Cheers from Sweden =) I think the Gripen E is a good fit for your country! And i know SAAB takes good care of those that choose the Gripen so i reckon it will work out great.

It is a much better choice for the Philippines than the F16s.

Canada's boss south of the border not happy with Gripen option SO, Canada obeys.

Amerikansk motor, italiensk radar med amerikansk teknologi, italiensk IRST... vad är det som är svenskt med detta?

@@johanlassen6448 Det viktiga? Mjukvaran som hanterar allt.

Agree, the radar for example is much more advance than what they say here.

Tack Johnny, we are not insecure about Gripen's capabilities. If not the results from the Red Flag since 2016 is enough, maybe you could ask your own AF how they are doing against Gripen! I´m not holding a grudge against Denmark, I have visited you more than 100 times, and I love you. You are my siblings. Besides the F-35 is not a bad fighter.

​@@donquixote1502 f35 or gripen are not bad fighters.. but like most countries, having a mixed fleet of fighter jets is preferable.. f35 has its advantages and gripen has its advantages.. and I wish denmark had bought both, rather than go all in on just f35's.. they turned down gripen in favour of f35 when having both would be better.

Agree, F-35 seems to be an excellent plane but I'm rely happy that there are others in the theater, like Gripen, Rafael and Eurofighter. I'ts a risk having all eggs in the same basket. There are certainly weak points on every fighters, with different ones those possible weakness will be less significant over all.

@@donquixote1502 In the exercise with 5 norwegian F-15 there was 3 Gripen. In the US they have gone 5 F-15 vs 1 F-22, with all F-15 lost.

@@johnnydenmark6477 Rafale and F-15EX ()and SU-57) are likely strong contenders. I think both would be more expensive but also both able to carry a bit more load. Don't know which one would perform best vs other fighters in current versions if we ignore the payload aspect.

today it is the J10C is the best light weight fighter jet and the lowest cost .

I agree, I loved my Saab 99, superb especially on winter roads

It also pronounces gripen incorrectly. It's greepen.

What does JAS as in SAAB GRIPEN JAS mean to you? "All" or "Hunt, attack, and surveillance"?

Honestly, Omni-role just sounds like a marketing term. Also, it would be dishonest to claim that the JAS-39 Gripen E/F could fulfil any role. It is very versatile. But is not a strategic bomber or a tanker. It is not a cheap trainer or a cargo aircraft. It can replace a lot or roles. But is not a straight replacement for everything.

​@@donquixote1502 J A S Jakt Attack Spaning Hunt Attack Surveillance

It's like to compare Volvo with Mahindra 😂

Can you separate a donkey from a car?

Tejas mk 1 is a non canard tail less delta wing and this one is a close couple canard design. So it's more like a Tejas mk 2

Cut your hair and get a job and stop boring us with your crap....

The RAE or Test Pilot School operates three, IIRC. So, while not in a combat capacity, they do operate it.

No, the Navy F4's and F14's use the rear pilot as a weapons officer and is responsible for tracking enemy planes, missiles, ground based antiaircraft weapons and firing at those hostile weapons.

Give me your definition of 'most powerful'

@@jaycee9385 Not the JAS-39E. It does not have the radar, not the EW capability, not the TTW or kinematic performance, not the payload, not the weapons variety, not the avionics, not the sensor fusion, nor the stealth to claim that title.

@@johanlassen6448Apart from some things being false (weapons variety is among the best, as it works with any modern european and almost any current american weapon), this is not an answer to my question. I know, it's the creators of the video, who came up with the term of "most powerful fighter", but as you picked it up, I ask you again: What is your definition of the "most powerful fighter"?

@@jaycee9385 1. False, it is claimed that it can easily be integrated with any weapon (and yet posterity has proven this to be nonsense). The JAS-39s actual integration of weapons is exceptionally limited. 2. I told you. Not the JAS-39.

@@johanlassen6448 Well, I didn't ask you, what isn't the most powerful jet. I didn't even ask you, what's the most powerful jet. I asked you, what constitutes the most powerful jet. Will you eventually give me an answer, or are will you continue to evade the question?

Interesting take. "Among the best" which other aircrafts are "among the best" that beats Gripen E/F? I can think of maybe a couple. Are you saying it's not in the top 10 or top 5?

@@SonnyKnutson to start with, swedish fighters has never been tested in real combat, of cause gripen e can have secret strengths, but that is the same with other modern fighters to. I think it would even have a big problem with the upgraded su 27. we only officily have arround 95 Gripens and of them maybe just 40 are ready to scramble. And the russian s300 and s400 etc and so on could take down at least half of them and finnish the rest with su 33 su 35mk and a couple of su 57 and the mighty mig 31 with the mighty mach 7-10 misiles. The meteor is a good misile on Gripen but we dont have the numbers, and not so many ground to air misiles either. So for instance taking Gotland from Kaliningrad and maybe St Petersburg, so taking the strategic island Gotland will be done in less then one weak, and i dont think nato will help us and be risking war with russia only for gotland. Gripen E is not even in the same class as F16 block 70. But we never have believed in modern time to beat a russian atack for more then some weak, and the hope nato or some of the nato come to help us. Gripen E is a good plane for such a homebuild plane cause we only have ten miljon people here. But Gripen could be good for not so wealthy countries, but has no chance against the best russian planes. F15ex Rafale Eurofighter f22 and f35 is far better then gripen c and even clearly better comparing with f35 and of cause f22. Gripen is very much overhyped in my opinion.

@@user-fp2gr4ic3x So you lost me already at never been combat tested. It's been tested plenty. Just because it's not shooting at an actuall enemy aircraft does not mean it has not been tested. It's been to red flag and outperformed pretty much all other aircraft except the F22. It's been tested in simulation fights and mock dog fights. It's been tested firing it's weapons at dummy targets. This whole argument of "Never been combat tested" is just null and void. No military actually cares about that because ANY new equipment has never been combat tested before. This is just a very lazy excuse uneducated civilians use. The rest of your message I just ignore because all you are doing is guessing. "Will probably..." x y z. It is a great fighter 2nd only to the most stealthy aircrafts when it's doing what it's doing best and was designed for. In other areas. probably mediocre.

@@SonnyKnutson Maybe probably the E version is among the 15 best fighters. su 33mk mig31bm su 57 su 27(slightly better) just to name some. If Gripen has homecourt and can use the small roads and reload and refuel fast so it could resist for at highest some weaks or so? at least And Then the western f15 ex f22 f35, Rafale, eurofighter, f16 block 70 and some asian fighters to!Al better then Gripen C/E But we have a decent fighter plane for our size just 10 milj persons. In the 50ths whe had the 4th strongest airforce just after USA Sovjet and Raf. But that wont help us now. Maybe the most important thing, Gripen is not proven in war!!! The only very good thing we have is our subs ! And they stockpile them at IKEA H A ! HA! of cause our neighour finland norway and denmark will come to help us,maybe RAf to, but not Nato! cause it could spark a third world war? Gripen would have been the superior plane in the 80ths but now? Just SAAB dreaming .......

@@SonnyKnutson Supose u are a swede lik me 😀

You're getting reported.