Gripens would be perfect - easy to maintain, more modern than f16 and could serve for a longer period down the line. Plus it takes off from roads and can be resupplied by a couple trucks.

@@mikek9297 I mean it's specifically designed to be maintained by a majority conscript force - you couldn't get a better match for the situation in Ukraine if you tried.

There is a very good reason there aren't more gripens in the world. Let's take a look at south Africa. A smaller less rich nation bought a low-capability light weight Gripen C. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as cheap as SAAB claims. In fact, it's cost per flight hour according to a Swiss evaluation exceeded that of older US F-16s. Meanwhile the Gripen E, the more capable aircraft, has an upfront cost more than an F-35A, with strike and payload capabilities that are inferior to even an F-16. This is due to literally one of the worst thrust to weight ratios of any 4th gen fighter. The reason gripens aren't popular is because it's too expensive for poor nations, and not capable enough for countries that can afford something better. If you don't need something super capable, you'll probably buy a JF-16 instead of Gripen, and if you can afford a Gripen E, you'll probably prefer an F-16 Block 72, Rafale, or F-35A depending on your specific needs and ITAR. It doesn't help that Gripen's supply chain is all over the place. Take a look at how much of the Gripen is actually swedish.

@@Johnnyprc stop believing the Saab Kool-Aid. Tell me why the Gripen is better for less established air bases than f-16s? Try to do it without Saab marketing

@@Johnnyprc how is Gripen better for multirole when it has inferior range and payload.

So was every jet in nato lmao

@@Aron-ru5zk Yeah exactly, op was sleeping lol

Not many are buiilt.

Gripen would be perfect but they are not built in large numbers because Sweden's govt refuses to promote the sale of these jets explicitly in the world arms market because of their neutrality. The Swedish Govt needs to stop being so anal about their neutrality because NOW is not the time to be anal about neutrality in Europe at the moment. If your neutral and slap bang between Russia and Nato your the meat in the Sandwich. Best thing Sweden can do is get the arms deal for say 2 squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine and get the USA to back the finance for Ukraine via the lend lease deal because by far the Gripen is the best available fighter for the type of war Ukraine is defending and hoping to fight back in.

@@Aron-ru5zk LOL

Yes,and Sweden has been willing to donate,TY!

I cant wait till I move to Sweden. it seems to be doing pretty good right now. jag älskar det svenska jets och speciellt det gripen ( feel free to correct my swedish)

US training Ukrainians inside if Germany aswell

Very expensive. Gripen is x0.3 the cost + conscript level to maintain + license to produce domestically + platform

They could obviously handle short runways too, being made for carriers. So that's good for Ukraine. They do cost around $30k/hr to operate though.

@@dm0065 yeah but that puts it about equal to the su-27 Ukraine is already using. I don't think that is a bad deal over all.

@@micindir4213 problem with the gripen is there are far to few to send, getting a factory in Ukraine going will take years, and only Hungary, Czechia, Uk, and Sweden have experience with them thus increasing the training cost per country substantially.

You’re so far fetched from reality

They so so love to defend neo Nazis for a bread crust.

Why not just say Borsht and vodka?

@@matt.willoughby Too expensive for them

@@trekkienzl2862 we are trolls and got paid. So we can afford it

Though if you can't get Gripens Hornets or Super Hornets are better, as they are designed for carrier operation they got a stronger landing gear and can take off and land at lower speeds.

The Rafale could also be a good choice as it can be carrier-capable, or maybe even Mirage 2000 or France of some stored away, though they are kind of old by now.

convensional wings to delta wings ,, thats hardworks for UKRAINE pilot..

@Turtle Racer Good choice for close air support once local air supremacy is achieved. Add F15s as bomb trucks with JDAMs and other smart munitions… I would not want to be on the receiving end of all that hurt.

I think they should keep it simple, with all those manpads in Ukraine friendly fire is probably a huge problem. Ground to air missile systems and tons of ammo for HIMARS and it's game over I would think...

@@hsaurid I honestly don’t they they would send f-15 Maybe the f-18 but the f-16 for sure

@@therealman2016 F18 isn’t as capable as the F15 in the ground attack role or even the air supremacy role. Check out the latest variant, the F15 EX. Even the F18 Super Hornet falls short. However, recent developments suggest the JAS 39 Gripen E would be a better fit for Ukraine economically and its capability to land and take off from short stretches of highway put it ahead of the American offerings.

@@hsaurid the question is which country willing to pay for this, this cost more then artillery gun is not a small number that country willing to provide air force. Switzerland share border with Russia will they want risk the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons. Although Russia cannot fight two war but they have intentions of using nuclear weapons.

Gripen is an expensive asset , you domt just donate that beauty to get lost , do you?

SAAB lost against F-35 due to the fact that the Gripen E was Not Flying at that Date, while the F-35 was Flying. Well the F-35 need to get production methology-updates after the Deals, while the Gripen E flys now.

@@ELITE-xn3sh No, the losing is supposed to happen to the other side. That would be the whole point of the Gripen.

@@charleschristner7123 well i wish , im just pointing out that when a country is in need of a product for themselves , like the grippen , its not very usual of them to give it , or train others how to use it , since they havent pretty much used it themselves. I also got another thing in mind , what would happen if the russians actually captured one of these trained pilots , wouldnt that be russia getting info abt an enemy's asset?

@@ELITE-xn3sh Wow buddy, it was just a bit of sarcasm(F-16 is the practical choice). Also Russia has had a number of their own pilots captured, they would be keen to trade back.

The legacy hornet may have rugged landing gear but it still requires at least an 8,000 foot runway for land based operations, and it has some FOD concerns. So unless the Ukrainians are doing FOD walks before every launch cycle, it won't be useful to them in rugged or austere environments.

F18 is what I thought of as well. Tough carrier landing gear and (from what I hear) very good reliability and you have an aircraft that could likely operate from roads. A quick look at Davis Monthan and you can see about 50 F18s sat around gathering sand. Quite a few F16s as well.

Super Hornets will fly along side F35C until the F/A-XX comes along.

British harriers would be best because of short take off

Legacy Hornet airframes are not airworthy

Agree, the Swedes did a great job with the Gripen, the biggest problem with it seems to be finding customers.

We can probably spare some now that like half of our pilots will be retiring soon if they aren’t coerced into staying

Agreed.

Thank you for repeating the exact point made in the video 👍🏻

Embraer of Brazil and SAAB of Sweden in combination can source enough SAAB Gripen E/F.

Cheers dits

Only 12 lease aircraft are in the Czech Republic that can be used short term. But more will take a lot of time to produce. The short term would favour a combination of the F-16 and A-10.

Gripen numbers are so small. There is no surplus Gripen. And Sweden produces them very slowly.

And it can land on ordinary ok roads. We have aloth of widened roads in sweden. Wont be so vunerable in a airfield

Pretty sure the C/D is out of production and the E/F is too new and expensive, it only had its first flight in 2017.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD maybe its much more expensive if they have less good planes. More material will be desteoyed for ukraine on the ground

Add some A-10 Warthogs and we he have a perfect couple of hardy, STOL, cheap and quick turnaround types that compliment each other perfectly.

The F-16 makes more sense from a production and logistics standpoint makes no sense to build Gripens when they have little going for them when it comes to economics of scale plenty of Nations can supply spare parts for f-16s

@@spartanx9293 F16 landing gear is just to fragile for use in Ukraine imho.

@@woolyimage it's not that fragile the planes not delicate I don't know where people get that idea from

Yes, that is why the are no more Saab cars on the road 😁😁😁

@@absoluteanonomity6994 That's the parent company, not SAAB's fault!

Absolutely // sweden

​@@absoluteanonomity6994 That was the action of Gangster Motors 🤬 (GM).

@@absoluteanonomity6994 GM bought them, then it went down!

Amen

My gf's dad used to fly those

@@matt.willoughby He was scared of heights then!

Delivery system until you lose said delivery system

Meteor and IRIS-T are badass, and work on the Gripen.

The point is that for the weapons to be delivered the plane must be able to take off on a short roadstrip, land on a short roadstrip, and be supported by a handful of guys who got limited training. There is no TopGun Sunday-school facility support in Ukraine avaliable atm. It is raining rockets and bombs that makes the airfield looking like a swiss cheese!

F16 probably the best choice there are a ton of them compared to the Saab gripen and the US is better able to supply parts plus all the second hand f16s there are. Griffon is a great plane but there are like 10 times more f16 that have been built

Yes it will be a good opportunuity to show off non US weapons.

Definitely, if it is possible to arrange. I’m sure Ukraine would bite your hand off.

@@julianputnam8290 You can have all the f16 parts in the world land in Ukraine, but it won't do any good if there are no trained f16 airplane mechanics. Ukraine's biggest bottleneck is training. They can't get enough people trained on the latest Western technologies. The Gripen's advantage is simpler maintenance that enables conscripts with wrenches.

The problem with F16 is that after a flight it will be grounded for a while, idk about the Gripen but it is a nice aircraft and has to be good challenge to the thrust vectoring Su 35, because both are 4th and are best in the 4th gen from their country

Gripen and the harrier. Harrier can be used to take out tanks and helicopters. Gripen can be used as air surpirioty armed with meteor missile and some bombs

Create a logistical nightmare, sensible.

And why exactly what the United States build a foreign jet when we could just apply them with one of our own domestically built ones? You're also confusing the fact that economics of scale and spare parts availability has more to do with maintenance than a simple marketing statistic that Saab provides

Sweden are planning to keep some of the C/D longer and upgrade them to a standard closer to the E variant so they can operate together for a longer period instead of just directly replace them.

Good point, didn't know this. Thanks

There are more Gripens than what the Swedish airforce have.

@@xifel72 TELL ME MORE, i'M INTERESTED....THANKS IN ANTICIPATION.

@@xifel72 Correct, but with the exception of Sweden, the current fleets of Gripen C/D in each airforce is rather limited with most airforces having around 12 each. Ofc even 12 Gripen C/D will make a significant difference in the ongoing war if an airforce will be able to trade them out fully, but for a more significant number probably Sweden has to be involved. (Brazil will get much more of the Gripen E/F variant but that just started to be delivered last year.)

Iron dome rocket defence is ok for single/multiple grad rockets (this is what hezbollah uses with improvised tubes + battery to ignite rocket), but it seems it wouldn’t work against cruise and ballistic missiles because it’s designed to intercept small and slow targets. At least some sort of mod is required. In fact even littering old s 300 throughout the country could work if its dense enough. I’m pretty sure we’ll have to come up with better anti missile system ourselves. As we have data on what’s works and what doesn’t. Outcome of the war might be advances in anti-rocket systems and at least some desintegration of icbm deterrence strategy. Or not, if west has lost its hustle

Man hours Ie but take 20 hours for one man to perform maintenance If your statement was actually accurate

The biggest box is availability. Thats why the F16 is more likely.

the tornado would just become a flying coffin. No one is desperate enough to fly this against Russia. And the Mirage 2000 could really work but I don't see anyone giving them up like that. Especially since a lot of those lying around are modified or upgraded versions, not just stock Mirages 2000

Not viable very few of them have been built outside of Sweden and the ones that have been exported are only on lease there are far more f-16s and hornets than there are Gripens

@@spartanx9293 sure, but there is a lot of old stock with gripen c, some old b variants etc that could be brought into action again. 200+ for sure But as they said in the video, how are you supposed to support f-16? For basic rearming and fuleing you only need a ground crew of four with the jas, two could theoretically be viable aswell. Haven't seen any f16 take of and land from normal roads... Its not about how many planes we can send over there or what they theoretically could do in the air, its about how much they cost to fly/support and if thats at all even possible. A grounded plane is a useless plane. The migs they fly right now are built like tanks and thats almost a requirement considering how their airorts probably look right now. Lets just reasure their not up to the US standrad of airport cleanliness and support.

And go there yourself no?

The Legacy Hornet airframes are not airworthy. Without a catapult and arrestor wire, it’s launch and landing requirements are worse than Grippen.

@@asterixdogmatix1073 not true. F-18’s can land much slower and hit the road with more vertical velocity. Just watch a riat swiss f-18 landing and you’ll see how they stop on a dime compared to a gripen. Look up “riat arrivals” on yt and you’ll see both of them landing. Also if they weren’t airworthy then spain, usmc, finland, Switzerland, canada, Malaysia, and kuwait wouldnt still be defending their homelands with them.

I would love to see this. It also performed respectably in Independence Day considering the threat was off world and arguable far more advanced. Jokes aside though airframe hour limits tend to heir on the conservative side and we put our toys away before the are broken.

@@Mako2-1 Extending past the airframe lifespan hours is not worthwhile for use in this conflict. Do you know more than Justin Bronk?

@@asterixdogmatix1073 You can say what you want but facts are facts and the numbers don’t lie

Yeah I hope we're past that too. And it's getting harder to see what Putin could do as a mid level response too. He's already turning off the gas , and the conventional RF forces seem a bit asthmatic in Ukraine

Exactly. It’s a little late now.

They seem to have forgotten how much maintenance needs to be done on there machines. Forget about training pilots which would take months if not years, what about training mechanics and setting up logistical hubs for the spare parts which will be obliterated by Russian air strikes as soon as possible.

Again,training which can take up to 3 years and repair complexity,the gripen is superior in an operational standpoint and if they have something to put missiles onto Russian aircraft then no matter its speed whether it be Mach 1.8 or Mach 2.3, it would still work

Exactly. Both platforms would most like work but logistically the gripen looks like the better option. Still I hope they get something.

How long do you think it takes to learn to fly or maintain an f16?!! They just need about 150 mig29's

@@blades4741 Ukraine pilots have actually been learning to fly F-16 this whole time. Just in case, a handful of them have been in the US learning how to fly this entire time. The F-16 can hold way more bombs and different type of missiles or precision guided bombs, more than the gripen.

@@snsproduc Yes but operational costs, personnel, equipment is endless compared to the Gripen. It was designed for this type of conflict and no matter who supplies the aircraft, it still opposes Russia either way.

A10s are old enough to give away, that's for sure.

The same goes for Belgium and the Netherlands

The factories are booked solid for years and years.

Aggree /// sweden here

I agree that it would be the most suitable aircraft solution but cheap to buy it isn’t but maintenance totally offsets that issue so yeah go Grippen I say!

which combat..??they will just be taken out within the first 2 weeks probably by russian air defences

@@briant5685 phew Russian airdef? They cant even take down Ukrainian drone! Filmibg how ukraine destroy russian tank Lmao

Sweden can't spare them.

@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 But Embraer in Brazil Like SAAB in Sweden can build both SAAB Gripen E and Gripen F.

@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Apparently Sweden can't even afford to pay its fighter pilots so we have a lot of spare planes and a government with no brain.

@@soulsphere9242 same from where fa-18 and f16 were going to be procured.

Easiest way is this - ukrainians already know how to operate them. Provide favourable F-16 for Mig-29/Flanker swap deals to 3rd party countries and you can get jets quite quickly. Plenty of Migs and Sukhois in eastern europe, north africa

@@echosmith5256 they would like to have modern western planes. Other option is to deliver both planes but support equipment and training would be a hard. Lots of incompatible parts.

Typical you want everything for nothing.

Problem is that those aircrafts need airfields and airfields can easily be targeted.

The Hornets can be run from roadways, they have heavy landing gear for carriers

No they dont, The Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) lease the use of 2 seat Gripens D's directly from Saab explicitly for fast-jet aircraft and associated requirements, for the ETPS fixed-wing European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) compliant Test Pilot and Flight Test Engineer courses. Flight operations are conducted at Saab’s Flight Test Department in Sweden, with ETPS instructor pilots flying under Saab supervision.

Yes but also no, A-10 just can't survive in current contested airspaces where long range AAMs or ground based air defense systems could knock it out as it flies low and slow. In a dominated airspace where the A-10 could essentially attack Russian positions uncontested then yes it would be a highly effective platform, but that is not the current situation, and just look at the casualty rates of the Su-25, the Russian analogue of the A-10. For both sides, sending slow flying aircraft to assault positions protected by air defense platforms is nearly a suicide mission, enough so that Russian helicopters are opting to lob unguided rockets in an arc from a distance rather than get close enough to get a visual and be put at risk of enemy air defence. The F-16 or Gripen can perform the same CAS role to a lesser degree while still being very capable in BVR engagements and more importantly, SEAD operations, which the Ukranian airforces have lacked up until recently with their MacGyvering of Mig-29s to work with HARMs, even if with limited capabilities. Getting the Viper or Gripen into country is far more important to establish Ukranian control of the air and provide support to ground forces, along with establishing the capability to hunt and destroy Russian artillery batteries from the air. The A-10 just absolutely cannot do these jobs. Add on that the logistical strain it will put on the Ukranian airforce to establish the support systems necessary to operate even one of these planes is going to be huge undertaking, and the idea of setting up two separate support systems is just not feasible. Seeing A-10's create the Russian equivalent of the highway of death out of that 40 mile convoy would have been a hell of a thing though. Hog and Apache pilots will be talking about "the convoy that got away" for decades.

@@IAmDonut_ Hi, point well made but Russia has removed its jets, or most of them from the local area under attack by Ukraine. So the west side is fairly safe, at least compared to the west. The A-10, particularily with F-16 top cover would be excellent to turn Russia's retreat into a route because of the huge morale boost to Ukrainian forces and opposite effect on trapped Russians. I note that Putin's 40 mile bridge will give both aircraft an oppertunity relive Iraq's road of destruction and provide redeption for depriving them of the earlier attak on Kyiv. The A-10 has had massive improvements since the Gulf war and can take more punishment than any other aircraft. Time, however, is of the essence; no time for full a peaceful training program! Winter will interesting as the Ukrainian east can be resupplied but those Russian forces are trapped and vulnerable in such conditions. Thanks for your input, much appriciated.

​@@phlogistonphlyte A10 is a tin can that has no business fighting an enemy with a decent circulation of MANPADS let alone an enemy with an endless supply of Buks, Kubs, Tunugskas, Tors, S300s and S400S. Sending A10 to Ukraine would be equal to shooting their pilots dead in this current situation. Both Ukraine and Russia have lost a lot of SU25s which are way more agile than A10 and have better protection from fragmentation.

Well A10 are gonna take a lot of L, because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and they gonna keep on going done by some 4th gen Sukhois. Also the A10 is slow so like the S300/S400 can get easy kills.

@@saadsajidul9001 I also think A10 are a bad choice but not because of s300/400. UA is flying despite these systems, just fly at low altitude and not to near. Maybe the HARM will take a toll on the Russian SAMs. The reason that A10 is a bad choice is because of Manpads and maintenance.

@@FRIPPE_THE_GREAT Flying an A-10 at low altitude is a waste of its capabilities. It needs to get a good look from above and pick off targets with the targeting pod/laser designator or by using the seekers on Maverick missiles. Flying low would mean doing blind rocket volleys like the Su-25, which they don't need.

I believe Zelensky knows which side his bread is buttered on.

How airworthy are they though?

@@callumrae5769 most of them will be I mean the germans wanted them for parts so even if we assume half is airworthy then the other half be used for spares

As effective as Harrier would likely have been in such a conflict, I really don't think Harrier is a good choice for any situation where you want to train pilots quickly.

Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II. The Flying titan-armored Tank would suit for the Phases in Ukraine better than the (Sea) Harrier.

@@nielsen9691 so you want to obtain Air Superiority with the (sea) Harrier or the Slow F-35 (far below Mach2)?

@@espacesX They already have Su-25s.

@@espacesX Combat at Mach 2 is unheard of.

you mean alq-184?

Why not both. Start with the Gripen by the end of the year 2022. Then move forward to F-16/ F-15s.

@@shooth100 should be in the opposite order. There’s a lot more surplus f-16s around than Gripens. It would take less time to arm Ukraine with a significant force of them.

@@shooth100 Unfortunately that isn't how it works. Those are 2 different jets and would require 2 different pilots, maintenance crews, and parts. Even countries who aren't getting bombed regularly and are richer don't buy 2 different planes so close to each other in a short time frame. That's why countries choose which one they want and not just mix and match so quickly.

@@shooth100 because when you are struggling logistically operating more than one aircraft is a stupid decision

Turkey is not Russia's mistress at all.

@@matt.willoughby No? They just buy their grain, oil, gas and let Russians fly there and have holidays, a safe harbor for their Superyachts. You want more or is that enough?

@@AndyWoohoo666 Look at their history, Turkey is pretty much all in the western camp. Save the odd misstep from the AKP but Erdogan won't be around forever and Erdogan is not Turkey or Turkye or whatever they call themselves nowadays

@@soulsphere9242 Logistics and support..You understand the meaning of that? Also one thing with Gripen is that it can land and take off from roads, no need for an airfield, that is just one of all advantages.

@@soulsphere9242 You just can't argue with stupid...sigh

A long wait for new build Gripen E/F, certainly, but Sweden only currently operates a fleet of ~100 older C/D models out of over 200 originally procured. The remainder of the Gripen C/D and A/B (at least some of which were upgraded to C/D standard which implies they all can be) were placed in storage. This is what allows Saab to offer its Gripen lease contracts, with both Czechia and Hungary operating 14 Gripen C/D on a lease basis. It is not as if Ukraine would be requiring enormous quantities of aircraft, a couple of squadrons worth should be sufficient in addition to the Soviet era inventory. Of course, if Sweden is unable to commit to such a transfer, and the burden falls on the US, I would argue that some sort of F/A-18 variant would be more suitable for Ukraine's needs than F-16, its naval background making it more suitable for operation from short austere runways.

Cough, what about the batch of Gripen that Czechs have leased from Sweden and shifting to F35s? That can help supplement Mig29s

what they really need is a wild weasel F 16 more than the Gripen.

SEAD skill set likely require a sizable time to teach and train. (Yes get started) but existing Gripen can do counter-air right now.

I'm a Brit, and I've always said that the Grippen is the best choice for Sweden, Finland, Ukraine etc.

@@Aeronaut1975 The British Royal Airforce conitnues Operation of a SAAB Gripen fleet. These Jets are as far as I know leased from SAAB. It's Training and Getting familiar with Mission by the British Royal Airforce. RAF started with SAAB Gripen C/D, while I'm Not Sure If RAF has a two-seat Gripen D in Operation.

@@espacesX I didn't know that RAF was leasing Gripens. Are you sure about this? and do you have any source?

@@kristofferhellstrom If I recall correctly its one school that is leasing them , and I dont think its part of the RAF.

They've had pilots and maintainers training on the Viper in Nevada for around 3 months now is my understanding.

Ukraine has selected 30 pilots to train on F-16s. When training starts, Ukraine estimates pilots will need 9 months and maintenance personnel much, much longer. Honestly I don't see them ever fielding a western jet without significant improvements to their airfields and contract maintainers to supervise their newly trained maintenance personnel.

@@donwyoming1936 probably why the Gripen makes more sense. I'm not super clear on the performance differences but if the Gripen is 20% easier for Ukraine to get in the air, then it's basically 20% more airframe and 20% less pilots needed (or something like that). The point being ease of use will pay off on every way

a10? lmfaooooooooooo

A10 is a sub sound aricraft and you have to control the airspace first. So not good for Ukrina. SU-27/29 eill be a good choise

They already have SU-25s, there is no need for A10s.

Harrier would be better than A10 due to vertical take of and landing. Harrier can duck in and out from trees making it much harder to shoot down. I reckon it would be better if UK and US gave Ukraine the harrier jet and Sweden gives Ukraine the JAS 39 gripen D. For air surpirioty armed with meteor missiles and bombs and some anti ship missiles for long range strike against Russia air defence systems

@@Nathan-ry3yu Extremely difficult to fly - you need years to be good at it - and they do not have the time