JAS-39 Gripen | Is it a better fighter than the F-35, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon or not?

[@WeaponDetective]

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LpBbgCM_Ndw0Lq6CMmhBsrp Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrGyENf3nqsYKC9ZkWH414k

[@ann-christinesoderlund8826]

But the Gripen is dangerus in close combat and we need that in US. We dont have a fighter like that. End of that.

[@samsunggalaxys3neo645]

smiles.. there is one P, so it's pronounced "Greepen"..

[@Samy-bu1ze]

@@ann-christinesoderlund8826 dangerous ? In US there is that dude

[@atlet1]

Not correct! Gripen E have the best technology in several diciplines. Even the best performance in some aspects of air war. The time on ground for rearming, refuelling and neccesary service is 10 minutes with 5 personel and 1 standard fright container with equipment on a road base. Change of engine less than an hour. Gripen E is equipped with built in GaN based 360 degree anti stealt ew for missile or/and electronic attack and powerful front AESA/IRST, with complete sensor fusion and Ai. "See the unseen". Combat range is 1500km for ground attack. It's carrier compatible in theory(no Swedish carriers to practice on). No fighter is better, just more expensive to operate and need more time on ground.

[@Samy-bu1ze]

@@atlet1 Rafale is by far in the higher category

[@GabrielVitor-kq6uj]

As a brazillian I must clarify. The competition in Brazil for the new fighter, also known as the F-X2 program, didn't consider the F-35 nor the Eurofighter. It was between the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Su35 Flanker, the Rafale and the JAS-39 Gripen. The Gripen won in many criteria, lower operational costs and the possibility of being operated in rough terrain and highways with minimum crew were big factors, but what really got us into it, was the technology transfer the Swedes proposed. If we've chosen the Super Hornet or the Flanker, we would be left totally dependent on USA and Russia for maintenance and parts, while the Rafale offer had very limited transfer. With SAAB partnering with the brazillian EMBRAER, we can actually produce the jets ourselves, and even sell it to common allies, we can also build a wide range of components in national grounds. It was so much a collaboration between SAAB and EMBRAER that the Swedes actually took some brazillian tech into their own Gripen-E, like the WAD display that replaces the three separate MFDs, and also the brazillian AEL Sistemas's HUD and HMD. So that's it, for us the Gripen was the best deal possible, and we are trully happy with the collaboration between the two nations, very different with our past deals with USA which usually rendered us dependent.

[@gansior4744]

Brazil knows well with whom cooperate

[@RJM1011]

There is also one Gripen in the UK used by the EPTS. Thank you for the video on this wonderful aircraft.

[@mortified776]

The Gripen is to fighters what the Westland Lynx was to naval helicopters - 80% the capability of the best for 50% the cost.

[@klasandersson7522]

A very good comparison.

[@mortified776]

@@klasandersson7522 Thanks!

[@felix25ize]

And if you want 100% ? The devil relies on little details, sir Demon ...

[@mortified776]

@@felix25ize Ah but if you have the sort of problems which require that last 20% of capability to solve, you probably also have the means and motivation to pay twice as much in order to get it. That is to say, Gripen is a fine machine, it's just not the machine for you. What I am talking about are small countries with small wallets, but facing small threats against which a Typhoon or Rafale would simply be overkill. That is to say, most of your flying will be basic air policing missions and the like. For these countries, Gripen is all but perfect.

[@felix25ize]

@@mortified776 Well, it was not the conception of the swiss air army, but their politicians wanted to pay the less money as possible. I presume that the same problem occured in some other countries like Canada or Peru

[@pizzagogo6151]

The genius isn’t in the plane itself but how the whole design was managed from start to finish. Sweden was 100% clear on what the aircraft is meant to do (& just as importantly what it’s NOT designed to do), stops the massive mission creep that happens with so many fighter programs infected with the irresistible tendency to keep adding complexity (& weight) & cost!

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

Only France and Sweden was smart enough in my point, according to what you said. France and Sweden were both in the Eurofighter program, and they left when they smell it wasn't going right way as planned at the beginning. France left first, Sweden followed after. The most funny is the fact, that the origine of the Eurofighter program, was a French project born to prepare the replacement in the future of the Mirage 2000, and other European countries heard about it, and proposed Dassault to join to make a European fighter. France left its own program, to built its new own program. Conclusion : Eurofighter program represent perfectly what Europe is, a continent that mostly never success to cooperate and unit themselves correctly.

[@pizzagogo6151]

@@kasugakyosuke6441 I disagree the Eurofighter was a very successful program & just like the tornado before it great example of cooperation. France left maybe because eurofighter wasn't suiting them but also because, as always they aren't good at cooperation.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@pizzagogo6151 Successful is kinda big words, for the Eurofighter program. It became better than it was, but it's still suffering from many years of being a messy program, with many wrong decisions. The successful program clearly have been the Rafale one since the beginning. Specially when you do know all the facts and history. I disagree, French are good at cooperations, and they clearly know what they're doing. As experts and specialized aviation journalists often said, French know their stuffs. There are many examples of France successful cooperations with other European countries. Such as the Concorde, Jaguar fighter jet, nEUROn stealth UCAV, and more. France was the great leader of these programs/projects, and it ended as amazing and stunning results. Just look at the facts, France made a better fighter jet alone, than 4 countries together in the Eurofighter program.

[@pizzagogo6151]

France good at managing military partnerships..😂

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@pizzagogo6151 Rather than laughing for nothing, expose to us your arguments to prove what you just said. Every cooperations that France managed, were all very successful as I said above. You brought nothing to answer it, and you're only laughing like a simple minded which is not very stable in his minds. Simply because you got no arguments to oppose and proofs of what you said ? If that's the case, just remain silent, it would be better for everybody (specially for you) !

[@johndewey6358]

I have always appreciated the pragmatic design approach of Swedish engineering. I wish more nations would adopt these philosophies that stand the test if time.

[@AndreCarneiro666]

It will never happen in US! They NEED to be ahead in everything. Unfortunately, in the case of F-35 that means a cost more than US$1 trillion untill 2020 and the costs are increasing. They have money to play like that. The rest of the world, not!

[@secularnevrosis]

@@AndreCarneiro666 Not sure it even about that. It looks like everybody and his friends wants a pice in all military development programs. Why? The money ofc. That leads to stuffing everything that should and *should not* be in an aircraft in an effort to get their hands on US taxpayer money. That kind of corruption cost alot of money.

[@worldwanderer91]

@@AndreCarneiro666 you mean the US needs to be the most corrupt with most of the F-35 program budget only existing to line the pockets and fill bank accounts of contractors, bureaucrats, politicians, and generals all having LM stocks and shares in their investment portfolios

[@Iamabot4708]

1. F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing variant): Approximately $89 million per unit. 2. JAS 39 Gripen (various variants): The cost can vary but generally falls in the range of $30 million to $60 million per unit, depending on the version America builds planes that are good for them and their situation. And then they offered them to the rest of the world to buy. Why in the world would America build? What's better for the rest of the world than what's best for them? We're a rich country that makes no sense to do so. We can spend a little bit more on these jets. They're made for America. We just offer them to the rest of the world

[@allanpsk]

Congratulations for your video. I´m Brazilian and the JAS-39E/F Gripen to Brazil as the best solution for our security and budget. Best regards.

[@raymondcoventry1221]

I hope Canada contracts to build Gripen NGs here, they fit our needs nicely, SAAB is offering an incredible deal for licensing and we'll save billions by not buying the F-35.

[@scottleslie7838]

True. Great observation. Best solution for Canada, by far. Top tech, specs and costs.

[@corey8420]

Canadian Air Force will not be flying a new jet within the next 15-20 years, just watch! Canada does not prioritize nation defense.

[@raymondcoventry1221]

@@corey8420 sad but u may be right

[@69sungam]

I hope you go with the most agaila = Gripen if you choose the hornet you should be buying a moped insted... " red flag"

[@FakeSchrodingersCat]

@@corey8420 Not exactly true. It is more that the Canadian military is primarily focused as mechanized infantry so most of the big flashy weapons systems are ignored in favor of that niche. You have to remember the federal budget is only around 350 billion a year in total for everything. For Canada to get an Airforce or Navy that is as effective as their infantry on the world stage it would require the government to basically spend it's entire budget on solely the military. So why not focus on what we are good at rather then waste money on flashy new systems we can never hope to afford enough of to actually be of any real use.

[@terruwuism]

Im soo glad I stumbled upon your videos. They are soo great!

[@terruwuism]

I love your writing and presentation. Great job! I like the music and your quaint wording. It is almost like old timey news like BBC in the 60s.

[@brianreilly6523]

The background and context you provided on the F-5 aircraft operators is spot on.

[@thelegendaryblackbeastofar39]

In my book the JA-37 Viggen and Saab 35 Draken are among the coolest looking aircraft ever made. I remember waaay back when I built a 1/48 model of the Viggen. Faithfully replicating the iconic "green dazzle" pattern had to be the most challenging masking and air-brushing project I ever undertook, but it looked awesome once it was done. Whereas the prior two aircraft looked very unique and iconic the JA-39 looks unoffensive but rather generic, sort of like comparing a modern Honda Accord to a classic Citreon DS.

[@lokiperez3746]

My best pick of all your vid brother. Keep it up.

[@Omniseed]

It's an endearing and excellent little plane that perfectly suits its intended role and does it with a reasonable price tag.

[@johanlassen6448]

Its as expensive as the other Eurocanards for 75-80% of the capability at best. And far below the F-35.

[@nobstompah4850]

@@johanlassen6448 let them think its good as they have to handcraft one plane on two continents lmao

[@johanlassen6448]

@@nobstompah4850 "But muh Gripen so cheap". > Has to partly assemble it in Sweden, then send it to Brazil for additional assembly, then send it back to Sweden to finish it. But I am sure they think that SAAB has some magic pixie dust they can sprinkle on it to make it cheap.

[@Proletariat12]

It has the functionality of the F-16, but at the cost of the F-35. Nothing about it makes sense.

[@Karl-Benny]

@@johanlassen6448 If you don't count operational cost

[@aking-plums6985]

Our Swedish cousins have a great history of making innovative weapon systems. From the longboat of the Vikings era to it's latest A-26 Blekinge class submarines. The JAS-39 Gripen is a worthy addition to those weapon systems.

[@martentrudeau6948]

The great Kelly Johnson, Lockheed engineer, was of Swedish ancestry. He had a major hand in developing some amazing planes. The crown jewel is the SR-71

[@playasurf1000]

hows that gonna help with the increasing islamisation of the country?

[@martentrudeau6948]

@@playasurf1000 ~ Swedes have talent, they may have not known about Kelly Johnson's ancestors, but he is their kin. The powers that exist in this world, don't want white people to retain their identity, but that's not news for a lot us.

[@antoniescargo1529]

Sweden is already conquered by immigrants.

[@martentrudeau6948]

I agree, the powers that exist in this world are so rich that they own the governments and the corporations of the world. They are like the Pied Piper (aka the Devil), they call the tune and the governments and corporations have to do what they are told. "The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is a servant to the lender". Proverbs 22:7 Europeans are the sons and daughters of Jacob, and the powers that exist in this world are the sons and daughters of Esau. Esau hates Jacob, because Jacob got Abraham's birth right. This is why the world is anti-white, and the powers that exist want to destroy white people. The Dividing of the Times or the End of the Age and the Beginning of the Next Apocrypha ~ 2 Esdras chapter 6 :7-10 ~ NRSV ~ Ezra asks God... “What will be the dividing of the times? Or when will be the end of the first age and the beginning of the age that follows?” He (God) said to me, “From Abraham to Isaac, because from him were born Jacob and Esau, for Jacob’s hand held Esau’s heel from the beginning. Now Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows. The beginning of a person is the hand, and the end of a person is the heel; seek for nothing else, Ezra, between the heel and the hand, Ezra!” Remember God called Jacob to be his servant and through him he would bless the nations (ethnicities) of the world, through our Lord and savior Jesus Christ and establishing his kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

[@philipplace9990]

The more I learn about this aircraft the more I love it! As a Brit I'm more than a bit biased towards the Typhoon, but I wish we'd gone down the Saab route. This plane follows the old saying; if it looks good it'll be good! Just like it's predecessors the Draken and the Viggen. Imagine a Gripen made from a few stealth materials... now that would be a world beater! Great channel too. Thanks

[@YaMomsOyster]

SAAB have some of the best Electronic Warfare capabilities at the moment, but one day I would like to see that.

[@gilesellis8002]

I am waiting to see 'The Tempest'

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@YaMomsOyster Rafale and gripen went in the right way, playing the game of specializing and improving old techs and proven platforms. Which allowed them to spend less budgets, and focus themselves on critical important points. That's why those 2 fighters are very capable, without being true 5th fighters, but achieving the same requirements, only square shapes missing.

[@deadphone9639]

We do have the Tempest to look forward to :) regarding JAS-E, it house the most advanced EW gear in the world. ESM receivers with interferometric passive targeting (don't need Radar nor IRST to shoot Meteor missiles at air to air targets) and GaN AESA jammer units, both with 360° horizontal and vertical (spherical) coverage. The topfin unit has GaN AESA EA capability against search radars and coms. No other fighter EW system has this capability today, this includes F22 and F35 afaik.

[@jemakrol]

And UK use(d) Gripen too. ETPS (Empire Test Pilots’ School) have used it for training. See, the way Gripen is designed - it is like a flying flight simulator. The control system does not only allow for care free manouvering - it can be updated to simulate things - like other types of aircrafts. While I don't know to what extent, I do know there's some videos and articles out there where the British pilots praise the easy to use human to machine interface and handling of the Gripen.

[@BBBrasil]

As many Brazilians, I am in love with this fighter. The most amazing feature is the communications suit, integrated in the airframe and not as an after thought. As they say, what one sees, everybody else knows. For humongous countries, the super cruise, range and scout configuration makes them an AWAC-like plane. Oh, and IRIS-T, the stealth equalizer. Brazil developed an even better touch screen, that allows more subsystems.

[@johanlassen6448]

1. This planes communications capability is no better than what you find on literally any other 4th gen fighter. 2. Gripen E can't supercruise. 3. IRIS-T is not a stealth equalizer.

[@jonathanperron326]

@@johanlassen6448 gripen e is the only single-engine aircraft that can achieve supercruise

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@johanlassen6448 Modern IR missiles and sensors, are clearly a pain in the a** for stealth fighters with often powerful engines.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@kasugakyosuke6441 Again, wrong, modern IR missiles are at best no more a pain in the ass than they are for regular 4th gen fighters, and in fact less so because 5h gen stealth incorporates IR reducing features. If you look at the F-35 for instance its engine is actually masked from the frontal angle (up to I think 30 degrees or more) by its control surfaces. Not so with 4.5 gen fighters like the Rafale and Gripen who both end up with far more exposed engines. Likewise the F-35 actually incorporates heat-retardant materials and its engine and intakes are both built so that the primary heat signature is hidden inside the plane. In other words: 5th gen stealth aircraft are *more* difficult to notice with IR measures than 4th gen planes, not less. That is what stealth is. Its not just planform alignment, or radar-absorbent material. Its a comprehensive package involving usage of materials, angles, placement of components, LPI characteristics on sensors etc... to truly make the plane more difficult to detect and track with all available methods. This *obviously* includes all the common detection methods such as radar, radar warning receivers etc... and IR/IRST.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@jonathanperron326 Gripen can't achieve supercruise. Supercruise is the ability to reach and maintain supersonic speed (mach 1.3+, where mach 1-1.2 is transonic speed) without using afterburner (AB), preferably with a useful weapons load and while maintaining practical range. The Gripen NG, i.e. the prototype that weights 1 ton less than the operational JAS-39E, could reach mach 1.1-1.2 with a weapons load by accelerating with AB and then maintaining with milpower while carrying a basic A2A loadout. We do not know how long it could maintain it. So already here we do not have supercruise as the Gripen NG: 1) did not reach supersonic speed and 2) did not even reach mach 1.1-1.2 without AB The JAS-39E, meanwhile, weights a full ton more than the Gripen NG but uses the exact same engine with the exact same power (F414-GE-400, same engine as used on the Super Hornet which incidentally does *not* supercruise). An engine which, BTW, was *never* designed to supercruise. If you believe the JAS-39E can supercruise when its lighter prototype could not then I have a bridge in Russia I wish to sell you. For that matter not even SAAB has claimed that the JAS-39E can supercruise since like 2016 when the claim was "it will supercruise" (a claim that was swiftly dropped after the JAS-39E got 1 ton heavier). I suggest you check your facts instead of mouthing off nonsense next time. This should not be difficult for you to find out on your own, frankly.

[@Axel-gh6vj]

the truly amazing part of this airplane isn't just the plane itself but also the entire swedish army, how its organized and how its used is incredibly efficient and the gripen litteraly has no equivalent anywhere else

[@markcedydabest5692]

To all Filipino out there, this is a huge evidence that the Gripen is no joke vs Chinese fighter jet, and the Philippine DND is right & wise on choosing this small but deadly fighter . To all Filipino communities that are fans of F-16 Viper you must watch this very nice video.

[@peterwesterlund9137]

Great video👍😀 I think you are the first one to prenounce all the swedish planes correctly and lot of interesting info in the video☀️

[@Padtedesco]

Brazilians grippens, today, are installed close to its capital, and the extended range is almost enough to cover the whole country which is a surprisingly feat. It is a continental proportions and close to air superiority/ fighter bomber around south america.

[@henrikg1388]

@@Andre-ff4hp How do you even know that? No Gripen were there, and if they were there secretly, or you refer to Hungarian patrols, you didn't shoot it down.

[@trevorhart545]

@@Andre-ff4hp Back to the World of Dreams!

[@zoom5024]

@@Andre-ff4hp hahah stop eating those mushrooms, they make you hallucinate.

[@Andre-ff4hp]

@@zoom5024 U know then how it works. l didn't try it and l shall not. 1.Gripen is shit plane only what works, is elektronik communication. 2.Sweeden WAS NOT NEUTRAL IN 2WW,WHEN WE EXPLAIN TO THEM, THEY BUILT THE MOST Important and capable building hospital, for our silence, in country outside Sweeden..Do u want proof of it.

[@zoom5024]

@@Andre-ff4hp mate try using google translate instead, i dont understand what you're trying to say.

[@joelperillotempra9324]

JAS 39 Grippen is capable to land and flight in every highways here in the Philiphines bacause our roads is upgraded into the 24 meters wide 6 lane

[@andreasleonardo6793]

Nice video with clear explaining of Sweden upgrades to producing progressive aircrafts with jet engines technical abilities from 1947 ...thanks for sending video.

[@Merecir]

And Saab has been implementing data linking in their aircraft since the J35 Draken...

[@jaws666]

Ireland seriously should buy these

[@dstavs]

Excellent video. As a Canadian and fighter plane aficionado, I’ve watched a number of videos regarding the Gripen as it’s one of the three options currently available to replace Canada’s aging legacy Hornets. I’m very curious to see how the Canadian federal government chooses to proceed - if it ever chooses to proceed... Your video contained excellent relevant details. Great work!

[@jackc8515]

I hope the Canadian govt takes into account the recent trade deals the US is making with Canada. We are getting the short end of the deals.

[@dstavs]

“Boeing told its bid to sell fighter jets to Canada did not meet Ottawa’s requirements”

[@Ok.ok.]

Canada never would accept a non American deal let’s be real, although even a couple of Gripens would be nice

[@dstavs]

@@Ok.ok. it’s already settled. Canada has officially approved the purchase of 88 F-35A’s. They’ll be gradually introduced until the full order is completed by 2032. Cheers!

[@Ok.ok.]

@@dstavs I know, but one can dream lol

[@henryquecabral9357]

And to be honest, the latest variant of the Griphen with a Raven Radar and a Meteor BVR Missile is a formidable enemy to any aircraft currently. Given its extremely advanced electronic suit and network centrist warfare, the Gripen would be a welcome addition to any modern airforce in conflict.

[@tonnywildweasel8138]

We, the Dutch bought the joint strike fighter.. cause it has a joint in the name.. Should have gone with the Gripen ;-)

[@ZZZc2]

lol

[@anggastapratama2370]

Hahaha

[@12313846]

I am from Belgium. We bought the same flying pig. Trump came to Europe a few years ago to force this plane true our trough. Just so that the US at least could claim back some of the money they put into it. Now nato has a plane which is worth nothing. So therefore weakening nato. Now you k ow that we don't swim in money so there Wil be no replacement for this f35. It is stealth but Russia China have radars to detect stealth. For the same price we could have double the amount of planes. Britain scrapped the order for more f35 for their navy already. The most costly scrap metal ever.

[@olivierfaber8478]

F35 is ook voor de Nuke Nato taak die Duitsland niet mag uitvoeren vanwege hun rol in de 2e wereldoorlog.Nederland moet het bij dit aantal houden (46). En naar mijn mening de F16 vervangen door de nieuwste variant F15EX Eagle II. Gezamelijk heb je dan een luchtmacht die werkelijk alles kan uitvoeren zoals ook Israel dit doet.F35 laat je de weg banenAlleen de dreiging al is indrukkwekkend, als een vijand weet dat je er aan komt met deze 2 types..F15 bomb/rocket truck laat je het zware werk doen, vele malen goedkoper in uurtarief dan de Lightning en geweldig platform tegen gronddoelen.Tevens is de F15 ongeslagen in luchtgevechten. De F35 word dan wel steeds gebitched in het nieuws.Maar reken er maar op dat een mogelijke vijand wel 2x nadenkt.Als je naar de US kijkt, is ook geen 1 toestel echt de nr 1 multirole.

[@tgtg7182]

Don't worry they're trying to legalize drugs over here in the US too, they want all the pilots to get high, but they'll have to wait 14 day before they can go back to work so the joint can get out of their system, otherwise they'll be flying while intoxicated, that's a two week vacation.

[@elfi9003]

Interesting comment on the redflag performance during redflag. I have also not found any hard data from Gripen performance or actually no good data from any participant. But On "Millenium 7*" that youtuber are refering some really good performance from the gripen team. Interesting is that very small logistical footprint compared to others during redflag. A friend of mine who is a heli mecanich had heard some fika room talk I think the F16 had like three times as much personal and equipment with them. Also the gripen had the best availability of the exercise if I dont remember it incorrectly.

[@drosendahl]

Even if you had the full correct data, redflag results is often the product more of the scenarios then the planes. But it does show that Gripen is "good enough" to work in those environments. (Eventual real war results will of course also depend a lot of the scenario). Logistic footprints and availability is however really good data for Gripen.

[@SonnyKnutson]

@@drosendahl Gripen never failed to start for any mission during Red Flag for any reason. Many others couldn't do what they had to because of weather etc. Gripen ran every mission in any condition, successfully.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@SonnyKnutson Rafale never failed too. It's an all weather and tracks fighter also, and is offering superior capacities and capabilities. It even beaten many world records and still beating new world records recently.

[@bafattvahetere]

@@SonnyKnutson And thats what its all about, isnt it?

[@MikkoRantalainen]

13:07 The fact that Gripen E/F comes with full source code is not a small feature! Do you have a link to official document that says this?

[@searcherT]

it's the best for Sweden, they are only a few small countries away from Russia. They built with road use as air strip in mind and modest legs. Its is built for defending Sweden and does a beautiful job. Swedish built weapons will never let you down

[@arfanmedni7294]

Just like their cars

[@ulfblom1662]

Exactly - Sweden is extremely competent in producing high quality defense systems - no matter what area (for army, marine and airforce): They produced the Carl-Gustaf and the NLAW, one of the best non-nuclear submarines in the world and Gripen for the airforce - reason? we have very good weapon engineers with a legendary decade long experience - of making the best weapons !

[@LarssonNsP]

All the main roads in sweden are made for the Gripen to start and land on.

[@neyrozzz]

Im french, my favourite jet is the Rafale but damn the Grippen is an amazing, beautiful and really powerful jet

[@neyrozzz]

It's so beautiful, the perfect middle between an F-16 and an Rafale in term of look, absolutely amazing

[@dewatined520hj6]

​@@neyrozzz entièrement d accord avec vous le grippen est magnifique

[@yujinyujin7276]

❤️ from the PHILIPPINES 🇵🇭🇵🇭🇵🇭

[@testerjs]

Thanks for getting away from the robo voice mate.

[@dutchgamerguy2446]

Sadly my country (the Netherlands) bought the f-35 instead. When looking at what they use their fighter aircraft for, the jas39 would have been a much better choice because we don’t have enough fighter aircraft but they are too expensive so we can’t buy more of them, if we bought the jas39 we could’ve easily bought 80-140 jets. Instead of a pathetic 35 (later expanded to 52, and still expanding, even though it costs too much money).

[@mikaelholmkvist6994]

As this video mentioned Thai exercises against Chinese A/C, Thai A/C used MS19 software, wich didn't allow them to use HMD and the IRIS-T.. Their radar wasn't upgraded and if the same exercise was conducted against the upgraded C-ver, it would have been a very much differerent result in the dogfight parts. Regarding BVR they used AMRAAM not the Meteor that only came availeble with the MS20 upgrade.

[@scepticalwalker3984]

Still won bvr, 41 victories vs 9 losses with the older configuration

[@-RJ-hw6qq]

Great video! Brazil will operate the E and F versions. The aircrafts will be produced here. The new Gripen E has more weapon stations (10) than the previous version; can carry more internal fuel (45% more); improved MTOW (18% more); super cruise capabilty and more payload (36%+). I'm excited to see it against the F-16, F-18, F-35 and the Rafale on the next Red Flag!

[@Merecir]

@@CaptainDangeax Swedish Gripens are happy to go against F-22 at Red Flag, why would they be afraid of Rafales?

[@martinan22]

Which is especially cool given Brazil's thriving aerotech industry. Embraer is already building the plattform for the Erieye system developed in tandem with JAS-39.

[@johanlassen6448]

Gripen E cant supercruise.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@Merecir Swedish Gripens have never gone up against F-22s and would get slaughtered if they did.

[@martinan22]

@@johanlassen6448 Gripen has met F-22 in red flag. Is comment from Gripen pilot praising the F-22 wiht "works as advertised". So you are ignorant. Furthermore, you seem to think that fighter jets are like gladiators or duelists. It works nothing like that. For example, there is very good reason for USA to discontinue F-22 program even thought it is the most lethal air superiority fighter in certain scenarios. And there is very good reason that USAF is discussing developing something like a Gripen plattform. It goes to capabilities, availability, cost, requirements and so on and so forth. But little boys like you think only that fighter jets are duelists in 1v1 fight.

[@andrewruddy962]

Thank you, a very interesting video.

[@brurpo]

Good video, but you didnt talk about the new cockpit on the E/F versions. And how, for example, brazil codevelops new versions and features, like the new cockpit massive display and the two seater version, (and that they will manufacture it locally and sell it) which tells a lot about the easy of integrarion and willingness for cooperarion

[@Vrey662]

Brazil will manufacture a small insignificant part of the aircraft, not really transfer technology.

[@LeonardTavast]

Gripen give the best bang for the buck among Gen 4 fighters.

[@harri9885]

It is a good video, but I have to correct one blaring mistake: the AJ/JA-37 Viggen was never a better AA fighter than the J-35 Draken. The Viggen was never meant to be a fighter; she was designed as a sophisticated heavy attack aircraft. The Draken on the other hand was quite a good dogfighter in the hands of an experienced pilot.

[@adambratt9902]

JA-37 With Robot 99(aim-120B) and Robot 71(Skyflash) and a brand new pulse doppler-radar with "look down, shoot down" capability made for a substantial upgrade over J-35F's old radar and Robot 28(AIM-4 falcon). The JA-37 also used the "STRIL-60"-system, a data-link between other planes and ground based radar. This was ground breaking as this information sharing meant only one fighter had to paint the enemy with radar as other could fly "silent" without radar on and still fire! Draken even lacked RWR (radar warning receiver) and was showing it's age. Sure, draken could probably out-turn Viggen and had a higher top ceiling. But the *dedicated* fighter version JA-37 with it's more powerful RM8B engine actually out-climbed draken despite weighing 50% more than it. (Mostly due to it's ability to guzzle fuel like a madman. full afterburner is something like 15 L/s I believe lol). However my point is, there was a reason why Sweden spent 8 extra years to develop a fighter version of the AJ-37 to REPLACE the J-35F fleet. I will point out that you're right about Viggen was initially developed for low altitude, high speed attack and the fighter version inherited the air-frame features of the ground attacker. The profile was optimized for denser air and resulted in a lower top speed at altitude than what should have been theoretically possible. Draken is my absolute favorite jet, but it's still a fighter made in 1960. As compared to the JA-37 witch rolled of the assembly lines in 1979.

[@hansullmark4469]

@@adambratt9902 JA-Viggen had locked the weapon system at the J35J when it pulled in the landing gear from take of... Thats what the figthing pilots from Blekinge said.. ;-)

[@darkiee69]

@@adambratt9902 Have a look at the final version, the J-35J

[@normanocampo4466]

Thanks for the GOOD article, I really appreciate your good features of the SAAB Jas 39 Gripen, he is a candidate for the MRF program of the Philippine Air Force, fitted against the F-16 Viper Block 70/72, but it is very EXPENSIVE for the Philippine Air Force, the F-16 V is an earlier favorite of the PAF, but the higher COST of acquiring 12 units is very prohibited, even for me, the F-16s is the best, but necessity dictates to be PRACTICAL, the PAF chooses the Gripen over the Viper, even though the American packages is very TEMPTING but we have to decide that is according to our NEEDS and the Philippine settings, very sure I will not argue the Viper is one of the BEST aircraft around but it doesn't mean that by choosing the Gripen, we sacrificed the quality over the quantity, the Gripen's attractive features that attract the PAF is its SIMPLICITY in operations, turn around time and LOW cost maintenance, Congrats to the Philippine Air Force, for a JOB well done.

[@kinofrias8616]

Tuwang tuwa.nyan pinoy pilot first time.mkkahawak ng MRF fighter.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

Thanks for informative video!!!

[@operator0]

The Gripen C/D may not be technological marvels, but the E/F are. Their avionics suite is as advanced as anything any other air force is fielding, including France, and the U.S. That's the main reason the Gripen E/F did so well at Red Flag.

[@Bald_Zeus]

The E/F hasn't participated in Red flag. It was the C/D version. The E version just entered the swedish AF last december. So just imagine what the E/D can do next time around!

[@staffan144]

Gripen A also participated in red flag back in 2006 and beat for example F16 with 5-0, 5-0, 5-1. Also beat Typhoon.

[@moonlalune8003]

Nice videos as always sir.

[@Farming-Technology]

Thankyou for no robot voice!

[@thelittlesignpost]

You have to consider the different agendas of the military that use them, it may fit some roles but not others! Whilst I have no technical knowledge re these planes, it is clear they have differing roles. It would be good to consider purchasing a selection all planes to cover the many roles required! JAS 39 appears to be very up to date and a great dog fighter with an amazing turn circle! I am sure it will have it's benefits and drawbacks, no plane can fulfill all roles!

[@puma1304]

We in Chile have excellent relations with the US and our Air Force (fully NATO compatible) is based on the F16 and our modernized F5 will probably be replaced by the F35 Lightning II. But even knowing that this is a wise measure I would nevertheless consider the Gripen E as a complementary solution, because of its very good multi-role-fighter capabilities and purchase, maintenance and operational costs!

[@spackle9999]

I like the apt comparison to F-5. This is a sneakily capable aircraft that fills the low-cost role excellently, while only marginally inferior to other Gen 4.5 aircraft.

[@scepticalwalker3984]

If you need to drop bombs far in over enemy territory, twin engined aircraft with long range and heavy payloads are more effective. But if you just need to take off to defend your own home turf Gripen is excellent. Range and payload was never the main priority for the Swedish Air Force. Agility, availability, excellent radar and electronic warfare combined with advanced AAMs were the main priorities.

[@LarssonNsP]

And all that, is what makes the Gripen one of the best fighters today.

[@Alitacyan]

The Gripen was never meant to challenge the cutting edge Great Power platforms in terms of specs. It's meant to have a low cost to purchase and maintain. It's a reliable platform that is also easy and cheap to maintain in large numbers. It's designed specifically for a smaller country (Sweden) to defend against a more powerful aggressor (Russia). It can go toe to toe with Russias best attack platforms, just like the best US and British models. The choices are between buying maybe 50 F-35's from the US. Or we use our own industry to have 200 Gripens. In war, quantity has a quality all on its own. Maybe the F-35 and those others are 10-15% more effective fighters -- However in the final analysis, the logistics the Gripen wins out for Swedens purposes. The case is not the same for foreign buyers. IF someone else wants to buy them, that's great. But we designed them for ourselves first and foremost.

[@Proletariat12]

Your Gripen is the same price as an F-35, bud.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@Proletariat12 Not really. Procurement is always package deals, and Lockheed is paying premium to corner the market on behalf of the White House. Still I doubt the cost per airframe for the Gripen NG exceeds $65M when all the other parts of the bids are removed,.

[@janvesely6353]

I also hope Czech Air Force is gonna update to E version as the current C/D deal is about to end. Other contenders are powerful, latest F-16s have a chance, they are proven and admittedly beautiful aircrafts, F-35s would be nice despite the issues, and there are others... but Gripen just seems to be the right fit for our small country and pilots really liked it so far. Anything it lacks in raw perf or stealth is compensated by cost, simple maintenance, clever electronic warfare and networking. Needless to say we already have experienced pilots, infrastructure, so it just makes sense. Our small air force alone wouldn't stand a chance against sudden large attack anyway, even with a couple of F-35s and for the practical tasks, Gripen can be a smart choice.

[@scepticalwalker3984]

I think the F35 would be a huge waste of money for your country. The latest variant of the F16 could do the job. But as you pointed out, Czech pilots already know the Gripen and the E version is definitely more capable than the F16.

[@janvesely6353]

@@scepticalwalker3984 Yes, it's expensive. Though unit cost of Gripen E is not really cheap either, even if it already includes some operational package, but it should pay off in a long term operation. Current unit price of F-35A is actually quite affordable, seems almost dumped, but it's a tricky number hiding a lot of expenses. Sort of "hey, you can buy 5gen for $80M, it's a bargain". Unless you can't because you didn't participate in a program, you have only a small order and you want to actually operate the jet. It would require strong political pressure and lobbying with large offsets and investments to procure F-35s. I still consider F-35 a nice piece of technology that slowly matures to become quite capable asset, yet cursed by the very idea of "cheap multirole 5gen". But it mostly benefits in heavily contested airspace, environment with radar/SAM threats, strikes in enemy territory and symmetric warfare. Which is exactly what we would like to avoid at the first place. So a decent deal on Gripen E coming with some offsets (hopefuly utilized better than usual) fits quite well. Kind of F-5 approach in terms of simple and affordable operation. And it can be equipped with Meteor, if there are any money left :>

[@herrakaarme]

@@janvesely6353 Yeah, the purchase price is not the whole issue. The F-35 flying hours are astronomically expensive. That's currently the primary issue the American military itself is complaining about and why they are beginning to think about new options. Funnily enough F-22 was supposed to be the expensive airplane, F-35 the cheap one (like F-16), haha. Instead they got a super expensive one and an expensive one. An hour of F-35 flying can cost as much as a three hours of flight with the Super Hornet, with Gripen being half of the Super Hornet. That's something else. Norway can burn all the fuel they want from their own wells, so they can reduce the cost of F-35 operations somewhat, but most countries aren't as lucky.

[@janvesely6353]

​@@herrakaarme Absolutely. Whole 5th gen is way too ambitious in replacing 4+. The planes are very complex and sophisticated in terms of tight tolerances, non standard construction, materials and electronics integration. For current Gripens, there is a local crew which maintains them and can perform many repairs on place, we also produce some minor parts. Usually just engine is send to Sweden for maintenance and it's easy to replace. Current way for new customers to operate F-35 somehow reliably is to have a deal with Lockheed to maintain them, quite an opposite. What's really odd is that in the conflict scenario, when high priority tasks are fulfilled, it should switch to "4th gen mode" with external payload. Suddenly one ends up with a "normal" plane, but with long delay between sorties and kind of "snowflake" position. Which seems what US finally recognized too.

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

F-16 Block 70 costs $63million; F-35 lowest price $86million. Gripen would be by far the least cost to operate. Would the cost come down if they got 200 orders? Will the Embraer ones cost less than the SAAB ones?

[@0bzen22]

You get two (or more) for one, and it's very capable and dependable. Reminds me of old cheaper multirole aircrafts, like Super Etendard and Tornado. You can have your expensive figthers to fly around, and the cheaper, tough little buggers to do the actual dirty work, whatever the weather.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

The problem of the gripen c/d originally, isn't it's avionics or technologies, but it's capacities. gripen e is trying to do better, but is still largely under what others proposed and offered already long time ago. Gripen e only 10 hardpoints (when the Rafale got 14 of them), much shorter ferry and combat ranges, really less payload capacity, etc ... Conclusion, even if a gripen e cost less to buy, the price advantage disappeared when you know the facts about it. People always tell, for the same prices, you get more gripen .. yeah but you need more gripen, to do what only one Rafale is doing or carrying for example. Bases are really important, as well as the real costs such as CPFH and sustainment costs or other extras. Saab is kinda using lies about costs sadly, as stated by experts.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

I forgot, gripen is also under ITAR rules and regulations of USA, which means you're hardly free of doing what you want with your fighters. It's another big important point.

[@Kojak0]

I'd like to add something here: A plane is just like a tank, a machine gun or a pair of military boots all part of a giant military complex with uncountable little cogs that need to turn together. That is why it's not really possible to say that one plane (or tank, or whatever) is actually best, because it all depends on the machinery surrounding it - if Aircraft X is said to be best (best radar, weaponry, speed, etc) it won't mean anything if the plane is standing still on the ground because there is no fuel or there is no one who knows how to fly it - it will then just turn into a giant, very expensive target for anything the enemy throws at it, which at this point might as well be rocks. Sure it's exciting to look at every little detail under a microscope and compare it to it's competition, but as soon as the chips are down, it all comes to that giant military machinery and a hope it will work.

[@steelgear3876]

Cheap, simple and can do the job well. While the JAS39 can’t do certain things as well as other it’s more high tech contemporaries like the Super hornet, Lightening 2, Rafale, Typoon or even the Raptor.................it doesn’t need to. Being simple to maintain mean less time on the ground and less training for pilots and ground crews. JAS39 is perfect for nations who don’t have the defence budget to support bleeding edge tech but giving awesome value for money.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Malaysia did try to acquire them to replace the MiGs but tree hugging hippies in Swedish government deny it.

[@FRIPPE_THE_GREAT]

@@Joshua_N-A Sorry for that, don't know as to why Malaysia was not allowed to purchase the plane. Our export policy is "do-gooding- hypocracy" putting it blatantly. The plane would suite a country like Malaysia well.

[@bholdr----0]

I remember that, when I was a kid, a friend's dad had a Saab... Witha bumper sticker that said: 'My other Saab os a fighter jet!' The Swedish armaments industry has always punched abouve it's weight, from the Tunnen and Drakken to the Gripen (and it's artillery, armor, infantry weapons, armor, etc, etc.) ...But I suppose the had to, given their geographic position and traditional strategic neutrality. 'Necessity os the mother of invention', etc. (Hoo boy, did Russia screw THAT up!) CHEERS!

[@MrUnkasen]

You missed the part where the can put any weapon sytem the want on the plane and still be certified for civilian use

[@kamenneikoo7854]

Gripen is formidable thatsf for sure, but its not as good on paper as the F-35, however its incredibly cheap, not just in purchase cost but also maintenance and flight cost. Its perfect for self defense within a country

[@quazars236]

some say: you don't need a hammer to crack an egg. GO GO GO Philippines for the GRIPEN!

[@urbypilot2136]

I love your analogy of a Ferrari and a family car!

[@qwertyuio266]

The Gripen is the leading design among fighters when it comes to EW and networking. Its not just as overpriced as it's competitors. It has one improved standard engine and not two as it's competitors or a special design like the F-35. t's only cheap in one way, its operating costs Sweden has been leading the networking of fighters for more than half a century, ahead of the US by at least a decade.

[@martinan22]

Sweden was the pioneer in data link in the 1960ies and 1970ies. Today other manufacturers have caught up. However, offering a completely seperate framework and technology from for example link-16 might still offer advantages, especially since SAAB build independent Erieye AWACs.

[@johanlassen6448]

Its not leading in either of those fields. US networking and data fusion are like two decades ahead those of SAAB. And I say that as a Swede. I mean national pride is all well and good but there is a point where people get completely delusional regarding these things. The biggest universities and best centres of technology are not located in Sweden. They are in the US.

[@qwertyuio266]

@@johanlassen6448 Im sorry but the US didnt get a figher that out performed the JA37D when it comes to datalinks until the F-35 came into service, long after the JA37D had been retired. During that time SAAB had all ready put two whole new generations of fighters with datalinks into service and was working on yet another. The second one about big universities: Well the US spies on the Gripen program even getting it allies like Denmark involved. Probably because the US is better at this and are really clever people. The clever US citizens even voted Trump into the Whitehouse. So they dont need to spy on those who are decades a head of them. I get it big there for better. Just like american vs european cars. The same as the russians/chinese they are the biggest, there for the best. Sorry nothing to do with pride, just facts. US buys the F-35 out of national pride, not because its any good.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@qwertyuio266 Not true. USAF has had several fighters with better datalinks before F-35 came into service. The US spies on a lot of things, that does not mean they are not better than us already. I would spy at the second and third best people too if I was the best at something and the opportunity arose. That's how you secure and widen your advantage. No, the US buys F-35 because its the best plane there is, which is why every serious airforce that is not totally invested in a national project (France, Sweden) or barred from buying it has actually bought it or wants to buy it. The UK, Germany, Italy, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Israel and Greece all have serious airforces. Are you saying they too are buying it "out of national pride"? It is incredibly arrogant to assume that they are all wrong and you are right when you have less than no information about the advantages of the F-35 vis-à-vis 4.5 gen fighters. The simple fact is that the datalink found on the JA37D was quite rudimentary and so are the datalinks on the Gripen C and E versions. They are nothing special.

[@qwertyuio266]

@@johanlassen6448 Yes, they are buying from the US of national pride. Fighters are politics. Germany can never buy a fighter from Sweden out of national pride, but from the big mighty US its ok. What would the politicians say to the German people, .... cant we build a fighter if tiny Sweden can?

[@jimmylarsson5667]

The way I see it, its all about what yo can hang under the wings these days. And situational awarness. In botheof these two areas, Gripen is world class. Enoguh said. :-)

[@edgarruiz5433]

It appears that American defense companies would stand to lose billions in sales if Saab was allowed to sell this plane to developing and developed states. I didn't know that Britain had veto power to where this plane can be sold.

[@petter5721]

Operational cost per flight hour: - Gripen E, 9.000$/h - Rafale, 17.000$/h - F16 block 50, 18.000$/h - Eurofighter Typhoon, 18.000 - F/A-18 Super Hornet, 24.000$/h - F35A, 31.000$/h

[@nfineon]

It's good, 20 years ago... But doesn't stand a chance against modern 5th gen fighters with far better stealth and electronic warfare capabilities. Finland ran the most extensive competition recently for 64 fighter jets and the grippen was in the running, but they chose the F35 as it scored the highest in all the key requirements. This is a fighter for the last generation.

[@Pottan23]

Russia has like 10 operational SU-57. The F-35 is not a counter to the SU-57 either, better than the JAS39E but no where near the capabilities of the F-22. Just an fyi, Finland is currently flying the F-18, it's a design from the 1970's. I don't know where this notion that every nation has vast fleets of 5th gen fighters come from...

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@Pottan23 Because USA as sponsored Lockheed HARD to make the F-35 the plane of choice, tying Europe firmly to them.

[@johanmetreus1268]

The tests has nothing to do with the purchase as long as the aircraft is reasonably good. Finland basically got paid to take the F-35 in spite of already favouring the American option... now that is negotiating SKILLS on a high level inferior to none, the deal they got is just incredible.

[@miltontan65]

What a beauty!😍💕

[@ConstantineJoseph]

The Gripen has definite bang for buck. But the F35 still is the premier fighter of the skies along with the F22 which is an even better multi role stealth fighter. Being able to detect and shoot first in this day and age matters a lot.

[@ConstantineJoseph]

Jörgen Persson lol that is one deluded statement. The F35 is constantly being updated and improved so that advantage you are talking about does not exist and is based off hypothesis.

[@johanlassen6448]

@Jörgen Persson You are joking, right?

[@johanlassen6448]

@Jörgen Persson The Israeli Air Force has said nothing of the sort, you are repeating an unsourced claim which in itself is 10 years old. The UK is also not developing the EW suite for the F-35. Also the F-35 does not have too small internal bomb bays for Meteor as the Uk is specifically requesting Meteor compatibility. Not to mention that it will field JATM anyway, which will be far superior to Meteor. You can keep crying over the F-35 all you want. All you are doing is show your cognitive dissonance while grasping at any straw you can find to claim the F-35 is somehow irrelevant. The fact is, the F-35 is hysterically more capable than anything SAAB can put out.

[@johanlassen6448]

@Jörgen Persson 1. That quote is from 2012 and has no source. It was as irrelevant then as it is today. The Israelis went on to fly the F-35 over Iranian and Syrian airspace without detection. Perhaps you should take your own advice, fool. 2. BAE, not BEA. Perhaps you should learn to spell, fool. 3. F-35 sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor Vapenbärare Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, framöver F-35 JSF Lär dig att läsa. Ser du vad som står där? Framöver F-35. Meteor kan och kommer att integreras för F-35. www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-announces-539-million-investment-in-new-missiles-systems aviationweek.com/awindefense/italian-meteor-integration-f-35-opens-australian-option Stop lying. It makes you seem like even more of a fool than you already are. JATM is in development. In a few years you will be seeing F-35s slinging them around and then your entire idiotic argument about the Meteor will be less than irrelevant. You are little more than a salty Gripen fanboy. But here is the problem little fanboy. The F-35 is far more capable than the Gripen is. The F-35 is relevant, while no version of the Gripen E is. In fact, more F-35s have already been produced than there are plans for the Gripen.

[@thierrydonat6824]

@Jörgen Persson thank you for the links, you're the winner by far !

[@corvanphoenix]

The Griffon is the 4.5 Gen F-16 Viper. It's a genuine 4.5 Gen light weight fighter. Its performance is fantastic. It deserves more success than it could ever get. (Race a late model Griffon vs its F-18X brother. The SAAB has half the engines, which is faster? Which has the best supercruise economy?

[@johanlassen6448]

Neither can supercruise so what's your point?

[@thierrysulser1879]

Really good and comprensive video. A pitty Switzerlands decission makers for the replacement of our current F/A 18‘s don‘t have this thinking out of the boc mindset. The race was initially run by Gripen NG,Eurofighter, Rafale, Super Hornet and F35a. Gripen was excluded from the race in a really early stage of the race argumenting they have no flying demonstrator of the NG version for evaluation. I am confident this was an act of sabotage by whom ever🤦🏻‍♂️ Finally Switzerland decide to procure 36 F35‘s, a reasonable decission to the other competitor Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet as they are all quite expensive to procure with inferior capabilities. The Gripen on the other Hand would have beeb a serious competitor, low acquisition and maintenance cost, small and really agile and having better accelaration and higher top speed as F35 and last but not least having a much wider choice weapanory.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

Having a larger choice of weaponry isn't an advantage for f35, which can only bring 4 missiles in internal bay, and the size of that internal bay is limiting the types missiles to be stock inside. Because putting missiles outside is kinda anti stealth 😏😉😆 Swiss Airforce and pilots always been interested/wanted the Rafale as new fighter jet. So yes, there's something wrong since the beginning 😉

[@johanmetreus1268]

You forgot the previous referendum where the Swiss people voted no to replacing the aircraft with Gripen C some years before.

[@thierrysulser1879]

@@johanmetreus1268 This previous referendum was a bit different. The governement asked for a special budget to replace the F5 Tiger II. The current procurement is coverred by the ordinary Budget.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@thierrysulser1879 now that's a detail not reported about here , thank you!

[@jb6027]

Sweden has NEVER been a "major player" in the international military aviation market. One could argue that it still isn't a "major" player with the JAS-39. Despite having always made exceptional jet fighter aircraft, Sweden has only been a niche player in the market, selling a very few aircraft to a few of the smaller air forces. A sale to Canada would be stellar, but I think that the JAS-39 will be an also-ran in that competition.

[@martinan22]

JAS-39 is already a success with sales to South Africa, Thailand, Hungary, Czech Republic, UK and Brazil.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@martinan22 How delusional do you have to be to think that sales to South Africa, Brazil and Thailand are successful? The UK bought a single plane. One. That is not a success. Hungary and the Czech Republic are leasing their planes, they have not bought anything. To date fewer than 300 JAS 39s have been produced. Most of them for Sweden itself. Only 75 have been bought by foreign customers (36 for Brazil, 26 for South Africa, 12 for Thailand and 1 for the UK). That is not a success-story.

[@utzius8003]

When Austria phased our Drakens out of action they established a comission in order to choose a new fighter to replace it. When my father went to Uni one of his professors was one of those that were on the committee. He told my father that all of the advisors and experts agreed on the Gripen, but last second politicians chose the Eurofighter instead. The entire Eurofighter deal was a big screw-up and full off greed and intruiges. Now Austria is stuck with expensive, but nearly useless Eurofighters.

[@theflyinggasmask]

Same with Denmark and the F-35

[@yarmud]

@@theflyinggasmask Trump made a favor for Turks not giving them the f35s

[@bjornnordstrom]

@@yarmud Ha-ha, never thought of it that way. Maybe you are right!

[@bjornnordstrom]

Sounds a bit like the story of your neighbor Switzerland. They had they trials and selections and the Swiss Air Force and the Swiss goverment decided to go for the Gripen (C). But when the time came for signing the contract of 40 aircraft and other equipmnent, then, as always in die Schweiz, the idea of a referendum came up in 2014. And the people decided to go for... no aircraft at all. 😵

[@mikaelholmkvist6994]

@@bjornnordstrom Nope it was the 39E, and now they will end up with the F35.... Hehehehehe

[@josemunguia1883]

The gripen is one nice looking fighter jet beautiful.

[@sidc.3817]

Can you make a video that compares the JAS-39 and the F-16V?

[@WeaponDetective]

We haven't made a comparison video to date. However, there is a big interest. We plan to determine a proper format and make comparison videos as soon as possible.

[@thierrydonat6824]

@Drew Peacock relevant !

[@bigman23DOTS]

Possibly the greatest shadow jet of all time I like the short take off any runway capability with longer range weapons and anti radar missiles this platform will remain relevant for many years.Teamed with a few f35s and some expendable loyal wingman would be unbeatable

[@tomas7158]

Well done. I hope Finland will buy the Gripen E. I sure like to have the plane who flies and no one cant get a lock on. 👍

[@dat581]

"I sure like to have the plane who flies and no one cant get a lock on." But you want Finland to buy the Gripen E? A jet with a large RCS that any radar can lock onto. The Swedish claims for it's EW suite are just that, claims and nothing more. The Gripen is considered an easy kill by crews of all other Western types. Finland will buy the F-35 since they are not stupid.

[@tomas7158]

@@dat581 Jet fighters are purpused built. Who is stating that Gripen is an easy kill? The new radar is up and working in other fighters. The US has set a date when retire both F35 and F22. Why? Because the cost is to high. My guess is that F35 is dead now.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

@@dat581 Are you a pilot for NATO air forces? No, because if you were you'd know that your claim of "an easy kill" is highly dubious. Also, Finland is not stupid, and that is why it won't by the F-35 like other non-stupid nations like Canada. Are you familiar with Finnish military policy at all? Because, if you were, you would know that the Finns are far more likely to purchase the JAS-39E on the basis of the their recent defensive cooperation treaties with Sweden. They are pushing to integrate their two militaries together. Finally, the F-35 is a poor choice for Finnish operational needs. The cost alone, even with the "discounts" is prohibitive, as is the F-35s absolutely ludicrous maintenance needs, and inability to fly multiple sorties in a day. Finland also does not want to rely on Lockheed contractors to service their aircraft, which is impossible anyway given the austere operating requirements demanded by the Finnish defense plans.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

@@tomas7158 People make comments without knowing a thing these days. Anyone familiar with Finnish operational needs is aware of that not only is the F-35 too expensive, in up-front costs, but per flying hour, but it is far, far too fragile for Finnish needs. To say nothing of Swedish-Finnish military cooperation etc. etc.

[@dat581]

@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Nothing you have stated is true, Crown Prince of Wankistan. The F-35 is cheaper to buy than the Gripen at $77.9 Million compared to $87 Million for the Gripen. The F-35 is far easier to look after than any 4th Generation aircraft and has been designed to be so. The one thing you are correct about is neither Finland or Canada are stupid. They don't believe SAAB's lies. Can't fly more than one sortie in a day? The RAAF has flown F-35s four times in a day with no issues. The jets only needed fuel and no extra maintenance. They are also flying at $25000 per hour which is less than the Gripen at $27000 per hour. Austere operating conditions? No problem. The F-35 has operated from various Pacific Islands that have nothing but a short runway and a jetty to land fuel. It also has an arrestor hook and thus can land in a shorter distance than the anemic Gripen. Unfortunately for you, your childish rant is very easy to refute with very basic facts. Are you really the Crown Prince of Bullshit and Stupidity?

[@Bawamba]

Look up SAAB's youtube channel. 9 days ago they anounced the new one!

[@lanse77lithgow]

Be great ro see them on many mid sized navies conventional carriers!

[@corvanphoenix]

It's the only thing the Rafale does better by far.

[@corvanphoenix]

Also a damn shame other Western nations don't buy different aircraft for their Navies. If you need to be compatible with F-35 Air Forces then you'll need the incredibly expensive F-35B. However if you can have Air Force only F-35A's & let your Navy find something like a Rafale or Naval Griffon, that's how you get the best of both worlds without spending mega $$$. Many modern navies can afford flat tops with ramps, they just can't afford F-35B's to put on them! If they could instead see the sense of having a dozen or so 4.5th Gen fighters the West would have a damn sight more capability for not much investment!

[@quakethedoombringer]

@@corvanphoenix i read somewhere that most navies around the world (except for Us and France) operates ski ramp instead of catapult launch system for their aircraft craft carriers. The weakness of the latter is that most convetional aircrafts can only carry extremely limited fuel and weaponry, hence why many of them opt to buy VTOL like Harriers or F 35B. Also independent development of a specialized naval aircraft is extremely expensive in spare parts development (salt corrosion, stronger landing gears, etc) and logistics, so might as well buy from the ones with experience (in this case the Us). Normal aircrafts like the Grippen or the likes are not capable of being shipborne aircrafts, even with extensive modifcation

[@DIREWOLFx75]

It is worth mentioning that calling Gripen "less advanced" is rather wrong. It's more a matter of in what ways it IS highly advanced and where it was CHOSEN to go with less advanced solutions or even outright not bother with some things. For example, the datalink, ECM and sensors are highly advanced, arguably equal or even better than on F-35 depending on what you focus on. Because this is something they could do without making it drastically more expensive or harder to keep flying. Same thing with stealth. It actually does have it, but only the parts that doesn't make it hyper expensive and problematic for maintenance. Lots of little angles and edges of the plane are slightly different to reduce the radar cross section from as many directions as possible, and the grounding paint used has low level "stealthy-ish" qualities, but at a tiny, puny fraction of the cost that the RAM used on F-35 costs. And instead of requiring constant maintenance, once it's there, it's just something to ignore unless there's severe scratching or worse. No, it also doesn't work anywhere near as well, but getting 5% of the effect for

[@johanlassen6448]

1. The datalink is the same as all 4.5 gen fighters. 2. ECM is literally just a DRFM jammer with GaN modules. Not exactly "advanced". 3. It is in no way equal to the F-35. 4. It does not have stealth of any kind. 5. F-35 is not a hangar queen. 6. Finnish war simulation just now shows that only the F-35 was capable of a fullscale war. JAS-39E is not.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@johanlassen6448 1. No, it very much is not. Also, seriously please don't use that joke of "generation 4/4.5/5". Once upon a time it may have had some relevancy, but then came revision after revision to make sure that the F-35 didn't fall out of "gen 5" or even out of "gen 4.5", it's become utterly useless even beyond the fact that from the very start it was a marketing concept, not a realworld show of capability. Originally, a "generation" was meant to be so superior that no previous generation could stand against it with any chance of winning. Claims that have since been shown to be vastly exaggerated and simply not true. 2. The difference here is in application and software. Compared to the same hardware mounted elsewhere, it is vastly better. Compared to the stuff in the F-35, it's more different than "less advanced". 3. That's what the manufacturer says yeah... Equal in what way? If you have 4 Gripen and 4 F-35, you can keep 1 Gripen in the air literally all the time for as long as you wish. With F-35 you can for a limited time maintain 1 in the air half the time, or longterm, 1/3 or 1/4 of the time. Gripen has a functional and proven mission turnaround time of 10 minutes. F-35 struggles to achieve a 1 hour turnaround. Those 4 Gripen could be kept fully serviced for forever by 6 conscripts and 6 techies. The F-35s would require 17 specialist technicians. Actual pricetag of the F-35 is roughly twice that of the Gripen. Cost per flighthour for Gripen can be pushed down below 5000$, while for an F-35, the pricetag begins at 32000$ and only gets worse from there. If you can fly twice as many Gripen as F-35s, each aircraft clocking at least twice as many flighthours, at a quarter of the operating costs... It doesn't have to be equal. As long as it is capable of fighting the F-35, which it is, and quite well so if given a 2-1 numerical advantage, which it should definitely be able to have, calling it less than equal is like professing to the great superiority of the land battleships of WWII Germany over tanks. Who cares. 4. Incorrect. It does not use any overall coverage stealth materials, no. But it has a number of minor tweaks to minimize the RCS and thermal signature. Essentially, it has everything it could have that did not greatly increase the cost or infringe on its capability. A very vague and rough estimate is that its RCS is about half of what it would have been without the stealth tweaks it has. Combined with the fact that it is already a very SMALL aircraft, the total effect is definitely noticeable. 5. Tell that to the US congressmen investigating it for that very reason. 5 times by now IIRC? 6. *lol* I have no idea what you're talking about and i don't really care, because that's bullshit. The F-35 isn't capable of a "fullscale war" due to being a logistics nightmare. Why don't you go research why the F-35 has not been deployed operationally in conflict yet.

[@johanlassen6448]

@@DIREWOLFx75 1. Yes it is. Its the same as everyone else is using. Generations do have relevancy. The only ones who insist otherwise are little 4.5 gen-platform fanboys. 2. Its less advanced, period. It does not have the same frequency range, threat library or beamwidth range. Just to give you an inkling of the difference between them: a standard internal jammer has a power output of up to 100 watts. External ECM pods usually reach about 1+ kW. The Growlers older generation ALQ-99, which is the biggest and most powerful jammer in current service anywhere, has a peak power of about 11 kW (such high power output enables Growlers to provide stand-off jamming support and reduces the burn-through rate of enemy radars). The F-35, using its radar as its primary EW suite, can generate about 110 kW at peak power. Thats not a typo. It has a hysterically higher aperture than any pod could ever hope to provide (barring the upcoming NGJ), with a beamwidth of just 2 degrees compared to 40 degrees for a standard jamming pod. This is coupled with a far more sensitive RWR on the F-35 allowing to pin point enemy radar emissions with extreme accuracy. There is no comparison between them. Arexis is a DRFM jammer capable of pretty much only offering self-protection and proximity jamming. It is easier to burn through, does not have as large a threat library to deal with, and works with the more limited RWRs of the Gripen E. 3. Thats not what the Finnish evaluation shows. There is nothing proven about the Gripens claimed turn-around time of 10 minutes. The pricetag of the F-35 is lower than the JAS-39E. Again all proven in the Finnish evaluation. As for the "below 5000 USD" figure, SAAB never even claimed it had anything to do with the JAS-39E but with the JAS-39C. As it turns out it was also a BS figure. The JAS-39E costs 27 000 USD as far as CPFH is concerned. Really not that far off from the F-35. And thats not even considering that the 27 000 USD is without taking into account external pods (like Arexis), while the 33 000 USD figure for the F-35A includes all its internals including its RWR, EW suite, targeting systems etc... Thats why Finland was clear that it was really no more expensive than the competition. 4. All 4.5 gen planes do that. Does not make them stealth platforms. Not even remotely. A stealth platform has a comprehensive stealth solution, from planform alignment to RAM incorporated to the fuselage to radar coating to the placement of the engine in order to minimize IR signature to IR reduction techniques. Gripen E is no more stealth than the Eurofighter or Rafale, both of whom also have generic RCS reduction features. Does not make them stealth platforms. 5. F-35A had a higher readiness rate in 2020 than even the F-16 fleet did, son. Statistics trump BS. 6. You have no idea? Finland just finished their HX-tender. One of the biggest aircraft deals this side of the century, which included a 5-year evaluation with a 2-week full scale high intensity war simulation. Contenders were the F-35A, JAS-39E, Rafale F4, Eurofighter and Superhornet Block III. They looked at everything from cost, readiness rate to A2A and A2G capabilities. The F-35A was rated as the best scorer or tied best scorer in all areas. The Gripen E, by contrast, did not even manage to pass the minimum requirements. Thats what I am talking about. Reality hits hard bro and you little Gripen wankers really have nowhere to hide now. SAAB did everything it could to win that tender and it lost handily and decisively to the far superior F-35A. Also - the F-35 has been deployed. Unlike the JAS-39E which is not even in service yet, over half a decade after it was supposed to.

[@anarchist]

It's cheaper but you have to assemble it yourself with a single hex key.

[@jorgenpersson662]

You mean an "allen key"?

[@anarchist]

@@jorgenpersson662 japp, "hex key" = "allen key"

[@darkiee69]

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😉

[@bellator11]

Biggest issue I see with the JAS-39E is the added weight over the preceding JAS-39C. It's now up to 8000 kg empty (1200 kg more than the C), and 11400 kg clean fully fueled (2200 kg more than the C). Hence the wing loading went up by quite a bit, from 306 kg/m2 to 380 kg/m2. Meanwhile thrust only went up marginally. So whilst it has been greatly upgraded electronically, the kinematic performance of the jet has taken a hit with the new E variant.

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

Biggest issues of gripen are many when you're looking technical bases. Such as being single engine, small ferry and combat ranges, really small payload, only 10 hardpoints, and many more.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@kasugakyosuke6441 Depends what you're to use it for really, and where. Ask Austria if they're happy with their top of the line aircraft. Hint, they are now using SAAB 105 for routine air patrol...

[@kasugakyosuke6441]

@@johanmetreus1268 Austria made the bad choice of buying EF typhoon. That's why. French fighter jets always have been proven being very very effective, versatile and lethal. Rafale wouldn't be an exception to it, since it is the legacy of the Mirage long lineage of fighter aircrafts.

[@johanmetreus1268]

@@kasugakyosuke6441 Not convinced the Rafale is the best option for countries only interested in guarding their own territory, like Switzerland and Austria where range isn't needed. The lack of range is a very Swedish thing, as that was part of the security politics. WP was to know Sweden would attack anything in and around the Baltic sea to stop an invasion, but also be confident that the Swedish airforce did not pose a strategic threat beyond that. So, for larger countries like Ukraine, Rafale is probably the better option.

[@LarssonNsP]

@@kasugakyosuke6441 Well, since the Gripen can carry such good weapons, such as the bvraam Meteor and iris-t. I think it does good.

[@petermallia558]

10:41 from this angle, the J-10 looks like a lovechild between a RAF Typhoon and a US F-16, similar curves like the Typhoon, Canards like Typhoon, a single engine like F-16 and an engine intake like an F-16. China never ceases to amaze me with their blatant espionage, good for us but sadly for them, they need better spies,

[@angkoriankhmer1396]

No espionage here, ever heard of the IAI Lavi? The Chinese bought the design from israel. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi#China_Question kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3a0q56Qhtqgo9U nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-j-10-vigorous-dragon-did-israel-help-build-deadly-fighter-80136

[@Swamie41]

It looks more as a mix-child from a Dassault Mirage III & Mirage 2000 with its Delta wings !

[@johanmetreus1268]

Why would they need better spies? What China wanted was the 50 years of experience that went into those machines mentioned, and the learning of putting all those parts together into a usable aircraft. Now they understand not just what design decisions, but also why they were made. That is how you build an industry from scratch in no time.

[@T33843R]

I always find it interesting that the Gripen has always managed to perform in every competition it has taken part of, where the competition has always fallen short in 1 or 2 areas. All other aircraft are reliant on certain aspects of envisioned tactical warfare; the americans intergrated systems and information which is achieved by a high / low mix of F 15, F 16, F 18 with the AWACS aircraft providing CnC support to achieve greatest result. After so many years, I truly believe the only fault the Gripen has is the design incorporates a notion of solidarity, which the Americans, English and French do not share. This is the one and only failing, unironically the Swedish trust in humanity as a whole.

[@pro-gy4nc]

The Gripen was part of the future fighter jet evaluation in Switzerland a few years back. It ended up in last place in terms of overall performance vs F18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. Not sure how you come to the conclusion that this rather old fashion jet, with clearly limited physical and electronical capabilities should be better than all those other jets mentioned.

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

The JAS-39E is a completely different plane from the JAS-39C/D. In reality the plane should be called the JAS-41 as it is a different frame, a new engine, radar, computer and weapons layout. It now has the very latest in sensor and networking capabilities. It now more than matches any of the aircraft you mentioned, and is, in fact, equipped with newer radar, electronics, sensors and Meteor and is superior in performance to the F18 Super Hornet, G1 Typhoons and the Rafales.

[@matso3856]

@@crownprincesebastianjohano7069 Switzerland was offered the E version but they thought it was just a paper plane and that you cannot develop a better plane at lower operating costs so it was not allowed to be in the evaluation program.

[@lanse77lithgow]

Gripen e/f Won the competittion!. But at time pollie /burecrat/ gold braid /media incompetence were looking at only 22 aircraft! National referendum said no ! If planned n budgeted for correct number , nat referendum would say Yes!

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

@@matso3856 Exactly. Saab told them they could not have an example ready for the competition so the Swiss, correctly, told them we cannot buy a plane we cannot evaluate. Makes perfect sense to me.

[@jorgenpersson662]

First of all GRIPEN WONN THE SWISS FIGHTER COMPETITION!!!! But the referendrum didn't go well foer SAAB because some said that it would be a to high risk to buy a fighter hat wasn't combat ready. That's why in the second competition Switzerland said that they would ONLY evaluate fighters that was combat ready 2019. The fighter that Switzerland evaluated was Gripen C and they was informed about the Gripen E capabilities. I would say that makes sense to think like that. But I would also think that Switzerland made a mistake because now they have almost double the budget for fighters and Gripen E is soon ready for war.

[@unseenvideos9447]

TEJAS MK1A 🇮🇳 has a tough challenger Gripen 🇸🇪. 😇😇😇 Good to see.

[@stargazer2280]

My Country Philippines, is mulling between F-16 Viper and Gripen C/D for their first MRF but still haven't chosen. I just hope they should pick the Gripen given that it matches the defensive and Guerilla Warfare doctrine plus it is also budget and it can help us build our own variants

[@henripihala9267]

What's the weight/thrust ratio in Gripen? Does it have the oomph?

[@MrBoombast64]

Supercruise? Is that oonph enough? :)

[@johanlassen6448]

@@MrBoombast64 It does not have supercruise.

[@MrBoombast64]

@@johanlassen6448 Well in the new variants it should have just that. Not in the C but in EF. So figure that. :)

[@johanlassen6448]

@@MrBoombast64 Nope, wrong. The "Gripen can supercruise myth" comes from the Gripen NG flight test, in which it managed to reach mach 1.1 by using AB and then stayed at mach 1.1 with milpower. This is problematic for the following reasons: 1. Supercruise is defined as being able to reach and maintain supersonic speeds without the use of an afterburner. 2. The Gripen NG managed to only reach transonic speed (mach 1.1-1.2). 3. The Gripen NG only managed to do this by using afterburner. 4. The Gripen E also weights a full ton more than the Gripen NG does, without any corresponding increase in engine power on the Gripen E. This means that not only has no Gripen variant ever managed to supercruise, but the Gripen E cant even replicate the "supercruise" that the Gripen NG did. This is also why SAAB went totally silent on the supercruise BS claim after roughly 2016. Which is not surprising, because the Gripen Es engines are the same as on the Super Hornets, and they were never designed for supercruise.

[@modoante]

@@johanlassen6448 It has supercruise i dont understand why you keep lying about that?

[@GreenStarTech]

Some ex South African Air Force pilots have said that the Mirage F1 based Cheetahs were better suited to their needs.

[@sorennilsson9742]

Well most of them would not agree.

[@dirkusmaximus9268]

What did they buy now ? F-18 or Gripen ?

[@James-is2dr]

I think Canada has made a mistake going with F-35 over Grippen. I’m by no means an expert but given historic lack of support for our military in so many ways this would have been a better option.

[@LarssonNsP]

I think you're right, they don't necessarily need the F-35, they would've saved sooo much money buying the Gripen instead.

[@azaharudin973]

How about the volvo engine?

[@olivierpuyou3621]

C'est un très bel avion, racé et élégant. Seulement c'est un mono réacteur plus de la classe Mirage 2000, F-18 que de la classe Typhoon ou Rafale (le F-35 étant un échec extrêmement coûteux pour les contribuables Américains et pas parfaitement au point).

[@tigerbesteverything]

le gripen manque à la fois de rayon d'action, d'emport, et de puissance moteur. C'est un très bon avion de patrouille, mais au delà il est dépassé par le rafale. reste à savoir lequel coûte le moins cher à l'heure de vol.

[@chefchaudard3580]

Le coût a l'heure de vol doit être corrige en fonction de la charge emportee et des profils de mission: si deux rafales, plus lourds donc portant plus de munitions, peuvent faire le boulot de 3 Gripen, même si l'heure de vol est plus chère, ils sont plus économiques. Mettre une électronique de pointe, un pilote super entraîné, des mecaniciens et des appareils de soutien, coûtera le même prix sur un "gros" ou un "petit" avion.

[@boyinglabro7082]

IN my opinion it all these jet fighter were in technology updated, but it defends on the pilot how smart he is in time of actual dog fight or in times of war..

[@crownprincesebastianjohano7069]

For the Finnish HX procurement, the F-35 is a non-starter. Billions over budget. Finland needs rugged jets, capable of operating from austere road airfields with minimal ground crew. F-35 requires a whole tribe of Lockheed technicians, lots of expensive equipment. 3x more per flight hour to maintain. They can only fly once every 24 hours. Not ideal when Ivan throws 300 MiGs your way and you only have 64 operational fighters.

[@jorgenpersson662]

Yes finally someone who realize the problem with F35 for small countries with limited resources.

[@benghazi4216]

@@jorgenpersson662 And during a war, Finland can't rely on having warm cozy hangars for the F35 either..

[@starexcelsior]

I’m sure that’s why Finland selected the F-35 while stating it was the most cost effective solution

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

The JAS-39 is at the top of the list for 4.5 Gen aircraft. Making comparisons to the revolutionary 5th Gen F-35 is not straightforward competition.

[@KatiePhongh]

Kind of a ridiculous premise. It's designed to be better than the F-16 and Mig-29, not to be a top line Air Superiority fighter. In it's purpose it succeeded too.

[@pasimaenpaa2360]

absolutely the best fighter in the whole wide world.

[@shortsmd4you]

Just like everything swedish, states like to buy known brands but they don't know what they're missing, the truth is: more and more people realize how magnificent this aricraft is.

[@georgepantazis141]

Being short take off I'd like to see it carrier land and take off.

[@einar8019]

if it had a hook and catapult attachment it could do it. BUT carrier operations is not in its needs so does not have carrier capabilaty

[@jakobholgersson4400]

There is a carrier version in the works and supposedly the main difference against the regular Gripen, beyond the hook, is corrosion protection.

[@herrakaarme]

@@jakobholgersson4400 Then Sweden only needs to build the carrier.

[@TROLLSPAM666]

For selling weapons its important that country can be reliable partner.

[@kopparsulfat]

you got it pretty much right.

[@habahan4257]

Excellent video. Still, I think the Gripen isn't as bright as the previous legendary Swedish fighters, the Viggen and Draken.

[@Corbots80]

It has some advantages. But its far out classed by F35s!

[@hemligx-sson8202]

No it’s not. Only Merkin fantasy would.