Are you in demand to instruct in Ukraine?

Fun fact, Svenska Aeroplan AB was a merger between Svenska Aero AB and ASJA. Svenska Aero AB was a aircraft company started by Ernst Heinkel in 1921 (Yep, THE Heinkel). He started the company to circumvent restrictions after WW1.

@@cowpunch122 And ASJA was the airplane manufacturing division of ASJ in Linköping Sweden. ASJ was a large railroad car manufacturer. The SAAB main facilities in Linköping are based around the old railroad car manufacturing site, with one of the oldest buildings very clearly being from that period, with a row of railroad car sized doors where the railroad cars were once rolled out.

They made such nice cars that they cost more to produce than they were worth to sell.they also have a bunch of specialty fasteners that are a PITA to deal with...

AB (aktiebolag) is standard for company names. Sort of like Inc. for incorporated

@nerifterafrnam4682 yes, it's the same as the danish Aktie Selskab, or A/S.

That is a myth. 1) Russia lacks the capacity to take out airbases, as we see in Ukraine. 2) Not even Vägbas 90 was "operating out of a regular road strip in the woods".

@@johanlassen6448 Not a myth at all. VB90 was more J37 era but the J39 still practice regularly on the remaining road bases.

@@ros8737 Again: Vägbas 90 is not "operating out of a road strip in the woods". It was a dispersed airfield system. Det var inte ett skjul i skogen. The Finns, Norwegians and Taiwanese have been operating from dispersed airbases with their F-16s and F-18s for DECADES. Maybe try looking at other countries and stop assuming everyone else is dumb little one. "Hurr durr only Sweden can think of dispersed airbases - NO ONE ELSE ever thought of it, not even our neighbours". LOL.

Should we trust you or Swedish Military own history archive timeline 1954-84. Even searching Bas 90 here on YT contradicts exactly what you said. The fact that you need to be rude about it says it all.

​@@ros8737 Gripen can land and take off from your neighbourhood back street. The only problem is that when an air force of an interested country tests the jet. They find a lot of the claims are just horse shit.

they were also designed to work from country roads deep in the forests.

You think having more will make a difference? 😂

​@@rybuds47Are you serious? Of course it will.

@@bakingfakerr ya i am, if you cant see it on radar, how would more radars help? Its like an adult going to a school and fighting the children. More children wont help the situation.

@@rybuds47 False analogy , most children dont have meteor missiles , also when the raptor opens his bay to kill the first one , the rest now know where he is since the Gripens also works as AWACS to each other.

That story has been repeated and debunked so many times it is a wonder SAAB fanboys continue to regurgitate it. How did it shoot down F-16 Block 50+ and a Typhoon when no such planes participated at Red Flag 2006, pray tell us? What makes you think JAS-39 would be allowed to be "part to the red team"? Red Flag is not a competition, it is a training exercise where Red Team is meant to simulate Russian planes and is ALWAYS crewed by US aggressor squadrons, while participants are ALWAYS on blue team. The entire purpose of the Swedish participation was NATO integration so why would they be "assigned" to the red team, (a team nobody is ever assigned to, as I said)? The simple fact is they wouldn't and they didn't. This entire story comes from a Stefan Englund, a fucking glorified mechanic who served in the Swedish Airforce in 1986-1991. He was not part of Red Flag 2006, has ZERO sources for his claims and what he says has about the same value as whatever I shit out in the morning. I could say one F-16A took out 20 JAS-39Es yesterday - does it make it true? Stefan Englund is lying through his teeth and you choose to believe him because you WANT to believe JAS-39 is a great plane. Yet modern evaluations again and again show that the JAS-39 is an overrated plane. The Swiss rated it as clearly worse than even their legacy Hornets. THAT is a real life example.

@@johanlassen6448 Well Im glad you debunked this once and for all with some solid evidence and not any 'trust me broh , not him' arguments /S I like how you bring up the swiss evaluation despite numerous people have already told you swiss never did what you claim. (for those not knowing they didnt evaluate Gripen E since at the time it was just theory and was not in production yet so only A was allowed to participate and be evaluated) Some one from Canada corrected you like 3 years ago but then again being dishonest is your strong suit. Considering Sweden was 'never' gonna joina NATO 2006 , not that far fetched they was allowed on red team. Ive seen the interview of the american pilot from said exercise , before it was taken down. Now I trust him any day over dudes on the internet , and I can include Stefan in this.

I agree. And the Gripen pilot would prefere using metior at long distance and using electronics warfare as well. Fortunatly the F22 is operated by friendly forces so why design a plane to compeet with that in a close dog fight? 50 F22 on a airbase landing strip and a couple of long distance air misiles can end bad quickly.

Yes and how would the two compare when both had their bases destroyed with no runways serviceable? Same reason why Ukraine would be better off with Gripens than F-16"s.

@@niklaswennerstrand1010 Same with JAS-39... in fact its the same with every plane.

@@FairladyS130 Ukrainian airbases are serviceable though. No, Ukraine would not be better off with JAS-39 than F-16. There are not enough JAS-39s, there are not enough spare parts, there are not enough countries that can train Ukrainian pilots, and the JAS-39 has severe limitations in its ability to attack ground targets (no SEAD, very limited loadout, very limited max payload capacity, limited range). It is NOT a good choice for Ukraine and the F-16 is in fact the incredibly clear and superior alternative.

@@johanlassen6448 Ukrainian airbases may be serviceable now but what might Ruzzia do if F-16's arrive.

Its more like GS is the only one who publishes these BFM videos. Entertaining yes, but all GS does is bury the stick in the raptor and kick the rudders.. or he does the same in any aircraft. No finesse in maneuvers. Just pure yank and bank.

The principles of dogfighting should apply to both the game and real life right? And we get insight into the differences :D

@@NyteStalker89 LOL yeah right LOL....dude jealousy is a soul killer. Let it go.

Yes, no. When amateurs make mistakes they need real pilots to correct them.

He would have to learn the controls first, every DCS video he did so far, he never could do what he wanted to do cause the DCS jet is different from the real thing and he could never find the right button ;D

GS and Longshot would smoke him XD, just like gs smoked that real Rafale pilot

Love the gripen! Question, how does the EW suite work?

Send them against the F15. That's a more realistic fight. The F22 is air superiority. Period.

Sortalike comparing the M-16 rifle with a Kalashnikov , the M-16 was elegant yes but the AK worked in all weather, no regular maintenance needed, no regular jamming after about 1000 rounds etc etc. Even after laying for long in wet mud, you could pick up the AK and it would go off as any day (testimony of Colin Powell in his book). Begs the question, which is cool looking and which is a war weapon ?

Swedish military doctrine says that it should be costly to take Sweden, but near impossible to keep. Every weapon system is made for shooting and skooting, through Swedish terrain.

@@alexfrederick9019 At range yes because of low RCS. In close range the RCS doesn't matter and the Gripen E of today has equal EW to F-35 and have extremely advanced systems. F-22 isn't invincible. It's supremacy is range and able to engage targets before being seen. The Gripen wouldn't fly alone and it would have silent wingmen and only one active radar. The F-22 wouldn't see the other aircrafts that easily. The RCS of Gripen is actually just slightly below F-35. Even though not a stealth fighter. Stealth isn't everything, people get hung up about the silliest stuff. It's about missiles, targeting, radar, EW suites etc.

Fun fact, they actually dropped the acronym and renamed to just SAAB. But they are still a corporation so now it's SAAB AB.

In the 1990's all the different military materiel companies (Bofors, FFV (maker of the Carl Gustaf), Hägglunds, you get the idea) in Sweden were merged into the Celcius concern, that a few years later was broken up and sold off with parts of it like Hägglunds and Bofors eventually landed with BAE systems while other parts and divisions got either integrated or daughter company (i.e. Barracuda camouflage netting) to SAAB, who then expanded their name to include the new business areas.

Delta wings beats the swept wings in transonic speeds and above, while swept wings are the better choice in subsonic speeds. It's all about trade-offs between areas of performance and cost.

95% of what you claimed there is wrong.

@@johanlassen6448 I take what you write with a large grain of salt it is easy to say that someone is wrong without providing any references I attached references where I found what I wrote a tip is that you do the same before writing anything

@@6XCcustom You haven't. Your only "reference" is Stefan Englund, a random nobody on Quora who claims to have been an engineer in the Swedish airforce between 1986-1991, i.e. long before Red Flag 2006. What's more, he claims 1) That the Swedish team participated in Red Team, which never happens and is pointless because Red Flag is not a competition. Red Team simulates potential adversaries, that's all. 2) That they went up against F-16 Block 50+ despite no participating country operating them in 2006, and 3) That they also went up against Typhoons despite no participating country operating them in 2006. So we can conclude very safely that Stefan Englund simply lied. In fact there are literally pictures of JAS-39s being locked on by Norwegian F-16s. Can you provide the same for a JAS-39 doing it to an F-16? Didn't think so. The Finns, Swiss, Canadians and Czechs all evaluated both JAS-39E and F-35A recently. ALL of them came to the conclusion that F-35A is FAR superior to JAS-39E in every relevant metric. ALL of them. Claiming that JAS-39E is comparable to F-35 was SAAB marketing propaganda that blew up in their face the moment they had to prove it. Additionally, you are incorrect when you claim that JAS-39 is supposed to operate from "bases in the forest". Vägbas 90 was a dispersed airfield network, not a hobo network. All fighter jets can take off and land on car roads. There are literally videos of it on youtube. There is no evidence that JAS-39 can rearm and refuel in 10 minutes nor that it costs less than F-16. There is a Janes article which erroneously counter JAS-39s FUEL costs against F-16s LIFECYCLE costs, but that is comparing apples to oranges. The Czech Republic recently had an evaluation (they operate JAS-39) and they do not agree that JAS-39 is cheaper than other 4th gen fighters. The weapons you mention that JAS-39 can handle are pretty much the full weapons compatibility of the JAS-39. The RCS figures you give are unsourced and incorrect. JAS-39E can't supercruise. In fact neither could JAS-39NG (the prototype that supposedly achieved supercruise except it accelerated using AB and only managed Mach 1.2 with minimal weapons load). Justin Bronk has been proven wrong in pretty much every single one of his predictions and has ZERO qualifications to talk about the subject matter. So again - 95% wrong. The 5% refers to the fact that yes, JAS-39 can operate IRIS-T, Meteor, Taurus KEPD and RBS-15. That's the ONLY thing you claimed that is correct, but even that was disingenuous.

@@johanlassen6448 you have many opinions but no citation and you pretend to know more than Professor Justin Bronk at RUSI and well documented events that happened during Red Flag Exercise one can think you are Russian but everyone has to judge who is more credible, the source with countless citations or the one without any citations from what you write, I can only conclude that you mix up years, exercises, etc. and haven't read my post Red Flag Exercise 2006 is just part of everything I write come with facts and not opinion

Kind of... Give me the config and the F22 would be a flying brick 🤪. F22 is mostly build for attack meanwhile Jas 39 Griffin is mostly build for defense. But at defense the F22 would struggle due once ammo/fuel out goodnight. Jas 39 griffin can land refuel/rearm pretty much anywhere and be up in the air in less than 10 min and still having 15 planes buggering a few F22

@@jonasthesencalm down… don’t wet yourself

Oh really? They just have missiles fuel trucks and maintainers hidden everywhere in back country roads? 😄😄 Cut the shit

Yes... it would. In reality the 39 would never reach the point of the dog fight

@@RyanFranny-xb4uq This is polemic.

There was no Mig's in the airspace when they escorted the sr-71 to "denmark's" airspace acording to the official radar observation from sweden.

In the real world the JAS-39 would not ever get into dogfight range.

The f22 is getting this hmcs ability right now Along with stealth drop tanks and ifrt. The f22 doesn't need that stuff because it will kill you before you can ever see it but it just makes it more deadly still if it ever engages WVR

Dude stop you think all usa planes don't have data link?

By the time you MIGHT see a f22 he's already got missiles out on you and is turning defensive while his buddies in the rear 20 miles back are putting out missiles against your buddies. The f22 has no competition period.

haha true! I actually shot this video a looooooong time ago! Thanks for noticing the cookie cleaner!

Copium? Don't be so salty. It's a dogfight, Gripen can't fuck with anything that has thrust vectoring in a one circle, fact.

@@shaggingsExactly. Not really a fair fight between a thrust vectored and non thrust vectored fighter in a merging dog fight. However you can get 4-5 Gripens for one F22.

Stop it lol.

Some objective facts and evaluations exist that demonstrate that the Gripen has significantly inferior performances than the Rafale, the Typhoon or even the older F/A-18C/D. Amongst others, the results of the evaluation performed by the Swiss Air Force between 2008 and 2011 when it had to select a replacement aircraft for its F5s for which the Gripen, the Rafale and the Typhoon were extensively tested, evaluated and compared with each other. The results of these evaluations communicated in 2011 are quite straight forward : in all domains the Gripen obtained a significantly inferior score than the Rafale, and it managed to obtain a slightly higher score than the Typhoon only in the Reconnaissance domain. The Gripen ends up 3rd out of 3 in the evaluation of the Swiss Air Force, and way behind the Typhoon and Rafale. In 2008 the first phase of the evaluation was launched and the Gripen C/D ended up significantly behind the Typhoon and Rafale with a score of 4,20 points compared to 6,20 points for the Typhoon and 6,71 points for the Rafale. The Gripen was the only aircraft of the panel to not obtain the minimum required score of 6 points. Even the older F/A-18C/D already in service in their Air Force since a while at the time obtained a better score. That was quite a surprise for everybody compared to the ambitions and performances advertised by Saab about their Gripen In 2009 the second phase of evaluation started with the Gripen C/D model upgraded to the new MS20 standards (standards of the current Gripen C/D which is still in operations in 2020). These new standards were the result of 48 modernization projects and allowed the Gripen to progress from 4,20 to 5,33 points. They pre-figured the MS20 standards planned for be delivered in 2015. But they weren’t sufficient to change anything to the performance rankings and placed the Gripen still way behind the Rafale and Typhoon, and still below the minimum score of 6 points required by the Swiss Air Force specs. Not to mention the fact that both the Typhoon and the Rafale scores also progressed during this second evaluation phase : the Typhoon score increased from 6,20 to 6,48, and the Rafale score from 6,71 to 6,98 points These poor results of the Gripen didn’t prevent the Swiss government to pick it as replacement aircraft for their F5s, but this choice was driven by only one reason : the cheaper acquisition, maintenance and fly away costs. Don’t be naive with the Gripen, Saab is perfectly aware that they can only aim for one segment in the competitive and limited sector of combat airplanes : low cost. Hence that is what the Gripen is : a low cost good looking 4th generation fighter aircraft that appeals countries that can’t afford to purchase more expensive airplanes or that don’t really need more than the operational capabilities the Gripen has to offer for their Air Force. However this controversial selection and order of the Gripen E/F by the Swiss government was anyway cancelled in 2014 after a referendum that rejected this choice. So the bids are reopened for the future fighter of the Swiss Air Force, not only to replace its F5s but also its F-18 Hornets by 2030. A new phase of tests and evaluations was launched by the Swiss Air Force in April 2019. But the Gripen is not part of the potential candidates evaluated, for the simple reason that the aircraft Saab proposed for the bid (the Gripen E/F that had been selected 8 years before) didn’t exist in production in 2019 (and still doesn’t exist doesn’t exist in 2023 yet btw. They have extended their production of E/F varients to 2025. All of the E/F varients capabilities are only on papers and no working model has been made. In every case of fighter jet history the produced variants never match the capabilities of the same variants on the paper). For the new evaluation phase that was planned in 2019 Saab proposed to the Swiss Air Force a demonstrator Gripen supposed to have some of the specs of the future E/F but that is still significantly different of what the final E/F production version will be. So the Swiss said thanks but no thanks. This time the low cost argument wasn’t enough to save the Gripen and it was officially excluded of the candidates competing for the Air2030 program, simply because the Gripen E/F doesn’t exist in production yet (unlike the other candidates which are all aircrafts models already existing in production). The 4 potential candidates now considered by the Swiss Air Force for its future fighter aircraft are : the Typhoon, the Rafale, the F/A-18 Superhornet and the F35-A. That says a lot about the confidence of the Swiss Air Force into the future performances of the Gripen E/F claimed by Saab, and also about its attractiveness compared to the above mentioned aircrafts. Another big disadvantage of the Gripen compared to the French Rafale (to take this airplane case in particular as comparison) is that the Gripen is barely battle hardened and combat proven although it entered in service nearly 25 years ago now. So far the only real operational experience of the Gripen consists in some reconnaissance missions over Lybia in 2011. It never dropped anything on any ground target in history compared to the Rafale which has been extensively used in combat missions over Afghanistan, Mali, Lybia, Iraq, Syria in the past 15 years. The only advantage gripen has over its rivals is cost and recruiting half of Saab's sales & marketing employees to make unimaginable and unbelievable claims on social media and buying of like bots. Unfortunately gripens claims are so outlandish that it won't even fit in 007 movies.

I don't really care who have the best plane. Only know Sweden won both air and naval exercises.. Here in Sweden, and that one they hade in the US some years ago.

39C

E is also heavier so a lot of that extra power is lost.

@@johanlassen6448 The emptyweight is very similar to the other versions. E can carry more missiles/weapons and weigh more yes. But it still got a much better balance energywise. In a real dogfight and in an emergency the E can of cause drop any AGM etc.

@@Neo-xn7vc So can JAS-39C... Empty weight is not similar. JAS-39E is more than 1 ton heavier.

Show me the source of that statement.@@johanlassen6448

Well. If it was in real life all the Gripen pilot has to do in this situation is to look at the F22 with his HMD and fire an Iris-T. Even if the F22 is behind. The F22 does not have HMD so it would be a very short fight. That is why the F22 should never get in to a situation like this.

@@jimmywitlock8761 The Raptor has the 360 degree firing AIM-9X Block II for such situations. No HMD needed.

@@texasforever7887 Ok. Now you make things up in your head. This is what a Raptor pilot says. He should know. "Without a helmet, that means the missile will need a very tight cue from somewhere," one F-22 pilot says. "[That's] something that is not always available in a dynamic, turning environment." To be clear, the AIM-9X is a huge improvement over the AIM-9M version even without a HMCS . "Don't get me wrong, it will still be better than having a 9M, but it won't be anything close to what a fighter with a helmet and an externally carried missile has," the pilot says. "Hence, probably not the savior we've all been waiting on." So. Nothing wrong with the missile. But to use its features you need the cueing system in the helmet so the missile knows where the enemy is when launched. It can not see behind its back.

@@jimmywitlock8761 You cant look behind yourself when you are strapped to the seat of a JAS-39.

@@jimmywitlock8761 IRIS-T has a 90 degree off boresight ability i.e. you can't fire BEHIND yourself...

You are definitely right! Delta +canard sucks. I was having my fingers crossed for my Russians not to go there in the development of 5 Gens here in Russia. Though Felon looks like having Delta but the actual nose control force vectors are behind the center of mass, close to the thrust source..

Long range kill, although a stealth fighter could theoretically accidentally merge with another stealth fighter if their radars fail to detect each other.

@@Scaleo3 I think NCTR isn't as advanced yet to be 100% reliable, so in a complex multi nation conflict, you might still have to do some VID to prevent friendly fire, and in that case its gonna turn into a dogfight.

@@hernerweisenberg7052 That is a very good point.

@@Scaleo3 There are ofc IFF systems that work pretty well, but in a complex multi nation conflict, would the US share their encoded IFF transponders with all allied participants, installing them on every single aircraft, including rotary wing, running the increased risk of those transponders falling into enemy hands? If they do, it would make VID not necessary, at least until the enemy cracks that IFF code, then they might have to VID everything.

In case you didn't know, Gripen is a SWEDISH airplane. What American think isn't a factor.

Yea... in real life too

That only applies if everything is equal. And it’s not with two different designs. In real life Gripen is slightly more agile. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fbmboN2budnQYYE.html

The reason the F-22 doesn't have a kill is because we have not fought a war against anyone with an air force since it has entered service. In that same time period the entire US military has 1 air to air kill. Sure for the same price you could have 10 Gripens but irl that single Raptor would be able to delete the 10 Gripens before any of them would even know it was there. IRL how many kills does the Gripen have?

the irony… talk about realism and then started waffling bs about raptor vs gripen. Chill, they were made to face Russian fighters, not themselves.

6th gen is gonna be a long range missile truck. It's not going to be a dog fighter like the f22. I'm sure it will still be good but unlikely to surpass f22 in dog fighting

Except they did talk about it and even painted their jets with kill marks. Except it also came out that the f22s were forced to carry external fuel tanks (which would be ditched in any combat scenario) as well as luneburg lenses to further increase radar cross sections and deplete top speed and maneuverability with all engagements beginning in bvr, while the german eurofighters fought nearly slick without any external weapons (which would be impossible in an actual dogfight) and still had significant losses with both countries reporting more wins for the f22. Eurofighters definitely have some advantages like cost, meteor missiles, ir search and track and some other european design features, but neutering an aircraft and shooting down "some" of them while still losing a majority of fights is hardly "clubbing like baby seals".

@@noahdeguzman4489 True,- very, very highly probable stories were invented to appease the wrath of American taxpayers. This was one of them. But again,- Eurofighters detected the F-22 with IR,- nothing about radar. IR detects heat,- any jet fighter is big and hot. The air behind the engine is hot ... no place to hide.

@@noahdeguzman4489he will have a hard time coping this one lmao

Lmao wrong

@@noahdeguzman4489 True, the cover up and story telling was very expensive for US Air Force :)

Most red flag exercises are designed to show you your weaknesses which often will start a plane like a f22 out at a severe disadvantage Nothing fuck's a f22 unless it's an alien craft

Well mostly cause this was a for fun match up. Also raptors are stealth fighters which mitigate whatever long range advantage the gripens have.

@@noahdeguzman4489 Correct.. but don't forget Gripens "best friend" Globaleye which can detect a commercial 30 cm drone from a distance of 300 km.. With both systems advanced datalink system I guess this "could be" an unguessed outcome.. even though I'm a big F22 fan😀.

@@delta2005 considering that the f22s estimated radar cross section is about the size of a bee thats still not enough.

@@noahdeguzman4489 Maybe..but as an "old" radar technician I'm not entirely convinced about that.

@@delta2005 theres a reason they have to deliberately neuter the f22 whenever they fly in red flag exercises and why whenever american stealth fighters train with foreign nations they equip them with luneburg lenses to artificially increase their radar cross section and it isnt because their radar cross section is big. That plus the fact that its generally accepted that the f22 has a better radar in general kinda makes it silly to think that the gripen would be better in a BVR situation.

Will def look more in the Gripen in DCS

Maybe on paper. But in the real world things can be confusing. NCTR is not 100% reliable yet, and so in a complex multi nation conflict, VID is often still a requirement to prevent friedly fire, and that ofc results in a dogfight. Even in the last Iraq war, F-15's often had to VID and still managed to do some blue on blue fire.

Also if you ever played DCS, and flew over the caucasus mountains in a blue jet, you probably fell victim to a pop up flanker at some point. The best radar and stealth wont do you good one bit if the enemy is lurking behind a mountain waiting for you to fly overhead.

The f22 is expensive. Guess what though? When it can't return to base because it's a pile of rubble burning on the ground 45 million a pop gets expensive real quick

@@RyanFranny-xb4uq you know that it can land on highways and small road right lol it is designed to be operated by a crew of 3 to 4 and can land basically every where that there is a road . The f22 cant do that when the base is destroyed it cant return and they have lost 350 mil