Faboulous camera work!! This is how an airshow should be filmed, so smooth! The pilot really shows how graceful this fighter can be and with stellar performance.
My goodness it's beautiful! And the E version also comes as a carrier lander. Short take off and landing. Perfect for Canada, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany etc
I love how laminar the flow is on this fighter. The Gripen almost never looses airflow over a wing (condensation, due to underpressure boiling point). Positive lift canard and carves air so beautifully. It really maximizes energy transformations.
You almost never ever see a Gripen delaminate airflow over the wings. It just turns and carries energy beautifully around the turn. It just carves air so gracefully. So what if it is slightly low on power. It compensates with low drag and rock solid aerodynamics.
A lot of people complimenting the aircraft, I'm here to compliment your filming. Absolutely amazing! How do you track is so smoothly? It's like watching a computer simulation.
To be honest, I really wish this would be Finlands next choise. Really good value for little money. And on top of that, it would be from good old friends. Actually. I see no reasons why to not purchase this aircraft.
It´s an aerodynamic masterpiece. Almost every plane you see doing those turns in that speed gets turbulence over the wings. That rarely ever happens with JAS Gripen.
Even the Viggen was ahead of its time. The Viggen entered service in 1971. The year I was born Viggen is still one of the most powerful fighters when it comes to speed. Mach 3 in short duration. Missile lock on an SR 71 is pretty powerful... Sweden had a population of roughly 5 million at the time
No. There is no way a Viggen does mach 3. It barely breaks mach 2. Zoom-climbing in trajectory and missile locking an SR-71 is not the same as doing mach 3 and trying to play catch up. There is no real fighter that does mach 3. Not F-22, F-15 etc. MIG-31 is an interceptor capable of near mach-3 speeds.
@@christianm1533 I'm so sorry. I didn't mean Mach 3. What I meant to say was close roughly 3K kph. From speaking to an old Viggen pilot Mach 2.4 (close to 2.900kph) wasn't a problem other than fuel consumption and a buckled rear from extensive use of the afterburner. Sorry.
Well. Still exceeding top speed according to my knowledge. But still a more believable number. I guess, coming from an old pilot, I'd have to take your word for it. Lighting it up in a slight dive from extremely high up until bingo fuel might reach those kind of speeds. Planar flight @ 35000ft is about mach 2.1. Maybe mach 2.2.
Only thing with Viggen was that it was so dam loud. In this video it sets off the car alarms when taking off...=P ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IKFMfvp9BVI.html
Nice! I have never seen RIAT from outside the airfield but having seen this, I realize just how intrusive and distracting the PA system and commentary is. It so nice just hearing the engine and nothing else
@jemimallah: Cheap is a very relative term when talking fighter systems in general. Cost effectiveness is a more appropriate term I think. The amount of sorties and missions you can fly on the same cash significantly alters capacity. Not all mission even remotely require bleeding edge capacity. Most missions are mundane patrol & surveillance. The capacity to cost-effectively patrol borders is a very significant capability.
Beautiful aircraft. It’s roll rates are amazing. In defense cost terms, this plane is a bang for the buck. I am surprised that it doesn’t get more sales.
It is because it is built for specs and requirements by the Swedish Air Force, which is different from most countries. Sweden has a habit of doing things their own way.
Political pressure. Military equipment is a dirty, dirty game. The biggest boys peddle their shit, not because it is the best but because they bully every one else. Schoolyard politics in a sense.
Sweden has political restrictions and can't sell to whatever country they want. Since all other countries which are exporting defense systems are way more corrupt and therefor it's much easier for them to sell.
Completely agree, always a delight to see Flugsng post's, I have no doubt that behind the lens there is some very expensive equipment but more importantly in this case it's used by someone who knows what they are doing resulting in what must be some of the best quality aircraft vidoe's on youtube.
The sea gripen isnt a thing yet and they may as well have made a naval version of the typhoon given that it is significantly better than the gripen AND they make them. Why buy a foreign aircraft that isnt as good....
@@eraldorh The Sea Gripen was the fall back aircraft for the RN new carriers if the F35B was cancelled. It was chosen because the alternatives needed significant modification to operate using a Ski Jump. For example the Sea Gripen required a marginal strengthening of its nose gear, the next best alternative the Typhoon needed extensive modification of both fuselage and undercarriage (this was because in the design process they needed some effort to get the weight down) plus enlarging of the control surfaces. While the Typhoon has a marginal performance advantage in the air to air role, its strike capability is still a work in progress, and of course the Gripen already has a well developed anti ship capability. The other factor that made the Gripen so attractive over the alternatives, is the low level of maintenance it needs, being designed to be serviced on improvised runways by 1 technician, 4 conscripts with the contents of one support truck and a fuel bowser. Great news with a carriers limited crew and number of aircraft. It is also not so foreign BAe has the rights already to licence production in the UK and some 35% of its current value is already provided by BAe, this was why the UK was able to block the Brazilan's selling their licenced built Gripen's to Argentina. This is why many in the navy, feel that the Gripen woukd have been the better solution for them than the F35B with a decade or more of debugging required to get truly ready for combat.
It wasnt a fall back it was just an idea. The typhoon has far more advanced systems intigrated into it than the gripen which is why it costs so much more, including better radar so a typhoon would detect and fire on a gripen long before a gripen could detect the typhoon which is...hardly marginal. Its head and shoulders above the gripen. The typhoon already has outstanding air to ground strike capability with its laser guided bombs, brimstone and storm shadow launch capability and most importantly its built and developed at home. Choosing the gripen would be just as stupid if not more stupid than choosing the f35b. Well if low maintenance is what we need we should just buy russian aircraft right? Low maintenance means less advanced and more basic systems which means much less survivability. The UK has not vetoed any sale, it could but it has not needed to and saab could simply remove any UK systems from its plane before sale and replace them much like the US made engine if the US were to block its sale. Getting rights to build a foreign aircraft is not easy nor guaranteed. Most importantly, the typhoon may cost more but given that it is most definetely a better aircraft and build at home alot of the investment in making the aircraft goes right back into the economy by creating jobs. There was already talk years back of a naval version of the typhoon and if britain made one it could sell them abroad as well, why put the money into someone elses economy!
@@eraldorh It was the fall back aircraft to the point it dictated the size of the carriers, had the F35B been certainty when the carrier design was signed off they would have been 30K ships little bigger than the old Centaur class carriers like the Hermes. But they had to size it up to the next best thing which was the Gripen as the Typhoon required too much work and so could not be relied on as a fall back had the F35B been cancelled. The systems of the Gripen E are comparable with the Typhoon, and its ahead in its ability to exchange information around the battlefield all part of the virtue of its systems for the E variant being a decade fresher than the Typhoon's, do you want a ten year old smart phone? What you have to remember is that we are talking about a design process for carriiers was finished over a decade ago, at which time the Typhoon ground to air capability was just a possibility. The RAF only this summer taking delivery of it first Typhoon with a full swing capability, and still a long way from full operational service.. Yes we did stop the export by Brazil of the Gripen to Argentina and given that key parts of the wing structure are manufactured in the UK, it would have been unaffordably expensive had the Brazilians wanted to reverse engineer the BAe out of it as well as of course politically difficult given that they are partnered with BAe and Saab for the development and sale of the Gripen in the South American . What you write about Russian aircraft might have been true about the Mig 21, but it is mot true of maintenance hungry aircraft such as the SU24, 27, 35 or Mig 29, 31 etc. When you have a small carrier with limited number of aircraft available you need a reliable aircraft that spends minimum time below deck being fixed. The Ark Royal in its later years, for this reason could not sustain its own air defence, because its 12 F4 Phantoms would be all be unserviceable after a relative short period of intensive air operations. As F35B is now in delivery there will never be a Sea Gripen or Typhoon in service with the RN, because the window of opportunity closed for both aircraft.
The Gripen is in the competition for the CF-18 replacement, along with the Eurofighter, F-18E, and F-35. Dassault has removed the Rafale from the competition.
You have amazing skill, how can you keep a near constant zoom regardless of the distance ? why does it look so different from what we normally see in parades or flypasts ?
Gripen has superior thrust-to-weight ratio and canard-delta wing configuration. These two attributes make it extremely nimble and fast (Mach 2 at top speed) for an F-35 to engage it in a head-to-head dogfight. However, F-35 has unmatched stealth, radar, radar jamming and ability to fire GPS-guided missiles with pinpoint accuracy from 100+ miles beyond visual range. There is no rival of F-35B version, which has astonishing vertical take-off (VTOL) capability. Therefore, Gripen is a superb economical traditional multirole "tactical" fighter for deadly hit-and-run missions and dogfights. F-35 is a costly multi-platform stealth fighter to see-and-kill from distance before enemy has any clue it is there. Until enemy has developed technologies to negate F-35's stealthiness and beyond visual range AMRAAM missile, Gripen may have major disadvantages against F-35.
@@skt1731: There is no stealth anymore. It was an expensive design option in the 70ies and 80ies. In the modern age it's a stupid tradeoff. As soon as an F-35 tries to target anything it will be found and denied. Most likely it will be found in the low-band even if flying silently. AMRAAM is an inferior missile to the Meteor, in every aspect. Sidewinders are even more so inferior than IRIS-T. F-35 will carry Meteors eventually. But to say that F-35 has a see-and-kill before anyone else is at best an overstatement. At worst, a blunt lie. The best bet on an F-35 is a low-flying, semi-stealth, low-capacity bomb truck. Flying quietly and low it can target ground objects without making too much fuss. Flying targets is another thing altogether.
@@skt1731 Better in radar jamming...? Are you sure? saabgroup.com/media/stories/stories-listing/2018-04/the-new-improved-electronic-warfare-system-of-gripen-e/ "Justin Bronk, an aerial-combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider that like the A-10 Warthog was built around a massive cannon, the Gripen was built around electronic warfare. Virtually all modern jets conduct some degree of electronic warfare, but the Gripen E stands above the rest, according to Bronk. Gripen pilots don't like to show their cards by demonstrating the full power of the jet's jamming in training. But the one time they did, it completely reversed the course of the mock battle in training, Bronk said. "Several years ago the Gripen pilots got tired of being made fun of by German Typhoon pilots and came to play with their wartime electronic warfare and gave them a hell of a hard time," Bronk said. One of the Gripens was "reportedly able to appear on the left wing of a Typhoon without being detected" by using its "extremely respected" jamming ability, Bronk said. "It would be fair to assume the Gripen is one of the most capable electronic warfighters out there," he said, adding that the Gripens that baffled the Typhoons were of the C/D series, which have much less powerful electronic-warfare capabilities than the E series Gripens that Helgesson described."
Gripen CD, upgraded w/ AESA, Arexis EW suite, IRST like the EF version, additional hardpoint... a mini EF-like Gripen, could be the best interceptor plane at low cost
