(Epilepsy Warning: flashing content at 17:40) Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 ---------------------------- Ask me anything! Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below! tinyurl.com/y4g528lt -------------------- Visit the subreddit! www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
11:00 regarding Eurofighter multirole requirements. The UK requirement for multirole was only to replace the Jaguar, as I understand it. Eurofighter was seen as serving alongside Tornado rather than replacing it. Even with the low wing Eurofighter is far more capable than Jaguar as a smart-bomber (mainly because the Jaguar has to use up its limited number of underwing pylons for EW pods which doesn't leave many for the targeting pod, drop tanks and bombs).
@@petergronroos5455 To your question, I would answer this : why many things has not been mention ? When you know well these 3 jets, trust me, there many informations missing in this video. I used to like this channel, but this video disappointed me. He's talking about the typhoon's maneuverability against f22, but did not tell about the Rafale's maneuverability, which is clearly superior to the typhoon and f22. Even the history of this 3 jets is not complete, and exactly said. He forgot to talk about the Mirage 4000, and more ... so many informations are missing.
One important difference of the Rafale compared to the others is that it is a carrier-capable fighter. This had a lot of impact on the design of the plane especially regarding the canards design.
Honestly speaking this is the only Chanel that’s unbiased and accurate. Shame on those sensationalist who spend time comparing equipment in exchange for views and likes. I’ve become a patron of this channel today. To God the Glory
This is an interesting overview, but there's a couple of major points left out. 1. The most obvious design difference - Gripen was specified to be single-engined, whereas Rafale and Eurofighter were required to be twin engined. 2. Rafale and Eurofighter requirements departed because the French required a platform that could equip both Armée de l'Air and Force maritime de l'aéronautique navale, i.e. it it had to be carrier based as well as land based. The British, German, Italian and Spanish governments had no such requirement. All told, a good job on presenting a brief outline on the differences between these three European aircraft, and just the merest hint of the different design philosophies that still exist between American and European military aircraft design approaches.
Another aspect that could have been covered is the comparison of center-of-gravity vs. the aerodynamic center between the three aircraft. Having said that, I thoroughly enjoy all the videos on this channel. Keep up the good work!
I think this video should have started with the Viggen as that was the first successful modern aircraft with canard wings, and the experiences from that were brought into the Gripen project. Before the Viggen there was the Draken with the broken deltawing. One factor that also shall be highlighted about the Gripen is that it was designed to be serviced by conscripts and utilize so called "road bases" where a part of a highway is re-purposed as a landing strip.
''Turtlenecks were challenging the survival of Western civilization' ..' HaHaHa !!! Well done. Your last comment is very pertinent; a ''ranking'' of these fighters is indeed pointless. e.g.: The P-51 was at its best in high altitude escort. The Russians loved the P-39 in low altitude roles and similarly made good use of the old Hurricane. A question which I have not seen answered, is what is the role of the fighter going forward? To wit, how many dogfights have there been in the last 40 years? Is buying a basic, versatile & cheap fighter, plus investing in ground support aircraft like the A-10 a more reasonable path for a country such as Canada ?
You haven;t seen dogfights after the '70s because all conflicts have been completely lopsided, with one side having an uncontested air superiority over the other. In a near peer confrontation, where tactics and technologies may start not working as expected, distances will reduce and missile reserves will be exhausted quickly.
Funny thing tough, US will buy A-29 Super Tucanos from brazilian Embraer, that are a light air support prop plane, mostly to be use in the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt. Reason? Is way cheaper to buy and maintain and can stay for far longer than A-10 in air.
I hate the delta wing + canards look. I don't mind the flying wing look of something like the B-2 but I'd much prefer swept wings, and/or leading edges like The F--15, F-18, MiG-35, or the SU- 35. I'm purely talking aesthetics of course.
18:54 I love this dude :) You are right, ranking aircrafts is great for TV shows or bar discussion with friends. In real world this a much complex matter. Congrats with the channel. I'm learning a lot with it :)
Gripen can of course use the Meteor. Gripen C/D was actually the first aircraft to be operational with the Meteor. I don't understand how you missed this? You seem to be very well informed about other stuff! 😊
Yes of course it can use it! I say that if an air force had the Gripen but not a long range weapon like the Meteor than air superiority may be a problem against more kinetically performing fighters.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech That was an extremely bad answer. Wich airforce today will buy a fighter jet without a long-range weapon like the Meteor! Gripen can Supercruice too!
@@jontus9925 That is not an extremely bad answer pontus. Gripen E can truly super cruse, but C/D... Maybe with 2 Sidewinders and otherwise a clean setup with no external tank, one third fuel left and the fuselage polished to a mirror finish.
The funny thing is that all of these aircrafts can carry the same missiles like the Iris-T and Meteor but maybe the Rafale and Eurofigter can take more. So in the end I guess it's the pilot and supporting radar systems that will determine the outcome.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech if not Meteor then use AIM120, there is no lack of long range options for Gripen. NO airforce will skip long range weapons today!
by god you are so wrong on the EAP. just fucking read about it before you make a video. the EAP was a nonsense program that was not needed and canceled early since the eurofighter was already long in development. nobody needed the EAP demonstrator. the design of the eurofighter was based on the 1970's TKF-90. by the time the EAP was supposed to be build everyone already lost interest and dropped out in it since the eurofighter was already designed and the construction work almost finished. that's why the program was stopped. the EAP had no influence on the eurofighter what so ever.
The French wanted to be in the driver seat, because they had/have a major feature in need, that the other had not: arcraft carrier operation capabilities. Even the brits said they won't sacrifice anything for it. (And in 1982 they regretted the ditching of their real fleet carriers. The modified Hermes, and the Invincible was nowhere near in capabilities compared to the Ark Royal or even to the Eagle.)
Absence of long range weapons like Meteor, while showing Gripen taking off with 4 Meteors. Gripen was the platform it was first integrated into and that conducted most of test firings during later stages of development of Meteor, cheapest operating costs were the deciding factor among with Sweden having a lot of rather sparsely populated real estate for European country.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech While considering AMRAAM to be not that long range weapon, either that or Meteor is in inventory of all Gripen clients aside from South Africa. While they might got nominally medium range weapon, they actually might have long range weapon. It is de facto replacement for Phoenix in US Navy. I have to admit that I'm too lazy to check Czech or Hungarian export permit numbers of AMRAAM and Brazil got Meteor from the start with their Gripen deal. South Africa might be as much about South African internal politics. With Royal Thai Air Force, they too have AMRAAM's for their Gripens.
Excellent presentation. But you forgot that the Rafale has a marine version that takes of and lands on aircraft carriers, and that doesn't apply to the other 2 planes. 2 reactors help both the Typhoon and the Rafale to have more chances to survive mechanical failure, as one reactor shuts down. That is why the Gripen is quite cheaper than its competitors.
On the Typhoon agility, I like to point a few things: First, the plane have a very low-key demo on airshows, compared with the Gripen/Rafale. It is obvious it lacks high sustained turn rates. So much so that Airbus themselves said it lags behind the F-16/F-18 fighters. If you don't believe me, go search for aerodynamic enhancement (a bigger streak behind the canards and a LERX on the wing) on the Flight Global website (publishers of the Flight International magazine); Second, it appears these deficiencies are on low altitude, low speed region of the Typhoon flight envelope. The aircraft was obviously directed towards supercruise, high altitude flight, so it performance there must be better there than competing eurocanards, similar to the situation between the F-15 and the Su-27 (the latter being more a low speed/altitude machine than the Eagle).
@mandellorian As I said, look at the flight envelope. No fighter (AFAIK) has a superior turn rate throughout the flight envelope compared to all the others. There is always a corner where a fighter is superior to the others . If a Typhoon pilot manages to start a engagement on the perfect conditions for the Typhoon, of course it will do better. And the same is true for any other fighter. With that said, the plane does not show any superior turn rate at airshows, so obviously it has deficiencies flying low and slow. So much so that Airbus started a program to correct those deficiencies. But you don't have to believe me. Go out there and do your research on the subject, instead of having a knee jerk reaction to something negative said about a aircraft you obliviously like. I have better things to do than engage on endless comments on YT.
Nicely broken down, although i have heard the dog fight exercises are still used to asess comparable performances between fighters, even though they are less relevant in real world scenarios with todays missile ranges it still forms a good part of the pilots education
Yes but the Indian Air force picked the Rafael because of it's experience with the mirage 2000s. As far as I know they are still the preferred choice of the IAF, even if we have the SU-30 MKI.
If look closely at 14:03 you can see in the intakes some " F117 like" triangles. In fact you can find them everywhere under the plane. It's very discreet, but as far as i know i haven't seen them on the EF nor the Gripen
1:52 Starfighter called the Widow Maker. Not really a good insult as it could be applied to ANYTHING dangerous. The FAR better German insult was Erdnagel. Earth nail. Their word for tent peg. Not only is it the exact shape of an F-104, it is used by hammering it with all your might, nose-first, into the ground. The had another joke: what's the cheapest way to get a Starfighter? Answer: buy some property... ... and wait.
Kröhöm Saab Draken. Delta supersonic flying and superstalling since -56. And btw, as far as I remember it, one of the real reasons Dassault decided to opt out of the Eurofighter Programme was France's requirement for naval use, i.e. Carrier capability. Maybe I remember wrong?
And the winner is? None. That is exactly how it is. The mission is key, then the weaponry needs to be taken accordingly with the support crews. Thank you for that. Finally one guy telling us, that "this vs that" is bullshit. It is the same with tanks. You find 100000 of videos of the 10 best tanks. Yes, there are some more capable of others probably. But here I know a good example: WW2 Germany attacking France with inferior tanks and fewer of them. The only advantage of the German tanks were: Speed and they had a 2 way voice radio. The Germans used these tanks according to their strategy. In fights one vs one, they would have lost the battle. But using the Blitz-Krieg Mechanics it was the perfect tank for that task even it was in most cases inferior. And when they met the French tanks, they found the French tanks acting in WW1 manner. So Rommel told his squadrons to group and surround one heavy French tank with up to 6 German panzer 3, distracting the crew by not giving any chance to aim and shooting only into the side, where the armor was not that strong. Again, it is the pilot, the support crew, the task, the mission, the mission planning, plan A and B and C, and so on. Hope you do more videos the next years. I enjoy them a lot!
This is what I learned: If you needed a multi-role plane that could do everything well, Rafale is the winner. If you needed good air capability on a budget and your requirement was more national defence than it was expeditionary missions, then Gripen is the winner. If you just wanted air superiority and you had other planes to do other roles - then Eurofighter. HOWEVER, one thing not covered was STEALTH. None of these planes are stealth, but they have all been designed to minimise detection. How do they compare?
Thank you for another excellent video. You provide interesting information which cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. .One question I would like to ask. Which one of these fighters has the greatest "growth" potential ie. can be updated to remain competitive against future fighters? Thank you again for your effort.
From hard evidence, the Typhoon. It’s a pen excellent platform which has been upgraded multiple times through ‘tranches’. The latest tranche 3 jet will have an AESA radar and many of the latest features for jets. It also comes with a PIRATE infra red sensor, giving it a method to detect all stealth aircraft. They can also carry some of the most advanced weapons, like the Meteor air to air missile.
This video could've been an hour and a half and I would've watched the whole thing and asked for more! Would've been great if he mentioned more on the Gripen's antecedents, as well as mentioning the Rafale-M and the French Navy's role.
Sorry but assuming the wing is a half sine wave the centre of lift would be 0.707 (sin 45°) forward of the trailing edge, yes? A delta wing cannot be much different. With the engine(s) being the heaviest part of the plane the centre of weight would be back there too. Combined with the canards this should more clearly indicate why such aircraft share the best combination of both manoeuvrability and turn rate when combined with engine power. No?
Very interesting content. Funny to see how my country Denmark, keeps buying US overpriced airplanes, instead of going with european solutions. Maybe you could do a video about the air plane manufactors, US vs. EU etc. I would watch it with great interest :)
F-35 costs less than the grippen and 40 million less than typhoon. F-35 have the most advanced lift body ever produced. Along with sensor fusion, passive sensors, most powerful single engine, and stealth.
They never fell short of introducing new systems or subsystems. But none ever mention the real innovator of a system everybody benefits from it. The "Touch" by Steve Jobs. As they are now have touchscreen monitors on their jets.
No, none of them is the same delta canards configuration, mostly Typhoon. And Rafale took its design from Mirage 4000, that was designed in the same time than Viggen.
@Donald Twitter My apologize, I read wrong. But that changes nothing, it's not the same configuration. Viggen : Double delta with fixed canards Rafale : Tailless delta with mobile canards.
I will say all three airplanes are very capable airplanes and valid choices, but as I'm a biased Swede, I will obviously pick the Gripen and especially if you're a country with a strict budget. The numericals among the planes are very close, but the economical aspect I think is a win for Gripen, especially with the extremely short turnaround to make the aircraft combat ready again. Still, I cannot say neither the Eurofighter nor the Rafaele are bad choices, they're very close. Electroncially, I also favour the Gripen, as it has developed its stealth by electronic systems I haven't heard of in other planes. It has performed great in all exercises it has performed in. But I will say buying the F-35 is laughable and 100% political, with a stealth program that is obsolete before the aircraft is even complete. Americans love to waste trillions on nothing, since the war industry is funded by tax payers. That's the system their corrupt leaders love. Pentagon wasting money on shit and at x10 the expenses they should have.
@Niclas Eriksson Yes I know it's the EW suite. No, on Gripen C it's good but not extremely good. The Swiss report talks about the a good EW suite on Gripen C, but lack of fusion data with radar unlike Rafale. For Gripen E the graphic on report shows a good EW suite, but not as good as Rafale F3. hushkit.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/20hzbm.png?w=830 SAAB says that Gipen E electronic warfare is superior, but as we know, its EW suite is only operational on paper. Gripen E was criticized by Finnish Air Force for the lack of mature systems during tests, and Swiss Air Force eleminated the Gripen E for the same reason.
@James Van Allen Right, that's the EW for radars, but it's the AESA radar for the three. It was the second phase of the evaluation, that took the delivered configurations, Gripen E, Rafale F3R and Typhoon T3 (with AESA radar). Rafale F3R is the only aircraft in service for now (Typhoon T3 will not have its AESA radar until 2022).
@James Van Allen The second evaluation is based on documents with a flight or simulator demonstrations at each constructors. So Airbus presented the CAPTOR E prototype, SAAB the ES-05 Raven prototype, and Dassault the RBE2 AA prototype. For RBE2 AA it was the prototype that has 50% better range than RBE2 PESA, but it was never entered in service because the current RBE2 AESA has 100% more range than RBE2 PESA. So the Swiss evaluated a less powerful radar concerning Rafale. Gripen E has been delivered only as prototype for tests, not as an operational aircraft. Gripen E is absolutely not ready, it's why Swiss Air Force didn't want to test Gripen E last year. And it's also why it was criticized by Finnish Air Force and performed so bad during the evaluation.
@James Van Allen The graphic comes from the Swiss Air Force technical evaluation report, not from this website. In 2021 if sensors are operationals, for now, Rafale F4 ( will be in service 2024) is more operational than Gripen E. No, Armasuisse had to demand to have operationnal systems to a minimum of 7/9. Airbus presented Typhoon T3 P1E with AESA radar, and Dassault presented Rafale was the F4 and the Qatari variant (for HMD). Both Airbus and Dassault presented aircraft that are not operational until 2022 for Typhoon and 2024 for Rafale. Gripen E was presented but its systems were too immature, SAAB also presented a Gripen D with some Gripen E systems but its not the same aircraft, just for the weight Gripen E is 1t heavier. No, because Rafale F4 will be not operational until 2024 and was not criticized, same for Typhoon.
0:59 I'm calling biased bullshit. Incorrectly claims that F-15 (ff 27 July 1972) and F-16 (ff 20 Jan 1974) were developed by the US because of Soviet MiG-29 (ff 6 Oct 1977) and Su-27 (ff 20 May 1977).
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Yes, you are correct. My apologies. 0:15 - 0:59 "In the late 70s while the Pink Floyds were publishing The Wall, the English teams were dominating the UEFA European Cup and the turtlenecks were challenging the survival of Western civilisation, the NATO countries found themselves in the position of thinking to (sic) the replacement of a plethora of different combat planes. For beyond the Iron Curtain the MiG-29 and the Su-27 had flown in 1977 and news of their brutal performances were percolating from their intelligence agencies. In the United States, the F-15 and F-16, two revolutionary planes for different reasons, were entering service during those years. In Europe, though, the situation was different.. " I think it was the sequence in which you showed the planes that triggered my misunderstanding you. Again, my apologies.
Thanks for yet another exiting video! Topic suggestion: what are the protruding fins I see on almost every jet out there? Like the small "pectoral fin" on the J-35 Draken or the "moustache" infront of the cockpit on the F/A-18. Do they have aerodynamical purposes or do they just hide simple radio antenas? Take care in these difficult times.
I always think of the griphen as an f16 type, the rafale as an f18/mig29 type and the typhoon as an F15/su27/su35 type, or as an F22 with an older gen radar no thrust vectoring or stealth. And yes I do realise that is overly simplistic .
Good Channel , can you talk about de J 10 and j 20 chinese fighter ? they have delta canard configuration as well . Also the mig 1.42 project . Thanks and regards
I love France. But why are they incapable of making a good looking vehicle. Military or not? Just take a look at the Gripen as a comparison European made fighters.
I would say there is possible to determine a ranking, the problem lies within asking the right question. I.e. a very relevant question could be: "If a nation wanted a multirole fighter to be the workhorse of that airforce but not develop a new platform, which of the three platforms would be best suited?"
In my opinion it is features vs effectiveness for a specific purpose. Great features may mean little if they don't cater to the specific desired effect. The effect, the mission if you want, are so wildly different that the question itself looses meaning. For the Swiss the Gripen was a non starter because living in the mountains they need planes capable of steep climbs, for example.
Millennium 7 * HistoryTech a very good example of situational circumstances, although wasn’t it because Gripen E was not operationaly ready in 2019, and therefore was recommended to withdraw?
I don't get why you say that Gripen lacks Meteor? Gripen was the first plane to fire and integrate and Meteor in its armament? Also I think was the first to do two-way communication with the Meteor? Maybe Rafale is still one-way update?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech : @16.30: "In absence of long range missiles like the Meteors"? In the next sentences you claim air superiority for Rafale with Meteors? Why would you compare them in Air Superiority roles one with and one without Meteors when both carry Meteors? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
Great video! Your channel constitutes a wonderfull niche on YT. Btw have you heard about the Mirage 4000 project? I'd love to see a video on its aerodynamics.
If you are say Switzerland or Canada trying to replace a fleet of aging F/A-18s than the question of which platform is a better buy overall is a rather legitimate one.
The Eurofighter is the King in the sky's, the only jet that comes close to the Eurofighter in specs is the F-22, but the Eurofighter still kicks the F-22's ass. The Eurofighter is the best, it can do everything the F-22 can do and more. Some Example's to show why the Eurofighter is king, all can be found online Paper's and Reports open to read. The Eurofighter and the F-22 both can take off and go vertical. The Specs of the Eurofighter vs F-22 for example. Speed / Eurofighter 1550 mph Mach 2.0 TMS. F-22 1495 mph Mach 1.98 TMS. Altitude Ceiling / Eurofighter 65,000 f. F-22 63,000 f. Sustained Turn Rate / Eurofighter 28.5 D/S. F-22 27 D/S. Instantaneous Turn Rate / Eurofighter 36.5 D/S. F-22 35 D/S. Engine Thrust - Vectoring / Eurofighter 21,500 ibf x2 - 2D Vectoring. F-22 34,000 ibf x2 - 1D Vectoring. Eurofighter is lighter and smaller so has a better power to weight ratio. The Eurofighter has better range / Combat and A to B. The Eurofighter Has a Better Dive/Cilmb Rate with better energy hold. G's and -G's. Eurofighter 9+ and -3.5G's. F-22 9+ and -3.2G's. Hard Points / Eurofighter 13. F-22 8. Gun / Eurofighter x1 27mm with 150 rounds. F-22 x1 20mm with 480 rounds. Missiles BVR - WVR / Eurofighter BVR Meteor Missile the best in the world x2 ranges 1st 150km for fast agile Targets 2nd in testing showed to go 300km for other Targets, The Biggest NEZ of 60km, Speed of Mach 4.5, more Agile then the AIM-120D as well, WVR the ASRAAM Faster then the AIM-9X and more agile between 5 to 55km. F-22 BVR AIM-120D 1x range Maxed at 160km a NEZ of 20km, and a speed of Mach 4, WVR AIM-9X more agile under 5km. Eurofighter uses the Striker 2 Helmet more advanced and able to lock on to targets and fire with out lining the jet up with the target. F-22 is outdated and old the hardware and software is not there to be able to use the Helmet to lock on and fire like the Eurofighter can, so the F-22 needs to line up to lock and fire. Radar / The Eurofighter uses one of the best Radars out today, able to pick up the F-35 and F-22 from distance, and able to track a multi group of targets at once. F-22 has a good Radar picks up the Eurofighter from distance as well, but cant handle as much as other radars can, but still can track lots of targets. In War Games Between the Eurofighter and F-22 both over the years have won against each other but the Eurofighter has won the most in Games from BVR Fights to Dogfights. Design / Eurofighter was designed for Air Dominance and does have some stealth in the design having the smallest RCS against the Rafale and Gripen, with the Wing Design on the Eurofighter it is 20% more efficient then your wing design on the F-22, The Eurofighter is 1 of 2 jets the other being the J39 the Eurofighter in the same mission go from air to air then air to ground with its payload, the F-22 its one or the other. The Eurofighter can do all the F-22 can do plus more, The Eurofighter has better specs better Missiles better Hardware and Software plus is used by the best the RAF. The Eurofighter is king.
@James Van Allen The Sustained and Instantaneous Rates are what iv found over the years, and the Numbers are with in 0.5 D/S of others from different Reports and Papers, so for example a few papers state Eurofighter having a 28 D/S Sustained Turn and some Reports state it having a 29 D/S, so most are all with in 28.5 D/S, same for the F-22 and Instantaneous Rates as well.
@James Van Allen Most of these pics are from people's own numbers from 1 or 2 things, plus DCS has a lot of pics like that of what it would or does have in game, or would have in game, and in game the specs are not the same as real life. Again iv read a lot of reports and papers on the agility of a lot of jets over the years, and the Eurofighter does have a best. Real reports and papers are online open to read.
@James Van Allen I just said it might be didn't say it was, and again the numbers iv said are years of looking in on this, the Eurofighter and F-22's Sustained and Instantaneous Rates are all in that area but again the Eurofighter in about 70 - 80% of the Reports and Papers iv seen over the years stated are better higher, with taking in with the Design of the wings and Thrust Vectoring so with all the numbers from a lot of different Reports - Tests - Papers are I can say are right.
Interesting to see what the Finnish Air force will choose, one of those or one of two Americans and there are always more to consider but just the plane.
