tailored to combat them. also why assume the aim-260? it isnt an operational missile. a hypothetical "meteor-2" could have a range of 400 miles does it mean you should add that? and btw it is not hard to find alot of info on the different Gripen models, make an effort to atleast look.

[@timtimmy7887]

Love the way Cap says "Pewtin' AKA Vladimir the "Pap Smear"

[@jaxompol224]

Now try his of short rough runways where the long range is reduced...then the small grippen comes into it's own. but this is very dependant on conditions.

[@superflyguy4488]

Neither would have much of a strategic impact in the current conflict. Drones have shown that having air superiority now means very little when it comes either side's ability to attack ground targets from the air, or to carry out ISTAR. Irrespective of the sexy technology available at the time, all wars involving armies with similar capability's comes down the infantry driven CQB. In my experience having CAS on call was nice, but nothing (at the time) was as accurate or as immediate as smart IDF. You can call TIC all you want but nothing beats a GMLRS with a 40 seconds time of flight.

[@ecliptix5436]

Hello Valued Cap! I hope you're doing well also. May I request one of the ridiculous funny videos wherein a bag of B-One-R's intercept a Star Destroyer? Nukes optional, of course. And maybe a vanguard of Raptors (or something else fun and ridiculous like warbirds) to deal with Tie Fighters? Many thanks :)

[@grimreapers]

Boner vs Star Destroyer? OK sure.

[@ecliptix5436]

@@grimreapers Yay!!

[@forMacguyver]

Gripen would be better for Ukraine. Better at operating from roadways, less maintenance, fewer maintenance crew needed. F-16 needs proper airfield and much more maintenance support.

[@SolRC]

I hear a Wow raid fight description, a little boring but yah this is very cool. Planes are better without canopy 🤙

[@Psychobolic77]

Since you asked, I've never been much a fan of canards, so the F-16 has the Gripen beat on looks. That being said, I'm far more concerned with performance and the F-16 takes that category as well. Above all else, having followed the progress of the actual war quite closely, one thing is abundantly clear: The publicly available statistics about Russia's (and China's) military assets and capabilities have been grossly exaggerated and are completely unreliable. It's a shame, too, because how else can a simulation be designed? I don't know, but I certainly would throw out any figures that give Russian aircraft and missiles capabilities beyond anything NATO has to offer. That may seem biased, and perhaps it is, but Russia is under heavy sanctions and has been for a long time. It's simply unrealistic to think they would have anything that would compare to what the Western Powers' unrestricted war budget could produce in terms of both technology and training.

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

I would have thought that Gripen and Falcon would be tasked as interceptors against Russian cruise missiles and fighter sweeps. Russian helicopters can be handled by MiG-29 and the Frogfoots. AIM-260? Don't think so. Your Meteor info seems way off. It will have superior performance in dense low level air and its ramjet burns longer than a typical rocket powered AIM so it has sustained speed throughout the engagement envelope.

[@emilw9690]

This comparison should have been made with the cost factored in as well, since they are supposedly 50% both when buying and running. Would have loved to see the same scenario but with 18 gripens vs 9 16s :)

[@deadmeat8754]

About the sim itself, at 3M USD per unit and very low-rate production, why on earth did you equip the Gripen with Meteor? The AIM-260 poses a similar question. Ukraine wouldn't be getting either of those missiles.

[@valireklaam]

the maintenance costs of Gripen are much lower and they can lift off from regular highways, they can also fly at low altitudes not visible to Russian radars

[@jetfighter200]

"they can also fly at low altitudes not visible to Russian radars" i wouldn't count on that...thats why russian SAMs have low-level radar detectors too

[@schweizerluchs7146]

The factor that many don't factor in when choosing the Gripen for Ukraine is that there aren't many units in the world. Only 271 JAS-39A/B/C/D have been built yet. Sweden has planned to buy 40-60 JAS-39E/F in the future which would mean that some (maybe 10-20 airframes) could be given to Ukraine BUT that would be years away. The F-16 however could be given in "big" quantities. just in 2022 alone the US retired 47 F-16 Block 25. A lot of partner nations which switch from the F-16 to the F-35, could send their Vipers to Ukraine. edit: small corrections

[@ystava686]

Surely both of these are two of the most sexy planes.... along with the F-20 Tigershark...

[@comradesionnach]

My question is, how is the F-16 at operating from improvised runways. I know the JAS-39 is designed to operate from highways etc. and the Ukrainian Air Force has been operating under these conditions from shortly after the beginning of the invasion from what I understand. If the F-16 can't do this easily then the answer is clear. Plus the Gripen is by far thevsexier plane...

[@josephpenn1115]

Looks like GR read my mind. I was thinking this would be a cool video idea last night lol.

[@tomriley5790]

Something that's not taken into account here is that the Grippen is designed for operating from dispersed/semiprepared airstrips whereas the F16 needs a full airfield. Similarly the Grippen is designed to be maintained by a conscription/reservist force with all panels accesable without ladders. Not so with the F16. All in all those factors are likely to be considerably more important for Ukraine given that they are operating from dispersed semiprepared surfaces (or unprepared) with largely rapidly trained maintenance personel.

[@brianwesley28]

Gripen. I'm sure the E/F will be pretty sweet. She's light on the hardpoints. The C has probably been the best budget fighter for some years. The purchase price for the E/F are higher than the C, making it closer in price to a premium fighter, presumably doing the same for her capabilities and performance. The cost to operate per hour is the best in the West. The F-16 gets close in that category, however. The AIM-260 gives the F-16 a new edge. Put the AIM-260 on the Gripen E and I'll take the Gripen. They are sexy, too.

[@stevenreyna3437]

You really know how to value me

[@rixogtr]

The interior of that Grippen doesn't look particularly finished therefore pleasing, but gosh that sound of the gun

[@TheRealAirBlade]

GR: "is the gripen or the viper sexy?" me: "yes!"

[@znail4675]

I have to wonder where the idea that Meteor have to be fired down comes from?

[@Stigsens1]

I flew from many ukranian airfields, the landing gear on a F-16 would not survive those bumpy slats and potholes. A Gripen is actually the only option from the two.

[@christopherchristianvanlan1809]

4800 F16s have been produced. More than all other aircrafts combined in the west. However Gripen can technically go in with extra fuel tanks, make bombraids and literally glide all the way back to Sweden. The range without weapon is extreme

[@AyOuB.God-soldier]

Super cap the problem In the Ukraine war is there is lot of SAM system both sides have manpads with big amounts and they have long range medium range SAM like S300 Ukraine and S300/400 Russia and buk missiles M2 for Ukraine and M2/M3 for Russia so it's kind of hell to fly on the front lines If you fly low you will be a target to manpads and if you fly high you will be a target to long/ medium range SAM's missiles and that's why both use helicopter as a MRLS system or just to snipe some tanks with ATGM'S when there is tank attack and you can see in this conflict there is abig shortage of use Air bombs ( guided or unguided bombs) only long/medium range of air to ground missiles or anti radars missiles

[@hughjohnson2674]

I suspect the one that can be delivered quicker and can handle the unprepared or damaged ground facilities.

[@streetcop157]

Choppers on the deck in the city……just use the schools and shopping centers as a backstop….. another great video

[@CGoody564]

Maintenance, down time, and cost matter. Those are why the Gripen would be appropriate, despite maybe not being quite as effective for the specific mission per se, especially with an air force that still needs to train to make use of said equipment

[@brokenursa9986]

I'm disappointed in Simba's opinion of the Gripen. I love tailless deltas with canards. The Gripen sits in a comfortable second place for me behind the Rafale and ahead of the Typhoon for my favorite 4/4.5 gen planes.

[@lowtdave]

Love the HIND at 32:15 . Also that poor city had 20mm rounds raining down on it all over the place. That and HINDs falling on it.

[@mateen6849]

Love the video, I just think it’s very biased how there is a completely hypothetical aim-260 that has no official model yet but the su-35s are using r-77-1s when the r-77m is confirmed and official. I just feel like if ur going to be hypothetical with the US, might as well be hypothetical with the Russians.

[@nickrider815]

Both are a good choice. Don't think they would get the latest AIM missiles though with the F16. But in real life the Gripen would be the better choice. That is for a range of factors. Better maintenance options, cheaper to mass produce, better options or air strips.

[@justifiablyhuman]

Grippen isn't "ugly," but I am probably super biased because US military hardware has always looked sexier to me. F-14, 15, 16, even the F-18 is a good-looking frame.

[@justifiablyhuman]

Even the ugly ducklings of the US air fleet are iconic and therefore have visual appeal... think A-10, F-111, F-117

[@justifiablyhuman]

That is not to mention the completely unmatched sexiness of the Sr-71, F-14, B-1, B-2, F-22, and F-35

[@nevisstkitts8264]

Proper test would be Grips then 16s and then Grips + 16s since the UA needs as many assets as it can get ...

[@vicoschangoku609]

Gripen is the most beautiful modern plane to me :)

[@emergcon]

You forgot to check if everybody had their emergency Allen wrenches

[@michaeldavison9808]

Now rerun it with a takeoff from a dirt track somewhere. Isn't that the reason people keep advocating the Gripen, not because it is superior, just because it is designed to operate from roads.

[@sergheiadrian]

I don't think Ukraine would have an AIWACS nor would they be allowed to use NATO AIWACS to guide missiles.

[@Anarchy_420]

Yo Cap PLEASE Blue tinted smoke for U.S. Missiles!🙏

[@MrMasterSpam]

I agree with George Tincher. There are simply too few Gripens while there are hundreds of F-16 that could be supplied in a short period of time so the argument is mute.