2:07 the only thing broken here is that voice

bruh ranking the first version of the rafale in 2024 is pure genious

The Gripen is one of the most rugged planes on the planet, purpose-built for full operational capability on just 1600 feet of a snow-covered highway. It takes just 10 minutes for a single technician and a team of 5 conscripts to rearm, refuel, and reservice the aircraft before it returns to air-to-air combat after landing. It is one of the cheapest aircraft to operate in the world, costing less per hour than even the F-16C Block 50. It is one of the few aircraft equipped with an AESA radar, and it can fire jammers out of its countermeasure dispensers as if they were flares or chaff. Its abilities as a flying computer rival even the F-35's. It can carry whatever existing weapons you can think of. "If you buy Gripen, select where you want your weapons from: Israel, Sweden, Europe, US... South America. It's up to the consumer." Hmmm... let's give it a 5 for innovation, and a 6 for versatility.

During a red flag exercise It was assigned to the red team. Reduced AWACS, reduced ground support. The Gripens connected their link systems and acted themselves as AWACs, got the battlefield awareness necessary and avoided all ground defence, scored 10 kills the first day including a Typhoon. No losses they remained undetected. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that performed all planed starts, while others were sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up. The evaluation was that Gripen capacity needed to be revaluated.😉

Absolute crap for the french rafale : you'r ranking the 1.0 version of the rafale ? then do it for every jet dude. It's unfair !

u cant really rank the Mirage 2000 without specifying a specific variant as there are a ton that are very different capability wise like a Mirage 2000C is just a dumb bomb analog fox one slinger, but a Mirage 2000-5 MK2 is a capable multi-role platform with MFDs, guided A2G ordinance using the Damocles pod (same as Rafale), and Both versions of the MICA A2A missiles. (im just butt hurt i love the Mirage 2000, but theres no comparison to the Mirage III)

I hate how top speed us used instead of effective speed. Top speed on almost every fighter jet can only be done for a few minutes. The effective speed should be used when calculating speed. Just cuz a mig 31 can go mach 2.8 doesnt mean much when it can only be done for about 30 seconds lol

Giving a better versatility rate to the Typhoon than to the Rafale is paradoxical, since the Rafale went out a few years before the Typhoon, and added all the components for air to ground missions during those few years. But most of all, it can operate from a damn carrier. That is super important, and I am surprised you didn't take that into account like you did with the F35C. Also, you should have taken thing in account for your rating : availability/maintenance. That is perhaps the most crucial and underestimated aspect of a fighter jet.

He is just wrong about the gripen. Cost effectiveness makes a huge difference here. The bang for your buck is far greater than the Rafale and Typhoon. The plane may not be the best but you’ve underplayed it’s effectiveness

I see a few categories that the F15 should get high marks in. 104 kills to 0 taken out. Mach 2.5 and the only fighter to cross the Atlantic without refueling. If I'm not mistaken, it also holds the most ordinance and has flown with one wing missing. It can do pretty much anything you need it to do, including dropping a bomb on a moving helicopter in mid air. Good pilot. Now they've upgraded it to the F15 EX with fly by wire and other upgrades.

Seriously, giving the SU-34 an innovation score of 4 is just plain wrong. Have you seen it? They've managed to fit a toilet and a kitchen in there! And if there was an appearance score it would be a solid 10/10. That wide, flattened nose? Totally resembles a duck-bill, and who doesn't love ducks? Plus, those canards? Super cool!

Just looking at gripen here, becasue that is the aircraft i know the most about. It seams like you totally ignored the cost of operations. While Gripen is pretty expensive to buy, specially the E/F version. Its very cheap to operate. It only need ONE, yes ONE trained mechanic. (and a team of 5 conscripts with 6 week of training). The quality of gripen is top notch. To say that its for people who cant afford higher quality is just down ignorant. The reason why some countries choice to assemble, or really build, the gripes them self is for two reasons. One its because of economics. But the other reason is to maintain a spare parts production in country. For the speed i would say the dry speed is more important than the wet speed. The wet speed is pretty much never used, but the dry speed is used often. The Dry speed of Gripen A-D if around mach 0.95 and for E/F its probobly about mach 1.3 (not official) For versatility. Gripens combat range is 800 and 1500km that is really more than most equivalent aircrafts. Its really just the F15 that have significantly higher combat range of the gen 4.5 aircrafts, F16 and F18 have shorter. (And its woth saying that Gripen is 20% lighter than the F16, despite Gripen being a ruged aircraft and F16 is not. (Lager aircraft generally have longer range). And the 1500 range of the newer model is not really low at all. Versatility is more than just about number of hard points. Gripen was one of the, if not the first true multi role modern military jet. There was 7 versions of the previews Viggen aircraft, those was replaced with only 2 version of Gripen. Because the E model does 5 different operations, while the other does 2. (well technically the F can do all 7 operations, but its not practical). Gripen can also carry out attack and fighting missions on the same mission. While many aircraft can do that today, that was not really the case in 1989. It can also land and take of from short poorly maintained airfields and highways (and theoretically carriers). It have a very short turn around time at about 5 minutes. (yea ... five) and its built to fly for a solid 2 weeks 24/7 with no maintenance. Both allow the aircraft to be deployed closer to the front as well as being operated with more hours. Having each air frame with more hours on target, acting as a force multiplier. (something Gripen have in common with both Draken and Viggen). This also effect things like range, capacity, carry rate and so on. If the plane can carry a larger number of loads to the enemy, the amount it can carry each time is multiplied. Gripen also got totally modular software. While that is something that is increasingly common, hardly any air frame got that today. And back in 1989 it was totally unheard of. This was the reason why the Meteor Missile was developed for Gripen first. Because software integration was simple. Gripen have a much more advanced link than most other fighters today. It can link with both ground as well as sea assets. This allow for direct digital targeting from both troops and the navy. The link can also act as a ad hock AWAC system in combination with ground based combat control. While Neither Gripen A-D or E/F is stealth. There is a reason for it. It would negatively effect the combat capacity of the aircraft. At the time the E/F was developed stealth was considered, but rejected. But Gripen E/F got a other weapon that may be ever better than stealth. Or well, some people claim so. The EW system of Gripen E/F can not only send interference, but can send out a calibrated anti radar signal back, canceling out the radar result. Exactly how good this system is... very few people know. But one advantage of the system is that the enemy would not know how efficient it is until its war. This system is probobly pretty good, considering that Eurofighter just bought the same model of Saab to install on there aircraft. So.. well its at least better than what eurofighter come with originally. This is more of a ... A fighter jet, or really any equipment, is more than just there spec sheet, than to say this ranking is wrong. Of cause, i could claim that the ranking is wrong, the issue is then, that i would need to know all the special ability all of the other aircraft got, and of cause, i don´t know that. And on top of that, some of the abilitys is still classified.

You are totally wrong on the Rafale

I mean, the Rafale was rushed into service for the french marine, because it had to replace the older aircrafts. But with the different upgrades it got, I think that 7 is, quite low for the versatility grade, knowing that's it's an omnirole fighter jey

Wasn’t expecting another upload, but thanks Austin!

Missed the boat on the Grippen's capabilities. Plus fleet linking abilities.

Think you slept on the gripen a bit. Not considering the maintenance aspect, which is a big part of the design. Able to operate from remote locations as highways with a tiny mobile service team on the ground.

Also when has the UK used the Saab gripen

I am afraid you got your dates a bit wrong on the Rafale. First flight in 1986 is for the initial demonstrator with temporary US made engines (french ones were still in the design phase). The first actual prototype was in 1991so pretty much the same time frame as the f-22. Initial production started in early 2000 so the limitations you mention for air to ground were for the first blocks delivered to the french navy. These were a bit rushed as they were necessary to equip the newly launched aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. If you look at the first blocks of f-35 you'll find they were not even capable of using their machine guns...to be truthful I am not even sure that issue has been resolved yet.

Waiting for the comments saying your opinion is wrong

You did Not even Mentioned JAS-Gripen-E !?!?

I actually like how your ranking system works because it a pretty good way of taking personal bias out of the equation it's just pretty funny to see stuff like the AESA radar, Electronic warfare, PL 15 equipped J16 below stuff like the MiG29 and planes its a straight upgrade on like the Su27 and j11 but that's obviously not really your fault

Well, that was fun. I can't really argue with your picks. I'd like to think the A-10 and Harrier ranked higher because of their significant contributions in actual combat, but I don't know what I would put them above, so pretty good list imho.

Lots of fun, Thanks. I appreciate the props you gave to the A-10, and your thoughts on the F-16 versus the F-18 were enlightening. New subscriber because of this video.

Hi Austin, what do you think about the F-15EX and what score would it get if it had some history behind?

Great list!

Good work, and I think that making a comparison like this is always diffficult, so kudos to you for the effort. However, I wonder a bit about the cost and versatility scores. The Gripen is, as most Swedish jet fighters have been, intended to serve as hunter, attack AND surveillance aircraft with a focus on being able to use regular roads as airfields, including a very short turnaround time from landing to start. It also has a quite innovative networking of information which gives it a special strength as a fighter jet. I assume that these features would count to the versatility score (and maybe the innovation score too). I also wonder about the cost aspect, where you seem to have left out cost per flying hour and maintenance costs. For the ranking scores, i think there is also a difference between defensive and offensive fighters, not least when it comes to speed and operation distances. But that is a minor detail in the whole.

Well, I really liked how detailed you were about the russian jets on how you got to score them in each category. I learned quite a lot of new and interesting (to me) information (numbers, etc.). Just wish you had kept that same attention to detail through the whole video. Even if it meant a longer video. I don't know about you all but, to me, I can spend hours watching informative videos about airplanes, specially fighter jets. From the American jets on, it felt a bit rushed. Kudos to you nonetheless. 👏👏

Nice work 👏

The Grippen is not in RAF service. It is used by the Empire Test Pilot's School, a civil wing of the UK MoD, specifically QinetiQ, that trains test pilots. It's not in RAF service.

Rafale my beloved 😍🤙💪

Nice video. Respectively I probably would of had the F-15's above every thing other then the F-35's and F-22's. The F-15 has the best combat record and longevity.

Are you giving these jets only dry thrust? Because I’m sure that the F-22 has with afterburner 2x35000lbs of thrust for a total of 70,000 lbs of max thrust.

Hey Austin, as you and I know, thrust to weight is not a constant value, so instead of giving a constant value, I try to give T/W range figures, for example the F-22 has a T/W ratio of 0.83 when at maximum take off weight, all the way to 1.61 at empty weight, obviously thrust at empty will also be 0 as there is no fuel anymore, so maybe it would be nice to give a T/W ratio from MTOW up to, lets say 10% fuel.

J-20 top speed: Mach 2 Speed score: 8 Mirage 2000 top speed: Mach 2.2 Speed score: 7 Are these scores meant to be comparable between origin countries, or only between aircraft from the same origin?

Quite an interesting review, well done! 🎉

Good breakdown & info. Good video

Excellent video.

Austin, I think you're joking right? The Eurofighter Typhoon achieved such success long after the Rafale plus, the Eurofighter Typhoon was initially designed for air superiority, not for ground attack, it acquired the ability to attack the ground quite recently and you ranked it above the Rafale which was designed from the beginning as an Omirole fighter? Not to mention that the Rafale has a marine version that operates on an aircraft carrier, plus you didn't mention the Rafale's electronic warfare suite, which is one of the best in the world? Not to mention that the Rafale has a datalink installed before the F35, yes the one on the F35 is much more advanced, but Rafale's is also there. Anyway, thanks for the work done, but in the future it would be good to document yourself better, good luck in the future. I apologize if I made a mistake, English is not my native language.

I'll be honest you're probably the 2nd person who didn't put any hate on the J 20

Try telling the Argentinians or ground troops who served in Afghanistan how useless the British Harriers were!

Uhh I don’t think the su-25 or a-10 are fighter jets

Intreasring video hopefully you add indian and korean foghter jet as well in the future ❤

why is su25 included? Its not a fighter . If it would be a cas rating it would be one of the best especially modern variants like su25sm3

I commend you in doing this on your own. There are multiple government agencies across Nations who actually mostly do a bad job at this stuff.

Hi, amazing work. When I speak about military planes I'm like "I like that, so it is the best"😂 I have only one critique: WHERE IS THE TORNADO? THE GHIBLI? AND THE M 365? GIB IT NOW!

the problem with things like this is that public information on current systems is often intentionally wrong in different ways. western countries tend to understate performance statistics to conceal true capabilities and eastern block ones tend to overstate as an intimidation ploy.

Su-25: High speed is a disadvantage for a close air support plane. It should have scored 6 or 7. AV-8B: Innovation and versatility should be 10. A-10: Your ranking system values versatility, so you should probably have left out purpose-built close air support craft like this and the Su-25. F/A-18E/F: Through most of its history, US Navy aviation has used exclusively specialist aircraft. The F-4 was the first to attempt "jack of all trades."

Great video, really enjoyed this. Thanks🙏🏼

Nice video! Could you do a video like this but for helicopters?

How will the new engine effect the ranking of the SU27?

You're showing your Navy brat bias. The F-35C's ability to land on a carrier and fold its wings doesn't enhance its ability to perform the missions over the F-35A. It's just a difference in where it takes off from and lands. The C does the same air-to-ground and air-to-air the A does.

the gripin sub par combat range, seriously dude you need to check your facts the gripin has greater combat reange than the f15 f 16 and f35, it cots per hour of operation is a fraction of an f16, which was the cheapest air to air combat aircraft in NATO. SAAB invented sensor fussion, which aircraft on your list can fire a missle using the targeting data from another. its the only aircraft that can use every weapon in nato

Great presentation reflecting a hughe amount of work. Pretty good for a non flyboy.😉

Bro said the gripen was standard lol

YEH !!! GOOD JOB !!! THANKS!!! AMEN 🙏!!!

Love the list. I assume the Growler was tied in with the F/A-18E/F.

Has the Tornado been retired? I know the RAF pulled theirs but I thought Germany and Italy still operates a few units.

F-5s produce 10,000 lbf of thrust on afterburners, therefore have a great thrust to weight value.

Good combat range in Mig29? brooo

Can you explain putting the F15 so far down considering is kill:loss ratio?

Hi Austin, really liked that. Pls note, that also the Austrians operate the Typhoon.

Is the F15 EX BETTER TGAN THE F15E?

I feel like with the block 4 upgrade, the F-35 with it's 360 degree sensors, built in electronic warfare and jamming systems, and internal air to ground infrared targeting system makes up for it's deficiencies in top speed and raw maneuverability compared to the F-22. As a fun fact, the F-35 has the most powerful engine of any fighter jet in the world at 43,000lb of thrust (compared to the 35,000lb of thrust of from one of the pair of engines put into the F-22). In dogfighting and medium range combat the F-22 relies on it's heads up display and high nose authority to point at enemies to defeat them, the F-35 will target and defeat enemies with missiles at almost any angle using the helmet mounted display, and is capable of tracking cruise missile and Sam launches out to 800miles from the vehicle.

55:38 Why all the gaps in the placings, if there's no ties? And, where did all the scores for the American aircraft come from?

A-10a on top for shooting them all, the most combats …and its surviveability. It’s an almost 100% synonym to effectiveness. Of course in a CAS role…. Go ugly early. Great list and try to update. I loved to watch it. Btw Radar cross section, who cares if radar is put down and low flight can be your cover? 😉

F-117 was not and is not a fighter, it received the fighter designation as a confusion factor.

Hell yeah, the raptor is the undisputed goat of the skies

Why did you drop the 1-10 ratings for the halfway through the video?

The Gripen seems to have something the others dont (maybe the first migs). Capable of taking off from any road and in a very short distance. That was one of the points when building the aircraft so that it cane be serviced anywhere when in a war scenario where airports are bombed

As far as I know, the Gripen hasn't been in combat yet, so time will tell how effective it is. I heard a high ranking Swedish officer reply to the question on how it compares to other fighter jets. He couldn't reveal a lot but said you can sleep safely at night.

Where does the F15-EX rate on your list???

I do think the method of measuring effectiveness for the Su-25 is a bit flawed. I don’t think it fully encompasses its role/niche. Still, loved this video

You must not have taken into account the E variant of Gripen to place the almost decrepit Mirage 2000 over it.

Su25 a effectiveness of 3 yet look at it in ukraine and su30 ranked lower than su27 and it has lower versatility and effectiveness? It carries guided ATG long range missile, rockets, guided bombs, dumb bombs or play an a2a roll?

Not at all US biased. Possibly the most subjective ranking I have ever seen.

brooooooooooo the rafale and the mirage are invert.And why the f35 is so hight and the rafale so low i think that there is some mistakes in your ranking but the rest is not bad(not the russians bias ).

Uhm in innovation for it's time I feel the HMD on a production aircraft should score some points..

plus the gripen is an extremely formidable multirole aircraft

not really into this topic enough to watch to whole vid so I just skipped to the overall rankings. Just curious but why were there numerous blank numbers?

How is the super hornet over the strike eagle? The strike eagle is made to run both air superiority and air ground attack. The only thing the super hornet is better at is carrier operations. The biggest tell on the F-15 being better though is the super hornet is being replaced by the f35 and they ordered more f15's

A superior piece of work in almost all regards, if only it could be completed someday. I like the point scheme, but would add production numbers, as that is a good indicator of an aircraft's value. Thank you for the work and incredible amount of thought that went into this. . . .

Hey i just wanted to point out that i saw something in the background of your set, and it didn't really click until you said you were a navy brat - the folded flag. I'm not sure who it was you lost, but you'd best believe they would be damn proud of the man you've become

The F35 does not have thrust vectoring. Thee F35b has minor thrust vectoring but not to increase its agility only for stvol.

The Tomcat is the coolest 😎

why did u put CAS aircraft into a Fighter jet category

Great video, I really enjoyed it and it was very educational. Thank you. GOD bless

Your comparisons between U.S. & Russian jets, leaves a lot to be desired!!

Did I blink and miss the F-4 and the F-14?🤨

The US F-5 is not a front line fighter, it is only used as an adversary training aid. Also you left out the F-15EX, although not operational right now, it will be very soon.

Your analysis was perfect just that the su57's cost points should be higher because although the programme cost was high cost for making one is very low as compared to us jets , also its effectiveness should not be judged , they r not using it because they only have 2 squadrons , thats why they are reluctant to use it 😅 Anyways awesome video 🎉

wait.. I'm REALLY confused.. Why didn't you give the US jets the same exact ranking system with the little circles as you did the Russian ones? I thought the whole point of this was a comparison of all the world jets, but you've somehow obscured that. Is that because you are not allowed to rank the US jets in the same way?

Why is combat tempo sustainability not factored?

Totally agree about the appreciation because losing energy and slowing down and being able to still control in dog fighting without stall is so important kind of makes me appreciate the su-57 if it didn't have crappy engines in American engines

Are the pictures in the end in the somewhat correct scale in the end? if so, does it help the smaler planes to not get hit by a enemy? i dont know anything about jet fighters. but i know if i pee in a coffeecup from 1meter the chanses are bigger that i miss than if i pee in a toilet.

I watched a documentary about the Falklands war. The Harrier was instrumental in Britain's victory. So perhaps the Harrier's effectiveness score could be higher?

Good video, but I think you got the Hornet, and Eagle backwards.

Bro launching off that carrier with 5 bags is willlldddd

Standard ranking that make all the efforts so that the “right” planes are on top.

The F-15EX should rank higher.