WANT TO SEE YOU NOT HER.

@@henrikg1388 thanks. high praised

Thought you you might like this video! Very recent! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j9KZlcWSrtS7aX0.html

As one who knows the Northrop Aircraft Division is similar to the Marine Corp. "The are no ex NAD employees" and we will take Jack Northrop's YB49 Flying Wing BS and the F-17/F-20 BS to the grave. NAD knew how to design a fighter, the F5E is the evidence. The Navy bought a bunch of them as Top Gun Adversary fighters from Switzerland (with modified wings that gave you two more Gs) that were housed since the late 1970s in caves and rarely flown. To this day if two of those impossible to see Swiss F5Es with L snakes mounted on their wing tips get on your F-18 six the general conclusion is that your dead meat.

Northrop is run by engineers, Lockheed is run by lobbyists. That's why they always get screwed.

I feel Lockeed Martin are not that good, a lot of problem for every project they made. US should give important project to other.

@@sushilover1356 I have worked at Northrop and have known many Lockheed engineers. Jack Northrop got his start with Lockheed.

Welcome aboard!

Correction, "another USEFUL aviation channel" meaning one that's not just a video farm that essentially sources from wikipedia in the best of circumstances..... I'm so tired of fake videos that use 3 min of computer generated voice over and 7 minutes of random footage... Thanks to both of you!

It's there but not the entire plane.

They learned a trick from the Russians

@@JakusJacobsen It was used all around the world. After all, politicians are a universal plague.

Yeah, and the f35 is just 1 airframe🤣

@@CaptainDangeax that’s unfair. If even half the the ET used on the F-35 had worked it would’ve been an excellent aircraft. Sadly it’s over hyped, over priced, and the maintenance hours to flying hours ratio is outrageous. The F-35 is a great idea but poorly executed.

@@CaptainDangeax The Rafale is not a great Aircraft. It would lose against the Super Hornet in any conflict, and a squadron of F-35’s would eradicate the entire French Air Force, rather like how Nelson destroyed the entire French Navy. You obviously have no clear understanding how the JSF program was ran and have an ultra nationalist view on the Rafale. The F+35 though a disappointment is still a highly capable multi role platform with only the F-22 as an equal.

Subscribed. 👋

Awesome job! Subbed.

You are Fantastic. Gonna subscribe for sure.

Always cool to find a new aviation channel by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Subbed. I missed when the F16 went from Falcon to Viper, I stopped reading about fighter jets sometime in the 2000s

@@ObsydianShade And yet they enthusiastically adopted the A-7 against other dual-engined options. Something says to me that having 2 engines wasn't really what attracted the USN to the YF-17.

Interesting, that Vought was involved, I recall that the YF16 landing gear, to save development costs, was sourced from the A-7.

@@vickydroid According with the people involved with the restoration of the second YF-16 unity in a museum, the landing gear itself is unique, not sourced from the A-7 (looks like it but isn't). What was taken off the shelf, were the wheels/tires of the nose gear of the B-58, that was put on the main gear of the YF-16. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g8t9Y65jtKq5qmw.html

@@magoid thanks, I probably misremembered, had to pull out a 1975 copy of an aviation book which described the YF16 and subsequent F16A\B and I recall LTVs involvement in the navalised proposal, couldn't find more but not sure if that's where I got my association with the A7 landing gear, LTV being the manufacturer and all, but thanks for pointing this out.

The F-16C systems development for Block 25 was largely driven by the open nature of the F-16 MSIP program and tons of pilot requests for certain things. The F-16A cockpit has the issue of the Radar display down between your legs, so they were constantly looking down-up-down-up-down-up with the HUD, getting repetitive motion problems. Display technology had matured by that point to have MFDs, so that’s what drove the cockpit configuration on the C Model. The APG-68 was a pretty large jump over the APG-66, and one of the main things opened up with the C model was BVR missile integration, IFF, and more ground attack modes. I was very close to F-16C avionics development in the 1980s, and never got the impression that it was driven by the Hornet. There was a large gap between USAF and USN multirole cultures and communities that were just emerging in those days. The Navy was looking for F-18s and A-18s to replace the F-4N, A-7E, and A-4M. As computer processing and data storage increased, they were able to combine the F-18 and A-18 into one aircraft where the pilot could swing-role mid-mission if necessary, with the flip of a switch. It had very good human interface with most of its systems, with a lot of leveraging of computing power over individual manual inputs. The impetus for a lot of that software and hardware architecture came from the F-15 and its HOTAS with integrated weapons cueing, radar mode selection, and HUD mode all working together when the pilot selected one weapon from another. The F/A-18 was definitely the beneficiary of many lessons-learned and technological maturity being the last of the teen fighters, as well as concurrent development of the F-15E Strike Eagle once the Strike Eagle was awarded with the win by the USAF. The F/A-18A had all kinds of problems though, aerodynamic, structural, and avionics that all needed to be addressed with retrofits and the new F/A-18C at the time. They lost 100 airframes and had 20 fatalities within its first 10 years of service.

"The F/A-18A was such a massive upgrade over the YF-17, that it essentially inspired the USAF to seek out an upgraded F-16C, to replace the F-16A" The F-16C was introduced for the new radar and avionics required to support the Sparrow missile and the upcoming AMRAAM, not because of anything the F/A-18 had or didn't have. "And then came the F/A-18E/F... essentially the US's only "production" gen 4.5 plane." I don't know where you get off calling the Super Hornet 4.5 gen. By that definition, almost every American 4th gen fighter flying today is 4.5 gen because they have similar capabilities to the Super Hornet and are also still in production. "But McDonnell Douglas is generally grossly under-credited for the US's mid to late cold war, and post cold war, air power advantage." I'm not sure why they're under-credited. A2A, compare the F-15C kill record to the F/A-18s. A2G, compare F-16 sorties to the F/A-18. Neither are even close. The F/A-18 has been a relatively minor participant in every significant air campaign since it's introduction. That's not a knock against the design, but they aren't around in significant enough numbers or present at the right bases and times to be a primary contributor. "The F-15 for example, wouldn't have a 104:0 win/loss ratio in air combat based purely on what you can read in Jane's." Not sure what you mean. The F-15C's (assuming you mean the C, since that's what the ratio is associated with) kill:death ratio is widely acknowledged as fact by every major military history, not just Jane's, and widely credited to a combination of extremely-good training and the NCTR capability. [Edit: just realized you might have been including the F-15 with the F/A-18 in your reference to McD, might have misread the last few sentences]

@@Jester-uh9xg Sparrows existed long before the F-16, so I'm not sure of your angle there. The F-18 illustrated for the USAF the limitations of the F-16A's scope of design ambition. An anemic radar may save money, but it's very costly in terms of an aircraft's capability. So the C got all weather, improved radar, more hard points, BVR capability, expanded ground attack capability... making it much more like the 18... Arguably the very strong performance of the AMRAAM was a significant factor in dictating the need for BVR capability though, so it's not just F-18 envy. But it is pretty clear the USAF came to decide they went slightly "too cheap" with the F-16A's. Thus the C's were designed with more capability (with more price), rather than just say seeking to make them cheaper or more reliable. The F-18E/F is the only 4.5 gen US production plane. I'll stick with that. Which is to say it is the only "major" overhaul in design to adopt modern/21st century features/tech. Sure there's block updates for a variety of aircraft. And many aircraft have or are seeing advanced avionics & sensor upgrades. But the F-18E is the only one which went through an extensive airframe redesign to reduce it's radar signature, and had many significant airframe changes to re-purpose it's capabilities. I wouldn't call it a stealth plane, but much like the Rafale, it "leans that way". There were other planes proposed, and in some cases flown as prototypes, which could be called 4.5 gen. But the F-18E is the only one which went into production. This is largely due to the US Navy being dubious of whether a carrier capable F-22 would actually materialize (they were correct). The other strong option was the F-14D "Super Tomcat". Frankly, both designs had some great benefits. Other notable examples (not in production) are the "Silent Eagle" and possibly the "STOL/MTD". One could argue that the F-15X / EX might be called 4.5gen, but I don't think the design changes are really quite extensive enough to call gen 4.5. It's more a major block revision on the F-15, and the modifications are backward compatible to existing legacy aircraft without doing major surgery to the airframe. The USAF shunned 4.5gen because they (probably rightly) feared congressional defunding of gen 5 programs if other options were on the table. The US Navy on the other hand was facing a serious deployment gap for modern tech, so they had a 4.5gen plane competition, and picked the 18E. Russia on the other hand embraced gen 4.5, they have quite a few models which I think qualify as 4.5. I think the Rafale, J-20, and a few others probably also qualify. Really the whole "generation" thing is woefully arbitrary and ill defined though. I wouldn't compare the F-18E to the F-16C in K:D ratio, one simply hasn't seen a lot of combat. Same vs the F-15. I mean, the F-22 has a 0:0 KD, but we wouldn't say it's a weaker performing plane because of it. Even the F-15C's K:D ratio isn't a clear picture of aircraft performance, since a fair number of those were against rather under-trained pilots in countries which flew planes from Russia without the "premium goodies" under the hood. And other variables like the AWACS can really factor heavily as well. It may have been a poor choice to use KD ratio as an example to make a point. I think all the F-18's K:D stats show is that the Navy is tepid about putting carriers near combat arenas unless it's really necessary. You completely misunderstand my comment on the F-15 and Jane's. I'm saying that the capabilities of US aircraft are "understated" (to no small degree) in official publications. And that based on the published numbers, one wouldn't expect a 104:0 K:D for the F-15, I mean, if Jane's stats on it's turn rate, etc. are accurate, that seems implausible. But... I cited that figure as evidence that the published numbers are watered down. That's really all I was saying there. This applies to aerodynamic capability, airframe tolerances, range stats, max G-loads, electronic capabilities, etc. Generally the better the hardware, the more watered down the public stats are. Also the less likely they are to be used in hot-spot firefights (which is most air combat in the time frame we're looking at). It's not too surprising that the best aircraft see the least fighting when all of the conflicts are lower priority, which tends to beg for more expendable planes. I mean, just one example of 'official stats' being pretty far off the mark, which I'll point out only because it's too sloppy and careless to take seriously, is the B-2's range. Officially it's 6,000nm unrefueled, and 10,000nm with in flight refueling. But if you stop to weigh the validity of that assertion, it falls apart. It takes some fuel to climb to operational altitude, and after that it can go 6,000nm... So why then when it's topped off when already at altitude, can it go only 10,000nm, instead of 12,000nm or greater? Is a fully fueled B-2 on the runway able to go 6,000nm, but a fully fueled B-2 at 35,000ft only able to travel 4,000nm? Somebody failed badly at making their watered down official publications plausibly consistent there. I get that you can't wait to in-flight refuel when the tanks are exactly empty, but that's half again the range missing (4000 vs 6000). The F-16's claim to fame in AA engagement is it's very sharp turn rate. However, F-15/F-18/F-14 can all turn at a rate which is sufficient to black out the pilot. I know of an F-15 which pulled over 12G's (without blackout surprisingly, it's hard to account for adrenaline), with a 12,000lb bomb load still on it. Granted the rate of speed is a factor in this, the G force of a turn is relative to the speed of the aircraft. Being able to maintain a very high AoA at a lower speed could give a turning advantage, even if G force limitations are equal. But I wouldn't take too seriously the idea that the F-18, a carrier capable plane (a mission profile requiring very high AoA and lift at low speed), and an airframe which must be more robust to handle carrier impac...i mean 'landings', has less turn rate potential than the F-16. Officially? yeah, sure, that's the published numbers. In reality though? All the "good" modern fighter planes out there can squish the pilot, so they need to look to other capability metrics to manifest a competitive edge. I think perhaps I was taking a jab at DCS as much as anything else. Anyway, the F-16 is an excellent fighter. No shade there. But it was a bit of an underdog in capability until it got the C/D upgrades, and then later the F-110 engine update which negated the weight gain of the C/D upgrades, with some thrust left over. In all of it's forms though, the F-16 has always been a very cost effective fighter which punches above it's price point.

Stealth is not the threat now. It is a lot cheaper to condition the F/A 18 SuperHornet to be able to do hyper-sonic intercepts which is needed now. That is because Russia who is supplied by China has and will use drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missile and hyper-sonic missile against their enemies like in Ukraine. Dog fighting is highly unlikely but the protecting cities is a big deal. There is no doubt. There is also no doubt that the F18 air frame can be engineered to fly MACH 2.0 and even MACH 2 ++. Look at all the knocks off jets like MiG 29, J17, and etc...We needed the NGAD and F/A-XX with realistic requirements like the "NEED FOR SPEED" as well as Stealth.

Matsimus at least is up front that he is not a expert and welcomes being corrected, that is good in my opinion. The channels that piss me off ar the ones that tried to make themselves out to be experts, while telling the most stupid bs "facts" that anyone who has half a brain can figure out to be BS if he does like 15 minute reading on the basics of what os been talked about and put 2 and 2 together! Is matsumus the best source of information not by a long way but he is honest about this and I respect that.

@@vladimirmihnev9702 Matsimus is intellectually challenged, kid level intellect. the guy not that bright. at the bottom of it all, he understands that. he tried to be an expert, but not one. a real disgrace, we are forced to watch things produced by retards

😁😁😁!

Aermacchi MB-339... I'll see what I can do! 👍

@@Millennium7HistoryTech thank you 😊

Yea, cuz testing pictures = reality.... >

The Navy had its own complaints about Tomcats due to the insane MMHPFH it required, and failure-prone systems almost everywhere you looked. It had a cockpit design based on early 1960s technology limits that wasn’t really ideal in the 1970s and 1980s, and was the most difficult aircraft to bring aboard the carrier after the RF-8C was retired. One of the main systems that failed regularly on the F-14 was its primary sensor and fire control, the AWG-9. Further investment into the No Really We Mean it this time Super Duper Tomcat was a very risky consideration, with even more unit and maintenance costs for a fleet of aircraft that was already sucking a huge chunk of the total Navy’s annual operational costs.

@@LRRPFco52 The Navy literally asked the SecDef not to cancel the F-14D. The SecNav made an appeal to the SecDef for at least 132 new build F-14Ds when the SecDef said he wanted to cancel it (he also wanted to cancel the F-15E, V-22, and a few other programs at the time but they had a powerful enough lobby to keep them alive). The previous SecNav during Reagan, who saved the Hornet program when it was almost cancelled, literally said he regretted not cancelling it in his autobiography. So, yes, there's a lot of nuance that is left out, and the reasons given here for why the Super Hornet program went forward is, like a lot of things, oversimplified because it takes too damn long to explain the full context.

@@okisoba The ATF program was very aware of the political atmosphere to program success at the time. Every encounter with the contractors was focused on risk management to the program, which is why they cut the AIRST and supersonic ejection seat from the F-22. F-14D and any Super Duper Tomcat represented significant operational cost risks that had to be factored into the budgetary considerations. Unit cost is not the big deal outside of procurement years. Very seldom do you see that argument being made in these discussions.

​@@LRRPFco52 ​ What risk management are you talking about? All the stuff you're talking about in your original response to Solidboat is addressed in the F-14D (digital avionics/radar/flight control system, upgraded engines, etc.) . It's like if I limited the conversation, when comparing the Eagle and Hornet to other aircraft, to the avionics, engines, weapons, flight performance, etc of the original F-15A and F/A-18A. The cost of bringing the Tomcat to the desired level of capability we've been trying to give the Hornet would likely have been less compared to what we have and will spend on the Hornet over time as we transition to real next gen aircraft. One of the things some analysts in the 70s, 80s, and 90s complained about WRT the Hornet is that people keep saying the Hornet is a low risk/low cost alternative to the F-14, but in reality it's not. We had to completely overhaul the Hornet for it to overcome some of its weaknesses. And it wasn't "low risk" when you consider it was taking over virtually every mission for the carrier airwing. It had problems with its wing design (wing drop issues that, without a lot of aid from software, would still be a significant issue), issues with pylon angles and others. And we continue to keep pumping money into it to make up for its short comings. The spiel about MMH and complexity was originally used for both the F-14 and F-15 by the "fighter mafia", but that narrative continued to be used and stuck onto the F-14 because the Navy wasn't completely sold on what was being pushed on them (the F/A-18). Our legacy Hornets have similar availability and MMHs that Tomcats were having with airframes reaching 20 years of age, and that's with a program that got way more political and financial support. Some of the other reasons, other than maintenance, for why the Hornet is one of the best things since sliced bread keep morphing from, "oh, fleet defense isn't important anymore cuz no more USSR; oh, we're only going to fight littoral conflicts against non-peer threats so we don't need long range fighters or stealth planes; oh, flight performance isn't as important because networking will make us nearly unstoppable." There is/was some truth in all of those points , but flight performance such as speed and endurance is still important as the host of this channel sort of indicated when he mentioned that last point, as is long range air defense thanks to China. Defense contracting/procurement is complex and annoying, and if I had to guess, the prospect of overseas sales of the Hornet/Super Hornet was a huge factor as to why some people in the Pentagon went with it over other options. It's a lot easier to sell than a "Super Duper Tomcat" or some high tech stealth Navy tactical jet. So, in that respect, I guess it was a good decision for the U.S. economy.

@@okisoba Fleet Defense was also provided with ship-launched missiles, not just thrown out because of the collapse of the Soviets. The variable risk factor with F-14D and MMHPFH was also driven by it not having DFLCS, and the same complicated and maintenance-heavy flight control system as the original 1969 birds. Bringing the Tomcat back to the carrier was very difficult and not a natural evolution in training from the T-2 or T-45A, so loss rates were high. The Hornet and especially the Super Bug are some of the easiest fighters ever to bring back. My initial reaction to the Tomcat retirement and shredding was the same as every other Tomcat fan, until I separated emotion and started looking at the big picture to understand why. After looking at FMC rates over its life, I was kinda shocked how low it was year-to-year. The Navy was paying way more than they bargained for and getting very low availability with unsustainable mx efforts, while often being humiliated by the performance of the other teen fighters.

yeah laser rangefinders are mounted on most IRST devices I Believe. Some planes also have laser warning receivers mounted. So you lose the ambush element if you use the rangefinder.

Now ruggedize it for high G, high altitude, impacts, extremely wide operating temp range, NBC environment, EMP shielded electronics, high salt, high humidity, high dust/sand, and limit parts manufacture to the US/UK/NATO for raw materials, subcomponents, final assembly. If you ever look at what a military contract entails from a compliance perspective, you start to see why it costs what it does. Some of it really is rocket science, and most companies don’t want to deal with all the hassle of submitting for a contract, just to lose out.

@@LRRPFco52 : There is little difference between an IRST for a tanks, helis and jet fighters. Jet fighters have extremely low G requirements. Their hardware requirements are similar to those in helicopters. Temp range is not more than anything else military. Tanks have several hundred Gs as shock. Jet fighters seldom experience more than a dozen G. Temp range usually exceed those in jet fighters because jets have access to active temperature management directly as air-mass to the equipment. Tanks usually don't. By comparision, jet fighters have no special hardware requirements. If you've ever been near the cooling system for a modern jet fighter you'll know.

@@adambratt9902: Exactly. Also, new techniques are used to blind the IRST passive sensor by lighting it up. Since the sensor is so sensitive, you'll require very little power to completely blind it.

@@christianm1533 Oh so it works by burning the "camera eye"? Like how staring into the sun is damaging to our eyes? Sounds close to radar jamming only that passive IRST don't have ranging information to jam so you are just marking your direction unless you damage the sensor by burning it. But if you have that capebility, why not just aim for the pilots eyes instead? Surely a blind pilot is pretty detrimental to the planes combat ability?

Any standard with similar features

Grazie. Contattami in privato. Vai alla home del canale, click su "About", in fondo spiega come accedere all'e-mail.

No aircraft currently integrates Linux as a hard flight-control operating environment. Most modern fighter architectures split the system between critical ones and less critical ones. Less critical could be something like RADAR, IRST, EW-system etc. If you have a failure there it won't mean the bird will drop out of the sky. You can restart that system or get back to base without much issue. So no. You won't find happy hacking inside avionics control. :)

Yes more avionics and software infos would be great.

@@christianm1533 So much mission critical real time runs on Linux, since 2010 60% of mobile networks for example. Defence is following suit ie Zumwalt-class destroyer is full of IBM blades running Linux

@@phoneticau : Nope. It does not. Linux handles 3GPP MoMs and configuration. Realtime is handled by ASICs. The small requirements that are configuration changes at a pace can be more than adequately handled by a soft-rt configuration like a pretty vanilla Linux.

Unlikely, I believe

Well if you are very kind you can say so but I would say it it is a gen 4+++ aircraft since the RCS is large and it can not supercruise while for example Jas 39 E is a 4, 5 generation plane due to low RCS, supercruise capacity.

@@sorennilsson9742 one thing it can’t do Mach-2+ speed.

3 very sensible points that I share.

Enclosed weapon pods are not included in Block 3

@@Millennium7HistoryTech ok I think I mixed it up with super hornets advanced version but can u make a short video on weapon pods and thier usefulness, demerits and merits

F35 is a single engined aircraft

@@mmmssbb23 yeah, and? Jet reliability came a long way in the several decades between their designs.

Along with increased cost both for purchase and operating, not exactly the best option for a country running debt approaching 30 trillion. Fixed wing setups offer better durability and lower cost over variable wing geometry aircraft.

@@patrickhenry236 Unless you can come up with the cost and maintenance hours for the Tomcat 21 program your statement is null and void.

@@josephkugel5099 Sounds like your problem extends beyond a lack of funding to a lack of courage and critical thinking.

It could have been a good idea, if you asked politely and you didn't spam the comment section of 7 videos with the same question.

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Well I did say please. Anyway its your choice.

????

If you're talking about French Rafales on a US carrier, it was to keep their skills up while the French carrier was being worked on.

Skyscrapers by Kevin Malson

@@Millennium7HistoryTech where can i find the full song? could seems to find it

I don't even think you could consider it a 4.5 gen aircraft if It doesn't have super cruise. Hell, it barley breaks the sound barrier.

@@operator0 This is also a funny statement. In a real config none of the 4th gen plane can SC: 1.SC term was used by LM about M1.5+ speed. 2. If you have real range for any 4th gen plane you need drop tanks. 3. But you can't drop them every time if you just suspect possibility of air combat. 2+3 = even considering AA config + drop tank the funny PR statement about the M1.5 speed of EF Ty. is just a tale or rather a lie. You can't dismiss + larger cross section and what is important the wave drag. Just check the shape of F-102 and F-5 how important is the area rule... No check the shape and cross section of drop tank. 1 - Even with full AA config without drop tank is maybe possible the M1.2 at 30k feet for EF Ty. but that is all. In practice none of the 4th gen plane can sustain M1.0+ speed with real config. BTW the avionics provides the 4+, 4++, 4.5 or whatever labels not the flight performance.

@@molnibalage83 If the avionics provides the designation, then that would mean that a MIG-21 could potentially be a 4.5 gen if someone were to perform the upgrades....theoretically Is the HAL Tejas a 4.5 gen aircraft? What kind of avionics are needed to designate an aircraft as 4.5 gen? Also, it's my understanding that the Block 3 Super Hornet, nor any previous versions, can achieve SC even in a clean configuration. It seems to me that the Typhoon, Rafale and Grippen certainly beat it in that department, even if the load out is anemic.

@@operator0 You approach is quite strange but I rather call it funny. You are the first person that I have ever met that couples the speed with gen. classification. Which is 100% pointless and even the planes what you think in practice can't do SC or just even M1.0+ In fact the classification for many planes cannot be applied. * A MiG-21 can have partially 4th gen avionics as the MiG-21 LancerR get a new cockpit, new radar, data ling, PGM and even digital flight control. But regardless of the changes it aerodynamics design and absolute flight performance did not change. In a close dogfight, the horizontal accel and in other parameters is almost identical with its original form. How you would call a plane with INS, 2xMFD, digital FCS and everything which was true for F-16A Blk1 and even partialyl for Blk 25-40? * What about the AMRAAM capable US Harriers? They are subsonic what they have glass cockpit BVR capability. * What about the F-4E Terminator? PGM + AIM-120 in a 3rd gen airframe. * What about the F-4ICE/KWS? * The F-111F could break the speed of sound at SEA LEVEL in case did not carry any stores externally. While nobody called SC capable plane. Because the funny marketing of European manufacturers did not act. And so one. The 4+ and other designation can be applied ONLY for planes which are designed using similar aspects as happened with F-15/16 and partially F-14. These are the multirole fighters following the teenager fighters. Gripen is not able to break the M1.0 not even with 2xAIM-9 on wingtip. I know because I know personally Gripen pilot. With REAL config they are also not capable. And no 4. gen plane in practice can fly supersonically with full REASONABLE AG armament but for such a high fuel cost and for such a short time following a long accel which means it is just theory. Check their flight performance data. The Gripen E is even worse because the F414 could not keep up even with the size and weight increase of the plane not mentioning the drag in case of stores which is needed to have combat potential. Pls. do not fed me with BS marketing of Eurojets. The law of physics are the same for them. You can't avoid the wave drag. Ty. is the most powerful from the listed planes and Gripen is the weakest. Have you ever have seen any demo from them...? I spoke with a Gripen pilot and I quite him: "It was painful to fly dogfight even against an F-16 Blk. 32". The only merit of the Gripen is good horizontal accel in AA config but the plane simply lacks the power. The original A/C Gripen need the F414 instead F404 and the Gripen E needs the F414 EPE instead the F414. But these never going to happen. As I can judge you do not have even the basic knowledge about aerodynamics and performance of the planes at all. I can recommend flight manuals and books if you wish to understand the reality instead believing the PR/marketing steamroll of the Eurojets.

@@molnibalage83 The Grippen A/C/D cannot SC, but the E/F model can. I base my info on what Saab and the Swedish AF say. In 2006 the Gripen A participated in a Red Flag exercise and it's performance was exceptional. It "shot down" ten aircraft, including a typhoon on the first day. The Grippen E/F is, obviously, much better than the A/C/D. Later on, in that same exercise, one Grippen beat the F-16 block 50 five times in close air combat. In another exercise against the Norwegian airforce, three Gripens faced off against five F-16s. The result was 5-0 in favor of the Grippens. I'll take published results over anecdotal evidence to draw my conclusions. Maybe your pilot friend is a bad fighter pilot. Maybe he needs to fly C-130s. There's only one plane in the world that can SC with a reasonable AG load out, and it's 5th gen. Again, if we just go off avionics, then a whole bunch of aircraft that will get smoked by the the Typhoon, Grippen, Rafale, Mig-35, and SU-35 would be considered 4.5 gen. The Tejas is a terrible aircraft with great avionics. It is not comparable to the above mentioned aircraft in overall capabilities. I certainly wouldn't consider it a 4.5 gen aircraft.