JAS 39 Gripen vs. F-16: Can It Overtake the F-16's Global Dominance?

[@linosoriano2083]

Gripen is more cost effective in terms of maintenance. It only needs 110 trained personnel to resupply/Maintain a squadron of Gripen, whereas the F16 needs 250 personnel for a squadron of 14 planes

[@keiming2277]

@@linosoriano2083 Probably the only silver lining for the Gripen over the F16

[@PlaneBoyRadar]

True

[@mikkorenvall428]

@@keiming2277 Gripen is 30 years newer design, and it shows. F-16 is coming to the end of updates. Basic struckture is out of date in F-16.

[@jakobholgersson4400]

@@keiming2277 Did you even watch the video? The Gripen is in most ways superior to F16. The drawbacks are that it can't carry nukes and it has slightly worse energy retention. Although that's likely to change as the Swedish Materiel Administration are paying to have the E/F's engines upgraded before delivery to produce some 20% more thrust.

[@Mange070]

And it is from the beginning, designed for dispersed operations ( the SAAB 35 Draken and SAAB 37 Viggen did this before Gripen ). Very low maintenence costs/requirements compared to other military jets.

[@qwertyuio266]

Both the F-16 and the JA37 Viggen flew for the first time in 1974, they entered service in 1979 and 1980 respectivly. The JA37D Viggen was retired in 2005 having combat network capabilities that wasnt surpassed by any American fighter until the F-35 entered service in 2015. By then the SwAF had been relying on the Gripen A/B for a decade. Its ridiculous comparing the Gripen C/D/E with any fighter, when you cant even grasp what its predecessor was capable of doing two decades ago. How can you even begin to understand the capabilities of the Gripen C/D or even dream of what the totally new combat aircraft the Gripen E can do? Its like when the USN leased the HMS Gotland for one year and couldnt find it, so they prolonged the lease for another year and still couldnt find it. Swedens so called obsolete submarine tech. Yeah, Gripen E looks just like a new upgrade of Gripen C/D, a straight foward basic design combat aircraft. It has sensor capabilities that atleast match the F-35, a far better man-machine-interface and lots of more computing power. Software upgrades can be flown the same day, they are written. Every Gripen E can act like a Growler while performing and switching in flight back and forth from A2A, A2S, A2G and reconnaissance. Engine swaps beside the road in the bush, can be performed from stop to rotate in less than an hour. Gripen E can detect the F-35 with the radar in ******* mode at a distance were the Gripen can engage the F-35, but the F-35s weapons still are out of range and it havent detected the Gripen. . Who needs silly stealth, every capable radar knows that sparrows doing Mach 0.9 arent sparrows. The F-35 was also supposed to replace the A10 Warthog, so Groundhog will be a suitable name, since it seems to hibernate all year long in its hangar. Were we talking of F-16 vs the all new combat aircraft designed several decades later, the Gripen E. Sorry the comparison is ludicrous, like comparing a 1974 Ford pickup with the latest Tesla. Now ask yourself why NATO and the US is doing everything they can to stop Sweden from sending Gripen C/D MS20s to Ukraine? USA wont allow Sweden to send Gripens to Ukraine, since it would be a catastrophy for LM and Boeing. So no Gripens for Ukraine, sorry its all about putting US first, dont matter if its Rep. or Dem. running the Whitehouse.

[@commonsenselogic]

Actually, a 1984 Ford to a modern Tesla is a poor comparison to fighter jets. And the F 16's today aren't the same as the first F 16's that rolled off the production line.

[@MegaGronis]

JAS Gripen first flight was 9 th December 1988 . So tell no lies!

[@qwertyuio266]

@@commonsenselogic Yes the newest iteration of the F-16 has caught up with the Gripen A/B, unfortunately its still far behind the Gripen C/D. Its like comparing a 20 year old Swedish Scania truck and the latest US Peterbildt truck. The Peterbildt sucks in comparison.

[@qwertyuio266]

@@MegaGronis I haven't mentioned the year of the first flight of the Gripen, so how can i then lie about it? The first Gripen A flew in december 1988 and the all new aircraft design Gripen E first flew in june 2017.

[@ulfstrom]

The airframe is the key to success! Air intake are high. That enables Gripen to take off and landing on ordinary roads. Instead of people walking all the length of a runway, looking for everything that could be ingested into the engine. You can have a fast turnaround, below 10 minutes. With conscription!!

[@w8stral]

So can EVERY other jet out there. In fact the ONLY aircraft which can do so BETTER are the RUssian designs with TOP air diverters to air intake. Grippen is no more saved from FOD than any other aircraft with air intake slung underneath. Grow a brain. Are air intake diverters required in reality? No. Easy to walk a runway with ground personnel who already are sitting on their arses doing NOTHING anyways.

[@rainnelmaclang4803]

@@w8stral Look again at pictures of F-16s and JAS-39s. F-16's air intakes are mounted below the pilot's feet. JAS-39's air intakes are at the pilot's shoulder level. Less likely for FOD during takeoff. They are designed to operate from rural roadways.

[@kronop8884]

@@rainnelmaclang4803 Rural especially prepared, paved roads.

[@w8stral]

@@rainnelmaclang4803 There is this thing called LANDING GEAR LENGTH...

[@rainnelmaclang4803]

@@w8stral Yeah? The Russians know how effective the landing gear length is on real war situations. That's why they have top air intake diverters. Let's just wait. Ukraine F-16s will probably have FOD-induced accident sooner or later. Their airfields are of Soviet design. You think their ground crews will bother walk the runway for FOD?

[@jonnyhjalmarsson9057]

JAS39 GRIPEN E/F Dont have STOVL only STOL This concept was applied in the design of Gripen which can be seen in its STOL (Short Take Off and Landing) capabilities. Today, Gripen E can take off in strips of road that are only 16m wide and 500m long, and land on a 600m long road. STOL capabilities also allow Gripen to take off from small taxiways and civil airfields.

[@chiranjivjena1134]

exactly.....its only STOL....

[@hakandelabiarritz6750]

no but older jas39 c/d winn against 5 f16 at the same time. proven in alaska

[@jasonrussellwaters7755]

Thai chose Gripen because it does not limit all Technologies like F-16 - better Business deal, no game played.

[@FXGreggan.]

Gripen E has some superb sensor fusion, just as much as the F35 if not more, it's not stealth but has a very low radar cross section, like a tenth of the F16 if I recall correctly, which means radars often wont detect it until it's too late.

[@KellyBrownlee]

Typhoon fighters have been complaining about the Griffin for years about the Griffin being able to sneak up on it with no warning and getting uncomfortable close for their liking as well as other fighters.

[@TeeDee-j9u]

The Gripen wouldn't overtake the F16 and the F16 has more powerful engine and thrust vectoring. There's more parts around the world because there is way more F16a out in the world. Also te F16s have been updated recently.

[@KellyBrownlee]

@@TeeDee-j9u The f16 doesn't have thrust vectoring, it just doesn't!

[@TeeDee-j9u]

@@KellyBrownlee i meant thrust pounds which goes to 29000 twice then speed pf sound.

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

@@TeeDee-j9u thrust vectoring? I don't think F-16 has that, except some special prototypes.

[@tsepheletseka5115]

Aside from its cost effectiveness, it's an all round great fighter. Great interceptor, great at BVR engagements, great at air to ground engagements and is a superb dogfighter. Like I say, it's just an all round great fighter. I can understand now why even South Africa opted for it.

[@zaffazad4040]

Gripen EWS has been second to none since the 1980s. Operational cost, network capability, ease of maintenance, ERST, inflight refuelling and track record of operational capabilities in the Nordic environment are beyond excellence.

[@Shadx27]

Thailand already had some Gripen C/Ds.

[@zulupox]

Both are beautiful planes. Very slick and cool looking

[@LLiivveeeevviiLL]

Gripen E has some serious EW. Skip the passive stealth and go with aggressive EW to achieve stealth.

[@Bulgarian_Jedi]

Gripen has always been the better of the 2 planes. It's just the political and financial dominance of the U.S. government over the potential customers that makes the difference.

[@Mariamagd]

JAS är fantastisk 🇸🇪✊😊

[@ashfaqueali555]

39 better rather than begging

[@petesterio]

Additional Fact. RTAF has co- training with other nations apart from the US. E.g. India, China, etc; The US have to authorized the use of US made aircraft to join the training. Hence, F16s, F5 has been blocked by the US. Also the additional Fee of using the Data link to other system made by other countries as well.

[@KellyBrownlee]

This video was better than most videos I see about non-US gets vs US jets, they always put down foreign jets, most of the time, but this vised was a bit better and not so lopsided.

[@Nubbe999]

Is the new Gripen better? -Yes in many aspects. Would countries buy from Sweden instead of the US? -No. Because you do not buy a fighter jet but a whole package of security guarantees, trade deals and so on. Tiny Sweden can never give better deals than the US.

[@carcamp5451]

great analysis. its true

[@kronop8884]

Sweden usually can offer better deals in terms of tech transfer, and trade but not in terms of political weight. And its politics not capability that closes these kind of deals

[@pornchac]

except Thailand.

[@HunterZTheLunatic]

USA likes to pay defense minsters so that they will buy F 16

[@Nicky458itl]

How many f16 that Ukraine buy?none.

[@FairladyS130]

Australia should have got the Gripen in preference to the F-35. More aircraft numbers for the money, lower maintenance costs also allowing more pilots more hours to hone their skills, less down time. Plus, important for our big country, more easy and practical to disperse. Good for those smart countries that have chosen the Gripen but, of course, we had to have 'the best' weather it was best for us or not.

[@SoyTuPadre1982]

El Gripen no es furtivo, y es solo un caza de 4/5.

[@xhydrag0br203]

@@SoyTuPadre1982 apenas não tem a pintura furtiva e baia, porque de resto é basicamente quinta, na verdade ele é mais comparavel com a sexta que com a quinta

[@justcommenting224]

Depends on the Australian doctrine. Attacking things far away - F35 wins. Defending your home turf, Gripen can be the better choice.

[@tony18662]

F35 also have a serious issue with rain/snow it has problem to operate in those whether. Sand is also an even greater issue due to a lot higher maintenance. Finland has also reported issues of salt accumulation on Engine parts.

[@SoyTuPadre1982]

@@xhydrag0br203 la estructura y mateialidad es de 4ta generación, la electrónica es de 4/5 y 5ta generación, pero eso no lo hace un caza de 5ta generación ni mucho menos furtivo.

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

Comparing Grippen with F-16A is silly. A model was already old when Grippen became operative.

[@rainnelmaclang4803]

F-16 airframe is old 1970s technology. It's increasingly becoming difficult and expensive to adapt the F-16 to new armaments and weapons, so much so that F-16 is now considered outdated. JAS-39 is newer technology and still open to continuing development. This fact makes it more easily adaptable to new and future developments and weapons. F-16 is at the end of its product life. JAS-39 is still very much current in its product life and development.

[@TeeDee-j9u]

😅 thats not true, F16s have been upgraded you don't know what you're talking about. F16 has better engine and thrust vectoring, it's only cheaper

[@keiming2277]

@@TeeDee-j9u F16V is not cheaper than new Gripen, but F16V is better

[@TeeDee-j9u]

@@keiming2277 I know it's more expensive but what I'm saying is that they can more parts faster because there are F16s in many countries so the supply chain for the keeping up with maintenance and fixing is fast and efficient.

[@rainnelmaclang4803]

@@TeeDee-j9u Upgrades are meaningless. They're done by Lockheed Martin to make money out of clueless Air Forces who are duped to buy F-16s at this stage. Do you know that the USAF themselves has stopped buying F-16s? This year, they graduated their final class of F-16 pilots. USAF will just keep the remaining operational F-16s for the next two decades until they are all gradually retired. The USAF know that despite its past stellar performance, the obsolescent F-16's time is up. 5th generation fighters and future upgrades will dominate the future aerial warfare. Thrust vectoring F-16? Do you really know what you're talking about?

[@kronop8884]

The Gripen E is an all new airframe even though it looks similar to its predecessor Gripen C, the change is comparable to what was done between F/A-18 C/D and the Super hornet

[@martindevon3204]

Umm your precision bomb is an external fuel tank

[@Neyan582]

The Gripen's maintenance is much cheaper, the Gripen's IRST and AESA radar are better than the F16's, the Gripen's panoramic panel is more modern, the Gripen carries Meteor missiles (better and with longer range). The Gripen's electronic warfare suite is better than the F16's, the Gripen's refueling and arming time is only 10 minutes, the Gripen can take off and land on highways. The F16's cannot. These are the main advantages of the Gripen E. The Gripen has the new type of intelligent radar TER, which works without GPS, new Brazilian technology, not even the F35 has, in other words, they are capable of navigating without GPS.

[@Bojonatanjarpehag]

Hurra för Gripen!

[@damsb.6078]

The Gripen have STOL [Short TakeOff & Landing] Not STOVL Short TakeOff & Vertical Landing]

[@pirotenaunsuvan7229]

Where has this plane fought?

[@DanH-u3f]

Gripen is a newer design, but has a less powerful engine. The F16 has a better thrust ratio. The Gripen is cheaper to operate.

[@KellyBrownlee]

Less power yes but it's also lighter in weight.

[@rainnelmaclang4803]

The thrust-to Weight ratio is not too different between F-16 and JAS-39, because the latter is lighter.

[@Halli50]

The proper way to pronounce the name of the Gripen is "Greepen" (a Nordic "i" sounds like an English "ee"). This entire video comes across as a Gripen sales pitch! The F-16 vs. JAS39 comparison is interesting: Regarding Ukraine, the JAS39 is a likely future, economical, practical and affordable. The does not change the fact that the F-16 is, in the current situation, the obvious choice: being laid off by numerous Ukraine-allied countries, it is available in considerable numbers, it is "cheap" to acquire (being donated in most cases) and usually being upgraded and made operational by the donor nations. It may be old, but it is a mature and battle-proven package. What remains to be seen is how it stacks up against the Russian fighter/anti-air forces. Indications are that while the F-16 may not be avant-garde in the West, the Russian counterparts are likely to be all noise and no substance. Just consider how embattled little Ukraine has managed to withstand the assault of "the Mighty Russian Military" for almost 3 years! Putin is trying to attempt world domination with a thoroughly corrupt Paper Tiger military.

[@TheDaysOfGlory]

As far as delivery timeframe, definitely Yes.

[@tomasnordstrand2449]

Even to compare JAS39E/F to an F16 is a joke! There are so many features setting them apart. Tho mention a few: Modular design, flight critical and mission critical hardware and software, HMI world superiority, silent run and tactical directional link between four ships that works, asea swash plate mounted radar, GaN sensor tech, FLIR unmatched, supercrouise, STOL, NATO compatible, upgrade possible in days of flight and electronics and software, cheap to operate with world class availability,...., F22 and F35 can only dream of and access to in principle unlimited weapons e.g. Meteor

[@nocturne7371]

J - Jakt (Hunting) A - Attack S - Spaning (Surveillance)

[@michaelpetty8416]

This is not difficult. The F16 will eventually be replaced by the F35. That means these countries are now having to make the decision to buy a rapidly price increasing F35 or look for a cheaper alternative. If they don’t feel that they need the stealth tech, no point in buying a plane that expensive.

[@keiming2277]

Why buying Gripen instead of F16 ? 1: You don't/want to have good relation to USA (Ans : Brazil) 2: Your military budget is tight ( You don't want to buy Rafale with France, too $$$) 3: You don't think Russia will deliver anytime soon Or you don't prefer Chinese JF17/J10

[@domperignon1829]

i think the Gripen is using an F-18E/F engine

[@paulsteaven]

You still need to have good relations with USA to buy this jet as it uses American F414 engine.

[@keiming2277]

@@paulsteaven Like Thailand and Brazil, the latest Gripen buyers, just don't piss the USA off is fine

[@paulsteaven]

@@keiming2277 yeah. You can piss Uncle Sam, but don't do it like Pakistan.

[@avenger55]

Gripen or J-10C > F-16

[@martinliden8453]

It should but it’s all about politics. Sweden can never compete with US interests even if the Gripen is way more advanced then F16.

[@matthewfransen9447]

at the end of the day it comes down to cost.

[@l8knight845]

The "precision" guided bomb pointed out in the video is a gas tank!!! LOL.

[@Henkibojj]

These days and especially for military channels, who knows if the voiceover is AI or not, but regardless: thank you for actually pronouncing Gripen correctly. It's not Grippin, or Grypen, it's "Greepen". Minus the American R but it's as close as you get, I suppose. Edit: I take it back. It's AI, and by the three minute mark, you start switching wildly, just as every other channel. Sigh.

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

Of course if you're comparing the F-16 A/B models to a new Grippen, there's no contest. But the new F-16C Block 70/72 are no joke. Much improved airframe and electronic warfare suites make it every bit as good as any platform in the world. I know this video is supposed to be about shitting on the US and propping up other countries, as the comments below me show, but ignore the F-16 at your peril. There's a reason it's the dominate player in air to air and air to ground combat. And all your support and logistics are already there, switching to the Grippen entails all new maintenance, all new training and spare parts.

[@SgtMclupus]

4:35 What you point out as a "precision guided bomb" is a drop tank... 🤦🏻‍♂️ It's an external fuel tank that you can drop when spent

[@jeffbanguis4685]

Gripen uses General Electric F414 engine, a very very reliable jet engine 👌😎

[@Corbots80]

Nothing has made it more popular. The F16 has been vastly more produced. And now the F35 is being vastly more produced.

[@nestorportuguez8964]

The secret of F16 is the electrnic function of attack and defense. of the missile..that is the secret of that plane.

[@songhengmong769]

I Love F16❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@Cloudberry84]

Pretty sure Gripen does not posess STOVL capabilities. 😅

[@vitorferreira1182]

Em que sítio?

[@NickFisher-x5z]

Gripes is a flanker slayer

[@MattiasHenriksson-sw7xw]

At the time the comparison generally will be F16 block 70/72 vs Gripen E/F. Both capable but the edge in most cases will go to the Gripen. That said Gripen will not overtake the F16 in general. First of all these kind of deals are always tied into several factors. Like other sorts of trade deals. And the US is vasly bigger and can apply alot more pressure in dealmaking. Most want to the on the good side of the US trade wise. The US also can offer a bigger and more international established support for their planes being such a huge player. And Sweden also has a production limit in how many Gripen they can produce, educate pilots and maintenance crew for etc. Lastly many countries also reglage their fighter jets with F35:s instead which got some other capabilities. That said Gripen is formidable and SHOULD fit alot of countries well. State of the art technology in many aspects, unique take of capabilities and reasonably affordable maintenance.

[@jakobholgersson4400]

You say that, but that's kind of pre-Ukraine logic. After Iraq and Afghanistan, everyone thought that future wars would be fast. So fast that you wouldn't have time to mobilize conscripts or manufacture anything. Because everything that wasn't moving within the first couple hours of a war would be taken out by cruise missiles. So the idea was that you should have small quantities of the best stuff on the market, with professional soldiers who could be ready in no time at all. It didn't matter that equipment would require months of maintenance after a week of battle, because the outcome would already be decided by then. Also, politician wanted to buy protection by kissing the US's ass. Yet here we are, almost 900 days into the Ukraine war. Ukraine has had the time to not only mobilize troops, but train new ones. New weapon systems have gone from decision to the battlefield. In terms of some weapons, such as drones, several GENERATIONS have been developed and fielded. Ukraine very clearly wishes it had factories to make their own planes, instead of being forced to beg for three years. Sweden joined NATO because, as it turned out, participating in NATO operations doesn't guarantee protection. Based on Trump's claims, buying American equipment doesn't either. My view of the F-35 is that it'll share its fate with the F-104. It's the perhaps best plane now, which makes it worth the extra money. But it's proven expensive and unreliable. To the point where the US is buying more F-15's instead of just buying more of what's supposed to be their new low-cost fighter. By the time 6th gen fighters reach the market, no one will want the F-35. The Gripen on the other hand will remain with all its plusses and probably enhanced with new technologies, perhaps even unmanned. I foresee more countries going low-high, with the Gripen being the low-cost alternative that stays in service alongside NGAD, Tempest and... Draken II or whatever it'll be called.

[@MattiasHenriksson-sw7xw]

@@jakobholgersson4400 Well Ukraine is Ukraine. There is so much to learn from Ukraine but also there are many unique curcomstances. Your name seem swedish so I suggest reading the swedish report on the subject. KZbinr Max Willman has an episode about it if I remember correctly. (Or was it Rekyl-podden?) I agree Gripen is an excellent choice as should be apparent. I’m just stating curcomstances saying many will not choose Gripen. That is already true. And lastly the critique of the F35 is true but still vastly taken out of context. Sandboxx recently had an episode about this.

[@dat581]

That is completely incorrect. The Gripen does not have the edge in any performance metric and is quite far behind in most. What SAAB never mentions is the jet is SEVERELY underpowered and that really shows with any sort of relevant combat load out. The Gripen becomes subsonic and it handles like a pig in such configurations. Does the F-16? No, it has the thrust and superior aerodynamics to prevent that. The Gripen was designed on the cheap and it shows.

[@jakobholgersson4400]

@@dat581 Yes, Gripen has a smaller engine and thus lower payload capacity. It likely would be a worse dogfighter with full ordinance. But that's not a realistic real-world scenario, is it? You use missiles at the longest possible range, where Gripen has the edge. If it comes to close-quarters combat, you dump your air-to-ground weapons and once that happens, the Gripen is a better one-turn fighter. The Gripen has more advanced sensors, more advanced information sharing (better than F-35), it can supercruise, has better STOL capabilities and a by far supperior EW suite. It's a plane built for actual war, with higher availability, lower maintenance requirements and better suited for wartime production. In fact, the reason why NATO asked Sweden to not send Gripens was because they were worried Ukraine would use the superior capabilities of that aircraft to strike too far in on Russian territory. Ukraine not only wants Gripens, but are considering license production after the war.

[@tommienholm3844]

don´t forget if jas 39 was to outsale f-16 us would impose a sale stop on the GE engine in jas

[@singularity-6339]

If you can't complete, ban them from competition. That's what US government is currently pursuing by investigating whether Saab Gripen has any wrong doing with a sale to Brazil. It might result in a total ban of exporting the engine needed to build Jas 39. Well there's no such thing as US ally, national interest ( military industrial complex) comes first.😂😂😂

[@kronop8884]

The wrongdoing that led to Brazil buying Gripen was that the US was caught red handed spying on and wire tapping the communication of then Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff

[@andreww1225]

The f16 A is old, everything is new compared to that version. The f16V is just as good as the gripin however it costs more to fly per hour. The f16 is a little cheaper to buy up front though. This was a horrible comparison you could have at least done a side by side comparison of capabilities.

[@andrecpo123]

Apenas compare a quantidade de aeronaves produzidas e a quantidade de operadores de cada modelo e você terá a resposta, simples assim.

[@xhydrag0br203]

não é assim que as coisas funcionam, porque se fomos usar isso então um B51 é melhor que um b2?

[@xhydrag0br203]

f5 melhor que os Rafale?

[@Antesyd]

But why compare the Gripen with F-16? Gripen has many capabilities far greater than the F-35. Especially the electronic system.

[@inek_123]

F-16 is better due to its impressive speed, long range, and combat capabilities. Its reliable performance in air-to-air combat and long-distance missions has been proven in real-world conflicts too. Jas gripen 39 is more like cost effective and can handle short nations, it is also a bit newer but f-16 fighting falcon or especially viper would crush it. But jas 39 is still good at electronic warfare, but the f-16 is still slightly better when it comes to other important specs. But both aircraft has good side.

[@ingeborgsjon]

The Gripen has the best BVRAAM in the world: the meteor. "In the end the Meteor may have the longest range and largest no escape zone of any air-to-air missile in service today, but it is not necessarily the best solution for every fighter and every Air Force out there." - The Warzone

[@ศักดาภิรมย์กาญจน์]

Thailand RTAF has better offset policy from SAAB Sweden which is giving technology transfer tactical data link to RTAF own their data link is called Link TH which is capable to used in their network centric system to share and receive information to ground military base and warship in the sea and AEW&C plane. For example warship radar or AEW found enemy jet fighter invasion Thailand they can lock target and share information to Gripen to fire a long length missile meteor from 200km.

[@yutkijsamnong3202]

More popular ? Why no one buy?

[@kronop8884]

Politics decide, its not a popularity contest.

[@HunterZTheLunatic]

USA likes to pay defense minsters so that they will buy F 16. Sweden doesn't use corruption to sell fighter.

[@solowingborders3239]

As good as the Gripen is, Sweden can never compete with the defence industrial base of the USA, so the Gripen will never dominate the global market in the way the F-16 has. The Gripen has its place among NATO and in the global market. If you don't have the budget (or clearance) to buy F-35, the Gripen is a great option, though it's also competing with Rafale, Typhoon and F-16s of various types. Any NATO style aircraft is going to be a good option in my eyes, it just comes down to politics, budget, logistics, and requirements of the nation in question.

[@baozuci3594]

It's a toss-up which plane will win. The deciding factor would be which plane has the better radar and missiles. If they're evenly matched then it comes down to which is more maneuverable in dogfight. I don't have any idea which one is better in dogfights. Most kills by planes like the F-15 were done against the MiG-21 which were too busy trying to avoid the missiles fired and guided by the APG-63 and APG-70. In fact the F-15 has zero gun kills against the MiG-21. I know I didn't identify which plane is better, the F-16 or the Gripen, so sue me. 😎 Show drafts

[@ragnargrabson1287]

Gripen won't overatake F-16 for simple reason - political. Buying from the US means political and military support. Just look at Poland, they could could be a natural buyer of Gripens but buy F-16/F-35 from the Americans.

[@GEMARNEWS_7]

Good fighter jet

[@Antropoids]

Gripen - yes sir - and soon customers line up in front of SAAB as donald gomp opt to dry up aid to UA presenting a threat to Europe. Naturally Europe turn away from US defense contractors. Europe will gear up spending on defense, but these contracts will be placed in Europe. The employees in the US defense industry can start to plan for a loooong holiday.

[@tony18662]

it is already started Us manufactures are already leaving and building plants allover Europe .

[@JackBoeau]

Total failure. They claim that Gripen has STOVL capabilities. VL stands for vertical landing morons. Also comparing 40-year old F-16 A/B to a new Gripen E/F is a joke. Prove that a new F-16 Block 70+ is worse than Gripen E/F. Que for new F-16 is so long that Gripen can be much sooner available.

[@romeoiipunzalan1079]

More popular? How many F16s have been sold since it came out? It probably outsells the gripen 5:1...

[@keiming2277]

2020. 271 Gripen vs 4600+ F16

[@fredrik3685]

Gripen is not American, that must be a very big advantage.

[@elvo6217]

So this video basically concluded gas milage

[@germanbeer2466]

US held Thailand hostage when it came to software upgrades. Not a good way to tread an old partner. Lost customer.

[@andreasjonsson8075]

The japanese mitsubishi f16 clone would rival both the gripen and the f16

[@kristiankruse3964]

Gripen has the same problem with "Strategy independence" as the F-16 Gripen is probably the best 4. Gen budget fighter - by quite a long way s But the engine and some other components are American made so America gets a vote. Buy the new South Korean fighter, it is more expensive to run but when it is yours, you decide what to use it for

[@dvanblaricom]

No, the F15ex is a gen 4 fighter.

[@kristiankruse3964]

@@dvanblaricom Gripen can use the Meteor F-15 can't I know there's longer range missiles coming but not now But the F-15 still doesn't offer strategic independence And "budget" it is not

[@dvanblaricom]

​@kristiankruse3964 I am not convinced the meteor is a better missle than the aim120d-3. America tends to release capabilities well short of reality on their missiles. Also the aim260 is already in production and out classes the meteor and aim120.

[@kristiankruse3964]

@@dvanblaricom the air launched SM6 is launched from the F-18 and that's the longest range air to air the US have right now. But the F-15 is a very good aircraft but it is not budget friendly and it does not offer Strategic autonomy if you are not USA Gripen has the same problem, a lot of American parts

[@arminjoemarblanche1948]

Gripen is cheaper to maintain. Lowest operational cost

[@JohanLofgren-jc4mh]

You get the most time in the air for the money with the Gripen.

[@nikolatasev4948]

This sounds like it was written and read out by AI. From spelling JAS, to pronouncing "Gripen" differently, to dragging the script with repeatable and filler info.

[@EmmaLirio]

Is that the same plane that the PH's fa50s beaten in australias pitchblack exercises?

[@BigVtheVanity]

Philippine, easily conquer people. 420 years under white man ruled, next China.

[@joezeed-g4h]

Gripen E

[@georgeelvenar1345]

Gripen E is by far the best fighter !!!! even better then f22 and f35!!! Says SAAB😅😜🤪🤣No but among the 10 best fighters.

[@keithhoward4069]

If the Gripen is so popular, why are so few nations purchasing them? India purchased the French fighters. I suspect a lot of the SE Asian countries will be purchasing the S. Korean Jets. Thailand has a few and the Philippines are considering some. Who else?

[@peterberg8399]

The political power of USA.

[@TheBooban]

4:44 Gripen is STOVL? It can land vertically??? What are you talking about, 😂😂😂😂

[@martindevon3204]

SHORT take off and landing. Not vertical

[@arcchannel7519]

Assalamu'alaikum bg

[@viperdriver82]

So the Gripen has STOVL huh …..😂

[@vlnal1477]

Remember the Thailand coupdeta ? Political turmoil in Thailand forced the US to issue arms embargo with Thailand. That’s why it to opt for the Gripens. 😂 Is it a paid add or what?

[@simonemingozzi6859]

50 years of honorable service, almost always on the front line even against opponents considered stronger and younger, but always winning. A TRUE WARRIOR OF THE SKIES BIG BIGGEST BIGGEST F 16❤❤

[@donquixote1502]

How about a little truth and some facts for you. Since 2006 (Red Flag) have Gripen lost to a F-16 or F-18 or F-15. Considering that our neighbors Finland, Norway and Denmark fly F-18 and F-16 we have a lot of experience of fighting each other.

[@bumbibjorne]

Holy shit, I've never seen a video switching pronounciation more often. Grie-pen. Greepen. Grippen. If you're not going to research the correct pronounciation, at least pick one and stick to it.

[@terjekjsnes7815]

NO , Gripen will never be the first choise of an modern airforce 😂 The F-35 will be ! !

[@mikkorenvall428]

Yep. However F-35 is still more promises and marketing than fulfilled missions. And not all countries have enormouse budjets, so then Gripen and JF17 are the possibilities. What will happen to those "modern airforces" if F-35 fails?

[@jakobholgersson4400]

Well, that's not what's being discussed. It's if the Gripen will become more popular than the F-16. Which I believe. You get more for less. And the F-35 won't become any sort of new standard. I'd say it's like a modern Starfighter. A giant technological leap for many airforces around the world. But sixth-gen is around the corner and once even better planes arrive, there won't be any point in keeping the expensive, unreliable, and otherwise problematic F-35. The Gripen and its qualities will hold true long after the F-35 retires.

[@keiming2277]

@@jakobholgersson4400 Gripen lastest order is from Thailand ordering 39 total. Whereas F16V, Tuckey, South Korea, Greece are set to modify their old F16 to Viper, hundreds of them And Taiwan, Slovensko and Bahrain are waiting the brand new F16V to deliver. Taiwan ordered 66 new planes set to deliver this season

[@Wealth.GoodFoods]

Gripen E better

[@TheFrewah]

I wish it could but the F-16 is ubiquitous. Maybe we can sell more Gripen now that we have joined NATO. Procurement is mostly political and Gripen is great as is our other ordnance like the Swedish Archer.

[@PozieNayan]

GRIPEN = IKEA 📦📦📦 × 3 🔩🔩🔩🔩 × 2560 🪛🔧📇 ×1 👤❔ = 📞💬 ℹ️

[@righteousindignation]

It has STOL. not STOVL

[@alex3261]

Marketing video

[@eddiesuen3711]

Gripen has zero combat XP. It still needs to prove itself in war time op tempo and conditions.

[@JohanLofgren-jc4mh]

Sweden, Brazil, Thailand, Hungary, the Baltic Countries, NATO, Ukraine and others doesn't think so...

[@laurikoivumaki1471]

Pointless video stating things that brand new plane has more stuff than a plane which first started 50years ago😂

[@tommienholm3844]

Well we don't force people to buy our stuff, us is overated,economi overated. If all countries stop buying dollar us is ruined in 2 days

[@amorosogombe9650]

Dassault Rafale eating everyone's lunch.

[@steveyi2859]

Gripen is not real battle tested

[@JohanLofgren-jc4mh]

True, and?

[@265justy]

The F-16 is the benchmark 4th Gen fighter that set the standards.. The Gripen will never achieve the sales numbers of the F-16..

[@kikotv9333]

The gripen is better.

[@fernandoparedes2340]

El F 16 es mejor

[@คอยพี่ที่ห้วยดีกลับเธอหลายๆเท่]

คนไทยแอบมาอ่าน😂 😂

[@patriklind545]

Rubbish, they dont even know what STOVL means.

[@ognjenvukanovic4067]

When ever I hear Graypen I hit downvote.

[@robertmacdonald3136]

Bullsh*t

[@edisonone]

The Gripen is definitely a sleeker, more sexy looking, and a more desirable bird, to that of a Fighting Falcon but, and there’s always a but in everything we say and do and that “but” is that the fighting Falcon definitely have have sharper claws and stronger beeks to the Gripen… . .

[@agus_medan]

"Griphen more popular than F-16"?? 😂

[@LIONIQ-foxhound]

Very Briefed And Summarized Ideas: thailand comes with very limited combat needs, although it had territorial dispute with China, but on the other hand it had good relationship with be Beijing has even begun to conduct annual bilateral joint air exercises... What is worth noting here is that Thailand also operates the airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) system manufactured by Saab the saab 340 AEW&C, therefore, there may be a desire among the leadership of the thai Air Force to unify and simplify the support base of maintenance services and logistical, technical and technological in order to reduce the overhead costs of the entire purchase... Once again, the Saab jas39 is not bad fighter aircraft, especially considering its operational specifications fir example the low cost of flying hours and the simplifyed and less demanding maintenance process, the capabilities of the plane to fly from primitive runways and the short takeoff and landing capabilities, but on the other hand it is very overpriced platform, especially in its class or category as light combat fighter aircraft's (LCA), which is why those platform is suitable for countries with a small geographical area, and in any case they will not build a large fleet of combat aircrafts, or have limited security needs, because at least with 80 million, it will be difficult in terms of tactical and technological specifications to justify purchasing them on large quantities... Once again, the plane does not offer much in term of its specifications or tactical capabilities, and most of what is said is exaggerated propaganda material, the platform will be always restricted or hindered by its physical dimensions for any future growth and expansion... for me the plane is an heavily and deeply upgraded version of the f-20 tiger Shark as overall project, It may have been designed in the post-Cold War era, so the tactical specifications and requirements were much lower than its predecessor the jas37 which outperform the jas39 by almost all performance parameters, and the focusing of the sasb engineers was on enhancing the operational qualities and features of the plane, more than enhancing its tactical combat capabilities...

[@Sub___Zero]

Can It Overtake the F-16's Global Dominance ? : *No*

[@HunterZTheLunatic]

In a 1v1 gripen would toy around with the low Quality american built F-16.