Great interview Mike and Mikael, I loved seeing the Viggen and Gripen at Airshows, they added a unique dynamic display to the Airshow, and still do 😊👍 thanks guys
Two un-armed SAAB AJS-37 Viggens at first, then two armed Viggens escorting SR-71 with over dozen MiG 25s ready to attack at any given time on their tail..
I learnt something today: I didn't know that Sweden participated in the operations in Libya first because Sweden is not part of Nato and second because I thought it was a neutral country. I am just wondering what made them participate. I am sure I will not get any answer here, so I'll investigate, by intellectual curiosity... Regards
We have signed stuff to join EU and north of Africa is within EU's sphere of interest , so when other EU members go there , we're under obligation to assist in some way. Feels like very few have actually read the fine print for joining EU ...
@@matso3856 Well, why not but the EU is not a military organisation (and will never be) so that a "sphere of interest" can only be economic interest. In other words I still don't understand why being part of the EU implies being invoved in military actions. In this case all EU countries should have participated which is far from being the case. To my knowledge only "NATO members" were involved since it's the only working international military organisation: mainly France, the UK and for some logisitics and intelligence the US (not part of the EU ...) Moreover Sweden is supposed to be neutral, so ... In my view it's surprising.
@@patolt1628 Again EU demands financial OR military support unlike Nato ... Im telling you to read the fine print , its not about EU being military org. or not.
Biggest nerd I evet saw , a guy came to fix my computer one day . Shaved head , black horned glasses .about 30 yr old and about 6 ft 6 in tali . We sat and talked about an hr about nerdy stuff . After he left I said to my brother , Dave , thats the biggest nerd I ever saw .Yes , he said biggest nerd I ever saw also . Don't take it wrong there was no disrespect involved , but he sure was a big nerd .( :
The issue with Gripen A/B/C/D is really range/payload. It's quite inferior to similar contemporary aircraft. It's OK for pint defense interception, but not for multirole tasking. This is why the Gripen E had to be developed, with more fuel and hardpoints. That finally made it a true multirole aircraft (the "ominirole" designation is total BS invented by Dassault for the Rafale. Pretty sure neither the Rafale or Gripen can haul a lot of cargo, for example, or perform the AWACS mission).
Yes sure, an AWACS is an AWACS. But there is no comparison possible between Gripen and Rafale range and weapon load. Here is what a Rafale can carry: 6 AG missile + 6 AA missiles + 3 x 2000L fuel tanks. defense-update.com/20140127_rafale_omnirole_configuration.html?amp On the opening of Libya Rafale flew strike missions directly from home at Saint Dizier in East of France. On the opening of offensive to stop jihadist in Mali, Rafale flew 10 hours long strike mission straight from France then landed in Chad. The Gripen A/C was too small as you said. Gripen E just comes back on par with Mirage 2000. (With canard control bonus). During Libya France conducted SCALP attack mission with Rafale and Mirage 2000D. The Rafale were on charge of AA cover for the raid on top of firing SCALP cruise missiles. Of course, higher AA threat would require dedicated AA load on escort Rafale. Also Rafale can locate SAM sites with SPECTRA ECM, and in Libya it blew Libyan SAM with AASM.
@@KRGruner The point of the Gripen is to be a semilong range defense fighter with limited foreign strike capabilities. Sweden doesn't want an aircraft that can comfortably reach Russia, bomb something there and then return to base, but we do want one that can take off anywhere in the country, intercept inbound bombers and defeat them without running out of fuel. There are plenty of countries that benefit greatly from being strong enough defensively that it deters aggressors but without offensive strike capabilities so they're not considered a threat to nearby nations. That's why Thailand bought Gripen, f.e. They don't want China to start showing dominance against them, but they don't want to be defenseless either. Besides, carrying 6 AA missiles and 6 AG missiles is never going to happen unless you already have complete air dominance, because any fighter that launches missiles at you from 50nm away will still force you to defend, so you'll either burn all that extra fuel in a hurry (a heavy fighter like the rafale will burn all its fuel with external tanks in 14 minutes in full afterburner) or have to dump your bombs and try to counterattack. Refueling where defending fighters can reach you is obviously out of the question, since a tanker is going to die as soon as any fighter sees it on its radar. So the Rafale may take off with 6 AA + 6 AG, but if it actually gets to use those 6 AG missiles, it's because the defenders aren't defending anyway.
Swedish Air'carf fighting Jet Saab Gripen E it's Helariac Air'carf that's Why CANADA Wanted Or interest in The-_- near future Saab Gripen E the Least I thing it's time to truth and I Should Say it Good Luck @:#:?ĹoL
Your taste is displeasing, I have no clue what you like esthetically in an aircraft. Gripen is the most beautiful hands down IMO. As for your question regarding the number of engines, that is just ridiculous. Why do you need two engines?
@@joemd7775 Similar turnrate but Gripen retains speed better. I think Gripen would kick the viper's ass. Not least because IRIS-T is miles better than AIM9X. If you're talking about guns, then that's really only valid for video games. If a modern fighter starts using its cannon for anything but close air support or shooting down defenseless things like an AWACS or a tanker plane, something has gone ridiculously wrong on both sides.
@@andreasericsson6989 According to the Norwegian Commanding Officer of 331 Squadron, he says of the F-16 "thanks to our more powerful engine...." So I'm not saying that anything that Duke said is in error, but it all depends. If you look at the F-16's climb rate and acceleration they do seem superior to the Gripen's (most notably the F110 powered jets). The Gripen does have a better Instantaneous turn rate than the F-16 (or F-18). Maybe that is what he is referring to when he speaks about "carving". Gripen's is 30 degrees. Sustained turn rate however goes to the F-16. And when Duke was pitted with the question about specific thrust and being somewhat underpowered he really didn't give a concise answer; but talked more about sensors and BVR. I have read accounts of Chinese Flankers beating RTAF Gripens in dog-fights (I do not know if the Chinese utilized their HMS and Archer). While the Gripens soundly defeated the Flankers in BVR. And I have read an account about the Gripen at Red Flag Alaska. But one must remember the poster said that they were Red air. If the Swedish jets were in fact simulating Red air, then most likely they flew with one centerline fuel tank or clean. The Blue force Block 50's probably had on 2 external fuel tanks, and HTS pod. When asked about load-outs the author couldn't give any specifics. And so that is my point, we don't know the ROE or particular aircraft external loads. Now I can tell you this, I have been in 2 real life F-16 simulators (Block 15 and 30), and the side-stick hardly moves. So I really do not understand where he is coming from when he says it "reminds" him of the Gripen. The Gripen's stick is center, and guessing it has more displacement than F-16's. Maybe Duke saying they seemed "similar", he is referring to overall aircraft performance of the 2 jets.
@@joemd7775 What Duke feels as a pilot is the Gripen has low drag in a high G turn compared to a straked fighter like the F-16 or F-18. Close-coupled canard (with relaxed stability FBW, otherwise it doesn't work) adds lift from the control surface, straked F16 kills lift with control surface (HTP) and its straked wing increases AoA capability of the wing but it also adds a lot of high AoA vortice drag from the strake. This sucks the energy from the F-16 while the canard adds lift with low drag to the 39. So while 39 T/W is lower, its drag in a high AoA turn is also lower. Duke and other pilots describe this as the Gripen carves through the air while an F-16/18 slides through the air. It's a good analogy to what actually happens.
@@martinstrumpfer1620 pal its common knowledge that shitty air frames need canards...Do Skunk works 5th and 6th gen jets have canards ? oh no they dont... every aircraft manufacture you mentioned has 3rd rate engineers.
Viggen and Gripen, two unique and beautiful jets, in their own special ways. Great interview!
Fascinating interview, always loved the Draken, Viggen and Gripen!
Great interview Mike and Mikael, I loved seeing the Viggen and Gripen at Airshows, they added a unique dynamic display to the Airshow, and still do 😊👍 thanks guys
Cheers Mike!
@@Aircrewinterview love that he so loves the SR-71 too 😉👍
Great interview, Mike! Loved learning more about the Gripen; we don't get to see it much here in the US! 👍
Cheers Ray!
Great interview Mike and thanks Duke.
Top bloke. Great interview. Thank you
Cheers, Mo.
Great interview. And of course, the Swedes intercepted a stricken SR-71in 1987 with a quartet of Viggens!
Two un-armed SAAB AJS-37 Viggens at first, then two armed Viggens escorting SR-71 with over dozen MiG 25s ready to attack at any given time on their tail..
thanks for sharing this.. great interview
Thank you.
Great interview- thanks
Cheers.
Great interview!
Really coz I prefer Gripen am from Philippines thank you
Finally!
I learnt something today: I didn't know that Sweden participated in the operations in Libya first because Sweden is not part of Nato and second because I thought it was a neutral country. I am just wondering what made them participate. I am sure I will not get any answer here, so I'll investigate, by intellectual curiosity... Regards
UN Security Council mandate operations.
Q: Why the Gripens were not shot down flying over Libya?
A: Coz they were already flying at tree-top level.
We have signed stuff to join EU and north of Africa is within EU's sphere of interest , so when other EU members go there , we're under obligation to assist in some way. Feels like very few have actually read the fine print for joining EU ...
@@matso3856 Well, why not but the EU is not a military organisation (and will never be) so that a "sphere of interest" can only be economic interest. In other words I still don't understand why being part of the EU implies being invoved in military actions. In this case all EU countries should have participated which is far from being the case. To my knowledge only "NATO members" were involved since it's the only working international military organisation: mainly France, the UK and for some logisitics and intelligence the US (not part of the EU ...)
Moreover Sweden is supposed to be neutral, so ... In my view it's surprising.
@@patolt1628 Again EU demands financial OR military support unlike Nato ... Im telling you to read the fine print , its not about EU being military org. or not.
@@matso3856 OK, I trust you. Any link to this fine print?
Could we please have more than one Swedish fighter T-shirt design?
God I love this plane
Most Swedes don't believe in God
@@Karl-Benny and neither do I but we all know the Swedes are the real gods for making this plane
He should have joined the Australian airforce
Greg is a big Cool nerd.
The Tesla though? Why drive an expensive Dacia vitality car when there are Mercs, Bimmers and Porsches?
Peace Duke
Biggest nerd I evet saw , a guy came to fix my computer one day .
Shaved head , black horned glasses .about 30 yr old and about 6 ft 6 in tali .
We sat and talked about an hr about nerdy stuff .
After he left I said to my brother , Dave , thats the biggest nerd I ever saw .Yes , he said biggest nerd I ever saw also .
Don't take it wrong there was no disrespect involved , but he sure was a big nerd .( :
The issue with Gripen A/B/C/D is really range/payload. It's quite inferior to similar contemporary aircraft. It's OK for pint defense interception, but not for multirole tasking. This is why the Gripen E had to be developed, with more fuel and hardpoints. That finally made it a true multirole aircraft (the "ominirole" designation is total BS invented by Dassault for the Rafale. Pretty sure neither the Rafale or Gripen can haul a lot of cargo, for example, or perform the AWACS mission).
Interestingly enough Saab had to dumb down the Gripen to fit into the NATO data link.
@@dehaviland7645 Indeed. Same for F-35 and F-22, although for different reasons.
Yes sure, an AWACS is an AWACS.
But there is no comparison possible between Gripen and Rafale range and weapon load.
Here is what a Rafale can carry: 6 AG missile + 6 AA missiles + 3 x 2000L fuel tanks.
defense-update.com/20140127_rafale_omnirole_configuration.html?amp
On the opening of Libya Rafale flew strike missions directly from home at Saint Dizier in East of France.
On the opening of offensive to stop jihadist in Mali, Rafale flew 10 hours long strike mission straight from France then landed in Chad.
The Gripen A/C was too small as you said. Gripen E just comes back on par with Mirage 2000. (With canard control bonus).
During Libya France conducted SCALP attack mission with Rafale and Mirage 2000D.
The Rafale were on charge of AA cover for the raid on top of firing SCALP cruise missiles.
Of course, higher AA threat would require dedicated AA load on escort Rafale.
Also Rafale can locate SAM sites with SPECTRA ECM, and in Libya it blew Libyan SAM with AASM.
@@JoJo-vm8vk Still not "omnirole." Rafale is a good aircraft, though, especially with regards to range/payload where it really is excellent.
@@KRGruner The point of the Gripen is to be a semilong range defense fighter with limited foreign strike capabilities. Sweden doesn't want an aircraft that can comfortably reach Russia, bomb something there and then return to base, but we do want one that can take off anywhere in the country, intercept inbound bombers and defeat them without running out of fuel. There are plenty of countries that benefit greatly from being strong enough defensively that it deters aggressors but without offensive strike capabilities so they're not considered a threat to nearby nations. That's why Thailand bought Gripen, f.e. They don't want China to start showing dominance against them, but they don't want to be defenseless either.
Besides, carrying 6 AA missiles and 6 AG missiles is never going to happen unless you already have complete air dominance, because any fighter that launches missiles at you from 50nm away will still force you to defend, so you'll either burn all that extra fuel in a hurry (a heavy fighter like the rafale will burn all its fuel with external tanks in 14 minutes in full afterburner) or have to dump your bombs and try to counterattack. Refueling where defending fighters can reach you is obviously out of the question, since a tanker is going to die as soon as any fighter sees it on its radar. So the Rafale may take off with 6 AA + 6 AG, but if it actually gets to use those 6 AG missiles, it's because the defenders aren't defending anyway.
So everything is about bla, bla, bla and no action on board the airplane!!!! very interesting, very.
Swedish Air'carf fighting Jet Saab Gripen E it's Helariac Air'carf that's Why CANADA Wanted Or interest in The-_- near future Saab Gripen E the Least I thing it's time to truth and I Should Say it Good Luck @:#:?ĹoL
Sorry but Gripen is least pretty next to Typhoon, Rafale. Also cannot see how it competes given it is single engined.
Pretty? And yes, the F-16 is also a single engine aircraft.
Your taste is displeasing, I have no clue what you like esthetically in an aircraft. Gripen is the most beautiful hands down IMO. As for your question regarding the number of engines, that is just ridiculous. Why do you need two engines?
@@carpetclimber4027 Because you couldn't build the engine right to begin with, and need a spare?
No way Gripen wins a dogfight against the F-16. Viper eats it at once.
The war games says differently but hey you keep believing.
Just current F-16 version didn't get into dogfight before "dying". Better radar, smaller cross section.
@@joemd7775 Similar turnrate but Gripen retains speed better. I think Gripen would kick the viper's ass. Not least because IRIS-T is miles better than AIM9X. If you're talking about guns, then that's really only valid for video games. If a modern fighter starts using its cannon for anything but close air support or shooting down defenseless things like an AWACS or a tanker plane, something has gone ridiculously wrong on both sides.
@@andreasericsson6989 According to the Norwegian Commanding Officer of 331 Squadron, he says of the F-16 "thanks to our more powerful engine...." So I'm not saying that anything that Duke said is in error, but it all depends. If you look at the F-16's climb rate and acceleration they do seem superior to the Gripen's (most notably the F110 powered jets). The Gripen does have a better Instantaneous turn rate than the F-16 (or F-18). Maybe that is what he is referring to when he speaks about "carving". Gripen's is 30 degrees. Sustained turn rate however goes to the F-16. And when Duke was pitted with the question about specific thrust and being somewhat underpowered he really didn't give a concise answer; but talked more about sensors and BVR.
I have read accounts of Chinese Flankers beating RTAF Gripens in dog-fights (I do not know if the Chinese utilized their HMS and Archer). While the Gripens soundly defeated the Flankers in BVR.
And I have read an account about the Gripen at Red Flag Alaska. But one must remember the poster said that they were Red air. If the Swedish jets were in fact simulating Red air, then most likely they flew with one centerline fuel tank or clean. The Blue force Block 50's probably had on 2 external fuel tanks, and HTS pod. When asked about load-outs the author couldn't give any specifics. And so that is my point, we don't know the ROE or particular aircraft external loads.
Now I can tell you this, I have been in 2 real life F-16 simulators (Block 15 and 30), and the side-stick hardly moves. So I really do not understand where he is coming from when he says it "reminds" him of the Gripen. The Gripen's stick is center, and guessing it has more displacement than F-16's. Maybe Duke saying they seemed "similar", he is referring to overall aircraft performance of the 2 jets.
@@joemd7775 What Duke feels as a pilot is the Gripen has low drag in a high G turn compared to a straked fighter like the F-16 or F-18. Close-coupled canard (with relaxed stability FBW, otherwise it doesn't work) adds lift from the control surface, straked F16 kills lift with control surface (HTP) and its straked wing increases AoA capability of the wing but it also adds a lot of high AoA vortice drag from the strake. This sucks the energy from the F-16 while the canard adds lift with low drag to the 39. So while 39 T/W is lower, its drag in a high AoA turn is also lower. Duke and other pilots describe this as the Gripen carves through the air while an F-16/18 slides through the air. It's a good analogy to what actually happens.
Only poorly designed airplanes require canards. What this dude just said to me is that a CF-188 can out dogfight a gripen e
Obviously you don't know anything about aviation ...
@@patolt1628sure deny the facts
I agree. Very clearly hundreds of thousants of aviation engineers at Saab, Dassault, Chengdu, MBB, BAe etc don't have any idea what they are doing...
@@martinstrumpfer1620 pal its common knowledge that shitty air frames need canards...Do Skunk works 5th and 6th gen jets have canards ? oh no they dont... every aircraft manufacture you mentioned has 3rd rate engineers.
@@MrEddieG420 okay Eddie.😂 You keep on believing that...