I can’t speak to the Swedish Air Force, but I Can speak to their Army. In 2012-13 I was stationed at Camp Northern Lights in Mazar-E-Sharif, Afghanistan. I was one of 5 US military at the small base of about 300 people. When I first arrived it was a cultural shock learning that they not only work co-Ed but Live co-Ed. Then I was surprised at the lack of formality on base as everybody was on first name basis (They called me Air Force Steve) and the only troops actively armed were the front gate guards. I was Extremely nervous going Off base with the Swedes expecting the same relaxed attitude as on base. I was VERY WRONG!! It was as if they simply flipped a switch and they were Far more professional and seemingly experienced than the US Army I’d worked with in the past. After spending a year on the Swedish base, I wound Absolutely want to work with them again. I have No doubt their Air Force is just as good.
Indeed a cultural thing, that reminds me about when I in my youth was working in the Norwegian fishing industry. The island only had like 800 people in total, so partying with the foremen and fishing boats captains was the normal thing (we put the factory boss under the table more than once lol). At work though, well, that's work. Someone has to keep the ship together and on course, and that's the role of the captain. Hence he gets to call the shots regardless if he was sobbing in his beer on Saturday or spent Sunday with a pillow over his head. Same as for everyone else, that's his private business as long as it doesn't effect his work.
We're a _very_ informal people. Over here it would actually be a bit weird to use honorifics and surnames rather than calling people by their first name even if you don't know them very well. I imagine that even in the armed forces it would just feel too unnatural for us to be formal all the time.
Fun fact, the pilot doing the thumbs up att 5:28 is Marcus Wandt. He is also an ESA astronaut and it was just announced that he will be going to the ISS.
As a Brazilian, you have every reason to be. The Gripen is a fantastic bird and our dealings with SAAB have been absolutely fantastic so far. It is going to usher our Air Force into a new paradygm, so thank you. I just hope your Air Force also likes our KC-390, which is also a great bird. Anyway, cheers and congrats, dude!
Much of the way the Gripen is deployed is based on the experience with its predecessor, the Viggen. I’m glad the Swedes are getting into NATO. Their highly trained military is a bonus. They might be small in numbers, but punch well above their weight.
NATO should consider funding two additional Swedish Gripen squadrons to operate as part of the QRF. Ready for rapid deployment in support of ground forces. Note additional!
How do they "Punch above their weight"? Sweden has done nothing but be isolated post war they haven't punched anything above their weight. The Gripen is not some wonder weapon sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo superior to everything else, do try actually thinking
@@Svenne-man-1880 NATO-membership requires 2% of GDP, and Sweden expects to fund this till 2025, and there is a lot of countries in NATO that hasn't reached 2% of GDP yet as well. We do have some fine tech, CV90, Gripen, Archer-artillery system and our naval-force.
Regarding punching above one weight, for a country of less than 150 million the Russian Federation causes more anxiety and trouble than they deserve to.
@@mitseraffej5812 North Korea has a small population, much of it starving. Still causes a lot of anxiety. South Korea and America spend billions watching them daily.
You do have to buy the whole Swedish tactical concept, if you go for Gripen. I am from Denmark, and we bought the Draken. The Draken was originally a true fighter, but we needed a fighter -bomber back in 1970. SAAB changed the Draken accordingly, and it served us well, being popular in Denmark. So it is possible to make your own doctrine around the Gripen as well, suiting your contrys needs and resources. I like the Gripen, especially that they try to break the upward cost-spiral, but still making a very capable aircraft. A true frontline fighter-bomber. Well done SAAB/ Sweden😊
@@JimCarner The regular Gripen is already made with electronic warfare in mind. It's part of what makes it so good. Instead of focusing on expensive stealth, it has among the world's best EW capabilities
In a Swedish roadbase fighter base the goal was to have 4 jets on alert which means idealy 4 runways so they can quickly scramble intercept an enemy and fall back. The multiple runways isn't just about security against bombing it's also about getting many fighters in the air quickly. "Vägbas" is swedish for Roadbase, you can find some videos on UA-cam showing them back in Viggen era.
does anybody realize these highway strips are all cataloged and targeted as easily as any airfield? Sure, this was a good idea 30 years ago. But now? It's a logistical pain in the ass as well as being undefensible and a known facility. They tried to push this dead end fighter to Canada, without realizing there are no fucking highways in the far north.
@@PappyGunn Did you not watch the video? If you did, it would've cleared up your concerns. "Dead end fighter" as compared to all the domestically developed Canadian fighter jets?!🤣
@@PappyGunn You don't seem to understand how the bases are built or work. There are so many alternate stands on the bases it's not practical to strike the bases with precision weapons because you need an absurd ammount of missiles. Also the fighters don't take off from highways they take off from runway sections built into highways the highways are used as taxiways. This concept is also visibly working in Ukraine keeping obsolete Ukranian fighter jets fighting despite horrendous ods.
@@PappyGunn the dipersed airbases are too many for an enemies stock of weapons and many other roads can be used too. The logistics footprint of Gripen is the smallest in the world, so a logistic nightmare is only connected to other combat airplanes, of which F-22 is the worst.
Professor Bronk! I have observed his meteoric ascent through defence academe with avid interest. Well done sir! As always, incisive, persuasive and erudite. 👍👍
He seem to put a lot of confidence in this aircraft only because it gets to operate off highways by it owner and not on capability. This aircraft is so far behind the F-35 in capability it doesn't sell yet he avoids mention this. The only reason Brazil operates this machine is because they were not a trusted allie of the US and had to settle for 2nd best.
As an American who moved to Sweden in the early 1980s, Swedes are awesome: car mechanics, plumbers, electricians, doctors etc ... I have a sailboat, and all the guys in the marina are so damned competent in what they do, it's been a learning experience these last 40 years. I know quite a few Finns and Norwegians, and they are much the same. Being small countries (in population) means learning responsibility and having to step up and lead in something: from a local arts association to a corporation. Finally, I was a scout leader a while, and visiting US Boy Scout leaders at jamborees were flabbergasted that all of our troops are coed and that cohab tents are normal (but not required). The scouts can choose who to tent with, as it is usually all boys or girls when younger, but when they get older perhaps not. They learn responsibility early.
Swedish military have ben co-ed for a long time now. I did my military service back in 97, and even back then we had co-ed companies. In my company we were all men, but in the surrounding companies there were a couple of women. I think that the number of women have increased greatly since then., They (as in the women) are made aware that there are no separate showers or heads when joining, and they know what they are in for when they get there. In fact I would say it is initally the guys that are more embarrased than the girls, but that changes and normalizes quickly. I have never done missions abroad, but I was part of training the BA-04 (Yugoslavia) contingent going there. Some of the guys there were dowin in one of the previous missions and they told ut sthat one thing that sets Swedish soldier apart is the fact that most of them have "regular" occupations before they go. So when other camps/bases had issues with plumbing or electiricy or something else, they had to wait for it to get fixed, while the Swedish guys always had someone able to fix it on their own.
Regarding the relatively flat chain of command and higher responsibility further down the line, it's mostly based on a more practical attitude towards tasks and less of a blame-focused structure. If something goes wrong, the idea is to see what went wrong, how to prevent it, and how to move forward. Assigning blame isn't even necessary a lot of the time, and even if it is it's a low-priority concern. This leaves more room for low-level decisions, which also fosters better trust and cooperation.
It's actually a totally different view of command. US military uses a very top down control of it's military, including air force. Sweden uses mission based command where the highest ranked person on the spot is in charge and given a mission that he does as best as he can. Orders are considered suggestions while the mission is paramount. I USA the higher your rank the further you get from the front and pretty soon you end up on a desk even as a pilot. In Sweden a pilot can reach retirement while being a fighter pilot. There is no max rank for any job in Sweden's military, only minimum ranks.
@@znail4675 Definitely. It's a view that isn't on the command, but on the task. My view of it is the same. The closer you are to the actual job you need to do, the better you're able to understand what's necessary to accomplish it. If you're at a desk in a city far away you're much less likely to know exactly what's happening at any given location. However, you do have a better grasp of the overall situation, so you're more suited for coordination between different groups. The problem, especially in war, is that functioning communication isn't a given, and that's (partially) what the Swedish system tries to solve. This isn't just the military's view either. It's ingrained in the corporate structure as well.
Part of the Swedish military doctrine during the Cold War included things like "any message that mobilization is cancelled is false". Also, every infantry soldier were trained to work in guerilla/resistance mode with no central direction. This means everyone need to know the laws of combat (as they applied) for resistance and guerilla warfare, everyone need to know how to select a target. No one expected Sweden to withstand the full brunt of the Soviet army for any period of time, but being singled out the way Russia today singles out their neighbours was not part of the planning. And that I think is a key reason why Sweden now has to join NATO and not just depend on being "counter invaded" by friendly NATO forces, and also depend on the main Russian forces being occupied by the major war with NATO.
Could we have a video on the history of how Sweden developed these concepts? It really feels like something that a few visionary officers and theorists had to fight for, and I get the sense there's a great untold story here.
Swedish air force and how it developed. It is a story from post ww2. I think there are videos about it that do explain it but do check wikipedia for a start /Swedish_Air_Force. Tiny country but [from wiki] "During the Cold War large amounts of money (including funds intended for the Swedish nuclear weapons programme) were spent on the Swedish Air Force and domestic aircraft production. In 1957 Sweden had the world's fourth most powerful air force,[9] with about 1,000 modern planes in front-line service.During the 1950s, it introduced fighters such as the Saab J 29 Tunnan, Saab A 32 Lansen and Saab J 35 Draken." The economical burden of a tiny country economic to keep that amount of air force made us change military doctrine to the "these bases and then first thing to do is to disperse the resources (did go for all military resource) to a multitude of other small nowhere bases) was implemented. The possible "unknown enemy" (=> being the USSR and Warsaw pact was expressed officially that way) is some, a little bit different from other countries, post ww2 history . But do check wikipedia as a start and there are probably a lot of videos on youtube that explains it too.
This was comon thoughts after WW2. The German air force often couldn't get i the air, due to destroyed air strips. But they had the autobahn. Sweden didn't have any autobahn at the time, but made the very high capability jet fighter J-29 for use on grass fields, which made it demanding to land on air strips, causing the death of many pilots before their training was changed. Sweden, as a neutral country with the longest border to Soviet union(the Baltic sea), had no other choice than continue to use dispersed air bases, due to the fact that Soviet union could overrun Sweden in a short time. But Soviet union would be reluctant to do this as long as Sweden could continue to have air power after an invasion. When Soviet union collspsed, Sweden dismantled and sold the dispersed airbases, as well as shrunk the defence to less than minimum. But Gripen A was already made. Today the SWAF have dispersed air bases. Sweden have always destroyed their defence forces as soon as there is a temporary peace. Every peace have always been temporary, but fools have always thought it is infinite.
There was a fantastic documentary on the Viggen posted very recently. It goes over a lot of the history. I don't remember which channel, but just search for it and you'll certainly find it!
You may be surprised to know that Swedish companys works almost the same as the Swedish airforce. Flat organisation and decision making is done much more down in the organisation. I have worked with companys from GB and if i compare that to my country. My country uses a much more lean organisation with less peoples doing more. And have more responsability. It works the same in other branches army, navy etc. And if a group is cut of from the system (army for instance) for any reason . It will work autonomously and take own desicions, solving the tasks they got, and more. If you want to learn more you can read about Shootbat, Swedish FN soldiers in Bosnia.
O Allmost every young Swedish man did military service with different ranks and some with extra service to becom officer in the reserve. So when they entered their professional careers, they took their military leadarsvip with them and influeced the commercial companies.
The Swedish mission command culture is very effective when it comes to solve and complete mission but a nightmare for politicians since once given a green light there is nothing stopping it if the purpose of the mission is not fulfilled. Kosovo was a good proof of that.
Sweden and Finland have the rarity of having an effective air force that is set up to fight as they train. Their tactical, operational and strategic concepts are in harmony and adequately resourced to do the job. NATO air forces are often more like extensions of the USAF and USN, both of which are large expeditionary forces with correspondingly different cultures and priorities. Without having the budget and resources, these NATO air forces can't hope to match the Americans. While NATO may not be able to import the Swedish and Finnish model wholesale, there are certainly aspects to adopt and modify to suit local realities. An excellent summary and interview Chris.
The Swedish and Finnish dispersed basing models are built on the assumption of slowly losing ground to Russian numerically-superior armored forces, and making it drawn-out and painful so Russia is forced to the negotiating table and hopefully the defenders can preserve some of their territory. The mainland NATO force structure is built on winning through air superiority and air-land battle integration during the Cold, and Air Dominance and multi-domain warfare with net centric forces in the modern era. Finland has been in the process of shifting to dynamic defense in-depth with the modernization of their Hornets into deeper strike capable platforms. The strategic picture then focuses from defense on your heels, to "If you attack us, we hit your naval yards in Primorsk, your sub bases in Murmansk, and St. Petersburg is fair game. By the way, any Russian-flagged vessel in the Gulf of Finland gets pole-axed." This is an unprecedented strategic shift in defense posture for Finland. Sweden's main contribution here would be in the maritime domain, where they can participate in destroying Russian ships and subs for sport. It makes the dispersed basing concept for Sweden pointless, especially with modern IADS available through US/NATO IBCS and IAMD.
Yeah I don't understand why everyone is acting like this is an inherently wanted system. They have this essentially because they have to.. obviously there are benefits and things to be learned, but I think it's funny all the people that act like other countries should just ditch their whole previous model and adopt Swedens wholesale lmao
@@LRRPFco52 "The Swedish and Finnish dispersed basing models are built on the assumption of slowly losing ground to Russian numerically-superior armored forces, and making it drawn-out and painful so Russia is forced to the negotiating table and hopefully the defenders can preserve some of their territory." I can't speak for the ultimate goal of the Finnish strategic planning, but there are more nuances to the Swedish one than described here. The first and most important was to create a threshold effect, the cost of invasion should be so high that an attack never was committed to in the first place, as the gains shouldn't compare to the price paid for them. This is the same reasoning as Finland's NATO-membership: while the non-aligned Finnish forces probably could defeat a Russian invasion, deterring them from even trying is preferable. The second aim was to slow down the superior forces and funnel them into pre-defined areas where they could be halted and beaten. "Hejda, möt och slå". If that failed, the third aim was to prolong the conflict long enough that international help could arrive. Experience from other conflicts (like the Winter War) showed that organising and delivering such help would inevitable take time, and the Swedish defence could not be allowed to collapse in the mean time. Thus, it needed to be resilient over time, which was the third aim. Only if the above couldn't be achieved a negotiated peace would be considered, but that would be very difficult in a country where everyone from school age and above had been taught that any message that mobilisation should be aborted or resistance end per default were to be considered enemy propaganda and utterly ignored. "Om Sverige blir angripet av ett annat land kommer vi aldrig att ge upp. Alla uppgifter om att motståndet ska upphöra är falska." - Latest version of "Om kriget kommer". "varje meddelande om att motståndet skall ges upp är falskt. Detta land ger aldrig upp. Målet är alltid befrielse." - SOU 1984:10
@@johanmetreus1268 What invasion routes would Russia enter through to get to Sweden? I've been all over that region and there isn't one. Sweden knew it has Finland and Norway as buffers. The Russians can't even muster a Division up north, and even if they could, there is no mobility for one in Lapland. That terrain up there doesn't support movement of large forces, has almost no infrastructure, and is inhospitable year-round.
My absolute favorite aircraft. There is a mysticism about it and when it appears at the airshow it gives me goose bumps... And the sound of it...Just waoow.
I’ve always been a huge fanboy(or nowadays old fanman, since I’m in my 50s) of Swedish combat aircraft and air force doctrine. The Gripen E seems to be the most survivable and sustainable combat aircraft available, given its ease of maintenance, ease of rearming, ease of dispersion, lower purchase cost etc. I’m sure there will be others who disagree with me on this, but I’m talking from an Australian point of view where despite our huge geographical size we have limited airfields to operate our F-35As and F\A-18Fs\EA-18Gs from. I’m not disparaging our current aircraft, they are brilliant, and the best in the world at their task, but they are limited to certain bases(the Hornet and Growler a bit less so) which can be targeted by long range missiles. The same goes for our 2 major naval bases. We used to have a “Destroyer Tender”, which could act as a kind of mobile naval base(I did my seamanship course onboard HMAS Stalwart 35 years ago straight out of recruit school), so we could in theory disperse our navy to a degree provided no reconnaissance satellites existed…
As I remembered it when I read about the "Flygbas 90" - system we had 200 such bases. Each base was shaped as a triangle, with three different runways, connected as a triangle. Each runway was 2 km, making it 2 km + 2 km + 2 km = 6 km of runway. So even if one runway was destroyed you had two more that could be used. But also, since the Gripen only need 800 meters of runway you might still be able to use a damaged runway if it's not completely destroyed. I'm not 100% sure if my numbers are correct, maybe some wize ass will correct me, therefore I menation this. Anyways, you get the idea.. ;)
GoldRush not sure if you were military or civilian... any chance of you contacting the speaker/s if you were involved with Flygbas 90? their email will be in "about" page of UA-cam channel. Jason Bronk will be searchable on RUSI, UK website
I'll be the wize ass.. 😂 200 bases is an exaggeration. I would put it at 100 _planned_ for the "version" preceding Flygbas 90 - and a lot less actually completed. The fall of the Iron Curtain and all of what followed.. Also the "triangle shape" is not the case. The bases often have one main runway (wide enough for allowing for a pair of aircraft taking off together), maybe 1.5 to 2 km in length, and one to three additional strips that are narrower and about 800 meters in length. But the layouts vary a lot. Runways are working much better if they are flat ;-) , so the local terrain dictates a lot of the layout. Aside: A lot of air bases in the second world war _where_ triangle-shaped, as where some civilian airfiekds. That was because you wanted to take off and land into the wind - a requirement for many airplanes of the time eg large bombers. But not for fighters back then, and even less so today. Find lists of WW2 british airfields, locate their positions on a map, go to airial/sattelite view - and you will still see the remnants of the triagular bases for a lot of them. For Swedish dispersal bades: Anyone interested enough can find non-classified material online in completely open sources to get the numbers, names and locations of main and secondary dispersal bases, as well as road-strips, that has existed. The system has been around in different forms since the 1950s or early 1960s. As I recall, there has never been more than 100 dispersal bases, and the number is likely much lower now than in the past. This is a reflection of the Swedish Airforce going from having close to 1000 airplanes at its largest to now sport 100 or just above that.
The thing is, there are literally 1000s of places in Sweden where you have a strip of road about 1km long in a straight line, almost completely flat, and not so many obstacles around. Sure, it might not be in one of the major cities, but just 10-20km out, they are plentiful. Having the whole maintenance and logistical chain being mobile is THE biggest difference from other airplane systems. Like the fact that you can dismantle the Gripen engine RM12 in to 7 parts that you can replace individually if something is wrong. And then, each part weighs not much more than 200kg, which, even if cumbersome, is actually manageable with VERY basic tools, like ropes. The reason this is being brought up more and more, is that people see in Ukraine what war ACTUALLY looks like. The luxury of having mega-advanced dedicated airports for your Air Force might not be a given, except for maybe the US and Canada. Everyone else will, at the first signs of conflict, try and target these immediately. And once they are gone, your logistics will suffer. If you have not prepared for it to happen. This is why the Gripen is better than most of their competitors in a conflict like this. Not because it has better capacity than an F-16 or an F-35. But you will be able to FLY with it. Airplanes are useless on the ground...
@@johns70 Modular engine parts? Everybody's got them. Where is the second and third line support? As for being better than the F16 or F35, we'd have to look at combat record. Which the Grippen doesnt have one.
@@johns70 As they talked about in the video, you have to build your whole logistical system around dispersed airfields/roads, and not just the plane. Most planes can use a highway as a runway if they have to, but it does not help much if maintenance, ammo and fuel systems are not designed to operate from such places. You could use Finland as an example. They use(d) the F-18 from such places, and the F-18 is not specifically designed to operate from such small airbases/roads, but can do it as long as their ground logistics is. This system would not work in the US or UK unless you change their whole doctrine and logistics.
The Gripen is beautifully designed and built for purpose. It's the perfect fighter for the airspace of Sweden and much of Scandinavia. A very good aircraft.
... yeah I dont agre about Scandinavia , if that was fact Norway & Denmark would buy it too , but they went first for F16 then F35A , and reason is simple , Gripen biggest flaw is Sweden , as Sweden is just too small country to supply parts to state that is in war , Poland in early 2000 had chose Gripen , Mirage or F16 and chose F16 simply because USA is ony super power and have build over 4000 F16 at the time , so there was a loot of parts around & ammonition and as Poland was in NATO fact that many NATO states have use F16 was reason why Poland have chose F16 , Gripen in Europe was chosen by Hungary & Czech Republic = states that dont border any enemy state , and now there is only bit over 300 gripens vs 4600 F16 , in my opinion is not even good idea to sent those to Ukarine as Sweden will quickly run out parts , and in reality how many Gripens could be delivered ? max 56 C/D from Sweden and Czechia , but Czechia will get F35 around 2032 so they need those 14 Gripens , and Sweden will wait for all Gripens E to 2029 , and as Swedish gov stated they need to have 100 Gripens C/D/E and right now they have 70 C , 24 D , 2 E = 96 , so Sweden miss 4 Gripens , in relity Sweden could send 18 Gripens in 2026 , is too little to late in my opinion , better to train Ukrainian pilots for F16 and F/A 18 there is plenty of those out there .
Very insightful. I find it mind blowing that a part 3 trainee RN FAA equivalent can be lead in a dispersal maintenance group by a 3 year experienced tech unreal. And as mentioned would need a huge culture change to effect it in the uk. When people talk about smaller more flexible forces in the modern fighting era THIS is what it looks like but goes back to the architecture of the Gripens design to make this happen. Soooo much to learn from here yet I do t feel the UK would have a militarily political appetite to make such a step change.
It's a little bit ironic that the swedish approach is originally based on the conclusions drawn from the Battle of Britain (combined with the Mission-Command tactics of Cold War Sweden, where it was expected that the central command system would be wiped out quite soon, if not in the first strike, so all forces, from air wings to infantry platoons needed to be able to work autonomously if needed).
@@lavrentivs9891 and the west often criticise how robotic the Chinese and Russian military are … if you think about it, even though pilots and aircrew have a degree of autonomy when the C&C is gone it will fall apart relatively quickly. So this system really does hold water from a defensive posture proposition. Thanks for the information. The UK AirPower really is now reliant on static runways for our fast jets… and even the night F35B is heavily dependent on a strict maintenance regime. Suddenly in this scenario the mighty Harrier looks like a great proposition after all.
I think one of the main reasons are because of conscription. The higher performing you are as a person, the likelier that you will end up in a job where that's key. We've got almost a hundred years of conscription behind us, so the system has been worked on for a long time. Far from perfect, of course, but works fairly well. With voluntary service, a lot of those guys and girls just go straight to higher education, whilst in Sweden there's a decent chance they will serve for 9-15 months before that.
@@TzunSu interesting. Thank you. It’s a fact “usually” that conscription doesn’t yield quality so your view also makes a lot of sense. A really clever and well conceived idea at solving a real problem. This deployment strategy and ideology really does take a lot into consideration (from a ground crew perspective I’m talking about) and having conscripts be up to speed really rather quickly with a limited tools store available and taking into account someone who has not volunteered really … I guess there is an in built pride about protecting that beautiful country also.
When I think of the British armed forces and their culture, I recall seeing soldiers on guard duty at a barracks wearing urban camouflage and fluorescent bibs.
Hi Chris, just wondering if are going to look into Sweden's Special Missions / Supporting Aircraft such as the Erieye, SIGINT and ELINT along with the incoming Globaleye. I was wondering how it supports operations and how it relates to BAS 90. The key reason why I am asking, in an earlier video you have touched on the 'Swedish Mindset' and am wondering how it relates. Another great video, thanks Chris and Crew!
Nice! i learned some new stuff about our awesome air force. In a radio doc released recently the theme was all the swedish pilots dying in the training excercises during cold war. 600 died between 1955-1990. In the fifties 2 pilots died every month, just excersicing! (And off course they were developing the planes,so they were unstable at times)
The main reason for all the deaths were that the Swedish airforce trained “as if in war”. That meant flying 10 meters above water or 20 meters above land. Sure airplanes would have bugs in the first few years but that’s the same for all planes ever built.
Especially in this condensed format, really makes me wonder how effective this style would be for Ukraine in the near future. Gripens could be a very interesting combination of the Ukrainians manufacturing capabilities with Swedens. Interesting possibilities and ideas
I would say it's pretty much ideal. Their situation is very similar to Ukraine. Russia is the main and only real threat, and we expected the same kinds of weapons used against Ukraine.
In the _near_ future, not effective at all. Spare Gripens basically don't exist - SAAB has built less than 300 of them in total, and the vast majority of airframes which exist are currently in active service with the air forces that have bought or leased them (unlike European F-16s, the Gripens _aren't_ already in the process of being replaced and retired). And while SAAB says they could start delivering new-build Gripens to a new customer in 18 months, 1) that's not really near-term for Ukraine anymore, as they're in a shooting war right now; and 2) that would almost certainly require the Swedish Air Force to agree to accept delayed deliveries of the aircraft they themselves have ordered. Actually setting up a factory to build Gripens in Ukraine right now is probably a non-starter, as very little of Ukraine is outside the range of Russian missile strikes launched from outside the range of Ukrainian air defenses and a brand-new fighter production facility would be a very high priority target - and also, that's a project that would literally take several years (the only place outside if Sweden where it's been done, Brazil, it took almost 10 years to go from selecting Gripen as their winning bid to finally starting the production line). In the _long-term_ future, building a Gripen factory might be a good move for Ukraine (assuming they can afford an all-new fighter force once the war is over and they have to start rebuilding _everything else_ that's been wrecked in the Russian invasion). In the medium term, assuming the Swedish government decides to cancel or delay their own air force expansion plans, it might be possible for the Ukrainian Air Force to get good use out of a few squadrons' worth of Gripens (though keep in mind that Ukraine, as an ex-_Soviet_ air force, is likely to be even worse-prepared for Swedish-style operations than NATO air forces). In the near future, though? The airplanes would have to come from somewhere, and that can't possibly be Ukraine itself for at least several more years.
@@Philistine47 Also worth remembering is that SAAB doesn't make Gripen C's anymore either, since they're migrating over the the E/F model, which would likely be a further time sink. Much more capable aircraft, for sure, but it will probably be some time until production rate is up to C levels. Any aircraft given in the next year or so would absolutely have to be donated stock from current airforces, at least the majority of them.
@@Philistine47 Fair points on the immediate future. Definitely appreciate some of the other background too. Top notch 👍 3 things the Ukrainians did very well at during the Soviet era and even afterwards. Build tanks, planes, and a lesser degree ships (nowhere near like Poland as example). All steel making industrial types, and seems like they have excelled at it, from a less than adequately informed American perspective. The place I'm coming from is more utilization of those steel making skills, and post-war Marshallesque rebuilding while self arming. An example would be working with IDF on helping manufacturing tanks to their specs and style of troop protection first, maybe as frames and basics FOR them and being able to restart the manufacturing base. A co-op style where Ukraine gets some updated designs that they can build many components for other countries and use themselves as part of eventual NATO integration. Dutch style mine sweepers as another. Maybe Ukrainian hulls in trade of designs and help integrating weapon systems. And in this case, Gripen airframes? Or such? Basically so it wouldn't be a free ride for either party, while improving quality and conditions in the country, same time as providing basic jobs and infrastructure while providing the ability to defend themselves in the future. The long term commitment to the Swedish style of rapid deployment and mobility could very well suit the Ukrainians in the future with proper transitioning. Something tells me their people are going to become a more modern fiercely independent version of Poland. Maybe they will choose to go the Gripen route, or just borrow a bunch of the theory and make their own path forward. Still a bunch of interesting possibilities.
Not a short time solution at all. Gripens don't exist in sufficient numbers. Ukraine doesn't have the funds to purchase the numbers they need even if they could wait for them to be built. Lastly, I don't see a reality at this time where Sweden would sell the Gripens to a non-NATO Ukraine.
There is a certain irony in this video ending with the observation that NATO's current process is about saving money and resources. Because, of course, this is a clip from a longer video posted earlier. To be sure, there are lots of folks that will watch this 12 minute video but skipped the longer hour-ish video, so this does help reach a larger audience. But still - the main reason for recycling footage is to create a new episode for minimal cost in time, staff and money. Now, I'm not criticizing! I enjoyed revisiting this subject. But it does make Dr. Bronk's final comments amusing and ironic. :)
Absolutely right Justin. From the beginning I say that the Swedish military model is the ones that fits more with Ukraine today needs. Like the Archer howitzer too.
As for Max Defense Philippines articles said the armed forces of the Philippines especially the Philippine Air Force selected the Jas Gripen of Saab and the contract will be soon be inked by the two government and hopefully will be flying in the Philippine sky soon!♥️
Would love to see Canada move toward a more independent defense system using dispersal models, and maybe even incorporating a mandatory milita element like Switzerland. In our age of not even being able to agree on what is reality, I think a grounding, universally shared service experience would be a damned good thing.
Look at what Sweden does and thinking “that’s cool” shouldn’t mean you should follow the same idea. Sweden has this heavily dispersed system because what they’re designed for is defending against attack from the East. If you want Canadas military to set up to defend against attack then sure, go for it, but you have to build the entire military around that. It just isn’t a realistic threat anyway - no one is likely to want to invade Canada, it’s just too big and millions of lakes and trees aren’t that appealing.
As of 2023-07-15 Thumbnail text does not match video content, thumbnail says “everyone talks about this plane (but no one is buying)” but video itself talk about the Swedish Airforce and how they are organized and is not about the fighter jet and why it is not getting any sales.
It must also be mentioned that most of Europe will act as a single nation in case of "stress". This means that we can both co-locate AND disperse different flight types and relatively quickly provide combined and layered air defence to, at least, the highest prioritized airfields. I am sure the Finnish and Swedes will continue with these dispersed fields (it is impressive) - but we are already deep in talk of a Nordic combined air command. We have trained this for over a decade in the Nordic "Arctic Challenge" exercise (with other invited nations). Here, complex coordinated and layered operations are trained with air wings launching from Norway, Sweden and Finland - at times coordinated with B-52s and B1s launched from i.e. Spain and the UK. I have said welcome to our Finnish friends before - time to wish you Swedes welcome to the Organisation too. It is going to be exciting to see how we friendly families will develop cooperation together - as we are really good at doing that in every other part of society, even the military despite the two of us where neutral, one both Sweden and Finland are truly homologated and NATO operational (something that will not take long at all because of own Nordic cross-training and of course through the NATO Partnership program. I can only imagine the brightest in the 3 high commands of Norway, Sweden and Finland are already sitting with the brightest in NATO right now - since the logistics of our own manoeuvring ability is completely changed - and obviously the logistics of NATO rapid and supporting deployment in crisis is also radically changed. My guess - some secure NATO com-systems and com terminology must be made second nature - and your Forward Air-Traffic Controllers probably need some courses, as all sorts of aircraft from all sorts of nations with all kinds of bombing profiles will come to aid, requiring the best of the best guiding them. And this is of course before we consider that our ability to aid our friends in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Polen is also radically changed from a NATO perspective. I know this is not a political debate - but it is worth mentioning - The Nordics are losing a bit of political wiggle room. The Nordic nations were always excellent at deciding who should take the lead in different conflicts or situations where some diplomacy could be needed because we could choose "a neutral state is probably best here (send someone from Finland or Sweden), an allied can probably do more good over there (send the Danes or the Norwegians) - with Iceland as something in between (allied but also practically demilitarized). PS - I have always respected and seen the logic of the historic reasoning of Sweden and Finland - being opposed to the logic of Norway Denmark and Iceland being one of the founding members. We share deep history, but we got each other's back. You in Sweden and Finland looked east and South-East. We in Norway and Denmark looked more south to the northwest. But I am thrilled to have you aboard. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden combined are a substantial force of well-trained and very high-tech anger in a not-so-small and sparsely populated area near the Arctic Circle. Rest assured - you are embraced into the flock of NATO. Norway and Denmark have made sure that NATO knows that what is "written on the tin" from Nordic nations is an absolute minimum standard, militarily speaking. We have all pulled that sledge both diplomatically and by softer Q/EoF standards. After "digging" what we do well in Scandinavia/the Nordics - let me finish with this wish. Let us work hard for Ukraine to become the 33rd member ASAP. You as Swede Viking variants were implied in lighting the lantern of the Kyiv-Rus empire long before Moscow was even built. Just because Russia held a whole lot of nations, and hostages, during the time of the Soviets, does not mean that they were culturally grown from modern Russia, Tsars and communists included. I do not like people who kidnap children. Russia has by force kidnapped ca 20,000 Ukrainian children to do their classic "Russification". That is not happening again - while I look at the UK and the US who signed a commitment to protect Ukraine in the Budapest accord in 2004 with Russia and Ukraine. We have a LOT of heavy lifting to do here - so we will lift it with all our friends. Words need to be hyperbolic since Kremlin does not really understand words, as we know. Last night they bombed civilian Kyiv again, probably because of Stal....Putin got angered at the NATO summit again. Kremlin does what Kremlin is.
As for coms systems,most of the swedish systems are already NATO compatible, as it was pretty much a prerequisite to decades of active participation in both PFP and, as invitee OP-for in Red Flag exercises 😊 In addition, the SAAB 39 uses mainly NATO standard ordnance, sometimes also availiable modified with our own twist, such as the primarily ground-launched Rb-17 short range anti-ship missile, which is essentially a US hellfire missile modified with an APFRAG warhead instead of the HEAT warhead of the original.
@@SonsOfLorgar The cool thing with the modified Rb-17 is that it's a man portable anti-shipping missile. It's used by the Swedish marines skulking around on islands to sink landing crafts.
This video made me think of the Israeli air force, where youth is emphasized for fighter/strike pilots, where AIUI, pilot training begins as teenagers, and pilots are considered 'old' by 30. A comparison between this and the much more deliberate Swedish model would be very interesting!
The majority of NATO members do not have a military with large amounts of interchangeable hardware like the big 4 (US, UK, France, Germany). Sweden brings a lot to the table when it comes to doing more with less.
@@captin3149 For countries in war and wihch has attacked their neighbours and for very undemocratic countries. And sins parts in the engine is from US they refuse saab to sell the planes to countries they might as well sell their own
Perhaps I missed something but having a system where very experience/educated and specific personnel are always required (hands on or supervisory); conjures the image of a 'glass cannon' -what happens when you are actually fighting a near peer and taking significant casualties? Procedures and regs do confine intuitive and adds lag/bloat but the built in guardrails probably significantly reduces the drawbacks of putting fresher personnel/replacements into action.
*"conjures the image of a 'glass cannon' -what happens when you are actually fighting a near peer and taking significant casualties?"* During the Cold War did Sweden have the 4th largest air force in the world. It could absorb heavy losses. And Gripen is a cheap plane, and if Russia shots down 200 planes can we always easily afford to build 200 more. It is a plane with high levels of safety, and if a pilot eject he is likely to land over Swedish territory and being able to fight another day. Draken, Viggen and Gripen were all built with the idea in mind that a Soviet invasion would mean fighting a numerically superior foe and suffering heavy losses even if we managed to score a high kill ratio. And say that we managed to shot down 10 or 15 enemy planes for every plane we lose. Then would our losses still be heavy. And if they have not been shot down by enemy planes would they likely be ready for scrap after 1 year has passed after all the air-to-air combat missions, ground attack missions and reconnaissance flight sorties. So the system was always counting on heavy losses. So no its not a glass gun - on the contrary.
@@nattygsbord That is extremely unrealistic. 15 or even 10 to 1 Kill/loss ratio against a near peer is fantastic -as in it is a fantasy, not even the US could do that without a massive surprise first strike. Cost of building new planes is irrelevant if your factories are blown up and supply chains disrupted. And pilots are hardly the only weak point -perhaps the biggest one is the ground/maintenance crews; you can have several trained pilots for each plane but personnel/tools/equipment for repair/maintenance are likely to be extremely limited. In the vid; he noted that even mundane things like early retirements are threats...can you imagine what combat attrition or even accidental injury/death would do to a squadron's readiness? and those effects would apparently be medium-long term issues.
Both the Czechs and the Hungarians have extended their Gripen leasing deals while awaiting American planes. Lockheed Martin has a very competitive and aggressive sales strategy, in most every Gripen video i saw on UA-cam there are trolls trash talking Gripen and glorifying F16/F35, very often completely out context.
In case of Finland, Gripen was first bidded against F-18's and then against F-35's. One might think that Gripen would have the edge on these bids, being built for dispersion from beginning, as Finnish Air Force had the dispersion in it's core already in the cold war (when they operated Mig's and Drakens from these road bases). But clearly it is not so. However, unlike other European militaries, Finland has conscription so the Air Force has apt manpower (in total some 60 000 troops, if I remember correctly).
@@johtajakansio Defense cooperation was one of the criteria but in both instances we were told that the most capable platform was selected. I have no reason to doubt that.
"One might think that Gripen would have the edge on these bids" Weeeell.... considered the Swedish undependability in other military materiel projects (think the AMOS is a best documented online), ranging from counter purchases never being made to Sweden unilaterally dropping out, that edge might smaller than first perceived.
By the time Finland got their F/A18s in 1995 the Gripen hadnt even entered service 1996. The Finnish goverment also said that they wanted Fighter jets already in service and not a prototype aircraft hence why the Hornet was choosen
In the first case, Gripen wasn’t ready, since the decision for Hornet was made already in 1993. In the second case, it’s more likely that the benefits of stealth and other capabilities outweighed the advantage Gripen may have in STOL performance and ease of maintenance. Mind you that the F-35 is not bad at these things either. Also to note, the war time organization of the FiAF is not 60 000 troops, but something like 20-30 000ish, with the rest being spares.
@@yxeaviationphotog The problem is that the service equipment F-35 needs is still rather a lot and bulky making it both a large investment to be able to fly from more then one airfield and difficult to transport it around. A single landing, rearm and refuel is no problem, but doing regular maintenance is another issue.
The road-bases, and the design concept behind our fighter jets, is a result of how our society works in general. It's just the most clever way to do things. Give people responsibility, at all levels. Give them stability, in their lives. As for the cost of dispersed bases: You still need the roads, for normal traffic. And as the Romans realised 2000 years ago, it's better if they're straight.
Didn't the RAF use to run a more dispersed system with its Harriers? I remember thinking how they are losing a lot of capacity from this (I do not believe they are planning this with the F35b are they?).
People often forget the key thing when dispersing is to need as little as possible to do so. It's easy to think that Harriers or F-35B needs so little runway that it makes them ideal, but there is no real shortage of short road strips in most countries making the difference between needing 800 or 400m relevant. What is more important is how much equipment the plane needs for service. Gripen is specifically designed around everything it needs for service is mobile and all of it fits inside one C-130. This is on a different magnitude then other planes when it comes to how much it needs.
When one considers Ukraine's current & projected position regarding air power & it's protection from attack, whilst maintaining operational efficiency, Sweden's model appears to be a significantly more comfortable fit than that of the US, UK, or NATO as a whole.
Probably. But Ukraine will need time to build an effiecent Gripen organisation. It will take time even if you cut away unnecessary crap from the education like aerial refueling, and anti-ship duty. Ukraine is not like Sweden in that regard that it is not covered in forests where you can hide. But less than 15% of Ukraine is covered in forests. And yes Ukraine is a big country with lots of places to hide, but it might be more difficult to extract the same benefits as Sweden would get from this system. But having a good fighter is what Ukraine needs - and that it gets with Gripen, and its dispersed basing is just a bonus. Perhaps even more interesting to me is the high sortie rate with Gripen compared to other planes. A rude joke says that Gripen is the King of dispersed baseing and high numbers of sorties. While F35 is the hangar Queen. 😂
My understanding is the biggest concern in the F-16 vs. Gripen calculus (presuming Gripens are truly on the table for Ukraine) is the difficulty and expense of maintaining the F-16 without a centralized command, Russia will be scouring the country hunting for even a hint of this logistical hub and hitting it could quickly cripple them. Also, the smaller wings and unstable design of the F-16 I hear makes it quite finicky to land, requiring long, smooth runways without any debris that could jump into that big intake under the nose.
@@theamazingbatboy Gripen is even more unstable than the F-16, but both use the same remedy: digital flight control, where the computer will keep the plane as steady as needed.
After the French led NATO intervention in Libya I read an Aviation Weekly article that suggested the Gripen was largely ineffectual due mainly to communications and weapons load incompatibilities. In your video, did I see a meteor missile being loaded? What "lessons learned" have been implemented and how many different weapons have been qualified, and in what quantities are those weapons available, in other NATO member arsenals?
Gripen was the first aircraft to live fire the meteor missile despite joining the program late , I can only speculate that having a digital backbone it works very much like a smart phone , as in if you download the app for your weapon of choice (and it fits on the wings) your good to go. In theory it should be able to use any weapon system designed for a fighter aircraft. Dunno about the comms. issues some speculated that it would be easier to just bolt the link16 system on the outside then integrate it
As a Swede, I always wondered why buyers of the F-35 didn't just get a few of them in model B flavor, for dispersed operations. I guess this video explains why that is very hard to do, and why the Model B might not be a good plane for dispersed operations. It would be interesting to see an analysis of that. Why the model B might, or might not, be suited for that.
The F35B can't carry as much ordnance or fuel if you want to use the STOVL features. Therefore there's no point to buy the more complex and expensive B.
@@tituslaronius If carrying ordinance and fuel is the only factor to consider,, why not use a long haul trailer??? Edit: Just to clarify,, range and ordinance is kind of pointless if you don't have a runway to take off from. Which is kind of the whole point of dispersion, that you will have some kind of capability to send a plane into the air. The F-35B might not have the range and loadout of the bigger siblings, but it will be able to take off from whatever is left of a bombed out runway. (hopefully)
@@tituslaronius Never stopped the Harrier. The whole point of STOVL operations from a Forward Operating Base is that you're much closer to the front line in the first place. Sorties are much shorter and more rapid. The F-35's general expense and complexity is the more likely bigger issue there. It'd be a gamble to put them so much closer to harms way.
All I have to say is WELCOME SWEDEN to NATO! I think it was a long time ago this should have happened but glad it's finally happening. It will be interesting I'm sure for the militaries to start working together in the MANY training exercises that will happen over the coming years, and the best part is all the participants learn from each other to create an ever improving force. And this is the part where citizens of countries might not understand very well. They'll hear on the news about mishaps, along with the negatives that the media likes to cover without understanding what goes into making a premiere fighting force like NATO and the different countries' military forces. I'm sure this is true in all NATO countries because the military doctrine for development and improving is the same no matter what country it is. Fighting styles may vary slightly but the underlying methodology of force development and training with other countries and learning from those exercises is the same. There is a lot of emphasis on lessons learned and implementing that into strategy. On a ship we did exercises with different countries and most people on a ship are very busy working 12 hour days and trying to get enough sleep to really learn about how we train with other forces and how everything is documented to create new strategy. I was lucky in that I worked on systems in CIC so I dealt with a lot of officers who were involved in fighting the ship and I could chat with them from time to time so I could understand what they were doing. Of course you don't bother them in the middle of training exercises but after you're done for the day and people are more relaxed the conversations flow pretty easily. It was fun for me working up in that world of Combat, and even getting out to the bridge and talking to the Navigation Officer, once again when things were more quiet. And of course you can't have long conversations because they have a job to do even when things are quiet. But because I was a senior tech I could walk into spaces and ask how everything was working and have many brief conversations. I worked with computer systems and other electronics while I was in and really enjoyed the work. But 20 years was enough for me. I did get tired in the last 5 years of going out to sea, working long days, sleeping in a room with 40 - 80 other people, etc........ From the US, retired Navy.
As a Canadian who grew up studying jets and military history, I was surprised Sweden wasn't part of NATO and hoped they'd one day join. Now it seems a few months off.
Sweden holds the world record in peace, as no country have stayed out of a war for such a long time as Sweden. So I hope we don't see another George W Bush, Tony Blair or Francois Hollande sabotage our world record with starting another stupid war
Professor Bronk is the Energizer Bunny of Military analytics! 0.00 dude asks one question,... 0:21 Professor Bronk Starts Speaking, 11:21 Professor Bronk stops,.. there were several breaths in there.
The reason why no one buys it is because the social media claims don’t match up to reality. The reality is that it’s a very limited fighter without the backing of a massive spare part and maintenance network. The radar is limited compared to higher end aircraft and even with smaller maintenance team requirements it still needs a system to maintain the sensitive components.
People spreading bs like you isn’t as big problem as you think. Let me guess, you are a big mouth Merkin! In many ways the Gripen E is superior to f35, just like the Gripen is superior to f16.
Gripen have the same radar as Eurofighter - a radar capable of detecting stealth planes. The only difference between Gripens and Eurofighters radar, is that Gripen have an upgraded better version of it.
@@nattygsbord That's a major red flag considering that the Eurofighter Captor-E has been a clustertruck of F-35 proportions. Gee, the Gripen radar has the same basic design as the Eurofighter's Captor, which has been begging for the AESA replacement for like 15 years?
The Swedish dispersed model only makes sense for frontline NATO states bordering Russkieland, such as the Baltics, Poland and Romania. If the Baltics combined their resources they should be able to support 12 Gripens, with 4 each, operated interoperable across their combined territory.
Because it's a jet for contesting air power rather than to actually enable the ground forces. If you're going to buy a fighter jet, why would you buy the one that gives your opponent the initiative? That's just a waste of money and you're better served by doubling down on anti-air systems if that's going to be your strategy.
Might be worth mentioning that SwAF, & Gripen, also has it's own datalinks, TILDS, designed specifically for their purpose.. Nowadays it's compliented by Link-16. But TILDS looks more like where F-35's MALDL took it's inspiration from.. & TILDS is moving to a new generation with Gripen E/F..🤔
@@andersmalmgren6528 Still nothing special about it. Just because Sweden was first does not mean Sweden is best. USSR was first to us composite armor on their tanks, do you think their composite armor is any good? The quality of your datalink is determined by how much data it can transfer. TILDS is a standard omnidirectional datalink. Easy to intercept, and incapable of transferring vast amounts of data. Its comparable to Link-16. MADL by contrast is a completely different animal.
With NATO membership, the Swedish model would, rather ironically, be less applicable to Sweden as they are now completely surrounded by allies. Finland, Poland, Ukraine and perhaps some of the smaller NATO states would definitely benefit from the ideas and practices behind it though. Interesting video, also lots of good Gripen video... you know what we like! 😁
nah. Europe is giving up on the idea of combined arms and are transitioning to the kind of grind heavy, artillery duels we're seeing in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Notice the disregard for coordination between regiments and units in the interview. Combined arms are pretty much headed out the door.
@@Humorless_Wokescold Lol, no. Even in atritional combined artillery war, you still havr combined arms. Combined arms are not heading out, they are here to stay. But what is important to realise is, that you can build yout combined arms force differently, focusing on different arms.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 Attritional, artillery heavy warfare is defined by its lack of cooperation between systems and units. It precludes it in the long term. Look at the situation in Ukraine. Both sides have devolved to using tanks as self-propelled artillery and SOF as assault infantry. In fact, it's one of the biggest points of tension between NATO trainers and "NATO-trained" Ukrainian soldiers. But even setting that aside, what capability does the Gripen actually provide? Why buy a Gripen instead of investing in stronger anti-air systems and mass producing attack helicopters?
@@Humorless_Wokescold Mate, it is still combined arms. If there was no combined arms in Ukraine, by either side, this war would be over by now. There is no war without combined arms.
@@Humorless_Wokescold Gripen actually gives Ukranians ability to perform offensive air mission, giving them chance to take over initiative from Russians in air. Air defence cant do that (and there is big if can west can produce enough, so stronger anti air is possible not even a option). Attack helicopters on other hand will mostly stay out of game for Ukraine until day Russian air force and air defence get countered, for which again you need air force.
Very interesting to see how they work and the differences to other air forces. I'm wondering, about the format, is that a glitch in the editing application that makes speakers suddenly zoom in and out every few seconds? It's awfully distracting.
So now that we have justin on. When will we go full circle and see either you or Ward Carrol on each others channel? Gotta get you somehow into a F-14...
Before all the F-35 fan boys start piling in: The Gripen is designed to be a defensive fighter with high survivability in the opening days of a hot war with Russia. This means dispersed basing and pop up and kill type missions. If you need to reach out and strike within SAM contested enemy territory their are better options which demand a much larger logistical and industrial footprint. When used as intended, the Gripen system will give you more missions per day and airframe than the F-35. If that is what you need.
Directly disproven by the Finnish evaluation. This is the new "hurr durr drag makes the Gripen have better climbrate than F-16" (also proven to be a lie BTW).
Exactly, where in the Finnish procurement assessment is my statement disproven? I remember the F-35 winning by outperforming the Gripen in most other areas, but not in sortie production. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@@johanlassen6448 Well we don't actually know the Finnish evaluation results in detail. So said evaluation proves nothing to us mere mortals *directly* other than choice of Finnish Airforce to prefer F-35 for their needs as overall choice in their evaluation. Everything else is reading tea leaves or say watching wolfs fight under a carpet and then only one emerging out. We saw the carpet ripple around a lot, but we really don't know what went down. It comes down to "Finnish tax payers have to trust Finnish Airforce did good honest job for the best of the country, since classification requirements are such to make it impossible for Finnish Airforce to openly tell how they came to their conclusion". As I remember certain parlamentarians got to see the raports for oversight purposes and that is about it.
@@davedeville6540 The F-35 outperformed or performed equally to all other competitors in all regimes. That means that, at best for you, the F-35 had an equal sortie production (or at least equal capability to bring weapons to target). At worst it was outright better.
Also worth noting that the Gripen is really cheap to operate, something like $5k per hour compared to $20-25k per hour for the F35. Swedes operate very lean.
The USAHEC has a lecture posted on UA-cam entitled "Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession." I highly recommend it because it touches on institutional aspects that Professor Bronk notes here. Basically the issue in the US Army is that there is so much mandatory training that doing all of it would chew up your entire work day, so soldiers simply lie and claim that they did the mandatory training. What does this have to do with risk taking? Well, quite often this mandatory US Army training is triggered by some people being stupid. Someone gets a DUI while on leave. Or some soldiers drink a mystery substance they think is booze but is actually antifreeze (an actual story that happened at Fort Bliss a few years ago). Then a new mandatory training is added to tell everyone something any sane person already knows: don't drink and drive or drink random substances. This won't stop stupid people from being stupid, of course, but it does gum up the system make it harder for regular people to do their jobs properly since they have constantly do pointless paperwork (I see this in American education all the time, btw, so this is not just a military thing). I wonder if a reason that Nordic societies are able to have a high percentage of their GDPs be in the public sector while still having efficient economies is because these societies remain meritocratic (i.e. they might have a large welfare state, but this does not mean that time and resources are wasted trying to protect inept people from their own poor decisions). This might explain how a country like Sweden that much of the world thinks is "Socialist" can have a decentralized air plan that requires and rewards personal initiative.
With changes in the economy leading to instability in the stock market, some individuals may face a decrease in their investments in an effort to benefit from the current market conditions, I am considering liquidating my $725k portfolio consisting of bonds and stocks. Someone else in the same situation? Please tell me in the comments!..
would suggest you thoroughly evaluate the companies you have invested in and their estimated future performance, as we may expect to see the market decline further. To minimize stress and improve efficiency, it might be wise to seek the assistance of an investment advisor to help restructure your portfolio and identify any underperforming investments to offset. This approach has been successful for me and has reduced my stress levels.
@@Reymason317 I have been exploring the possibility of utilizing advisors to help navigate the stock market during these uncertain times. However, I am still evaluating their potential effectiveness in providing the support I need.
@@carlorodriguez771 Christy Val D'souza is an esteemed coach known for her proficiency in her area of expertise. You probably might have come across her. I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and i reached out to her afterwards. She has since provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can carry out a quick internet research on her name for more info. I basically follow her market moves and haven’t regretted doing so...
@@Reymason317 I was considering changing my investment strategy and planning to sell certain positions. As my retirement is coming soon,I became increasingly stressed. After thoroughly researching Christy Val D'souza on internet, I concluded that I had made an informed decision. Thank you for this Pointer. She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her too.
There's a profound sense of awe and wonder that overtakes you. Reality becomes magical, it becomes mystical. What was the mundane and the ordinary like a kitchen knife, a fork, a glass of orange juice, a piece of bread, a tree, a dog on the sidewalk, a car, these things were all taken for granted. But now with breakthroughs into mystical consciousness you realize the true nature of all these things and how miraculous and amazing they truly are and you stop taking them for granted. So even the most mundane and simple things stop being boring, they become interesting, they become profound, they become spiritual experiences for you. You can look at a fork and start to cry because you realize how amazing the existence of a fork is.🍴🍸🍞🌳🐕🚗
Air forces don't seem to like lightweight fighters, even though they have a lot going for them. The same thing happened to the F20 Tigershark, the Folland Gnat etc.
Gripen is a lightweight fighter but I don't think of it as such. I rather think of the big two engine fighters as heavy fighters. And I believe that being heavy comes with a cost. Likewise do two engines come with a cost. I believe that most of the succesful fighters of World war 2 was one engined planes for a reason: FW-190, P-51 Mustang, Corsair, Yak-9, Spitfire, BF-109, P-47 Thunderbolt, A6M Zero, F6F Hellcat. There however existed two engined fighters: P-38 Lightning, Bf 110, and Me-262. Two engined planes are bigger which means more air resistence. It also means twice as much maintenance - and they also cost more to fly and will spend more time on the ground instead of up in the air. A bigger plane is easier to see and harder to camouflage. It is a bigger target for the enemy and therefore easier to hit. It have a bigger radar signature due to its larger size. A big plane like F14 Tomcat also takes up much space on an aircraft carrier, which means that few planes can fit inside a ship, while with a smaller plane you might be able to have more planes inside the ship. Having two engines is however considered safer than just having one. And surely might chances of surviving a birdstrike be higher with a plane with more than one engine. However having four engines is no guarantee for surviving a birdstrike as Eastern Airlines Flight 375 shown, and nor did it save a two engined passanger plane from being forced to land in the Hudson river. In the past was engines also highly unreliable so crashes caused by engine failures were common. So having two engines was considered safer for that reason. The engines on F4 Phantom was considered highly unreliable for example. However, times have changed and engine failures are much more rare nowadays. And if one look at statistics on the number of crashes per 100.000 flight hours are Gripen and F35 some of the safest planes one can fly. They are indeed safer than most two engined fighters. So the old argument that two engined planes are safer simply no longer holds true, when they crash more often. And even in a classic dog fight without missiles would two engines be a disadvantage more than an advantage since it makes your plane bigger and a bigger target. And yes the plane might survive a first burst of enemy fire that takes out one engine. But then your big plane with inferior aerodynamics compared to the enemy plane with one engine will be at an advantage. You now fly with just one engine like he do, but you fly a heavier plane with more drag, so he will now likely much more easily outmanouver and outfly you and shot you down. So having an extra engine is likely no life saver in air combat. A few Gripens have been crashing during training and excercises. And even if crashes are extremely rare, and happens more seldom than with other types of planes do crashes with Gripen still happens. But so far have not a single crash happened because it only have 1 engine - as engine failure has so far not been the cause of a single crash. Indeed I also think that this obsessesion of an almost purely theoretical risk only, of a crash due to engine fire being silly. If enemy fire destroy one engine and sets it on fire on one plane, then you often times gets both engines knocked out by the fire pretty quickly as they lay closely to the other engine, so when the fire spreads then do both engines quickly cook off. So for that reason would I rather feel safer flying a Gripen E over the artic region for Canada, then what I would if I was flying a plane with two engines that have a higher number of crashes per 100.000 flight hours like say F4 Phantom.
So these videos have done well at explaining how the Swedish Air Force operates in a model where they have a survivable force but sort of leave out the fact that this whole model is built around ensuring a particular sort of credible non-nuclear deterrent. The Swedish military is built around making Russia pay as much as possible for every meter of Swedish territory knowing full well they can't defeat the Russians outright, but can make an invasion so costly the Russians stand more to loose than they stand to gain. Dispersed operations are built around the assumption that whatever fuel, munitions and spare parts a unit starts an invasion with is all they will ever have as supply chains will be severely disrupted unless NATO countries become involved. This is what results in such an impressive degree of autonomy and flexibility, but it's a model that can't do what the rest of NATO is geared to do, which is interdicting Russian Forces before they reach the border using long range strikes. I'll sometimes joke though that the Grippen is a 4th gen stealth airplane, because it's designed to hide in a dispersed base, pop up, conduct a short range air-air intercept or ground attack mission, then run back to a dispersed base and hide in the trees with its ground crew.
@@SonsOfLorgar Yeah you can't have everything but it would be nice, especially for Germany and other countries to the East. At least the USAF still won't retire the A-10 haha.
The undeniable knowledge is that Gripen is very well designed, technology wise it is very advanced. But fact that no one buy it as expected is worry some. As it is oddity why not? Ukraine is happening mainly by Su-25SM3 and Su-30SM2. The Su-30SM2 is 4++ generation (closer to 5th than 4th) and it is odd that Gripen isn't tested there.
@@pm3302 1. Literally the smallest and least capable AESA radar of any modern Western fighter. 2. So does Eurofighter and Rafale and they can fly higher and faster. 3. Literally all 4.5 gen fighters have data link. 4. Overmarketed ability that requires a massive logistical organization to work beyond being a gimmick. Ukraine has already demonstrated that its airforce can operate even without official STOL capability. The issue is that there is nothing Gripen does that other 4.5 gens do not do better. And do bear in mind that 5th gen is a thing.
Wonderful aircraft, well done Sweden. Actually well done Europe, Gripen , Typhoon , and Dassault Rafale. My pick is GRIPEN . A very neat tidy aircraft and good looking. Would really go down well in Ukraine. SLAVA UKRAINI. Welcome to NATO land of the Gripen and much , much more , welcome Sweden.
One thing that’s missing in this videos is the domestic piece. Sweden, like France, has a serious internal problem with “recently arrived citizens” that is far more a threat than any external actor. There have been for years “no go” areas that the police dare not venture into. I know it’s off topic but it does play to a nations ability to sustain a force. Especially when there is a sizable portion of military aged males that have absolutely no intent to assimilate into the nation’s culture and even less likely to rally to the flag in times of an emergency.
As a swede I also find this to be a confusing double standard. What made/makes Swedish military (and other) industry unique and competitive, is the flat organization, low level responsibility and last but not least, trust that your fellow workers do the same. At the same time the country is filled up with people that has non of this culture and no loyalty to the country they have moved to. The (upper) middle class pretends like this is no issue and are frankly being enraged by anyone who points this out. It is hypocrisy at the highest level. I bet SAAB, Kockums and Bofors really propone "diversity" when hiring, when in fact the opposite is their strength. It is a sad thing to see. The high-trust society I grew up in is gone.
If the Finn’s can really do BVR fighting in IMC, that is truly terrifying for anyone else in their airspace Cause I know from close family that they fly their planes in weather conditions when everyone else doesn’t even open the hangar doors to take a look outside
The reason people don't buy it is pretty straightforward. It's a single engine, 4th generation fighter comparable to an F-16, except it's a Saab meaning it'll be a nightmare to maintain.
Gripen E is on par with almost everything the F35 offers. It's even better in some aspects. The thing I think that makes countries not buy it is stealth. I don't know if stealth is that important if you have the extremely effective ew suite the Gripen E comes with, but I dunno. I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
Would be really interesting to see this system exercised against mainstream nato nations. The UK, in its history, used to have flying CO’s and administrative CO’s. Pilots need to maximize the combat effectiveness instead of getting sucked into admin. Admin is not leadership. Sadly in most militaries the tail wags the dog.
Australian here, I'm certain the Swedes have the best approach. Our governments have been charmed and scared into ridiculously expensive and overpriced weapons systems from the US that seem designed mainly to bolster their reducing influence. A twin engined grippen with a easily upgraded avionics. Vastly cheaper to acquire and operate.
It is going to be Interesting to hear what conclusions your neighbors in New Zeeland will come to in regard to their discussions about the future of their Air Force. Perhaps NZ is even more suited for the Swedish approach?
I’m very frustrated we, the Danes, ended up with the F-35 instead of the Gripen. Now that all of Scandinavia is in NATO, our forward defence position is with our Swedish and Finish brothers and sisters and it would have been significantly easier if we all ran on Gripen.
There are news circulating in our country (Philippines) has selected the Gripen C/D for our MRF Acquisition project. We just hope that we (Philippine Air Force) don't regret selecting this Plane.
Saab grows increasingly frustrated in its inability to increase export sales. As good as the Gripen is and the the economic case that can be made in many instances, reality overrules common sense and the F-35 is a much better choice for NATO. The 1000th F-35 will roll off the assembly line later this year and the waiting list for NATO nations to procure more is getting longer.
Are you so naïve, that you think that rational reasons are at work when deciding? Germany has signed a contract for 35 F-35 planes for $252 million per plane, to be delivered circa 2025. South Africa *bought* 28 J-39 planes for $53,5 million a piece. I'm sure Germany will be happy with that purchase. At least I know that the US M-I-C will be. SAAB has a long time ago stopped being frustrated over the US's constant interference when they try to explain to small countries, that they do not really need a formidable offensive AF to defend themselves.
I can’t speak to the Swedish Air Force, but I Can speak to their Army. In 2012-13 I was stationed at Camp Northern Lights in Mazar-E-Sharif, Afghanistan. I was one of 5 US military at the small base of about 300 people. When I first arrived it was a cultural shock learning that they not only work co-Ed but Live co-Ed. Then I was surprised at the lack of formality on base as everybody was on first name basis (They called me Air Force Steve) and the only troops actively armed were the front gate guards. I was Extremely nervous going Off base with the Swedes expecting the same relaxed attitude as on base. I was VERY WRONG!! It was as if they simply flipped a switch and they were Far more professional and seemingly experienced than the US Army I’d worked with in the past. After spending a year on the Swedish base, I wound Absolutely want to work with them again. I have No doubt their Air Force is just as good.
Indeed a cultural thing, that reminds me about when I in my youth was working in the Norwegian fishing industry. The island only had like 800 people in total, so partying with the foremen and fishing boats captains was the normal thing (we put the factory boss under the table more than once lol).
At work though, well, that's work. Someone has to keep the ship together and on course, and that's the role of the captain. Hence he gets to call the shots regardless if he was sobbing in his beer on Saturday or spent Sunday with a pillow over his head. Same as for everyone else, that's his private business as long as it doesn't effect his work.
We're a _very_ informal people. Over here it would actually be a bit weird to use honorifics and surnames rather than calling people by their first name even if you don't know them very well. I imagine that even in the armed forces it would just feel too unnatural for us to be formal all the time.
🇸🇪❤🇺🇸
As one UN officer said to finish a mission either I can send 1000 indian soldiers, 100 Italiens or 10 Swedes
@@bennyboy5374...or... send just 1* Fin. Right?🤣
Fun fact, the pilot doing the thumbs up att 5:28 is Marcus Wandt. He is also an ESA astronaut and it was just announced that he will be going to the ISS.
What a life he has
As a swede I always get patriotic when someone mentions the Gripen. Thanks Chris, thanks Justin!
Thought the Viggen the sexiest plane of its age.
As a Norwegian brother, you have every reason to be.
@@cmh6122 I'd say that Draken was the sexiest thing in 1950's. And it still was awesome in 1980's.. 🐉
@@mhyotyni Draken is my favorite jet fighter designs of all time. A beautiful aircraft.
As a Brazilian, you have every reason to be. The Gripen is a fantastic bird and our dealings with SAAB have been absolutely fantastic so far. It is going to usher our Air Force into a new paradygm, so thank you. I just hope your Air Force also likes our KC-390, which is also a great bird. Anyway, cheers and congrats, dude!
Much of the way the Gripen is deployed is based on the experience with its predecessor, the Viggen. I’m glad the Swedes are getting into NATO. Their highly trained military is a bonus. They might be small in numbers, but punch well above their weight.
NATO should consider funding two additional Swedish Gripen squadrons to operate as part of the QRF. Ready for rapid deployment in support of ground forces. Note additional!
How do they "Punch above their weight"? Sweden has done nothing but be isolated post war they haven't punched anything above their weight. The Gripen is not some wonder weapon sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo superior to everything else, do try actually thinking
@@Svenne-man-1880 NATO-membership requires 2% of GDP, and Sweden expects to fund this till 2025, and there is a lot of countries in NATO that hasn't reached 2% of GDP yet as well.
We do have some fine tech, CV90, Gripen, Archer-artillery system and our naval-force.
Regarding punching above one weight, for a country of less than 150 million the Russian Federation causes more anxiety and trouble than they deserve to.
@@mitseraffej5812 North Korea has a small population, much of it starving. Still causes a lot of anxiety. South Korea and America spend billions watching them daily.
You do have to buy the whole Swedish tactical concept, if you go for Gripen. I am from Denmark, and we bought the Draken. The Draken was originally a true fighter, but we needed a fighter -bomber back in 1970. SAAB changed the Draken accordingly, and it served us well, being popular in Denmark. So it is possible to make your own doctrine around the Gripen as well, suiting your contrys needs and resources. I like the Gripen, especially that they try to break the upward cost-spiral, but still making a very capable aircraft. A true frontline fighter-bomber. Well done SAAB/ Sweden😊
Ooops. I meant " You do not have t buy the whole concept". Sorry😮
@@frankandersen3195 You can also edit the incorrect text. 👍
@@JimCarner The regular Gripen is already made with electronic warfare in mind. It's part of what makes it so good. Instead of focusing on expensive stealth, it has among the world's best EW capabilities
@@JimCarner the two seat Gripen F has a dedicated EW variant. It has the AREXIS pod that gives similar capabilities to Super Hornet Growler.
In a Swedish roadbase fighter base the goal was to have 4 jets on alert which means idealy 4 runways so they can quickly scramble intercept an enemy and fall back.
The multiple runways isn't just about security against bombing it's also about getting many fighters in the air quickly.
"Vägbas" is swedish for Roadbase, you can find some videos on UA-cam showing them back in Viggen era.
I have the Nordic AirPower book on the Viggen. It has some amazing photos of the dispersal techniques pioneered by the Flygvapnet in years past.
does anybody realize these highway strips are all cataloged and targeted as easily as any airfield? Sure, this was a good idea 30 years ago. But now? It's a logistical pain in the ass as well as being undefensible and a known facility. They tried to push this dead end fighter to Canada, without realizing there are no fucking highways in the far north.
@@PappyGunn
Did you not watch the video? If you did, it would've cleared up your concerns.
"Dead end fighter" as compared to all the domestically developed Canadian fighter jets?!🤣
@@PappyGunn You don't seem to understand how the bases are built or work.
There are so many alternate stands on the bases it's not practical to strike the bases with precision weapons because you need an absurd ammount of missiles.
Also the fighters don't take off from highways they take off from runway sections built into highways the highways are used as taxiways.
This concept is also visibly working in Ukraine keeping obsolete Ukranian fighter jets fighting despite horrendous ods.
@@PappyGunn the dipersed airbases are too many for an enemies stock of weapons and many other roads can be used too. The logistics footprint of Gripen is the smallest in the world, so a logistic nightmare is only connected to other combat airplanes, of which F-22 is the worst.
Professor Bronk!
I have observed his meteoric ascent through defence academe with avid interest.
Well done sir!
As always, incisive, persuasive and erudite.
👍👍
He seem to put a lot of confidence in this aircraft only because it gets to operate off highways by it owner and not on capability. This aircraft is so far behind the F-35 in capability it doesn't sell yet he avoids mention this.
The only reason Brazil operates this machine is because they were not a trusted allie of the US and had to settle for 2nd best.
As an American who moved to Sweden in the early 1980s, Swedes are awesome: car mechanics, plumbers, electricians, doctors etc ...
I have a sailboat, and all the guys in the marina are so damned competent in what they do, it's been a learning experience these last 40 years.
I know quite a few Finns and Norwegians, and they are much the same. Being small countries (in population) means learning responsibility and having to step up and lead in something: from a local arts association to a corporation.
Finally, I was a scout leader a while, and visiting US Boy Scout leaders at jamborees were flabbergasted that all of our troops are coed and that cohab tents are normal (but not required). The scouts can choose who to tent with, as it is usually all boys or girls when younger, but when they get older perhaps not. They learn responsibility early.
Swedish military have ben co-ed for a long time now. I did my military service back in 97, and even back then we had co-ed companies. In my company we were all men, but in the surrounding companies there were a couple of women. I think that the number of women have increased greatly since then.,
They (as in the women) are made aware that there are no separate showers or heads when joining, and they know what they are in for when they get there. In fact I would say it is initally the guys that are more embarrased than the girls, but that changes and normalizes quickly.
I have never done missions abroad, but I was part of training the BA-04 (Yugoslavia) contingent going there. Some of the guys there were dowin in one of the previous missions and they told ut sthat one thing that sets Swedish soldier apart is the fact that most of them have "regular" occupations before they go. So when other camps/bases had issues with plumbing or electiricy or something else, they had to wait for it to get fixed, while the Swedish guys always had someone able to fix it on their own.
Thats funny, learning responsibility is not something I associate with swedes unfortunately (as a swede)... at least not for my generation and younger
Regarding the relatively flat chain of command and higher responsibility further down the line, it's mostly based on a more practical attitude towards tasks and less of a blame-focused structure. If something goes wrong, the idea is to see what went wrong, how to prevent it, and how to move forward. Assigning blame isn't even necessary a lot of the time, and even if it is it's a low-priority concern. This leaves more room for low-level decisions, which also fosters better trust and cooperation.
It's actually a totally different view of command. US military uses a very top down control of it's military, including air force. Sweden uses mission based command where the highest ranked person on the spot is in charge and given a mission that he does as best as he can. Orders are considered suggestions while the mission is paramount.
I USA the higher your rank the further you get from the front and pretty soon you end up on a desk even as a pilot. In Sweden a pilot can reach retirement while being a fighter pilot. There is no max rank for any job in Sweden's military, only minimum ranks.
@@znail4675 Definitely. It's a view that isn't on the command, but on the task.
My view of it is the same. The closer you are to the actual job you need to do, the better you're able to understand what's necessary to accomplish it.
If you're at a desk in a city far away you're much less likely to know exactly what's happening at any given location. However, you do have a better grasp of the overall situation, so you're more suited for coordination between different groups.
The problem, especially in war, is that functioning communication isn't a given, and that's (partially) what the Swedish system tries to solve.
This isn't just the military's view either. It's ingrained in the corporate structure as well.
@@znail4675
Not entirely true. A lot of the time the rank means nothing if someone else is more competent in the task at hand.
Part of the Swedish military doctrine during the Cold War included things like "any message that mobilization is cancelled is false". Also, every infantry soldier were trained to work in guerilla/resistance mode with no central direction. This means everyone need to know the laws of combat (as they applied) for resistance and guerilla warfare, everyone need to know how to select a target.
No one expected Sweden to withstand the full brunt of the Soviet army for any period of time, but being singled out the way Russia today singles out their neighbours was not part of the planning. And that I think is a key reason why Sweden now has to join NATO and not just depend on being "counter invaded" by friendly NATO forces, and also depend on the main Russian forces being occupied by the major war with NATO.
Could we have a video on the history of how Sweden developed these concepts? It really feels like something that a few visionary officers and theorists had to fight for, and I get the sense there's a great untold story here.
Swedish air force and how it developed. It is a story from post ww2. I think there are videos about it that do explain it but do check wikipedia for a start /Swedish_Air_Force. Tiny country but [from wiki] "During the Cold War large amounts of money (including funds intended for the Swedish nuclear weapons programme) were spent on the Swedish Air Force and domestic aircraft production. In 1957 Sweden had the world's fourth most powerful air force,[9] with about 1,000 modern planes in front-line service.During the 1950s, it introduced fighters such as the Saab J 29 Tunnan, Saab A 32 Lansen and Saab J 35 Draken." The economical burden of a tiny country economic to keep that amount of air force made us change military doctrine to the "these bases and then first thing to do is to disperse the resources (did go for all military resource) to a multitude of other small nowhere bases) was implemented. The possible "unknown enemy" (=> being the USSR and Warsaw pact was expressed officially that way) is some, a little bit different from other countries, post ww2 history . But do check wikipedia as a start and there are probably a lot of videos on youtube that explains it too.
Yeah, I bet you are correct. That would be an interesting backstory.
This was comon thoughts after WW2. The German air force often couldn't get i the air, due to destroyed air strips. But they had the autobahn. Sweden didn't have any autobahn at the time, but made the very high capability jet fighter J-29 for use on grass fields, which made it demanding to land on air strips, causing the death of many pilots before their training was changed.
Sweden, as a neutral country with the longest border to Soviet union(the Baltic sea), had no other choice than continue to use dispersed air bases, due to the fact that Soviet union could overrun Sweden in a short time. But Soviet union would be reluctant to do this as long as Sweden could continue to have air power after an invasion. When Soviet union collspsed, Sweden dismantled and sold the dispersed airbases, as well as shrunk the defence to less than minimum. But Gripen A was already made. Today the SWAF have dispersed air bases. Sweden have always destroyed their defence forces as soon as there is a temporary peace. Every peace have always been temporary, but fools have always thought it is infinite.
plenty of historical docs in YT, also Gripen/Saab marketing channel in YT.
There was a fantastic documentary on the Viggen posted very recently. It goes over a lot of the history. I don't remember which channel, but just search for it and you'll certainly find it!
You may be surprised to know that Swedish companys works almost the same as the Swedish airforce. Flat organisation and decision making is done much more down in the organisation. I have worked with companys from GB and if i compare that to my country. My country uses a much more lean organisation with less peoples doing more. And have more responsability. It works the same in other branches army, navy etc. And if a group is cut of from the system (army for instance) for any reason . It will work autonomously and take own desicions, solving the tasks they got, and more. If you want to learn more you can read about Shootbat, Swedish FN soldiers in Bosnia.
Least arrogant Swede
I knew that peacekeeping mission as Nordbat 2, and it's some crazy reading
FN is UN in English.
O
Allmost every young Swedish man did military service with different ranks and some with extra service to becom officer in the reserve. So when they entered their professional careers, they took their military leadarsvip with them and influeced the commercial companies.
The Swedish mission command culture is very effective when it comes to solve and complete mission but a nightmare for politicians since once given a green light there is nothing stopping it if the purpose of the mission is not fulfilled. Kosovo was a good proof of that.
Love when Justin is on the program but lord do I wish RUSI would by him a mic if he is gonna do these kind of webinar/interview over the net.
Sweden and Finland have the rarity of having an effective air force that is set up to fight as they train. Their tactical, operational and strategic concepts are in harmony and adequately resourced to do the job.
NATO air forces are often more like extensions of the USAF and USN, both of which are large expeditionary forces with correspondingly different cultures and priorities. Without having the budget and resources, these NATO air forces can't hope to match the Americans. While NATO may not be able to import the Swedish and Finnish model wholesale, there are certainly aspects to adopt and modify to suit local realities.
An excellent summary and interview Chris.
The Swedish and Finnish dispersed basing models are built on the assumption of slowly losing ground to Russian numerically-superior armored forces, and making it drawn-out and painful so Russia is forced to the negotiating table and hopefully the defenders can preserve some of their territory.
The mainland NATO force structure is built on winning through air superiority and air-land battle integration during the Cold, and Air Dominance and multi-domain warfare with net centric forces in the modern era.
Finland has been in the process of shifting to dynamic defense in-depth with the modernization of their Hornets into deeper strike capable platforms.
The strategic picture then focuses from defense on your heels, to "If you attack us, we hit your naval yards in Primorsk, your sub bases in Murmansk, and St. Petersburg is fair game. By the way, any Russian-flagged vessel in the Gulf of Finland gets pole-axed."
This is an unprecedented strategic shift in defense posture for Finland.
Sweden's main contribution here would be in the maritime domain, where they can participate in destroying Russian ships and subs for sport.
It makes the dispersed basing concept for Sweden pointless, especially with modern IADS available through US/NATO IBCS and IAMD.
@@bobrobrudolf1243 Meteor. JATM will be there soon to counter R-37 as well.
Yeah I don't understand why everyone is acting like this is an inherently wanted system. They have this essentially because they have to.. obviously there are benefits and things to be learned, but I think it's funny all the people that act like other countries should just ditch their whole previous model and adopt Swedens wholesale lmao
@@LRRPFco52 "The Swedish and Finnish dispersed basing models are built on the assumption of slowly losing ground to Russian numerically-superior armored forces, and making it drawn-out and painful so Russia is forced to the negotiating table and hopefully the defenders can preserve some of their territory."
I can't speak for the ultimate goal of the Finnish strategic planning, but there are more nuances to the Swedish one than described here.
The first and most important was to create a threshold effect, the cost of invasion should be so high that an attack never was committed to in the first place, as the gains shouldn't compare to the price paid for them. This is the same reasoning as Finland's NATO-membership: while the non-aligned Finnish forces probably could defeat a Russian invasion, deterring them from even trying is preferable.
The second aim was to slow down the superior forces and funnel them into pre-defined areas where they could be halted and beaten. "Hejda, möt och slå".
If that failed, the third aim was to prolong the conflict long enough that international help could arrive. Experience from other conflicts (like the Winter War) showed that organising and delivering such help would inevitable take time, and the Swedish defence could not be allowed to collapse in the mean time. Thus, it needed to be resilient over time, which was the third aim.
Only if the above couldn't be achieved a negotiated peace would be considered, but that would be very difficult in a country where everyone from school age and above had been taught that any message that mobilisation should be aborted or resistance end per default were to be considered enemy propaganda and utterly ignored.
"Om Sverige blir angripet av ett annat land kommer vi aldrig att ge upp. Alla uppgifter om att motståndet ska upphöra är falska." - Latest version of "Om kriget kommer".
"varje meddelande om att motståndet skall ges upp är falskt. Detta land ger aldrig upp. Målet är alltid befrielse." - SOU 1984:10
@@johanmetreus1268 What invasion routes would Russia enter through to get to Sweden? I've been all over that region and there isn't one. Sweden knew it has Finland and Norway as buffers. The Russians can't even muster a Division up north, and even if they could, there is no mobility for one in Lapland.
That terrain up there doesn't support movement of large forces, has almost no infrastructure, and is inhospitable year-round.
My absolute favorite aircraft. There is a mysticism about it and when it appears at the airshow it gives me goose bumps... And the sound of it...Just waoow.
It’s the sound of freedom
I’ve always been a huge fanboy(or nowadays old fanman, since I’m in my 50s) of Swedish combat aircraft and air force doctrine. The Gripen E seems to be the most survivable and sustainable combat aircraft available, given its ease of maintenance, ease of rearming, ease of dispersion, lower purchase cost etc. I’m sure there will be others who disagree with me on this, but I’m talking from an Australian point of view where despite our huge geographical size we have limited airfields to operate our F-35As and F\A-18Fs\EA-18Gs from. I’m not disparaging our current aircraft, they are brilliant, and the best in the world at their task, but they are limited to certain bases(the Hornet and Growler a bit less so) which can be targeted by long range missiles. The same goes for our 2 major naval bases. We used to have a “Destroyer Tender”, which could act as a kind of mobile naval base(I did my seamanship course onboard HMAS Stalwart 35 years ago straight out of recruit school), so we could in theory disperse our navy to a degree provided no reconnaissance satellites existed…
Dispersal only helps if you know the strike is coming.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that is true to an extent. In the build up of tensions between countries dispersal could be enacted prior to hostilities.
As I remembered it when I read about the "Flygbas 90" - system we had 200 such bases. Each base was shaped as a triangle, with three different runways, connected as a triangle. Each runway was 2 km, making it 2 km + 2 km + 2 km = 6 km of runway. So even if one runway was destroyed you had two more that could be used. But also, since the Gripen only need 800 meters of runway you might still be able to use a damaged runway if it's not completely destroyed.
I'm not 100% sure if my numbers are correct, maybe some wize ass will correct me, therefore I menation this. Anyways, you get the idea.. ;)
GoldRush not sure if you were military or civilian... any chance of you contacting the speaker/s if you were involved with Flygbas 90? their email will be in "about" page of UA-cam channel. Jason Bronk will be searchable on RUSI, UK website
I'll be the wize ass.. 😂
200 bases is an exaggeration. I would put it at 100 _planned_ for the "version" preceding Flygbas 90 - and a lot less actually completed. The fall of the Iron Curtain and all of what followed..
Also the "triangle shape" is not the case. The bases often have one main runway (wide enough for allowing for a pair of aircraft taking off together), maybe 1.5 to 2 km in length, and one to three additional strips that are narrower and about 800 meters in length. But the layouts vary a lot. Runways are working much better if they are flat ;-) , so the local terrain dictates a lot of the layout.
Aside: A lot of air bases in the second world war _where_ triangle-shaped, as where some civilian airfiekds. That was because you wanted to take off and land into the wind - a requirement for many airplanes of the time eg large bombers. But not for fighters back then, and even less so today. Find lists of WW2 british airfields, locate their positions on a map, go to airial/sattelite view - and you will still see the remnants of the triagular bases for a lot of them.
For Swedish dispersal bades: Anyone interested enough can find non-classified material online in completely open sources to get the numbers, names and locations of main and secondary dispersal bases, as well as road-strips, that has existed. The system has been around in different forms since the 1950s or early 1960s. As I recall, there has never been more than 100 dispersal bases, and the number is likely much lower now than in the past. This is a reflection of the Swedish Airforce going from having close to 1000 airplanes at its largest to now sport 100 or just above that.
The thing is, there are literally 1000s of places in Sweden where you have a strip of road about 1km long in a straight line, almost completely flat, and not so many obstacles around. Sure, it might not be in one of the major cities, but just 10-20km out, they are plentiful. Having the whole maintenance and logistical chain being mobile is THE biggest difference from other airplane systems. Like the fact that you can dismantle the Gripen engine RM12 in to 7 parts that you can replace individually if something is wrong. And then, each part weighs not much more than 200kg, which, even if cumbersome, is actually manageable with VERY basic tools, like ropes.
The reason this is being brought up more and more, is that people see in Ukraine what war ACTUALLY looks like. The luxury of having mega-advanced dedicated airports for your Air Force might not be a given, except for maybe the US and Canada. Everyone else will, at the first signs of conflict, try and target these immediately. And once they are gone, your logistics will suffer. If you have not prepared for it to happen.
This is why the Gripen is better than most of their competitors in a conflict like this. Not because it has better capacity than an F-16 or an F-35. But you will be able to FLY with it. Airplanes are useless on the ground...
@@johns70 Modular engine parts? Everybody's got them. Where is the second and third line support? As for being better than the F16 or F35, we'd have to look at combat record. Which the Grippen doesnt have one.
@@johns70 As they talked about in the video, you have to build your whole logistical system around dispersed airfields/roads, and not just the plane. Most planes can use a highway as a runway if they have to, but it does not help much if maintenance, ammo and fuel systems are not designed to operate from such places.
You could use Finland as an example. They use(d) the F-18 from such places, and the F-18 is not specifically designed to operate from such small airbases/roads, but can do it as long as their ground logistics is.
This system would not work in the US or UK unless you change their whole doctrine and logistics.
The Gripen is beautifully designed and built for purpose.
It's the perfect fighter for the airspace of Sweden and much of Scandinavia.
A very good aircraft.
... yeah I dont agre about Scandinavia , if that was fact Norway & Denmark would buy it too , but they went first for F16 then F35A , and reason is simple , Gripen biggest flaw is Sweden , as Sweden is just too small country to supply parts to state that is in war , Poland in early 2000 had chose Gripen , Mirage or F16 and chose F16 simply because USA is ony super power and have build over 4000 F16 at the time , so there was a loot of parts around & ammonition and as Poland was in NATO fact that many NATO states have use F16 was reason why Poland have chose F16 , Gripen in Europe was chosen by Hungary & Czech Republic = states that dont border any enemy state , and now there is only bit over 300 gripens vs 4600 F16 , in my opinion is not even good idea to sent those to Ukarine as Sweden will quickly run out parts , and in reality how many Gripens could be delivered ? max 56 C/D from Sweden and Czechia , but Czechia will get F35 around 2032 so they need those 14 Gripens , and Sweden will wait for all Gripens E to 2029 , and as Swedish gov stated they need to have 100 Gripens C/D/E and right now they have 70 C , 24 D , 2 E = 96 , so Sweden miss 4 Gripens , in relity Sweden could send 18 Gripens in 2026 , is too little to late in my opinion , better to train Ukrainian pilots for F16 and F/A 18 there is plenty of those out there .
Very insightful. I find it mind blowing that a part 3 trainee RN FAA equivalent can be lead in a dispersal maintenance group by a 3 year experienced tech unreal. And as mentioned would need a huge culture change to effect it in the uk. When people talk about smaller more flexible forces in the modern fighting era THIS is what it looks like but goes back to the architecture of the Gripens design to make this happen. Soooo much to learn from here yet I do t feel the UK would have a militarily political appetite to make such a step change.
It's a little bit ironic that the swedish approach is originally based on the conclusions drawn from the Battle of Britain (combined with the Mission-Command tactics of Cold War Sweden, where it was expected that the central command system would be wiped out quite soon, if not in the first strike, so all forces, from air wings to infantry platoons needed to be able to work autonomously if needed).
@@lavrentivs9891 and the west often criticise how robotic the Chinese and Russian military are … if you think about it, even though pilots and aircrew have a degree of autonomy when the C&C is gone it will fall apart relatively quickly. So this system really does hold water from a defensive posture proposition.
Thanks for the information. The UK AirPower really is now reliant on static runways for our fast jets… and even the night F35B is heavily dependent on a strict maintenance regime.
Suddenly in this scenario the mighty Harrier looks like a great proposition after all.
I think one of the main reasons are because of conscription. The higher performing you are as a person, the likelier that you will end up in a job where that's key. We've got almost a hundred years of conscription behind us, so the system has been worked on for a long time. Far from perfect, of course, but works fairly well. With voluntary service, a lot of those guys and girls just go straight to higher education, whilst in Sweden there's a decent chance they will serve for 9-15 months before that.
@@TzunSu interesting. Thank you.
It’s a fact “usually” that conscription doesn’t yield quality so your view also makes a lot of sense.
A really clever and well conceived idea at solving a real problem. This deployment strategy and ideology really does take a lot into consideration (from a ground crew perspective I’m talking about) and having conscripts be up to speed really rather quickly with a limited tools store available and taking into account someone who has not volunteered really … I guess there is an in built pride about protecting that beautiful country also.
When I think of the British armed forces and their culture, I recall seeing soldiers on guard duty at a barracks wearing urban camouflage and fluorescent bibs.
Hi Chris, just wondering if are going to look into Sweden's Special Missions / Supporting Aircraft such as the Erieye, SIGINT and ELINT along with the incoming Globaleye. I was wondering how it supports operations and how it relates to BAS 90. The key reason why I am asking, in an earlier video you have touched on the 'Swedish Mindset' and am wondering how it relates.
Another great video, thanks Chris and Crew!
This is by far, the best Air forces channel available on You Tube. Many Congrats Military Aviation History !
Nice! i learned some new stuff about our awesome air force. In a radio doc released recently the theme was all the swedish pilots dying in the training excercises during cold war. 600 died between 1955-1990. In the fifties 2 pilots died every month, just excersicing! (And off course they were developing the planes,so they were unstable at times)
The main reason for all the deaths were that the Swedish airforce trained “as if in war”. That meant flying 10 meters above water or 20 meters above land. Sure airplanes would have bugs in the first few years but that’s the same for all planes ever built.
Excellent choice for Brazil. Happy to see these amazing aircrafts adopted by the Brazilian airforce.
Especially in this condensed format, really makes me wonder how effective this style would be for Ukraine in the near future. Gripens could be a very interesting combination of the Ukrainians manufacturing capabilities with Swedens. Interesting possibilities and ideas
I would say it's pretty much ideal. Their situation is very similar to Ukraine. Russia is the main and only real threat, and we expected the same kinds of weapons used against Ukraine.
In the _near_ future, not effective at all. Spare Gripens basically don't exist - SAAB has built less than 300 of them in total, and the vast majority of airframes which exist are currently in active service with the air forces that have bought or leased them (unlike European F-16s, the Gripens _aren't_ already in the process of being replaced and retired). And while SAAB says they could start delivering new-build Gripens to a new customer in 18 months, 1) that's not really near-term for Ukraine anymore, as they're in a shooting war right now; and 2) that would almost certainly require the Swedish Air Force to agree to accept delayed deliveries of the aircraft they themselves have ordered. Actually setting up a factory to build Gripens in Ukraine right now is probably a non-starter, as very little of Ukraine is outside the range of Russian missile strikes launched from outside the range of Ukrainian air defenses and a brand-new fighter production facility would be a very high priority target - and also, that's a project that would literally take several years (the only place outside if Sweden where it's been done, Brazil, it took almost 10 years to go from selecting Gripen as their winning bid to finally starting the production line).
In the _long-term_ future, building a Gripen factory might be a good move for Ukraine (assuming they can afford an all-new fighter force once the war is over and they have to start rebuilding _everything else_ that's been wrecked in the Russian invasion). In the medium term, assuming the Swedish government decides to cancel or delay their own air force expansion plans, it might be possible for the Ukrainian Air Force to get good use out of a few squadrons' worth of Gripens (though keep in mind that Ukraine, as an ex-_Soviet_ air force, is likely to be even worse-prepared for Swedish-style operations than NATO air forces). In the near future, though? The airplanes would have to come from somewhere, and that can't possibly be Ukraine itself for at least several more years.
@@Philistine47 Also worth remembering is that SAAB doesn't make Gripen C's anymore either, since they're migrating over the the E/F model, which would likely be a further time sink. Much more capable aircraft, for sure, but it will probably be some time until production rate is up to C levels.
Any aircraft given in the next year or so would absolutely have to be donated stock from current airforces, at least the majority of them.
@@Philistine47 Fair points on the immediate future. Definitely appreciate some of the other background too. Top notch 👍
3 things the Ukrainians did very well at during the Soviet era and even afterwards. Build tanks, planes, and a lesser degree ships (nowhere near like Poland as example). All steel making industrial types, and seems like they have excelled at it, from a less than adequately informed American perspective. The place I'm coming from is more utilization of those steel making skills, and post-war Marshallesque rebuilding while self arming. An example would be working with IDF on helping manufacturing tanks to their specs and style of troop protection first, maybe as frames and basics FOR them and being able to restart the manufacturing base. A co-op style where Ukraine gets some updated designs that they can build many components for other countries and use themselves as part of eventual NATO integration. Dutch style mine sweepers as another. Maybe Ukrainian hulls in trade of designs and help integrating weapon systems. And in this case, Gripen airframes? Or such?
Basically so it wouldn't be a free ride for either party, while improving quality and conditions in the country, same time as providing basic jobs and infrastructure while providing the ability to defend themselves in the future.
The long term commitment to the Swedish style of rapid deployment and mobility could very well suit the Ukrainians in the future with proper transitioning. Something tells me their people are going to become a more modern fiercely independent version of Poland. Maybe they will choose to go the Gripen route, or just borrow a bunch of the theory and make their own path forward. Still a bunch of interesting possibilities.
Not a short time solution at all. Gripens don't exist in sufficient numbers. Ukraine doesn't have the funds to purchase the numbers they need even if they could wait for them to be built. Lastly, I don't see a reality at this time where Sweden would sell the Gripens to a non-NATO Ukraine.
This guy makes so much sense. He’s obviously a long-term student. He’s focused on success. If I understand him correctly - we are all lost…
There is a certain irony in this video ending with the observation that NATO's current process is about saving money and resources. Because, of course, this is a clip from a longer video posted earlier.
To be sure, there are lots of folks that will watch this 12 minute video but skipped the longer hour-ish video, so this does help reach a larger audience. But still - the main reason for recycling footage is to create a new episode for minimal cost in time, staff and money.
Now, I'm not criticizing! I enjoyed revisiting this subject. But it does make Dr. Bronk's final comments amusing and ironic. :)
I knew I'd seen this video before.
Anyone have a link to the longer one?
I’m not seeing this longer video anywhere looking at the last 6months of MAH, can you provide a link?
For a small country, their tech and culture is very much get it done rather than wasting time on behaviours that essentially impede effectiveness.
Just wanted to say I absolutely love him. Thanks for having him on your channel. Just one question when will we be seeing him next???
Absolutely right Justin.
From the beginning I say that the Swedish military model is the ones that fits more with Ukraine today needs.
Like the Archer howitzer too.
As for Max Defense Philippines articles said the armed forces of the Philippines especially the Philippine Air Force selected the Jas Gripen of Saab and the contract will be soon be inked by the two government and hopefully will be flying in the Philippine sky soon!♥️
Yup. Since the C/D model is offered, it can use the FA50's engine which makes its integration to the PAF easier. Hope we can get the Meteor missiles.
Would love to see Canada move toward a more independent defense system using dispersal models, and maybe even incorporating a mandatory milita element like Switzerland.
In our age of not even being able to agree on what is reality, I think a grounding, universally shared service experience would be a damned good thing.
Look at what Sweden does and thinking “that’s cool” shouldn’t mean you should follow the same idea. Sweden has this heavily dispersed system because what they’re designed for is defending against attack from the East. If you want Canadas military to set up to defend against attack then sure, go for it, but you have to build the entire military around that. It just isn’t a realistic threat anyway - no one is likely to want to invade Canada, it’s just too big and millions of lakes and trees aren’t that appealing.
As of 2023-07-15 Thumbnail text does not match video content, thumbnail says “everyone talks about this plane (but no one is buying)” but video itself talk about the Swedish Airforce and how they are organized and is not about the fighter jet and why it is not getting any sales.
More Justin! Can't get enough.
It must also be mentioned that most of Europe will act as a single nation in case of "stress". This means that we can both co-locate AND disperse different flight types and relatively quickly provide combined and layered air defence to, at least, the highest prioritized airfields.
I am sure the Finnish and Swedes will continue with these dispersed fields (it is impressive) - but we are already deep in talk of a Nordic combined air command. We have trained this for over a decade in the Nordic "Arctic Challenge" exercise (with other invited nations). Here, complex coordinated and layered operations are trained with air wings launching from Norway, Sweden and Finland - at times coordinated with B-52s and B1s launched from i.e. Spain and the UK.
I have said welcome to our Finnish friends before - time to wish you Swedes welcome to the Organisation too. It is going to be exciting to see how we friendly families will develop cooperation together - as we are really good at doing that in every other part of society, even the military despite the two of us where neutral, one both Sweden and Finland are truly homologated and NATO operational (something that will not take long at all because of own Nordic cross-training and of course through the NATO Partnership program.
I can only imagine the brightest in the 3 high commands of Norway, Sweden and Finland are already sitting with the brightest in NATO right now - since the logistics of our own manoeuvring ability is completely changed - and obviously the logistics of NATO rapid and supporting deployment in crisis is also radically changed.
My guess - some secure NATO com-systems and com terminology must be made second nature - and your Forward Air-Traffic Controllers probably need some courses, as all sorts of aircraft from all sorts of nations with all kinds of bombing profiles will come to aid, requiring the best of the best guiding them. And this is of course before we consider that our ability to aid our friends in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Polen is also radically changed from a NATO perspective.
I know this is not a political debate - but it is worth mentioning - The Nordics are losing a bit of political wiggle room. The Nordic nations were always excellent at deciding who should take the lead in different conflicts or situations where some diplomacy could be needed because we could choose "a neutral state is probably best here (send someone from Finland or Sweden), an allied can probably do more good over there (send the Danes or the Norwegians) - with Iceland as something in between (allied but also practically demilitarized).
PS - I have always respected and seen the logic of the historic reasoning of Sweden and Finland - being opposed to the logic of Norway Denmark and Iceland being one of the founding members. We share deep history, but we got each other's back. You in Sweden and Finland looked east and South-East. We in Norway and Denmark looked more south to the northwest.
But I am thrilled to have you aboard. Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden combined are a substantial force of well-trained and very high-tech anger in a not-so-small and sparsely populated area near the Arctic Circle.
Rest assured - you are embraced into the flock of NATO. Norway and Denmark have made sure that NATO knows that what is "written on the tin" from Nordic nations is an absolute minimum standard, militarily speaking. We have all pulled that sledge both diplomatically and by softer Q/EoF standards.
After "digging" what we do well in Scandinavia/the Nordics - let me finish with this wish. Let us work hard for Ukraine to become the 33rd member ASAP. You as Swede Viking variants were implied in lighting the lantern of the Kyiv-Rus empire long before Moscow was even built. Just because Russia held a whole lot of nations, and hostages, during the time of the Soviets, does not mean that they were culturally grown from modern Russia, Tsars and communists included.
I do not like people who kidnap children. Russia has by force kidnapped ca 20,000 Ukrainian children to do their classic "Russification". That is not happening again - while I look at the UK and the US who signed a commitment to protect Ukraine in the Budapest accord in 2004 with Russia and Ukraine.
We have a LOT of heavy lifting to do here - so we will lift it with all our friends. Words need to be hyperbolic since Kremlin does not really understand words, as we know. Last night they bombed civilian Kyiv again, probably because of Stal....Putin got angered at the NATO summit again. Kremlin does what Kremlin is.
As for coms systems,most of the swedish systems are already NATO compatible, as it was pretty much a prerequisite to decades of active participation in both PFP and, as invitee OP-for in Red Flag exercises 😊
In addition, the SAAB 39 uses mainly NATO standard ordnance, sometimes also availiable modified with our own twist, such as the primarily ground-launched Rb-17 short range anti-ship missile, which is essentially a US hellfire missile modified with an APFRAG warhead instead of the HEAT warhead of the original.
@@SonsOfLorgar The cool thing with the modified Rb-17 is that it's a man portable anti-shipping missile. It's used by the Swedish marines skulking around on islands to sink landing crafts.
This video made me think of the Israeli air force, where youth is emphasized for fighter/strike pilots, where AIUI, pilot training begins as teenagers, and pilots are considered 'old' by 30. A comparison between this and the much more deliberate Swedish model would be very interesting!
How would you run the experiment?
Second. We have very mature pilots. Flying combat for forty years is the norm.
@@BigB29357 Good question. FIRSTLY, I'd leave it to smarter people than me, then watch the results with interest.😎
The majority of NATO members do not have a military with large amounts of interchangeable hardware like the big 4 (US, UK, France, Germany). Sweden brings a lot to the table when it comes to doing more with less.
Didn't Sweden also have some heavy-duty export restrictions too?
@@captin3149 For countries in war and wihch has attacked their neighbours and for very undemocratic countries. And sins parts in the engine is from US they refuse saab to sell the planes to countries they might as well sell their own
This is very viable platform for the Philippines. That's why we chose the Gripen as our multi-role fighter jet... 👌👌👌💪💪💪👍👍👍
Perhaps I missed something but having a system where very experience/educated and specific personnel are always required (hands on or supervisory); conjures the image of a 'glass cannon' -what happens when you are actually fighting a near peer and taking significant casualties?
Procedures and regs do confine intuitive and adds lag/bloat but the built in guardrails probably significantly reduces the drawbacks of putting fresher personnel/replacements into action.
*"conjures the image of a 'glass cannon' -what happens when you are actually fighting a near peer and taking significant casualties?"*
During the Cold War did Sweden have the 4th largest air force in the world. It could absorb heavy losses. And Gripen is a cheap plane, and if Russia shots down 200 planes can we always easily afford to build 200 more. It is a plane with high levels of safety, and if a pilot eject he is likely to land over Swedish territory and being able to fight another day.
Draken, Viggen and Gripen were all built with the idea in mind that a Soviet invasion would mean fighting a numerically superior foe and suffering heavy losses even if we managed to score a high kill ratio.
And say that we managed to shot down 10 or 15 enemy planes for every plane we lose. Then would our losses still be heavy. And if they have not been shot down by enemy planes would they likely be ready for scrap after 1 year has passed after all the air-to-air combat missions, ground attack missions and reconnaissance flight sorties.
So the system was always counting on heavy losses.
So no its not a glass gun - on the contrary.
@@nattygsbord That is extremely unrealistic.
15 or even 10 to 1 Kill/loss ratio against a near peer is fantastic -as in it is a fantasy, not even the US could do that without a massive surprise first strike.
Cost of building new planes is irrelevant if your factories are blown up and supply chains disrupted.
And pilots are hardly the only weak point -perhaps the biggest one is the ground/maintenance crews; you can have several trained pilots for each plane but personnel/tools/equipment for repair/maintenance are likely to be extremely limited.
In the vid; he noted that even mundane things like early retirements are threats...can you imagine what combat attrition or even accidental injury/death would do to a squadron's readiness? and those effects would apparently be medium-long term issues.
I don't have time for trolls and stupid people. Bye
Actually the Czech Republic have Gripens D and now is deciding between F-35 or Gripen E.
Both the Czechs and the Hungarians have extended their Gripen leasing deals while awaiting American planes. Lockheed Martin has a very competitive and aggressive sales strategy, in most every Gripen video i saw on UA-cam there are trolls trash talking Gripen and glorifying F16/F35, very often completely out context.
@@ros8737 Gripen is very capable 4.5 gen fighter. I have nothing else to say.
I've seen Czech doing maintenance on the Gripen in TV....
In case of Finland, Gripen was first bidded against F-18's and then against F-35's. One might think that Gripen would have the edge on these bids, being built for dispersion from beginning, as Finnish Air Force had the dispersion in it's core already in the cold war (when they operated Mig's and Drakens from these road bases). But clearly it is not so. However, unlike other European militaries, Finland has conscription so the Air Force has apt manpower (in total some 60 000 troops, if I remember correctly).
Reason for buying the American planes could have in part been getting closer to their "protection" and Nato.
@@johtajakansio Defense cooperation was one of the criteria but in both instances we were told that the most capable platform was selected. I have no reason to doubt that.
"One might think that Gripen would have the edge on these bids"
Weeeell.... considered the Swedish undependability in other military materiel projects (think the AMOS is a best documented online), ranging from counter purchases never being made to Sweden unilaterally dropping out, that edge might smaller than first perceived.
By the time Finland got their F/A18s in 1995 the Gripen hadnt even entered service 1996. The Finnish goverment also said that they wanted Fighter jets already in service and not a prototype aircraft hence why the Hornet was choosen
In the first case, Gripen wasn’t ready, since the decision for Hornet was made already in 1993. In the second case, it’s more likely that the benefits of stealth and other capabilities outweighed the advantage Gripen may have in STOL performance and ease of maintenance. Mind you that the F-35 is not bad at these things either.
Also to note, the war time organization of the FiAF is not 60 000 troops, but something like 20-30 000ish, with the rest being spares.
Hahaha you have missed something about the JAS 39 Gripen!! It flies 6 times a day over my house and I love it
Yes, the problem with expensive stealth aircraft is that they are quite visible on the ground.
I wish there was someone who can do dispersed operations with them.
Shit stupid people say
@@Iceman_zZz Finland will be operating them from their current highway strips.
@@yxeaviationphotog I know. 😉 I was being a bit mischievous and sarcastic.
@@yxeaviationphotog The problem is that the service equipment F-35 needs is still rather a lot and bulky making it both a large investment to be able to fly from more then one airfield and difficult to transport it around. A single landing, rearm and refuel is no problem, but doing regular maintenance is another issue.
The road-bases, and the design concept behind our fighter jets, is a result of how our society works in general.
It's just the most clever way to do things. Give people responsibility, at all levels. Give them stability, in their lives.
As for the cost of dispersed bases: You still need the roads, for normal traffic. And as the Romans realised 2000 years ago, it's better if they're straight.
Didn't the RAF use to run a more dispersed system with its Harriers? I remember thinking how they are losing a lot of capacity from this (I do not believe they are planning this with the F35b are they?).
People often forget the key thing when dispersing is to need as little as possible to do so. It's easy to think that Harriers or F-35B needs so little runway that it makes them ideal, but there is no real shortage of short road strips in most countries making the difference between needing 800 or 400m relevant. What is more important is how much equipment the plane needs for service. Gripen is specifically designed around everything it needs for service is mobile and all of it fits inside one C-130. This is on a different magnitude then other planes when it comes to how much it needs.
Well it looks like the MOD had seen this and have given plans for dispersed f35b and Typhoons :)
The USMC trains for FARP operation with F-35Bs.
I find it interesting that a dispersed setup costs more than a centralized one, I wonder by how much.
When one considers Ukraine's current & projected position regarding air power & it's protection from attack, whilst maintaining operational efficiency, Sweden's model appears to be a significantly more comfortable fit than that of the US, UK, or NATO as a whole.
Probably. But Ukraine will need time to build an effiecent Gripen organisation. It will take time even if you cut away unnecessary crap from the education like aerial refueling, and anti-ship duty.
Ukraine is not like Sweden in that regard that it is not covered in forests where you can hide. But less than 15% of Ukraine is covered in forests. And yes Ukraine is a big country with lots of places to hide, but it might be more difficult to extract the same benefits as Sweden would get from this system. But having a good fighter is what Ukraine needs - and that it gets with Gripen, and its dispersed basing is just a bonus.
Perhaps even more interesting to me is the high sortie rate with Gripen compared to other planes.
A rude joke says that Gripen is the King of dispersed baseing and high numbers of sorties. While F35 is the hangar Queen. 😂
My understanding is the biggest concern in the F-16 vs. Gripen calculus (presuming Gripens are truly on the table for Ukraine) is the difficulty and expense of maintaining the F-16 without a centralized command, Russia will be scouring the country hunting for even a hint of this logistical hub and hitting it could quickly cripple them. Also, the smaller wings and unstable design of the F-16 I hear makes it quite finicky to land, requiring long, smooth runways without any debris that could jump into that big intake under the nose.
@@theamazingbatboy Gripen is even more unstable than the F-16, but both use the same remedy: digital flight control, where the computer will keep the plane as steady as needed.
As an aerospace engineer and flight test engineer that worked on this platform for many years, it is a good summary of the swedish model.
Most nations can probably learn something from observing and mingling with each other.
After the French led NATO intervention in Libya I read an Aviation Weekly article that suggested the Gripen was largely ineffectual due mainly to communications and weapons load incompatibilities. In your video, did I see a meteor missile being loaded? What "lessons learned" have been implemented and how many different weapons have been qualified, and in what quantities are those weapons available, in other NATO member arsenals?
Gripen was the first aircraft to live fire the meteor missile despite joining the program late , I can only speculate that having a digital backbone it works very much like a smart phone , as in if you download the app for your weapon of choice (and it fits on the wings) your good to go. In theory it should be able to use any weapon system designed for a fighter aircraft. Dunno about the comms. issues some speculated that it would be easier to just bolt the link16 system on the outside then integrate it
Yes, it's much like with SAAB cars - everyone liked them, but almost nobody bought them... :(
Beautiful aircraft and extremely useful. 👌🇸🇪
The A-10 can also operate in a decentralized fashion. For NATO's well being, the Grippen needs to be used more widely throughout the force.
Great video, really enjoyed Justins voice and well made points.
As a Swede, I always wondered why buyers of the F-35 didn't just get a few of them in model B flavor, for dispersed operations.
I guess this video explains why that is very hard to do, and why the Model B might not be a good plane for dispersed operations. It would be interesting to see an analysis of that. Why the model B might, or might not, be suited for that.
The F35B can't carry as much ordnance or fuel if you want to use the STOVL features. Therefore there's no point to buy the more complex and expensive B.
@@tituslaronius If carrying ordinance and fuel is the only factor to consider,, why not use a long haul trailer???
Edit: Just to clarify,, range and ordinance is kind of pointless if you don't have a runway to take off from. Which is kind of the whole point of dispersion, that you will have some kind of capability to send a plane into the air. The F-35B might not have the range and loadout of the bigger siblings, but it will be able to take off from whatever is left of a bombed out runway. (hopefully)
@@tituslaronius Never stopped the Harrier. The whole point of STOVL operations from a Forward Operating Base is that you're much closer to the front line in the first place. Sorties are much shorter and more rapid.
The F-35's general expense and complexity is the more likely bigger issue there. It'd be a gamble to put them so much closer to harms way.
All I have to say is WELCOME SWEDEN to NATO!
I think it was a long time ago this should have happened but glad it's finally happening. It will be interesting I'm sure for the militaries to start working together in the MANY training exercises that will happen over the coming years, and the best part is all the participants learn from each other to create an ever improving force.
And this is the part where citizens of countries might not understand very well. They'll hear on the news about mishaps, along with the negatives that the media likes to cover without understanding what goes into making a premiere fighting force like NATO and the different countries' military forces.
I'm sure this is true in all NATO countries because the military doctrine for development and improving is the same no matter what country it is. Fighting styles may vary slightly but the underlying methodology of force development and training with other countries and learning from those exercises is the same. There is a lot of emphasis on lessons learned and implementing that into strategy. On a ship we did exercises with different countries and most people on a ship are very busy working 12 hour days and trying to get enough sleep to really learn about how we train with other forces and how everything is documented to create new strategy. I was lucky in that I worked on systems in CIC so I dealt with a lot of officers who were involved in fighting the ship and I could chat with them from time to time so I could understand what they were doing. Of course you don't bother them in the middle of training exercises but after you're done for the day and people are more relaxed the conversations flow pretty easily. It was fun for me working up in that world of Combat, and even getting out to the bridge and talking to the Navigation Officer, once again when things were more quiet. And of course you can't have long conversations because they have a job to do even when things are quiet. But because I was a senior tech I could walk into spaces and ask how everything was working and have many brief conversations.
I worked with computer systems and other electronics while I was in and really enjoyed the work. But 20 years was enough for me. I did get tired in the last 5 years of going out to sea, working long days, sleeping in a room with 40 - 80 other people, etc........
From the US, retired Navy.
Mr. Bronk is as always sharp and point with his presentation. Western airforces reaped the peace dividend a bit too much for their own good.
We are very proud of our Airforce ,in Sweden and we always been.
High quality video with good knowledge and analysis there!
As a Canadian who grew up studying jets and military history, I was surprised Sweden wasn't part of NATO and hoped they'd one day join. Now it seems a few months off.
Sweden holds the world record in peace, as no country have stayed out of a war for such a long time as Sweden. So I hope we don't see another George W Bush, Tony Blair or Francois Hollande sabotage our world record with starting another stupid war
@@nattygsbordwould only affect Sweden if Sweden decides to let it affect Sweden.
Professor Bronk is the Energizer Bunny of Military analytics!
0.00 dude asks one question,... 0:21 Professor Bronk Starts Speaking, 11:21 Professor Bronk stops,.. there were several breaths in there.
The reason why no one buys it is because the social media claims don’t match up to reality. The reality is that it’s a very limited fighter without the backing of a massive spare part and maintenance network. The radar is limited compared to higher end aircraft and even with smaller maintenance team requirements it still needs a system to maintain the sensitive components.
Source?
People spreading bs like you isn’t as big problem as you think. Let me guess, you are a big mouth Merkin! In many ways the Gripen E is superior to f35, just like the Gripen is superior to f16.
Gripen have the same radar as Eurofighter - a radar capable of detecting stealth planes.
The only difference between Gripens and Eurofighters radar, is that Gripen have an upgraded better version of it.
@@jackstreet6979 "Hey man aircraft are complicated, don't fall for the marketing hype"
"Source? 🤓"
@@nattygsbord That's a major red flag considering that the Eurofighter Captor-E has been a clustertruck of F-35 proportions. Gee, the Gripen radar has the same basic design as the Eurofighter's Captor, which has been begging for the AESA replacement for like 15 years?
Having just moved back to Wisconsin from AZ, I only wish the roads here doubled as runways.
Brazil was wise buying it, hope my country does too.
The Swedish dispersed model only makes sense for frontline NATO states bordering Russkieland, such as the Baltics, Poland and Romania. If the Baltics combined their resources they should be able to support 12 Gripens, with 4 each, operated interoperable across their combined territory.
Because it's a jet for contesting air power rather than to actually enable the ground forces. If you're going to buy a fighter jet, why would you buy the one that gives your opponent the initiative? That's just a waste of money and you're better served by doubling down on anti-air systems if that's going to be your strategy.
We have the Gripen here in South Africa and I compliment the plane, fast moving and agile. I unfortunately have no info on inside of Gripen.
Might be worth mentioning that SwAF, & Gripen, also has it's own datalinks, TILDS, designed specifically for their purpose.. Nowadays it's compliented by Link-16. But TILDS looks more like where F-35's MALDL took it's inspiration from.. & TILDS is moving to a new generation with Gripen E/F..🤔
TILDS is a joke compared to MADL*.
@@johanlassen6448 considering how little is public about the new generation of TILDS, your comment is a joke by a 🤡.
@@johanlassen6448that's interesting because we Swedes have always pioneered the use of datalinks and The Gripen is no exception
@@andersmalmgren6528Lassen hates Gripen and doesn’t care what is true or not.
@@andersmalmgren6528 Still nothing special about it. Just because Sweden was first does not mean Sweden is best. USSR was first to us composite armor on their tanks, do you think their composite armor is any good?
The quality of your datalink is determined by how much data it can transfer. TILDS is a standard omnidirectional datalink. Easy to intercept, and incapable of transferring vast amounts of data. Its comparable to Link-16.
MADL by contrast is a completely different animal.
Funny, I was thinking about this topic for a couple of days. You read my mind.
Sweeden rules the sky.....greetings from Copenhagen
By what metric? All the tenders they’ve lost?
Both the tactics and the aircraft would suit Ukraine like a glove.
With NATO membership, the Swedish model would, rather ironically, be less applicable to Sweden as they are now completely surrounded by allies. Finland, Poland, Ukraine and perhaps some of the smaller NATO states would definitely benefit from the ideas and practices behind it though. Interesting video, also lots of good Gripen video... you know what we like! 😁
nah. Europe is giving up on the idea of combined arms and are transitioning to the kind of grind heavy, artillery duels we're seeing in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Notice the disregard for coordination between regiments and units in the interview. Combined arms are pretty much headed out the door.
@@Humorless_Wokescold Lol, no. Even in atritional combined artillery war, you still havr combined arms. Combined arms are not heading out, they are here to stay. But what is important to realise is, that you can build yout combined arms force differently, focusing on different arms.
@@aleksaradojicic8114 Attritional, artillery heavy warfare is defined by its lack of cooperation between systems and units. It precludes it in the long term. Look at the situation in Ukraine. Both sides have devolved to using tanks as self-propelled artillery and SOF as assault infantry. In fact, it's one of the biggest points of tension between NATO trainers and "NATO-trained" Ukrainian soldiers. But even setting that aside, what capability does the Gripen actually provide? Why buy a Gripen instead of investing in stronger anti-air systems and mass producing attack helicopters?
@@Humorless_Wokescold Mate, it is still combined arms. If there was no combined arms in Ukraine, by either side, this war would be over by now. There is no war without combined arms.
@@Humorless_Wokescold Gripen actually gives Ukranians ability to perform offensive air mission, giving them chance to take over initiative from Russians in air. Air defence cant do that (and there is big if can west can produce enough, so stronger anti air is possible not even a option). Attack helicopters on other hand will mostly stay out of game for Ukraine until day Russian air force and air defence get countered, for which again you need air force.
Very interesting to see how they work and the differences to other air forces. I'm wondering, about the format, is that a glitch in the editing application that makes speakers suddenly zoom in and out every few seconds? It's awfully distracting.
So now that we have justin on. When will we go full circle and see either you or Ward Carrol on each others channel? Gotta get you somehow into a F-14...
Love how the Swedes view pilot careers. Would much prefer this method.
Before all the F-35 fan boys start piling in: The Gripen is designed to be a defensive fighter with high survivability in the opening days of a hot war with Russia. This means dispersed basing and pop up and kill type missions.
If you need to reach out and strike within SAM contested enemy territory their are better options which demand a much larger logistical and industrial footprint.
When used as intended, the Gripen system will give you more missions per day and airframe than the F-35.
If that is what you need.
Directly disproven by the Finnish evaluation. This is the new "hurr durr drag makes the Gripen have better climbrate than F-16" (also proven to be a lie BTW).
Being able to be shot down easier is not the win you want it to be
Exactly, where in the Finnish procurement assessment is my statement disproven?
I remember the F-35 winning by outperforming the Gripen in most other areas, but not in sortie production. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@@johanlassen6448 Well we don't actually know the Finnish evaluation results in detail. So said evaluation proves nothing to us mere mortals *directly* other than choice of Finnish Airforce to prefer F-35 for their needs as overall choice in their evaluation. Everything else is reading tea leaves or say watching wolfs fight under a carpet and then only one emerging out. We saw the carpet ripple around a lot, but we really don't know what went down.
It comes down to "Finnish tax payers have to trust Finnish Airforce did good honest job for the best of the country, since classification requirements are such to make it impossible for Finnish Airforce to openly tell how they came to their conclusion".
As I remember certain parlamentarians got to see the raports for oversight purposes and that is about it.
@@davedeville6540 The F-35 outperformed or performed equally to all other competitors in all regimes. That means that, at best for you, the F-35 had an equal sortie production (or at least equal capability to bring weapons to target). At worst it was outright better.
Also worth noting that the Gripen is really cheap to operate, something like $5k per hour compared to $20-25k per hour for the F35. Swedes operate very lean.
The USAHEC has a lecture posted on UA-cam entitled "Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession." I highly recommend it because it touches on institutional aspects that Professor Bronk notes here. Basically the issue in the US Army is that there is so much mandatory training that doing all of it would chew up your entire work day, so soldiers simply lie and claim that they did the mandatory training. What does this have to do with risk taking? Well, quite often this mandatory US Army training is triggered by some people being stupid. Someone gets a DUI while on leave. Or some soldiers drink a mystery substance they think is booze but is actually antifreeze (an actual story that happened at Fort Bliss a few years ago). Then a new mandatory training is added to tell everyone something any sane person already knows: don't drink and drive or drink random substances. This won't stop stupid people from being stupid, of course, but it does gum up the system make it harder for regular people to do their jobs properly since they have constantly do pointless paperwork (I see this in American education all the time, btw, so this is not just a military thing).
I wonder if a reason that Nordic societies are able to have a high percentage of their GDPs be in the public sector while still having efficient economies is because these societies remain meritocratic (i.e. they might have a large welfare state, but this does not mean that time and resources are wasted trying to protect inept people from their own poor decisions). This might explain how a country like Sweden that much of the world thinks is "Socialist" can have a decentralized air plan that requires and rewards personal initiative.
really interesting -great content
Availability, moderate cost and system effectiveness = Gripen
I enjoyed re-watching this, don't get me wrong, but isn't this "just" a re-edited version of the "What we must learn from Sweden" video?
With changes in the economy leading to instability in the stock market, some individuals may face a decrease in their
investments in an effort to benefit from the current market conditions, I am considering liquidating my $725k portfolio
consisting of bonds and stocks. Someone else in the same situation? Please tell me in the comments!..
would suggest you thoroughly evaluate the companies you have invested in and their estimated future performance, as we may
expect to see the market decline further. To minimize stress and improve efficiency, it might be wise to seek the
assistance of an investment advisor to help restructure your portfolio and identify any underperforming investments to
offset. This approach has been successful for me and has reduced my stress levels.
@@Reymason317
I have been exploring the possibility of utilizing advisors to help navigate the stock market during these uncertain times.
However, I am still evaluating their potential effectiveness in providing the support I need.
@@carlorodriguez771
Christy Val D'souza is an esteemed coach known for her proficiency in her area of expertise. You probably might have come
across her. I found her on a CNBC interview where she was featured and i reached out to her afterwards. She has since
provided entry and exit points on the securities I focus on. You can carry out a quick internet research on her name for
more info. I basically follow her market moves and haven’t regretted doing so...
@@Reymason317
I was considering changing my investment strategy and planning to sell certain positions. As my retirement is coming soon,I
became increasingly stressed. After thoroughly researching Christy Val D'souza on internet, I concluded that I had made an
informed decision. Thank you for this Pointer. She seems very proficient and flexible. I booked a call session with her
too.
There's a profound sense of awe and wonder that overtakes you. Reality becomes magical, it becomes mystical. What was the mundane and the ordinary like a kitchen knife, a fork, a glass of orange juice, a piece of bread, a tree, a dog on the sidewalk, a car, these things were all taken for granted. But now with breakthroughs into mystical consciousness you realize the true nature of all these things and how miraculous and amazing they truly are and you stop taking them for granted. So even the most mundane and simple things stop being boring, they become interesting, they become profound, they become spiritual experiences for you. You can look at a fork and start to cry because you realize how amazing the existence of a fork is.🍴🍸🍞🌳🐕🚗
The Gripen aka “No thanks we’ll take the f35 instead”
And fly a mission once a week as opposed to several times per day.
@@davedeville6540 citation: the Saab marketing brochure
@@jb76489 I think the most impressive thing about F-35 is it's marketing.
@@znail4675 well that just makes you sound like a massive twat then doesn’t it?
@@znail4675you can bash all you want. Those who know, are investing in the future. And 5th and 6th generation aircraft are that future...
Air forces don't seem to like lightweight fighters, even though they have a lot going for them. The same thing happened to the F20 Tigershark, the Folland Gnat etc.
Gripen is a lightweight fighter but I don't think of it as such. I rather think of the big two engine fighters as heavy fighters.
And I believe that being heavy comes with a cost. Likewise do two engines come with a cost.
I believe that most of the succesful fighters of World war 2 was one engined planes for a reason: FW-190, P-51 Mustang, Corsair, Yak-9, Spitfire, BF-109, P-47 Thunderbolt, A6M Zero, F6F Hellcat.
There however existed two engined fighters: P-38 Lightning, Bf 110, and Me-262.
Two engined planes are bigger which means more air resistence. It also means twice as much maintenance - and they also cost more to fly and will spend more time on the ground instead of up in the air.
A bigger plane is easier to see and harder to camouflage. It is a bigger target for the enemy and therefore easier to hit. It have a bigger radar signature due to its larger size. A big plane like F14 Tomcat also takes up much space on an aircraft carrier, which means that few planes can fit inside a ship, while with a smaller plane you might be able to have more planes inside the ship.
Having two engines is however considered safer than just having one. And surely might chances of surviving a birdstrike be higher with a plane with more than one engine. However having four engines is no guarantee for surviving a birdstrike as Eastern Airlines Flight 375 shown, and nor did it save a two engined passanger plane from being forced to land in the Hudson river.
In the past was engines also highly unreliable so crashes caused by engine failures were common. So having two engines was considered safer for that reason. The engines on F4 Phantom was considered highly unreliable for example.
However, times have changed and engine failures are much more rare nowadays.
And if one look at statistics on the number of crashes per 100.000 flight hours are Gripen and F35 some of the safest planes one can fly. They are indeed safer than most two engined fighters. So the old argument that two engined planes are safer simply no longer holds true, when they crash more often.
And even in a classic dog fight without missiles would two engines be a disadvantage more than an advantage since it makes your plane bigger and a bigger target. And yes the plane might survive a first burst of enemy fire that takes out one engine. But then your big plane with inferior aerodynamics compared to the enemy plane with one engine will be at an advantage. You now fly with just one engine like he do, but you fly a heavier plane with more drag, so he will now likely much more easily outmanouver and outfly you and shot you down. So having an extra engine is likely no life saver in air combat.
A few Gripens have been crashing during training and excercises. And even if crashes are extremely rare, and happens more seldom than with other types of planes do crashes with Gripen still happens. But so far have not a single crash happened because it only have 1 engine - as engine failure has so far not been the cause of a single crash.
Indeed I also think that this obsessesion of an almost purely theoretical risk only, of a crash due to engine fire being silly.
If enemy fire destroy one engine and sets it on fire on one plane, then you often times gets both engines knocked out by the fire pretty quickly as they lay closely to the other engine, so when the fire spreads then do both engines quickly cook off.
So for that reason would I rather feel safer flying a Gripen E over the artic region for Canada, then what I would if I was flying a plane with two engines that have a higher number of crashes per 100.000 flight hours like say F4 Phantom.
So these videos have done well at explaining how the Swedish Air Force operates in a model where they have a survivable force but sort of leave out the fact that this whole model is built around ensuring a particular sort of credible non-nuclear deterrent. The Swedish military is built around making Russia pay as much as possible for every meter of Swedish territory knowing full well they can't defeat the Russians outright, but can make an invasion so costly the Russians stand more to loose than they stand to gain. Dispersed operations are built around the assumption that whatever fuel, munitions and spare parts a unit starts an invasion with is all they will ever have as supply chains will be severely disrupted unless NATO countries become involved. This is what results in such an impressive degree of autonomy and flexibility, but it's a model that can't do what the rest of NATO is geared to do, which is interdicting Russian Forces before they reach the border using long range strikes. I'll sometimes joke though that the Grippen is a 4th gen stealth airplane, because it's designed to hide in a dispersed base, pop up, conduct a short range air-air intercept or ground attack mission, then run back to a dispersed base and hide in the trees with its ground crew.
And for NATO, that should be a highly useful complimentary capability to the already existing assets and tactical doctrines.
@@SonsOfLorgar Yeah you can't have everything but it would be nice, especially for Germany and other countries to the East. At least the USAF still won't retire the A-10 haha.
Flying Viggen 10 m above the Baltic to strike ports in the USSR was definitely practiced. Not sure if this is so interesting anymore.
@@bjornerikroth in the sense of being a relevant tactic and strategy not really, in the sense of being insanely cool it very much is!
The undeniable knowledge is that Gripen is very well designed, technology wise it is very advanced. But fact that no one buy it as expected is worry some. As it is oddity why not?
Ukraine is happening mainly by Su-25SM3 and Su-30SM2. The Su-30SM2 is 4++ generation (closer to 5th than 4th) and it is odd that Gripen isn't tested there.
Saab really doesn't have a boneyard full of them just for a live fire test.
They don't buy it because it is overhyped. Really it is THAT simple.
@@pm3302
1. Literally the smallest and least capable AESA radar of any modern Western fighter.
2. So does Eurofighter and Rafale and they can fly higher and faster.
3. Literally all 4.5 gen fighters have data link.
4. Overmarketed ability that requires a massive logistical organization to work beyond being a gimmick. Ukraine has already demonstrated that its airforce can operate even without official STOL capability.
The issue is that there is nothing Gripen does that other 4.5 gens do not do better. And do bear in mind that 5th gen is a thing.
@@pm3302 Don't bother responding to that troll. It's on any Gripen-related video.
Wonderful aircraft, well done Sweden. Actually well done Europe, Gripen , Typhoon , and Dassault Rafale. My pick is GRIPEN . A very neat tidy aircraft and good looking. Would really go down well in Ukraine. SLAVA UKRAINI. Welcome to NATO land of the Gripen and much , much more , welcome Sweden.
One thing that’s missing in this videos is the domestic piece. Sweden, like France, has a serious internal problem with “recently arrived citizens” that is far more a threat than any external actor. There have been for years “no go” areas that the police dare not venture into. I know it’s off topic but it does play to a nations ability to sustain a force. Especially when there is a sizable portion of military aged males that have absolutely no intent to assimilate into the nation’s culture and even less likely to rally to the flag in times of an emergency.
As a swede I also find this to be a confusing double standard. What made/makes Swedish military (and other) industry unique and competitive, is the flat organization, low level responsibility and last but not least, trust that your fellow workers do the same.
At the same time the country is filled up with people that has non of this culture and no loyalty to the country they have moved to. The (upper) middle class pretends like this is no issue and are frankly being enraged by anyone who points this out. It is hypocrisy at the highest level.
I bet SAAB, Kockums and Bofors really propone "diversity" when hiring, when in fact the opposite is their strength. It is a sad thing to see. The high-trust society I grew up in is gone.
If the Finn’s can really do BVR fighting in IMC, that is truly terrifying for anyone else in their airspace
Cause I know from close family that they fly their planes in weather conditions when everyone else doesn’t even open the hangar doors to take a look outside
Forgive my ignorance but what does bvr and imc mean?
The reason people don't buy it is pretty straightforward. It's a single engine, 4th generation fighter comparable to an F-16, except it's a Saab meaning it'll be a nightmare to maintain.
video was really quiet but I enjoyed it. thank you
Gripen E is on par with almost everything the F35 offers. It's even better in some aspects. The thing I think that makes countries not buy it is stealth. I don't know if stealth is that important if you have the extremely effective ew suite the Gripen E comes with, but I dunno. I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
It is that important. Stealth is using dark clothes at night. EW is shining your flashlight and hoping you're not seen.
Would be really interesting to see this system exercised against mainstream nato nations. The UK, in its history, used to have flying CO’s and administrative CO’s. Pilots need to maximize the combat effectiveness instead of getting sucked into admin. Admin is not leadership. Sadly in most militaries the tail wags the dog.
Go check the Red Flag exercise results of the last two decades.
So basically Sweden is one big aircraft carrier 🤔
No? Just as a carrier is NOT "basicly a small country" xD
Interesting. Thx for the Video.
Australian here, I'm certain the Swedes have the best approach. Our governments have been charmed and scared into ridiculously expensive and overpriced weapons systems from the US that seem designed mainly to bolster their reducing influence. A twin engined grippen with a easily upgraded avionics. Vastly cheaper to acquire and operate.
It is going to be Interesting to hear what conclusions your neighbors in New Zeeland will come to in regard to their discussions about the future of their Air Force. Perhaps NZ is even more suited for the Swedish approach?
1:47 bro that minox wreaking havoc with your facial elasticity and circulation - those dark circles
I’m very frustrated we, the Danes, ended up with the F-35 instead of the Gripen. Now that all of Scandinavia is in NATO, our forward defence position is with our Swedish and Finish brothers and sisters and it would have been significantly easier if we all ran on Gripen.
There are news circulating in our country (Philippines) has selected the Gripen C/D for our MRF Acquisition project. We just hope that we (Philippine Air Force) don't regret selecting this Plane.
Its a good plane. I would go to bed at night without any worries.
Saab grows increasingly frustrated in its inability to increase export sales. As good as the Gripen is and the the economic case that can be made in many instances, reality overrules common sense and the F-35 is a much better choice for NATO. The 1000th F-35 will roll off the assembly line later this year and the waiting list for NATO nations to procure more is getting longer.
Ahh.. The F-35 acolytes.. 😅
Are you so naïve, that you think that rational reasons are at work when deciding?
Germany has signed a contract for 35 F-35 planes for $252 million per plane, to be delivered circa 2025.
South Africa *bought* 28 J-39 planes for $53,5 million a piece.
I'm sure Germany will be happy with that purchase. At least I know that the US M-I-C will be.
SAAB has a long time ago stopped being frustrated over the US's constant interference when they try to explain to small countries, that they do not really need a formidable offensive AF to defend themselves.
@@leifiseland1218 i mean... its a good plane, no matter how much you hate particular aspects of it
@@leifiseland1218 seethe and mald all you want, the gripen still won’t win tenders
@@jb76489 hmm.. I leave the seething & malding to the F-35 acolytes, for the time when they realize the real costs of that system.. 😇