Only the JAS-39 Gripen is Capable of Doing This 

Check up how many of the latest road bases was ever finished.

Finished? They literally bring a tanker and a truck of supplies and its done. Road bases are not permanent, they are tents.

@@stoopydh4878 Bas 90 was a development of Bas 60. The intent was to in the end have about 200 runways for military use. Bas 90 was undeveloped but about 20 bases had been upgraded to some extent. To begin with lots of roads in Sweden have a wire fence in the middle separating the lanes, of course you could remove such things. But to my understanding we don't really have a lot of these things even though have had and have had the intention to have.

Ehh... Here we go again. Dispersed operations are normal and many different planes have been regularly practising it. Gripen may be spesicically designed for it, but unlike its sworn fans claim it is not uniquely capable in it.

​@@herptekWell if it's so ususl in other airforces then why is such big news in the media when for example th US airforce try the same thing? The hole video is also about that fact the Gripen fighter is designed for it. You cant say the same about any western fighter that I know of.

@@dennistofvesson6351 Its not very big news for us, anyway. But I do indeed sometimes wonder what is supposed to be so unusual about it to warrant titles in the media like in the video above. It is normal for us anyway.

@@herptek I must confess that I don't know what country you're from but as I wrote I can't bring to mind any other plane that was constructed with this kind of operations in mind, except it's predecessors Draken and Viggen. And no other nation as far as I know has had this kind of operations as a gameplan in a war, except maybe Finland. That's prety unike. Yes other countrys have done landings on regular roads but no one has built the infrastructior around it and have planes that can be maintained with such smal crews with such little training. Start to sound like maybe you're a bit gelous.

@@dennistofvesson6351 Well, sure enough Finland used to operate Draken among others back in the day but by no means are dispersed operations limited to it and the Gripen. And currently the main fighter aircraft is Hornet. It is no big deal operating dispersed. F-35A will also have to and it would not have been selected if it was impossible. We don't have the luxury of having our air bases out of range of enemy weapons.

Please tell us more :)

Try .F soon relist

@@sts6055 I think it works in this case. In fact any voice works in this case, b/c the video is factful; other military gear channels have pomp music playing in the background and content that reads like a commercial or a pitch for funding.

🇸🇪🤝🏻🇫🇮

Brothers in arms since 13th century🇸🇪🇫🇮🤝

Finnish dispersed operations tends to use airstrips integrated with the road network (I've driven over at least one in northern Finland), rather than regular roads used as airstrips. Additionally, as mentioned in the video, the logistics required for maintaining the F35s (nor the F-18s) is also not really comparable to the Gripen. All that said, Finlands decision to purchase the F-35s was prior to the decision of joining NATO, and as such the implied US-security insurance that accompanies any F-35s (as none can end up in hostile control) was an obvious and rational factor to tip the scales, especially since Finland already have these dispersed airstrip/road combinations, making logistics the "only" hurdle for F-35 dispersed operations (and where the F-35 is more capable than the Gripen in a number of other areas).

....despitec keeping side to the very original Swede idea of disperse anything in military for less damage in real war, the choice of Finland for F-18 and then F-35, not was the fighter itself which both are great, but the assurance of a great back-up which is USA, USA is real and keep it word when is come to protect.

❤ But you have a artillery, number of troops and sisu that make so many other countries green from envy.

Heja Finland och Sverige! Tillsammans med de nordiska broderfolken och under försvarsskölden NATO, så håller vi ryssen nertryckt om de en dag sticker ut sina smutsiga trynen västerut. Tillsammans står vi emot ryska hybridoperationer, sabotage, maskirovkas, framtida krigsoperationer. Ryssen vet att vi slår dem hårt, mycket hårt, om de rör på sig ännu mer. Rätt så.

If Trump wins the election, which is not unlikely, the purchase of the F-35 will seem a like a bad tactic. Ok, a capable fighter but operating costs are 5-6 times higher than of the Gripen. I see it as reducing the country's defense capabilities.

Luck had little too do with Sweden and Finland joining NATO, just good judgement by the respective populations and poor tactics by Putin.

Did you read it correctly? I said "we are lucky they joined". Is English your first language? It's a figure of speech. A saying.

I agree. F35 isn't good for us. But we can't fight the Yanks.

Canada like Australia are two countries that are totally incapable of defending themselves with out the American umbrellas, so just shup up and dance.

Canadian aviation has been 🪛 Ed by the USA forever, Fr Arrow to CL84, Avro, DH....

I checked and found the F-35A costs ~$110 million vs ~$55 million for the Gripen. Maintenance is much easier and you only need one specialist

@@TheFrewah That was 2021 per unit cost... The 2024 cost has dropped to around 80 million... But the big difference with Saab and Lockheed Martin is this: "Lockheed Martin Canada has been Canada's trusted defence partner for over 80 years, specializing advanced technology systems, products, and services. Over 1,400 employees at major facilities in Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Calgary and Victoria work on a wide range of major programs spanning the aerospace, defence, and commercial sectors." The F-35 will benefit the Canadian economy in a way the Gripen would not, and this further brings down the 'adjusted' cost per unit... Like i said above, i would have preferred Canada bought the Gripen, but i get that the Canadian government had other deciding factors than the actual plane's cost-effectiveness.

@@ClaudiusCaelum ahh, Thanks for clarification. I guess decisions were made before we joined Nato which I’m very happy with. Too bad there was no Nato party in Stockholm to celebrate. I think our Gripen is really good, it is 100% nato compatible and requires fewer service hours per flight hour than most other planes. I hope we can find more customers for it and other gear as our military industry is quite large. The anti air gun used to shoot down kamikaze planes was the Swedish 40mm gun made by Bofors and you can find an updated version on the CV-90 these days.

Its the best period, it doesnt fit any of the old generation crap because its something new, uses modular thinking to achieve electronic stealth instead of conventional

saab dont use gen for aircraft thats an american thing

@@AXXeYYNo, originally it's actually a Russian "thing".

Nope! It´s AJ/AJS 37!

​@@vinkelnisseStill it is Viggen and not Gripen.

@@andersbergquist Of course it's a Viggen!

@@vinkelnisse right so not the JAS39 Grippen being talked about

Not as many spare Gripens available in the air forces of allies as F-16s. That was a significant factor in the decision. If there were as many Gripens available, it would have been a better option.

Appropriate, since it's shown when he introduces the concept of dispersed air bases, something Viggen was the first aircraft designed to utilize.

@@apersson850 No. Sweden have had feld/roadbases since the 40. Ref: Svenska flygbaser, Flyghistorisk revy 2008.

@@claespettersson2162 Viggen was the first aircraft DESIGNED with STOL capabilities from the beginning. Earlier aircraft either required long runways or were just so slow that they could use short grass runways anyway.

@@apersson850 Viggen had no STOL capability.

@@claespettersson2162 Not by the 300 meter definition, no. But it was designed with some sort of STOL capabilities in the requirements and came ut with, should we call it CSTOL? (Comparatively Short Take Off and Landing). This was done in order to be able to handle short runways, which could be short by design or partially damaged longer runways.

Why use a powered tool that can go wrong as opposed to hand powered crank which in this case isn't slower, in these situations simple is best, I suspect that hand tools were defined as the requirement right from the start of the design process particularly for the quick turn around servicing scenario, with only a minimum number of even them being required, ie torch, screwdriver, adjustable spanner, pliers, side cutters, and of course the airframe tech's main tool a HAMMER (amazing how often the judicious use of exactly applied force is required, always have your hammer calibrated before an exercise). That would be it for a turnaround and re-arm except for a couple of armourers tools.

I should point out that while I didn't work on Grippens I did spend several years on Harrier GR3's, and 7's operating in similar conditions.

Pretty sure it wasn't really their decision; availability, especially pre-NATO for Sweden, is a huge factor.

It’s not as ubiquitous as the F-16

The introduction of the video says that scatter operations are a Swedish tradition that began in the last century, which is why we show a Viggen.

@@MilitaryMight-xl1um You should have started with the Draken then , which was the one who started it

@@matso3856 It actually started before Draken, but the further we go back in time, the harder it becomes to find a good video to illustrate it.

I quote the words of one of the biggest ace pilots. "The airplane is just a platform on which the pilot brings the weapons to the right place" if you don't know how to do that, then nothing is good.

Why are you screaming? do you have pain anywhere? go to the doctor in that case.

I've read or heard somewhere that the F-16's will be place in "secure" underground hangars in western Ukraine. Idk, though.

But we needed the F35 for our aircraft carriers. Oh wait we don't have one.

'Tis a changing world, geopolitically. Won't be alive in 2050 & don't think I want to be!!!