What makes the GRIPEN E so darn good?

[@mauriciomdea]

I'm brazilian and I can say our Air Force is very satisfied with it's new Gripen E/Fs. The Erieye AEW + Gripen supercruise and small RCS + Raven AESA + Meteor combination is terrifying. And we can operate this on any of the thousands of small airports all over the country with minimal infrastructure and logistics, which makes it way more complicated for any foe to negate it's use . All without costing us an arm and a leg. We are so pleased with the initial results that we already ordered more planes.

[@CherryBoyReloaded]

So SAAB resolved delayed deliveries of German supplied IRST to be integrated in Brazil that maybe you mentioned a couple of years ago?

[@marcelogranja]

Couldnt find info on how many meteors we got. Do you know?

[@CherryBoyReloaded]

​ @marcelogranja June 2019 - MBDA got a Euro 200M order to supply 100 Meteor for Brazil GripenE...

[@mauriciomdea]

@@CherryBoyReloadedThe IRST and HMD were late, but they are being tested right now in Brasil. And that's totally ok, in our scenario it doesn't matter that much, even without them the situational awareness of the Gripen is superb. It's not like we'll be facing the USAF and it's stealth fighters any time soon.

[@ricky1231]

But does Brazil have any enemies or threats around its borders? 🤷🏽‍♀️🤷🏽‍♀️

[@longshot7601]

What many people don't know is that when the Grippen first came to Red Flag the Swedes did not fly them here. Instead they packed them up in 10 flat packs, shipped them and mechanics put them back together with the suppied Allen wrench and screwdriver.

[@offsetcircle1903]

That's fucking hilarious if true

[@TimvanderVelden-dp3fs]

Ikea jet

[@GustavSvard]

Stealth logistics. The best fighter jet is the one the enemy thought was on another continent.

[@1224chrisng]

Fun fact, it also doesn't run on jet fuel, it instead runs on beef meatballs and gravy, and it can switch to horse meatballs depending on logistical needs

[@HubertofLiege]

Dont yump to conclusion

[@cl4998]

The Gripen is an extremely underrated jet. Super cruise, irst, solid airframe, good weapons, radar, ew, low maintenance, STOL are just a few of the areas that set the Gripen apart from the competition.

[@Hungary_0987]

+meteor

[@erdiakarsu4945]

Supercruise only when so high in the sky where air friction low, no armaments loaded and very little fuel.

[@erikreuterskiold5996]

Afaik its the first fighter with open architecture software: means you can upgrade it in no time instrad of years of testing.

[@johns70]

@@erikreuterskiold5996 correction. The ONLY one.

[@bzipoli]

​@@erikreuterskiold5996this is true also with part of the hardware solutions. tbh working with SAAB so far has been pretty ok to the air force, except for the assembly line problems. they just give SAAB whatever sh!t they want and they'll make it work on the gripen. the IFF (tiny) computer will be manufactured here (it is already). also the SDR and the comms system. saab will make it work. weapons from whatever the f - just work on the gripen, you're not bound to buy from anyone in particular. want to buy from the US? fine sweden? cool israel? ok france? sure your nephew made a missile on his garage? we can make it work this alone makes it a good decision imo bc you depend less on whatever politics to buy weapons and congressional aproval and all of that

[@sundownofsweden]

Only six people are needed in refueling and rearming, five of which can be conscripts and one expert.

[@emilnilsson1941]

I heard a Gripen pilot say in some podcast that he could do it himself if all the stuff was there

[@well-blazeredman6187]

I guess that the conscripts are very cheap - and that will drag the operating-costs down a tad.

[@johns70]

@@well-blazeredman6187 yes they are. But it also indicates that this can be done by UNTRAINED people. For something like Ukraine, THIS would be such an advantage. Imagine training 30 people to be Gripen Engineers, and then you round up 150 random people, and that can ACTUALLY keep 30 Gripens in the air with logistics and all! Once you are in a real war, having 30 trained experts available on an airfield, just for ONE plane, that is a luxury.

[@wathaet1386]

@@well-blazeredman6187More than a tad. The cost of just training F35 crews is astounding, add to that length of said training and the need for very skilled and intelligent manpower vs quickly trained conscripst that need not be exceptional thus a bigger pool to recruit from. Saab is the perfect jet for Ukraine

[@pierrebengtsson5009]

And the expert are usual former Ikea-staff who knows how to assemble things. We have alot of potential experts so you cant kill us all =)

[@SmoochieRoo]

Bang for you buck? My guy I STILL can't afford it.

[@hitmusicworldwide]

I picked up a J20 on Teemu for $5.99

[@ZetaMoolah]

@@hitmusicworldwide😂😂😂😂

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Timeshare it? I got Sundays

[@jamstagerable]

​​@@hitmusicworldwide Did you receive the free PL-15 BVR missiles that are supposed to come with it? Temu screwed me when I ordered mine.

[@dannggg]

Just get the dcs version

[@generalrendar7290]

It's crazy that it only costs $8k per hour to operate. That is amazing. If it had been widely adopted, it would likely be even cheaper to buy. India needs to sit down with Sweden for these planes.

[@GustavSvard]

India would have been a very juicy contract for SAAB. But as a Swede I was more disappointed our Nordic neighbours went with US jets.

[@pogo1140]

India decided to by French I think

[@mharley3791]

@@GustavSvardprobably needed the capability set of the f35 against Russia. What I don’t understand is why the gripen doesn’t dominate internationally in South America, Africa and parts of Asia

[@mharley3791]

Just finished the video and I am wrong

[@GustavSvard]

@@mharley3791 There's been bidding that has gone pretty far in the process, in all these regions. Some contracts landed, planes delivered. Some potential deals might still happen. Yeah, the F35 I can understand. Can't blame them for picking the F35 even with the pricier operating costs. It's the prior generation of planes that could possibly have been Gripens tho.

[@thehoogard]

I think one of the things overlooked in cost analysis is turn-around time. Gripen can do it in minutes, whereas many aircraft requires hours, or even a full day. That might work if you have massive air superiority, but when on equal fotting, or if you're the underdog, you need all your aircraft to maximize the time they can be in the air and run missions.

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

And can use road bases. The perfect Air Force in being

[@thehoogard]

@@mattiasdahlstrom2024I don't think that's particularly overlooked, and isn't really a cost-analysis point.

[@Silentbob515]

Bullshit that was pretty much disproven by the Swiss tests, but you people are just clueless

[@pogo1140]

@@thehoogard the f-35 cost analyst works in peacetime. It does not work in wartime when from d0 your airbase is being attacked with missiles and an Airborne regiment landing to within artillery and mortar range of your runway and a armor brigade pushing up to support the Airborne troops ti capture the base

[@tawektawek3838]

I think this is an important point. It worries me that, for economic reasons, the West has mostly gone for fewer, bigger air bases. If any of those bases were taken out (and no defence is perfect), NATO could have problems.

[@glacieractivity]

As a Norwegian who originally argued (as an amateur) that we probably should choose Gripen in Norway (knowing realistically that we would pick the F-35 because of NATO and long-standing industrial partnerships with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon etc) I now think we did right to pick the F-35 as I observe it slowly sorts itself out. But here is the twist - my admiration for the Gripen has increased too. It is an insane package designed by a nation with 10 million people (show me another nation with 10 million people who has a tradition of making fighter jets that go toe to toe with the best USA with partners or European consortiums can manage since the beginning of the Cold War. I also agree with the notion that Gripen is probably the closest machine to the F-35 flying today in terms of fusion and EW (with the caveat that we never truly know what the true capabilities are of any modern weapons until they switch those secret toggles on that reads "this is not an exercise") while being as cheap to fly per hour that it is close to being silly. As someone who spent a few hours today watching today's seminar at the "Norwegian Committee of the North Atlantic" (NATO is soon 75 years old) that raised some very interesting issues regarding Norway, our sister nations of Sweden and Finland joining and the role of larger Europe and our American partners - well worth a watch. The opening keynote was held by Admiral Rob Bauer ( Chair of the NATO Military Committee) who has proven himself as a clear thinker. (it is all held in English and found on KZbin. Just search for "DAY 2 I Session IV - Leangkollen Security Conference 2024 - NATO 75: Past, Present & Future")

[@dnservice]

Norway would probobly be fine with Gripen or the F35 but I think Finland made a mistake by not going with Gripen, I also belive it would have been extremely beneficial for us all if Sweden, Norway and Finland all operated the same aircraft.

[@thelordofcringe]

The only other tiny nation I can think of to achieve something similar would be Israel, they redesigned and rebuilt Mirages before they were able to buy US planes. However, they had an existing design to work off of and they only replaced the majority of the design, not built it from the ground up.

[@astromos]

I personally think the Rafale comes closer to the F35 with a big focus on electronic warfare with SPECTRA and senor fusion ahead of its time.

[@thelordofcringe]

@@astromos I respectfully disagree. The additional requirements of carefully cooked frogs and expensive wines make the Rafale too pricey.

[@astromos]

@@thelordofcringe I agree that it is significantly more expensive than Gripen, but we are talking about competing against the F35 here which was designed to be as good as possible with little regard to cost (America). The Rafale and Gripen were made with different objectives in mind - each achieving their goals exceptionally well, but as a byproduct of France's requirements being more demanding (especially in the multirole department), I think the Rafale is more of a match for F35 at the cost of price of course. At the end of the day, each jet is good in its domain : - Gripen in decentralized, guerilla style air-air warfare - Rafale in omnirole capability + situational awareness thanks to aformentioned EW suite and sensor fusion - F35 in support role for radar jamming, SEAD, and hostile airspace penetration

[@0e32]

The JAS 39 Gripen flies over my house three times every day and I love it!!

[@Gsoda35]

maybe your house is perfectly located as a training target or the air above is the highroad for jets?

[@0e32]

@@Gsoda35 I guiess itś the last one..!! But itś so nice..I love the speed and sound. My father was officer in the Swedish Air Force so I like jets sense I was a kid.

[@Gsoda35]

@@0e32 then a pair of binoculars or a digital camera with a powerful optical zoom could be perfect for watching them fly by. I like the Gripen a lot and the Gotland class submarine too.

[@Silver-fh4fb]

Three times? Not enough ;)

[@somefuckstolemynick]

Linköping?

[@Oran-35]

As an American, it's good to see Sweden joining the club. The Gripen concept is understandable considering their neighbor to the east--I'm not talking about Finland.

[@chevacamaro68]

Yeah, you can’t choose your neighbors unfortunately. And I’m not talking about Finland

[@Thbenjaminsson]

* * * And, to all of our courageous, strongly dedicated Brothers & Sisters in arms, of the invincible NATO-Alliance, from your Forevermore infinitely reliable Brothers & Sisters of your Viking Ancestry Allied Nation of Sweden: "Times of joy, and times of sorrow - We will allways see them through And I don't care what comes tomorrow - We can face it together The way old friends do" ___________________________ Th. Benjaminsson - Sweden ** 🇸🇪 **

[@LordOfSweden]

I don't want to join "the cluub". USA is not good or an ally. We didn't get to vote. I don''t want your bases in my country.

[@Cloud-dq1mr]

It's funny hearing you talking like us, the diplomatic "neighbour to the east" the name undisclosed but everyone knows who you're referring to and it sure as hell isn't Finland. And thanks for having us.

[@LordOfSweden]

We don't want to join. We never got to vote about it and ofc my comment was removed. Figures.

[@richardlewis4288]

I’m thoroughly impressed but not surprised that Sweden should put out such a fine product. Glad they’re on our side!

[@emilw9690]

Don't worry, we're also very happy with which side we're on :)

[@AakeTraak]

And I though we were a Communist/Muslim hellscape...

[@TheCJUN]

Yeah, it's impressive how many capable fighter jets were developed by Sweden (SAAB). Not only the Gripen but also Lansen, Viggen, and Draken.

[@mikaelthorne9076]

​@TheCJUN When I was young I used to love the Viggen, had a big poster in my room, It was 😊so raw❤

[@tawektawek3838]

@@emilw9690 Me too. News hasn't been great recently. The entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO have been two of the few bright spots.

[@gherkamum]

Sweden ❤ Love from the UK.🇬🇧

[@geralddutcher3662]

As a young teenager my family had a second car for a while because both parents worked & different hrs. It was a 3cyl, front wheel drive, three speed on the column, Saab! I thought hey, the Swedes have something here! It was so good in the snow of Maine that Saabs were popular at frozen lake races! I learned how to drive in that little Saab at 13yrs old! You go Saab!

[@casparcoaster1936]

My first car (summer 1974) Baltimore MD was '66 Saab 96, 2 stroke 3 cyl 4 speed on column... only guy in my high school who could smoke front wheels!!!!! My (accidental) oldest son was brought home from hospital in it... gas station attendants fainted when I'd ask for can of 30w oil in gas tank!!

[@1975Per]

Another Red Flag lesson was that the Gripen was the only fighter who flew all missions. All others had missed missions due to weather (wtf?) or maintenance problems.

[@ajback2917]

I did get stuck in Vegas due to snow shutting down McCarran for 3 days once.... I wasn't complaining.

[@1975Per]

@@ajback2917 Huh? What do you mean? The Gripen could fly, why not the others?

[@ajback2917]

​@@1975PerSorry it was a poor joke about Swedes being used to the snow.

[@dat581]

That is actually untrue. The performance of the Gripen at Red Flag was average at best with a single unqualified Swedish engineer by the name of Stefan Englund fabricating a wild story about the Gripen at Red Flag. He has admitted publicly that he made it all up. You will note that the Swedish Air Force does not mention the Gripen's performance at Red Flag at all.

[@JonathanEklund]

@@dat581Interesting. Could I get a source on that? I’ve tried looking and can’t find anything myself

[@Malsum]

Gripen is a perfect example of the "fighting style" we have here in Sweden. We are not a big nation when it comes to manpower. So instead we make that up in extreme levels of high technology. Every soldier in every branch of the military should be equipped to deal out more damage that he receives. But also more than that - be able to deal oit damage without giving the enemy a chance to strike back. Its a kind of "guerrilla warfare" thinking. The enemy shouldn't even be aware of you until it is to late, and once you have decimated them you dissappear. Gripen strikes first - bam! - and then it just disappear, and lands on a discreet little highway strip and literally hinds in a camouflaged mini hangar in the middle of the woods. A few conscripts can refule it and then you just wait for the enemy to tur its back again... and then you launch the next attack 😅 Another great example of this type of Swedish warfare is the Archer artillery that is raining shells on the russians in Ukraine now. It sets up, fire's several rounds, packs up and leaves the firing spot literally before the shells has landed. Meaning that enemy counter fire is useless. "Shoot and scoot". 👍

[@lagmonster7789]

Kan ikke sige jeg er utilfreds med at have Sverige med i NATO, velkommen i folden! 😁🤗

[@one4thought776]

You guys built a a beauty for sure I love it, I'm from Oklahoma U.S.A look it up ...we don't all ride horses lol...but hey man I love the Jet it's sexy looking

[@peixeserra9116]

Which ironically enough, also ends up suiting the combat doctrine of Brazil, a country that you could easily say is the exact polar opposite of Sweden. A huge nation, no shortage of manpower, but with critical setbacks on infrastructure and budget to accomodate a force the size of China, Russia and, Lord forbid, the US. A nimble, reliable and deadly fighter that can operate virtually anywhere in the country, from a heavily industrialized city, to an aircraft carrier (once we have one again, eventually) to a poorly developed Island, jungle or desert environment, covering huge swathes of the territory with it while being able to be upgraded to become even harder to detect, would easily dissuade all but an aggressor with overwhelming numbers and or tech. The fact you guys not only shared your tech with us, but also let us build the planes ourselves down here is a vote of confidence that I really appreciate.

[@etherealessence]

The Gripen was the work horse of my Ace Combat 7 play through. I was so happy to see it's inclusion.

[@ApothecaryTerry]

I don't think I've played an AC game that had a Gripen and not used it as part of my 1st playthrough. Great plane, great game series! Played 4-7 a lot, although started with 5 which is still my favourite, Chopper was annoying but I still miss him...that sentence is a lot less ironic than I'd like 🤣 I'll be very disappointed if we don't get AC8 announced soon and released next year, as a minimum.

[@emil87th]

Sweden has been at the forefront of weapon manufacturing and improved tactics since the 1600s. King Gustavus Adolphus is ranked as one of the Great Generals up there with Napoleon and Alexander the Great. Sweden stronk!

[@matsv201]

A few.. not quite corections, but.. well. Gripen E have a mostly new airframe than A and C, the range is almost doubled, and the carry capaciy also increased. Typicall maintance crew is 1 professionans and 5 consctipts.(sometimes as low as 3, they are trained to manage with only 3). But the plaines usually operate in pairs, so sometimes both teams can supportnthe same aircraft. The aircraft can fire missiles of bore. The rotating plate alow views of about 270 degrees around the airframe, compare to typically 160 degrees for a fix plate. Its also worth saying that gripen radar can provide full power at 90 degree. It can also cluster radar information from 2 or more planes (also true for A and C model) The aircraft can also refuel and rearm in 5-10 minutes. Sweden is pretty much the only country in the world that refuel and rearm wirh engine on. This alow insanly quick turnaround that offers more flight hours on taget. Really gripen is genneraly built for more flight hours, that is one reason its so cheap to fly.

[@drksideofthewal]

I imagine it’s a necessity for a smaller airforce to keep the aircraft you do have on station for as long as possible. Really multiplies your effective airpower.

[@MechBandit]

Also if a new threat is picked up by sensors, you get to update your own threat libraries and don't have to rely on your US "partners".

[@stupidburp]

Fast turnaround times also mitigate against the threat of being attacked on the ground. The modern battlefield is largely transparent from satellites and drones and can identify target locations very quickly.

[@jb76489]

@@MechBandit lmao it’s funny because as the swedes cannot make most of the components themselves, these aircraft are very much dependent on foreign partners, including the Americans

[@MechBandit]

Yup that IS funny. It'a also funny how the Israel AF would't buy the F35 unless they had absolut control over the software. Do you think that after the F14/Phoenix Iran fiasco american high tech weapons might have a remote kill switch?@@jb76489

[@metatechnologist]

Also Sandbox, you failed to mention that the Gripen's have electronic and software modularity. Something that our military is just now getting around to. The better bargain is right.

[@metatechnologist]

@@ThinGibbons if that was the case the Pentagon would not be needing to spend billions to keep the f22s around until 2030. Ergo, no, they aren't modular yet. Maybe the F35 is. And the B21 will be. But anything before those isn't.

[@drosendahl]

@@ThinGibbons Not sure what you mean with "our" stuff..? Gripen was first with modular software (think modern mobile phone apps) where you don't have to flight certify the whole suite to make changes to non-flight software. Thats why its so fast to integrate new weapons and for example Meteor was tested on Gripen long before other planes even though its not a Swedish missile and Sweden did not order first. It also means that customers are allowed to integrate their own things to the plane without even involving SAAB. (Good luck trying to get permission to put your own software into F-35, only Israel has gotten that permission)

[@JonMartinYXD]

Yes. Crucially it has separate computers for flying and fighting. If you make a change to the software to integrate a new weapons system, you don't need to do regression testing on the 'flying' part of the plane. The F-35s software is monolithic. Any change requires full regression testing down to "do the brakes still work".

[@uku4171]

​@@ThinGibbons😂

[@TheFrewah]

@@JonMartinYXD Interesting! I heard that the Moskva ship had problems with its software. The system or systems had to reboot at critical times. Small advantages add up. A pilot that had flown Russian fighters as well as F-16 said, if memory serves, that the F-16 had advantages here and there and when you add them up you have a real edge. What he liked with the F-16 was that it was ergonomic, everything in the cockpit was where it should.

[@rdyag7127]

Unfortunately, it failed to gain traction in the export market compared to the Rafale. I can only speak for my country (Indonesia), but the Swedish government is making it tough for us to buy Gripen. Saab offered us a juicy ToT scheme with full 100% local assembly + Erieye AWACS at a discount. However, 'human rights' concern by the Swedish parliaments arose, making the deal exceedingly difficult. The deal stalled for several years and it failed completely when Saab pulled out of Indo fighter jets competition. If only there are more Gripens out there, the per-unit costs could be reduced massively. Even the US allowed us to acquire their most advanced F-15EX without any hesitation with DSCA release in early 2022, MoU in 2023 and the expected firm order should be placed in around 2024-2025.

[@unggrabb]

And what under the table the US put on Indonesia will never be known

[@taylorc2542]

Sweden is strange in that a tiny country can hit so far above its weight militarily, yet is being destroyed from within by the decadence of their own women.

[@jethrocarloquijano7087]

Same case here in Ph. They’ve been blueballing us for nearly a decade due ti the same reason

[@manfredstrappen7491]

Well, the French sell anything to anyone. Not smart.

[@insideline158]

These big sales seem to be less about air craft performance and capabilities and more about geopolitics and under-the-table deals.

[@talesofcanterbury42]

I love a channel that doesn’t even have to explain what Red Flag is. Respect.

[@noneofyourbusiness4133]

I don’t. What’s a Red Flag Exercise?

[@jimkluska253]

​@@noneofyourbusiness4133it is a group of countries that bring some of their fighters to a particular place ,. Put those jets through their paces,. Do some bvr,bfm one on one, 2 on 1 etc ... There are rules, some that are set to see how well a particular jet and pilots handle different scenarios.....

[@marcalvarez4890]

word

[@Triple_J.1]

@@noneofyourbusiness4133 Remember those parties where someone grabbed your underwear and lifted your head into the ceiling fan? Red Flag Party.

[@Ineluki_Myonrashi]

@@Triple_J.1 Nahh mate, the red flag party is a communist political party in Venezuela 😛😛

[@rokuth]

Speaking of the Gripen proving itself in military exercises, the PRC found out how potent the Gripen C/D were in a couple of military exercises with Thailand. Initially the exercises were given restrictions to both sides, but in final days, the restrictions were removed. Chinese pilots were soundly defeated by the Thai Gripen pilots. This made the Generals in the PLAAF rethink about the training of their combat pilots.

[@thunbergmartin]

I'm a swede so ofc I have a bias, but I have such deep respect for the history and (future) the engineers in Sweden have built up. Im an architect so I can only build houses, but I understand how many complex and high level teams must be involved, working in tandem to produce a standard of tech, reliability, inovation and all on a budget, to get things like the Gripen, the CV-90 suit, the archer, and not to mention the countless co-developed missile systems by saab. I hate that fact that Europe has a major war raging, and I hope russia will be defeated, would not wish a war upon anyone, but I'm glad that these systems hav ebben developed.Also thank you for a great video :)

[@RandomActsOfMadness]

Also don’t forget that the CV90, Archer, Gripen, and Kockums submarines are developed and built by different teams in different small towns in Sweden - Övik population 33k, Karlskoga 27k, Linköping 167k and Karlskrona 67k respectively.

[@thunbergmartin]

@@RandomActsOfMadness Absolutely, extremely respectable, really hope these places can continue to reinvent themselves and thrive! Personally I fear that to much competence are being usurped into Stockholm, but that is a whole different topic.

[@Chuck_Hooks]

Low cost per flight hour would mean an excellent choice for the Philippines

[@exAirMover]

I love the austier deployment capability of the Gripen. In a major war, Airfields are big targets and won't last long

[@andersgrassman6583]

@exAirMover That's why Sweden early on past WWll planned for a dispersed wartime deployment of the airforce. And predecessors to Gripen were also designed and built for this kind of operation.

[@falkenlaser]

This is something I’m surprised the US hasn’t adapted its fighters for. In fact, they make them so they have to take off from a pristine runway.

[@Toblerone-j1t]

​@@andersgrassman6583also things like the Archer system etc all work in the same general sense, being rats that shoot and scoot from weird positions and can be used quickly

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

If you can't defend an airfield, you can't defend your ports, factories or power plants. Patching a runway only takes around a day.

[@Toblerone-j1t]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Its to keep the few gripens we have out of harms way, its harder for them to strike hundreds of small airbases than a few big ones. You clearly misunderstand the doctrine

[@gmm5550]

Gripen main strength is the swedish "disperse landing" technique. Lift of from a short 500 meter road... fire..scoot and land on a another short 500 meter road and refuel and rearm in only 15 minutes and repeat it over and over again. It dosent need a big vulnerable landingstrip /airbase wich is a high priority target in wars and full +20 ppl aircrew and a lot of logistic

[@John2751]

As a high altitude weapon x pilot I can tell you, this fighter is one of a kind. I did my toughest missions using this fighter jet 😊

[@rhoelg]

yeah right stop dreaming this fighter has no war record even the C variant

[@MrSurrealKarma]

@@rhoelg Neither does the F22, and that's still an amazing fighter.

[@alpearson9158]

no but has embarrased others at red flag@@rhoelg

[@elmateo77]

10,000 flight hours in the Ace Combat games doesn't count bud...

[@JoyP09]

​@@MrSurrealKarmaDont say that ! F 22 shot down a balloon last year..

[@slabriprock5329]

Wow! So glad they're on our side!

[@CalmWolf-Swe]

i get a small tear in my eye when i hear how nice you talk about the swedish military.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

Sweden do not have a military anymore

[@CalmWolf-Swe]

@@thomaseriksson6256 LOL

[@charlesblithfield6182]

I hoped Canada would have procured Gripen. It’s designed for northern climates too

[@sciteceng2hedz358]

Too in bed with the boys down south. I was hoping too. Our budgets can't support these expensive F-planes. It was a serious cconsideration at one point if I remember correctly.

[@dat581]

Why do you want to put RCAF aircrews into poorly performing jets that will get them killed? Buying the F-35 was the right decision and it is far more suitable in cold and harsh climates than the Gripen. It has been tested to lower temperatures and in far harsher conditions. It is also vastly more capable.

[@dat581]

@@sciteceng2hedz358 That is incorrect. The RCAF wanted an aircraft that could actually do the job required of it and the Gripen never met the requirements. Politics had nothing to do with it and that is the standard response of people who are known as "Gripen Peasants" who complain that the Gripen can't get any orders at all because of politics.

[@dat581]

@KeenanLacelle The decision was not close at all. More expensive? No. Two F-35s can do the job of eight Gripens. Russian aircraft will not detect the F-35 on an approach to intercept. They certainly will with the Gripen. The Gripen was never the right choice for Canada and is really only suitable for small third world nations with limited to no air threat.

[@michaelold6695]

@@dat581except that the Gripen was specifically designed for an air conflict with Russia. The Gripen has a small radar cross section and its main adversary would be 4th gen Russian aircraft. That being said the F35 was probably the better choice because it has a longer service life ahead of it, whereas the Gripen in 10 years will be over matched by the 6th gen aircraft coming in to service.

[@Ariccio123]

Thanks for validating that $82m f-35 pricetag A big KZbinr here once replied to me with astonishment when I told them that in some cases, with a pricetag like that, it would be cheaper for us here in America to buy new f-35s rather than some 4th gen aircraft 😉😉🤣

[@ujust326]

I was telling my friend something similar and he didn't believe me, so i had to pull up data. He was shocked lol.

[@carlalm6100]

That's economy of scale in action. I'd bet the price tag of a Gripen would be quite a bit lower if there were 4600 of them built.

[@kameronjones7139]

​@carlalm6100 probably but that will never happen in the real world

[@matsv201]

F35 is like buying razerblades. Really cheap upfront. Horribly expensive in the long run. Of cause the insane production volumes of F35 does push the price down. But the maintance is a killer.

[@ujust326]

@@matsv201 Yea, anything using the current low observable skins are going to have a higher cost per hour to operate. That is where other 4th gens gain back lost value.

[@txstang84]

I fuckin love that you did a video on the Gripen The first time I saw one was in 2001 at the Air Fete in RAF Mildenhall. The aircraft did a single demo both days and it was pretty damn impressive. Its almost a shame we didn’t buy some

[@charlesfaure1189]

Hard to demo stealth capability and superior avionics for the yeehaw crowd.

[@txstang84]

@@charlesfaure1189I was referring to the ACM capabilities, compared to other tails we watched that weekend…but I guess you just had to be the guy to respond to a comment that didn’t need a response…have a nice day

[@pju28]

Thanks for your effort and your work! To follow your channel was never a mistake. It is a plus! Keep on it! Greetings from Austria 🇦🇹

[@bills2north]

Here in Finland 🇫🇮back in early 90's when we were in the market for an air force overhaul the choices were f18, gripen or whatever migs. Many folks were disappointed that almost up to the last minute gripen wasn't chosen. F18 (navy carrier type) got the bid. Partly for logistics & network access & compliance for future alliance(s). Russians offered 5 migs per hornet price. Sandboxx is great! -Cheers🍻

[@rikardnorlen752]

As with the gripen e the gripen c was not a hundred procent finished so kind that in addition to Finland had to distance itself from Russia's grip. So resonable they could not "finish" the deal! (even tough i hoped finland would buy).

[@timopeiponen8707]

If I can remember correctly, F-18, F-16, Gripen and Mirage 2000-5 were on the list back then🤔 Russia offered Mig-29 and Mig-31. I think Russian jets FAF didnt evalued ”properly”. ”Thanks but no thanks”

[@jb76489]

You’d have to be very stupid to think that

[@herptek]

​@@rikardnorlen752Finland was not really ever in Russias grip. Before the Hornets equipment from both cold war camps was used and indeed from neutral Sweden as well. Saab Draken was in service in fighter squadrons in the Finnish air force along with Migs. No one was expecting shifts in military alignments especially then. Neutrality, or at least military non-alignment has always been the most popular foreign policy up untill recently. People sometimes seem to forget already how different the mentality was before the war in Ukraine. The eternal "NATO option" was such a political holy cow that no politician wanted to touch the matter. Significant arms deals can be seen as a part of foreign policy and this is always something to take into account, but Finland has always aproached these matters rather pragmatically, weighing available options and considering performance of each, within limits set by politics. Neither F-18 nor even the F-35 were some kind of statements of alignment like some people seem to imply, literally no one expected NATO membership before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[@rikardnorlen752]

@@herptek Think you have to look up Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 and Finlandization if you are in the belief Finland could act as they saw fit after 2ww.

[@PaRadiZer]

It is good to keep in mind that exercises such as Red Flag are highly scripted, designed to teach tactics and operations. They are not fighters vs fighters and about who's best. And they start out easy, gradually increasing in complexity and challenges. That said, no doubt that the Gripen has impressed in Red Flag, not at least in mission rate and readiness.

[@zzzzzsleeping]

The Philippines already allocated 14 Gripens to their budget, I don't know what are they waiting for.

[@billpitkin3259]

Gripens in the Philippines would be a real deterrent for China; they'd be distributed, hidden, and waiting for the PLAAF after the initial missile barrage of the airfields.

[@izak5356]

​@ArneRagnarssonWHY DID YOU TYPE YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? THAT IS NOT HOW CAPITALIZATION WORKS.

[@jamesbohlman4297]

The Grippen E needs to be mass produced for deployment behind the main-line-of-resistence in that same niche that the Harrier used to inhabit.

[@Cider4144]

Great comment and very well observed. No disrespect to the Gripen but in Nato this is the perfect place for it. I would sleep easy knowing it was there and filling any gaps at the front as needed.

[@bitkarek]

Well, i love Grppens, love the way they thought about its design. Czech Republic chose F35 and not GrippenE. Shame we could have the "E/F" and later the F35.

[@Silentbob515]

A k čemu by nám byl Gripen E s cenou $35000 za hodinu?

[@bitkarek]

@@Silentbob515 ty ceny letovych hodin, se hodne lisej od F35 ze jo. A byly by i driv a byl by cas na modernizaci letist apod. Beztak si budem muset prodlouzit najem Ccek.

[@Silentbob515]

@@bitkarek ani tak ne, naše Céčko stojí $30000 na letovou hodinu

[@Halli50]

In the 1970's I worked with Swedish desktop personal computers (Luxor DIAB if I remember correctly, well before the advent of the IBM PC). They were based on an 8-bit Z-80 microprocessor with a TINY memory space (64Kb) and yet they far outstripped, performance-wise, the eventual Microsoft-based IBM PC's that were based on 16-bit Intel microprocessors with a vastly superior memory space - but a plodding and incredibly slow operating system. I am a member of one of the 5 Nordic nations and we proudly consider the Swedes as our "big brother" - a little arrogant at times, but a role model to follow. Whatever the Swedes do they do well, but they will never be boastful about it (Jante's law). Some nations boast about their software skills, others (like the Swedes) do NOT, they just go quietly about their business. Is the Gripen a good bang-for-the-buck fighter? My bet is that it IS!

[@Lost-In-Blank]

God OS/2 was horrible. I was supposed to work with it, but I jumped ship.

[@jeffk412]

I really hope we are taking a deep look at how the Gripen is so cheap to operate and apply lessons to future systems here in the States... My hats off to the designers and engineers in Sweden.

[@jameson1239]

I don’t know for sure but guessing it’s fairly cheap to operate because some of these reasons it’s non stealth, has fewer moving parts then an F-35 or F-22, and was designed to be maintained by conscripts

[@longshot7601]

The Swedes have a completely different set of requirements than the US. A large requirement is range.

[@drosendahl]

@@jameson1239 It does not explain the difference from F-16. But to be honest it is not totally comparable numbers because they are from different sources and this video is combining facts from all generations of Gripen (that cost comes from an average for Swedish military operating Gripen C, not E). Most likely it costs more today, especially for other countries to fly Gripen. Gripen is probably still cheapest to fly with a big margin, but maybe not so much as shown here.

[@blurglide]

Easy- it's about half the size of an F/A-18, using just one of the engines from that twin engine fighter. That, plus it's designed for easy maintaince.

[@larscelander5696]

Boeing is doing just that. Saab is helping Boeing with the T-7 Red Hawk.

[@RatusPretentious]

The modular design is amazing! Then engine fan blades that create reverse thrust to slow down required runaway are mind-boggling additions!!! Swapping out whole systems make it fully up-gradable in just a routine maintenance break!!! 😍😍😍

[@aerialbugsmasher]

The Grippen does NOT have reverse thrust. You're thinking of the Viggen. Reverse thrust is extremely rare in fighters, it adds weight and complexity.

[@TheFrewah]

It needs only 800m runway. The canard wings are used as air breaks

[@johanlassen6448]

Ah yes the modular design which to date has not yielded a single fast upgrade. I mean obviously not. To upgrade you first need operational airplanes and for all its modularity the JAS-39 is STILL not operational due to massive delays.

[@RatusPretentious]

@@johanlassen6448 There are slow production numbers! But modular primarily speeds up maintenance turn around speeds! & reduces training requirement of maintenance crews! ie just plug & play!!!

[@johanlassen6448]

@@RatusPretentious Ah yes it is ultra modular and super cheap and easy to upgrade except in real life where it is delayed, more expensive to procure than even F-35A (and about the same to maintain) and has so far received no upgrades while it took years to integrate Meteor and IRST (in fact I am just assuming that IRST has been integrated at all - haven't actually seen any evidence that it is integrated on JAS-39E yet). Plug and play indeed, since the kind of stuff you describe only happens in simulators.

[@jijomathew7601]

Swedish inventions are top class. Gripen entering the battle field itself is a sign of victory. Jas 39 Gripen E can take on any jet fighters in the world. It's the most underrated jet fighter and a real game changer in battle field.

[@Pincer88]

Nice to see this humble yet very interesting fighter gets the attention it deserves. Thanks for that Alex! I'd love to see the Gripen E/F in US service one day, possibly as aggressor fighters, built in close cooperation with Boeing, just like the T-7. And possibly Boeing can bring mass to the table and help to develop this little gem further, jus as its predecessor McDonnelDouglas did for the British Harrier. Given its excellent STOL performance and small logistics footprint, the Gripen might also be a great complementary fighter to USAF, USN and USMC aviation should it come to fighting in the West-Pacific. The F-35 no doubt is a great fighter, but apart from the B-variant it seems to need quite an extensive and specialized support organization, which might be a juicy target for the PLA's long range missiles, whereas the Gripen seems to be perfect to operate from semi prepared strips with minimal (and thus appealing) footprints. That might come in handy should fighting be required for the archipellagos surrounding the South China Sea...

[@andersgrassman6583]

There was talk of US buying 300 two seat version as training airframe. But when it comes to fighter jets, there is so much politics involved, not just the price tag - even if a lot cheaper.

[@stupidburp]

Gripen E/F would be good aggressors to replace F-5 and T-38 used in that role. KF-21 Boramae would be good aggressors to replace F-16s used in that role. Boeing could build the Gripen from kits supplied by SAAB. LM could build the Boramae from kits supplied by KAI.

[@Pincer88]

@@andersgrassman6583 I'm afraid so too. Too bad, I really wished the Swedes had a bit more luck commercially.

[@Pincer88]

@@stupidburp That would be a great idea. However, if I'm not mistaken, it seems Boeing is struggling lately and if it would get out of the fighter market, that would leave LM as the sole US supplier of fighter aircraft. LM already is way too big and powerful imho and it needs to be kept on a competitive edge, so I'd grant that order to Boeing. Besides that, the Boramae is a twin engine design and would probably be more costly in terms of maintenance. The more sensible solution would be the T/F-50 wouldn't you think?

[@Merecir]

@@Pincer88 The Gripen program is the most successful and profitable arms export ever in Swedish history.

[@Sardarkhan69]

Great video on a much under appreciated Fighter ❤

[@33moneyball]

The Gripen is yet another example of the importance of military doctrine in evaluating frontline technology and innovation. There are countless variables to consider….the Gripen is a great plane and a stellar version of what it’s supposed to be.

[@jimkluska253]

And it helps when there are NO idiots like bush, Obama,Biden,. Yeah even trump that have to please everyone so their pockets get lined

[@jb76489]

So why don’t more air forces use it?

[@tjofrasse]

​@jb76489 large military procurements are political, you're not just buying a plane or a tank, you're buying goodwill and future co-operation in industry and warfare for example. Sweden can't really compete with American, Russian or Chinese global goodwill, but will on the other hand provide a "safe" alternative for countries that want to be in good standing with all global powers, see South Africa.

[@jb76489]

@@tjofrasse and other funny cope to tell yourself. After all, there’s no other way to build good will other than buying aircraft and what’s the point of a jet if not to build good will? And correct me if I’m wrong but four of gripens six users are in NATO, wouldn’t that be more of an issue for Russia or China than buying American planes?

[@tjofrasse]

@jb76489 i don't really understand why you're offended and angered by what I said little man? Why bring up NATO? I don't really get what your trying to say, other than you don't like Gripen. Some countries want to align themselves with america, others with China or Russia, military procurement is one way of doing it. Do you disagree?

[@tennessee3156]

One detail you forgot to mention. The gripen E has a higher fuel capacity and combat radius (went from 500 miles to 812 with one fuel tank and 6 missiles)

[@EbizzerHH]

The Gripen is an amazing weapon-system!!! So underrated!

[@longshot7601]

It just makes Sweden look even more amazing. A country with less than 10.5 million people can produce tech like this and others is mindboggling. By comparison the population of the Greater Los Angeles area is about 18.5 million.

[@peterp4037]

It's irrelevant @@longshot7601

[@a-fl-man640]

8 K an hour is amazing as is the necessary crew size. somebody got things right.

[@helmhamburgerhand]

I remember talking to an engineer who got to experience the data from training programs w/ the Gripen. He told me the EW capabilities vs older aircraft were absolutely stunning. But against modern aircraft turned it into a spotlight telling everyone exactly where it was and what it was doing. But gods do I love this plane.

[@dwwolf4636]

Good partner for a high - low mix. Low/hr cost make it much more viable for general usage. Maintenance system excellent for forward deployment and war time dispersal operations.

[@portcybertryx222]

It’s sad h that 5e gripen isn’t getting more recognition and hence mass production reduction in costs aren’t getting recognized, it has a very lean software architecture making it easier to update and operate than the Rafale. But the Rafales system integration means it’s more popular.

[@wyattterrell]

It’s good because the key is in the center console instead of the steering column!

[@ravichjakkaratropart5083]

And don't forget to put the shifter in reverse before putting in or pulling out the keys.

[@regnstrom]

That only worked on the Viggen!

[@ApothecaryTerry]

But that means you can't do a quick Le Mans start! Should go Porsche style and shove it right next to the door/canopy. I'd actually love to see a bunch of pilots doing a Le Mans start. If you've ever seen the Throttle House BMW i8 entry video, it would just be a bunch of pilots doing that on canopies. I'd pay money to watch it.

[@ravichjakkaratropart5083]

@@ApothecaryTerry make that a two LOL. I would totally watch that

[@bartrammeloo5046]

You forgot to mention the night panel ;-)

[@carlosenriqueulloa]

The Gripen is like a good MMA fighter. Not the best at one thing, but pretty darn good at everything.

[@michaelhurchalla2100]

Love your channel... One of my favorites. Thank you for good information. Keep up the terrific job!! Thank you again for accurate and update information Sir.

[@cspdx11]

Sweden is the most impressive country on a pound for pound basis. Major car makers, telecom, fighters, submarines

[@drmarkintexas-400]

🎖️🏆⭐💙🤗 Thank you for sharing

[@sparkzbarca]

The Finnish government said when testing the gripen e vs f35 that no aircraft was significantly cheaper than the others in operation and maint costs. It also said that the f35 was actually the cheaper option if full life cycle was taken into account. My assumption there is they think f35 especially with the amount of buyers will get lots of upgrades whose costs are shared over many purchasers and so the cost of putting a new radar for example in the f35 will be cheaper than in he gripen.

[@pogo1140]

Also they expect to spend more time in the simulator instead of actually flying the F-35A.

[@ianshaver8954]

Such is the tyranny of scale.

[@stupidburp]

No, the life cycle cost estimates were wrong and based on Norwegian assumptions that were also wrong. The errors were noted and reported but this myth continues. F-35 has much higher total cost of ownership than Gripen. It is also more capable than Gripen and this cost might be worth it.

[@mauriciomdea]

@@pogo1140Gripen training is also modern and digital. Our brazilian fighter pilots can go from a turboprop training plane (the Super Tucano) directly to the Gripen.

[@pogo1140]

@@mauriciomdea That's not the reason they are using the simulator for. Typically you actually fly the plane as part of routine training. This is to keep you familiar with the plane and how it feels when you are actually on a mission. Simulator's can't simulate gravity, g forces and don't induce fear in the pilot. So pilots need about 150 flight hours of actual flying time every year just to maintain their training, their qualifications. Well instead of actual air time, they intend to use simulators instead of actual flying in order to reduce the costs of operating the F-35

[@JonMartinYXD]

The Gripen-E/F were the better choice for Canada. Not only do they better suit our needs (interceptor capable of operating out of austere forward bases), or have such a lower cost to fly, but they would have been built in Canada with full technology transfer. But our air force had its heart set on the F-35 for decades, so that's what the "competitive" bid selection process chose.

[@TheFrewah]

Had you choosen the Gripen, you could have had more runways than airplanes and that makes it hard to target. The crew would be gone when the Gripen takes off and it would consist of one specialist and a few conscripts. Given that Canada is large and not densely populated, I think that would have been really nice.

[@one4thought776]

Bro the F 35 is insane though when it comes to what it can do not just on a physical level but integrated avionics it's basically a super computer on wings it's the Quarterback you always wanted for your football team

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@one4thought776 Are quarterbacks enough for a team? Because that is what Canada is buying, a bunch of quarterbacks. Only quarterbacks. See how the quarterback metaphor breaks down when applied to countries that don't have the budget for more than one type of fighter?

[@one4thought776]

@@JonMartinYXD Agreed ..the F-35 coupled with a few squadrons of Gripens and some A-10' s would be a pretty formable force to be reckoned with...there's your whole team right there.

[@bfelten1]

There's been many claims that the F-35 is cheaper than the JAS-39 (Gripen). Well, that depends on many things, but to find out, you have to google for the actual deals. Here are some examples: Finland: 64 planes, $147 million per plane Canada: 88 planes, $161 million per plane Norway: 52 planes, $197 million per plane Germany: 35 planes, $252 million per plane The $80 million price tag that sometimes is mentioned, is maybe what the US military pays for the cheapest version, based on orders of more than 300 planes. Don't quote me on that, I'm only guessing.

[@matso3856]

Would you mind mentioning your sources ?

[@bfelten1]

@@matso3856 Not at all: Google

[@moongooat]

The turnaround time for Gripen is 11 minutes (fueling, fully filling all weaopons and liftoff). One thing not mentioning in this video is that a change of engine in the plane is officially done in 2h time but in a demonstration it was done in 45 minutes. (I guess this was done by a higly trained team). A gpod fighter is a fighter with a lot of time in the air and not in the landing pad, remember that.

[@BasedHadrian]

The gripen is amazing, watching the interviews with the pilots they, the engineers, thought way ahead of the US on technology in some aspects. Software wise amazing

[@R.E.factor]

It is a great plane but it was introduced in 1996 vs the F-15 in 1976 and F-16 in 1978. Hell, the F-22 began production in 1996 and was introduced in 2005. I would hope that a younger and newer gen 4 design would outperform the older gen 4’s. They had 20 years of data to go off of.

[@criticalevent]

The US has so many enemies it is constantly preparing for several different wars that are never going to happen, while the Swedes have always had a very singular focus based on an ever present threat.

[@peterp4037]

So amazing that not even their neighbors want it.

[@criticalevent]

​@@peterp4037 I assume you mean besides Czech Republic and Hungary.

[@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

[@craigfinnegan8534]

In all seriousness, taxpayers would probably be safer in the long-term if F-35s performed so disappointingly in combat that they were scrapped for a different aircraft along the lines of a Gripen.

[@petter5721]

@@craigfinnegan8534considering F35 is a single engine aircraft, the operation cost is insane!

[@Carlosthetraveler360]

This is great that our allies are innovating. This makes NATO more powerful.

[@BigHistoryBuff44]

This is such a critical point to make. If we all are using the same platform, then once a counter is figured out an enemy would have countered us all.

[@jb76489]

@@BigHistoryBuff44 pov:you have no idea what you’re talking about

[@BigHistoryBuff44]

@@jb76489, So you are suggesting that we should all have and use the exact same equipment?

[@jb76489]

@@BigHistoryBuff44 hmm, I wonder if that’s the point of a STANAG agreement? I’m not suggesting anything, I’m saying you don’t know what you’re talking about. I am curious however, what sort of magical counter you think exists that would suddenly make a given piece of equipment (be it a rifle, tank, jet etc) useless?

[@BigHistoryBuff44]

@@jb76489, the STANAGs refer to things like ammo sizes and capabililities of equipment for interoperability to allow logistics operations to work. You dont seem to understand what I was saying there at all. Im saying it is a GOOD thing to have variance in our equipment. Many generals have said as much. If the STANAGs meant us to be completely identical then it would be as such but clearly it is not. As for counters to certain things, of course I dont mean a rifle to suggest as much only shows you don't know what I am referring to. But there are ways to spoof certain types of radars, block or jam certain communcations, gps. If you truly want to learn about it spend some time and learn it, there is lots to read on it if you like.

[@bramcurtis6900]

I agree 100%. Canada bought the wrong plane. The Gripen is almost purpose built for our air force.

[@moic9704]

It would be perfect for Mexico too

[@gmradio2436]

Thought Canada was an expedition military.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

No Gripen E doesn’t have the range of F-35. Nobody looks at that, plus Norway just operated F-35 from highway.

[@nimaiiikun]

although the F-35 and Gripen E competed with each other, I think they can compliment each other. Cheaper cooperate Gripen E for air policing and later stage combat where costs is a concern and stealth isn't need, F-35 for day 1 offensive operations where stealth is prioritized

[@hopper131]

Canada made a massive mistake in purchasing the F-35 over the JAS-39E. The economic mistake was that Canada could have received technology transfer and domestic construction for their airframes, while still maintaining its F-35 part construction programs via Canadian defense contractors. This would have lowered the price of the JAS-39E much closer to the F-35A, and allowed Canada to independently decide on the enlargement of their force as needed. The training mistake is that there are no two-seat F-35s, there is however the JAS-39F which is a two-seater, could act as a trainer or be configured as a strike aircraft like the F-15E with a pilot and a WSO. Currently the RCAF has had a massive issue retaining pilots as the wait for a replacement airframe for the CF-188 (F/A-18C/D) has been ongoing for decades and pilots have left the forces for commercial or adversary training contracts in the private sector. Canada as a part of NORAD will never be performing "First Strike" operations, it will be patrolling the coasts and arctic for Chinese and Russian incursion so the need for stealth is wasted. Also the F-35 can't supercruise as it will melt the RAM, while the JAS-39E/Fs can supercruise and has an incredibly small RCS in addition to top notch EW, and on-sight 3d printable battle damage repair capability during rearm/refuel stops on highways. Unless all F-35s are reskinned in the "chrome" tunable ceramic RAM panels, which will allow for Supercruising, in addition to the F135 engine upgrade, and the cost per hour of running the airframe can be reduced, the JAS-39E/F is an amazing option instead of the F-35.

[@pegcity4eva]

We'll never get anything with Trudeau in power anyways, wait until the next government then we'll reassess.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Stealth isn't wasted. You want to win the fight or just pretend to have a military?

[@4Leka]

You got multi-role and swing-role backwards. Swing-role is the newer term, applied to more modern aircraft that can do multiple roles during one mission.

[@BalzAldrin]

I'll keep that in mind when Im out shopping next time. Thanks!

[@angelosasso1653]

I have nothing but respect for Sweden´s pragmatic approaches which is way I followed the Saab/Boeing cooperation with great interest. What they are able to achieve with their limited ressources is outright insane. Saab has always been very innovative and ressourceful yet had the perfect plane for their needs. Having a domestic producer is also always cheaper than buying foreign products and helps with education and skillsets in your own country.

[@brownmold]

The superior datalink sharing information beteween other gripens and information from the Ground control suite of sensors is the real strength. Allows total awareness of the total battlespace.

[@00kt86]

This is meant to be a complement...I wasn't interested in hearing about the GRIPEN E but since it was Sandboxx, I figured I'd watch a little. 11min and 11 sec later, I was impressed. Thanks

[@evilbred974]

Great breakdown! I love all your content, and I regularly share with my team!

[@richardmaberley8478]

I wish Canada would have chosen this air craft.

[@PalleRasmussen]

It would be really good for the climate and lack of infrastructure in much of your country.

[@jb76489]

Thankfully the RCAF is smarter than you

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@phillipbanes5484 I am aware of that. But Canada has large swathes of very low population and infrastructure. An F-35 cannot land on a road and get refueled and rearmed in six minutes. I have other gripes with it as well, but they are out of context for this post.

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@phillipbanes5484 there is no room really. But in short; it is a Tiger tank of the air. Too expensive, too long time to build, not enough built to sustain a high-intensity war.

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@phillipbanes5484 I am not comparing it to the Gripen, but made an analysis in general. The speed and quantity of F-35 is very low, and it is very expensive - like the Tiger. And I would posit; risking the same consequences. However, it is easily discernible that you are a fanboy with a closed mind, and thus not ready for such discussions of strategy and economics. So bye bye.

[@Erik_Taurus]

Thanks! As a Swede the times I feel proud to be a Swede become fewer for each year. Hearing someone praising the JAS 39 Gripen is one of those rare occasions when I feel proud of our accomplishments! When Sweden become a full fledged member of NATO it will perhaps have a negative impact on SAAB producing and make future developments of JAS 39 Gripen as most nations purchase the F35. Perhaps NATO will see the benefits of JAS 39 Gripen and more nations chose that aircraft to replace old aircrafts or instead purchasing more F35. My unbiased opinion is of course that more JAS 39 Gripen will be produced and purchased by members of NATO.

[@alunrees5130]

I understand the F-35 selling for 80 to 90million each, however that's for countries who financially put funds directly into the F-35 project, but the countries that didn't the cost could be 110 to 120million, all contracts being different.

[@jurgen4466]

Good solid review! Best bang for the money 🎉 💯% agree ! 😀

[@Elthenar]

I said the same thing, how the Gripen was the best fighter for Ukrakne just based off its ease and low coat to keep in the air combined with being to fly off hodge podge airstrip. I didn't realize it was this good too

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Who's going to actually PAY for Gripen to go to Ukraine?

[@0MoTheG]

The F-16 can't use Ukrainian airstrips because they are too rough. To operate them they have to improve many airfields.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

@@0MoTheG who says that Ukrainian F-16s will operate from Ukrainian fields? You don’t think that NATO and Ukraine thought this through?

[@Elthenar]

@@petersouthernboy6327 Of course they have thought it through. However, that doesn't mean that F-16 is the best fighter for Ukraine in a vacuum. It's simply the best fighter that can be quickly acquired in numbers. The F-16 is amazing and has many capabilities the Gripen lacks but as this video explains, the Gripen is purpose built for this war. As was explained, there just aren't that many Gripens out there and Saab just isn't in a position to start cranking them out in bulk and in a hurry. So Ukraine is going to get the extremely capably but far more demanding to operate F-16

[@matso3856]

@@petersouthernboy6327 EU has already given funds to Ukraine .. so themselves ?

[@jukeseyable]

finally someone acknowledges the gripens greatness

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

You serious? Past few years there's been a fair bit of Gripen simping on KZbin. Especially in the comments.

[@jukeseyable]

comments yes, content creators not so much. not exactly prompt, considering it entered service in 1996, 27 yrs ago@@chickenfishhybrid44

[@AvroBellow]

I am embarrased that my Government chose the A-35 Bucket over this plane.

[@kajakmannen1666]

01:51 Not only that, probably the best looking fighter out there as well!

[@karlforman936]

I've been saying it for years only to myself because nobody listens. Fantastic aircraft . No runway needed small service crew

[@erdiakarsu4945]

The paper plane you can make would fly faster than gripen

[@sessan9450]

@@erdiakarsu4945 the Gripen is faster than the F-35.

[@erdiakarsu4945]

@@sessan9450 when loaded with no armaments and very little fuel?

[@karlforman936]

@@erdiakarsu4945 stupid

[@Triple_J.1]

Gripen does not fit into the US military doctrine. The US assumes 0.5% of the population, paid professional warfighters with 4-20 years of training and experience. Equipped with the best weapons and force multiplication available. Designed and built by about 5% of the population. Everyone else (94.5%) pays extortionate taxes to support this great expenditure.

[@Desire123ification]

Great Video: Probably the best! 💯

[@mikeharvey9184]

While the F-16 makes the most sense short term (because they're free and readily available to be given by countries moving to the F-35), the Gripen really makes more sense medium/long term for Ukraine, if only because any stretch of straight road can become an impromptu airstrip. It could do well with the current shoot and scoot strategy they're using with their other assets (Patriot and HIMARS batteries).

[@andersgrassman6583]

My guess is Ukraine will be operating both in a few years. Discussions are taking place. And I hope Ukraine will also be building Gripen domestically. (They have the Antonov aircraft industry, so should work.) / from Sweden

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Who's going to actually PAY for Gripen for Ukraine?

[@andersgrassman6583]

​@@petersouthernboy6327 Discussions are very tentative and secret, as this isn't just some loose talking, it's realistic discussions, because both governments want so solve this. (Zelensky has even visited Stockholm.)

[@johankaewberg8162]

*Thank you* for that short review. It’s a great plane and I am glad you find it useable!

[@kathrynck]

If you compare "pounds of ordinance - per mile of delivery - per dollar" The F-15 can compete very well with the Gripen. But the Gripen is superb if you're trying to diverge your procurement spending into a larger number of units (eggs divided into more baskets). If one were to build an airforce from scratch for a hypothetical country... it would be very hard to beat an F-35/Gripen combo as a high-low mix. Although the F-15 does have the legs to keep up with the F-35 at long range, and provide some external hardware assistance in tandem with forward operating 35's. So F-15/F-35 mix is great too. One thing to remember, is that the Gripen is very small. A big part of it's ease of use and cheap upkeep is that it's a little plane. It's more the fact that it is very, very capable for it's size which is unusual.

[@matso3856]

Dont know enough about the F-15 to argue here , but I just wanted to point out the Gripen E has longer range then the F-35 , so I also think the combo would be really hard to beat.

[@kathrynck]

@@matso3856 F-35 goes about 50-100 miles further, combat radius. But you're right, the gripen E has pretty long legs. Granted the gripen uses drop tanks for that. With drop tanks, while the F-35's number is 'clean' (externally). You 'can' stick drop tanks on the F-35 for more range, and the tanks have drop-free pylons to return to stealth-mode "on the fly" (literally). Exact numbers aren't really discussed, but the F-15E and F-35 can go shockingly far. Not really a knock against the Gripen. It goes _amazingly far_ for such a small plane. Where I was comparing it with the economics of the F-15, it's mostly about the payload capacity. F-15 is about $30,000/hr, but it can carry 24,000 lbs (10,000 kg) of bombs (along with 8 air to air missiles) out to a staggering distance. So when you look at dollar-per-bomb, the F-15 gains a whole lot of economic value very quickly. Extra if you count the distance of bomb delivery too. And in K:D ratio, the F-35 just devours everything but the F-22, and is roughly on par with that. It devours the F-22 on cost by over 2 to 1 though. So it's the absolute goat of air to air & air to ground. But there's definitely a place for a plane which is cheap to operate, and can be very numerous, while having "pretty good" capability. I think the Gripen beats the F-16 for that job easily. I'm sure the USAF would argue they like the F-16 due to engine commonality with the F-15, but it's probably more an excuse ;) If I could have 2 planes for a hypothetical air force, it'd be the F-35 and Gripen. If I could have 3, I'd add the F-15EX (particularly with the AIM-260 rolling out soon). Only if there could be enough numbers of all 3 to invoke economy of scale though :)

[@matso3856]

@@kathrynck I was just wondering what data you were using on the E variant since multiple people have compared the range between the 2 using the old airframe of Gripen C which has half the range of Gripen E . I'm looking forward to more data , since Gripen E during red flag scored similary to F-35 , only outdone by the F-22. If budget was of no concern I would also go for F-15ex but with meteor missiles and depending mission both F22 & F35 for deep escort/strikes

[@kathrynck]

@@matso3856 Hmmm... well I looked at some more numbers. And I'm finding that reporting on this stuff is a complete and total mess. On the F-35 side of things, it's usually consistent in reporting the range without any external ordinance or fuel (consistency, yay, hehe), BUT... because the plane is STILL in ongoing development (including engine development)... the fuel economy of specific example aircraft is all over the place. And sometimes the B model (STOVL/VTOL) is quoted for range, which is significantly less (though more than any Harrier by a wide margin). It looks like, with the most up to date engine tweaks in current use... the A & C models come in at around 800-870 miles (not nautical, nor km... I'm just gonna stick with miles here, to avoid being confusing for comparisons sake hehe). And that would be with 8 SDB2's or 4-6 AIM-120's (internal either way), and no drop tanks. Generally knew most of that about the F-35 to start with. The Gripen E (specifically E), seems to always count combat radius 'with' drop tanks. But being a small plane, it seems very affected by ordinance load. Looks like it ranges anywhere from 100 miles less to 100 miles _more_ than an externally 'clean' F-35 ...depending on what you stick under the wings of the gripen (beyond drop tanks). I found a lot of different numbers. In the end, I think I'd have to say that it's around the same combat radius as the F-35, but with greater variation from ordinance loading. I generally did NOT know most of that about the Gripen E before now. I just had a vague impression of the Gripen C's range, and that the E was "somewhat more"... F-35 can definitely go further than the Gripen E if you add external drop tanks. And it has drop tanks which break away at the top of the pylon, rather than at the base of it, so it can return to stealth mode "on the fly" (literally). Making external drop tanks realistic for stealthy sorties. But the Gripen E is more competitive in range than I had previously thought. I didn't appreciate just how much range the E variant added. And my impression of previous models was a little skewed to the low end. F-35 A/C combat radius with drop tanks, and F-15E/EX range are both "no comment". But it's pretty easy to guestimate them both well over 1000 miles. Gripen E gets a lot closer to that than I was thinking though, so long as the ordinance load is compact & light. Getting close to 1000 with 4 short range air to air missiles. I wish there was a detailed layout of how far the Gripen E can go with specific loads like say 6 meteor missiles. That's probably the configuration which would work best in tandem with F-35's working a little forward of the Gripen. Anyway, the F-15E/EX competes pretty evenly with the Gripen E on operating costs IF you measure it as price per pound of delivered ordinance, and can deposit it at a meaningfully greater distance. While the Gripen E is very strong in having less eggs per basket, and somewhat better austere air-basing. I think they're both fantastic. Gripen seems to get more interesting the more you read about it :) F-35 too for that matter. I love comments where i have to go read up and compare sources to make an informed reply. Better still if i have to adjust my opinion somewhat. (and of course all of this goes out the window as soon as there's a headwind or tailwind hehe)

[@matso3856]

@@kathrynck This very much aligns with sources Ive been going through as well, turns out internal range for E is classified so good luck getting more then "double then C variant" which also doesnt mention the internal range more then vaguely. Only note of interest was that all the declassified aircraft made in Sweden had longer range then first state, but that was during the cold war so its very much a guessing game if they still do

[@aliwoods3004]

Brits designed a Navalised variant for the Brazilians for when they still had the Foch. It would make a fantastic platform for the impoverished Royal Navy to operate for emals equipped Queen Elizabeth class carriers. Great to operate alongside the F-35b and drones whilst maybe in dream world waiting for an RN fa-xx !

[@johns70]

There is a Navalised version of the Gripen E designed. Sweden just need a customer...

[@scottlink183]

Wouldn’t a better comparison be with the F-1670/72? Comparing the Gripen w/the newly upgraded F-35 Lighting TR3 refresh is like comparing a squirt gun to a handgun. The Gripen’s value is also its weakness , it’s developed to be expendable. Sure it’s capable but no more immune to modern missile tech. than any other Gen. 4 fighter. In addition the Gripen is not “1st or 2nd day” fighter. Meaning the Gripen would not be utilized in contested airspace.

[@AxiDent-lh7ut]

Compare to F16 ? ..... the older Gripen C version eats F16s for breakfast at every exercise (without showing its full E.W.) and Gripen E is a HUGE upgrade. U'r a sittning duck in a F16 regardless of Block against a Gripen E

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

Not an expert by any means, but have to agree! The Gripen , overall is a fantastic buy!!

[@TheTechnoPilot]

Yep, I was so disappointed when Canada picked the F-35 over this beautiful beast. The Grippen very arguably makes more sense for Canada, especially with the construction rights and technology transfer.

[@wathaet1386]

The nordic countries now have a unified airforce command with a mix of F35, F16, F18 and Saab. I hope Norway, Finland and Denmark all invest in a decent number of Saab. They cost a lot less to fly and have a lot less downtime for maintenance. Good for training, patrols and to boost numbers while dispersing the fleet when unde attack.

[@Antesyd]

Interesting, but you miss the main thing with Gripen NG. The Gripen E/F can change any hardware or software on the fly without needing any recertification of the flight systems. Everything is modular (sandboxed), like on a smartphone. You can change every computer on the aircraft today and fly combat missions tomorrow AND you can add weapons much faster. Not like the F-35 that needs month or years of testing to integrate new hardware or software. There is a reason why Boeing cooperated with SAAB on the T-7. They wanted access to that technology.

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@phillipbanes5484 The problem is the disparity in logistical resources. The US can afford to not think about certain cost saving measures, so they sometimes don't. In the case of the F-35, going monolithic is even biting the US in the ass. Technology Refresh 3 is behind schedule, and Block 4 work is behind schedule on top of the delays caused by its dependence on TR3.

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@phillipbanes5484 All the software that controls the plane - how it flys and fights - is one big program that runs on one computer. Anything that changes on the plane requires modifying the source code and rebuilding that one big program. And then worst of all, retesting every single thing that one big program does to make sure that the change made didn't introduce an unrelated change in behaviour elsewhere.

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@phillipbanes5484 That's how all software development works if you don't properly modularize it. And the reason it doesn't work that way on 4th gen fighters is because the F-35 is the first or second plane to fuse all the systems into one central computer. I don't know how monolithic the F-22's software is, so it might be the first. I do know that the F-22 had some major software problems early on, eg. the first time they tried to visit Japan.

[@Thenonsocial]

Tell me you dont know anything without telling me lmao​@@phillipbanes5484

[@DeeEight]

Ukraine might still end up with Gripens. As Sweden builds new E/Fs they'll have surplus to requirement C/Ds, and other countries currently leasing Gripens like Hungary, who are holding up Sweden's entry into NATO, might be enticed to switch to either Gripen Es, or new build F-16s (like Turkey was recently), and then those leased gripens would become available for Ukraine. The Czech Republic and Hungary each lease 14 Gripens. Sweden currently has 98 operational C/Ds and another 24 in storage, and as recent as last summer sweden and ukraine were still in talks about a gripen deal.

[@oddsends6048]

Yup. Open the flat pack. Read the instructions. Fly. It would be great for UKR rather than waiting for the F-16 supply debacle.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The C/Ds will be taken apart to cannibalize parts and components for the E.

[@AlexRMcColl]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD while that was originally the plan, that has changed. 60 Cs will be upgraded and continue to serve along-side the Es. All Es will be pure new builds.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Who's going to actually PAY for Gripen to go to Ukraine?

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@AlexRMcColl Originally, the Legacy Gripens would be rebuilt as Gripen Es. Then as it turned out, much like the Legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet, they're actually different aircraft and can't be upgraded directly. However, it was reported that parts from the Legacy Gripens would be taken out and used on the new pure-built Gripens when compatible. I didn't know the plan changed again.

[@dan725]

One of the few fighters that can lob fox 3’s and crank beyond the usual gimbal limits of other aircraft.

[@TurboHappyCar]

"Don't mind me, just flying to the north pole...." 😂🚀💥

[@rickluttrell5529]

Swedish fighters have been underrated for decades. The Gripen is a well designed and very capable fighter, especially given the price. Which is exactly why Russia is not going to invade NATO. Sweden will be arming the Eastern European counties with these for decades making the Russian military largely irrelevant.

[@MothMizzle]

2:24 - Sandboxx, you sure you didn't get the terms multi-role and swing-role reversed? The first thing that came up on google: Swing-role According to the Military Dictionary: "the ability to employ a multi-role aircraft for multiple purposes during the same mission."

[@user-McGiver]

the Gripen could be the best choice for Switzerland too... for all these reasons... the Swiss held a referendum [as they do with everything... they have practiced Direct Democracy since the 18th century...] between the Rafale and the F-35, and they decided to get the F-35, but ''stealth'' is not an issue for them... they only care about defense, and they can fly around their country behind mountain tops [natural stealth] as they did so far with their F-5s (!)... the Gripen was never an option, but sheltered in tunnels and taking off from highways, all country is an airfield... a great option indeed!

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

You need stealth for defense too.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

We never held a referendum to choose between the Rafale and the F-35, we didn’t have our word to say about the Rafale, if we had we’d chosen the Rafale. And yes the Gripen was an option and we refused to buy it. We had two votations: - the first one was about the acquisition of the Gripen, we said no. - the second one in 2020 was about the acquisition of new fighters before 2030 (no particular model, and if a No passed no airplane at all would be bought so no more airforce) we said yes. After the Yes to the acquisition of new fighters in 2020, another competition was launched between the Eurofighter, Super Hornet, Rafale and F-35. The Rafale came on top of the others in the competition and was the aircraft to be purchased. But following the Biden-Poutine meeting in Geneva, and a meeting between the American government and our Defence minister, Viola Amherd, the F-35 was suddenly announced as the chosen airplane. A decision that went against the Parliament, the results of the tests, the army and the people’s choice, to be short an illegal deal. A refeeendum was about to be launched against the purchase of the F-35, to what the people were told that if the referendum passed, no other airplanes at all would be bought, thus no more airforce. So the F-35 or nothing.

[@AlexRMcColl]

@@brunol-p_g8800 Great summary, although I'd add that the Gripen-E beat the Rafale, Eurofighter & Super Hornet in the first competition that was then cancelled by the referendum. The Gripen-E was then disqualified and barred from competing in the second competition for the dubious reason that it wasn't yet in service and couldn't participate in the fly-off even though Sweden & Saab offered to send the Gripen-E prototype test aircraft. None of the vendors were able to send jets to the fly-off in their bid configurations.

[@user-McGiver]

@@brunol-p_g8800 that's what I've learned from the internet... but even if I've got it wrong the fact is that you have more Democracy than we [the rest of the world] can ever dream of... and you hear that from a Greek... some of us say that Democracy was spawned in the land of the "'Hel'' [ Hellas ] but got frightened by the barbarians and find refuge in the land of the Hel [Helvetia] It's like a joke, but it shows much more... respect first of all... we still use the ancient names for you [ Helveti - Helvetia ] just as we still do for ours [ Hellines - Hellas ]

[@Rilcy2003]

​@@AlexRMcCollNo Grippen was never and nowhere ranked higher than a Rafale. Respect to Sweden to produce its own figthers, really, but Rafale outclasses Grippen E in every fields.

[@rudolphmarchand9644]

Sweden has always delivered a big bang for the buck!

[@mikebridges20]

I love Sweden's military chops, and the Gripen is a mature, excellent platform. Learned a lot from this segment, thanks again for your content. I do have a bit of a raised eyebrow at that $8k/hr number, that seems like it would barely cover the cost of fuel. But my favorite capability of Gripen is its ability to operate out of highways and austere bases, something that is a weakness of our military aircraft (except maybe the F-18?).

[@TheFrewah]

I saw a video showing Warthog planes landing on a freeway and that was apparently big in the USA. The Gripen isn’t just capable to do this, it was designed that way. In principle, you can have more runways than you have planes and that makes it hard to target on ground.

[@juzoli]

These are designed to be serviced around, and operated directly from the frontline. Because Sweden is close to Russia. While US planes are designed to be operated from safer distance. Which is the more likely scenario for them. Both approach is correct for their own circumstances.

[@RogierYou]

Ukraine needs these

[@AlexAnteroLammikko]

Definitely not getting the E, although that would be great. But the standard Gripen, yes please. Both can shoot meteor and that helps a lot.

[@petersouthernboy6327]

Who's going to actually PAY for Gripen to go to Ukraine?

[@AlexAnteroLammikko]

@@petersouthernboy6327 Sweden is fine with paying for it, they just need to be in NATO first.