Saab JAS 39 Gripen Multirole Fighter
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 03. 2022
- After producing several aircraft with plenty of potential but little international appeal, Sweden's SAAB aerospace and defence company finally hit the jackpot with the JAS 39 Gripen E or Griffin, a multirole combat aircraft with a delta wing and canard configuration with fly-by-wire flight controls.
The Swedish could have simply bought foreign aircraft but decided to develop their own fleet catering to their needs, especially during rising tensions with the Soviet Union and the persistent threat of an invasion.
The Gripen was influenced by several aircraft of the era, and its first iteration finally flew in 1988, delivering incredible potential. So much so that several variants are still being built to this day.
The latest version of the SAAB Gripen is comparable to the Russian Mikoyan MIG29 and the American General Dynamics F16 Fighting Falcon and has already caught the attention of an impressive array of countries.
It is a highly competitive marketplace, but the sky's the limit for the company’s most successful aircraft to date…
--
Join Dark Skies as we explore the world of aviation with cinematic short documentaries featuring the biggest and fastest airplanes ever built, top-secret military projects, and classified missions with hidden untold true stories. Including US, German, and Soviet warplanes, along with aircraft developments that took place during World War I, World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Gulf War, and special operations mission in between.
As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Skies sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect and soundtracks for emotional impact. We do our best to keep it as visually accurate as possible.
All content on Dark Skies is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Flygande tunnan = flying barrel
Draken = dragon
Lansen = Lance
Viggen = thunderbolt
Gripen = mythological creature, half lion, half eagle
JAS = jakt, attack and spaning = hunt, attack and reconn
Thank you for bringing up the JAS fighter in one of your vids. 👍
Jakt Attack och spanking? Spaning kanske :)
@@Peter1984ch The griffin is made to spank it's enemies ;)
@@Peter1984ch 😅🤣 my bad, fixed 👍
The best part of the Grippen is that it keeps Sweden as an independent force with its own material instead of relaying on imports from US/France/Russia, like most countries do.
Sweden has built their own aircraft since WWII. They have used some aircraft sourced from other nations, but most of their fighter strength has been homegrown.
Except for the foreign components, like the engines
LOL what? IF SAAB didn't get help from other countries the jet would not leave the ground, have avionics or any weapons on it. Plus:
In May 2019, Saab announced plans to locate a new U.S. manufacturing operation in Discovery Park District Aerospace on the west side of the Purdue University campus. The facility will do the final assembly of the T-X advanced jet trainer, which is a plane developed by Boeing and Saab for the United States Air Force.[20]
They are far from an independent force 😁 Still a cool jet.
@@antr7493 To be fair, without foreign customers, the economics of scale would be painful even for the likes of Boeing and Lockheed.
High performance aircraft are technologically intensive and need the highest demand possible to make sense, and we've been moving towards concentrating specialized manufacturing into fewer places (for better and worse).
@@Bustermachine good point, but he wasn't talking about customers more that Sweden can produce it's own fighter with out any help. Just not the case. During WW2 the P51 was an excellent fighter\bomber. It was a beast after it got the Rolls Merlin install in it. It's always better to collaborate regardless of customers. You said it well "High performance aircraft are technologically intensive and need the highest demand possible to make sense". The Boeing 777 is another good example. They made parts in others countries who's airlines made promises to buy it, like Japan. 😁
Before the war in Ukraine, I basically never saw or heard the Gripen where I live in Sweden, but for the past few weeks, I've had them flying above my house pretty much daily!
To keep our skys free❤️
They've accidentally made low altitude flyover my parents house a couple of times (lives in the middle of the wood), basically just like 50-100 meters over the ground
It was intense
@@awesomefacepalm So they are flying higher than before, during the cold war the Swedish Airforce trained just 10m above the treetops...
@@kalle5548 Maybe they were still,
I didn't have any time to see them, because it was all over in 2 seconds
@@kalle5548 Still the same rules 20m/30m, long time ago it was 10m/20m.
I drive a Saab, after learning about the extensive history of Swedish innovation, I’ve come to appreciate all things Swedish from Cars, to military gear, to Airplanes. Smart people. Love the video as always.
And furniture! I had a Saab 99, three 900s, and a 9000 SPG...loved them all!
Dude you post this same comment in almost every single video about this plane. Get a damn life.
@@orneryokinawan4529 who the hell are you talking to ? No one cares about your negativity go bugger off and find something you enjoy. Salty little boy
Don’t forget the powersaw, I know there isn’t any American ones that any real logger would ever pick over a Husky. Considerably better, only the German Sthil is comparable.
In fact I don’t even think the US makes any . They used to make mcullah and pioneer but even years ago they were garbage.
We don't have green cards, but do try and visit.
One of the better Dark Skies vids. Informative and with the video on subject. SAAB as far as i recall have not designed a dud aircraft to date. All of them were as good, if not better, than the alteratives. They have served Sweden well. What has surprised me was that the Viggen did not get the international sales that it deserved. At least the Grippen is doing well. At last.
Agree 100%
The Gripen is the embodiment of a dud. Are you ware that the only reason it has “won” any foreign military sales contracts was due to bribe scandals?
Not only planes but tanks, artillery, and shoulder fired weapons. Sweden is a well ran country. I wonder how Germany and France will react to this in the coming years.
The thing with Arms sales is that, a lot of it revolves around politics too. This is why some countries have to buy from the UK, US, France or Russia.
This issue was not so much that countries didnt want it. It was more that the US said sure - go buy the Viggen - but if you do we wont sell you any weapons to use with it. But if you buy our jets you can arm them as well.
I tend to avoid comparison as in the F-16. My work in the 80's on F-15, 18 and the little F-5, oh, the experimental F-20 produced a perspective of "which aircraft best suits the specific needs of a given mission. Being convertible to the General Electric power plant for a 20% increase in power is amazing. And what, Seven of those Air to Air missiles tracking to more than 120 kilometers? Now that's impressive. The best of all is a perspective on independence from American engineered craft. STOL by use of the innovative Canard, gosh that's valuable. I think, different and capable really benefits the often justifiable ideals of best the air defense arena. I hope our world never sees an ultimate jet fighter. Sincerely, rooting for and always am, The Underdog. Great Video guys, inspiring series, every one of 'em!
Being convertible to the GE powerplant isnt completely correct. The RM12 engine, used in the Gripen C, is a license built and modified F404 Engine from the F18. The new Gripen E uses the F414G engine which is modified specifically for the needs of the Gripen E. The F414 has around a 20% increase in power over the F404 engine that is used in the Gripen C.
@troy Ferrington For both Troy and SWA Gaming: Gentlemen, I am honored by your knowledge and accurate nomenclature and specsmanship for the involved power plants. I was young, major subassy mechanic, quality circle leader and worked for the plant union buster. I built the motor bays on the F-5, the fuel floors, and the carrier hooks, along with the afterburner assy. Some work on F-18 wing surfaces. Crane Operator. For McDonnell Douglass Crew lead for a short time on empennage to fuselage join. Our vernacular was quite different. I was approached with an opportunity to work on the Secret City Bombers and received my security clearance. Then the layoffs caught me and senior personnel filled those positions. The option was to work on a little project likened to putting a V8 in a Volkswagen. The 5 model would lose both light weight engines and gain a single engine from the F-18. The new plane was explained as a hot-rodded F-5 with digital avionics instead of analog circuitry allowing a quick scramble time of just a couple minutes instead of 45 minutes. Back in those days my position offered no direct knowledge of Thrust figures. You both are amazing. My contribution was merely years and years of on-time zero defect construction. My time in aircraft, commercial and military construction let to careers in other fields requiring precision manufacturing at extreme levels in hazardous industries. But specs? Nope, not at 14 months from 70 and still putting in 40 hrs. a week. Thanks guys.
@troy Ferrington Gosh, thanks! What I really know, and this is forever, when I see any of them fly... I fly with them. Long live them all!
Wasn't the F-18 a product of some of the things that had been done with the F-20? Like the area from the fuselage to the wing. Sorry, I'm having I brain cramp and for the life of me I just can remember the name....oh man this sucks. Oh, one other thing. Were you around the project where they used an F-15 to test thrust vectoring, among some other things that were new for the day?
@@samuelhatman8995 you're a hero in my eyes sir. You did a lot of great work. A gold star in the asset column. Love hearing stories like yours. Thank you!
I never thought I would be so enamored with this aircraft, it's simple yet elegant and and overall fantastic machine, would love to have a model of this on my shelf
Revell makes some kits of the older Gripens. I hope we get kits of the E version. I'd like to build one too.
I couldn't agree more. The Gripen E is dollar for dollar, pound for pound the heaviest, smartest hitting, fastest, little beauty of a weapons systems flying today without fiber-mat stealth. As a Canadian I was seriously sad when the DoD chose the F-35.
@@hopper131 Don't get me wrong, the F35 is an amazing plane.
I still think the High/low mix of F35 & Gripen would have served Canada best, mostly because of the short runways of many remote areas suiting the Gripen and the lesser flight hour cost.
Who knows, maybe someday...
@@thunder2434 That mixed fleet would have been awesome. No single supply chain. F35 for complex NATO missions, JAS-39E for NORAD tasking and NATO if needed. Having a light and heavy fighter would do the RCAF pilot cadre some good.
F-35 is cheaper and superior to the Gripen.
Honestly, you left out it’s best feature.
It’s turnaround time, it can be combat ready with a minimum crew of 4 including the pilot in under 10 min. Any other fighter takes 20 to 30 in the best conditions whereas this thing is the F-1 pitsop of jets, it’s crazy easy to maintain and repair. Even a full engine swap wouldn’t keep it out for longer than an hour so long as they have a spare available.
Its such a ground crew and pilot friendly plane when compared to the American or Russian counterparts
Yes, in a war, those aspects you mentioning is all that matters. Love to see an F-35A take of from a 400 meter road out in the bush..
Another great feature that has been part of SAAB's design strategy is its overall robust build. It can operate from small secondary or improvised runways (highways, etc) with little or no trouble at all. For smaller nations whose primary airfields are within easy striking distance, this can be a huge consideration, and it's one area where the Gripen, and the Viggen before it, far outclass most American fighters, that are designed to fly off meticulously maintained runways.
Dude. You just made my view of it as "a good all-around fighter" to "groundbreaking tactical weapon." You should start a channel about this stuff.
sounds like the perfect fighter jet for Ukraine
Finland has highway runways and attached staging areas for our fleet of F-18 Hornets dotted throughout the country and I'm pretty sure we'll operate our upcoming F-35s from those runways as well. Once a year our air force does training landings and take-offs from a highway runway under 10km from where I live. There's a road bridge over the highway at the end of the straight section of road acting as wartime runway. When the training flights are taking place people gather on the bridge to see the fighter jets take off and fly over the bridge.
The F-18s also often operate off of regional airports. In January when I was at the Kuopio airport waiting for my flight to Helsinki, I saw a whole bunch of F-18s land and a bit later take off again.
The Viggen was a such a great plane, love the sound of it as a kid... Raw power and nice to look at 😉 🇸🇪
we always laughed at the sound of the compressor stalling, said it was Sven kicking it in the ass!
You should check out the Viggen module for the flight simulator DCS World.
It’s awesome. And if you have a powerful computer you can fly it in VR, now that is mind blowing.
The E/F variant is really a different aircraft with changes to the overall size, landing gear position, etc. Like the Hornet and Super Hornet are different. The E/F are among the most technologically advanced jets flying.
Compared to what? Its the least advanced of all Western 4.5 gens. And less advanced by far than 5th gens.
@@johanlassen6448 Source?
@@ThorSuzuki1 Finnish and Swiss evaluations.
It uses an imported AESA radar that was developed with licensed American technology. It uses an imported IRST from Leonardo. It has the fewest hardpoints, and has among the worst (possibly even the worst) TTWs of the bunch. It has only rudimentary sensor fusion. It has the lowest payload and the worst weapons variety.
The only thing it might have going for it is Arexis. But I doubt its much better than SPECTRA or Praetorian Dass. And it certainly does not compare to Growlers or F-35s.
I am sure its fine for hunting Russian planes up to and including SU-35s (i.e. all active service Russian fighters), because the latter are total junk. But calling it "among the most technologically advanced jets" is a stretch.
@@johanlassen6448 The achievement with the E/F isn't all out tech like many american fighters, the huge win is the low operational cost, ability to operate out of normal roads and the ability to be maintained, rearmed and refueled in a forest, the latter 2 in less than 10 minutes with a 3 man crew. To achieve all that it has to be a lot smaller and lighter than many other fighters, sacrificing some tech, but retaining enough to pick the Russian planes out of the air in BVR using pretty much any AA missile, and since it's a defensive machine it doesn't need to be a stealthy missile truck with massive range. It's designed specifically for Sweden, just happens that those requirements fit other nations with smaller military budgets
@@kalle5548 Unfortunately the Gripen E is not less expensive to operate than most contemporaries. Eurofighter and Rafale are both exceptions as they are very expensive. But F-16V, Super Hornet and F-35 have all been proven to cost about the same.
Is it fine for dealing with Russian planes? Sure. Is it the best we could have gotten in Sweden? No, not really. This is just poor Swedish political decisions coming to bite us. We could have had a foot in the F-35 program if we had been NATO partners. SAAB could have gotten a cut by producing some components, maybe. We could have had a much more capable airforce and thus been in a much better position vis-á-vis the Russians. But alas, we insist in Sweden in not being in NATO and in having our "independent" industry (despite the radar, IRST, landing gear, engine, gun etc... not even being Swedish...).
Gripen E is the result of us being pretty much forced to subsidize SAAB. And as you can see beyond Brazil no one is actually interested in jumping on the same wagon meaning we have to foot the bill for its development on our own. Will we even get Arexis? At this point I am honestly not sure.
As a Canadian I am sad we said goodbye to the Saab Grippen deal being offered us. It would've boosted our aerospace industry and provided us with a robust, upgradable and easily maintained platform. Instead we're going with the F-35 that STILL hasn't been cleared to fly in a rainstorm, never mind Arctic conditions. A guaranteed garage queen for decades to come. Thanks Justin.
This is the Fighter I was hoping we were going to purchase. Im not on board with the F-35.
nah the F-35's are way better despite the problems
It was another stupid decision by our inept government.
@@xxdesertstorm How?
My brother in christ Canada 🇨🇦 just purchased the most advanced multi role fighter on the market and not a 4th generation f16 like fighter
Fun fact: The Viggen even had reverse thrust, giving it an even shorter landing length!
AND, it could 'back-up' on the runway, to get ready to re-launch! Very, Very Important on Icy highway sections it was occasionally 'dispersed' to, as 'towing tractors' might not be available. AT THIS TIME, Sweden should consider sending ANY Flyable Viggens to the Ukraine. imho!
Gripen has one of the longest take-off rolls of all 4th Gen fighters, maybe even the longest. I’ve never seen a modern fighter take so long to get off the ground, and its climb rate after take-off is pathetic.
@@ericbrammer2245 And paint a target on their faces? Escalate the war further?
@@LRRPFco52 man you must totally know planes dude.🤓
@@undersandpaper8541 Actually, he's outright lying. The Gripen has about equal takeoff distance to most of the main 4th gen fighters, with the exception of the recordbreaking Boeing F-15 Strike Eagle (at 250 m). In fact, the most recent F-16 takes _twice_ as much of a distance to takeoff and land as the Gripen. Also, like half the 4th gen fighters are basically plagiarized Saab Draken designs (an _old_ Swedish design) - same wing arrangement, almost exactly the same fuselage, etcetera.
Sweden is incredibly well adapted in almost any craft and design issues.. I'm glad to have such a resourceful neighbour here in Scandinavia.
Yeah! And everyone and Bedstemor wants 'murica HW now :-(
The draken was exported in decent number. And the viggen would probobly be exported if it wasnt for a export ban on it. India and austria was intrested in buying it. But some part of the radar system was us made, so they baned sweden from export. So sweden want tonexport a version with out the us radar system, but was thretened to get the system removed from the swedish planes as well.
This system was the same that later was used on the F14. Ironically F14 was exported to iran
Yeah typical US fuggery
A rather strange statement I've heard is that the US wanted to buy the attack version of the Viggen for use in Vietnam, but the Swedish government was opposed to it. And for that specific reason, the US set up export hurdles as "payback".
The ban was also based on the engine, which was a Volvo-built version of an US engine.
@@jakobholgersson4400 makes sense, considering Sweden's neutrality.
@@jlvfr In that particular case it wasn't neutrality, Sweden was championing the cause of the Vietnamese.
Some say our prime minister Plame got murdered by the Americans because of it.
So in recent months I've been keeping track of countries buying new aircraft for their air forces. The gripen has been a solid contender in much of the world going head to head with the likes of the f35, and even winning out completely against platforms like the j11. like Thailands recent war games, which proved their bvr capabilities near unmatched
I got in one back in 2008: pursuing advances in datalink were evident even back then. More importantly, it’s a pretty bird.
It's datalink is actually quite far behind most other systems. Very low bandwidth.
@@dat581 / I guess the software upgrade only comes with a billion $ subscription.
@@dat581 Sweden started developing datalink about a decade ahead of the rest of the world. NATO datalink compatibility was merely a software update.
@@protonjinx Actually that's a myth. US Interceptors had datalinks around the same time as the Swedes did. The Gripen's datalink is also poor at less than one twentieth of the F-35's bandwidth. And no, a software update will not make it compatible with anything more than Link 16 which is being phased out.
The Gripen will soon be out of production with nobody interested in it due to it's exceptionally poor performance.
@@dat581 yeah, no. I think I'll take performance reports from red flag exercises and other official sources over a little troll who thinks Murica is #1 in everything.
Failed to mention that it was designed to be inexpensive to buy and fly. Among modern fighters it has one of the lowest cost-per-flight-hour numbers, being roughly half as expensive to fly as an F-35. It also features _extremely_ fast runway turn-around, and is maintenance and repair friendly. It was designed so that small, minimally trained Swedish conscript ground crews could quickly turn around and rearm the aircraft from rough forward bases.
Cost per mile of their cars (back when) was god awful compared to Japanese models. .
Thats not true. The only reason people believe it is because of a decades old Janes article which basically used fuel costs for the Gripen and compared it with lifecycle costs for other jets.
No that's the Gripen c the modern one cost more to run and buy and if you cheap out you will come to regret it
The austrian airforce used saab planes from the tunnan to the 105 ground attacker to the draaken, i saw them all in museums and they are astonishing and beautifull planes
The draaken especially is a beauty in of itself witj its bell shaped sillouette
1:56 Tunnan = The Barrel
Btw, Draken = The Dragon or Kite, Viggen = The Bolt as in Thunder Bolt, Gripen = The Griffon
JAS- Hunting, Attack & Surveillance
Lansen = Lance
@@ThomasGabrielsen
IBS- Irritable bowel syndrome💩
Also Tunnan = the barrel (nickname from its barrel shaped fusilage)
Great video as always! As a Swede, I'm impressed by the mostly very close pronunciations of Swedish words and names. It was definitely well above par when it comes to videos produced by English speakers!
Happy seeing my country's own aircraft here honestly
I've had the pleasure of watching this excellent aircraft being displayed and it's an impressive beast. I seriously admire the Saab aircraft corporation for being able to develop such an aircraft in Sweden - I think the last military aircraft that the UK developed exclusively was the Hawk - everything else such as the Tornado and Typhoon have been "international collaborations" so take a bow Sweden for having the determination to do this yourselves. I understand that it's far cheaper to run/acquire than any of its competitors and is thus attracting a lot of export interest to less wealthy nations as a result. Well done Saab and thanks for another great video!!
@Drew Peacock In the JAS-39 there would be no problem integrating them, (probably already done) since the software in the aircraft is modular and can easily be modified for new weapon's without re-certifying the aircraft, the hawk probably doesn't have that so it's much harder and would require more work, does more time and money, but possible, definitely
Most of the Gripen is not Swedish, starting with its US General Electric engine, then its Leonardo Radar, UK Martin Baker ejection seats, UK fuel pumps and servos, German Mauser 27mm cannon, UK landing gear and brakes, US Mil-1553 data bus set (ancient), Leonardo IRST for the E/F models, etc. There are some graphics online you can see where every system comes from internationally. It’s basically a NATO critical parts aircraft assembled in Sweden.
@@LRRPFco52 it has a Ericsso/marconi radar, the engine is us but modified and built in sweden
@@einar8019 Gripen C/D and Gripen E/F have different Radars. The Radar technology comes from other European sources, which are largely licensed or shared Radar tech from the US.
The US-UK Radar technical sharing dates back to the discovery of Radar.
I only saw one Saab, don't remember anymore which model, but it was so loud I said that it's a psychological warfare weapon.
Thank you Dark Skies for this. One of the greatest fighters that flew under the radar .
Really great video, keep up the good work!
I would love to see more swedish aircraft on this channel in the future!
I agree, kinda feel like they aren't talked about enough.
I love the focus on defence instead of force projection.
As much as I love these machines, these are supposed to be and should be built for defense ONLY. However this world isn't a utopia so that's never gonna happen. But we really should be aiming as close to the goal as possible
@@imza5535 if this world was a Utopia, we wouldn't need to worry about defense
@@Jusuff true lol
My Swiss airforce test pilot friend, retired, Marc, loved these.
Swiss Air Force pilots said the Typhoon and Rafale smoked the Gripen NG demonstrators in every respect, which is no surprise. F-35A out-performed those, so Gripen is at least 3 levels below what Switzerland ultimately chose. The Swiss are smart.
@@LRRPFco52 that's not at all what happened at the Swiss trials. For starters listen to whst Huw is saying about Swiss pilots loving the plane.
Then let's list the two separate Swiss trials.
Trial 1 (2012): The Swiss trials chose the Gripen E, even with it not being produced yet. The comparative tests were done with Gripen C data vs other planes. Regardless of numbers and diagrams showing the ageing plane being just that, they chose the Gripen future model of it based on that.
Then the public voted any plane purchase a no go. The Swiss public saw no need for new planes just a big expense. No plane was purchased. Not the F35. No planes.
Trial 2 (starting 2019): This trial only accepted existing planes in use today. The Gripen E was not submitted. I'll state it again since you have a hard time understanding this. Gripen E was not part of the 2019 trial.
At no point was the Gripen E competing with F35 or other planes in that trial.
Check your sources and stop spreading this. It isn't real.
@@thunder2434 Yes, I followed all of that in-detail. Even though Rafale and Typhoon crushed the Gripen NG demonstrators in the first trials, Gripen NG was offered at a much lower unit program cost. That's the only reason why it was chosen. Swiss AF pilots all rated the Typhoon and Rafale superior (they just are across all the metrics), but costs were getting way out of control.
For the 2nd trials, Switzerland actually asked Saab to re-compete with Gripen E, even though it has been reported that the referendum banned it. Gripen E is much different than Gripen NG demonstrators. Even after re-invite, Saab chose not to re-compete for the 2nd trials.
For cost and performance F-35A easily won the 2nd trials against Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon, just as it did in Finland and now Canada.
If you look objectively at the Gripen as I have, with the better part of 5 decades spent in aerospace and defense, it's a totally different picture than what has been painted by marketing and sales folks, but my analysis forecast the competition results accurately for Switzerland, Finland, and Canada.
@@thunder2434 The trials were much later than 2008. 2008 was when the RFPs were announced, not the trial. I thought the trials were several years later, as in 2011. Gripen NG Demonstrator was debuted at Farnborough in 2010, so it was available for the Swiss trials. Are you saying Saab didn’t send the Gripen NG demonstrator and sent older JAS-39C/D instead to Swiss trials? That doesn’t match my recollection at all.
Either way, they never re-submitted the Gripen E in 2019 because Gripen E didn’t exist yet.
Even though I get dizzy on a step ladder, I can't help to admire beautiful aircraft.
Always found this to be a very pretty little fighter. Aesthetically pleasing.
Every time I see Sweden on this CZcams I always want to say that thank you Sweden’s fighter jets in the late 80s that youEscorted our black bird out of the Soviet Union
Well, everytime I see American stuff on CZcams I want to thank you for having a nuclear armed submarine outside our coast protecting us! This was a secret deal between the US and Sweden.
Also, you guys wanted to have an allied partner in the baltics. Therefore you supported our efforts to build our own jet fighters so we could rule the north and baltic sea. You helped us with spare parts and stuff like that.
Between the 1960's and 1990's we had the fourth largest air force in the world! We were pretty strong back then and now we will soon get strong again! They have increased our defence budget to historical levels not seen in a long time!
We have all the technology and all the advanced weapons already today, since our defense industry survived by exporting a lot of our weapons.
Now we only need to scale everything up once more! Anyways, thanks for your support America!
Sending some love from Sweden and God Bless the USA!
@@goldrush5764 You forgot to mention about the Swedish diesel submarine the little tiny one that was able to crawl up along side a US aircraft carrier and destroy it in a simulation exercise
@@bishopofsahs Yeah! that's a pretty neat warmachine!
You know, what actually happened was that we did some exercise with the french navy in 1998 and we totally wrecked them. We sunk their submarines (nuclear ones) and boats and stuff and this was actually the reason why the US wanted to lease our submarine. And of course they could never detect it.
When you guys found out about that you contacted us.
That's at least the story I have heard about it. But we were the first nation in the world to have that kind of stealth sub.
Anyways, now we have a new submarine project ongoing. It's called A26, and that puppy will be sick!
It will be even more stealthier than our previous one, and it will be able to launch underwater drones! That can self destruct.
So imagine, you just sit there on the bottom and then just launch a couple of drones towards the russian fleet. Hehe.. They will be toast.. ;)
Of course it will have torpedos as usal, but I think that under water drones for small defence submarines like ours is the next big thing. It will be awesome!
@@goldrush5764 i’m glad Sweden’s on our side one more thing for you sir the Sweden let the American Air Force land on Gotland Island?
@@bishopofsahs I'm glad that you guys are on our side as well.
America has very good morale standards when it comes to conflicts. You guys help weak countries from bullies and in the fight against evil.
I mean America has saved hundreds of millions of lives throught history. You defeated the Germans, North Korea, Japan, etc. You turned these countries into democracy's once again and now they are close allies to you. I really appreciate that.. ;)
About Gotland, I don't know about that one, but we bought your "patriot" - system not long ago. That system is located on that island. I hope we buy more of those systems from you. Since we need that capability.
Other than that we have trained a lot with you guys in recent years. You have been in Sweden during some exercises. The last exercise we had was just a couple of weeks ago in Norway. Then we trained with you guys and NATO.
I hope we join NATO soon, but it looks like that. They did a recent poll and 67% support NATO and wants to join. Only 17% don't want to join, and the rest don't know.
We have never had so many wanting to join. In older polls it was always the no side that was the strongest. Now it has totally shifted. I think it's just a matter of time now before we will join. Maybe even this year!
Gorgeous plane. SAAB makes some fine, unique aircraft.
Excellent short documentary professionally presented. And you've been doing your homework. Well done.
Always nice to see what our country can produce and how it shows around the world. My flying experience is limited to SAAB SK50 Safir and Piper PA28 in Sweden and now Cessna 172R here at the Philippines
That's a sleek and beautifully designed aircraft.
Thank you Dark Docs for making this video. It's a lovely tribute and showcases what the plane is all about.
Our Gripen is Swedens defender in the Sky and as "Griffin" has long been a symbol of stregth and fortitude to our country it has a fitting name. I remember seeing the first official test flights as a kid, then a seemingly terrible crash early on where the pilot could just walk away.
The former is common with fighter plane development, but the latter is not.
It's been ridiculed and belittled in the past, by potential aggressors as well as allies. A "little plane that can't compete with the big boys". And yet it's performed well, to say the least, at Red Flag even before the new more powerful E version.
We see it make the final 2 picks now for several countries looking to buy new planes. Most recently Finland that settled on F35, and by a very narrow margin.
Of course competing with F35 incredible high tech Stealth and US backing is hard. But Brazil is a partner now. Maybe Canada, it's not impossible.
Anyway thank you, this video is pretty great!
Gripens crashed because their flight control system wasn’t vetted well enough before they went to live flights, and they are prone to stalling due to the poor Thrust-to-Weight Ratio.
Gripen C/D performance at Red Flag is not what it is cracked up to be by amateurs who don’t understand what Red Flag even is. Gripens had to be tasked with Red Air because they couldn’t bring anything to the table being incorporated with Blue Air, because they had no real Air-to-Ground capability for their first attendance. Red Air knows all the terrain and how to inflict maximum losses on Blue Air for the opening of campaign. Gripens flew with F-16C and F-15C aggressors as part of Red Air to do that job against National Guard units who were lacking in their Air-to-Air tactics, since they had done so much CAS and strike mission sets in OIF/OEF.
Follow-on attendance of SAF Gripens to Red Flag happened once they integrated GBU-12 and FLIR/LST pod capability on the Gripen C/D. Once Sweden passed several basic milestones for A2G delivery, they came back to RF and incorporated into Blue Air, but were again not very useful due to the poor combat radius of the Gripen C/D when carrying bombs and EFTs. It was more of a token of cooperation bringing Sweden up to speed with some very basic coalition air component forces interoperability.
Finland didn’t settle on F-35A by a narrow margin, but by a huge margin. 2nd place was the Super Hornet Block 3, which didn’t meet the threshold performance requirements for H-X. Gripen E came in dead last, its numbers too embarrassing to publish to-date. Super Hornet scored a cumulative 3.81, whereas F-35A scored 4.47.
The only reason Brazil ordered Gripen E/F was because the outgoing Brazilian President was bribed.
Canada of course chose the F-35A as well, since they have been a partner in he JSF program for many years.
@@LRRPFco52 have a bit of care calling others amateurs while you scour the internet for heavily filtered out public data to prop up your already made up opinion.
You do understand that fighterplane capability data are filtered before public presentation? Full specs aren't public neither for Gripen nor F35.
No gripen was ever "prone to stalling" as you can clearly see from the very few number of crashes ever with these planes over the span of 3 decades.
Moreover, the "lack" of thust to weight with the earlier models is highly exaggerated by detractors, especially as it has a high climb rate despite this (due to superior aerodynamic design) and a very high turn rate.
Does the modern F16 suffer from anemic thrust to weight then? Does it stall and crash all the time due to it?
No. But it's closer today with all the added electronics and fuel tanks to what the old Gripens have.
The numbers aren't that far apart but the F16 is still a viable plane.
As you know the Gripen E has a higher thrust to weight than a modern block F16. With superior low drag. It has a higher climb rate than many modern dual engine fighters.
Thrust to weight is what "amateurs" compare, Climb rate is the number non-amateurs look at.
And this earlier "low" thrust to weight was not the cause of that crash, it was a software/user interface error on the demonstrator that was fixed.
In the Finnish evaluation you don't know what the Gripen scored, because you haven't seen it. Have a little care there as well. Clearly the Superhornet dropped out before it.
And let me be clear on this as well. The Superhornet is one hell of a plane. It's amazing. It's just that the Gripen E is a more modern and outside the box though out plane with newer radar, EW suite, avionics etc. It' a far, far better plane than you seem able to grasp. But it in turn isn't an F35 which has unique stealth capability.
@@thunder2434 If your definition of an amateur is someone who has been in aerospace and defense industry since the 1970s specific to fighters and their weapons systems development, yes, l will absolutely own that. None of what I’m saying is filtered OSINT, but insight from ground truth.
08AUG1993: Crashed after STALL in front of Stockholm Water Festival in front of the nation. Pilot ejected safely.
20SEP1999: Crashed after entering wake turbulence of lead Gripen in formation, STALLED, pilot ejected safely.
01JUN2005: During WVR training, pilot entered 60 degree pitch-up, aircraft STALLED, pilot received V minimum warning as A/C departed controlled flight, ejected safely over Baltic Sea.
14JAN2017: (Gripen C) During flight demo at low altitude executing barrel roll, aircraft departed controlled flight and impacted the ground. Pilot killed.
The lack of Thrust-to-Weight is not from detractors but from basic math well-known to AeroEs. You looked up wikipedia. I’m using Saab and actual operator’s weights. The wikipedia T/W ratio is bogus, doesn’t add up at all.
The Gripen E has a much lower T/W ratio than any Block F-16, but especially lower than F-16C Block 50/52. We were on the F-16C Block 30 and 40 avionics development program for certain systems in the late 1980s, after working on several of the other CTFs at Edwards AFB (USAF Flight Test Center). The F-16 curb-stomps the Gripen in climb rate and acceleration when they are both slick. When combat-configured with the same external stores, they both are diminished in performance considerably, but F-16C Block 50/52 still have much better T/W Ratio. Do the math down to the pylons, LAUs, missiles, ammo for the gun, EFTs, and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
Super Hornet didn’t drop out of H-X. They stayed for the full competition, which spanned many years. I’ve been following H-X since 2014 when it was announced since my family is from Finland. We’re kind of heavily-interested in that decision for obvious reasons. Super Bug got 3.81/5 total score. F-35A got 4.47/5, the only entrant to break the threshold of 4 in all of the 5 Military Performance metrics used to evaluate H-X.
Nobody gives a rip how poorly Gripen E scored in H-X because we already know it was lower than 3.81. Go back and do the math on basic Thrust-to-Weight Ratio.
You need to add:
Empty weight of the airframe
Internal fuel (you can do 50% for combat T/W)
Wing pylons
Ejector racks (these fit inside the pylons to eject the stores away from the airframe, and are relevant to AIM-120C and Meteor)
LAUs for the SRAAMs
IRIS-Ts or AIM-9s
Ammo for the Mk27 cannon
.92 T/W ratio is what it comes out to, which does not meet even a 1970s 4th Gen fighter. This is why I correctly label it pathetic and weak.
@@LRRPFco52 yes lrrpf you ARE acting like an amateur and working in the Industry is certainly no excuse for it. And the blatant lack of basic insight in how this industry works sure is strange.
Let me point out once again, I was not calling you amateur until you were calling others such things.
But you're looking like one. If you care how you look then stop doing that.
Because all planes stall. Simply put.
You know that.
Looking at crash statistics for the Super Hornet or F16 for that matter exceeds the Gripen of any variant by a rather wide margin, with a magnitude of 10 or in some cases far higher.
The crashes of the Gripen, well, you listed about half of the total of them in your last post. Over 30 years. Stop an think about that for a minute. This is not a flawed plane design as you claim.
No less so than the F16 or Super Hornet.
Some of these American plane crashes that do happen are low altitude stalls. As you are no doubt aware despite what you post.
Because it's part of the danger of operating any plane, much more so a fighter plane.
The Gripen has a far lower crash rate statistic, per plane produced, than any American plane before the F35, which is quickly catching up, it's an uncommonly small handful of crashes so this doesn't say anything about the F35. Just that it's a fighterplane with still uncommonly high safety and zero crashes before and now a couple, which is exceptional. Like the Gripen statistic on the same is exceptionally low. Uncommonly low.
As you know it is, don't you? You DO know it is?
And yet you claim these things about proneness to stall you don't know. But you want to make people think so.
Do you want me to list crashes for Super Hornets or F16 to highlight supposed issues with them?
There's no shortage of these crashes to be had. I just don't assume to know what cause them or that these designs are faulty like you do.
I don't think such things make those planes any less, it's simply part of operating these platforms. I'm not saying the're flawed at all because of it. -You are, by your twisted logic.
Go check the numbers of crashes on these respective planes before claiming a plane you're biased against and compete in the market vs is flawed and prone to it.
As for calling the Gripen E "pathetic" and "weak" just because you failed to use the correct thrust output in your calculation and add parts you think were left out of the listed weight (but aren't necessarily so) and at the same time believe thrust to weight is the only thing that matters in a fighter is hardly professional.
With that logic we'd be flying F4s not modern fighter planes. Fighters in general have steadily been reduced in thrust since the 70s. Because other performance matters more.
A good example of this is the F-35, the plane the Finns picked.
@@LRRPFco52 ...you forgot to mention that the F-16 FF has twice the runway needs. Which...matters. So, sure, once it's off the ground, it climbs fast. But by then the Gripen will have been in the air for half an hour. 😋
It would be a miracle if this channel would actually get their information correct and in order.
Hahahahahah!
don't hold your breath.
Hands-down my favorite fighter jet
We had the F35 draken in Denmark it was a beautiful aircraft.
You mean the J35?
@@Jusuff Our had a 'F', We had Export variants of J35. A Bomber version called F35, and the Photo reconnaissance version RF35 and also TF35 for training.
@@radarmusen ah, i didn't know that
The Saab jets have always been impressive in my eyes. The Draken I always seen as a smaller F-106 Delta Dart, the Viggen was hampered due to export restrictions but still a capable plane. The Gripen’s nearly perfect for Sweden & for export purposes.
Beautiful aircraft. If it looks right, it flies right. And it's gorgeous.
Excellent aircraft, the cockpit is amazing ! 👍👍👍👍👍
I hope the Philippines will select the Gripen over the F16. Its STOL capability, quick turnaround, low maintenance costs, and integration of IRIS T and Meteor missiles make this Swedish hottie the ideal fighter for the Philippines. Not to mention, Saab offered 14 instead of 12.
+ they operate in a similar climate in Brazil
"If it is beautiful, it will fly well." - Marcel Dassault
Mostly true: exceptions include the hurricane
The most beautiful delta wing aircraft - Dassault Rafale.
It's not exactly unique at that statement a former Lockheed Martin CEO used to say if it doesn't look right it's not going to fly right
True just think of how the old swedish Saab Draken jets Flew great and looked beautiful
I had a snap together kit of this in 1984. loved the shape
I love this aircraft and the Vigen before it.
What a beautiful plane!
As someone who grew up in the 90s and early 2000s, I have to remind myself that SAAB was an aircraft company that happened to dabble with automobiles, and not the other way around.
One way to remind yourself is to play War thunder
I absolutely love this plane! It just looks so menacing!
Delta and canard.. Beautiful aircraft.
Gripen is the best looking of the canard/delta wing trio (Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen) imo
I can agree with that though I am a big fan of the kfir
@@spartanx9293 the kfir looks like gripen and Viggen had a child
It's a nice jet
Seen it live and it looks and sounded amazing. It was on Gripen from czech air force. Simply amazing.
Such a beautiful airplane, too!
saab is just amazing at making fighter jets, j35 draken, the first plane to do high alpha maneuvers, aj37 viggen, a mach 2 fighter that once saved an sr 71, and jas39 gripen, one of the most advanced planes in the world
The Saab is indeed wonderful, but what may become clearer in the future is that its digital system is remarkable and the primary reason that it has been invited to join the UK's next generation fighter program. Simply put, the software is modular and allows for the rapid and flexible addition of new capabilities. Brilliant!
Love the multiroles on the Drakken, Virginia, and the Griphen I have seen and worked with the first two while in the service, but the Griphen was being tested. They seemed to be great Aircraft and looked good.
Draken = The Dragon/Kite
Viggen = The Tufted Duck/Lightning Bolt
Gripen = The Griffin
They wanted same performance as the Viggen but a lot cheaper - So Gripen was born so one could call it a lightweight Viggen. And its basicilly a F-16 + plane since Viggen lost to F-16 and F-18 everywhere (and Mirage 2000)
@@jari2018 Lost to F-16 and F-18?
You mean lost export orders?
@@benghazi4216 yep but it's been losing the majority of its export orders to the f35 it lost in Finland and Switzerland
@@spartanx9293 Now to be fair, it won in Switzerland. But that got thrown out because of reasons the F35 option was even worse at.
It's seldom about the planes themselves. Political variables are most of the time more important.
Got to love them for making their own aircraft
A good family friend is a qualified test pilot. At the time he retired from the Air Force, he was a squadron leader and the head of weapons research and testing. He is a graduate of the Empire Test Pilots School, has flown well over 100 different fixed and rotary wing aircraft. He didnt get to fly the F-22 Raptor but has flown the F-35, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. I asked him if he had a favourite and he said without hesitation the JAS39 Gripen was the best pilots airplane, arguably as capable but easily the most enjoyable fast jet to steer through the sky! Im incline to believe him!
I know a few (almost all of them if we can be honest) Canadian pilots who would love this.
Same can be said with the F-35
Canada has selected the F-35.
@@WALTERBROADDUS We should have both, mostly the Gripen for much lower operating cost.
@@annoyed707 And proven Arctic operations ability.
You're getting f-35s and you're going to like it
Fun fact when Sweden updated the gripen to be able to communicate at Nato standard Link 16 they had to down grade the communication links that they have between Gripens...
It really does look like it flies very smooth.
Outstanding!
I have been a avid fan of the J-39 since it first became a fully registered plane.
I absolutely love this aircraft and its capabilities, which I believe has an advantage over other similar aircrafts.
I know in Canada, our Air Force is looking at replacing the CF-18 with either the newer SuperHornet, F-35 Lightning II, or the J-39.
I know Canada will most likely make the mistake of taking on the SuperHornet or F-35, in comparison to taking on the J-39.
I truly believe this aircraft is perfectly capable of delivering what is needed for the Canadain Air Force at a cost and ability that neither the SuperHornet or Lightning can deliver
They are buying the best aircraft that being the F-35 America will be paying for training and the economics of scale will make up for any costs the gripin does not have economics of scale with few Nations using it or producing parts the F-35 also has better capabilities
Honestly most Nations aren't going with the Gripen both Finland and Switzerland opted for the F-35 and at this point all it would do is guarantee that your air force will be obsolete in 10 to 15 years
It has more than you need - except for stealth. But that's not really an issue if you're looking for a defense fighter. The interface is one of a kind and can be customized to the needs of the user (eg country of operation). Also, being software, it's modular and can be developed, improved and changed regardless of the airframe. The integration with other aircraft and into a combat network is at least up to date. This is an affordable, rugged and innovative fighter of the 21st century.
I wonder what these would do in Ukraine right now...
Wow very cool brother thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise and hello from Detroit Michigan USA Great video Brother 👍
Nice vid
OMG that cockpit! 😍
Looks kinda Tesla-esque to me, although it predates Musk by a couple decades.
@@tarmaque The cockpit shown is from the Gripen E which started flying this year. The Gripen C has a very different looking cockpit with 3 separate smaller screens.
@@vberl9573 Something I wouldn't know much about, so I'll take your word for it. _The one shown_ looks very Tesla-esque in any case.
"Heheheheh. You said..." 😉
Best of luck to SAAB, it's a difficult industry to compete in. Sadly for them, the F-35 won over the Gripen here Finland.
Also some odd footage of definitely not a Gripen at 6:35
Well it's the better jet and with Russia actively threatening Finland it would be best not to cheap out
Fun extra facts about SAAB. The SAAB J21 was the first serie produced plane with a catapult. The names of the jets produced by SAAB is in swedish and here is the translate. J29 "Tunnan" = barrel, like oil-barrel. J32 "Lansen" = lance, like a knights lance. J35 "Draken" = dragon. J37 "Viggen" = could mean Tufted duck or thunderbolt, but the name comes from Nordic mythology; when the asa god Tor strikes with his hammer Mjölner, the sound is called Viggen, a sort of nordic mythology thunderbolt. And J39 "Gripen" = griffin, and the name is a result of an name-contest in the 80s and is also the name of the SAAB logo were they have portrayed a griffin.
That was a light technical introduction of the aircraft... Apart from its EW suite - one of the most powerful in the world. There is also a tactical and cultural perspective that is different and probably very efficient - it's turn around time of under 10 minutes (re-arming and re-fueling with the engine running) and it's completely de-centralized operation and how the pilots are in the same wing for 20-25 years...
Would you ever take a look at the Dassault Rafale? or even French Cold War era aircraft? I feel like their contribution to air combat history gets overlooked slightly. The Mirage and it's several variants comes to mind as well.
The Rafale is a magnificent fighterplane and the older Mirage planes are legendary. I'd love videos on those too.
To be fair I have seen 29's, f-16s Eurofighters, Rafael, and Gripen at shows. Honestly the Gripen seems to be at least in maneuverability to be closer to the 4.5 gen fighters it truely is an impressive beast.
I've seen a formation of these fly over the Scania HQ (Saab-Scania not to long ago), they looked at home and very cool
But spares will have to come from Sweden. That's a tenuous supply line. Dispite that I hope the Philippines gets something. If it's the Grippen so be it. 👍
Cracking aircraft, saw them at Joint Warrior some years ago.
The engine the Gripen uses is manufactured by Volvo under license from General Electric. Which means for an air force to purchase a fleet of Gripens requires American State Department approval.
Volvo also upgraded the F404
💜 We only allowed that, since Sweden allowed the Swedish Bikini team to tour the U.S.A. 🥰
@@antr7493 …. Our pleasure
They also require UK approval, due to 30% of the plane being manufactured using UK parts. Including the AESA radar. This is why the UK was able to block the purchase of the Gripen by Argentina.
@@IPendragonI So stupid of the UK. And now the Argentinians will buy Chinese instead. What a win for the democratic world...
She moves like a F-16 and fights like a Mig29? I'll take 40 for my 3rd world squadron, please and thank you!
This will beat an F-35 especially in bad weather.
LOL... You won the Internet today.
Yeah i also need some for my dictatorial chair force.
@@N911GT2 i always love when fighter pilots\aircraft engineers give their opinions. Be kind of hard t shoot a f-35 down if you can't find one. ya know, stealth and all. Gripen must light up a radar like the bat signal. Still a cool looking jet. Got to love the ability to land in a forest.
@@N911GT2
Yeah....
no
It's a beautiful machine that's for sure.
My favorite aircraft. It is such a beautiful aircraft
Actually, the Tunnan was more inspired by the Messerschmidt P.1101 than the Me 262
well said i was hoping someone would comment.
Tunnan had five world records 👍🏻
Came here to comment this 🤘
Tunnan was not based on Me 262 - Germany had a project looking much as Tunnan, with windtunneldata etc.
Wiki says, regarding development of the Tunnan,
"Information on swept-wings came through Switzerland and included drawings for the Messerschmitt P.1101, P.1110, P.1111 and P.1112. SAAB's project manager, Frid Wänström, collected these documents in 1945 from Messerschmitt engineers who escaped to Switzerland at the end of the War. "
@@lancerevell5979 yes and - knowledge within the me 262 roject is part of it so but more directyl those projects you mentioned, like the deisng of the airframe is much the same. Knitpicking =)
Amazing aircraft👌
Surprising plane for 80s tech.
Thanks for the second video guys. Great work. Have a good weekend.👍👍💯
I love Volvo, so I’m gonna love this
So...a fan of boxy safe fighter aircraft?
Do a dark skies on south african atlas cheetah jet development.
As a pilot l really like the Cockpit layout....Show🇺🇸
Interesting Thankyou.
Bad for Canada and Sweden. Now Canada and other F35 countries will compete to make the cheapest aircraft parts. It's a little different from making an airplane yourself.
Canada should have taken the opportunity to buy this machine and separated us from subservience to the US.
However, political pressure and a potential war made the decision because the decision was too long in coming.
And you could have done that and you would have screwed yourself long-term you would have had to produce your own parts(which considering how little you pay for your own military would not be in the cards) and pay for your own training(the United States will be paying for training for the F-35) also have to deal with the technological costs of the program and ultimately creating an Air Force that would go about say 10 years before it was obsolete
To Put it bluntly if you wanted to stifle NATO interoperability lower the quality of Canada's Air Force and receive an ultimately inferior aircraft buy the Gripen
@@spartanx9293 Thank you for your American pro- Military Industrial Complex reply. If the F-35 had been operable 10 years ago as promised and not recently skidded off an aircraft carrier, I might agree with you
@@normcameron2316 many aircraft have had problematic people sing the praises of the f14 all the time and it also had the same type of accident all aircraft suffer accidents
@@spartanx9293 You are dodging the point[s].
If Canada had bought the Gripen 10 years ago, instead of waiting for the F-35 due to promises and political pressure, we would have had modern proven fighters and modern technology a decade ago and not be beholding to the US.
Mind you, I'm sure Boeing or some other US company would have found some complaint to make and stop us in American eyes.
@@normcameron2316 the Gripen e did not exist 10 years ago it was still in the test bed phase what you would have gotten would be Gripen cs which are on par with your existing hornets
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up for support
Saab has built innovative aircraft since WWII.
in military exercise where the F-22 was put against every plane the US could get their hands on (incl Mig-29, Su-27, F-15, F-16, F-18) the Gripen was by far the best opponent. Yes it lost - but far less than all others.
Thats not true.
@@johanlassen6448 He might be speaking about Red Flag. The Gripen E/F has the best record of any fighter that has ever participated other than the F-22.
@@operator0 No, it does not. Not even SwaF claims it has "the best record" (whatever that is even supposed to mean).
The only claims of Gripen being oh so great at Red Flag come from the same source: Stefan Englund, who is a known SAAB shill and former SAAB mechanic and who for that matter has been caught lying multiple times. Such as when he first claimed that Gripen Cs went up against F-16 Block 50s at Red Flag, then changed it to Block 52s, then changed it to Block 52+, clearly not knowing the difference between them. The irony is that no aggressor squadron in Red Flag operates any of those F-16 variants, they use Block 25, Block 30 and Block 32. Or when he claimed the Gripen C managed to score a Typhoon kill at Red Flag despite the fact that the only countries that operated Typhoons at the time did not participate with any Typhoon squadrons. Or the fact that what they were going up against were simulated MiG-23s, MiG-29s and SU-27s as part of a multinational exercise to improve cooperation against a likely adversary (ergo no fights between Western aircraft). But mr Englund sure does not let facts get in the way in favor of trying to market the Gripen for his employer.
@@johanlassen6448 Jane's claims the Gripen proved to be very devastating at Red Flag 06. I cannot remember where I read that the Gripen has the highest kill count, but that almost certainly was Jane's as well. I have not seen an account of a Typhoon being "shot down" by a Gripen except in your reply. I have no idea who Mr. Englund is, and if he doesn't write for Jane's, then that would explain why.
@@operator0 Janes bases itself entirely of Stefan Englund.
The viggen was the most advanced fighter jet in europe untill the tornado was introduced
Very cool looking plane.
Love the Gripen😍😍
A Saab with a Volvo engine, times are changing….
The jet engines built in Sweden used to be produced by "Volvo Flygmotor" (Volvo Aircraft engines) but that company is now split off from Volvo and is GKN Aerospace Sweden AB (owned by GKN in the UK).
@@sharg0 thx for the explanation, Rolf. When I was young I drove Saab cars. There was a healthy rivalry with Volvo. When I had a flat battery I refused an offer from a Volvo driver to be started by his car with jumper cables: no Volvo power in my Saab battery…..
Volvo engine?
Its a licensed and slightly modified F404 for the JAS-39C (all critical modifications were made by GE, BTW, not Volvo) and the F414-GE-39E for the JAS-39E. Its not a "Volvo engine".
It's the same with every 4th and 4.5 Gen fighter... The main plane they always compare to is the F-16. Just goes to show that the benchmark fighter for that generation off fighter aircraft is the F-16 and by far the most successful.
I was surprised to hear that when the F-16 first started out, it was worse than the F-35 for bugs. Supposedly losing quite a few aircraft with catastrophes. Hard to believe that now when you consider it’s probably like you say the benchmark for fighter aircraft.
I’m thinking now that the F-35’s already at the benchmark level for fifth generation fighters. Everything usually takes time to get the glitches out, but once they do, look out.
The Gripen E/F is a true 4.5 gen aircraft, with the ability to super cruise and an ECM and sensor suite second to no one. The Gripen has proven itself at Red Flag, having the best record of any fighter to ever participate except the F-22. As an American, I would like to see the U.S. buy a fleet of these things to replace the F-16, which has seen its last upgrades. In fact, the Gripen could replace both the F-16 and F-15 and do it well. This aircraft, coupled with the F-22 and F-35 would make the U.S. Airforce a nightmare for potential enemies.
That would defeat the purpose of having the F35, as it was made to be the replacement for other multirole fighters. With 35s, 22s, and 15s theres no need for another fighter for the foreseeable future.
@@John_Redcorn_ The F-35 doesn't have the air to air capability of the F-22, and is arguably worse than the Gripen in that regard. It's also more than twice as expensive as the Gripen, and that doesn't take into account operational costs, something the F-35 is notoriously poor at. The Gripen is a better all around platform than the F-15, as has been shown at Red Flag.
@@operator0 the f15 can carry twice as much as the gripen. So essentially you have twice the firepower, a missile truck. The f35 price is coming down more and more. Even if its more, it should be: its a much newer aircraft and its 5th gen. You want the good stuff you gotta pay for it. And with stealth capabilities the f35 is drastically better at deep interdiction than the gripen
@@John_Redcorn_ The F-15 C, the most prolific version of the plane, can only carry air to air weapons. It has no ground attack capability, aside from the gun. The Strike Eagle is the only version that has ground attack capability, and it requires two pilots, and is lacking in air to air capability. The F15 is a 70s design that is showing its age, along with the F16.
It is debatable as to weather stealth will be as much of a game changer in the future as it has been in the past. The Russian's new S-400 anti-air system is said to have anti-stealth capability. The Gripen has an ECM and sensor suite that is probably better than anything any U.S. fighter has. It rivals that of the Rafale. As we saw with the bombing of Libya, the Rafale did not need any escorts or stealth to successfully penetrate Libya's air defenses. This is without mentioning that the Gripen's ECM and sensor suite have been tested at Red Flag, and proved to be such a massive force multiplier that Red Flag had to change the rules to make the exercise fair.
Even if the cost to purchase for the F-35 comes down, the cost to operate is likely not going to change in any significant way. The plane is incredibly expensive to operate, owing to the fragile nature of the stealth coating. In contrast, the Gripen is far-and-away the cheapest modern Western fighter to operate.
In my opinion, The Gripen offers the best bang for the buck of any fighter currently flying, including the F-35 and F-22. Its capabilities have been proven and its cost to own and operate is astoundingly low.
@@operator0 yes but stealth cannot be overlooked. Its not about being “invisible”, its about giving you a few extra minutes to get closer to the target. Even with russia’s fancy (alleged) new missile tech, there are ways to get around it. Flying extremely low, with stealth capabilities, and with EWA jammers helping, those defenses can be penetrated. I would be leary to rely on anything the russian propaganda machine says, especially with new yet-to-be-proven defense systems. They have not encountered an opponent with the know-how of modern NATO airforces, especially the US. So many countries buying the f35, even small ones i thought would never have the funding (ie. Finland, Denmark). They cant all be wrong. And you are buying for the future. The f35 is predicted to fly i believe for 50ish years
Wonderful aircraft
Once a again, Canada has made the wrong decision and decided to drink the stealth kool aid. I watched the Gripens doing test flights at SAAB in Lynkoping. I believe in the long run, the Gripen was the better choice. The F-35 is too expensive, to buy, maintain and use for ground attack. The Gripen is a very small target with some serious teeth.
The Gripen has an $85 million price tag. The F35 has a price tag of $83 million with plans to reduce it to $70 million. Why pay more for a 4.5 generation fighter when you can get a 5th gen fighter for less?
@@cheapskateaquatics7103 As I said in my original post, it's not just the initial cost of the jet, it's also TO MAINTAIN that jet. Those jets have special radar reflective coatings etc etc. The SAAB is designed in Sweden, Designed for our type of weather, designed for harsh environments. The F-35 was designed in Georgia where they think 10°C is cold. The F-35 needs to be hangared all the time. Take a look at photos of our F-18s, you'll see them, a lot of the time outside. So now we have to pay for all kinds of hangars for the F-35? Initial price of the SAAB may be more, but IMHO, in the long run, it would be cheaper.
@@aint_no_saint8782 Yeah well those extra 25 mill is for the cost to train up your own engineers & factory workers and said factory to produce more if you need , price can come down if your not interested in said factory. Best deal would probebly been having both , since despite 800 buggs and being a hangar queen , its superior in air-to-ground.
@@matso3856 I'm sorry, but all new jets have bugs. The F-35 included. Hell, I've spoken to RAF guys and they say the Eurofighter is not great and there is a limited number available on a daily basis in the UK. (That was 4-5 years ago, it may have changed since then, as with all aircraft, they eventually work all the kinks out of them)
@@aint_no_saint8782 Sorry if I came across so strong , I did not imply any aircraft including gripen doesnt come without bugs. However , having a long tradition of building different airframes, and none of them being hangar queen's , makes me suspicious (since I refuse to believe the Americans isn't capable) that they are making the aircraft unnecessary complicated and need technicians for even the slightest problem that conscripts (in theory)could have taken care of , keeping maintenance sky high.
Turn around times become even more critical the fewer airframes you got.
International sales seem to somewhat remind me of Saab’s car cousins. Popular at home, but outside of that not that popular (although those that own them, love them).
Luckily it seems international buyers have now woken up to the Gripen, before it was bought up by an American brand, ruined, and shut down.
Most videos out there do not include the E Model, thank you for including it. It is my understanding that the engine in the A model was a General Electric F404 engine, same as the F18 A/B, manufactured in Sweden so it had a local designation. The E model Gripen has the same engine as the Super Hornet the F414 engine. IMHO a combination of F35 and Gripen E fighters would be a potent mix for a lot of Air Forces.
True, but the afterburner and some components around the engine is of Swedish design. According to other sources, 40 per cent of the engine compartment is of Swedish design. I have no idea how this is measured. Is it the cost for each engine?
hell yeah! my boi, grippy!