In terms of payload, the Rafale is capable of carrying a load weighing 9 tonnes and is designed to carry nuclear warheads, better avionics and electronic warfare systems than the Gripen, the Rafale is capable of reaching supercruise speeds of Mach 1.4 without turning on the afterburner, in terms of spare parts it can also be easily obtained from France itself, the Rafale has been tested on the battlefield, the Gripen has not yet experienced it, but the Gripen has a lower price and maintenance costs than the Rafale.
Problem with the F16 is politics rather than function. Thailand is an interesting case study. Thailand chose the Gripen E/F over the F16V mainly due to the difference in T&C. With the F16, the customer country has to ask US permission to use the jets, plus the US offers limited upgrades With the Gripen, the customer doesn't need permission from Sweden to operate, plus Sweden allows Saab to work with the customer to develop new upgrades.
Switzerland evaluated Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale in 2008 and eventually chose Gripen in November 2011 on its cost compared to the other competitors. In 2014 a referendum was held after a lobby( Switzerland Without An Army ) forced a vote and 53% of voters rejected the purchase. The Gripen back then was a C version as the NG/ E was not complete.
What happens if you need to land your jet plane on something other than cement? Unfortunately, wars and natural disasters are not always next to an airport.
the problem is you have to see it or hear it before its near you and it can come from 360d around you in the sky. truly a nightmare even with a shotgun. infantry will have to hide much better in the future. like using ir and visual cloaking fabrics that bend light or man port jamming equipment
Really? Israel has been flying F-15's through that junk S-400 in Syria. They laughed the the S-400 couldn't even hit them and that is what you start the video with?
The S-400 are only there to protect Russian assets and Russia and the US have a direct line to solve posible interference between their forces. That is the only reson they can fly there
I‘m no expert, but those L-Band radars in the Su-57 would apparently have far too high power requirements for them to be realistically meant for search and track. Something to do with the size of the arrays and the underlying physics. They‘re supposedly only intended for IFF.
@@ViceCoin F-35s have seen combat too, i.e. intercepting Iranian missiles as well as strike missions. And, at least officially, no F-35 has been lost to enemy action. There’s also some doubt about the Su-57 actually qualifying as a full stealth jet. As for the „photonic radar‘s“ power consumption, feel free to give a brief overview of the reason why and how it is able to be used for search and track at any useful range within the Su-57‘s power limitations.
Those passive radar systems will drag civilian radio infrastructure in war. With this known knowledge how many military are brave enough to report that they are actually targeting the civilian system.
If you design a plane for carrier use it has to have good low speed handling for safety. Hence F18 , F35C and Rafale all have a larger wing area . This does impact maximum speed but gives a good weapon load out so not all bad. Rafale has close coupled canards to maintain lift at lower landing speeds. All are excellent and NATO is the best .
Artillery, no matter how big, is no longer king of the battlefield. That title now belongs to swarms of autonomous UAVs which are immune to it. Artillery is for fighting the last war, not the future ones.
While people are competing with Russian and US fighter jets, I am in love with Swedish fighter jets. For various reasons, Sweden does not get the attention it deserves in military aviation.
Will be replaced by EldE 98 (Iris T missile) defense to support and defend our patriot sites that will defend two locations in Sweden we clearly need to invest heavenly in our air defense capability's
As the Gripen lands on a road it compresses the front wheel suspension and that automatically applies the brakes while the canards swivel to act as air brakes . Basically it was designed to land on small roads and be rearmed in 10 minutes. Other aircraft can land on roads too but not in that fashion and Gripen is lighter than others so less pot holes!
