Ranking EVERY Modern Fighter Jet (2024)

[@Humblee115]

2:07 the only thing broken here is that voice

[@AviationAustin]

Hey man I'm just going through some changes 😂

[@johns70]

@@AviationAustin yo, where is the Gripen E? It's operational in both the Swedish and Brazilian Air Force, albeit in small numbers. Also, you completely disregard the innovation of the Gripen to be maintainable, which most of these hyper-advanced 5th gen planes completely misses out on, and subsequently have abysmal availability in comparison.

[@CyberBot17]

@@johns70 the Gripen is the worst 4th gen fighter jet and the best air weapon asset god i love that bitch

[@Hi-how-are-you-today.]

@@AviationAustinYou mention that can’t become a fighter pilot because you don’t have 20/20 but I thought that was a myth. Like 20/35 or even 20/70 is fine?! What don’t I know?

[@AviationAustin]

Your vision has to be perfect. I've heard people anecdotally say oh but you can get a waiver, but even then it still has to be correctable to 20/20 in both eyes

[@factsy7042]

During a red flag exercise It was assigned to the red team. Reduced AWACS, reduced ground support. The Gripens connected their link systems and acted themselves as AWACs, got the battlefield awareness necessary and avoided all ground defence, scored 10 kills the first day including a Typhoon. No losses they remained undetected. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that performed all planed starts, while others were sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up. The evaluation was that Gripen capacity needed to be revaluated.😉

[@xxdarkphoenixxx1]

Absolute crap for the french rafale : you'r ranking the 1.0 version of the rafale ? then do it for every jet dude. It's unfair !

[@vristeciorao]

Lets talk about f35 then 🤣. Tt can not even fly as it was grounded for many weeks.

[@xxdarkphoenixxx1]

@@vristeciorao and we can also talk about F-22 that were grounded for mounth for many problems too

[@kinka16]

also, f35 can't supercruise and f22 is not multirole and has no combat experience 💀💀💀💀

[@burndav]

@@kinka16 well... unless you count "Pop a baloon" as a valid combat experience... but then my 5yo son is more "combat proven" than the F22.

[@kinka16]

@@burndav no this is not valid lamo unmaned, slow moving, not in a fight zone isn't combat 💀💀

[@doctorproctor69]

u cant really rank the Mirage 2000 without specifying a specific variant as there are a ton that are very different capability wise like a Mirage 2000C is just a dumb bomb analog fox one slinger, but a Mirage 2000-5 MK2 is a capable multi-role platform with MFDs, guided A2G ordinance using the Damocles pod (same as Rafale), and Both versions of the MICA A2A missiles. (im just butt hurt i love the Mirage 2000, but theres no comparison to the Mirage III)

[@oliverbrown3961]

completely agreed

[@germanurrunaga2190]

This guy is a complete ignorant of french air combat industry, but the worst: Completely biased.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

And he ignored the fact that the Mirage 2000 has the best fly by wire system of its generation, far better than the F-16.

[@germanurrunaga2190]

@@brunol-p_g8800 exactly, FBW just to mention one area in which Mirage 2000 was (still) much more advanced, mature and reliable than F-16s from blocks 30 and previous. Even when Mk2 and Mk9 appeared, where much better (still) multirole fighters than block 50 and previous.

[@torben777]

You could say the same of F15 and F16. A block 70 F16 or an F15ex are a full generation better than their own origin.

[@mitchconner2021]

I hate how top speed us used instead of effective speed. Top speed on almost every fighter jet can only be done for a few minutes. The effective speed should be used when calculating speed. Just cuz a mig 31 can go mach 2.8 doesnt mean much when it can only be done for about 30 seconds lol

[@CyberBot17]

is effective speed just cruise/supercruise or how do you calculate it

[@doodlesdaddy1122]

Exactly. An f14 is actually faster than an F22 for example

[@Canard_Ivre]

Seriously, giving the SU-34 an innovation score of 4 is just plain wrong. Have you seen it? They've managed to fit a toilet and a kitchen in there! And if there was an appearance score it would be a solid 10/10. That wide, flattened nose? Totally resembles a duck-bill, and who doesn't love ducks? Plus, those canards? Super cool!

[@MrPrvanovic]

🤣👍👊

[@user-tm9qs7jo9j]

I get. Sarcasm. Just great.

[@spectreplays9]

He is just wrong about the gripen. Cost effectiveness makes a huge difference here. The bang for your buck is far greater than the Rafale and Typhoon. The plane may not be the best but you’ve underplayed it’s effectiveness

[@brunol-p_g8800]

He is just wrong about everything, period.

[@MattiasHenriksson-sw7xw]

The Gripen E is probably only challenged by the F35 in SA, tech warfare and communication abilities. Let’s just say the list is very young american engineer reading stat sheets.

[@cryopathy1299]

its not underplayed at all, its still expencive to make lol

[@scottmeehan2422]

Dont forget fact the grippen can take off on damaged runways/public roads etc that the others cant.

[@avi8aviate]

The Gripen is one of the most rugged planes on the planet, purpose-built for full operational capability on just 1600 feet of a snow-covered highway. It takes just 10 minutes for a single technician and a team of 5 conscripts to rearm, refuel, and reservice the aircraft before it returns to air-to-air combat after landing. It is one of the cheapest aircraft to operate in the world, costing less per hour than even the F-16C Block 50. It is one of the few aircraft equipped with an AESA radar, and it can fire jammers out of its countermeasure dispensers as if they were flares or chaff. Its abilities as a flying computer rival even the F-35's. It can carry whatever existing weapons you can think of. "If you buy Gripen, select where you want your weapons from: Israel, Sweden, Europe, US... South America. It's up to the consumer." Hmmm... let's give it a 5 for innovation, and a 6 for versatility.

[@bagelmaster2498]

The gripen isn’t gonna have sex with you bro relax. Besides the runway and operation and servicing the eurofighter bests it in most ways

[@mijreed]

This dude is an idiot about the Gripen

[@nogginthenoggfubar2862]

But the enemy will smell the garlic from a thousand kilometres.

[@rayknister1472]

You might add that its operating cost is 1/3 that of the F35.

[@avi8aviate]

@@rayknister1472 Not even 1/3. The JAS 39C has less than 1/4 the cost per flight hour of the F-35A, and less than 1/6th the cost of an F-35B or C.

[@JP-lz6gc]

Think you slept on the gripen a bit. Not considering the maintenance aspect, which is a big part of the design. Able to operate from remote locations as highways with a tiny mobile service team on the ground.

[@14goldmedals]

He absolutely dismissed one of the best multirole aircraft here. The maintenance you mentioned wins wars not just battles.

[@jwativ13]

Gripen definitely deserves more love. Such a great concept of design. You can see how effective the philosophy behind the Gripen is ideal in modern combat based on lessons learned in Ukraine.

[@14goldmedals]

@@jwativ13 I hoped Canada would use their brains and buy these instead F-35's. Value for our weak Canadian dollar was better with the Grippen. Sweden understands the needs of a far Northern area of operation and sparse conditions. They practice and train for losing airstrips so they build jets that can land on highways, love it.

[@bjornl6547]

​@@jwativ13he should tell the Ukrainians that their mig29 are better than the Gripen. 😂

[@George-ux6zz]

I see a few categories that the F15 should get high marks in. 104 kills to 0 taken out. Mach 2.5 and the only fighter to cross the Atlantic without refueling. If I'm not mistaken, it also holds the most ordinance and has flown with one wing missing. It can do pretty much anything you need it to do, including dropping a bomb on a moving helicopter in mid air. Good pilot. Now they've upgraded it to the F15 EX with fly by wire and other upgrades.

[@zTheBigFishz]

The stuff I've read about the EX says that they have the nose authority and slow speed characteristics of a Hornet with the power of an Eagle.

[@Opama_]

the 103-0 kd was against Poorly Trained Iraqi conscripts flying mig-21s (a plane from the early 60s) and mig-23s (a plane from early 70s). Not that the plane isn't amazing, but the kd doesn't really matter if you're fighting somebody that can't fight back.

[@IconicBeastPro]

Got shot down by mig25 in iraq. Recheck your claim

[@George-ux6zz]

@@IconicBeastPro I'm going by what is on record according to what the government says

[@matsv201]

Just looking at gripen here, becasue that is the aircraft i know the most about. It seams like you totally ignored the cost of operations. While Gripen is pretty expensive to buy, specially the E/F version. Its very cheap to operate. It only need ONE, yes ONE trained mechanic. (and a team of 5 conscripts with 6 week of training). The quality of gripen is top notch. To say that its for people who cant afford higher quality is just down ignorant. The reason why some countries choice to assemble, or really build, the gripes them self is for two reasons. One its because of economics. But the other reason is to maintain a spare parts production in country. For the speed i would say the dry speed is more important than the wet speed. The wet speed is pretty much never used, but the dry speed is used often. The Dry speed of Gripen A-D if around mach 0.95 and for E/F its probobly about mach 1.3 (not official) For versatility. Gripens combat range is 800 and 1500km that is really more than most equivalent aircrafts. Its really just the F15 that have significantly higher combat range of the gen 4.5 aircrafts, F16 and F18 have shorter. (And its woth saying that Gripen is 20% lighter than the F16, despite Gripen being a ruged aircraft and F16 is not. (Lager aircraft generally have longer range). And the 1500 range of the newer model is not really low at all. Versatility is more than just about number of hard points. Gripen was one of the, if not the first true multi role modern military jet. There was 7 versions of the previews Viggen aircraft, those was replaced with only 2 version of Gripen. Because the E model does 5 different operations, while the other does 2. (well technically the F can do all 7 operations, but its not practical). Gripen can also carry out attack and fighting missions on the same mission. While many aircraft can do that today, that was not really the case in 1989. It can also land and take of from short poorly maintained airfields and highways (and theoretically carriers). It have a very short turn around time at about 5 minutes. (yea ... five) and its built to fly for a solid 2 weeks 24/7 with no maintenance. Both allow the aircraft to be deployed closer to the front as well as being operated with more hours. Having each air frame with more hours on target, acting as a force multiplier. (something Gripen have in common with both Draken and Viggen). This also effect things like range, capacity, carry rate and so on. If the plane can carry a larger number of loads to the enemy, the amount it can carry each time is multiplied. Gripen also got totally modular software. While that is something that is increasingly common, hardly any air frame got that today. And back in 1989 it was totally unheard of. This was the reason why the Meteor Missile was developed for Gripen first. Because software integration was simple. Gripen have a much more advanced link than most other fighters today. It can link with both ground as well as sea assets. This allow for direct digital targeting from both troops and the navy. The link can also act as a ad hock AWAC system in combination with ground based combat control. While Neither Gripen A-D or E/F is stealth. There is a reason for it. It would negatively effect the combat capacity of the aircraft. At the time the E/F was developed stealth was considered, but rejected. But Gripen E/F got a other weapon that may be ever better than stealth. Or well, some people claim so. The EW system of Gripen E/F can not only send interference, but can send out a calibrated anti radar signal back, canceling out the radar result. Exactly how good this system is... very few people know. But one advantage of the system is that the enemy would not know how efficient it is until its war. This system is probobly pretty good, considering that Eurofighter just bought the same model of Saab to install on there aircraft. So.. well its at least better than what eurofighter come with originally. This is more of a ... A fighter jet, or really any equipment, is more than just there spec sheet, than to say this ranking is wrong. Of cause, i could claim that the ranking is wrong, the issue is then, that i would need to know all the special ability all of the other aircraft got, and of cause, i don´t know that. And on top of that, some of the abilitys is still classified.

[@Eulendamon]

Ok bro stop overpowering the gripes it ain't that good compared to something like the F15 or any other modern jet and it can't carry that good of a payload, only 6 missles while the Russians carry 12 or more same as the Americans but atleast it's better than the Rafael

[@matsv201]

@@Eulendamon its gripen A that can carry only 6 missiles. Those do no longer exist. C carry 8 and E can carry 10

[@protonjinx]

@@Eulendamon Gripen went up against Eurofighter in exercises and Eurofighter pilots got cocky about winning, the Gripen pilots finally got fed up and flipped their EW pods to war levels and roflcopterstomped the Eurofighters into the ground.

[@p1ngu646]

Also the gripen is litteraly built to stop all of russias aircrafts.

[@riksksksks]

The gripen is definitely better than the f15. During red flag 2006 in alaska one gripen acted as an interceptor on 3 f15s. The result: 2 f15's were shot down and the last one managed to escape.@@Eulendamon

[@mansrow1712]

Giving a better versatility rate to the Typhoon than to the Rafale is paradoxical, since the Rafale went out a few years before the Typhoon, and added all the components for air to ground missions during those few years. But most of all, it can operate from a damn carrier. That is super important, and I am surprised you didn't take that into account like you did with the F35C. Also, you should have taken thing in account for your rating : availability/maintenance. That is perhaps the most crucial and underestimated aspect of a fighter jet.

[@Juliusdray]

Mais les anglais saxon des teste quand on fait mieux qu’eux avec moins de moyen . Le typhon franchement c’est une vrais arnaque en plus ils ont pas de version marine . Pour les anglais c’est vraiment ironique . Ils ont 6 pauvres f35 sur deux portes avions et ils pensent encore être crédibles .

[@everettjohnson8776]

I think the Rafael is better than gripped n just under American Eagle n f-35, Raptor

[@peterpeter8325]

You are totally wrong on the Rafale

[@aurdel775]

I mean, the Rafale was rushed into service for the french marine, because it had to replace the older aircrafts. But with the different upgrades it got, I think that 7 is, quite low for the versatility grade, knowing that's it's an omnirole fighter jey

[@14goldmedals]

Missed the boat on the Grippen's capabilities. Plus fleet linking abilities.

[@amaurytt]

I am afraid you got your dates a bit wrong on the Rafale. First flight in 1986 is for the initial demonstrator with temporary US made engines (french ones were still in the design phase). The first actual prototype was in 1991so pretty much the same time frame as the f-22. Initial production started in early 2000 so the limitations you mention for air to ground were for the first blocks delivered to the french navy. These were a bit rushed as they were necessary to equip the newly launched aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. If you look at the first blocks of f-35 you'll find they were not even capable of using their machine guns...to be truthful I am not even sure that issue has been resolved yet.

[@AviationAustin]

Interesting. I never came across that in my research.

[@kinka16]

​@@AviationAustinnever heard of f-35 issues ?

[@joenuts4099]

Also when has the UK used the Saab gripen

[@user-wp8fg7en5q]

Well. They borrowed one JAS39 to be used in there fighter school for several years.

[@henkee3715]

The school owns one Gripen even i think.

[@Jay_in_Japan]

J-20 top speed: Mach 2 Speed score: 8 Mirage 2000 top speed: Mach 2.2 Speed score: 7 Are these scores meant to be comparable between origin countries, or only between aircraft from the same origin?

[@AviationAustin]

Comparable to aircraft manufacturered during similar eras

[@T0MAS25]

Waiting for the comments saying your opinion is wrong

[@AviationAustin]

Give it time. They're certainly coming 😂

[@kevinmyers440]

Why, other people can’t have a different opinion? You people are clowns.

[@cassaia7805]

​@@AviationAustinI've been called, no but really how the A-10 got so high, I've been comparing to other aircrafts and at max i got 5.4, it's cheap, but the speed is horrible, it's a full CAS aircraft, the technology isn't ground breaking, and it has proven quite effective, you didn't showed any point graph with american planes, went over them pretty fast so I'm kinda lost at that one, just curiosity how it scored in each category

[@AviationAustin]

What do you mean you people?

[@kevinmyers440]

@@AviationAustin clowns. You people, that are clowns. Clowns that think everyone should agree with what they think. Not that I disagreed with much

[@nicholaswjamrock]

the gripin sub par combat range, seriously dude you need to check your facts the gripin has greater combat reange than the f15 f 16 and f35, it cots per hour of operation is a fraction of an f16, which was the cheapest air to air combat aircraft in NATO. SAAB invented sensor fussion, which aircraft on your list can fire a missle using the targeting data from another. its the only aircraft that can use every weapon in nato

[@everettjohnson8776]

The Gripen , F-16, are by far ur dogs in the low cost , close in dog fighter capabilities along with ground support/ ground targeting capabilities. The gripes doesn’t touch F-35 or F-22 in any long distance combat where it’s all capabilities no limitations. They actually have games where the Grippen downs F-22 and F-35 but what they don’t really talk about was they made the F-35 start in close with outside fuel and weoponry and the F-22 carried extra fuel and weoponry mounted outside. This defeats the main strength of the fighters. Tho they ran em again w/0 Limitations and the Raptor n F-35 ran superior. Having said that I’m a fan of the Grippen. Awesome fighter to have. Also, not sure how well u know the American Strike Eagle? The newest variation of the eagle is a Mac daddy utilizing some stealthy attributes like the absorbing paint, stealthier fuel tanks n motors that sit deeper within to limit view of the burner. N super cruise like the raptor w/o burners which helps keep heat dig low. But this fighter is still not stealth it just used some meathods to help make it more moderately survivable in todays war! Good stuff man!

[@LordHolley]

Well, that was fun. I can't really argue with your picks. I'd like to think the A-10 and Harrier ranked higher because of their significant contributions in actual combat, but I don't know what I would put them above, so pretty good list imho.

[@AviationAustin]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jbloun911]

The later Harrier improved by the US is far Better than the original british death machine 😅

[@xxbongobazookaxx7170]

The A-10 has more blue on blue incidents than any other aircraft, it's not particularly versatile and it's slow as balls. It's main purpose was to destroy tanks but isn't able to reliably destroy anything better armoured than a M-60, it looks good for cameras but precision weapons fill it's role far better with greater forward compatibility as new munitions are developed e.g. like why Ukraine want F-16s so badly

[@Neomaster35]

​@jbloun911 did you forget the Harrier was quite effective in 1982

[@davidbalogun7569]

I actually like how your ranking system works because it a pretty good way of taking personal bias out of the equation it's just pretty funny to see stuff like the AESA radar, Electronic warfare, PL 15 equipped J16 below stuff like the MiG29 and planes its a straight upgrade on like the Su27 and j11 but that's obviously not really your fault

[@AviationAustin]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@AviationAustin]

Even if your 30+ year old study was perfect, it's still irrelevant. This is not a dogfight ranking

[@ruihenriquessantos7583]

Well, I really liked how detailed you were about the russian jets on how you got to score them in each category. I learned quite a lot of new and interesting (to me) information (numbers, etc.). Just wish you had kept that same attention to detail through the whole video. Even if it meant a longer video. I don't know about you all but, to me, I can spend hours watching informative videos about airplanes, specially fighter jets. From the American jets on, it felt a bit rushed. Kudos to you nonetheless. 👏👏

[@AviationAustin]

Yes I did the Russian video more in depth in response to feedback saying just that. So going forward you will see that level of detail in the ranking videos. Glad it came across that way. Thanks for the feedback!

[@BerraLJ]

Yeah would have been nice to see the cost of the US fighters since the F35 is not cheap.

[@dustinleonard3408]

@@BerraLJ I think it's around 170 million, based on the program costing 1.7 trillion. The problem with the F35 is the cost of the program over time and the failures encountered. The F22 was the perfect aircraft for air superiority....just too expensive to continue. The program was "only" 67 billion, but each plane comes out to an actual 340 million.

[@timsmetana9094]

​@@AviationAustin As a russian I think you're absolutely right about our jets, if I had to do a comparison of russian jets, I would say the same things you mentioned in the video❤

[@AviationAustin]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@michaeld1170]

Hey Austin, as you and I know, thrust to weight is not a constant value, so instead of giving a constant value, I try to give T/W range figures, for example the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 0.83 when at maximum take off weight, all the way to 1.61 at empty weight, obviously thrust at empty will also be 0 as there is no fuel anymore, so maybe it would be nice to give a T/W ratio from MTOW up to, lets say 10% fuel.

[@AviationAustin]

That's fair. I'll have to see if that range is readily available for these platforms. That's a big factor into the statistics I use since it has to be available for me to compare it to it's contemporaries.

[@Drum317]

f-22s thrust to weight is 1.2 fully loaded

[@markmaher4548]

The Grippen is not in RAF service. It is used by the Empire Test Pilot's School, a civil wing of the UK MoD, specifically QinetiQ, that trains test pilots. It's not in RAF service.

[@jbloun911]

Nobody cares

[@appa609]

Jesus Christ why can't you even keep it consistent within your criteria? Why do you break down numerical scores for the Russian and Chinese planes then vaguely handwave the rankings for US planes? Where did you get the 72kft/min climb rate for the F-16 when it's widely cited at 55kft/min? How is the F-15 "tied" for fastest plane when the Mig-31 is distinctly faster? How is the Harrier the "second slowest" plane when the A-10 and Su-25 are both quoted being slower? Why are we quoting wet T:W numbers for Russian planes then ranking US planes by dry total thrust? This is a mess. It feels like you ran out of steam 1/3 of the way through making it and just threw shit together so it could be done.

[@AviationAustin]

It's a compilation of many videos. The US one was the first. I responded to feedback to do the Russian fighters. All figures are considered in the rankings. They're just not all stated because I thought that would be boring to state statistics for an hour. But I found a better balance in the Russian fighter video

[@LarsOestreicher]

Good work, and I think that making a comparison like this is always diffficult, so kudos to you for the effort. However, I wonder a bit about the cost and versatility scores. The Gripen is, as most Swedish jet fighters have been, intended to serve as hunter, attack AND surveillance aircraft with a focus on being able to use regular roads as airfields, including a very short turnaround time from landing to start. It also has a quite innovative networking of information which gives it a special strength as a fighter jet. I assume that these features would count to the versatility score (and maybe the innovation score too). I also wonder about the cost aspect, where you seem to have left out cost per flying hour and maintenance costs. For the ranking scores, i think there is also a difference between defensive and offensive fighters, not least when it comes to speed and operation distances. But that is a minor detail in the whole.

[@oliverbrown3961]

not as innovative considering the viggen was similar, but yeah versatility definately

[@pike100]

​@@oliverbrown3961*definitely

[@kinka16]

bruh ranking the first version of the rafale in 2024 is pure genious

[@hakanbodin252]

You did Not even Mentioned JAS-Gripen-E !?!?

[@brurpo]

He even shows it when talking about the gripen, the Brazilian air force uses the E variant. And imagine giving a low versatility score to a plane that can use all US and european ordenance, can do air superiority, ground attack, eletronic warfare all at the same time, while even having the only AESA radar that is mounted on a plate that can look left and right, engage and turn 90 degrees while still targeting, and even land on a highway and be maintened by a mobile crew of 10.

[@bjornwadelius9909]

Dont forget super cruise!

[@F-15_enthusiast]

Hi Austin, what do you think about the F-15EX and what score would it get if it had some history behind?

[@AviationAustin]

Well I haven't ranked that one yet, mainly because it's not operational. But I don't think it will outperform the F-22 on the rankings since most of the platform upgrades are just aimed at bringing it up to speed with other 5th Gen fighters. It won't outperform them. Also, by the nature of it mostly being an upgrade, it's not as innovative as the NGAD program is aimed to be.

[@michaeld1170]

The Eagle 2 is very similar to the F-15QA, which is an advanced derivative of the F-15, its been immensely upgraded with some publications saying it has the most advanced mission computers ever fitted into a fighter. However it is limited by its design which originated in the 1960s using 1960s flight sciences. For example, the shape of the aircraft itself is designed to generate lift behind the center of gravity, making it a stable design. Because its a stable design, it will always be harder for the F-15 to achieve the same maneuver against an unstable design like the F-16, onwards.

[@AviationAustin]

@michaeld1170 not to mention it's geometry will never lend itself to having a low RCS

[@pike100]

​@@AviationAustinThe F-15EX is NOT a 5th generation fighter.

[@dominuslogik484]

@@michaeld1170 from what I can gather the main point of the F-15EX is to be a missile truck carrying a heavy payload.

[@deuxalex562]

Austin, I think you're joking right? The Eurofighter Typhoon achieved such success long after the Rafale plus, the Eurofighter Typhoon was initially designed for air superiority, not for ground attack, it acquired the ability to attack the ground quite recently and you ranked it above the Rafale which was designed from the beginning as an Omirole fighter? Not to mention that the Rafale has a marine version that operates on an aircraft carrier, plus you didn't mention the Rafale's electronic warfare suite, which is one of the best in the world? Not to mention that the Rafale has a datalink installed before the F35, yes the one on the F35 is much more advanced, but Rafale's is also there. Anyway, thanks for the work done, but in the future it would be good to document yourself better, good luck in the future. I apologize if I made a mistake, English is not my native language.

[@kuhnville3145]

I get it's not your first language but you say 'not to mention' a lot

[@vicariousjohnson9823]

@@kuhnville3145 He said it twice. Calm down.

[@kuhnville3145]

@@vicariousjohnson9823 yea, one sentence apart

[@Opama_]

@@vicariousjohnson9823 it's even in sync. XDDD

[@jujuf2900]

brooooooooooo the rafale and the mirage are invert.And why the f35 is so hight and the rafale so low i think that there is some mistakes in your ranking but the rest is not bad(not the russians bias ).

[@gusty844]

why is su25 included? Its not a fighter . If it would be a cas rating it would be one of the best especially modern variants like su25sm3

[@johnpaulbacon8320]

Nice video. Respectively I probably would of had the F-15's above every thing other then the F-35's and F-22's. The F-15 has the best combat record and longevity.

[@tgllsp]

You're showing your Navy brat bias. The F-35C's ability to land on a carrier and fold its wings doesn't enhance its ability to perform the missions over the F-35A. It's just a difference in where it takes off from and lands. The C does the same air-to-ground and air-to-air the A does.

[@pahtar7189]

Su-25: High speed is a disadvantage for a close air support plane. It should have scored 6 or 7. AV-8B: Innovation and versatility should be 10. A-10: Your ranking system values versatility, so you should probably have left out purpose-built close air support craft like this and the Su-25. F/A-18E/F: Through most of its history, US Navy aviation has used exclusively specialist aircraft. The F-4 was the first to attempt "jack of all trades."

[@alexkrystaszek5201]

how is high speed a disadvantage for CAS aircraft?

[@pahtar7189]

@@alexkrystaszek5201 Speed to and from the fight isn't a problem, but in close air support you need to go low and slow to have the most effect and most planes that can go very fast can't go very slow.

[@Attack_The_D_Point]

Uhh I don’t think the su-25 or a-10 are fighter jets

[@andreasgkanatsios7446]

Rafale my beloved 😍🤙💪

[@user-ub9my1hu7d]

I'll be honest you're probably the 2nd person who didn't put any hate on the J 20

[@Qiushishuo]

😅Is this a joke?

[@ethrilpalpatine6159]

Has the Tornado been retired? I know the RAF pulled theirs but I thought Germany and Italy still operates a few units.

[@jwativ13]

Germany definitely still has stem in operational service, I saw a few flying just a few weeks ago.

[@harrycauvert9934]

Ce gars là ignore l'existence de l'Europe, visiblement dans son esprit il n'existe que la Russie et les États-Unis .... Eurofighter, Rafale, Tornado, Mirage, Gripen .... ça n'existe pas .... 😶

[@LesKnight-ui8en]

Try telling the Argentinians or ground troops who served in Afghanistan how useless the British Harriers were!

[@knightlypopeye]

Are you giving these jets only dry thrust? Because I’m sure that the F-22 has with afterburner 2x35000lbs of thrust for a total of 70,000 lbs of max thrust.

[@mr_j0r1s10]

Bro all the Russians are crying cause their Su-57 is so low on the list XD (also the Gripen has no business being that low on the list at all)

[@everettjohnson8776]

The Gripen in close quarters only along with F-16, n Su 35, n American Raptors would all rank at the top of the list in my opinion. Tho for Beyond field of view fighting the American Stealth as in Raptors and F-35 are killing it with far targeting, multiple targeting quality, and the fact your being fired on by time you realize they are there, the Americans Strike Eagle the newest edition from Boeing is another very capable in close fighter but with far line of sight capabilities and multiple targeting caps and lethality with very heavy ordinance carrying capability. Now after saying all of that the NATO based fighters are designed to play a designed role for the greater good of the group. As where some countries factor hard on navy like Britt’s n close in fighters ( multi role) America plays a global game so they play their part with NATO and still project their Navy and air dominance capabilities to spend the globe. So what I’m saying is I wouldn’t take it personal as far as NATO countries because there is strategically configured as such needs were indicated. The Rafiel opted out of being so heavily reliant on the US n wanted a multi role built at home that can operate at home n abroad on us carriers or as part of NATO needs. Rafael huge weopons load!

[@austin.5947]

Wasn’t expecting another upload, but thanks Austin!

[@AviationAustin]

I figured now that I've done all of them might as well put them all together! Hopefully my upload schedule will improve when I finish my masters program in May!

[@MarkoDash]

the problem with things like this is that public information on current systems is often intentionally wrong in different ways. western countries tend to understate performance statistics to conceal true capabilities and eastern block ones tend to overstate as an intimidation ploy.

[@XerrolAvengerII]

I feel like with the block 4 upgrade, the F-35 with it's 360 degree sensors, built in electronic warfare and jamming systems, and internal air to ground infrared targeting system makes up for it's deficiencies in top speed and raw maneuverability compared to the F-22. As a fun fact, the F-35 has the most powerful engine of any fighter jet in the world at 43,000lb of thrust (compared to the 35,000lb of thrust of from one of the pair of engines put into the F-22). In dogfighting and medium range combat the F-22 relies on it's heads up display and high nose authority to point at enemies to defeat them, the F-35 will target and defeat enemies with missiles at almost any angle using the helmet mounted display, and is capable of tracking cruise missile and Sam launches out to 800miles from the vehicle.

[@spongememefunnypants9101]

Loved the video but as the others said, the US seems very rushed. Would like to see the same way you scored the Russian aircraft to the American ones.

[@AviationAustin]

Correct. The US was filmed before I made the ranking system. So I'll redo it eventually probably when the F-15Ex officially enters service

[@David-gh6vp]

I thought the same. An up-date is in order. perhaps this time we can drop the F-5, an aircraft of the '60's that hardly belongs in this mix. You might as well include the F-4 and give it good marks for being so damn beautiful. Just the opinion of another "Navy brat" that turned Air Force, which kept me off of the ground, and in support of the great B-52's, which was also gorgeous. [sorry for the bias.]

[@teddeebayre3433]

Why didn't you rank or number the American aircraft?

[@teddeebayre3433]

​@@David-gh6vpI also was a B52 dude. 93rd AMS Castle AFB,CA

[@derbigpr500]

Because he just took the typical "muh bruh muricah best bruh" approach. That's why ranked the flying bathtub F35 above planes like Rafale or Eurofighter which would wipe the floor with the F35.

[@BobDiot]

How is the super hornet over the strike eagle? The strike eagle is made to run both air superiority and air ground attack. The only thing the super hornet is better at is carrier operations. The biggest tell on the F-15 being better though is the super hornet is being replaced by the f35 and they ordered more f15's

[@comment6864]

WHAT?? How do you give a plane that has NO combat experience a 7 for effectiveness?????? Shouldn't it be kind of like .. 'unknown'??

[@julianjames2899]

He's likely giving it an average score for its category, as to exclude it would give the plane an overall higher score and giving it a 0 would tank its score

[@rekxii3596]

Su25 a effectiveness of 3 yet look at it in ukraine and su30 ranked lower than su27 and it has lower versatility and effectiveness? It carries guided ATG long range missile, rockets, guided bombs, dumb bombs or play an a2a roll?

[@michaelchristensen5421]

F-117 was not and is not a fighter, it received the fighter designation as a confusion factor.

[@caspernilsson2940]

Bro said the gripen was standard lol

[@lospiloto6544]

Hi, amazing work. When I speak about military planes I'm like "I like that, so it is the best"😂 I have only one critique: WHERE IS THE TORNADO? THE GHIBLI? AND THE M 365? GIB IT NOW!

[@Betelgeusewaitforit]

I commend you in doing this on your own. There are multiple government agencies across Nations who actually mostly do a bad job at this stuff.

[@drid2507]

I watched a documentary about the Falklands war. The Harrier was instrumental in Britain's victory. So perhaps the Harrier's effectiveness score could be higher?

[@johns70]

I am missing things like maintainability/availability (is it a hangar queen or not?), and operability in the sense of logistics. This is a complete rookie mistake to gauge the aircraft without it's supporting SYSTEM, which affects the capability for the aircraft immensely. A fighter might be great in the air, but if it has poor availability, that airplane system might be useless in any conflict, as the planes are NOT in the air...

[@Kami-sama.isekai]

Hold on SU-57 a 5th gen??? You're not forgetting that it has the RCS that of the Super Hornet right?

[@MarcusPereiraRJ]

You must not have taken into account the E variant of Gripen to place the almost decrepit Mirage 2000 over it.

[@jeffsherk7056]

Lots of fun, Thanks. I appreciate the props you gave to the A-10, and your thoughts on the F-16 versus the F-18 were enlightening. New subscriber because of this video.

[@AviationAustin]

Glad to have you here!

[@quinlanal-aziz6155]

Honestly if I had to build an Airforce I would choose the Gripen as my Multi Role fighter. The SU34 as my fighter Bomber, F15 EX as a bomb truck/Air Superiority, then the SU35 as my Air Superiority Fighter. If I had to go with one it would be the Gripen, that thing is awesome

[@appa609]

speed is a terrible measure. Maybe a better analogous measure is kinematic performance in general, but something like top speed tells you very close to nothing about combat effectiveness.

[@AviationAustin]

That's correct that is a better metric. There is more than just max speed that speed that go into the "speed" score. TWR, climb rate, ect. But I'll explain it better in the future.

[@jimmrazek]

Tell that to the F 15 going Mach Jesus and shooting down satellites in outer space. Speed matters in BFR because the speed you are going when the boom rocket goes off the rail helps increase the range exponentially. Like an aim120 is about 50-70 nautical miles range. On an f15 going Mach 2, it’s about 70-90.

[@Gringubbensverige]

As far as I know, the Gripen hasn't been in combat yet, so time will tell how effective it is. I heard a high ranking Swedish officer reply to the question on how it compares to other fighter jets. He couldn't reveal a lot but said you can sleep safely at night.

[@comment6864]

wait.. I'm REALLY confused.. Why didn't you give the US jets the same exact ranking system with the little circles as you did the Russian ones? I thought the whole point of this was a comparison of all the world jets, but you've somehow obscured that. Is that because you are not allowed to rank the US jets in the same way?

[@jesjoeken]

A-10a on top for shooting them all, the most combats …and its surviveability. It’s an almost 100% synonym to effectiveness. Of course in a CAS role…. Go ugly early. Great list and try to update. I loved to watch it. Btw Radar cross section, who cares if radar is put down and low flight can be your cover? 😉

[@capnsalt7102]

Hell yeah, the raptor is the undisputed goat of the skies

[@dopecat_truecrime]

Yes, that's why it has one air-to-air kill of a balloon.

[@eohq]

@dopecat4012 And the supercruising, maneuverability, stealth capabilities, weapon systems and avionics were ONLY tested duing that balloon shootdown

[@HayesNichols]

@@dopecat_truecrimethat’s it only air to kill because there hasn’t been a war for it to shoot down anything

[@rottedpotato645]

​@@dopecat_truecrimei hate this argument, of course it only has 1 kill. that's because it's not been in any war yet.

[@AviationAustin]

You are absolutely sorely mistaken if you think that the "great radar" of the MIG-31 has a chance on this planet against a 5th Gen fighter.

[@johndeanjdsvihovic8490]

The US F-5 is not a front line fighter, it is only used as an adversary training aid. Also you left out the F-15EX, although not operational right now, it will be very soon.

[@PotatoeJoe69]

The problem with making any kind of comparison like this, is that the US never tells us what their capabilities are, while Russia (provably, i.e; Ukraine) and almost certainly China, massively overstaye their capabilties to the point of absurdity. To reiterate what I just said in a simplified version.... The US barely gives us any information on their aircraft, while Russia and probably China make up bold and ludicrous lies about theirs. So a real comparison is impossible.

[@AviationAustin]

Isn't it interesting that even the numbers they put out are less than the public figures of the US figures 😂

[@chickenychickens07]

Where is the jf-17?

[@davehutchins2820]

Great presentation reflecting a hughe amount of work. Pretty good for a non flyboy.😉

[@AviationAustin]

😂 thanks. Fly boys are always sharing their opinions here. Time for an engineer to chime in

[@jonadabtheunsightly]

I feel like the MiG-29's effectiveness rating is suffering from who they've been sold to. A lot of them have gone to "podunk" countries with poor military track records in general, who are not known for their great training programs or the ability to provide good support. Possibly worse, a lot of this aircraft's operators are small countries that have hitched their wagons to Russia's star and turned themselves into proxy pawns, and as a result a lot of them have gotten themselves into active (and very asymmetric) conflicts with the US military at one point or another, which is a pretty good way to get some of your aircraft shot down, and that doesn't necessarily imply that the aircraft itself is bad. Also, when you're rating close-air-support aircraft for speed, you need to look at their "loiter speed", i.e., the _minimum_ speed they can go while sustaining controlled flight for extended periods of time. CAS aircraft need to stay close to the ground troops, for hours. That is the whole point of their role. The ability to also go fast is a useful secondary capability (principally useful for getting *to* the troops in a timely fashion when called in unexpectedly, which is a thing that definitely does happen), but it's significantly less mission-critical than the ability to fly slowly, which is absolutely essential for CAS. This is why helicopters (which can literally hover in place) are often used for CAS, despite being very vulnerable if the enemy has things like surface-to-air missiles. Also, CAS aircraft shouldn't be on the same list with fighters (unless the list is so general that it also includes helicopters). CAS aircraft are slightly better at dogfights, than air-superiority fighters are at doing CAS, but that's a very low bar. The roles are completely different, and some of a fighter's key strengths (notably, speed) are liabilities for close air support. Fighters with good hardpoints can get called in to drop a bomb on a bunker in much the same way that they'd bomb an enemy ship, but they can't stay close to an infantry unit for several hours vaporizing any enemy tanks that show up, that's just not in their wheelhouse; and going the other direction, aircraft that *can* do that, are not good at establishing air superiority, but that is not their purpose. Complaining that a CAS aircraft is slower than an air-superiority fighter, is like complaining that a submarine goes under water more than an aircraft carrier. It's true, but it's *supposed* to be that way. But yeah, the F-22 is *easily* the best air-superiority fighter currently in existence, at least as far as is publicly known. If anybody has anything better, they've managed to keep it completely secret for the time being. I suspect nobody does. There almost certainly are secret military aircraft somewhere (it would be weird if there weren't), but I doubt if any of them are better at air superiority than the F-22. Recon aircraft, long-range bombers, special-purpose utility aircraft (e.g., signal jammers), unmanned aircraft for various purposes, and experimental aircraft for potential new roles (e.g., anti-satellite), are all more likely to exist in secret, than high-end air superiority fighters, at the present time. I'm almost sure somebody somewhere is at least trying to make a decent unmanned air-superiority fighter, but it's very unlikely to be far enough along to be as effective as the manned one yet.

[@SethyReach]

To me the French Rafael is the best aircraft

[@jbloun911]

u certainly are one of a kind 😢

[@wilmeroberg9794]

5 innovation for the JAS 39 is insane lol. It has the best EW capabilities in the world, easiest jet to train new pilots on and it uses the Meteor missile which immediately makes it better than all other non-stealth aircraft that don't carry it.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

And the only thing Swedish on this airplane is part of the aluminium alloy fuselage.

[@wilmeroberg9794]

@@brunol-p_g8800 Radar, engine, the entire cockpit, entirely designed in Sweden, Swedish IRIS-T missiles. And the whole fuselage is Swedish, don't know where you got the idea that it was built or designed somewhere else.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

@@wilmeroberg9794 Radar is Italian, engine is American produced under licence in Sweden, displays are Swedish by Erickson that is true, IRIS-T are German, only part of the fuselage is Swedish, the composite parts are French, the EW parts/sensors are also French. I got my info from the Swiss federal paper following the competition, which shows the Gripen E/NG, all its components and their provenance. Only part of the fuselage, that is the aluminium alloy body, and the design are Swedish, the rest of the airplane is made of parts coming from the USA, France, UK, Germany,… It is very far from being a Swedish airplane.

[@wilmeroberg9794]

@@brunol-p_g8800 Kind of... Many parts are partly designed in other countries but for example, the engine is an American engine redesigned and also produced in Sweden. Same goes for the missiles, radar and sensors.

[@alexlindsey6446]

Everything you said about the A-10 Warthog is correct....however I don't believe it should be ranked as a "modern fighter jet" Its a specialty role plane and it's low points that you mentioned are sort of unavoidable considering what the specs are designed for.

[@chriservin9970]

You stated that versatility is why you put the Super Hornet above the Strike Eagle. This has me a bit confused. The F-15 E was designed to be primarily used for ground attack, but it is also a dominant air to air fighter. Its performance outstrips the Super Hornet. I love both these planes, having watched them rolling off the production line and taking off at Lambert Field in St. Louis. Maybe I'm wrong, but the raw performance and more than 100 to 0 air to air combat record would put the 15 above the 18 in my mind.

[@oliverbrown3961]

the f-18 is a bit more versatile than the f15e in terms of carriers takeoff, anti ship etc but what the f15e and the hornet can both do, the f15e can almost always do it better

[@David-gh6vp]

A superior piece of work in almost all regards, if only it could be completed someday. I like the point scheme, but would add production numbers, as that is a good indicator of an aircraft's value. Thank you for the work and incredible amount of thought that went into this. . . .

[@JudgeVandelay]

F-5s produce 10,000 lbf of thrust on afterburners, therefore have a great thrust to weight value.

[@zygbeee8563]

I have a suspicion that you made the American part of the video before you came up with the scoring system.

[@AviationAustin]

You're absolutely right, it's also why the rankings are slightly different at the end

[@zygbeee8563]

What were the end scores based on? The f22 score was way too high to be based on the categories in the video.@@AviationAustin

[@pani_3776]

I would really like to know why the A-10 has almost double the score of the Su-25, let’s put them in a one-on-one comparison

[@fishdude666ify]

Did I blink and miss the F-4 and the F-14?🤨

[@Skylers_Animations_Editz]

There are both retired he said modern aircraft just to classify

[@fishdude666ify]

​@@Skylers_Animations_Editz F-5? Retired or not the F-4 and F-14 are WAY more "modern" than the F-5. That was my point I guess. Fair point though, he does specify operational; although again, who's using the F-5 in 2024?

[@Skylers_Animations_Editz]

@@fishdude666ify I’m not sure, but your right the f14 is very modernized just outdated when it comes to other things since it was made to compete in the Cold War

[@dustinleonard3408]

other countries still use the F-4 and F-14, so technically they fall into the same boat as the F-5. just sayin.

[@TexanUSMC8089]

@@fishdude666ify That was the newer version of the F5 that the USA allowed to be sold to a lot of countries that may be considered 3rd world. It's actually a pretty respectable little plane. It's really cheap and the thrust to weight ratio isn't bad. It's much more modern than the old F5. I Think it's called the F5 Tiger 2.

[@dennyperino1826]

Where is the F-15EX Eagle II ?

[@AviationAustin]

In the X phase

[@PVT_SleepingBag]

the kinzel is not hypersonic also the A-10 IS NOT A FIGHTER its like you said GROUND SUPPORT

[@marko1263]

Kinzhal is hypersonic

[@AviationAustin]

The kinzgal is hypersonic the way any ICBM is hypersonic. It does go hypersonic speeds but not a hypersonic the way the US thinks or "hypersonics"

[@willthrill94]

I do think the method of measuring effectiveness for the Su-25 is a bit flawed. I don’t think it fully encompasses its role/niche. Still, loved this video

[@e-machine-ol1987]

i understand why you have innovation as a stat but it throws me off when a plane that would lose almost every fight against one of its counter parts if the pilots were equal is ranked higher then said counter part. Good vid tho i can tell you put alot of effort into it because it shows in spades.

[@AviationAustin]

Yes my ranking favors engineering heavily. I think a simple ranking of who's the best in a dogfight or best aircraft today anyone can do. Literally every AI aerospace channel can spit out who's the best fighter jet today. It's really going to throw you through a loop when you see the commercial aircraft on the rankings as well! Haha Glad you enjoyed the video though!

[@e-machine-ol1987]

@@AviationAustincorrect and not only does it add to the ranking by attaching your profession into it in a way that’s relevant, it is also is a way to keep it unique and interesting. Which really made the amount of work you put into it shine through.

[@AviationAustin]

Thank you! I really appreciate that!

[@CCT24THSTS]

The F35 does not have thrust vectoring. Thee F35b has minor thrust vectoring but not to increase its agility only for stvol.

[@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife]

In the best way possible I completely misread the channel name as "Aviation Autism" on account of my severe dyslexia. Kinda wish I hadn't misread it! But I get that would be "PC" or whatever 😭

[@AviationAustin]

Sometimes I see the word autism and think it says Austin lol. And to my knowledge I don't have dyslexia. Lol

[@marcuskarlsson]

Not at all US biased. Possibly the most subjective ranking I have ever seen.

[@dopecat_truecrime]

Great job comparing a medium bomber (Su-34) with the Eurofighter. I mean, the Su-34 is only twice in size and weight as the Eurofighter, which is an actual fighter jet. Surprised you didn't compare the 747's speed and versatility with an F-16.

[@Gunner._]

why did u put CAS aircraft into a Fighter jet category

[@LeonAust]

It has been proven in current wargames that the F-35 is the current best fighter exceeding the F-22 due to its superior networking and team work capability compared to the current F-22. Current F-22 has only 1990s tech! with basic link 16 and limited EO capability and basic upgrades soon, the F-35 has better situational awareness and with the upcoming Block 4 release this capability will shoot through the roof excerpting the new long AIM-260 and short range US air to air missiles. In a 5th gen environment kinematics' is not necessary the number one option, its information!

[@scottmeehan2422]

53:29 if that is a Royal Navy harrier then it is a British Aerospace harrier II. Its based on the AV 8B. But definitely not the same.

[@Hef20000]

Nice work 👏

[@GoSlash27]

45:58 I'm looking at an A-10 flying formation with a MiG-29, and neither has anything to do with the Chinese J-11.

[@laserbuddha]

I think your ranking doesn't really work: - Gripen has won against both F-16 and F-15 in several military exercises. - It's cheaper - Easier maintenance. etc.

[@AviationAustin]

I think you didn't understand the point of the ranking system. Or you misunderstand military exercises

[@ryanroper628]

Totally agree about the appreciation because losing energy and slowing down and being able to still control in dog fighting without stall is so important kind of makes me appreciate the su-57 if it didn't have crappy engines in American engines

[@user-sl5oi6pp4l]

A lot of work was put into this vid. My hats off to you. The research is extensive. In the category of hats off, you get a 10.

[@AviationAustin]

Thank you!

[@brettridings5594]

Not really a correction but something of note on the Su-57, the US and Russia have different standards for what is considered supercruise and the Su-57 doesn't actually meet our definition

[@brettridings5594]

Our being the US

[@kevinpund2424]

You favor the navy

[@SeSmokki]

Saab: Builds an incredibly cost effective fighter jet that rivals 5th gen fighters in terms of electronics and has incredible versatility. Americans: IKEA 🤪

[@AviationAustin]

What's wrong with IKEA? All my furniture is from IKEA. Great value

[@davidmathes6730]

The SU57 Felon all one of them, Russian's call the it super maneuverability, American fighter pilots call it, RAPIDLY LOSING ALL THE JETS kinetic energy moving forward, so going from higher speeds into those maneuvers, bleeds off speed Soo fast, if they launch a missile, it's starting a zero air speed, ship launched missiles with no speed boost from a fighter jet, they actually add a stage booster, to the bottom so the missile can get to the target 🎯 sometime this week😂 Most Western pilots say, other then airshows, they would never maneuver like the Felon, and dump all kinetic airspeed, they would become a big ole changing directions, but going no where fish in a barrel, if it starts to slowly swing it's nose @ you have already BVR launched 2 missiles on the way, and the Felon would have zero time to reacquire airspeed even maximum panic thrust won't give it enough airspeed, in titme to evade anything, it's basically spinning circles at zero MPH, maybe pop some chaff to suck in it's own intakes😂😂😂 wah wah. That plus the Signature Russian black smoke trail from the engines, would be something 😂🎉

[@AviationAustin]

Exactly why I don't rate super maneuverability very high. Great explanation

[@dopecat_truecrime]

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile Russian pilots are actually at war, and American pilots are using 200 million dollar planes to shoot Chinese balloons out of the air. Would love to see these American pilots in a real threat, like in a conflict against a real air force like China's or Russia's, their magical stupid-expensive jets like the F-22 and F-35 would be shot out of the sky with air defense systems like any other aircraft, regardless of origin. The Serbs shot down at least two F-117s with SAMs from the 1950s, stealthy indeed. lmao.

[@PeterToth-u9u]

The problem with u not updated J Series J-20B has vector engine now.