Which multirole fighter jet is the best buy? Part 2 of 2.
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 24. 07. 2024
- Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
đ„ callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ydi...
Last week, we undertook a job worthy of Sisyphus. To try and quantify fighter jets in production and being sold abroad, to measure their worth and to apply the economics to the whole package. And try to see if there is such a thing as a best buy multirole fighter plane for a small to medium sized country. We strongly suggest you watch that previous video, before going any further with this one. Anyway, for the economics of it all and the final conclusion, watch the video. All will be revealed.
Which multirole fighter jet is currently the best buy? Part 1.
âą Which multirole fighte...
Can Su-35 survive against the stealthy F-35?
âą Can Su-35 survive agai...
00:00 - Video introduction
01:28 - Procurement costs and price tags
02:53 - Domestic user flyway price tag estimates
04:47 - Recurring costs for 6000 flight hours
05:48 - 30 year flying costs
06:20 - Airframe life longevity
08:30 - 30 year ownership costs
09:01 - Air combat
09:35 - Air to ground
10:28 - Anti air defense
10:54 - Recon
10:19 - Conclusion
12:15 - Best buy?
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkovâ
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com - ZĂĄbava
Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
đ„ callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ydijozc4
Oh wow i am first noice. As a bulgarian we mainly buy F-16s mainly cuz they are pretty chap like we bought 10000000 previus year...
How to join the channels community page?
Is this video targeted towards India, Even if not it's very good for education of Fighter jets.
I mean. Multirole fighters are known from almost half century. Concept date as far as F-4 Phantom II.
Though it was not until recently when Russia mastered the concept. If they even did that.
â@@mtf_savage_beasts2565buy British, comes with tea making facilities.
I feel like this methodology drastically underplays the role of stealth in both air and ground missions.
If an F35 can perfrom vastly larger mission set due to stealth, it's an order of magnitude more useful in a real conflict due to its ability to break open say an air defense envelope. Or to act as air cover for a bomber force with half the air frames due to its ability to kill other planes without ever being seen.
Honestly, I'd say that it is counted in his mentions of "not being noticed by the enemy", but I'm just glad to see a comment that isn't just a US/Russia bot.
If you are expecting your adversary to be fairly advanced (4th gen fighters, S-300/Patriot SAMs), F-35 is clearly the winner. One F-35 and the Kerch Bridge would be toast right now. The only reason to do otherwise is if you simply cannot afford even a handful or if you are mainly concerned with insurgents or poor neighbors that couldn't shoot down a B-17 let alone an F-35.
What many people don't know is that stealth has more value than just in itself. Stealth is a force multiplier, many other capabilities get "boosted" by stealth, particularly with electronic warfare, where jamming will be much more effective if it's conducted by stealth aircraft due to inverse square-law effect.
Iâm gonna end this conversation once and for all, bowserâs airship is the best fighter
Penguin kingdom downvoted this comment
Nah tails the fox tornado>
Koopa Clown Copter best CAS
Porco Rosso will dominate the sky.
@@ahriise9570 wrong
Lizzo is the ultimate ATG munition
Its kind of interesting that the F-16 and Super Hornet are so close here and yet have such different sales records.
They competed against each other for military contracts with the USAF. F-16 won being more thoroughbred as a fighter. The F-16 then ended up being widely exported with 4600 and counting airframes built.
The USN then picked up the F-18 later since it was able to replace 3 of their older fighter and attackers due to versatility and durability.
F18 is designed for carrier ops. It isn't as maneuverable and it's more complex maintenance wise.
I somewhat remember, when Austria sought to replace their Draken. An official commented in the newspaper, that russian planes are way cheaper than Eurofighters, but you have to pay the Mafia dearly to get replacement parts.
But manufacturing in FabLabs is now much much easier
There's a reason something like 30+ countries operate the F-16, it isn't the top performance plane but it's REALLY hard to beat for value and has "enough" performance to not get outclassed automatically.
Another thing to consider as a medium country is which weapons will be cleared for export to you. Egypt has over 200 F-16s and no AMRAAMS. They can only use Sidewinders for air to air. Buying Rafales, in such a case, brings a lot more to the table than is immediately apparent.
You didnt factor in things like with the F-35 you dont need to buy a targeting pod and its associated maintenance and personel costs, or recon pod due to its built in sensors being configured for and intended to perform ISR.
Finland and Switzerland choosing the F-35 over other western fighter because they stated its cheaper then planes like the Grippen when you factor in these support costs is telling.
Interesting that the Gripen and F16 were so close together throughout considering that the Gripen is supposedly much cheaper to maintain according to the debate around supplying them each to Ukraine.
Gripen wont go to Ukraine as there simply isnt any aircraft left over.
The immense surplus of F16s negate any real advantage and really makes the point moot.
Gripen would be perfect for Ukraine, if Ukraine had bought 60+ units in 2014 but now Brazil and SwAF have all capacity tied up simply to replace existing C/D variants with Gripen E.
Gripen was designed for long grueling wars with Russia, F16 was designed to topple small countries who wants to stop using $ for oil trade.
â@@SverkerSuperThe Gripen C might be available to Ukraine next year and it's roadside ability makes it a better choice than F16 plus you can fit a wide range of missiles not just AIM 9X or IRIS T it also has A Darter on S.African version and Python is compatible also. Ukraine have sent pilots for training in Sweden!
@@NATObait Yes, this has been known for some time - Still does nto solve the main issue. Even if the Gripen would suit UAF needs - There isnt enough airframes or manufacturing capacity to fill that void, where as the F16 has hundreds of aircraft awaiting a new assignment.
The best option is the one you have at hand, even if i think we all would be happy to finally see a win for SAAB as Gripens in Ukraine would be its just not realistic as SwAF need every avaliable aircraft for home defence, except maybe 12 pcs (Just as with the 122s)
F-35 + F15EX looks like the best deal. The planes compliment each other perfectly and both give superior performance / total cost of operation in their respective niches. Makes sense USAF would settle on that.
đŻ Given how well the F-15EX ranked in just about every category, Iâm surprised it ended up so low on the list.
I actually agree with this. Probably having mostly f-15s with about a third of the total planes being F 35s would be best. But small-to-medium-sized countries with enough to run two airframes, which is usually avoided like the plague
I love the idea that a multirole jet can include VAT (or a luxury tax of sorts).
I wonder if a government can claim back the tax as a business expense?
Good video. I've placed my order for an F-18E. Can't wait till it arrives!
Gotta love the 50 year old F 15 still rating near the top in combat capability. Long-range fast-as-hell bomb-truck/indestructible tank with multiple lives.
Fighter Mafia may hate the F-15 for its size and weight, but larger size means more rooms to grow, and this is what allows the F-15 to fly into the future. Radars and engines in particular, benefited greatly from increased size, turbofans are more efficient the larger its diameter, for example.
Well you're wrong here because it's not that old F15, it's a much newer F15 strike eagle that has about 25-30 years. And a much much newer EX that has a couple of years
As we have seen in many a combat situation, just buying more of the worse plane/tank/etc., because they are "cheaper", isn't equivalent at all. For one you'd need way more skilled personal, logistic train, installations, runways, command staff, aircraft carriers, etc. The cost for all of that would have to be added into consideration.
But more importantly once you reach a certain tech/quality disadvantage, adding number doesn't help you enough. American, European and even Israeli war experience against Russian equipment mostly in the middle east has thoroughly proven that. Often numerically superior, but technologically inferior forces weren't able to even score kills at all, and their numbers melted against the enemy advance. And once your soldiers know that, only the most fanatical units will stay in the fight, if they have any chance to flee or surrender. And even if they fight, loosing all that experience through higher casualties is something most modern nations can hardly afford.
But what does this mean for the conflict between KiwiLand and Emutopia?
I see what you did there đ
We have enough f35s to win handily
i would go with the plane that doesn't lead to my country being sanctioned or declared as being part of a "axis of evil", so F16, F18 or Gripen
Yeah, when choosing a plane it's best to go with the winning side of the political and economic conflicts going on, and will be a reliable partner in peacetime.
F35 will definitely have higher modernization cost than previous planes. To my understanding, itâs designed to be modular and upgradable.
In turn it should also be very capable well into the future.
Also depends if you are supplying fighters yourself. For example; Rafaele for the french. F-series for US. And Eurofigher for all countries involved in its produciton (because they all get a rebate + it provides work for their population). Gripen is a good alternative choice for the F-series I would say and if you need a mix of combat planes, certainly worth taking these on for a role type.
Australia has F-18 Super Hornets and F-35A. Means we bought well acording to this list đ
The F18 and F35s are hangar queens, but when they fly. They can basically do everything.
My unasked opinion is: Australia will become some sort of western bastion in the Pacific.
Like.. a front state.
You guys get the best tech from all over the west, in every domain.
As far as I know, at least.
Nuclear subs, F 35, neat Agis destroyers, the Lynx and Boxer Family for the mech troops..... and maybe someday even Nukes.
As a german, I hesitate to congratulate you guys, for the front state status.
Because every tactical nuke of the theatre will be aimed at you, like it is for us.
Maybe a few more of those really neat destroyers?
@@heinzkabofke6791 itâs always good to hear opinions from other countries.
Thanks for the praise haha, I donât know if we are as influential as you might think though.
We have a relatively small but well trained and equipped land army. It is optimised to work with American and other allied forces overseas. Similar to Britain I guess.
We also have the luxury of spending a higher preposition of our defence budget on force projection platforms since we donât have an existential threat on our boarder like Finland and Vietnam do.
The only real potential threat to us is Indonesia but we have a relatively good relationship with them and even if they were able to land tens of thousands of troops here weâd be able to disrupt their supply lines with air power while they die of thirst haha. There isnât much infrastructure in the norther parts of Australia đ.
Oh, your point about being a target for nuclear attacks. I think the fact that we donât have nukes is what makes us a target.
I can imagine a lot of scenarios where China and America are in direct conflict and China decides to escalate and thinks that striking Australia with a nuke might achieve a ceasefire or at least put the ball in Americas court so to speak. If China nuked New York then Beijing would get nuked next. But what if they nuke a town in central Australia that kills 10,000 people. That leaves a lot of room for America to say âok ok, letâs stop and talkâ
@@chrisc2671 We neither have nukes. But we were a front state.
They targeted our military infrastructure and the large formations.
tactical.
Years ago I did something like this for an entire small defense force as an exercise in theater-level battlefield management... mainly designed to teach different ways of looking at logistics.
I valued multirole capacity and adaptability in everything from small arms to cargo aircraft and AEGIS vessels.
I'm proud to say my #1 multirole fighter was the Gripen and my #2 was the F-16... so pretty close.
The F35 or Gripen, depending what's available either in cost or politically...
That's another strong reason Ukraine wants Gripen complementing the coming F-16's. It's roughly as capable as F35, but also purpose built for the kind of warfare Ukraine is fighting - and specifically the Russian's!
F 18 super hornet is a underestimated dog, but it's performance and reliability is top notch, with cost efficiency
Visually appealing aswell
USN Budget Overviews have the Super Hornet at gross cost $95mil each while the F-35A has fallen to $85mil each. The F-35B last I checked a few years ago was $140mil each and the Marines were holding out for them.
Now the JF-17 Blck III Has an AESA Radar, right? So in BVR the Su-30, Su-35. Would get crushed by it, so why do we not have the Blck III on this list Binkov?
The risk with buying old airframes is the previous Country might have wound the odometer back....
Not if they want to keep purchasing the hardware from the original seller. If you drag the F-16s name through the mud by dishonestly offloading rundown equipment, don't expect Lockheed or whoever to cut you a good deal in the future.
A good combo would be f35 and gripenE. F35 as a force multiplier (harm, long range air-air, etc) the gripen as a workhorse (forward positioning, lower costs etc). The F35 has a small load capacity to maximize its invisability potentials, with the gripens doiing the heavy loading in the back (more second wave).
F35 for a/a mission and f18sh/rafalef4 for a/g mission!
I think the combo should be Nato wide. F 35 for rich countries with big fleets and grippens for smaller poorer countries.
The F-35A is already a workhorse.
Geez thanks for the timely video binkov. Im calling my minister to cancel my plane order now...
My guess was F16 or Gripen E. F18 surprised because carrier compatibility comes at a cost unnecessary for many mission types, so I thought. The price and capability carried it to the top.
Regardless of the sensitivity to weight parameters, the top 3 stand out and the capabilities check out in the real world. They are capable fighters for a medium sized country at competitive costs. A few F35s could help as force multiplier by adding higher-end capability, but the meat of the force is best composed of these bang for buck fighters.
Yeah f35s are scouts running ahead as a force multiplier while the 4+ gen stuff are the missile carriers coming in behind
As a belgian that grew up staring at F16 jets flying by from time to time I am pretty biased. But the plane is very multirole , combat proven and it can be obtained at a decent price. I think its a good plane for most countries :)
Iâve always liked how willing this channel is to engage with hypotheticals
Its a fun experiment. Thank you for making this video. We know this list isn't accurate but still i'm happy for gripen, given the low sales number compared to F-16. I also happy for super hornet. Seriously that plane is criminally underrated.
After last weeks episode, I thought the Eurofighter, F15 & Gripen would be coming out as winners here. Proud Brit to see Eurofighter doing well and a soft spot for the Gripen.
Surprised by large costs of Eurofighter especially, wouldâve thought that F35 wouldâve been far more expensive compared to others hence why my American cousins are buying F15Ex over F35âs.
I like the Hornet though. Itâs a great overall design and a workhorse. Good overall experiment.
The final result does seem to make sense. The F18 can easily swap mission loadouts and sensor packages, and can even refuel each other for long endurance.
As an up and coming international arms dealer, this video is very helpful.
đ€Ł
The one step that might be shown around the 11:47 mark would be to take the Points/Cost of Plane and multiply by the # of thousands of flight hours that they frame will last, before a replacement must be purchased. This would double the number for the F-15 (20k hours) vs. the F-18 (10k hours). A more detailed life cycle cost could also be figured, factoring in fuel and maintenance costs / flight hour over the life of the vehicle.
A country's choice of a new aircraft type is likely to be influenced by the legacy types that it operates. Australia's "new" aircraft is the F-35 but it continues to operate several variants of the Super Hornet. Initially Growler versions were acquired to replace electronic warfare versions of the F-111 but later versions were acquired complement legacy Hornets while F-35 delivery was delayed. That pattern has repeated 4 or 5 times since WW2 with priorities changing each time for perceived changed threats, impending loss of capability, and upgrade capacity of the old and new aircraft.
Even though they're all multi-role, I would advocate for a high/low mix of 2 fighters. You can't buy 100% F-16 or Grippen - you'd be dominated by a like-sized force with better air superiority fighters. And maybe you can't afford 100% F-35s or F-15s. So a high low mix is an option. Say 2 squadrons of F-35s, complemented by 4 squadrons of F-16s or Grippens. Or however many squadrons, but in that 1/3 - 2/3 mix.
In general I agree with you, have a light, small and cheap one engine plane like the Gripen together with the F-35 or F-15 EX is the best of 2 worlds but that wasn't really what these 2 episodes were about. I think we are missing something when we are dependent on a single plane doing all roles because a Jack o' all trades are master of none. The earlier doctrine of having specific planes for each role is more expensive but it is very effective.
However, a small country can not operate 5 or so different combat planes, it get's way too expensive and if you do go up against a nation like the US you are pretty much screwed in the air in any case, even if you focus on super advanced planes that could go one on one with the American planes you will not be able to keep that up for long.
2 types is still possible unless you are really small so I agree with the 1/3 2 engine and 2/3 one engine as long as you minimum could afford 25/50 planes, otherwise you should probably just buy something really cheap in larger numbers instead, having less then 75 planes is not a great idea and I rather have 200 really cheap Russian or Chinese planes then like 50 Gripen and F-15 together. Planes can also get taken out on the ground and so few planes are really vulnerable.
I would prefer the Gripen to the F-16 since it is easier to maintain and spend way less time in the hangar which is important when you have few planes, Binkov didn't really go into that part and it doesn't really matter if you can afford hundreds of planes. It also require smaller landing strips (or just a straight good highway) which might or might not matter depending on your infra structure (if you have good highways and few airfields it matters a lot, if your roads suck but you have large air strips it doesn't matter much).
Sadly, the Super Hornet is not in production anymore so I would count that out as an option.
@@loke6664 The Grippen is underrated. I'm sure it could be link 16 connected to the F-35.
@@scottstewart5784 That part isn't a problem, Gripen have worked with F-35 in a bunch of training exercises already and Gripen is built to work with NATO planes.
You really just get a problem when you are operating Russian or Chinese planes together with NATO planes, those aren't exactly made to link to the same AWAC planes and so on and can't carry the same weapons.
It is still a bit more logistics when you operate more then one type of plane but the military advantages is worth it.
Gripen's big problem is that manufacture time is higher then for instance F-16 and it isn't easy to get hold of some used older models cheap either (Hungary are renting their model C Gripen so they succeeded with that and got them cheap but it is pretty inferior to the latest model). Used F-16 planes are dime a dozen and you can get those for almost nothing if you don't mind flying older technology.
That is also the reason Ukraine is getting F-16 now, Gripen would have fitted their needs better but there is no way they could get enough planes in time to make a difference, just finding 36 planes of different models would be a hard task but 200 F-16 is pretty easy to get, particularly when Denmark (and is it Holland or Belgium) are phasing theirs out for F-35. A lot of NATO countries have a few F-16 planes they can gift to Ukraine.
If you are a small country and have a few years to wait, Gripen is a great plane to get but if you need it *now* because your larger neighbor is invading, F-16 is certainly your only choice.
And both F-16 and Gripen are small one engine planes, that is great in some situations but larger 2 engines planes have their advantages too and certainly can take more weapons, particularly if you don't need stealth for your current mission.
Wow. What an absolutely fantastic video. As an analyst myself who does a lot of modeling, I very much respect the rigor of the research and analysis here. Iâd bet these concluding numbers are reasonably close, certainly from a stack ranking standpoint for the following reason: the more you break down the path of analysis, and for each item or link in that chain, you make informed unbiased estimates, the closer you get to correct conclusions. One of the reasons why thatâs the case is because, again if unbiased, wrong estimates will be wrong in both directions, and so over the course of the analysis chain they tend to cancel each other out.
What an outstanding video. Congrats
I have no idea, how he came up with the actual stats, he put into the percentage masks.
Did I miss that?
One last factor in the buy factor. The Swedes offers tech transfer while americans usually don't. So per example Brazil which acquired the Gripen-E, also got the tech behind it, to build it nationally and even export it afterwards if so wishes, or to boots their internal industry for new developments. USA mostly uses their products as political weapons, wanting other nations reliant on them, like in the same Brazil example they offered the F-18, but with a limited support package, Brazil would be fully reliant on USA for maintenance and weapons, while the Gripen program is based on modularity and open architecture, so FAB can easily use native weapons like brazillian cruise missiles, the A-Darter high alpha boresight fox-2 missile, the misterious program of an anti radiation missile which we dont know if it is paused, cancelled or ongoing, Etc...
So all and all, and the Gripen's capacity of being operated in rough places, from small strips of highways... I think it should deserve more points in that regard.
We will sell tech but only to our closest allies. Like we transferred tech for F-16 to Japan and they built it over there as F-2. But yes to countries like Brazil, with which we have ok relations but a lot of differences as well, we won't transfer tech.
â@@coreyleander8123what he's saying is that even when a country is prepared to pay the billions of dollars for intellectual property, the U.S still wont agree to transfer it
It is not correct to adjust for VAT. If stuff is exported from EU no VAT is payed. If stuff is imported to EU, VAT would apply to all equally.
The Hornetâs an accountantâs dream warplane, so the rankings seem pretty based in that regard. I wonder about the commentators who increasingly say that if a nation isnât fielding 5th gen theyâre just not going to be competitive this decade, which might really upend the value on the 4++ jets in a more modern war.
As Binkov said, this list is biased towards cheaper planes which may not survive in conflict with a well equipped enemy. I think that statement is very important to take into account when evaluating the accuracy of the list. Ultimately, the best plane may largely depend on the war it's used in.
@Corey Leander Yeah, itâs astounding to see how well the Ukrainian air defenses have held up, although they might be finally being ground down outside Kiev. I was imagining it might be like the NATO intervention in the Balkans or the Iraq War with overwhelming suppression and air superiority in weeks but itâs been a long, drawn-out slog, and thatâs even with Ukraine having nowhere near state of the art.
I assume the F-35 will keep getting higher scores, anti ship will increase with JSM in the bays of F-35 and sensors will keep improving for the plane as well. If a country is allowed to, they should buy F-35.
But as you mention towards the end, it depends on what type of enemy you are expecting. If you are expecting to fight poorly equipped rebels, I guess a cheaper plane can work. But the question then is, could drones offset some of the needs as well
If you however are preparing to protect against russia or China (and assuming friendly to USA) you should absolutely get the F-35.
The MiG29(35) is an outdated fighter, but damn is it sexy, probably the best looking multirole fighter ever built in 50 years.
Outdated? Same as saying F16 is outdated. Or F18. The cold era ones no bs are old, but closer here they got a few major upgrades as MiG 29M and then 35
I think Perun needs to do this too.
The manufacturers really ought to send you review samples.
Jeff isn't meant to fight 4.5 Gen aircraft.
It is meant to be a low intensity conflict platform, and a 'missle/SOW truck' for frontline aircraft.
Ideal for countries like Nigeria that are successfully operating it in their context.
Your prices on the Rafale are totaly off. The Rafal is cheaper than the F-35 to this day. Two weeks ago Dassault CEO Ăric Trappier, was auditionned by the french senate and confirmed it again czcams.com/video/1ymR-aIAXUs/video.html
Price was always though to be arround 70-80 millions per raw jet. We also know from Egypt and India that Rafale cost less to operate than russian jets which cost less to buy but more to maintain. To the point it was one of the main excuses for egypte to buy more Rafale and not take russian jets. I think the cost of your european jets are grossly overestimated. Rafale would most probably be closer to the F-18 in cost and the Eurofighter probably closer to F-15.
This exactly, the Eurofighter being ranked less capable than a F15 also feels strangely unnatural despite the methodology
You guys have no idea what you are talking about you should stop.
The Swiss chose F35 over Rafale & Typhoon in part because the F35 was cheaper
â@@thearisen7301 And we know why: lower costs are the result of a drastic reduction in flight hours... replaced by simulation hours, as Lockheed claims.
â@@thearisen7301Lmao everyone laughed at Switzerland when they said that. Only reason they buy the F35 is because the US are making a tantrum and forcing it down everyone's throat. It's not about price or capabilities but about politics and if you want to piss the US or not
2:46 LOL! Who taught you that phrase! More importantly you used it correctly I am impressed. Good work all around!
Conclusion of the video: the video is probably meaningless. I love the honesty đ It's certainly a good analysis of an interesting thought experiment. As a taxpayer for the Eurofighter...well, I'm still glad it's a scary as hell beast even if it's not necessarily cost effective, but then I guess a large part of that is circular based on having to pay people in my country to build it. Honestly, the Super Hornet seems a pretty logical conclusion.
You have to consider he added VAT to the cost of the eurofighter and rafale, and since he said figures were taken from existing contracts, you have to take into account that pretty much all eurofighers were tranche 1 or tranche 2 bought at full price with then years of spending money on them and investing not in buying new functionalities but developing them. Saying "Europe" sold Eurofighters to UK or France is pretty silly considering the eurofighter was never meant for export, but rather to be bought by the countries that developed it: Germany, Spain, UK, Italy and France (though France pulled out mid-way to fork the project and develop their rafale).
Honestly considering that the cost is competitive enough with VAT in the mix in a joint project between various countries and industries, while still delivering easily the best gen4.5 jet out there (barring carrier ops) is amazing.
SImilarly the F15EX is not cost effective because in reality the maintenance is insanely high due to stupidly powerful engines developed about 40 years ago now, while the rest of the western planes have relatively new engines with way better maintenance costs.
If you look at the procurement data the Super Hornet is $95mil gross cost while the F-35A was $140mil in 2015 and has now fallen to $85mil. The F-35A is the best bang for buck as it is the F-16s successor as NATOs newest and best all around workhorse. The USN and USAF put out detailed budget overviews.
Aye, while I, as a Swede, really love Gripen I must say that sticking with it at this point and not just going F-35 seems strange. But I guess it depends, Gripen is probably better if you expect all your airbases to be taken out. That being said, I do think the EU, perhaps in cooperation with Japan, should develop their own fighter. Not because America Bad, but because competition is good, and so is keeping the know-how and having production lines in more places than just the US. I'm also a fan of European strategic autonomy but still want a strong alliance with the US.
@@Fuhrerjehova Well the F-35A is essentially NATO's fighter. The Gripen will keep Sweden's military aerospace sector alive. If they give up their fighter jet their knowledge will be lost and it will be nearly impossible to get it back decades later.
Purchase price is almost irrelevant in the lifetime of the plane. Running costs is what matters in the long run.
140 or 85 mil purchase price per unit is just a rounding error during the lifespan.
@@Fuhrerjehova not to mention, you produce the Gripen in Sweden and you export it to other countries. While you may give up on defence a bit, not only does it keep your industrial sector alive, much of Europe would have to rely on local industry in the face of a war which is another bonus for Sweden(its been helpful for Ukraine, whatever wartime industry it has, has been in full priduction). Its good for your economy, good for Europes defence, and also keeps Sweden in the technology game that many countries aren't in.
@@SwedishVilsten As is the cost and ability of update. I'm going to trust the American updates more than the Russian ones.
For those countries with no access to F-35, a mix of F-15EX and F-18 block 3 Super Hornet could be a good mix. Super Hornets are suitable for dispersed operations from rough airfields closer to the adversaries. F-15EX has powerful sensors, huge payload, and long flight range for fire support against air and ground targets while based a bit further away.
You think a nation that was denied the F-35 will buy another American jet fighter?
@@patta8388 If a nation can't get F-35, Rafale is the next best option. That explains the recent success in exports.
@@hackfleisch7424 When it fits their needs, yes. The Rafale is an excellent multirole fighter.
Obviously the best is the MiG-31 Firefox. Property of the Ooh Ess Ess Arrr. Sure its a 1982 Model, but the Neurolink!
As I mentioned on the previous video, the best aircraft for a country depends on so many factors, that's it's impossible to give a general pick. Easier if you choose a specific country. That being said it often has more to do with geopolitics than capability (as it should).
Finally you need a good high low mix, makes more sense to have 25 5th generation planes and 50 4.5 generation planes than either 100 4.5 gen or 50 5th gen planes.
But either way it's an interesting video with a lot to think about in it
one of your best videos thus far in regards to modern airframes.
Thank you for all the work you put into this video. Even if the numbers are all wrong, it was fun to watch!
The F-35 is literally like a sponge that absorbs every information around according to its pilots... you'd better realize the "pod" you talk about is already mounted inside that aircraft... keeping it stealthy.
F-35 should definitely be at the top of the list... especially in recon mode. That plane is literally like a scout/sniper who's meant to destroy objectives from a distance and/or give targeting informations to other platforms (F-15 EX... Frigates... B2... HIMARS.... Patriot ).
F-35 is the best on paper but that will be unaffordable to many nations because 1) political reasons 2) cost 3) sensible technologies within. Sure the Pentagon won't want the likes of Iran/Iraq getting their hands onto one of those. That means not only the US Congress is barring or vetoing F-35 sales directly to the likes of Iran or Iraq, but also to countries where it would risk falling into the wrong hands.
To me, it was pointless to even consider it within this list. It's not even a mystery the F-35 is limited to the NATO members and only a few key US allies overseas like Australia or Japan. Besides that, no country has any hopes of buying a single one of them.
@@Leadblast Is there a nation that was offered the F-35 and refused it ?
As of now, I'd say it's the best bang for your buck if you plan on having a competitive air force for the decades to come. Buying any fighter jet that has been designed in the 80's is likely to become a bad investment... and chances are, those nations would have to buy a new - more modern - platform 25 years from now.
â@Jopino The problem with you guys... is that you don't even understand what you read about that jet đ
1.5 T was the price tag for the F-35's whole operational life... until 2070... including fuel, maintenance, staff, training, further development / modernizations... etc.
And for a platform that gives you that kind of edge against your enemies... it's really not that expensive.
âââââ@@artiefakt4402was there ever a nation being offered the F-35 besides NATO allies, Australia and Japan? Tell me.
For that matter, we're not even sure if it's that "much bang for the buck" even from a pure benefits vs cost sense. The fact that the F-35 relies so much on its own stealth to do things (and said stealth is inferior to the F-22's so it's not even "top stealth"), for example is a huge liability. The moment Russia or China develop a radar being able to detect the F-35, it is done for. With all its technology the F-35 is still inferior in many ways to the 4th gens like F-15E or F/A-18E, and the US know this, which is why they still keep the latter two around.
â@Jopino594totally agree.. One of the biggest wastes of money along with Zumwalt Destroyers and LCS Corvettes...
The Super Hornet is way under rated. It is very capable and not at all like the original Hornet. It's a completely different plane. It's a significant increase in carrier capability when you can send 80 aircraft for a strike mission or counter air mission vs 30-40 previously where you had dedicated attack and air superiority fighters.
uhh during 1991 it was 24 F-14, 24 F/A-18 and 10 A-6
now it is only 48 F/A-18
It's not completely different, it shares 25% common parts with the old F-18C.
F-18 hornet among my few favorite American plane, mostly because of its capabilities and similarities in appearance with my favorite Russian/Soviet MiG-29 or Su-27 series
@@usslexingtoncva-1639 The Navy lost some throw weight when they got rid of the S-3 and A-6 but added more when they went all Super Hornet. It was a cost cutting measure but the Navy is finally picking up stealth aircraft.
Thanks for including the 2/2.
F16 looking like a good budget choice
I feel as if the F-16V block 70/72 was done a bit dirty considering it has an advanced 5th generation AESA radar, built in IRIST and Laser pod, advanced 5th gen EW options, and the possibility of having RAM paint to reduce the radar signature significantly.
On the other hand the costs for this version of the plane would be a lot higher than estimatet in this video.
Su35 has never won a battle against J10C or J16 in Golden Helmet contest
No surprise.
Great work ,I guess some factors like political say of congress ,supply chain or limit of use and ultimately planes availability should also be considered
there is also just the idea that if you are making a multi-decade investment, then it probably makes more sense to heavily lean towards the newer tech and designs. a plane that is outdated but still perfectly serviceable in 2023 will probably have the operating force looking pretty goofy when they suddenly need to use them in 2050
Like trying to use a Phantom II in 2023
For the extra 15-20million you pay for stealth you significantly reduce the risk of losing a multimillion dollar airframe from cheap missiles.
One f-35 is better than 1.5-2 f16s. Stealth is a basic requirement now like a radar.
I'd argue we still need to see stealth planes in widescale combat to determine the validity of that statement.
@@itsmederek1 i mean it's already proven from iraq to kosovo. See first shoot first is the air battle today. Reducing the range you can be seen lets you get in range to engage enemies with missiles that may have shorter ranges. The AIM120D3 has a 112mile range to chinas pl15's 120miles. But if an f35 is undetected until 20-30 miles range then it can shoot first.
@@kdaltex I understand the logic but we need to see if stealth really functions the way we think it will in a complex warzone before we confidently consider stealth a modern necessity. I really hope it proves true personally as it would be great to keep that tech edge within the west. It makes me happy to hear that the AIM120D3 has such a great range though.
I think it depends on who you expect to fight. If you are Mexico, for instance, don't even bother showing up with anything that isn't stealth if you are going to war on the northern border. If you are going south, you are probably going to be better off with 3x more F-16s or MiG-35s until you hit French Guyana or Brazil.
Also without stealth fighters you can have your fleet grounded because you can't use it at all due to the enemy's air defenses, or you can't do almost any operation. How much does it cost?
I see more clearly now how complex and basically unsolvable it is to determine which military jet is the best one. And even after this entire video, you can see peactime value is completely different from wartime value. Such as, if you took the cheapest fighter jet-- but it gets shot down after just 1 hour of fighting-- then it becomes the most expensive jet per flight hours! The jet which lasts longest in a war is the most cost effective per flight hours... so then the F-35 becomes the cheapest jet during a war... everything in the calculation is relative and changing based on its use.
Yes, the worst part is figuring out real world use.
Against most opponents that don't have networks of quality surface to air missiles and MANPADS all over the place, having numbers of bomb trucks works.
In high intensity fighting, with layers of modern SAMS everywhere plus an opponent with quality modern jets, even a little advantage in the right spots means surviving and being able to be used tomorrow.
But some of that requires good training too, which costs.
A non-aircraft example is that Saudi Patriot crews are apparently not good at using them to stop Iranian made missiles. But Ukrainian crews are shooting down Kinzhals and Iskanders, which Americans did not think the system was capable of.
Itâs a fun experiment but in reality you guys are probably pretty close to the truth. The F-18E is an amazing multi-role aircraft and is incredibly cost effective and easy to maintain relative to other jets.
F-16 also makes sense as a number to given they both came out of the same program genesis, the F-16 will always lose in terms of multirole capabilities though because itâs tiny radar
It might not be the most cost effective, but the Rafale is one sexy looking aircraft!
You could for exemple, in the results table shown around 12:40, have a stardard error, of lets say .1 or .05, and then do a graph showing the intervals of pontuation for each jet, in this way the ones who are somewhat equal will have their intervals with parts coinciding
I would probably split between the F-35 and F-15EX, F-35 is probably the most capable in the most difficult environments but pricey, F15EX is also a bit pricey but it's a giant missile truck that will last forever compared to the other options and probably be easier and less expensive to maintain long term besides being highly capable.
(Personally, I'd like to see what a hybrid of the F-35A and F-35C could do, go with the larger wing area of the F-35C but without the folding tips or the other added heavy gear, or other carrier specific bits to get a longer-range F-35A variant, perhaps extend that combat radius out to 800 nm.)
Excellent effort on a challenging topic. There is no simple answer just like there is no simple cost of a fighter aircraft. The factors measuring the different aircrafts performance perimeters could, or would, be different for different buying countries. Each country would prioritise different perimeters that would effect the decision process. For example a minimum ferry range or operational range with drop tanks may be required for countries like Canada or Australia as opposed to a European country. The other factor for some countries is âindustrial offsetsâ that the aircraft contractor can provide to soften the sticker shock for the countries tax payers. An interesting fact that countries that put a high priority on a strong defence due to living near challenging neighbours such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Finland & Poland all have something in common. They all have chosen American aircraft. Choosing an aircraft that is used by the US Air Force or to a lesser extent the US Navy means that the aircraft will be continuously upgraded. The R & D cost of certifying new weapons, adding new sensors and life extension fixes will be borne by the US tax payer, so future up grade programs will be available and only cost for the upgrades themselves. Having an aircraft with a large US fleet size means there will be a more robust supply chain.
F-18 was designed to be the best balanced bang for your buck.
As are the others...
@@chefchaudard3580 Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15 and F-35 were never designed to be good value, just good.
Love the series
Cost-benefit is a false paradigm in military equipment. Ruggedness, mission capability and survivability are key. Simply put, if you can buy 1.5 planes to my 1, but I shoot you down 5-to-1 because that 50% extra cost gives me a huge advantage, you're out of pilots, planes and I own the skies. This goes for all weapon systems because in winner-takes-it-all combat theater, any time you get an advantage (even a small one), you can dramatically effect those battlefield results.
For example, the Zero slaughtered P-39s, P-40s and F-2Fs. Then came the F4F and that was the end of the Zero's dominance. You can see that during the Battle of Guadalcanal where the F4F had a 5.9-to-1 kill loss ratio. And when the F6F and Corsairs hit the theater, it was all over for Japanese military aviation.
Ultimately the more latest and complex the jet the better..
That's why the newer fighters are developed to overcome the previous generation fighters jets in existance.
If we need bang for buck then ww2 era planes would be top in list.
great work
Love your videos!!
Very good video, Binkov. You worked a lot for this. But I still think that a performance list Without the ground attack capability would also be relevant, as fighter planes often are judged by the air-to-air performance.
I doubt that would be as consequential currently, since the bulk of air denial revolves around ground-based air defense systems.
@@chayoto Valid point, but it did not come to eradicate the air war as we know it. In other words, true, but not actually relevant to my point.
Could you make a similar video about tanks?
Yes
Gripen is not only a plane but a whole system !
Their active radar obscure where they are , you can say they have an active radar obscurity system in stead of stealth
and Gripen is build to start and land on roads and what is the value of that
I think Gripen is the most intelligent multirole fighter in the world today with a very attractive cost pr flying hour
Gripen E/F has those special qualities that means that most airforces could benefit from having Gripen as the second
multirole jet
Cost per flight hour does no matter today when the cost for purchase is the same.
The same number of Gripens (+2 Global Eye thrown in as glazing) cost the same as the same number of F35 (according to most recent Finnish Evals). Sure, the $ per flight hour is something our neighbours will have to bear for years to come but the initial cost is simply to high now that F35 has gotten such numbers produced.
*Insert rant about Gripen being capable but loosing out simply because of a small nation believing it can compete with the largest military economy in the world (And of course, some friendly spying)*
The importance of the various performance factors might vary widely from customer to customer. A geographically large country may value range much more than a physically small one, for example. An inland country may not care about naval strike at all whereas an island nation might give it a high priority but not care about infantry close air support.
Great video, I think not any small country make such deep analysis to make the purchase, beside that the political issue is very strong factor to make a decision. Congrats.
Good stuff, muppet!
Super Hornet for the win. Just my favourite.
Indonesia did want to procure F-35 but US said, we must but F-15EX or F-18 super hornet first before be able to. So there is that to the procurement deal restriction.
FA-50 said by a comment section Korean, already able to fire AMRAAMs. So take it with a grain of salt. Related to why the score is so low in this video.
Can Indonesia efforts F35? Can they even know how to operate F35?
@@user-vv3se4wt7v Your question is exactly what the US question lmao.
It's funny how the judgement for the FA-50 was completely unfair as it did not take into account the block 20 upgrade at all and yet it still beat out the eurofighter.
While this is a thought experiment, with many many values being grabbed out of thin air, it is interesting that it's semi-supports my gut feeling. Now that could be because the biases involved in the numbers are similar to the ones that I have in my "gut"... I will say that an intangible that isn't in here as a value regardless of if it's taken out of thin air, is the type of doctrine that aircraft is supposed to serve. Gripen for example is particularly well suited for a conscript style armed forces trying to survive a superior numerically Air Force. And of course the other intangibles is that the aircraft is only part of a full weapon system, The other parts include things like the meteor missile or how the sensor fusion works between aircraft, or the lower or higher cognitive load on the pilot depending on the specific aircraft.... Still it is a very nice thought experiment, I'm very impressed
The best plane would be different for different countries, of course. Which is why a hypothetical country model is used.
finally now I can decide
Sounds like a good topic for collaboration with Perun đ
The interesting thing about these multi role fighters is theyâre really not. In order for them to fly as designed- they need compliment jamming and radar aircraft.
Even the F-35 is going to be flying for the US with a safety net of E-2s, prowlers, and satellite recon. So, if you buy these aircraft and you go against a nation with US support- youâre not getting the same product.
Furthermore, you see this in Ukraine, if those aircraft donât have complimentary support- they donât takeoff into contested airspace.
Basically, only the big boys really should be in the air- and thatâs essentially 2 countries.
For Ukraine specifically they'd ideally want a NATO compatible western aircraft since they could be directly fed the datalink from western AWACS already operating in the area.
It'd make sense that American planes do well given economies of scale. Still, it's surprising that they'd make the top of the list given the bureaucratic bloat that the military industrial complex seems to suffer. Perhaps everybody else has similar problems though.
Let's use the Indonesian Air Force as a real life case cause they operate Flankers and F16 to date. The IAF's Flanker family is very expensive to operate due to logistics. Flankers need to be repaired in Russia if there's a need for big maintenance. On the other hand, IAF's F16 is quite economical to operate due to their robust nature and high flight hour per maintenance. Logistically, IAF also able to maintain their F16 on the base, even upgrading their electronic components and airframe longevity (eMLU 2018). So looking at the real world example, I'd say F16 is the best bang for buck fighter jet for now. IAF's Rafale is not operational yet and it will be interesting to see how it fare against IAF's other fighters in terms of operational cost.
Also, I don't think FA-50 should have an argument in this case. It was made as a trainer or light attack jet in mind and should never considered in the same class as the rest, nonetheless it's quite interesting to see how buyer's countries use and operate them. IAF currently operate a dozen or so as a trainer
@binkov - I would be interested to see how the "classic" or "legacy" Hornets (A-B-C-D variants) would score in this thought exercise?
With a lot of talk around 41 RAAF F/A-18s potentially heading to Ukraine, and with dozens more potentially available in the next few years as conversions to F35's continue, the prospect of these being the first Western jets operating in Ukraine is becoming a possibility.
With Canada, Finland, Spain, Kuwait, Malaysia, Switzerland operating them, and many upgrading to the F35, it will ensure enough for 1 or 2 squadrons might be able to be maintained for a reasonable amount of time.
The F18 offers many advantages over the F16 as they are optomised for carrier operations, they are not as fussy on runways, or need as high maintenance.
Thanks for doing this, it has been an interesting thought experiment.
These numbers at 2:24 are not for each airplane. They represent the cost of the plane, extra parts, training/simulators, and sometimes weapons, et al. No one is going to pay 200 million bucks for a Viper. There is so much more associated with the cost.
The numbers at 3:11 are much better except that the Su 35 and the Mig 35 (if it ever gets built) are much more than 20 or 35 ish million bucks. I read an Air Force report that the SU 35 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 to 75 million each. This was based on the sales/trade to Iran.
Based on the competition for the next Finnish Air Force fighter, Grippen E was the most "bang for buck". The F-35 offer was adjusted, after US Senate gave premission for it, and F-35 was chosen after this. F-18E, Eurofighter and Rafael was also in the competition, but aparently not near the level of F-35's and Grippen E's.
Gripen E was the only sane plane for the finnish air force. It would have suited them so good and the costs would have been alot smaller. Try to use your F35 if your airfields been bombed. Gripen E is perfect for the small countries that want to defend their grounds.
Awesome thumbnail. You really captured the essence of the subject
I hope you'll make a video on the differences between wheeled and tracked IFVs. I'm curious about the Canadian LAV 6.0 and how it ranks against IFVs like the Lynx and CV90. Is there an advantage to using tracked vs wheeled?
There are advantages to both. Wheeled vehicles have much lower maintenance costs, are faster on roads and hard ground, and don't damage tarmac. Tracked vehicles cope better with soft ground, have a turning circle measured in nanometres, and are more resilient to ammunition.
This is impossible to say it depends on how many planes are bought and if its a NATO country or not. You always buy a package the plane ,bombs,missiles,spare parts and support.
This comment is to support the binkov algorithm
Nice video. It is certainly an almost impossible task to make a good list.
Let's hope in a few decades when we have an insanely smart AI and all the information is declassified we'll have a much more accurate list. Then we can see how humans-sorry, lizards (or whatever you are) do.
I wonder how do actual countries consider their options? Obviously politics as a massive hand, but how do they weight these factors? Do they weight these factors? If not, how do they decide?
Would you do a video on the USAFs newest attack plane the at-802U skywarden?