That's what the Pentagon has invested the time, technology, and expertise in, the last 20 years. And You have KZfaq posters/channel operators who keep describing a flying super computer --- currently with at least (before the firs major upgrade) 20 times the computational capability of the mighty, 1990s F-22 --- as a "lemon." What the usual KZfaq experts don't understand is that the US has the experience as well as the knowledge to build extremely fast jets, from the SR-71 to the F-15 and F-22. Speed and agility, on fighter jets, are not lacking features of the US military aircraft, much less a lacking in the US Pentagon, an institution that has a $1T a year budge. What the Pentagon has done, on the single engine F-35, is to take all the stealth & computational technologies they have gleaned from the F-117 & F-22 and making them so much more affordable, better, & more easily handled. Upgrading the computer architecture of the F-22 is like upgrading the CRAY SUPER COMPUTER of the 1990s, from the same era as the F-22. DOABLE; just entirely counter-productive & unnecessary... (..... I remember, back in college, early 1990s, when a Cray Super Computer arrived at our campus (the US government allowed, at the time, just 4 such machines to be available to public research universities across America): they had to build a giant multi-storey building to house it, to keep it cool/operational... Today, your high end iPhone has faster and better computational capability that those giant Cray Super Computers.....) The reality is, high end missiles are carried by all advanced nations (Russia, China, India, the US, Britain, France, etc) top tier jets; they are so much faster, better guided, & deadlier than those just a few years ago. (Even faster and better guided with next generation engine drives are being finished the next 5-8 years.) If you don't know what's going on in a large volume of space, & you run into a volley of air to air and/or ground to air missiles, it doesn't matter whether you're flying the F-22, SR-71, F-35, Su-35, Su-57, etc..... you WILL DIE. None of these manned fighter jets fly above Mach 3.5. (Building a giant airplane with pilots, to fly above Mach 3.5 or to out-run missiles that could do up to Mach 10... is just simple-minded stupidity....) The "mid-range" F-35, (Mach 1.5 single engine, a flying super computer), therefore, is built to fly with a "library" of intel .... with next level avionics, sensor fusion, & data crunching capability ... that no other jet, including the F-22, is quipped with....

Talking with some folks over at SAAB I got the impression everyone does this ... but I guess I was wrong

@@matso3856 Gripens don’t see low earth orbit satellites even if they tried. F-35s do without the pilot even asking once they get above a certain altitude band. They just look up and see the TGT tracks in the HMDS. Then there’s all of the surface contact data that an F-35 collects, as well as air data on other platforms. In CENTCOM, they were tasking several highly-sensitive dedicated reconnaissance platforms to look for a certain surface threat, who could not find it. Some F-35s on their separate missions accidentally located, PID’d, and reported it with full RF/IR spectrum imagery collected in ways the dedicated spy platforms could never do. This was a Named Target of Interest from the Joint Chiefs of Staff level that the other platforms could not find. These and many other reasons are why F-35 collective sensor data is immediately classified with SCI compartments. Gripen is nowhere near this level of sensor clustering, integration, and data-sharing, though the networking is good on later model Gripens.

@@LRRPFco52 Sir either you sound like a 5 year old bragging about how strong his dad is , or if half of what your typing is true , it is sensitive stuff that shouldn't be talked about in the first place and I can't decide what's is worst

@@matso3856 Everything I posted is OSINT. USAF reported exactly what I said, as did a retired F-16 Weapons School Instructor and former Thunderbirds Commander. He interviewed 31 different F-35A pilots who converted from F-16C, A-10C, F-15C, F-15E, and F-22A both in 2016 and 2019, and published his reports with full permission and cooperation from USAF. 100% of them said they preferred the F-35 if they were going into combat primarily because of what they can see and what decisions they're able to make. I've been in aerospace/defense/military dating back to the early 1970s.

their Playlists tab has...Mighty Finland Podcast in English

An F-35A can carry a heavier payload farther than a B-17G, do it at supersonic speed for part of the flight profile, change history with one weapons release, then erase anything the Luftwaffe had in the sky then, and what they have today. No U-Boat would have been safe if the Allies had F-35s during the war. The War would have also been ended before it started really had any defenders had a single squadron of F-35s.

Mikä estää Suomen Ilmavoimia treenaamasta Pohjois-Ruotsin yllä vaikka joka toinen päivä? Tai vaikka ajoittain Norjanmeren yllä (koska ilmatankkausta reenattava). Ei mikään. Johan tässä on ilmoitettu että jatkossa Suomi varastoi amputarvikkeitaan myös muihin Pohjoismaihin. Ruotsin Gripenit voi toisaalta toimia myös Suomesta käsin. Ollaan osa liittokuntaa, ja yhdessä katsotaan miten parhaiten pompotetaan naapuria kuin koripalloa.

Turkilla ei ole yhtään rajanaapuria joiden kanssa ne tulisi toimeen. Jopa parikyt km siivu Bulgarian kanssa pitää taustallaan hemmetinmoisen vihanpidon, muista puhumattakaan (Kreikka, Venäjä, jne..). Uskoisin että Ruotsalaisille sopii ihan hyvin että Ilmavoimat pyörii pohjois-Ruotsin metsien yllä.

Jokainen Ruotsalainen tietää missä etulinja on. Ovat tienneet yli 100 vuotta. Tietävät myös ketkä ovat etulinjan ja heidän siviilien välissä. Muistavat myös että 100 vuotta siinä ei ollut Suomea, vaan naapuri oli kirjaimellisesti Tukholman etuovella. Tästä 1800 luvun painajaisesta puhuttiin vain hiljaa niin täällä kuin Ruotsissa. Nyt ei tarvi enää olla hiljaa. Ruotsi on aina Suomen tukena. Koska ilman itsenäistä Suomea, Ruotsi taistelee etulinjassa joka päivä.

Tämä riski Suomen lentelystä Venäjän rajan läheisyydessä on ratkaistu käyttämällä "luneburg lens" nimisiä vehkeitä pultattuna F-35 hävittäjien pintaan rauhan aikana. Tekevät koneelle etukäteen suunnitellun suuremman tutkaheijasteen, joten esm tässä tapauksessa Venäjä ei saa kerättyä mitään oikeita tietoja vaikka onnistuisi konetta seuraamaan. Toki tiedetysti S400 järjestelmällä ei ole onnistuttu havaitsemaan "linssitöntä" kolmevitosta, joten välttämättähän nuo eivät ole oikeasti pakollisia. Jokatapauksessa kuitenkin hyviä peittämään suorituskykjä harjoitustilanteissa. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luneburg_lens#Radar_reflector

@@snautsi897 Tiedän tietämättömyyteni tutkissa, mutta käsittääkseni erittäin matalan taajuuden tutkat kyllä pystyvät näkemään noita häivekoneita. Niillä ei pysty ohjaamaan ohjuksia kohteeseen kun ne eivät ole tarkkoja, mutta saadaan tietää että jotain siellä lentää. Sen jälkeen voisi harjoitella toisilla tutkilla mitä pystytään. Mutta nuo tavat heikentää niiden häiveominaisuuksia on tietenkin helpottamassa tätä kysymystä. Myöskin voisi olettaa että baltian turvaamisessa ennen pitkää F35:t lentelevät naapurin vierellä. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radar

I would say that title goes to Sweden for the fact that Sweden it self is an Arctic nation, they are not just testing their jets there, they are build there and flys every second there and are designed to operate there. No matter, F-35 is better jet than Gripen but when it comes to Arcitc know how with jets, Sweden has the edge for the obvious reasons.

@@duhni4551 This is commonly stated but the numbers aren't there. US has more squadrons in Alaska and Northern US where Arctic winds come through like ND and MN. US builds most of the critical systems for Swedish fighters anyway and has since the 1960s. Sweden merely assembles the major subsystems into airframes they build at Linköping. Some of those airframe subassemblies are built in mainland Europe. US designed and licensed avionics in many cases from Hughes, Raytheon, like with Draken, Viggen, and Gripen. US or UK jet engines. Draken had Rolls Royce Avon motor. Viggen had US Pratt & Whitney JT8D. Gripen has US GE F404 and F414 for Gripen E.

@@LRRPFco52 And yet, they are designed in Sweden for Arctic environment and are flying in Sweden, meaning Arctic environment. That goes beyond any testing. Then again F-35 is soon flying in Finland so that "edge" goes away.

@@duhni4551 F-35s have been operating out of Norway and Alaska for years. Norway is much colder than Sweden. If you look at the thumbnail photo for this video, you see an F-35A with the drag chute pod in the rear, which is part of the Arctic runway operational requirements for icy runways. USAF has generated more sorties in Arctic and sub-arctic environments than the Swedish Air Force even before the F-35. The idea that Sweden has some type of exclusive domain for Arctic operations is not backed by history or the present.

@@LRRPFco52 Swedish jets flies in Norway too and even in Finland constantly. Also the cold it self alone isn't the hardest part, it is about the air being moist and cold, it gets everywhere and does its damage. Also i point out that the Norweigan F-35's, them being the early production versions, have had a ton of issues because of the climate, thankfully Finland went with Block4. I have not said they have some domain, i just pointed out that no amount of testing compares to actually operating in some climate. They are 2 completely different things, this is why USA for example comes to Nordics to learn things, not to teach.

Kannattaa katsoa peiliin, että kuka tässä on kuutamolla, esität todella monta totaalisen virheellistä väitettä tuossa kommentissasi. Sinä olet miellyt kaiken Gripen-fanipoikien propagandan ilman mitään kriitiikkiä ja sitten syytät muita juuri siitä mihin vain itse syyllistyt. F-35 laskeutuu tielle ilman mitään ongelmia. Ja F-35 ei ole monta kertaa kalliimpi kuin eurooppalaiset, päin vastoin, se on halvempi kuin Rafale ja EF typhoon. Sen toimintamatka ja asekuorma (ja erityisesti näiden yhdistelmä) on myös selvästi paras harkinnassa olleista koneista. Se pystyy kantamaa yli 8 tonnia polttoainetta sisäisesti sekä yli 8 tonnin asekuorman, molemmat yhtä aikaa. Siinä missä muilla koneilla sisäiset polttoainetankit on pienet ja lisäpolttoaine on poissa asekuormasta. Todellisella yhtään isommalla ase- ja polttoainekuormalla se on myös nopein noista koneista, koska kantaa 6 ohjusta ja yli 8 tonnia polttoainetta sisäisesti, käytännössä ilman lisäystä ilmanvastuksessa, kun taas kaikki lisäpolttoainetankit ja aseet muissa koneissa lisää ilmanvastusta todella paljon. Se on myös todella ketterä kone, pystyy lentämään hallitusti todella suurilla kohtauskulmalla, kääntymään hyvin pienessä tilassa ja omaa hyvin suuren roll-raten. Nuo haastattelijat tietävät aiheesta paljon sinua enemmän.

jippii wahuu cool

In Finnish HX program F-35 had 47/1 kd ratio against other Western jets, that alone tells quite a bit about how far apart these jets are. Not to mention capabilities to counter missiles etc. F-35 was lightyears ahead others. Also F-35 can control drone swarms, it doesn't have to be another F-35 or jet in the first place as it can link to every and all other systems and provide them with targets and vice versa. These are just few things, there are a lot more. Also i think i have to point out that you can load F-35 with more missiles, it just comes with cost of cross section. Even then it is much harder to detect than Gripen.

F-35A can carry MUCH bigger weapons load than Gripen. And it can also carry 2.5 times more fuel than Gripen carries internally. And for a long-range mission, F-35A can carry at least twice as big weapons load as Gripen, as Gripen will be using most of it's big hardpoints for external fuel tanks.

I would argue that the n1 issue with the platform in Finlands case is the turn around time and austere maintenance. For finland the availability of as many airframes as possible is key. Thay some thing that worries me when its in US case is hovering around 50 availability. Its really irrelevant how good a fighter is when it is when it is standing on the ground. Especially in Finlands case when the typical situation would be f8ghtong over Finnish territory ​@@duhni4551

​@@hkultalathats rather irrelevant in both swedish and finnish case as the reason for austere basing is because the two nations fight over its own territory. The challenge will be turn around time and availability. And budgeting ofcourse.

You do .. and once you add one external fuelpod and the rest with missiles it can still super cruise and achieve longer range then the F-35(unless it mounts external fuel pod to), and since we dont have the need to cross the Atlantic to bomb something its irrelevant. Turn around times and flight costs per hour are more critical. So that you can go several times per day so having lower capability to drop bombs is also not a major disadvantage since you can come back and bomb more times per day. Secondly having low cost for flying allows pilots to train more , this is really the only concern we in Sweden have that all our neighbours might not maintain good amount of flight hours per pilot due to costs and we all know how the politicans likes to cut costs. So its universal problem unless your from the US. But yeah reason why Gripen is called 4.5 is that it also have the same stuff that the 5th gen have , which I might add is just a way that the americans have decided from a salesman perspective since thats how they did it. A few of this 5th gen stuff Sweden had it in the 3rd generation aircraft so the narrative of "generation" doesnt fit aircraft developments once you get outside of the USA.