Gripen turn around new edition 

You won't regret it. I can sleep until 8h45 knowing I can still make it at work by 9h00, plus I can take off from my street when I couldn't with the Eurofighter. Best part is I can use my five kids supervised by my wife to reload it.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SrMjS9ylFr8.html

Hold my gripen

@@andreaskavak2364 Grip my hold

@@dirtbikerswe1979 hold my bombs

hold my blondes

håll i min surströmming

Thanks for buying from us, Greeting from Sweden.

You made the right choice and much cheaper

My country was once offered Gripens by Saab because we need replacement for our outdated F-5Es. Gripen seems to be cost-efficient, cheap, reliable, and capable for our developing country. They even came to our country for full demonstration of Gripen's capability. Turned out bcs of politics, our defense ministry went for Russian Su-35 which is too costly for our nation who uses fighter for patrol and defensive purposes. They could have bought more Gripens than Su-35 and expand our squadron wider to reach entire area of our country.

Just because it was cheapest. Poor country, nothing to be proud of.

@@farrelfzeta6908 Many counties buying arms and planes from eaither from USA or Russia for political reasons. They seek friendship and protection of a superpower country.

In some essence the pilot is a knight, is all in military ranking.

War, war never changes...

and saving a damsel in distress? i love it!

this is the swedidh concept Bas60 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_60 Makes it very hard to do basedenial aginst sweden. could easily be implemented in any country in 2-3 years.

Gilles Cordier Gripen for fuck sake

Did they end up getting the griphin

Air to air combat tested?

@Harun Atic they're using old aircraft as R/C target drones? Live combat drills?

@@tarunbasra8230 no I don’t think they ended up with the griffen

*Lolz in Bulgarian*

why bulgaria dont hang on his mic´s ? they dont fall from the sky like stones if the temperatur changes !

Slow down. In Bulgaria this is going to be a "political decision". "Political decision" means sub-optimal (not good) decision, taken in the interest of a political influential group. So the people-in-shadow who influence the political decisions can change it, no matter what the experts think.

These Gripens will fall out of the sky on first electronics strike. www.nyteknik.se/innovation/karlskogas-nya-vapen-slar-ut-elektroniken-6397323

Bulgaria rules. How many Gripens?

Box box, box box

God´s own truth! ( And I am swedish...)

Love it ! Greetings from the Czech Republic - our army uses Gripens and I think it was a good choice :)

How about fight or wardamage will it take years to maintain damage aircraft ? -a bullethole will take forever since we know swedes or are the rules different in war ? I guess they think it all or nothing - igoring the reality.

Lars , you blocked me I guess but you wrote nonsense , F-18 assemebled in Finland , they built own cars and Saab had its factory in Finland building the cab but later it assigned a another car to build by the current owner . Thats little but I dont have anything to do with living in Finland . I made a valid point - Do Saab or the Airforce have a plan to repair a partly destoyed Gripen- and my answear is still No.

that's a dumb assumption jari. every air force in industrialized nations have such plans in place. how well they are implemented in peacetime is another question all together. Sweden actually have maintenance hangars inside mountains where the runway sticks straight out of it. so the aircraft can take off right out of the mountain. however they have not been used since the cold war.

I find it a bit strange that the F/A-18 Hornet is used by other Nation's Air Forces. It's carrier capabilities seem to just add unnecessary weight, which is a big reason the US Air Force doesn't use it. Though granted, the F/A-18 is an absolutely brilliant Carrier-born Strike Fighter.

Try the 70's. Viggen used a similar system. Or the 60's even. With Draken.

Viggen was the first aircraft from SAAB with true STOL capability. It could reverse thrust and even go backwards into small road pockets and turn around on narrow country roads. Viggen was developed in the 60's and in service from 1971-2005.

Well it started in the 1940s. During the 50s with Draken, concept evolved in the 70s with Viggen and now from the 90s with Gripen. All designed to be serviced and maintained by conscript soldiers.

Had sat nav in '64, so guess you were not in the know. Viggen

Petter ! No bro, the tunnan was first and then came Draken

You are 100% right

I’m sure you’re correct. Durable, dependable, innovative and survivable will keep anything capable and thus successful longer. F35 can’t be if much use when it must be maintained in an laboratory cleanliness environment. I hope the US solves its own self induced problem before it kills us!

Nice fighter.its suitable for Philippines needs.less maintainance and maybe not so expensive unlike the F's fighter from U.S.

I smell ..someone doing something a russian would do and the added comments ,yes you are ....Cant take comments like this seriously being canadian.

Check out my more detailed post regarding tht exactly but also no we dont need an interceptor ver the Gripen NG aka E/F can already do that and more.. and thats all important for NCAP

Rafale or super hornet may actually be good

@@TheHawk1202 They are 2,5 timmes more expensive than Gripen and their maintenance cost is very high.

@@petter5721 Still the Gripen is no match and it has only one engine. I mean yeah the Gripen is a very good plane but it's a light aircraft compared to a SH or a Rafale. Gripen can only carry half of what these two planes can carry. When it comes to long range missions, which most likely to happen in a big country like Finland, it's not not the best. From what I heard lately about the HX challenge the F35 and the Gripen didn't make a good impression. Specially the F35, this one its almost sure it wont be chosen.

@@TheHawk1202 did you just cal finland a big country? its 400km from east to west where its the longest

@@einar8019 yeah now go see how much km it is from north to south

.lol.

In Iraq they planted antipersonnel mines even on paved roads.

Well the Swedish defense plan is basically guerilla !

Gripen, Draken...and also the Viggen! I think this the right fighter for the small/medium Air Force.

Gripen E is the successor, a completely new aircraft, it looks similar thou.

@@petter5721 I wouldn't call the Gripen E a successor, as it is the same Jet, but updated.

I think stealth is a given…but then?

"The F-35 is not stealthy to low frequency radars and thus cannot hide from those" Not really. Low frequency radar aren't magical super radar. There's a reason most radar use much shorter wavelengths and stealth is optimized to the other wavelengths. "they cannot target other planes without turning on their own radars" Absolutely wrong. Passive sensors are a thing. EO-DAS can target enemy aircraft. The radar can work passively too. And that's ignoring the endless amount of tricks and jamming techniques you can use thanks to stealth. "they will be instantly found by the passive systems in the Gripen" Combat radar don't just pulse waves in a massive frontal cone, they scan the sky with a very thin beam. The F-35 has great maneuverability, it's just that every idiot who makes graphs uses data with 50% fuel and no missiles. The F-35 at 50% fuel carries more fuel than a F-16 with full internal tanks. Due to the internal payload, it suffers more at empty performance, but also loses less with added payload. So basically at equal fuel and weapon load the F-35 is going to give the Gripen a run for its money.

" There's a reason most radar use much shorter wavelengths and stealth is optimized to the other wavelengths." Yes, shorter wavelengths are used more because the systems can be made more compact and they have higher accuracy. A ground based system doesn't have to care that much about size and just knowing that there are planes in an area that are "invisible" to shorter wavelengths spoils the stealth surprise factor quite a bit. And the reason stealth isn't optimized for longer wavelengths is because it's physically impossible to build a plane with a radar absorbent coating that has a thickness measured in whole meters (at least until metamaterials change the game). "Absolutely wrong. Passive sensors are a thing. EO-DAS can target enemy aircraft. The radar can work passively too." EO-DAS is an IRST system that is a lot more range limited than radar. The Gripen has IRST as well but I have no idea how well it performs. I also mentioned that the Gripen uses passive radar detection and is linked not only with other planes but also with ground radar, ships and basically anything else that can provide information. If you manage to avoid detection from other sources, like LF radar or actively/passively from less stealthy angles, you'll still be discovered the moment you launch something. Sweden has been using this sort of networked system for a long time (in use and continually upgraded/re-developed since the 60's I think) and it is VERY hard to jam. First shot is valuable but it will probably end up with the other side shooting back before being taken out. Now if this takes place without supporting systems and/or with limited numbers the F-35 will definitely have an edge BVR. "...So basically at equal fuel and weapon load the F-35 is going to give the Gripen a run for its money." Let's say this assumption is correct and it makes up for the mach 0.4 difference in top speed and so on. If you put on a full weapons load, that means external stuff, you have sacrificed a lot of that precious stealth. You did say equal weapon load so it's either that or the Gripens have a lot of empty space under their wings. Like I previously wrote, the F-35 is a superior plane for sneaky ground attack missions and if that's the intended use the choice is obvious. You must have good use for something like that to justify the expense when you could have more planes, with cheaper flight hours and otherwise very similar performance, for the same price. Even if you do have use for a sneaky ground attack plane it might be smarter to have a mix of the two planes, unless the logistics become too bothersome with more than one system.

Exactly! The Gripen E will be a bit more expensive than the C and the F-35 will go down a bit in price but we're still talking 5:4 - 5:3 (Gripen:F-35) planes for the same price, with higher availability for each plane and the pilots getting more flight time as well due to the much lower operating costs. A 3 vs 1 scenario is not unrealistic considering the Gripen E is designed for quick turnarounds, with refueling, reloading and taking off again being done in mere minutes, and a complete engine change taking less than an hour.

"A ground based system doesn't have to care that much about size and just knowing that there are planes in an area that are "invisible" to shorter wavelengths spoils the stealth surprise factor quite a bit." Other than the many limitations of such systems, they still don't provide for targeting. So the limitations of such radars are quite obvious. "And the reason stealth isn't optimized for longer wavelengths is because it's physically impossible to build a plane with a radar absorbent coating that has a thickness measured in whole meters" I don't know who came up with this retarded idea but it keeps getting repeated despite being categorically wrong. The only coatings that follow such logic are those that rely on destructive interference to work, just like the anti-reflection coatings on lenses. Absorbent materials have no such limitations. The main limitations is unrelated to materials, it comes from shaping. It's difficult to build a combat aircraft and shape it properly for such wavelengths. The advantage for the aircraft though is that at wavelengths close to the size of the aircraft, the RCS diminishes extremely fast. "EO-DAS is an IRST system that is a lot more range limited than radar. The Gripen has IRST as well but I have no idea how well it performs." The Gripen uses less IR cameras than the F-35, so it has much lower resolution and performance. All of the integration of systems on the Gripen are taken a bit further to the F-35, that can for example guide missiles for other platforms. But you will find all of these capabilities on any western aircraft worth anything. I'm just saying that passive detection does exist for the F-35, both radar and IRST, and thanks to sensor fusion (Gripen has it too), it's even more efficient. Of course once detected (and supposing this detection isn't lost), the F-35 can be taken out. But it's very difficult to do so, can only be done at limited ranges, and is an advantage that the other aircraft don't have. At best the Gripen can sort of hold up against the F-35, but that's admitting it's already inferior in the first place. "Let's say this assumption is correct and it makes up for the mach 0.4 difference in top speed and so on. If you put on a full weapons load, that means external stuff, you have sacrificed a lot of that precious stealth. You did say equal weapon load so it's either that or the Gripens have a lot of empty space under their wings." The problem here is yet again, you're trying to find ways to ignore the advantage. The F-35 can fly in two configurations: -stealthy, which the Gripen can't even do in the first place -non-stealthy, which still makes it stealthier than the Gripen and therefore still gives it the upper hand You're just ignoring too many of the F-35 advantages to even understand why it holds the upper edge. Lets just put this in numbers. The F-35 can detect the Gripen at high ranges (it's hard to say how much due to classified numbers and bogus crap on the internet), but lets say 200 km. The F-35 can only be detected at loosely 20-30 km. At that point, the EO-DAS is still very useful, because the F-35 can passively detect a Gripen at more than 20-30 km. Maybe not 100 km, but still good ranges. Considering AIM-120D missiles will easily have 50+ km ranges, the Gripen isn't at an advantage. Sure, it can detect the F-35 if the F-35 locks on it with its radar, but then you're assuming there's one of each. The F-35 can easily turn its radar off, in what case all detection is lost, then another F-35 picks up the missile to guide it to the Gripen, but the Gripen lost its first target and has to acquire the second. This is just one idea based on actual IAD radar function, but now imagine what the smart lads working on the F-35 could come up with when using stealth at their advantage. Basically stealth keeps getting better with more aircraft, because you can used them in combined operations that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Bernhard Jordan The F-35A is below 90M. You're also completely ignoring the whole logistics train. You can't just magically get 3 times more pilots, maintenance crew, logistics and so on just like that, let alone get everything in the air at the same time as easily. Keeping combat aircraft in the air is a huge burden, and the cost of the aircraft is only a portion of that burden.

"Other than the many limitations of such systems, they still don't provide for targeting. So the limitations of such radars are quite obvious. " It does however tell where to point a high powered flashlight and gives time to prepare a response. Even if a perfect target lock isn't achievable and depending on the circumstances the enemy might just throw some missiles in that general direction and take care of that target lock when they get close enough. "The Gripen uses less IR cameras than the F-35, so it has much lower resolution and performance." I don envy the F-35's 360 degree detection but the resolution being superior in for a given direction I can't comment on since the data isn't available for either system. "The F-35 can only be detected at loosely 20-30 km." I think the detection range even for IRST is going to be longer than that. "You're just ignoring too many of the F-35 advantages to even understand why it holds the upper edge." No, I'm properly admitting that the F-35 is superior in stealth, because that is the biggest advantage that it holds, but I also believe that for many scenarios stealth will be of limited use. It wont be stealthy from all angles or in all frequencies and it limits the amount of ordnance it can carry. When facing a modern opponent with access to multiple methods of detection spread out over a wide area it will be detected. It will be detected at a later stage than the Gripen on a similar mission but unless it's close enough to take out the opponent before being found out the advantage isn't going to be worth the extra cost except in some special cases, unless your budget is unlimited. "The F-35A is below 90M. You're also completely ignoring the whole logistics train. You can't just magically get 3 times more pilots, maintenance crew, logistics and so on just like that, let alone get everything in the air at the same time as easily. Keeping combat aircraft in the air is a huge burden, and the cost of the aircraft is only a portion of that burden." Isn't it rather you that is completely ignoring it? So the F-35 is "only" around 25-50% more expensive to buy and you might not be able to get enough pilots even if you have more planes. So what about those difficult logistics? The Gripen is designed around fast turnarounds with minimal crew (you know, like in this video) and being easy to service. The cost of keeping an F-35 in the air for an hour is almost nine times higher. Availability, maintainability and low flight costs are areas where the Gripen thoroughly kicks the F-35's ass, on top of being cheaper to buy. You will need a higher number of F-35s to keep the same number of birds in the air, even if you have the same number of pilots.

and rest is conscripts (doing military service)

Australia is over 17 times larger than Sweden in area. Range matters. Having said that, I'm not sure the F-35 has a lot more range unless it carries drop tanks, which aren't stealthy.

but murica gotta be murica

@@PMcKay00 Forget stealthiness for the F35. Except for deep penetration missions it will always have external weapon or fuel tank.

@@PMcKay00 First strike capability/stealth is only needed for offensive fighting. Is it within Australia's doctrine to have/use the first-strike capability?

He could do that while the ground team does the turn around

I was literally thinking that too!

If this advertising was made in Brasil, you will surely see this.

Is swedish not brazil

+Rasmus Persson hahaha XD

+Rasmus Persson dum?

Brazil is getting gripens, thats why he welcomed them to brazil. lol

Nice, with full of transfer of tech

Thank you! I understand that Brasil buys Swedish patrol-ships aswell for the navy! And maybe SAAB's "Global-eye" survailance aircraft also? 💙💛💚💙💛💚💙💛

Exactly.

they relay on airbases never interrupted -Gripen is made for interrupted warfare

More like the f35 will fail to take off in the first place and nee 8 months trouble shooting for starters and the F22 for all its killer capabilities for a2a will try to use its stealth to hide the days needed for its very slow TAT

F22,f35 rely on chartered mission, USA has Pacific on left and Atlantic on right. Gripen is advertised for partol, intercept and engagement.

Have a few beers as well. Might even be sober when they're halfway done.

@@aviksaha2746 JAS=Jakt, Attack, Spaning meaning "Intercept, Attack, Reconnaissance".

I supose you are blind.

👍🏻👍🏻 Simpel and great

Orejust swedish thinking

Thats not "russian" alone per se.. look at the seriously kickass F-5.. and think of the Gripen as a modern version

The simplicity has always been the mindset in the Swedish military since the cold war, that includes the planes.

Definitely! It's an exciting piece of machinery.

no. terrible plane for canada. terrible range and payload

Canadian Defence Review considered this an ideal aircraft. Beats the used Aussie F18s. www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/110

Unfortunately, canada buys into the america industrial complex. Gripen is relatively low cost per performance. Easier to maintain and turn around than american jets.

Agreed I hope we get the gripen and not another American equipment so that they can drain us dry

They can fight off the russians OR the americans.

@@laserbrain7774 did you ever heard the term "numeric superiority"? No fighter jet can won over this no matter how powerful it is. For every expansive jet in the sky, there will be at least 10 Gripens in the air, all the time. That's is the true power of Gripen.

PAF deadline is before 2022. Military favor the F-16v. We'll find out in few months

@@martinrivera4175 ... yeah but F16 per/hr flight maintenance is $20,000 compared to Gripens $7,000... We'll see....

@@94Whiskey the political members always wants cheaper. Walang tawad. it's going be the Gripens.

@@martinrivera4175 ... sana nga Gripen. Simple at hindi maarte....

Our aircrafts have always been able to land on countryside roads for quick maintenance and turnaround. Fixed bases are good, but not necessary.

F16 v2 is still a formidable plane. So is the Hornet ... but they're rather old.

India should opt for the Raphael. Updated Gripen would be a good second choice.

F18 Super Hornets and rafales are more capable than gripen hence mmrca will be given to either of the two..if it is only single engine than gripen would have been the best choice

racist cows verses racist pigs,, wow the world knows no greater love

Yeah they probably should since those aircraft are already on the chopping block in the US but let's face facts. It really depends on who is flying them doesn't it?

oh didnt know u had that one! (as swede) insane engine on that one - pure interceptor

SmokeyPillow SAAB now how do build advanced simplicity 👍🏻

They are all NATO, Nato countries cant by Swedish AIR hardwere but the serntaly do bye electrincs and self heald rockets.

@@kurtsoderberg the gripen is fully compatible with all nato systems

@@einar8019 if it truly was, it would be able to use American electronics and radars since they are most common But it can't iirc

@@lil__boi3027 why would it use a worse american radar that costs more and it is compatible with nato coms and weaponry

@@einar8019 radars for the f-16 and other common American fighters are not only made by the US, there are multiple companies in Israel and other places who make upgrade packages for American fighters, since they are pretty common Also that means that air forces that use American planes (there are alot of them) can install hardwere that was made for American planes that they Already Have for the fighter, as well as munitions that were made for American planes (again, alot use those) So essentially air forces that use American planes can buy the fighter and operate and upgrade it ez, so you have a huge potential for a shitton of users

Excellent choice. I'm hoping Canada will also purchase them.

yes in surat thani

It was primarily developed from JA-37 Viggen ofc and the needs of Sweden air force. But as with IKEA furniture it seems to suit more countries. I don't know exactly what you where offered but as with the Brazilian offer we could share most of our technology and maybe the next Indian air force plane would be better cheaper and so on then our own... and we might buy yours... Yes Gripen is somewhat NATO and EU conformed because of our location and alliances. But there seem to be only 4 pacts these days... the NATO/EU, Warsaw pact (former Soviet now more or less russian), and some islamic (unofficial pacts, some with Russia) and the more or less neutral countries who just want a good aircraft to defend the borders and will do it so in the best way possible... India for me (as a Swede) seem to conform more to the NATO nowadays though. Most of your Soviet/Russian stuff is a bit old?

Warsaw pact today? Dissolved in 1991, mate.

He obviously meant the old warsaw pact countries, not that the USSR and Warsaw pact was still a thing.

"But there seem to be only 4 pacts these days..." Difficult to interpret otherwise. How did you manage that? Also: I didn't make any comment on the USSR, that's straw man.

Deliberately obtuse much?

not realy

Bob cob Bob The predecessor of the Gripen, the Viggen, had the koenigsegg ghost painted on one of the last Viggens that ever flew.

Hence the 39E and 39F.

Actually, the flight econmy of the Gripen is far superior to almost any other fighter out there. You'd get 4 times as much Airtime with a Gripen then a F35 for the same Money.

@@victorcapel2755 8x*

I read that a standard turnaround for a F35 takes about 2 hours from an airbase.