F-16 vs Gripen E - Which would win?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 вер 2020
- F-16 vs Gripen E - Which would win?
► Subscribe to Grid 88: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Both fighter jets are considered “top of the line “yet cheap to maintain aircraft. Both have exceptional radars, cueing systems, engines, technology and latest weaponry. We thought it would be cool to compare the mighty F-16 with smart Gripen-E and determine which aircraft is better.
1. Specifications
F-16 was first introduced in 1978. Around 4,600 F-16s have been built so far. Depending on the configuration, the cost of latest variant of the jet is around $35M. Operated by crew of 1 the F-16’s empty weight is 20,300lb, and maximum take-off weight is 48,000 pounds. The jet is powered by a single engine producing 29,000 pounds of thrust. With ferry range of 2,620mi, the aircraft’s top speed is 1,570mph. The combat radius of the jet is around 340mi. With climb rate of 820 ft/sec, the F-16 can reach at maximum altitude of 50,000ft. The fighter jet comes with 9 Hardpoints in addition to a 20mm rotary cannon.
In contrast Gripen was first rolled out in 1996. Around 271 jets of different variants have been built so far. Depending on different configurations, at present per unit cost of the latest variant is upto $63M. Operated by a crew of 1, the aircraft comes in at weight of 17,600lb with maximum take-off weight around 36,400Ib. The Jet is powered by a single engine generating 22,000 pounds of thrust. With ferry range of 2,500mi, the top speed of the jet is 1,530mph. The aircraft can conduct combat operations within the range of 932mi. The Swedish jet can climb at the rate of 833 ft/sec and can reach at maximum altitude of 52,000ft. The aircraft is outfitted with 10 hardpoints in addition to 27 mm cannon.
2. Maneuverability
F-16 was intentionally designed to be unstable to enhance its maneuverability. However it was compensated by its digital Flight Control System. Which means that the pilot’s controls are interpreted via an electronic interface instead of manual controls. Fly-by-wire controls are…
On the other hand, the Gripen has a delta and canard type wing configuration with flexible stability. A triple aerodynamic control system allows highly agile maneuvers. The flight control system compensates for difficult environmental conditions and minimizes drag in the air…
3. Radar & Avionics
The latest variant of F-16 is equipped with APG-83 radar. This radar can search continuously and track upto 20 targets. The radar can detect enemy fighter jets with RCS of 1m2 from 85 miles…
Likewise, Gripen is equipped with a high-performance Raven ES-05 radar, which features roll repositionable antenna to provide 120 degrees field of view. The radar is capable to detect 14 enemy aircraft simultaneously with RCS of 1m2 from 93mi…
4. Firepower
The F-16 has 9 hard points and can be armed with wide range of air-to-air missiles, including Aim-9 side winder, magic 2, aim-7, sky flash and aim-120. The high off-bore sight, infrared air-to-air missiles such as aim-9X, Python 4, aim-132 and IRIS-T can be fitted. The aircraft also supports integration of anti-ship and air-to-ground tactical missile…
Similarly, the Gripen is armed with wide range of weaponry. The air-to-air missiles include infrared guided short-range missile IRIS-T and BVR meteor missile. The jet has the flexibility to be fitted with sidewinder and A-Darter missiles to replace the IRIS-T, and the aim-120 to replace the medium-range Meteor missile…
Watch complete videos for the conclusion
FOLLOW us on Social Media:
► Facebook: thegrid88
► Twitter: grid_88
► Become a Patreon
/ grid88
Playlists
► Military, Army, Navy & Air force
• Military
►US Army
• Playlist
► SUBSCRIBE so you never miss another video: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Credits
1) “Hitman" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
2) US Department of Defense
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
3) Flyvevåbnet
4) SAAB
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
The appearance of US DOD, USAF, Flyvevåbnet, SAAB and Swedish Airforce visual information does not imply or constitute their respective endorsements. All footages and images are owned by their respective owners.
#F16 #GripenE #FighterJets - Розваги
"What do you think?"
I don't know, that's what I came here for, for you to tell me
Bruh I got so mad when he said that.
he's just a youtuber. you can't know which one would win unless they fight. expecting a youtuber to know which one would win is just stupid.
@@elia_ssss what would i have ever done without you captain obvious
@@2toothsome then why do you watch the video mr. smart guy
@@elia_ssss there's this magic thing called speculation
and its often fun to hear what others think
One of the pitches for the Gripen is that it only takes a few minutes for it to get ready and take off. It can land on very short runways (including roads) and then can be fully re-armed, re-fuelled and up in the air in less than 15 minutes. The whole process can be completed by 6 people and all the equipment necessary can be mobile.
And it has a 95% /33%
This thumbs-up is because I like your name.
correction: less than 10 minutes
Ah yes, the SAAB "Always Combat Ready" video
I have to disagree in some respects. A lot of the Gripen is media hype. It’s a fantastic jet to be sure but no jet will do a turnaround in 15 minutes. It would take at least 30 to 45 just to load the 27 mil. I worked the flightline and it’s not an instantaneous thing. Lots of steps not to mention mission changes which in turn changes weapon requirements. Also safety is the number one requirement. Not many jets would land on a road. FOD would tear up the engines.
no disrespect to any other fighters, including Norwegian pilots because they’re just as well trained, but during a combat exercise with the Royal Norwegain Air Force in 2006 at a red flag exercise, 3 Swedish Gripens went up against 5 RNAF F-16’s. The Result was 5-0, 5-0, 5-1 after having flown 3 rounds. So the Gripens are a killing machine in combats against F16s.
Mix in the Finns F18's and soup is ready
1) That is not true and the only "source" for this ridiculous claim is Stefan Englund, who is a proven liar.
2) To the extent that it would be true it would not be impressive since Norwegian F-16s were just F-16MLUs without HMDs.
3) When Swedish Gripen Cs went up against Polish F-16 Block 52s, the results were reversed (0-4).
@@johanlassen6448 Lol, are you on crack?
@@kastrullvisparen yes he does
Yeah, that's totally made up. The F-16 slaughters the Gripen.
Swedish people should be extremely proud of what the Saab aero has accomplished! I’m a really proud swede!
Got to love a small democracy that builds it own fighter Jets...
Indeed
Me too 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
@@foraustralia2558 With engines made in the US ofA
@@TELAMONIOSAJAX The motors for JAS 39 Gripen were made in Sweden too.
Swedish quality, love from Norway!
edit: gotta love all the people shitting on sweden for the Gripen being compared to the f-16, like theyre forgetting the us military budget is like 110 times larger
Love from Sweden!
@@thatguyboring :D
@@OggDaBogg of course!
You know the Norwegians preferred the F-16 over the Gripen right?
@@johanlassen6448 says who?
Gripen first participated in Red Flag 2006 with the Gripen A, It was assigned to the red team. Reduced AWACS, reduced ground support. The Gripens connected their link systems and acted themselves as AWACs, got the battlefield awareness necessary and avoided all ground defence, scored 10 kills the first day including a Typhoon. No losses they remained undetected. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that performed all planed starts, while others were sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up. The evaluation was that Gripen capacity needed to be revaluated.
ya i like that one, pretty impressive, hope we get the gripen in canada instead of the f-35
Cherry picking results and ignoring the fact the F-35 destroyed the Gripen at Red Flag 2020 isn't particularly honest, is it? The F-35 was nearly untouchable in the Red Flag exercises even with handicaps due to concerns of national security. The F-35 is cheaper per unit than the Gripen while providing superior capability in all aerial combat applications. That's why Europe is buying them in mass, it's just a good deal. No one expected Finland to buy the F-35 over the Gripen, but they found the F-35 superior in every combat metric by a *significant* margin and immediately adopted the F-35 once trials were over.
Everyone is buying F-35's, NO ONE is buying Gripens. You armchair experts know nothing.
@@weasle2904 The F-35 cheaper than the Gripen per unit? What have you been smoking!? You can literally get FOUR Gripens for the price of one F-35! $45 Million per unit for the Gripen vs. $180 Million per unit for the F-35! You can call the F-35 a lot of things, but a good deal isn't one of them!
@@Nova_Mave The F-35B is a unique SVTOL aircraft, and the F-35C is a US Navy specific carrier capable aircraft... That is completely normal for them to be more expensive and is expected. And the fact you're trying to make excuses for the Gripen because it's a 4th gen is precisely the point. War is not fair, you can't just cry and say the fight isn't fair. In a war you fight because you have to. An F-35 has a massive advantage over the Gripen, that's why everyone is buying them and NO ONE is buying Gripens.
@@weasle2904 there are other factors you are not aware of. Factors I will not discuss. Let me just tell you that I as a swede of finnish descent along with most finns consider the choice of the F-35 over the Gripen more than a mistake. It was downright idiotic.
I live in Sweden and often see JAS 39 Gripen them passing through the sky, making cool manouevres as part of either a military exercise or something else (For example a number of Gripens always fly over the country on Sweden’s national Day or during christmas). Every time i see a Gripen, i get proud of the planes we swedes have made throughout the years.
you should be. now would you please convince someone to start building Saab's again 😶
@@bwoutrage21 They still build the Gripen.
@@simonsv9449 He meant the cars I guess! ;)
With the Gripen-E it took the aircraft to another level and greater competitiveness, combining the best of both technologies. Great partnership with Brazil. Congratulations!
yes true and easier level of getting shot down. sitting ducks for you know which fighter jets. Most Europeans (not all) are decades behind on tech and IT.
Yes, the E version is a completely different animal. And Brazil will make a carrier-based version!
Gripen E
E
Viggen!
@@1985Viggen Tunnan is the most beautiful of them all :D
@@Christian_Johansson Den är inte illa den heller.. Inte Draken heller för den delen :P
Gripen is too underpowered. It doesn't have enough thrust even with the F414.
I am very happy that my country is buying some Gripens 🇧🇷🇸🇪
21 of them I think
F-39 :D
Its a great jet for Brazil, they should've went for the Su-57 since Russia was going to give full transfer of technology
@@BrasilKid Sweden gives full tech transfer albeit imported products. Brazil or anyone would get no better deal from the US or Russia. Dogfight and you wouldnt want to sit in any other plane, turns on a dime.
Good to hear brother
The F16 is battle tested but it is a very old platform. No matter how good Lockheed upgrades its radar and service life, it’s still a platform that excelently performed in the 80s and 90s. It is in comparison easily outclassed by the smartness of the new gripen E. The gripen E was also not designed to be stealthy but it also happens that it has a very low RCS which means that it is the stealthiest among all non-stealth plane in the world. When you add to that the fact that its radar can actually detect stealth planes, you know you have a winner.
Only thing U would say is that ALL radars can pick up stealth. That isn't unique to the Gripen. The question is a what range. As good as the Gripen is it is still at a disadvantage against fifth-gen aircraft.
Stealthy? At what? Does it have pylon mounted weapons? It has...! Does it have inlets masking for reducing RCS? It doesn't...! Hmm..., folks do you smell something fishy?
I would say the gripen most likely has a slight edge over a viper. But F35 has entered the chat and there is no way i would pick a gripen over a F35 even as a swede, sorry saab.
@@sakariaskarlsson634
You think so but have no proof on that. We all have proof of the opposite when it comes to turn fights by using just the simple examples of turn times on youtube.
@@sakariaskarlsson634 The Grippen is superior in maintenance, cost effectiveness. There are many countries that don't need the extra features that the F-35 provides. But you are correct, the F-35 is more capable. There is still a healthy market for the Grippen and it is a very capable plane.
The F-16 has been an outstanding aircraft and still is a worthy adversary, but the Gripen is superior! Which should be expected, being a more modern platform.
The Gripen can stay in the air way longer....
Both can stay Long, but you can air-to-air refuel in the air too!
Actually, no. The F-16 has longer loiter time.
@@johanlassen6448 But can it be serviced, refueled and take off again in 10 minutes, after landing on a secluded country road? Don't think so.
@@tntfreddan3138 No, but neither can the Gripen if it does not have the facilities to handle it. You can't refuel it if there is no fuel tank nearby, you know.
@@johanlassen6448 Swedish defense tactics have mobile teams that refuel and service on any road that is built to land on. (Yes, we built them to be able to land on up and down the entire country.. just in case!)
Gripen, can't go wrong with some good old Swedish engineering.
Unless you buy a 2-stroke SAAB...
Yet it has never been combat tested.
The F16 can not only stay in the air longer but has a better arsenal and is proven.
True ♥️⚒️ Good Fighter
They use Same American GEF404Engines
@@phillip_iv_planetking6354 by that logic the bf 109 is the best fighter a country can have nowadays. dont be silly.
@@santiagoperez2094 What?
The BF109 is a battle tested plane.
Just how dumb are you?
Both great air-war platforms. But Gripen E's "future proofing", plus ease & lower-cost of maintenance/availability surely has to give it the edge.
The Gripen is a good aircraft that the Philippine Air Force must consider buying.
2021 Dec confirmed 🤔 Swedish parliament refuse to sell the Gripen to the Philippines 🤔
Too expensive they can get equivalent in Russian planez
the rafale is better and france would accept EZ
Honestly im just proud the Swedes put this together before selling it for once.
The most underrated comment ever witnessed on UA-cam! Thanks for the lolz.
In 50 years when Sweden has become the main weapons exporter in the world we will suddenly reveal our master plan to world peace when we unexpectedly switch it all to the IKEA model and everyone will be so busy trying to find that one screw on the instruction picture and looking for a suitable hex key because it was missing in the package that no one will be able to wage war.
Who says they deliver em assembled? 😂
As an immigrant in Sweden, let me tell you,Kingdome of Sweden has EVERYTHING when it comes to tech, and many other fields.
Nice. A truely self-reliance nation
At Red Flag 3 Gripen went up against 5 F-16´s. After 3 rounds the results were 5-0, 5-0, 5-1, a clear victory for Gripen. But that was years ago. Today it would probably be 5-0, 5-0, 5-0.
Yep as long as the F-16 was still using the block 50 you would probably be right. The only problem with that is that the F-16 is now fitted with the v block 70, Oh while you guys are bragging about the Gripen you seem to forget to mention that the Gropen is 18 years NEWER than the F-16. Send that puppy up against a F-22 and see what kind of results you get.
My dad was a General Supervisor at General Dynamics in Ft. Worth. He was supervising the mechanics who worked on the YF-16 in 1972 at Edwards Air Force Base in California. I had the privilege of sitting in the YF-16 with the red, white, and blue livery. The YF-16 was shown to 8 NATO countries in 1973 or thereabout.
Gripen is better
Nope
@@spartanx9293 yes
Viggen!
@@spartanx9293 Killratio over the F16: 15-1
I like the grippen better but idk
I was a conscript with the former Saab 37 Viggen trained at the Swedish Gotland/Visby airforce base. Initially seeing the Saab 39 Gripen prototype in 1989 I was very sceptical. Later after seeing it's first standing 8 and 9 G turning I'm not!
Question is, how does a F 35 cope with a Gripen. History has yet to unravelled... BTW 20 minutes turn around time is bullshit, we did it in less than half of that. If the pilot didn't have to pee... :-)
I would love to see a match between gripen and F-35!
Jag låg på F13G med🙂. Agg/Säkmek -88👍
@@michaelvickers89 Forget the new F-35 how about the F-22
@@johndickson435
I know the F-22 would win no need to think about it.
The f35 a can do 9 g turns.sense updated to full combat standards.When first made they had to have limits or standards.which have been lifted after some serious testing.
Aspects of the Gripen-E not discussed is it's STOL capability + the fact that it is rated to land on streets/highways for quick service, re-arming & refueling. I like both birds but the latest Gripen is a true 21st century fighter with a long service life ahead, so I give it the edge. The F16 is treated as a meal ticket by Lockheed who's main priority is the F-35 now. Living in close proximity to Russia has forced the Swedes to be creative on a limited budget & it's reflected in the capabilities of the Gripen-E. They're designed to hunt well in packs due to their sophisticated communication suite.
... its* STOL capability (it's = it is) / whose* main priority (who's = who is)
The Philippine Air force is getting 14 Gripens! So excited!
Are you part of the air force?
@@mathewmaramba5998 why isn't their news
Its C/D version and not the variant but with the latest update of radar. And the govt havent signed nor decide which would they get the f16 bl70 or Gripen C/D. But Saab more likely win the award
@@sticko3993
Our media only focuses on the cons of the government.
@@sticko3993
Our media only focuses on the cons of the government.
The Gripen wins because higher angle of attack. A lot more advanced electronic warfare systems and more varied munitions capability. Combat radius is almost 3X the distance as well so it can stay in it 3x longer. It has a better swing-role capability as well. It can literally be ground attack and air to air in the same loadout and handle it better. It's simply more modern.
The fight between them would be over before the F16 would even be aware the Gripen is engaging it. That's just how it is with more advanced radar and electronics etc.
Gripen wins because of the better RCS. eletronic defenses, supercruise, open software platform which makes Gripen accept practically any missle, bomb, pod available in the market only updating the software. The cost of acquisition, operation and maintenance is lower than F-16. The F-16 is lengendary, but is old! The Viper version of F-16 brought improves but probably will loose in a BVR fight against Gripen because of the RCS which means a pilot in a Gripen would see a F-16 first. US will probably need a new project for a light airfighter in order to replace F-16 very soon.
The gripen is definitely a better plane but I think they have two different purposes. The f16 was made to be simple, cheap and deadly and to be mass produced. The gripen was made to be a better plane for smaller militaries where they can’t afford a massive amount of pretty good planes so they build a smaller number of great planes. Overall both of them are great planes imo.
The JAS-39 was originally only designed to be cheap and is in no way better than the F-16.
Worse TTW, worse radar, worse payload, worse range. What makes it better, pray tell?
@@johanlassen6448 As a fighter, remember, its primary purpose., it is superior and has proven to best the F16 in a number of air exercises.
@@krossbolt4100 It has never bested a contemporary F-16 in any air exercise actually. The only exercise where Gripen Cs have been pitted against their chronological contemporary, the F-16 Block 52, ended with the F-16 winning. That was at Loyal Arrow 2009.
Beyond that it may or may not have managed to beat Norwegian F-16MLUs, which are vastly inferior to the Block 52 in radar and engine power and lacked HMD and modern variants of the AIM-120. And it may have done well against aggressor F-16 Block 30/32, which are vastly inferior to the Block 52 in radar and engine power and lack HMD. Both of these "victories" however are uncorroborated.
So... no it is not superior.
Well said. 👍
@@johanlassen6448 being undetectbecause of it tecnology being able to fight agains 5 gen jets without even been seen. Is that enough or do you need more? The gripen has the most advanced eletronic war equipment in the world, the gripen won a every single time against f-16(dogfight and long range), there were 5 f-16 fighting with 3 gripens, the results were 5-0, 5-0, 5-1, is that enough? The gripen can take off from roads and be completly refueled and rearmed in 15 minutes by 6 man, while that woulf take close to twice the time to do with the f16, the gripen has the most advanced sharelink, one of the best radars in the world, better manuverability, 1 extra hard point(the extra wheigh can only be used in bombs for ground attacks, as the gripen can carry 8 meteor and 2 iris-t as its configuration(brazil's one) ), better situacional awareness because, and it considered the most pilot friendly jet. If you still have doughts, if the gripen is better tell me and I can keep going with the list
As a Finn, I really wanted us to acquire the Gripen over the F35 so as to align ourselves closer to our neighbours rather than someone at the other side of the planet.
As for this video, I have one question. Why? What is the point of pitting a Gripen against an F16? To me it's like pitting a Messerschmitt Bf109-G6 against an Albatros D.III.
I mean, both are marvellous planes, but they belong to different eras.
They dont. They have the same level of technology, except the Gripen came late to the party.
The F-16 is superior in most respects, in fact.
@@johanlassen6448 The F-16 isnt superior in any way and that a fact.
@@tonyeriksson2813 Better thrust to weight ratio.
Higher payload.
More weapons variety.
Bigger and better radar.
More targeting pods.
Looks to me as if it is better in a lot of significant areas. And thats a fact.
@@johanlassen6448 The Gripen wins because higher angle of attack. A lot more advanced electronic warfare systems and more varied munitions capability. Combat radius is almost 3X the distance as well so it can stay in it 3x longer. It has a better swing-role capability as well. It can literally be ground attack and air to air in the same loadout and handle it better. It's simply more modern.
The fight between them would be over before the F16 would even be aware the Gripen is engaging it. That's just how it is with more advanced radar and electronics etc.
Gripen first participated in Red Flag 2006 with the Gripen A, It was assigned to the red team. Reduced AWACS, reduced ground support. The Gripens connected their link systems and acted themselves as AWACs, got the battlefield awareness necessary and avoided all ground defence, scored 10 kills the first day including a Typhoon. No losses they remained undetected. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that performed all planed starts, while others were sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up. The evaluation was that Gripen capacity needed to be revaluated.
it performed similar i libya, 100% mission success.
Here are some facts.
@@erikholm8918
1. Higher AoA is really not something that will determine a winner. If it has it at all.
2. There is nothing to suggest that Gripen has more advanced EW suites over the F-16.
3. False, combat radius of the Gripen E is shorter than the F-16.
4. False, Red Team is only ever composed of Aggressor squadrons. It is an exercise, not a competition, and one whose purpose is to allow allied states to work on cooperating WITH the US air force, not AGAINST it. I honestly doubt Gripens ever participated in Red Team but even in the event that they did, its actually the Red Team that gets all the advantages.
The ONLY exercise where a Gripen has gone head-to-head with an F-16 was at Loyal Arrow 2009, where Swedish Gripen Cs lost to Polish F-16 Block 50s several times in a row.
5. The US had no F-16 Block 50+ in 2006, so the statement is impossible to begin with.
Those are not facts you spouted out, but wishful thinking.
Gripen. Best plane ever ( Ex pilot ) Best plane and takes off small roads anywhere.. most of ALL Swedish roads are ready or could be ready as a functional runway in a matter of hours.. Miss it.. ❤️
@Mighty90
Wait, what!!!😳
So you judge fighter jets from a computer game?😂😂😂
Bless you all “Mighty”❤😂
Nope, F16 is way better!
(upper comment, an aviation expert said that 🙃)
@Mighty90 for Eken, but I'm just trolling too, as you
@Mighty90 my country uses Gripen too, I think the same, these jets designed for rougher circumstances, easier to mainetance, and operate. Here in east europe these facts are one of the most important as we can see. But its only my personal opinion.
Both amazing jets, but I'm loving the Gripen E just a little bit more.
I like Gripen-E it can correct any pilot error in that case, it will avoid any collateral damage and it's cheaper to maintain.
Yes, its true one thing is that griffin fighter jets can be deployed in dispersed airfield which is difficult to bomb by enemy in one strike for it is in many different location to hide or concealed, I can categorized its like a guerilla strategy & tactics of air forces. In my personal opinion it is well fitted to Philippines geographical and archipelagic locations.
@Chris Pasquale realizing of course that the f35 is a useless hangar queen
@@superiomikkac.-tm4a276 so pretty😍😍😍
Like A SAAB 9-5 Diesel
@@alpearson9158 And yet the F-35 has clocked more flight hours than the EF Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen combined despite being in operation for a shorter timespan.
"Hangar queen" indeed. People like you are a cancer. You are just generally opposed to progress and innovation. I bet you would have been in the same crowd as the anti-jet people or the anti BVR-missile people if you had lived back then. Do you also believe radars are overrated?
Our South African Air Force acquired a few Gripen in the mid 90's, but thanks to a corrupt government and mismanagement of funds, our Gripen's are all but grounded, as we do not have the budget to for weaponry and maintenance. Our "mighty" Air Force which once boasted incredible skill with Mirage and the Cheetah, now use these incredible Gripen's in local air shows once a year. Still quite impressive to see them fly though, especially when they fly at minimum operating speed and makes almost no sound and literally crawl through the sky... But a shame they are nothing more than paper weights her on the southern point of Africa.
It turns out gripen E has the most advanced AESA radar known right now and it has a built in AI which can make decisions for the pilot in a split second, so yeah pretty cool
Gripen E Easy.
Sideing with the f16v
@@spartanx9293 Even F16 testpilots admit that the Gripen-E is the better aircraft over the Viper
@@Daniel-jg8ff I don't believe you as you're not citing your sources
@@spartanx9293
Hey Captain America...
I've read your comments in other replies and I haven't seen your quotations with fact that states that the F-16, Raphael and Typhoon platforms are better than the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen.
Btw... Do you even know what Red Flag is?
@@Tobias.Mattsson did you seriously just say Raphael you mean Rafale and if someone requests a statistic from me I'll be happy to show it to them
The Gripen E rates much better since it is able to integrate both EU & NATO weapon systems
Not every nation in the world is a nato or eu member and the ones that are either use american fighters the eurofighter typhoon or the french rafale and the gripen e is a poor man's typhoon
@Donald Twitter does any asean members use it? or idk
@Donald Twitter ah thanks for the info
@Donald Twitter Uts because of price... Grippen is cheapest of that planes...
@Donald Twitter Yes but we have half-secret package ofer of Sweden goverment and there is lots of other things then just planes, trainings, arms, open od logistic centar for Grippen service for this part of Europe and employing at least 200 new work places... It all will be secret till middle of december, maybe partly after that too...
anther thing to consider is what role they were built for orginally. the f-16 is great, but it was built as a multi role fighter to back up the f-15. the Gripen E was built to be a countries primary warplane. this is probably why the great focus on sensors to give it an advantage in air combat.
I dont know why people say that the aim 120 is better than the meteor, the meteor is supreme, for the aim120d can go 86 miles (upgraded) whilst the stock meteor can go 80 miles (not upgraded)
I think a very important point about both deployment and maintenance was left out - the Gripen was made to be able to take off from regular roads, and maintained by (relatively) untrained conscripts. Basically, even if the enemy manages to take out the air bases, the planes can be stored along regular (straight) roads and launch from there.
Amazing planes both of them. My vote is for Gripen. But in the end it all comes down to the pilot.
I really really hope Canada picks and collaborates with the Gripen. Would be a wise stepping stone to the next level that the UK are formulating. To many gremlins in F35 and not weather proven in the arctic, I don't think?
Great video. I love them both. F16 design is so beautiful. My only comment is the F16 price: for $35MM you only get the plane, no support package, no weapons, no maintenance, literally nothing. When you put all stuff together in both planes, prices are similar. Nevertheless, the cost of one operation hour is much cheaper for the Gripen. I really don’t understand why most countries aren’t buying the gripen massively. It is such a magnificent product.
My VC90 has over 500,000 Km on it, so the Swedish Gripen is the choice---with love from Canada
Damn, I’m just glad that the main operators of both aircraft are on good terms
Finland did a hugh mistake. We did not purchase Gripen E. Gripen is made for our hard winters and other weather conditions.
It's crazy how such an old fighter jet platform (F16) can still give these newer fighters a run for their money
Thats some real quality from swedish SAAB. Good stuff
Gripen E ( NG ) Win fight..dogfight test. Gripen electronic warfare and all technology.
The f16v has a superior radar
the O.D.S.T spartan no
@@slidus6509 yes it's aesa radar is better
@@slidus6509 the f16 also has a superior range and unit cost
@@spartanx9293 The Gripen-E has the Raven 05 which is also an AESA radar and superior to the AN/APG-83. It can scan a way larger area (100´ compared to 60´) The Raven ES-05 AESA radar features an innovative roll-repositionable AESA antenna to provide a full ±100º field of regard that improves the capability for maximum situational awareness and platform survivability. This allows the pilot to maintain the missile datalink and turn away whilst the scenario continues and the ES-05 acquires other targets and tasks.
It´s just awesome that it can detect stealth targets without being compromised. Combined with landing everywhere and getting a good service, reload and refueling even in the woods. I like it =) Also 5 times cheaper to fly once you have it and that is of course important for making training of pilots cheaper so they get more flighthours in...
It can't detect stealth fighters.
@@johanlassen6448 The Gripen E defininetly can.
@@johanlassen6448 Keep going buddy, in the end even you yourself will believe your propaganda spam.
@@JKGaming1414 Its not propaganda. You are high on copium if you think JAS-39E is capable of detecting 5th gens at meaningful ranges.
@@lurtzy_ Not any better than any other 4.5 gen plane. At 10-20 km, MAYBE. But it has a tiny AESA radar when compared even to other 4.5 gens, and it would get detected and shot at way before it sees anything.
The Grippen is incredibly impressive! I'm very biased with my love for the F-16, but I love seeing these comparisons and appreciating lesser known aircraft! Thanks for the videos and hope everyone is well.
Gripen*
Sad no mention of the fact the the Gripen can take off and land on regular roads.
was waiting for that aswell
your forgetting a 10 minute turn around to reload and gas up. Oh and the engine can be replaced in less than an hour all from the back of 2 trucks :) with only 3 regular techs and 1 trained tech
Yes, without any ammunition. What a strategic ability. 👏
Destroying the airfields was how the Israelis defeated the entire Egyptian air force essentially in one day. Gripen can take off from short and narrow regular roads anywhere in any weather. Versatility that is extremely useful for smaller countries that don't have massive defense budgets.
@@dunyamalibabakishizada7744 that was including ammunition… as in rearming and refueling in 10-15 minutes by a crew of 6 on the side of any straight road.
There are other differences between the two planes that also should be mentioned:
* turnaround time
* climate they are built for
* runway needed landing - 900 m vs 500 m
* fuel consumption
* talk about ferry time, but failed to include the external tank used on Gripen when ferrying.
* time from scramble order until airplane in the air
* price - latest F16 V is $120 million while latest Gripen E is $60 million
And so on.
Where I come from we used to have airbase weekend with airshows once a year. The American guest pilots were bragging about their airplanes so the Swedish pilots made a bet with them on who would be in the air first. 5 minutes later the Swedish plains landed... While the American plains were still warming up their engines?! 🤣
It might just be a joke, but there are differences in doctrine and how the plains are built as it's just 500km (15 minutes flight for a fighter jet...) between Stockholm and Kaliningrad, one of Russia's largest airbase and naval stations.
Well main difference in military doctrine is that Sweden is strictly defensive oriented. Another countries (Russia, China, USA) are far more offensive oriented so they need different solution.
5 minutes later the Swedish plains landed... While the American plains were still warming up their engines?! That is impossible and you know it.
* Turn around time is relevant only for "dog fighting". The most of combats nowoday is over BVR mode. In the case of the Gripen, the RCS is considerably lower than F-16. So, it's highly probably Gripen can detect F-16 first and shoot first for consequence;
* Climate doesn't matter for both air fighters. They can operate in any climate;
* Runway is important for Sweden but is not so relevant for US because they have bases everywhere;
* F-16 can carry more fuel but, they doesn't have supercruise;
* Price is relative. Depends more of agreement between clients and vendors and politics(off course). You can see by what US is doing with F-35. They selling packages of services + plain and other things for the price of a Gripen. Is evident that F-35 cost more, but they have Uncle Son to support the F-35 sells and power to pressure the allies for buying the F-35(Canada, for example)
@@johndickson435 he meant "The Swedish planes took off"
I even read that Article years ago. True or not it means something.. About a pilotes humor. Cheers.
The Gripen E with it's design incorporating delta wings, with canards has the tightest turning circle of any fighter. Gripen E wins based on it's canard design.
... with its* design (it's = it is)
Also, the Gripen only needs 1 specialist and 5 conscripts plus equipment being kept in a single container to run.. and can land/take off from roads etc.
F16 needs much more ground support and longer runways
Dude any plane can use roads to land on and take off from. Taiwan has been practicing using roads and interstates for a few years now because they know that if China ever is stupid enough to attack them they will try and take out their air fields first.
@@johndickson435 Obviously, the interesting part is if they're any good at it. Doesn't really matter if they "can" if the risk is of failure is too high. If you've flown multiple different fighter jets (or high-end simulators) you'd know that the difference is huge.
Air superiority is achieved using loads of installations, ground to air missiles, ships and vehicles, a squad of fighter jets are just a part of a whole operation so who's to say which serves their role better really without seeing how they are used. However in a theoretical toe to toe the Gripen is just kitted out with more modern flashy stuff, and in drills it is superior.
Well, since it's already proven, the Gripen would win 3 times out of 3, even when outnumbered 5:3 and the F16s are piloted by Norwegians.
Lol, no, son.
You are basing yourself of the nonsense of Stefan Englund, who is not a pilot but an engineer and thus was not privy to the parameters of the exercises he talks about. None of his crap has ever been confirmed by anyone, not even the SwAF. Additionally, the F-16s that Norway uses are old F-16As that have been upgraded with the MLU program. Their radar is significantly worse than what is found on newer variants of the F-16, and so are their engines. When the Gripen C went up against more modern variants of the F-16, such as Polish F-16 Block 52s, guess what the F-16s won in actual BVR combat (4:0 in favor of the F-16). That was in Loyal Arrow 2009 which took place here in Sweden BTW.
So cool it with the nonsense. If the Gripen was so superior to the F-16, it would not get so consistently spanked in international sales. The Swiss rated the Gripen C as worse than their legacy Hornets in several ways.
The Norse are not using the best of the American equipment, which cannot be sold!
@@johanlassen6448 You don't understand how international sales work. Sweden doesn't have the ability to threaten, bribe, or blackmail like the U.S. does. You clearly don't understand how international sales work.
@@brianwesley28 Except for the part where SAAB, not the US, has been proven to have used bribes in its sale to South Africa. And the part where Brazilian prosecutors were threatening legal action against SAAB due to allegations of bribes. I mean sure, if we ignore real-life examples of SAAB using bribes then yeah I guess I don't understand how international sales work. But reality very clearly disagrees with you.
The facts are very simple: the Gripen is outperformed by contemporary variants of the F-16. So for instance the F-16 Block 52 > Gripen C, and the F-16 Block 70 > Gripen E. Those are simple facts that you can get from simply looking at the specs of each aircraft, with e.g. the F-16V having a somewhat bigger and more modern radar, better TTW, actually functioning IRST, a bigger payload, access to better sensors for ground attack (such as LITENING) and higher top speed and acceleration. That, and not some unproven allegations of bribes, is the reason for the why F-16 so consistently beats the shit out of the Gripen in the international market.
@@johanlassen6448 I still don't think you quite understand. They may be able to convince some countries to purchase their superior fighter with said bribes, but they don't have the global economic and political influence of the U.S., Russia, UK, or France, as examples. I'm American. I know what type of lobbying occurs here and what sort of pressure or influence the U.S. government is able to exert on the behalf of Military Industrial Complex interests. If it is a country the U.S. doesn't have much interest in, or influence over, SAAB may be able to compel a sale? Otherwise? There is way more widespread influence peddling performed by the U.S., as an example, since I am American, than Sweden can muster.
Gripen E all the way; and my country operates the F-16M. Landing in a highway, rearm and reafuel in few minutes is mostly if not totally unique. And even with all upgrades, the Gripen electronic suite is much better than that of the F-16. Also, it's a modern airplane thought frame; even the block 72 does not reach the superiority of the Saab. It's normal. The aircrafts may have similar roles, but even with all upgrades, the Falcon is an aged plane which aged well. It's like a son comparing his grandfather to his father, they're not in the same "rack".
I personally would go for the Gripen because of 3 things, firstly costs it costs less per hour to operate this is huge considering they will be in service 30 years plus. Secondly the Gripen's combined superior IRST, sensor suit and ECM, makes them extremely challenging to find or Target before they blow you out of the sky. Thirdly the Gripen is the only Jet that seems to only occasion actually beat F35's. F16's haven't pulled that trick yet, also the The Range of the Meteor Air to Air Radar Guided missile Maximum range: 200 km (110 nmi) No Escape Zone: 60 km (32 nmi)+, considerably better then the AMRAAMs AIM-120D - 86 nmi (160 km) but with that might change next year with the AIM-260 JATM.
The Gripen E is present and future. F-16 is past tence.
tence?
what are u talking about,,there is a new updated version of the f16
One thing missing from presentation: Gripen's radar has wolfpack capabilities, so 5 gripens can join up and do smart target selection (say, 2 robots per targeted bomber or some such). This makes Gripen vastly superior to anything the F16 can do for actual warfare scenarios.
@mowgli2071 Most Swedes have a tendency to present stuff that the Gripen does as if it was unique to the Gripen. Pretty soon they will tell us that the Gripen has wings.
@@johanlassen6448 I’ve noticed that, they’re acting like the gripen is a fucking 5th gen. It’s a great aircraft, don’t get me wrong, and a great pick for most modern militaries. But I see people comparing it to F-22 and SU-57, when it’s pretty obvious that it’s not even on the same level.
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii Its nowhere near the level of a 5th gen.
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii yes bro lots of Swedish abusing India over buying Tejas they fucking use us engine in Sweden
Are you certain about that! Remember, the Americans never say what their true capabilities are!
This one was magnificent of your comparison .Appreciate your video😊
Love the Design and Quality Much Love from Philippines, your Designs from Tanks to Jets is straight up awesomeness..
Everybody seems to be an expert on the topic but no doubt about the Gripen E and its capabilities. Seems like a good choice for the next fighter of Finnish air force.
But they chose the "yankee candy". Rich country.
The Gripen would have the edge. Being more agile and stealthy in air combat is a lethal combination.
@Blue Reaper The F16 is not stealthy. I think you have it mixed up with the F35
@@LordBruuh I'm a 58 year old pilot and specialist in aeronautics. Your "real aircraft" belong in a museum. Maybe you could get a job there as the janitor and fantasize about winning in them.
Nice! I've just heard that the Philippines will order 14 jas gripen! 🇵🇭🇸🇪
Yeah but it's not the E model.
What model is it?
@@govjasper Jas-39 variant C/D
Both amazing machines... Personally I would want a fully upgraded F16 viper... However the Gripen is an amazing machine also and I would fly it in a heartbeat
Despite being in the same class, and even for that reason this comparison is possible, the primary purpose of the development of Gripen was to hunt Sukhois in our region.
And with turn around times less than 30min by 2man 19yo conscript ground crews+1 supervising NCO/plane iirc
Yep. The Gripen E happens to look like it's a perfect fit for the Canadian arctic too. It's not like we Canadians are likely to buy the other cold-weather friendly fighter options (the aforementioned Sukhois).
@@paranoidrodent isn't Canada a friendly enough nation to might be able to pull off a deal with the Russians? Although I hear you guys are heavily influenced to buy old US hardware.
@@felldin Canada's on very poor terms with Russia. Worse than the US is. We have an old an well established Ukrainian immigrant community (goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries), especially out West. Between that, our clear denouncing of assorted Russian military adventures (Crimea and Ukraine foremost but Syria too) and us being rivals for Arctic territorial claims and in various natural resource markets (oil, diamonds, aluminum, you name it)... Yeah, the feelings are mutual at the government level (at the everyday Joe level, I don't think we have strong views about each other as people but we don't trust each other's governments). Russian media portrays Canada as an Ukrainian patsy while our interest is more like the US wanting peace in Northern Ireland (no strategic interests but a large demographic with roots from there who cares). Being possibly America's closest ally, quite literally, doesn't help relations either.
It's politically unworkable for Canada to source arms from the Russians and logistical folly to rely on them for replacement parts. We do get political pressure from the US to buy US weapon systems (we have since the Cold War - we used British stuff mostly before that). In practice, we use a mix of American, European and homegrown gear. A fair bit of our homegrown gear is perceived as American because it is built here by subsidiaries of US defense contractors (like the LAV III/Stryker AFV). Aerospace is a touchy subject with Canadian voters since twice in living memory, US interests have applied pressure trying to (and largely succeeding) in devastating our aerospace industry. Buying anything Boeing will piss people off, the F-35 is perceived as a money pit/white elephant project while SAAB is offering to let us build part of the fleet locally (rebuilding an industry and allowing locally produced spare parts - a big deal with the US being unreliable lately).
@@paranoidrodent Agreed #AvroArrow #Diefenbaker's Folly/ Debacle. We NEED the Gripen. Our poor old, tired CF-18's have been taken apart and put back together so many times, that I doubt there's a single original rivet left, or a screw-port that hasn't been rethreaded/ helicoiled in the entire fleet. And us "buying" the old, tired Australian ones to make-do is going to be as bad an idea as us buying those used British Subs... ( And don't get me started on the whole Sea-King Helicopter fiasco, which has cost Canadian Taxpayers more in penalties, cancellation fees, delays etc. than the original complete contract would have, if we'd followed-through on it. ) I can only imagine the F-35 becoming our latest "Widowmaker" as they attempt to convert it into an "All-purpose-multirole-all-weather-arctic-capable" to do everything, including roles outside it's design parameters/ original purpose... The Gripen is literally built BY a nation in an arctic climate for use in their own area, which is identical to our climate. Purpose-built for operations in conditions JUST LIKE OURS. The right tool for the right job, right out-of-the-box.
Brazil ordered 36 units of the Gripen. 🇧🇷😁
And the South African a darter missile 🇧🇷🇿🇦
Remembering that Gripen E is an improved and upgraded version of Gripen A, completely new avionics and radars made by Embraer in Brasil.
I do hope that the Canadian Government will take a serious look at the Gripen.
Gripen E is the way to go longterm easily!
Might be a bit biased since the Gripen is assembled less than a kilometer away from me but still.... F16 got nothing over JAS39 Gripen E.
Where do you live?
Hej gnu 😘
F-16 actually has plenty over the Gripen.
@@johanlassen6448 F 16s have already lost on friendly wargames against gripens twice and that was before the "smart" gripen
@@germanher7528 No, it actually didnt lose. It won at Loyal Arrow 2009 and that is the only wargame we know the results of where Polish F-16 Block 52s beat Swedish Gripen C:s at BVR combat. The rest are just claims made by a Swedish engineer, who did not pilot the aircraft, and without telling us the context of what kind of F-16s they fought, what their goals and parameters were, or if the Gripens had any additional planes or support assets. These claims, additionally, have not been confirmed in any way. In other words: nonsense.
Gripen E can take off and land on a strip of road (short take off and landing), get refueled and re-armed in less than 20mins. Works best in combat situations like Ukraine.
Gripen E .... the time it takes to Refuel -Rearm and then is ready for combat is insane...
Gripen of course
One thing not mentioned in the video is that the Gripen E is one of the only fighters with supercruise
Gripen E can't supercruise.
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!
How has the F-5 worked out for Chile?
Good relations with the US of A is more important to you than with Sweden and so is the case with many other countries.... so the F16 is better no matter what. This scenario has played out with the Rafale of France with other countries too. Effectively the American choice can be quite inferior on every level but it will still be chosen. 🤣😆😜
I understand it said continuous but just for clarification, The F-16's first air-to-air combat success was achieved by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) over the Bekaa Valley on 28 April 1981, against a Syrian Mi-8 helicopter, which was downed with cannon fire following an unsuccessful attempt with an AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile (AAM).
Is it a trick question? Gripen of course!
I like the fact that the Gripen does not need a dedicated airfield to operate from.
Gripen is the most brilliant plane. Cheap, economical, effective. It will land and take off on a pothole road. few people to handle missiles. Motors are replaced in 1 hour by two people. It will not freeze when other planes are covered with ice. Lovely plane.
As a Suede I cannot understand why we don't ramp up the production of the Jas.
The hundreds we have today is a joke, we should have at least ten times more of them. Costs?
There is a lot of various sending we could cut dramatically.
And buy building and educating people for maintenance, logistics, sub suppliers, pilots and so on it would be a boost for the Swedish economy as well.
Gripen e
Loving the videos keep them coming!
Thanks! Will do!
Saab JAS Gripen! 👍👍👍💪💪💪 Good thing Philippines is considering purchasing these advance fighter jets!!! 💪💪💪
As Denmark was replacing it´s F-16 fleet, The Gripen E was considered. However Denmark is a Tier-3 member of the Joint Strike Fighter development program, and danish companies delivers multiple parts to every F-35 built, such as; radar components, software systems, advanced composites, tail edges and pylons. Denmark committed to the program as early as 2002 to participate in the technology exchange, and it would have been counter intuitive, if we as a country would have chosen a different fighter plane. As F-35 prices has come down, the vastly superior plane now comes with a negligible 17m usd premium to the Gripen, albeit they will be more expensive to operate and maintain. (BTW the F-16/Gripen-E comparison is nonsensical as the Gripen-E is vastly superior on every single parameter, including but not limited to, it´s dogfight capabilities).
Eh?
F-16V has better TTW, bigger payload, bigger weapons variety and a better radar.
How is that "superior in every single parameter" for the Gripen, pray tell?
@@johanlassen6448 Face the facts. ALL Legacy American fighters became operational in the 70s, while Gripen became operational in 1996 (first test flight in 1989 is irrelevant). Everything since then have been endless upgrades, upgrades, upgrades and upgrades. You can only go so far, and the F-16 is simply past its due date.
I think even you can understand that, if you look beyond your fanaticism. The F-16 is a beautiful and iconic fighter, but now it is just too old. It's behind Gripen, for obvious reasons and it does not have a better radar, wherever you got that from.
@@henrikg1388 And? The date at which a fighter became operational says nothing about its technology level. If Somalia developed a fighter today it does not mean it would be more advanced than Gripen either, does it? If you truly believe in your nonsense argument then I expect you to also admit that the JF-17 must be more advanced than the Gripen simply because its newer.
The facts are that the Gripen, despite being newer, has worse TTW, a smaller radar, a smaller payload, less weapons variety, and less room for improvement. Regardless of your wishful thinking.
The F-16V:s radar (AN/APG-83) has 1020 TRMs and is based off the F-35s AN/APG-81 radar, which is a third generation AESA radar.
The JAS-39E:s radar (Raven ES-05) has 970 TRMs and is produced by Leonardo with licensed first generation AESA technology from Raytheon.
In other words: not only does the F-16V have more TRMs, but its backend technology, antenna quality, and power consumption are all better. The only advantage of the ES-05 is that its using a swashplate, allowing it a wider field of view. Again, your wishful thinking does not change that.
@@johanlassen6448 Don't make yourself more stupid than you are. Somalia is a failed state that invented their alphabet in 1973. Sweden and the USA are Western nations that have produced top notch jet fighters since WWII. Don't be a fool.
For a long time, Sweden had a domestic industry like SAAB, Volvo Flygmotor/Aero, Bofors and Ericsson to to provide almost everything but the armaments. Today's world is more complex, so SAAB has to rely on on other European and Americans for some vital parts, even if they try to in-source as much as possible. Still, they have an EW suite that may very well be one of the best in the world. It's their strategy.
I must admit that the miniscule difference in granularity between Raytheon and Leonardo was unknown to me. But the the revolving, 90 degrees slanted version is a stroke of genius and far more important. You see, the F-16 is not approved for more weapons. It's just approved for American weapons, and thus not the meteor. That in itself will let the Gripen make mincemeat of any version of the F-16 BVR.
You see, the extra IRST sensors, sensor fusion and data links hand in a huge pod below the fuselage, where a weapon or a fuel tank could be. That goes for all American legacy fighters, except perhaps the F15EX who have gone through a major overhaul. The rest are outdated trash by now, and you shouldn't pick on Gripen that is up to modern standards. The only nations interested in F-16 are those who want to buy second hand and add some upgrades. They would be much better off with Gripen, or another Eurocanard, but at a much steeper price. F-16 is not in the equation anymore, apart from American corporate welfare.
Do I need to tell you that a hopelessly delayed trainer T17 from Boeing was straghtened out by SAAB in six months.
@@henrikg1388 F-16 is primarily a fighter, Gripen is a multi-role combat aircraft. Like comparing apples and pears🕊
We have made a lot of interesting stuff in Sweden. As a former Viggen JA 37 mechanic 1985, well I cant say I am impartial. I did follow the work of that radar, saw it fails and successes under the process of designing it but it went well after all and also followed the reworking of the front wing computer 1998. :) Even Viggen JA 37 would win over F-16 configurated 1985 version. They did test this in Luleå against Norweigan F-16 pilots when they did a visit there as they did some flying together.
Very very nice video by the way. So damn well made.
Highly unlikely that the Viggen would beat a modern F-16.
@@johanlassen6448 Well it was around 1985, so... F16 did develop a lot since then.
Saab 39 Gripen, JAS E/D is the better fighter.
The gripen E was not introduced in 1996, the Gripen E is the latest version and made its maiden flight in 2017.
I keep reading things like the F-35 having better tech (it doesn't) and the Gripen is best suited for countries with a limited budget (which is EVERY country except the USA). You want to know if the Gripen is better than the F-35, here's the answer that NOBODY can argue with:
If you take cost-per-flight hour into account, the F-35 is between 5 and 6 times the total cost of the Gripen. You've seen that the general consensus is that the two planes are close in combat capability but they're not. The Gripen is faster, more maneuverable and can use a much larger array of weapons than the F-35. It can also fly close to electrical storms without fear of explosion. Ignore all that though, it is clear that the F-35 is NOT significantly more potent as a fighter than the Gripen.
What is the purpose of a fighter jet? The purpose of a fighter jet is to make your air force as powerful as it can be. Do you think for one minute that 10 F-35s would have a snowball's chance in hell against 55 Gripens when it's been pretty much established that the F-35 is NOT significantly more potent as a fighter than the Gripen? The answer is no.
Therefore, the Gripen makes your air force more powerful than the F-35.
Therefore the Gripen is better at delivering to an air force what a fighter is supposed to deliver.
Therefore, the Gripen is better than the F-35, end of line.
The rest is illogical semantics by people who WANT the F-35 to be worth it.
I'm a F-16 fan myself but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the Gripen.
Im amazed the American plane isn’t the expensive one for once
when you build thousands the economy of scale kicks in...But it ends up costing more when you fly it...The Gripen will be cheaper in the long game.
The Gripen is a lot cheaper to operate so even though they are more expensive, you get break even in a couple of years acordingly to SAAB. Can't remember the exact numbers but they are out there.
@Blue Amy yes I know. I can't find the source now but the operational cost of the E variant would be lower and a C/D would benefit from it too in some way. I'll try to find the source. It might have been in swedish though. Google does a fair enough translation if I can find it.
@Blue Amy it isn't true 🙂
True but the maintenance cost of gripen is much more affordable or cheaper than maintaining an F16
I love the looks on F16 but if I would have something to protect my family it would be a Gripen 😎
Even though I bleed Red White and Blue I'd be betting on the Swede! The F-16 has been a formidable Weapon for more than 45 yrs but no matter how many Upgrades you make the basics of the aircraft are dated. It's how the Military Industrial Complex keep the money floodgates to the Treasury wide open. Its like a subscription. The Campaign contributions keep it in place. Too many old people (I'm older than dirt) involved at all levels. Not a Visionary in the lot. Easy comparison the Corvette vs a Koenigsegg! Which one would you want in a gunfight!
Other than their victory over the Norwegian F-16s, The gripen was also able to defeat U.S. f-15s and Rafales in Red Flag exercises. All at less than half the cost of flying.
Eurofighters have also been defeated by Grippen...in red flag too
Never beated Rafale as I knw...bt Rafale has defeated Raptors 😇
I think Red flag is fake. I went to the casinos next to it
depends on the battlefield and circumstances, the Gripen E will be superior.
in some combat tests (exercises) coordinated between nations, we can have the clear conclusion that Gripen due to its technology has an advantage, dropping in proportions of 5: 1 against the F-16.
the Swedish fighter was developed for landing and taking off on roads and bases without structures so that the enemy cannot identify bases. can be quickly repaired and loaded with weaponry in 10 minutes.
Technically Gripen is superior but F-16s are thousands of units against a few hundred which would make direct combat difficult to beat and thus f-16 is a big advantage. but in 1x1 Gripen combat without a doubt.
The kd was 15:1 and that was 3 gripen's and 5 f16's
Yeah, that's totally made up. The F-16 is far superior to the Gripen.
@@SIoyvenheaven1T800m101 Lovely sarcasm there. 😂
@@scyphe From you 😂🤣
With thousands of planes you also need thousands of pilots...heard they dont grow on trees.
If somebody had made a presentation on this and if my buddies were also there with me, we would have started a 'Gripen,Gripen...' chant ;)
Gripen, as a fighter, clearly pawns the F16. I wish we had got these over the F35 for Australia. From a logistics and cost POV they would have been far easier to maintain and more versatile for the array of weapons available. STOL is a huge plus for us. Shame that we swallowed the F35 Kool Aid. Having said that, F35 with Link 16 and well developed avionics/HMI kit will be extremely effective with our domestically produced Boeing Ghost Bats.
Gripen over the f35? Better be cheaper because you would be replacing alot of them when they get smoked
Ive always loved the F16. But its out classed by the griffen. Being a Canadian ive thought that the military could be getting these jets instead of the lightning.
Being Canadian, your country is protected by the US military. So you don't really need to worry about it, do you?
F16 is a garbage man , an fossil ....much worse than GRIPEN E
Very good for the money too! And built in Canada By Canadians to the RCAF specs. Could be the best version of that design. Make it lighter with composites and a larger fuel tank for beter range....now we are talking. Go Canada get 88 of them!
Gripen E is the new fighter of Brazilian Air Force.
Brazilian fighters will be almost unbeatable...
@@LordBruuh You are provocating or just stupid?
The F16 was already 14 years old when the first Gripen flew in 1988. If the 14 older fighter would have been better than Gripen then it was big fail to Sweden.
The cost of the plane needs specification. Since the actual cost at the bottom line of the contract is the only number of interest, here's a couple of *recent* examples:
On 14 August 2020, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract by the US DoD that includes 66 new F-16s at US$8 billion ($9 billion in 2022) for Taiwan. That's $136 million per plane.
On November 2022 Bulgarian lawmakers voted to approve the purchase of eight F-16C/D Block 70 fighter jets for close to $1.3 billion. That's $162 million per plane.
In contrast, South Africa bought 28 Viggen for $53,5 million a piece. Most customers prefer to lease the planes.