Saab Gripen Is So Much Better, Canada Regrets Buying F-35 Lighning II 

I envy you for that. I love Swedish Fighter-Jets like the Gripen, Viggen, Draken and the tiny "Tunnan". Greetings from Germany.👍

O Gripen em maior número e alguns f35 juntos fariam uma força aérea super eficaz!

Yeah i worked nearby when they testflew the E. It was amazing to watch the power.

Grippen, Gotland, Visby and Archer ❤ mutch love from brother acrost the pond

My favorite jet fighter too, but 3 times a day on afterburner...

Not on a limited budget. The way it works is => decide what you need and make this the requirement. Buy what fits.

@@dimbulb6443 Canada needs to spend much more on defence. The F35 purchase was delayed for years due to the Trudeau "government", a group of amateurs. Countries much smaller than Canada fly more than one type of aircraft and that is the price of being taken seriously. Obviously more money would have been available if Trudeau didn't waste so much on stupid projects including buying old F18s from Australia.

No it’s really not. Logistical and financial and training and all of the more strains that this will cause. It’s more efficient to have only one. Easier to maintain, to have the right supply chain, every pilot in the sphere could fly them so training is simple, and a common operating system is just easy.

​@@kvas6255eh gripen is super cheap to maintain and can litterly land on a small country road and have 2 people refit it and up it goes again.

I can tell you as a Canadian that our government is very cheap when it comes to military spending and there is no way that we would buy both.

And Canadas landscape is similar to Sweden's, perfect for Gripens hideaway-in-woods-short-takeoff-from-roads 🙂

Canada is 9,984,670 km2 compared to Sweden at 450,295 km2, capability of landing on a remote stretch of road is meaningless if fuel and service is a four day road trip. Scenarios where a RCAF Fighter Jet doesn't land at a CFB or airport are miniscule. If we are talking in the Northern Areas where a Russian invasion would likely start, there are even fewer roads and next to zero capability of servicing a jet in the field. Canada is not comparable to Sweden in this manner.

Can you say F35B???

@@davidoldham1946I know, right? I suppose hovering and landing like a chopper is not advantageous.

@@bossem5461 This isn't a capability unique to the Gripen. Norway sometimes operates it's F-35As from roadways. Plenty of RU-vid videos of them doing that.

Unit cost is actually higher than the F-35.

@@dimbulb6443 So is buying an ink printer rather than a laser printer. Takes very little time before running costs eats up the difference.

@@dimbulb6443Where do you find that information?

@@gambanteinodal1246 You can look at the publicly available information of many country who have purchased the airplanes, at different price points.

@@janpersson9818 Depends whether my requirement is that it must be able to print nice colour pictures.

Swede here, thanks for the welcome! Nato now completely owns the Baltic Sea!

I see it as an unfortunate repeat of the CF-104 deals. The F-35 is a maintenance intensive and expensive plane that's not the most ideal thing for low budget and understaffed Canadian armed forces, yet it's being shoved around the world as the new standard NATO fighter. It's not really ideal for ground attack either, and even the Americans admit its aerial combat shortcoming and are developing loyal wingmen drones to augment the F-35's low payload in both bombs and missiles, drones Canada cannot afford anyhow. But hey, when the trend is stealth, and Canada wants to play with the big boys rather than realistically look at the budget and capabilities, then there's literally no other choice of true 5th gen fighters than the F-35 for now.

@@johnsilfen70 I am not just happy Sweden is in NATO, I'm absolutely thrilled. Since I wrote my comment three months ago I have become more convinced than ever of the Gripen's great value. I also believe that Canada & Sweden are natural allies within the greater alliance. I reiterate that the Gripen Fighter should be a big part of the RCAF and I would love to see a new RCAF base on the flat table land between Sydney & Glace Bay Nova Scotia. Canada and Sweden have more in common than hockey. 🙂

Just to think if the Canadian government hadn't pulled the plug on the Avro Arrow they would have had a fantastic fighter that was way ahead at that time but as usual politicians love to screw things up.

for a neutral country, it still amazes me how far they have advanced with their military vehicles, like the strv 122 and strv 122b PLSS, as a Canadian, I bought one of there rifles the K11 originally built in 1928, the technological advances the rifle has it amazes me.

@@jfd9616 neutral for Swedish did not mean being passive of building their defense.

F-35 is anything but cheap.

F-35 in war games 7 to 1 win ratio.

@@LeonAustHow much it is spending on the ground for maintenance and correcting problems?

@@leftcoaster67 I think you misunderstood him. It's more about the politics, and not about finding the cheapest plane

Nobody, actually. It’s a perfectly fine aircraft.

Oh yeah, Canada regrets buying a 5th generation fighter. I live in Canada and i have not heard anything that fact,

Economics says so.

​@@Maax1200 You don't even know the logistics and financial data associated behind the procurement, it's all classified

@@Maax1200 By now the US pay about the same for the F-35 as the price is supposed to be for the Gripen E.

When it is about fighter jets trust is called "thrust".

Yeah what a crap. No intersting information and generic videos with music. Such a wow :-/

@@ludviglarsson1702 Such a no...

You jumped from Gripen vs F-35 to the American military industrial complex. lol -did you get your panties in a bung?

They're not beholden, they simply can't develop aircraft that are as good, so they buy the better aircraft from the US. It's not that hard to understand. Well maybe for a Canadian it's difficult.

​@@matthewhunter6421 Exactly. You'd think he's just another rendition of russian active measures, trying to sway public and political opinions to generate controversy among fellow NATO countries. Its ok for the US to have NATO/WESTERN/AUKUS countries buy planes that are not US made. In fact, for certain missions, they should if it doesn't require the tech carried in US planes.

​@@matthewhunter6421Americans planes cant take an actual invasion war because they are hangar queens that cant take off from standard roads. Gripen can do that. For us Swedes the choice is simple. Also Gripen C and E have the best EWS in the world and have made conventional stealth obsolete.

​@andersmalmgren6528 don't need to do that when we can fly half way around the globe and back without stopping

The hour price is what will kill the F35, simply too expensive to run. Also the size of the ground crew matters.

Really? And what fantasy island you from then? Explain to me how that would be possible that a F35 costs 8 times more per hour to run? F35: 13k per hour Gipen: 8k per hour I mean, do you think Norway, Swiss, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands and more are not going to take that issue into account? I mean, if you buy a aircraft of similar capacity from Airbus, and then one from Boeing, do you think they’re going to be a significant difference in per hour flight cost? No, there is not. Why would there be? You can go buy say a mid sized truck from vendor A, and then one from B - again, the per hour costs are going to be similar. I mean, why would a F35 cost more then say a F15, F18 ? Answer: A F35 does not. I suspect, you have ZERO clue as to how this works. This would suggest you never owned anything, bought anything, and then had to maintain something in your life. But, I can help you out. AND NO NO NO, the F35 cost is NOT 33k per hour compared to 8k for the Gripen. Lets address the cost per hour quote. Do you folks really think that Swiss, or Finland would by a aircraft that costs over a whopping 3 times per hour to run? Do you think the Swiss are that crazy? Answer, they are not crazy! Go buy a mid size Ford car and then about the same from GM - guess what - they will both cost VERY close to the same per hour to run. Go buy a aircraft from Airbus - same size, same passenger rating from Boeing. Guess what? they both will cost VERY close to the same per hour to run. You can't just pull numbers out of the air WIITHOUT using your brain!!! So, lets clear this up. There are two cost numbers being floated around. The lower cost does not include air base labor costs, and does not include other aircraft costs. This lower and OFTEN quoted number is quite much a air base consume cost per hour. So, lets go to the office of USA air force accounting. Not some blog, not some news article, but the Air office of accounting, and pull the numbers. You get these numbers: *_Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Management and Comptroller: Year 2022_* Air force: per hour rates: F-16C $10,866 F-16D $10,782 F-15C $23,537 F-15D $23,564 F-15E $18,799 F-15EX $16,467 F-22 $50,334 F-35A $13,185 (we can’t mix and match Navy numbers - they calculate their costs somewhat different (and you can’t pull numbers from one quote and compare to another - apples and oranges: Navy: AV-8B 17,094 (Harrier) FA-18C 21,288 FA-18D 23,137 FA-18E 16,742 FA-18F 17,838 F-35B 13,307 F-35C 12,498 Ok, so now we have a bucket of brain reality here!!!!! So, we see: F-16D $10,782 F-35A $13,185 And Gripen? Well, they state $8,000 per hour - don't really know if they can be less cost per hour then f16's. So, UNTIL we get a real nation doing real quotes - we are some what speculating here. Now what about the current 33k per hour quote for the F35? Well, SURE, but you THEN GET 30k per hour for the F16!!! And you get as high as 39k per hour for the F15!!!!!! So, these lower costs for example do not include air base labor costs. Why? Well, they can sleep all day, play ping pong, march to the band, or put gas in a F16, or a F35. They get paid either way. As a result, MOST quotes do NOT include these costs, since that is a fixed cost - and occurs regardless. so, what people are doing here? Well, they go google F16 cost and then go google F35 cost - but THEN pull two VERY DIFFERENT quotes!!! If I was to do that with F16? then I would get this: F16: $30,000 per hour F35: $13,000 per hour How on earth does that make sense for compare???? You have to have some real brain freeze to thing that the F35 costs OVER 3 times per hour compared to say a F18, or a F15, or even F16. In fact, the F35 costs less then a F18, or F15 - and it would, since it is a single engine aircraft. Why would a F35 cost any much more (or less) then similar fighters? (answer: NO REASON exists - and above numbers show this!!!). Think people - think about what you read!!! Now, for those having difficult with the above? For those that need to see this with their own eyes??? I can't post public office USA links on YT (required by law for USA PUBLIC reporting laws). For some crazy reason, YT does not allow such links!!! However, you can find the direct links to the government accounting site in the description of this video - that is the source of above: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CFAyMi_PJ5o.html So, if you thought it was crazy that the Swiss and say Finland would buy an aircraft that cost 3 times per hour to run? Well, you would be 100% correct, but as the above shows - THEY DID NOT DO THAT!!!! Those governments are not that stupid - the idea that such a VAST VAST cost difference hour would be ignored here? I not sure what is worse - the ability to people to think this is possible that one fighter would cost 3x per hour, or worse people thinking that government are that stupid to ignore this issue? Really, it is high time that people start trusting their own minds - a few seconds of thought on the above should easy make one realize that the claim of one aircraft being 33k per hour, and the other only be 8k per hour? Truly insane to think so - it just is! the only public quote I can find for the Gripen. From the failed 2012 Swiss competition in which the Gripen won, but then to be overturned by public referendum ? In those documents, we find per hour quote of about $26,000 per hour, but that was in 2012 dollars. In 2023 dollars, that is over 30k per hour. however, if you REALLY think that the Gripen is a whopping 8x per hour to run? Then by all means give the readers here a break-down of the per hour costs, and we can compare WHERE and HOW the Gripen is so much less per hour to run. We can start with these numbers: Cost Element F35 per hour F16 per hour Unit Level Manpower 8,000 10,000 Unit Operations 5,000 6,000 Maintenance 11,000 6,000 Sustaining Support 3,000 2,000 Continues Systems Support 2,000 2,000 ---- ---- 29,000 26,000 2022 CPI indexed: F16 - 30,383 F35 - 33,888 so, now, give everyone here the above break-down for the per hour costs of the Gripen, and THEN we can figure out WHAT cost metric exists that allows the Gripen to save more money then every other fighter jet on planet earth.

Its a good budget choice. Its specifications looks quite similiar to other low budget jets the phillipines use. And the early versions that the Phillipines buy are cheaper to operate than Gripen E. So its a good start. It can bomb terrorists and fly fighter missions. But Gripen E is of course a much better version than the older Gripens that the Phillipines wanted. And with Gripen will the Phillipines get a plane that can carry Nato ammunition of all types plus Swedish munitions like anti-ship missiles to send a Chinese invasion fleet to the bottom of the sea. And the since this plane can be refueled and refill its ammunition in only 5-15 minutes will it be able to fly a crazy high amount of missions per day that can compensate for the superiority in numbers that an enemy like China. China have more planes, but with Gripen you can fly each plane two or three times as often per day. And Gripen is cheap so you can buy many of them. The low cost per flight hour also allows pilots to get more training than what they would with another fighter jet. So I think it is a good choice.

That's a great fit, I don't think the USA expects the Phillipines to be on the edge of the AO vs China, more like behind it as support just in case some help is needed. And, if not already integrated with F-35 target relays, when it gets it, its definitely going to have a place in the battlefield along side missions for the F-16 with sidewinder9x taking out cruise missiles that get through the first defensive salvo walls.

Low-high mix? The F35 isn't *that* bad IMO!

@@ludviglarsson1702 Obviously, the F-35 would be the highly capable but expensive plane, while Gripen would be the low, which is cheaper and more available.

@@jakobholgersson4400 I think my comment flew over your head ...

@@ludviglarsson1702f-35 is better than the gripen but way more harder to operate

@@jakobholgersson4400 The F-35 isn't expensive to purchase. It may cost more to fly but it's likely more capable. And even if it cost 2-3 times more in its lifespan you need to consider what efficiency you get from either plane during that time. F-35 is supposed to be around until 2070, how long for Gripen E? And if you are going to replace Gripen E because of losses or because it's outdated how do the economics look then?

39 UNITS... a mix of C/D platforms then a much larger squadron of the latest and greatest GRIPE E's soon thereafter 🇵🇭🛡🤲🏾💪🏾⚔️📈

Kahit surface to air missile ayos lang...kung stealth yan ayos kung hindi wag nalang....

Just order them and send the bill to the Marcos family. They have stolen enough taxes to buy 750 of them. (30^9/40^6=750)

@@GD-kx7dh you should back your accusations with EVIDENCE. Otherwise, shut up.

@@HaggiyoPilipinas oh ok, so they're not corrupt? Paying people 500P for a vote. Just ask around and you'll find plenty of people who accepted that bribe there's your evidence

Ask a pilot. 😮

@@mattejohansson6724 specifically any pilot that drives an F-35. There is no comparison.

@@snostorm100 great plain👍But old. The new D is something eles. Like The sub you didn't find. Best regards. Same team.

Eh no its not

​@@snostorm100well Yes it is lol

You need human capital to invent and produce. Sweden busy lowering their capital via immigration and not having natives reproduce.

Gripen can fool the enemy into thinking they are approaching several enemies when there in fact is only one. Its just one high tech capibillity the Gripen has.

£ 4 £ Typhoon is the best value fighter .....Also looks pretty bad ass which never hurts

$26 billion per year is more than Sweden.

FAF disagreed with that assessment though.

Imagine saying that 😂 NGAD is now flying seems like the experts know it’s working well.

why would Sweden allow a plant in Canada? That is not how arms trade works.

@@neckreth The original Gripen bid for Canada included a technology transfer and manufacturing in Canada. Trade agreements take many forms, and technology transfer where you build in that country and share the technology is one of those options. It’s also used a lot in defence contracts.

Yeah, it wants Super Hornet. Two engines in Canada can save lives.

License production for a large order is likely the best solution as swedens production capacity is being stretched by massive military orders across the industry.

@@wathaet1386 Also getting jobs into your country, some techbase, maybe some local development of trainers, civilian craft, etc. And some money STAYS in your economy. Always good for reelection

Forget costs. What are you trying to achieve and against who? Then maybe you can find the plane that's more ideal. If you want to win WW3, then its the F-35 with its force multiplication in being able to coordinate attack schemes, guide munitions to targets fired by drones and F-15EX Advanced eagles from stand-off ranges. And if push comes to shove, she'll carry two B61 gravity bombs supported by additional stealth air measures to deliver nuclear payloads. One F-35 that gets through is game over for the intended target. I sure hope our adversaries know and consider carefully what they do. Our kindness and willingness to partner for mutual prosperity with adversaries is going to change forever. We tried to be cool, let them in and now they want to call the shots and toss our agreements. ok.

@@jerryoftheriver Oooohhh, a data link... wait, the Gripen's one is a tad better than Link16. Nuclear capable? With freefall nukes? Please...

@@karlvongazenberg8398I wouldn't be so offended, it was a joke to compare a Gripen(4th gen) to an F-35(5th gen), while there are some arguments to made about its efficacy in missions where the F-35 is not needed. As many have noted in the comments, this is all marketing hype. And, yes, nuclear capable. Why do find that hard to believe? The F-15 is nuclear capable as well.

That's a lot of effort you put into this reply. I'm a Gripen fan myself and although I think the F-35 is the best a2a fighter and all around attack aircraft currently in production, I didn't think it was the best fit for Canada. I've never seen any info regarding the cross-section of the Gripen other than it is "pretty good" compared to some of the other fighters you mention. The numbers look very low. It is going to be interesting to see what Canada ends up doing in regards to northern facilities to accommodate the F-35s, the cost of which aren't included in the purchase price.

That actually flip the Gripen has between peace mode and war mode. I wonder what that does do to the already impressing EW suit ?

RCS figures are without payload. Once you hang weapons off it the RCS goes up. Not so for F35 as it has an internal weapons bay.

"The Gripen is made to take off and land from normal car roads" you know the F35 can takeoff straight up like a helicopter right?, no need for any road att all.......

@@kaffekasken3975 Yes, so in lets say in 8-hours how many mission turn arounds can it do ? One ? It takes 2-3 F35 for every Gripen...

😂😂❤

Hangar Queen is the name often used to describe the F35.

​@@strikebr F35 is literally the only aircraft that can be effective against modern defence network.

Funny, becuase its cheaper than Gripen XD

Yes the initial cost might be lower for F 35 due to government subsidies.But operational costs are much much higher. Ask norway. :=)@@oneautumnleaf9293

Massive tactical deck at their disposal :)

And 1/10th as effective.

@@MultiVeetaNope. Discussed this w an american major. F35 does not stand a chance against the new E version. Only F22 is equal.

More important...better!

@@Ubbie-sj2vd you haven't got a clue, the GripenE has a tiny radar and no stealth. It would be dead before it knew there was an F35 around. The F35 can penetrate the most sophisticated radar networks and destroy them, the Gripen is a light fighter barely an improvement on a blk50 F16. Weak payload, weak radar, weak engines, the only thing it is really good at is turning circles. Even between EF Typhoon, Rafale and GripenE. Gripen comes last. There is reason why it is the cheapest. In a performance evaluation of F35, GripenE and F/A18 by the Finnish Airforce they scored the F35 muchmuch higher than the other 2 choices. The other 2 had the same score each, GripenE and F/A18 were equal. Finland obviously purchased F35. All US pilots of F16, F18 pilots chose the F35 over their aircraft for 100% of situations The F15 pilots chose the F35 for 85% of the situations.

@@MultiVeeta Correct, well said. Grippen fanboys are annoying. It's a good jet but over the vast skies of Canada the jet with first look and shoot in a BVR environment will have a BIG advantage. F-35 outranges Grippen's sensors and radar by quite a bit, let alone its much reduced RCS will hide it far better.

The main shortcoming of the F-35 for Australia is combat radius. Only just over 1000 km, internal fuel (ie, with stealth). Not nearly enough for the huge spaces of our north, especially with Indonesia running Su-35's with twice that range. So the RAAF will be running it with external fuel, which trashes stealth, and, I'm told, badly affects aerodynamic performance. Not a good look.

Bulldust. This Australian sees them flying quite often despite not living close to a base where they are permanently stationed.

@dar7914 Glad to hear it. At the moment, they are based at Williamstown, north of Sydney. Where do you live, Newcastle?

@@puffin51 No, Northern Adelaide. They seem to spend time around Edinburgh periodically through the year, usually one or two at a time. Given Edinburgh doesn't have fighters based at it, I'm inclined to believe the 50-60 F-35s Australia currently have must be spending a fair bit of time out of their hangers at Williamstown. None are based at Tindal yet? I thought no. 75 Squadron had received some F-35s?

@@bluecedar7914 Tindal can operate one squadron of F-35's, after 500 million dollars was spent on upgrades, but it is unclear whether full maintenance can be carried out there, yet. The facilities required are very elaborate. Further upgrades, costed at 1.5 billion, are expected to be completed in 2026.

Refuse a fellow NATO member ? Turkey is in NATO and US Wont sell it F35s

Says who?

@@hemligx-sson8202 RBS 15B Croatia homeland war

Gripen E has longer range then F35.

@@ghostviggenExactly, som find their facts in their ar***s. Gripen E maximum range 4000 km. The F 35 2500 km!

@@ghostviggen Huh? what range you talking about? fuel tank size: Fuel capacity (fuel tank size): Harrier 7,000 lbs F16 - 7000 lbs Gripen39E/F - 7,500 lbs Rafale 10,362 lbs F18 - 10,860 lbs Typhoon - 11,000 lbs F15 - 13,455 lbs F/A-18E: 14,700 lb F35 - 18,498 lbs Which of the above do you think going to have better range? Hum? On internal fuel, we get this: Gripen Jas39 E/F - 431 n miles (range = 862 n miles) (1596 km) F35 - 760 n miles (range = 1520 n miles) (2815 km) Now, you can put external fuel tanks on the Gripen, but it has a REALLY but REALLY poor power to weight rating. In fact, with JUST a fuel tank load of 5,000 lbs, the Gripen now weighs MORE then total engine thrust, and thus can't even fly straight up on engine power alone! (are you kidding me????). So let me get this correct then? We are being told that small lightweight fighter like the Gripen makes sense? How on earth does a small little fighter with a VERY small fuel tank of 7,500 lbs make ANY sense for Canada? Gripen fuel tank: 7,500 lbs F35: fuel tank: 18,500 lbs You mean a SMALL lightweight fighter with JUST 5,000 lbs payload now on engine power can't even fly straight up? What are people smoking here? Really? But I mean Really really? This SILLY attempt to pawn off a smaller class of aircraft HAS to stop - it is utter nonsense. So, the problem with these smaller (and less cost) airframes, is they tend to have low power. So, if you start adding bombs, or more fuel and try to make a pretend I am a larger aircraft? It just does not work well at all. if nations could buy and swap a lower cost light weight fighter to do the same job as a mid-range fighter? Then THEY ALL would make that choice. But the Swiss make a good evaluation (say like above numbers!!!), and went with F35 over Gripen. Finland also looked at above, and AGAIN went with F35 over Gripen. So did Belgium, Netherlands, and Norway - all went with F35? but, if someone can explain to me that with our Country being rather large, 3rd largest in the world, that a small light weight fighter with a tiny fuel tank of 7,500 lbs makes sense? But MUCH WORSE IS putting only 5,000 lbs of fuel in that tank, the aircraft is now heaver then engine power? With JUST 5,000 lbs payload, the Gripen now weighs MORE than total engine power. At that payload, the Gripen does not even have enough engine power to fly (sustain) straight up flight. Yet we are somehow to pretend this is a mid-range fighter, load up with fuel for longer range, and ignore the low power and thrust that occurs when you do this? Canada can go with a cheaper and lower lightweight class of fighters, but at least let’s admit we are doing so, and this SILLY attempt to pawn off a lower and smaller fighter as a mid-range fighter like the F35? Beyond stupid and irresponsible.

@@Albertkallal You wrote all that and missed lift and drag???

@@ghostviggen sure, let's do indeed talk about lift and drag, shall we? As long as we realize that the Gripen can't even fly straight up on engine power with a low payload of just 5,000 lbs? Then I think we in good company. so, for reference, here is a power to weight (thrust to weight rating of the F35 and some fighters). Fuel or Payload Rafale F35 F16 Gripen 0 1.4137 1.3984 1.4784 1.2617 700 1.3737 1.3672 1.4284 1.2130 2500 1.2806 1.2932 1.3141 1.1035 3500 1.2341 1.2555 1.2581 1.0508 3750 1.2230 1.2464 1.2449 1.0384 5000 1.1704 1.2028 1.1826 0.9805 6000 1.1314 1.1701 1.1371 0.9387 7000 1.0950 1.1391 1.0950 0.9003 7500 1.0777 1.1242 1.0751 0.8822 9125 1.0249 1.0784 1.0151 0.8283 10362 0.9880 1.0459 0.9737 0.7914 12000 0.9431 1.0058 0.9239 0.7474 13500 0.9055 0.9718 0.8825 0.7111 15000 0.8707 0.9399 0.8447 0.6782 18250 0.8038 0.8776 0.7729 0.6165 20900 0.7564 0.8325 0.7228 0.5739 So, from above we find: That a F16 has to burn payload down to a rather low 3,500 lbs to match the t/w of the F35. the dual engine Rafale fairs even worse, down to a bone dry 700 lbs. And the gripen? Well, not only is it deal last, but matches neither the F16 or Rafale, let alone the F35. And note in above, the F35 is the ONLY fighter that remains with a t/w rating of over 1:1 with a 10,000 lbs payload. That means the F35 can still fly straight up on engine power, and can do so with 11,000 or even 12,000 lbs payload. the Gripen? As the above table shows, with just 5,000 lbs, the fighter now weighs more then total engine power and can't fly straight up. And you note that as we increase payloads, things shift even more in favor of the F35. But, you asked about lift and drag? How about we look at lift first then, shall we? You get this astounding table: Gripen (39E/F) - 18, 739 lbs F16 - 20,000 lbs Typhoon - 27,800 lbs F18 - 28,900 lbs Rafael - 31,300 lbs Su57 - 37,320 lbs Su35 - 38,139 lbs F15 - 40,000 lbs F35 - 49,540 lbs Above figures are max takeoff - empty weight. Looking at above, which fighter again is dead last? Hum? In fact, so high is the above F35 number, we have to wonder if Lockheed invented a anti-gravity machine! While all fighters use lifting body effects, it is clear that Lockheed skunkworks pulled off a aerodynamic miracle of the century, given that above shows the F35 WELL ahead of even a F15 - and that is beyond astounding! As I stated, you can't take a smaller lightweight fighter and "pretend" you are in the big boy leagues ...... So, how you going to get any range and speed and payload out of the Gripen? Well, you can't!!! Try to get some range, and all performance (and power to weight) drastic goes out the window. with a tiny fuel tank of 7,500 lbs, then you have to start putting wing tanks on the wings. That means you trading out weapon stations, increasing drag, and out goes your power to weight rating. And what about operational speeds? You see, the top Mach 1.6 rating for the F35 is not engine speed limited, but that of software (they can fly faster then 1.6 based on their engine power). More so, by flying clean wings, then you increase operational speeds. During red flag, tail drag and more war games? When F16's and F18's are fuel bingo? (low on fuel, return to base), the F35's were able to stay out longer and execute additional sorties. This is due to the ability of flying with clean wings - and a larger internal fuel tank. This both saves fuel, increases speed and range. When groups of F16's fly with F35's? They start to fall behind, have to punch into AB's to catch back up, and then start to fall behind, only having to repeat the process again and again. you do realize that a F16 on full AB's will consume HALF of its fuel tank in less then 3 minutes! - now you low on fuel, having to return to base. The F35 has MUCH higher mil power then a F16 (or Gipen) for that matter. The result? More range, more speed, and with clean wings? A HIGHER operational speed is obtained. Hence we find these real world quotes about the f16 compared the to F35: pilot Lt. Col. Hank “Hog” Griffiths *_Even when loaded internally with two 2,000lb GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, Griffith says the sheer power of the Pratt & Whitney F135 is evident. “The engine has a lot of thrust. It’s been fun to outrun the F-16 (chase aircraft). They can’t keep up. If we go to full military power the F-16 has to go to afterburner to keep up_* Norway pilots ALSO note the same - they flew F16's, and are now flying F35's. quote: *_We who fly the F-35 daily, can establish the following: The aircraft is faster, more maneuverable, has more range and, can carry a significantly higher payload and provides the pilot with a significantly better situational awareness than what we are used to from the F-16_* Col De Smit - RNLAF Quote: *_F35 climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16_* QUOTE: *_Compared to the F-16, the F-35A with “full war equipment” can cruise 10-15k feet higher without afterburner and cruise 50-80 knots faster, all of this additional energy is imparted on missiles_* Quote: *_In full war gear, the F-35 operates effortlessly 10,000 to 15,000 feet higher than our F-16s can, without using an afterburner. The speed of the "cruise" is easily 50 to 80 knots higher. In F-16 I have to use afterburner and take running speed before a missile shot."_* The F-35A’s are currently defeating F-16s in close combat by using their advantages in acceleration, AoA & yaw, coupled with their solid capabilities in turn, pitch & roll and a HIGHER power to weight. The Gripen is in the same boat as the F16. Try to load it up with fuel or a proper payload? You fly slower, and have less range then the F35, and you have MUCH worse power to weight. As I stated, you can't turn a smaller and lighter weight fighter like the Gipen into a mid range sized fighter like the F35. Every nation in the world has attempted this magic trick and failed. With the Gripen price tag of 85 million vs the F35 at 77.8 million? A really hard sales job is needed, and the Gripen's higher price tag combined with its MUCH LOWER overall capacity as a fighter is why the Gipen is losing out in competition after competition to the F35. Load up the Gripen with good fuel for range, and a good weapons payload, and you not even close to the performance and range of the F35.

Why?

But if they somehow managed to merge the gripen would win no doubt

What the Government admit it was wrong Never Happen

I believe Mr. Chrétien paid over a BILLION dollars to back out of a helicopter purchase for replacements for the then falling out of the sky Sea Kings.

They'd never admit they were wrong, but the Previous Government is open season@@Karl-Benny - see above.

Love Mexico, but you can't deny the backdoor our adversaries use to reach Canada through Mexico. Mexico has become so significant on the world stage that its being used to stage 2nd/3rd world dissension to the Western world order. We are not unaware of the vast swaths of foreigners camping there now with bad intentions for the West, much like how many Palestinians started filling up the states here and there with small pockets to push their concerns politically when they see fit. Oh, but they've been super quiet for years and now when terrorist from their own side go and do unspeakable things to the Israelis and then complain about the Palestinian plight and dissent from the majority of Democrats on what Biden is doing. Yes; its that bad here with certain groups and their agenda, that they would rather ignore their own atrocities while Blaming Biden for not doing more when he's doing just fine given the scope and number of issues going on geopolitically that are FAR, FAR, FAR more important to the USA's national security. You had your chance and sat quiet until now? We're done with you. So yes, Mexico needs visas going into the USA, as USA is required to enter the EU.

It’s called Gripen E and is superior to the F 35 in almost all aspects. Much higher top speed and climb rate. Can super cruise fully armed. Have a superior radar and EV suite.

??? What elektronik is older in Saab gripen E??? F35 VS METRO MISSILE OOOCH

The engine in Gripen is based on the GE F414 but is much updated. The electronics in Gripen E is more modern than the electrics in F35.

For Canada, the F15 I think was a potential choice. If Canada was looking to JUST procure a fighter for our nation only? Then yes, the F15 could make sense. However, the issue is high cost of the F15 and the high cost per hour to run. F35: 77.8 million per unit. F15 88 million per unit, with combat package 125 million. So, most nations can't afford a high end dual engine fighter like a Eurofighter or F15 at 120 million each. So, most nations go with a lower cost single engine fighter, say like a F16 or F35 at 80 million each. And the per hour running cost of the F35 is less then the F15. They run as high as 39k per hour vs that of the F35 at 33k per hour. the other issue? Well, Canada use of their fighters tends to NOT be for Canada, but that of NATO commitments. And the F15 is not able to enter a contested airspace with any remote ability compared to the F35. So, looking at our fighter deployments such as gulf war etc.? Then our pilots are being placed in harms way not due to Canada, but that of having to participate in NATO operations, and thus hands down the F35 is a better choice. So, while F15's are larger and more expensive dual engine fighters? They could work well for Canada. Fuel tank size: F15: 13,455 lbs F35: 18,500 lbs So, the F35 on internal fuel has quite a bit more range. F15: 540 n mile (range = 1080 n miles) (2000 km) F35 - 760 n miles (range = 1520 n miles) (2815 km) So, you can start to trade wing stations from weapons to external fuel tanks, but they are a pain on the ground to deal with. You want to launch 20 F15's, then you need to roll out 40 external fuel tanks, mount them, and then fill with fuel (that means 60 fuel operations). So given that a F15 is 125 million each vs 80 million for the F35? and the F35 has the ability to enter contested airspaces which the F15 can't? then the F35 makes the most sense for Canada. As noted, if our fighters were ONLY to be used in Canada, then buying the more expensive dual engine F15 could make sense, but our NATO deployments of such fighters means that the F35 is a far better choice.

It’s superior to f35 in many ways.

How is the F-35 cheaper?

@@leftcoaster67 no Gripen is cheaper and Canada could go that way because the US would be doing the majority of Canadian Defense in a real conflict using the superior abilities of F-35 F-22 etc.

😅😂🤣

How so? Japan purchased 38 F35's. So, they bought them, flew them, maintained them. Then what happened? Well, Japan is well known for making good military purchases. So, they came back to Lockheed and asked for the largest single order - can we in Japan please have a whopping 100 more!!!! You don't buy a fighter, fly it, maintain it, and THEN come back and ask for a 100 more if you think the F35 is a bad choice.... And what issues you talking about? If there was ANY issue in the F35, then pilots and nations would not be lined up around the block to buy the F35. It is the best selling fighter in 40 years, and by a country mile. Cleary these nations don't agree with your assessment, do they? A few years ago, a pilot did not strap on his mask correctly - had a o2 issue. They grounded the WHOLE fleet for 3 days, until they determined what the issue was (and as a result, all F35's were cleared to fly again). The point? Well, one tiny little issue can and will ground a WHOLE fleet if the pilots have ANY little issue with the fighter in question. So, if there are "some issues" with the F35, they can't be serious, since we KNOW that one tiny little trouble issue, and they are willing to ground the whole fleet of F35's. So, the issues you speak of must be rather minor then, right?

@@Albertkallal a very basic, if not biased view, full of stereotypes and oblivious of facts, but by any mean! And btw, I agree to your point of view that Russia is a democracy!

@@philippesails4973 Gee, I can't read your mind - what facts you speak of that I supplied here that you disagree with?

Well Depends what type you buy because they do have vertical take off and landing

Neither F35 nor Gripen E. Gripen C was in Libya during the so called “Arab spring”.

@rickrick196 Maby you should do some research before you spout nonsens.