Super excited to share this one! As mentioned, in some cases access to the cockpit isn’t possible in this series. In that rare case, the title will include an *
Back in the 90tys they let just about anyone sit in the cockpit of the gripen A. I did so at that time. I'm quite tall. They had to help me out could not bend my leg to get to the foot rest.
@@matsv201 sitting in it and just looking is one thing, filming or otherwise documenting the insides is a whole different matter of national security, not only to Sweden, but also to the export clients that are using it.
@@SonsOfLorgar yes of cause that is true. But the point was rather that they didn't use to be that strict about it. Of cause it was powered down... and. Well.. a glass cockpit that is powered down.. is rather boring.
@Military Aviation History on 6:25 what do you mean by welcome to NATO? Sweden is not in NATO and they keep getting blackmailed and blocked by Turkey. Maybe Turkey gets better deals on S-400's from Russia for it, who knows - but doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon.
Small and petite compared to its contemporaries but not lacking in capability. Gotta admire the Swedes for making something themselves that suits their conditions and doctrine.
Keep in mind that this aircraft is able to, and was designed to land and takeoff from roads, highways, etc. The gear on this aircraft is extremely sturdy.
@@johanlassen6448 Yes, but the Gripen was purposefully designed for it. And no, not all of them can. Not all of them have the turnaround time (and costs) of the Gripen, among other things.
With regard to operating from roadways, it is the roadway that is special, not the aircraft. If you build a long enough straight section of road that is stressed for the contact pressure of the aircraft the aircraft need not be anything special.
@@Doomsday499 Not all of them need to. The whole fast turnaround time is a marketing gimmick my friend. The Gripen needs fast turnaround because of its crummy endurance and payload. It also can't stall proper maintenance forever. SAAB does not have magic pixie dust. It uses the same engine as the F-18. I will reiterate however: F-16s and F-18s have been taking off from roads and short runways for decades. Its not a Gripen-exclusive feature, even if SAAB would like you to think it is.
All in all, Gripen is a good cost effective option for smaller military powers or air forces on a budget, that seek relevant multi role air asset options.
Philippine Air Force will be potentially buying 12 of these beasts , 10 C and 2 D and I also heard SAAB will be giving 2 additional jets as a gift , I am so glad seeing an in depth look for our future Multirole Fighters, thank you.
3:00 the SAAB guy casually running next to you as you go down the runway at hundreds of miles per hour, he's not even breaking a sweat. Good luck russia if you decide to mess with the Swedes
Stood in front of a real one aswell during a presentation. I was on the verge of believing that it wasn`t actually the real thing simply because of its size. At first I thought they parked a Gripen Mock-Up on the ramp just so the public could get an idea for it. But no, all of a sudden, one of the two test pilots that were on site that day, started the walk-around, jumped in and fired her up. The F-18 next to it all of a sudden looked humongous. The Gripen is dwarfed by pretty much every other western counterpart. But once they took her airborne, that`s where the real magic started. This thing is a sky-dancer. Extremely nimble. Awesome capabilities. Getting into a dogfight with one of those must be quite horrifying. And before anyone starts, I`m well aware of the fact that classic dofights like they happened in Vietnam, are very rare nowadays. But, there`s a reason that even the most sophisticated fighers still have an internal cannon. And while most western jets got the 20mm vulcan, the Gripen actually packs a 27mm cannon.
0:29 I think the pilot showing Chris around was also in the M7* video on the Gripen. The two seat version probably can have enhanced drone control capabilities, something the NGAD is slated to do. The capability to launch Taurus missiles is interesting: it has a bunker busting warhead.
It’s not all about thrust to weight. Aerodynamics are just as important. A good example of this is the Saab Draken vs Saab Lansen. They have similar thrust but the Draken is capable of Mach 2+ whereas the Lansen is barely supersonic. Main difference between the two? Air resistance aka drag.
its also about what kind of engine is used, the f35 engine has enough power to go to match 2 but the engines are turbo fans and cant handle speeds higher than match 1.6, also with the f16 the intake is more simple but that also means it is limited in terms of top speed, where as the mig 29 and f15 has variable intakes to be efficient at any altitude and any speed.
This was a very good presentation of JAS 39. I live about 45k from Saab on lake Vättern. I've been able to see all versions of JAS 39, lately the E, testing out over the lake. Again great presentation and check out some of Saabs other creations, the J35 Draken was a cold-war bad ass.
Thanks Chris, that's the closest I've ever been (or likely to get) to a Gripen. I've always admired a relatively small country like Sweden for producing top class competitive fighter aircraft like the Lansen, Draken, Viggen and Gripen. I've also admired their strategic smarts like designing highways in sections which could be operated for these aircraft. After dragged out on and off again saga that finally saw Canada end up choosing the F-35A, I was a little disappointed that we didn't decide to buy the Gripen, (which was the alternative if 'negotiations' with Lockheed Martin and the US government didn't work out). Yes, I know about the 'interoperability' thing and how NATO had standardized on the JSF combat systems but I understand the Gripen had pretty competitive systems of its own. It would have underscored our independence and given the cheaper purchase and operating costs the Gripen might have seen a great deal of public money saved and spent where it was urgently needed elsewhere. I've read that the F-35 'stealth' only truly applies within relatively narrow frontal angles and much less elsewhere, so I think that was likely oversold as part of the 'Fifth Generation ®' slogan. Still Canada/US politics being what they are these days there would have been serious diplomatic and trade consequences for doing such a thing and I have little doubt we would have been made to feel like fifth wheels in NATO. Still have to admire the Swedes for protecting both their territory and their independence so well for so long with SAAB. I hope they will prosper and retain most of their independence within NATO.
Don't know if you watched it yet, but the recent video on the Canadian F-35 procurement touches on some of this stuff incl. the price points: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4uRt6OXF43c.html
Well as a Swede the SAAB story is a complicated one. On one hand they have created good and even excellent equipment for the armed forces. On the other the government's special treatment of SAAB has meant that equipment procurement has often been driven by industrial rather than defence concerns. For example the Swedish navy found itself without anti-ship missiles for some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War because SAAB was able to convince a newly elected government to cancel the Harpoon order and instead buy a SAAB missile which did not even exist as a prototype. With the Gripen the project ran over budget and the full scale procurement even though the SweAF did no longer need 200 Gripens meant the other parts of the armed forces were starved of funding. Likewise the Gripen E effectively consumed much of the defence investments at a time when Swedish soldiers were short of basic equipment like winter boots and ammunition for training. So there has been some real pros and cons with SAAB as a major supplier of military equipment. But one thing that has never been lacking so far is quality. They do good work in Linköping.
@@Vonstab Here in Canada our defence procurement seems to be as much about parceling out as much work to industries in politically important provinces as it is to actual defence needs, so I understand where you're coming from. However while Sweden may have starved it's navy and army at times at least they ended up with some very competitive home grown aircraft. Our defence procurement process seems to placate industrial lobbyists, then we end up with nothing.
@tim segulin no, we (Canada) produced aircraft for military use mostly in the 50s, those being planes like the CF 100. Prior to that we were building war munitions for great britian.
@@turkeytrac1 I think we had a really exciting aerospace industry in the 1950s with designs like the CF-100, the Avro Jetliner and the Avro Arrow. Unfortunately we bit off a little more than we could chew developing both the airframe and Orenda engine for the Arrow and the shutting down of that program seriously damaged the Canadian aerospace industry for years. We were starting to shine again with the Bonbardier C Series narrow bodied jet when the company's mismanagement and Boeing's efforts to block US sales with trade sanctions saw it given away to Airbus. Not sure where we stand these days.
You, Sir, must feel so lucky to be able to do stuff like this in your profession as an aviation historian. I know I would. Thanks for sharing your experiences with us less fortunate souls!
One of my favorite aircraft! Just sad that Saab isn't able to market it properly because of the GE engine in it. The USA can deny export because of this (and other shenanigans) . If the Grippen had a native engine it would sell like sliced bread.
Can hope that GKN aerospace starts to develop their own engines to replace the american ones. They've stopped us plenty of times before, one notable example is that India almost bought Viggens but the affair was stopped by the US because they wanted to sell F-16s instead
ahhhh . SO we think the US is blocking it so they can get the f16 contracts and cash ? If that is the reason it's truly sick . This plane should have been in ukraine a year ago.I didn't know it had a GE engine
@@savageassassin5976 this blocked sale took place in the 80s, Tejas was nothing but an idea at that point. I also wasn't referring to India being a prospect for Gripen rn, I just used the Viggen example to point out how the US has fucked with our arms sales in the past. A more present example could be if the US decide to block Gripen sales to the Phillipines to force the F-16 on them
@@Bald_Zeus We Filipinos also want the Gripen because of its advantages over the F16. We are fervently praying that US will stop with their shenanigans indeed.
Just a clarification. "Robot" does indeed mean "missile", but only within the military. In the normal world, "robot" just means "robot", as in English and many other languages. The word for "missile" in the normal world is "missil" (pronounced like "miss-EEL"). Why the military chose to use such a bizarre word for missile in the 1940s is beyond me, but it shouldn't be used at all unless you're actually in the armed forces. They like to have their own words and terms for a lot of things.
A missile is/was anything from arrows and javelins to cannonballs. A "raket" or a rocket is unguided, a "robot" is a guided missile, robot designating that it's is guided.
@@robertohlen4980 That's what the military likes to think, but it's not true. While in the broadest sense, particularly in English, a "missile" can be anything thrown, that usage isn't applicable in Swedish. When words are borrowed, they often take on a narrower meaning than in the donor language. So no, the Swedish military have it wrong. They're free to keep using a poorly chosen word, but the rest of society should avoid it at all cost. With the rise of actual robots in combat, they will soon see the error of their ways and be forced to change, as it will become increasingly confusing to have two words for different things.
@@mytube001 "Have it wrong"? Dude the naming convention is almost 80 years old, the "guided missile" name was barely a glint in the inventors eye. Also, Swedish is not the same language as English.
@@robertohlen4980 I understand that you're likely a MÖP (for English readers, a "MÖP" is someone who has an unhealthy obsession with all things military), and will defend anything the Swedish military does, no matter how stupid it is. Not much point in trying to explain this to you then. If you're prepared to defend an idiotic naming scheme, then you're beyond help.
oh wow It's smaller than I would have expected. It's downright *cute* even. Wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it, though, and with the gear looking as beefy as it does, I'd guess it can land just about anywhere.
The Gripen E is 20% bigger and has an even beefier landing gear then the c/d versions. It has also relocated the gears to be able to fit more pylons. It will be interesting to see how they compare.
The Gripen is designed to work from mobile, improvised airbases. It can land on a short stretch of forest road, and be serviced by just a handful of technicians. The turnaround time is really short. If the 'airbase' is discovered, they all just pack up and quickly move to another location.
@@niallmccaffrey791 that seems to be on brand for Sweeden's overall defensive strategy from the looks of it. pretty much everything they have is made to work out of any available space and make ground *very* painful for an enemy to take and/or hold.
Not to be that guy, but just note Gripen D also has the retractable refueling probe. At least South African Gripen Ds do so I would assume it is standard for other operators of the D variant.
Yes it is tiny compared to many others but that has some distinct advantages also. One motor means less weight, less drag, lower fuel consumption, low RCS, high agility, lower heat signature, harder to hit, Drawbacks are: less payload, less range/reach.
@@allanasp771 I think those drawbacks are entirely reasonable though. This isn't a heavy fighter, it's not designed to wage an offensive war. It was designed for purely defensive use, and within that role, I agree that it has a lot of interesting features that make it quite decent. It's a shame, it was really just late to the party, and Sweden doesn't have the market dominance of the US either, so it's really failed to garner as many sales as it deserved.
@@saml7610 True that. I have a hard time to understand why for instance Finland have chosen the F35 which for me is a Light bomber with a very small weapons bay, if you want to keep it stealth. What people seems to forget is that as soon as you put weapons under the wing pylons , the Stealth cabability is out the window. But on the other hand, as a prospective NATO member it makes perfect sense for Finland to go for the "safe" and undoubtle the most modern option with a superpower backing/supporting it.
Hmm I missed a thing in the Typhoon, the vertical stabilizers on the end. And now I know why, thanks for that. And that's why they also look smaller, amazing.
Tolles Video, ich bin ein Fan der Saab Gripen. Ich würde mir ein Video wünschen, wo ein Gripen C und ein Gripen E direkt nebeneinander stehen und wo detailliert auf die Unterschiede eingegangen wird. Ist die Gripen C noch zeitgemäß? Wo ist die Gripen E der F-35A überlegen, und wo vielleicht im Nachteil? Und wie fügt sich die F-16V Block 70 in dieses Bild ein?
Gripen C will be updated to the same avionics as Gripen E, exept the nose AESA with GaN tech, which is the most advanced that exist. The C will then have higher RCS, lower payload, shorter range, fewer hardpoints and lower super cruise than Gripen E. The engine will be upgrade to higher power too. So yes, it will be a formidabel war fighting machine. Not as the E though, which will have the same GaN nose AESA in the future. By the way, All Gripen is carrier capable and the Gripen M is carrier optimized Gripen E: the longest range, second fastest supercruise, highest agility, next generation avionics, longest stealthy multirole radio link range, best awareness of the battle space, built in 360 degree GaN EW that rival the Growler, highest availability, lowest logistik footprint, STOL. The troubled F-35 looks like something from the olden time in comparision. They will try to upgrade it to the same standard as Gripen in 2027. Where will Gripen be then?
I don’t know if you are aware of the great nation of Elbonia, but I think it’s about time they got an Air Force. Ian from Forgotten Weapons and "The Chieftain” have done procurement for the Army, perhaps you could reach out to them to continue saga of Elbonia?
This is an excellent video about a beautiful plane, though I feel compelled to note that Sweden is not yet in NATO, and if Hungary and Türkiye (Turkey) have anything to do with it, they seemingly never will join (Erdogan and Orban seem to be using the necessity of all NATO members giving approval for enlargement as a way to extract concessions in other areas - a clever move if you are as much of a pariah with Western leadership as those two are).
@@brappa1392 All NATO countries have already accepted the applications, but then the parlaments also must accept and there all countries except Hungary and Turkey has finalized.
Sweden, and the world, have benefitted greatly from Sweden's stance of neutrality. I would even argue that joining NATO would deteriorate Swedens security more than boost it. Better to try and secure the Nordic defence alliance once again. But NATO will probably torpedo that again?
Thanks Chris and Saab for getting inside the outside... Apparently pilots from a country on the southern coast of the black sea won't get in cock pit, either.
Fab. Something in me really likes this. Maybe that I am 75 and parsimonious about weight, $, getting a lot bang for the kroner. I know nothing about using a nimble fighter versus ….? But with Ukraine, etc., one thinks one should learn a little something.
If you Google for Red Flag and JAS, you see that size dosen't matter when it comes to the killingratio. The JAS 39 GRIPEN is ner as deadly as a F22 Raptor but for the third of a raptors prize. That's how we Swedes thinks, most bang for the buks, or more precise, most logic for the krona😉
If SAAB are serious about aggressive marketing and product placement, Gripen aircraft need to somehow appear in the skies over Ukraine crewed by Ukrainian Air Force pilots. Throw in some Meteor missiles to give MBDA good press as well.
There are multiple reasons why Sweden isnt as sucessfull as the big nations when it comes to big military purchases. Like France, UK, US, Russia. If you buy fighter jets from there it's almost a given that your goverement will deal with their goverment. That is not the case for Sweden, you deal with Saab and Saab only. So often times it's Company vs Country who are going up against eachother for these bids, u can see who has the big advantage.
Gripen is an amazing modern relatively affordable new gen fighter jet 👌👍 But Why doesn't Sweden offer 2-Engine Gripen for Aircraft Carriers Ops & Airforce 🤷🤔
What prevents fuel sloshing around and screwing the stability balance all up? Obvious point to anyone who has had a truck load (or a farm tractor hauling a load of hay) shift (TERROR! I WAS 12). Is their a simple answer? Don’t go crazy tech, just curious.
@@liu6898 In what way isnt it a 4th generation aircraft? As for the second part, no its not the best fighter in the world, but when you compare buying and running the aircraft visavi capability its an open discussion
@@kentnilsson465 super maneuverability, supercruise, and stealth, jas39 has none of those to qualify as 4th gen. as for buying cost, I don't see how jas39 can match with a similar price f16 with better capability
@@liu6898 Also, you don’t even say the right versions, what you are talking about is generation 5, not 4, and I never said or think Gripen is a generation 5 fighter, however if you go by all the requirements the F22 and F-35 aren’t either even if the general definition is usually that generation 5 have stealth which is why they are usually categorised as such. Also they are great fighters but very very very expensive
Wonderful , good looking and compact aircraft . Well done SWEDEN . Looking in from Dublin , I think the Irish Air Corps should get the mitts on a 'flock' of GRIPEN . Our Western seaboard is rat run for RUSSIAN AIRFORCE aircraft with transponders turned off ..................very dangerous . New RADAR and GRIPEN that would be the ideal combination . UKRAINE would be the ideal location for GRIPEN to be used in COMBAT as they are designed with RUSSIA in mind as a possible adversary . SLAVA UJKRAINI . Good video , CHEERS .
