Just wanna pitch in and say that the Gripen version in DCS is the Charlie and the Echo / Foxtrot has a much better engine, radar, ecm suite and fire control system.
40% more internal fuel, 20% more thrust; the meteor has two-way communication and can be redirected/reacquire from any Gripen or AWACS in the mission, Super-cruise, Mach 2, Active Stealth, Infrared scan, etc
Costs a heck of a lot more too. By the sounds of it the Echo and Foxtrot models are effectively new planes in the way that the Super Hornet is an F-18 in name only.
hello! I hope you realize the plane in the game is the C variant which is a totally different aircraft. Different engine, different cockpit (Wide area display in the E, like the F-35) different fuel consumption and load, different electric warfare capabilities, no supercruise, no IRST, no AESA radar, yes even the airframe on the E is actually more than 1 meter longer than the C. It also has less hardpoints. The Gripen is also built in a way to allow future MS upgrades over time, the size doesn't matter. And for your info, the Gripen E is like 30cm shorter than the F-35 but it's actually taller in height. The F-35 has a much larger wingspan but the overall size difference isn't massive. I don't want to express any negativity or end up receiving hate but it is very obvious that you haven't done any proper research. To make things more understandable for others with less enthusiasm, it's like you're using a F-16A block 15 to properly simulate a F-16C Block 52 without even (from what I found) commenting on the issue. A tip on how to make future video titles more fitting could be naming them something like "JAS 39C vs F-35A flight model comparison" since I'm afraid that's the only thing you're getting from this. And as an appetizer I have a quick question, did you do any modifications to the C mod before doing tests like the Fuel endurance and the climb rate since for example the 39E is capable of supercruise at Mach 1,2*, which in theory should get you further. And it's a bit suspicious since sources point that the Gripen E has a longer range (by quite afar, but I can't confirm these though since it's both classified on the F-35 and the 39E so it's just talks and shouldn't be taken too serious.) Have a wonderful Friday and anyone are allowed to comment on this but don't spread any negativity on any of the three aircraft cheers.
Sigh. 1. No variant of the Gripen has supercruise or ever did. Reaching Mach 1.1* with afterburner is not supercruise and that was with the 1 ton lighter Gripen NG. Actual supersonic speeds begin at Mach 1.3, while mach 1.1-1.2 is transonic. You also need to reach said speed without afterburner and no variant of the Gripen has ever managed that. 2. No source says Gripen E has longer range. It only does so when using external fuel tanks and the F-35 goes on internal fuel.
The Gripen E definitely does not have the longer range. Also, If you take every fighter aircraft for the US, 5th Gen thru teen series, and every eurocanard and every frontline fighter of Russia and China, The Gripen E has the 2nd worst overall thrust, Gripen C is "first worst" If you take all the T/W at 100 percent short of reheat with the empty weight, the Gripen E is all the way at the bottom of the heap, behind even Gripen C this time. Somehow its going to "super cruise." No 😂
The ai clearly does not know how to use stealth planes. In the daytime, you would want to stay 10+ miles away from enemy planes. That would negate R73 missiles. You would also remain subsonic. Flying fast, especially supersonic, heats up leading edges of the plane. Also, the absence of awacs hurts the f-35 a bunch. SA without radar emissions is key to how fat-Amy would fight. This is massively out of sync with how this fight would go down.
Both F35 and Gripen has the option to let some plane stand back and act as awacs and use the radar of that plane to target what the closer ones shoots at.
Just saying that the gripen mod in dcs is an old gripen C model and not an E thats written in the template. The E model have integrated improved ecm module but yeah still a fun video and fun to watch and good job as allways with your videos ☺️👍
@@Hunter.Sweden I have only just started getting interested in this aircraft recently thanks to the Gripen Community Mod. The more I learn about it the more impressed I am. I'm from Australia and Gripen was a contender to replace the Hornet. It went up against several different fighters, of course the F-35 was one of them and it was chosen. I think that choice was pretty stacked against everything else on the table... According to the government document I read, the Gripen was extensively argued for by F-35 critics in the government. I think we should cut our F-35 order in half or even down to 1/3rd and replace with Gripen E, if that variant is available to us. It would be the best of both worlds: Max stealth stand-off capability in the F-35 combined with the aggressive visual range abilities of Gripen would make an effective combination.
@@F22Raptor33 maybe on the training yes, but the maintenance on Gripen is supposed to be cheaper. As is the initial purchase cost. Although that's for the C variant. I've heard talk that the Gripen E is more expensive to buy, operate and, I guess by extension, maintain as well. When compared to the old F/A-18 the Gripen C variant would still be a very capable and modern aircraft to support the more technically advanced F-35. So then the extra money saved by buying half or 2/3rd of a fleet of Gripen over the F-35 could be put towards training. But I'm not a military finance analyst, so it's probably not that simple.
I love the premise of these war games since, at the end of the day, modern planes are good, all of them are. But what really counts is how well they can do a mission. I really hope this turns into a series of its own. However,, some complaints. I think the SAM test was a bit unfair , because nobody would fly non stealth planes in parade formation over an active SAM site. (I hope) I think not even the F-35 would be used that way. I think you should give the planes every advantage they can get, because in a real mission, they would use the tactics best suited for their plane. So the missions should be a bit more realistic, and perhaps more challenging too. And it should be the same for all planes, but the planes should be free to take advantage of their strengths. It will be interesting to see what different tactics planes will use. On the same note, the ability to take off from smaller airfields and even roads, is a major thing. (especially if your airfield just got bombed and now you are low on fuel) So I'd like to see some test to put that capability to the test. It is a capability that changes how an air force operates and deploys their planes. As for weapons load out, uhmmm, I don't know. I think maybe you are right to consider what weapons they have access to, but on the other hand, buying a new plane and keep using inferior missiles seems a bit daft. I'm sure after the plane purchase has gone though, they will then buy the right missiles and bombs for the plane. So maybe go on that assumption. But then again, I know nothing. I just want to see a better series and I hope you consider my suggestions. ♥
One thing the Gripen has over the F-35 is that Saab has talked about bulding the Gripens in Canada and there is also the potential for building them under license like in Brazil.
This is really big factor for me as a Canadian who does jobs. There is also the small matter of the billions Canada has already invested in the f35 as well as the Canada jobs already in place making f35 associated bits.
Also Canada is being allowed access to the avionics and electronics so they can customize it for their own needs. Something the US is not allowing with the F-35 for "security" reasons.
@@rosmond1841 F-35 Canada jobs won't be lost if Canada buys the Gripen. They will continue to make parts for the F-35 to sell to all the other countries that the USA tricks/pressures into buying it. In fact there will be more jobs, as Canadians build parts for both planes, and maybe build entire Gripens in Canada.
@@angelarch5352 Also, Gripen already has a current network of Canadian suppliers and partners. A big factor for me is the Cost Per Flight Hour. Lightning ~ $33k- $43k USD. Gripen ~ $8k USD!!!
Personally I think we should have gotten F15 X's just because Canada is such a huge country. 4000 NMi of range, supercruise capability, and twin engines would have been useful in the second biggest country in the world where airports can be few and far between, especially up north.
@@bradcraig10 No Boeing started it by getting US regulators to prohibite the purchase of Bombardie's new passenger jet in the US citing the Canadian government gave Bombardie to much money....which is rich. How much has the US given Boeing over the years?😂😂
There are so many small reasons that the F-35 is better, from the hyper advanced HMCS to the advanced avionics. The diagnostic system onboard the F-35 is really good, it would probably be much easier to service and get it back up in the air after an incident.
One advantage for the Gripen there, is that it can land on small airfields, or even roads. So it doesn't need a big airport to refuel and rearm. Which makes me wonder why only the A model is considered, because the VTOL of the B model would make a huge difference in where it can operate.
I would love to see the a flight against the Russian carrier group with people. The F35 and Gripen's AI's were just sporadic and didnt use the jets to their abilities.
A couple corrections: 1) The Gripen-E is less expensive to procure than the F-35A, and much less expensive from a TCO standpoint due to considerably lower operating and sustainment costs. In December 2010, Saab gave an F-35 style fly-away cost to Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence: "These figures are approximate and are based on in-year Canadian dollars. The acquisition price of one Gripen, the fly-away price, is about $55 million." That's about $67.5 million (CAD) in 2021 dollars. If we use Lockheed's stated fly-away price of $77.9 million (USD) in 2021, that's about $97.8 million (CAD) at current exchange rates. Swiss Cost per Flight Hour estimates were ~$27,000/hour on the Gripen-E vs. ~$65,000/hour on F-35A (both converted from Swiss Francs to USD at the exchange rate when the announcements were made). 2) That's not a Gripen-E. That's a Czech Gripen-C. It's clearly the C from the weapons loadout screen at 6:20. It says Gripen A, gives an empty weight consistent with Gripen A/C, and is missing the 5L & 5R hardpoints that were added to Gripen-E. The cockpit is also Gripen-C, not the Elbit WAD found in Gripen-E (same supplier as the F-35 WAD). 3) Missiles should be better for both jets. Diehl Defence and MBDA are part of the Gripen for Canada team, so Gripen should have Meteor and IRIS-T missiles. Canada has already asked for quotes on AIM-120D and AIM-9X so you should give those to the F-35. The Gripen-E can fly with 2 wing tanks, 5 Meteors, and 2 IRIS-Ts. 4) Both the Gripen-E and F-35A have spherical EW and IR systems, although the Gripen can also carry the Saab Arexis escort jammer pod giving it Growler like capabilities. 5) The Gripen-E has significantly more internal fuel than the Gripen-C, and Canada has stated that the NORAD transit config can be flown with external tanks. With max tanks, and 4 missiles, the Gripen-E has a longer range than the tankless F-35A. Bonus: Gripen-Es would be made in Halifax by IMP. Saab/Bombardier GlobalEye and Swordfish jets are already made in Toronto. Canada's new Saab V-200 drones are currently being made in Alberta.
The grippen loaded down with a fuel tank and nothing else like pylons, extra tanks, and missiles does not achieve a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio. While the f35 with same fuel load out can carry 4 tons of missiles and still better than 1 to 1 ratio.
@@frankcrawford416 If you plane to fight over your air base you do not need external tanks, if you need external tanks you have time to drop them before combat. 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio is nice to have, but what practical use do it have? Its like brag, my bajonet is longer then your bajonet then compare assault rifles. If you actual engage in a bajonet fight somthing have gone horribel wrong.
If Gripen E is so cheap then why has it been offered to India for $126M per aircraft not including weapons? Also, if a Gripen E needs max tanks to outrange an F-35 then why not just put tanks on the F-35 and have even more range?
@@trolleriffic because external tanks completely ruin the stealth capabilities of any stealth aircraft and besides that, there have yet to be any external tanks certified for the F-35.
Not adopting the F-35 would be a big mistake for Canada. The F-35 is more than just an airframe, it includes technologies that are way ahead what the grippen can provide. The situational awareness the pilot gets thanks to the sensor fusion cannot be seen in that video. F-35's Radar system are way ahead than grippens. Pilot visibility is superior on the F-35 and one than that. It is American technology which it has proven again and again superior. The grippen is cheap yes. But it's not a superior fighter. It can carry same missiles as the F-35 but it does not have the sensor fusion and cockpit technologies the F-35 has.
@@Karl-Benny The other way around. gripen is a plane made of different components many of them made in the US. But I know you swedes are desperate to sell your toy. the F-35 is so ahead that even your own neighbors like norway and finland chose the F-35 and they did the right thing. gripen is sukhoi food.
@@dehavillandvampire8397 Don't get but hurt. Everything time sweden doesn't get what they want it has to b politically motivated. Let's be honest. the F-35 is ahead technologically speaking. gripen cannot match it. sweden needs to swallow their pride and admit their airplane is made from American technology not the other way around. I have seen the technology of the F-35 that airplane for the future and the blue print of what's possible with sensor fusion and other techs that gives the pilot superior situational awereness.
Actually acording to thecdocuments provided by the Canadian Federal government the Gripen will have better support and software than the F-35. as Canada will be allowed to build many of the components and more importantly access to the software for the jet so Canaad can customize the software for itself. Something we are not getting from the F-35.
@@loganholmberg2295 Canada is not going to customize the software. They are going to do what every other first world country does and have the manufacture make the modifications they want. And this myth about Canada helping to build Gripens thus reducing the cost is nonsense. How many sales do you think the Gripen is going to get vs the F-35. How many Gripen E's are even in service today? 20? Vs how many F-35s?
The f-35 cost does not include the 500,000 USD cost of the F-35's helmet, each one is tailored to each pilot. The Gripen uses a cheaper modular system like those used in the F-16, F/A-18, A-10 and F-15's. There is also an entire suite of F-35 specific tools,testing and support equipment that you need to purchase. Maintenance cost per flight hour is also much (per USAF's data, it's between 27,000 - 30,000 USD per flight hour in 2020 and LM promises to bring it down to 25,000 per flight hour by 2025 if LM is given an exclusive supply and maintenance contract. Somehow a single company no competition contract does not seem to be the way to get the best price. Note that the F-35 is at it's lowest maintenance schedule at this point with every part being zero time, heck I don't think they've had a single scheduled engine replacement yet. Compared to the F-16C block 50 which at this point is at the highest point in it's maintenance cycle with multiple parts needing replacement, this plane is at about 20,000 [er flight hour. So right now the same level as the F-15E, making it the 2nd or 3rd most expensive tactical jet to keep in the air, Behind the F-22 and F-15E. Multiply that by the plane's service life. It's significant enough that the USAF has said as far back as 2016 that it's going to substitute sim pod flight hours in place of actual flight hours in order to keep the cost down and minimize the flight hours on the jets.
It would be weird not to include the helmet in the cost since it's part of the aircrafts sensor suite - It would be like not including the cockpit in the JAS-39:s cost!
@@Hairysteed Sometimes the cost of the radar and engine are not included either because when the cost is reported, the radar and engine are in a separate funding request.
Every video with an F-35 shows the F-35 AI is substandard. This isn’t comparing the platforms. After the climb attempt it’s just comparing DCS AI’s. Only human tests from now on please Cap.
No tests are "valid" in DCS, they are only for fun, and we love to watch them! The actual specs for the F-35 and Gripen are secret, and nobody knows what they are except the pilots and crew using them. Plus both mods are faked on non-realistic flight models so it doesn't even matter if the actual specs were known.
the gripen is going to be a better option. pilots need practice. $8000 an hour for the gripen. $33,000 for the f35. im not sure how good the english airforce is but they have already said they wont be flying the f35 much as its quite fragile & will focus on simulator training instead of flying where possible. with no planes in the sky & russia knowing that canada wont deply the fleet unless totally necessarary, they will be emboldened to fly closer to canada.
I mean let’s be real. Is Canada actually preventing Russia of doing anything? Or is it the combination of the us and the United Nations. I mean Russia doesn’t give a crap look at Ukraine.
With only two F35 compatible fighter bases currently in Canada due to length, hangers, etc., we have been limited in our use for the many more bases north of 60. The best selling point is with the Gripen we can base and operate from those shorter much further north airfields. With the Gripen's STOL capabilities we can operate where only C130's went before. That puts our front line assets in the FRONT line. Inuvic, Resolute, Tuk and all the other northern airfields are thousands of KM closer to the usual intercepts. If as in the past we have to scramble from one of two southerly bases we will not make those intercepts...The list of bases the Gripen could use is 10 times longer than what an F18 or F35 could use...and hundreds of KM closer to any action. The Huge logistics trail of the F35 means they will not be able to operate in OUR north effectively. Compare that with the Gripen's ability to be serviced under austere conditions with one tech and 3 conscripts from a couple of trucks. Safety wise an emergency landing is a LOT closer for a Gripen as it can use municipal airports and roads and small strips that the F18 or F35 would not have available.
Those "airbases" in the north will never be recommissioned. The current government in Canada is useless and the Liberal leader hates the military, just like his dad did.
Yes! This right here is the final argument against the F-35. The JSF requires special handling, above and beyond conventional fighters, because of its subsystems and the radar absorbent material. It has far tighter skin damage tolerances in order to maintain effective low radar cross section. Damage that’s easily repaired in austere locations for conventional fighters, requires special training, equipment, and facilities on the F-35. It’s not cost effective for a country that doesn’t go around pissing other nations off, conducting world police duties, or getting involved in foreign entanglements on a monthly basis. Canadians don’t need a strike aircraft with air superiority as a distant secondary role. They need to focus on protecting Canadian airspace, which isn’t threatened to any great extent. It’s like a logger purchasing a Dodge Charger as a work vehicle.
Cards on the table I don't think absolute combat effectiveness is actually a very important metric for this acquisition. Canada is not going to involve itself in a war without a lot of backup. We need fighters to keep up our fighter pilot corps, participate in UN/Norad/Nato operations to maintain diplomatic relations, and produce high end aerospace jobs to stem the endless brain drain from this country. The F-35 is a better combat plane. But the Gripen will get our pilots flying more often, produce better readiness rates when inevitably underfunded, politically survive election cycles, and seed the independent rebirth of our aerospace industry.
Isn't it interesting how canada acts as a parasite on other nations? It's like playing a multiplayer game of Civilization, except you get to focus on everything but military since your neighbor will protect you.
@@Merknilash Yes and that is frustrating as an American, but at this point just settle on something and get on with it, how many decades does it take to decide?
@@Merknilash Hold on there, bud. Canada has a small population, but the military has always punched above its weight, when called upon. During WW1 we had, by far, a greater casualty rate than all the Commonwealth countries. I can't recall the number, but basically there was no old stock family left unaffected by the bitter end. Both WW1 and 2 saw vicious action, remembered for generations by the nations of enemy forces and by those liberated. Crazy Canucks are coming! Peacekeeping and Joint operations calls were answered, a high sortie rate was flown by our air force in the Gulf wars, and at least some major operations in Afganistan were led by Canada. If you mean our government hasn't kept up military spending, then yes, that's true sadly. Then again, the whole cold war NORAD strategy was to down nuclear bombers over Canada, before they could get to the U.S., lest the bombs go off on American soil from the crashing planes.
If we really want to know how the Gripen E stacks up to an F-35 on a mission to mission basis the best public knowledge comes from Finland. F-35, Super Hornet Blk III and Gripen E all competed in an open competition called HX. One of the metrics used was a general assessed and tested capability scale weighted to mission and capability sets Finland deemed it needed. From this their base line requirement was a score of 4.0 where the F-35 scored 4.4, Super Hornet Blk III 3.81 and the Gripen E listed at 3rd place with an unknown number below that of the Super Hornet Blk III. Finland is not the only Nordic/artic country to select the F-35 over the Gripen E either. Despite being neighbors with SAABs parent country (Sweden) Denmark, Norway, Finland all selected the F-35 on capability, cost and NATO integration grounds.
Denmark choice F-35 because of politics, not because it is a better aircraft. Time will tell if the decision is going to bite us in the ass when they begin delivery.
@@tituslaronius If you have evidence to consider that proves it was political I'd be interested in seeing it. However, as it stands now with how the F-35A is undefeated in competitions all on the same grounds of performance it becomes very hard to state any given one was *just* politics.
Denmark, Norway and Finland are so close to Russia that they can smell if they had beans for lunch so of course they want a stealth fighter so they have the best and most flexible options for attack as we'll as defense. Canada has other considerations. But also there's no way a f-35 is cheaper than a gripen e/f in it's life cycle cost with flight hour and maintenance so much cheaper. Also I just heard that a f16 with a jamming pod was a successful attack on a s-400 in Syria so the gripen could do that too. With long range at irradiation missiles improving the need for stealth is getting less with time.
@@rickl671 The problem is that Denmark only really have 1 airport for F-35, so that would be a super easy target. Together with the high hanger requirements of the F-35 compared to Gripen, one well placed rocket could ground the entire F-35 fleet. Gripen is promoted to be able to land, rearm, refuel and take off from a regular highway, so taking out the airport would not change much in the Gripen readyness. The reason why I say the F-35 choice is political is because the Danish government adjusted the combat readyness of the F-35 to a higher number then any other country in the world and then used that made up statistic to tell people that the F-35 would be cheaper then the Gripen, because less of them are needed.
I enjoyed this video however I want to point something out to everyone. DCS actually does a horrible job at simulating fifth generation aircraft. This may be due to the mod developers of these aircraft or with limits from dcs itself. But things such as LPOI radar isn’t simulated. The advanced ECM in both of these planes isn’t simulated (at least not to the extent they should be). The IR signature reduction isnt simulated well. Stealth isn’t simulated well as the f-35s were using external pylons and should have been shot at virtually the same time the grippens were.
Suspect that EVERY DCS provided with Grim Reapers scenario ends up with ALL the F-35s eliminated yet red flags conducted with various aircraft in different countries have yielded opposite results. The DCS Mod is not replicating capabilities or the programmer is deficient. There seems to be a bug or glaring anomaly with each re-enactment regardkess of kit. And what AI would have the F-35s making such an approach with pertinent data is fantasy.
@mandellorian you can quickly look at the Finish competition for their new aircraft, the F-35 was selected as the best aircraft, the only aircraft to meet requirements, the Grippen came in second place, and failed to meet requirements, Finland is a non- NATO country.
@@freddarau They failed the 2070 production date mainly...The US BS'ed everyone that the F35 would be in production till then...Ya right. If you believe that...
@@92HazelMocha Hi Ian... If you're interested in seeing what an Avro Arrow can truly do I highly recommend checking out this little series of short Videos you might like them: ru-vid.com/group/PL3EReMs3ND7UC-VT6gOjFauI_PgDDPWdo ~regards.
Yeah I'm Canadian and even I'm tired of the Arrow comments. We couldn't even build it today without investing billions in the industry to redeveloped it and wed be decades away from anything.
The unit cost for the Gripen E is not $95M. The Swedish Air Force pays about $65M per unit. Unfortunately we don’t know the ”fly away”-cost as all bids have included weapons and support + transfer of Technologies… The swiss will pay $112M per unit (program cost with support and weapons) Edit: the mod in DCS is not an 39 E, it’s an 39 C. The a2a-test. Why not use the Meteor (which is superior to Amraam)? There is no reason for the canucks to not buy the Meteor
Additionally the F35 cost does not factor in future upgrades. Upgrades which contain the most marketed features of the aircraft. If Canada bought F35's today they'd get link16, amraams and LGB's and basically nothing else. Even the RAF is talking about *not* upgrading their F35's due to cost, which means they'll never match these other planes in capabilities.
The Gripen in this mod is the C version, not E. The E version has a powerful engine, powerful radar, better ECM capabilities, IRST system and 2 extras hardpoints.
Realistically the Gripen doesn’t have a chance. The F35 outperforms it in every way except ACM, but realistically the DAS and sensor networking of the F35 allows it to operate easily BVR, and beyond the range of any non stealth aircraft. I love the Gripen but it’s less a case of which aircraft is better, but how inaccurately this mod simulates the F-35 in DCS. The fact the Gripen even had a chance is a good indicator of this.
It certainly does. Considering Trudeau stated that he would NOT buy the F-35. The liberals planned on Superhornets but Boieng started being jerks and tried to sue Bombardier in Quebec. they have no intention of buying the F-35 even IF it's a little better. The Gripen E is being chosen for real dude.
@@poseidon5003 The F-35 is a not a little better. It is significantly better. I don't see us purchasing anything but an American fighter. The RCAF is also gunning for the F-35. The Gripen only has a 10% chance because Trudeau may want to save face.
@@IPendragonI Well the RCAF aren't the ones who ultimately get to choose the aircraft. OF COURSE they want the F-35. However they are going to get a great big dose of "too bad so sad" because Lockheed already tried to rip Canada off once. Why should the Canadian govt. forgive that? They shouldn't. it would make Canada look like pushovers. So that's that. As a mattter of fact, if Canada does purchase the F-35 after that, I'll be disappointed. As a Canadian, I say Lockheed can suck it.
I feel the actual reason to go with the Gripen would be logistical in the substantially cheaper and easier maintainence, and uptime of the aircraft. And also its ability to operate well in the non-optimal conditions it was built for in Sweden; which seem to be similar to Canadas when it comes to terrain, climate and infrastructure. I was surprised it actually held its own this well in challenges that are more about raw performance.
The GDP/Budget constraints Canada faces (along with political) will undoubtedly play a part in the decisions they make. However in terms of performance, the f35 is unmatched even by f22s. The f35 hasn't lost a single red flag event to date, even recent against f22s. Although in acm in struggle a great deal. The full combat battle suite enable things that no one could ever dream of. Let alone simulation with a half ass mod in dcs.
Loaded down im afraid the grippen e is very anemic. It reminds we of 60's designs power to weight ratio or much worse as compared to like an f4 phantom.
I just saw a f35 at an airshow and to be honest it's a hell of alot more maneuverable than I thought it would be. I've seen plenty of jets of all makes and the f35 at least with no ordinance and partial fuel can move with the best of them surprisingly
@@jacksonsingleton honestly both the F15C and the F22 are air superiority fighters but the F15C/EX are multi-role so it would be more likely to have a mixed strike package of F15's with a flight of F22's as top cover especially considering the limited internal bay only setup of the F22. Though in a true intercept it would probably be F22's to strip fighter cover from the bombers while the more heavily armed F35's, F15's, and F16's would be dealing with the bombers
I think a lot of it comes from people hating on the F 35 because of that article ages ago where it lost to an F 16 in a dogfight. 1. People forget that the F 16 is an excellent dogfighter, 2. The F 35 at the time was using much older software that limited it’s performance for safety and structural reasons (or something like that) 3. The dogfight reports that the F 35 found it difficult to get nose on to the F 16 (in reality it can get a lock on without this and can even lock onto targets behind it). But all this coupled with the issues the program had meant the haters all jumped on it and as such the view was circulated that the F 35 had great BVR capabilities but was an absolute pig in terms of manoeuvre ability. This is not the case.
I wonder, whether the missiles make more of a difference than the aircraft nowadays. Radar profile and manouverability are less important, at least when it comes to defence missions.
I would of liked to see an F15EX option in the competition. It's cost is higher than the F35 but operational costs are lower. It also gives them the twin engine option so many want. It would be really interesting to see where it would fit in this simulation.
not sure if it is more expensive for the f15ex. the f35 has some tricks like listing the fly away costs without all the weapons systems, unit cost without avaionics or engine & offloading as much of the costs into the sustainment & support program.
F15EX is a weak half measure. Repeal export ban on F22 and make a fighter bomber version capable of carrying more weapons. Upgrade computers and targeting systems. And that would be ideal. Putting the f15 loaded up with bombs and missiles in the sky is putting a sitting duck in the sky for modern warfare especially in 10 years. I understand we have a need right now but plugging it with a 50 year old aircraft that cost more than the f35 is just ridiculous. Invest the money to upgrade the f22 and modernize it. And you’ll have an aircraft that’ll be viable for the next 30-50 years where you’ll be lucky to get 10 years out of the F15
Why would they build their own fighter? Their entire military is piggy-backing off the US and it has for a long time. 99% of their weapons, from guns to aircraft, are American lol
@@leogibney There was a consortium that tried to resurrect the Avro Arrow and develop an in Canada designed and built Gen 4 plus Avro Arrow. CBC interview with General McKenzie... The government turned them down citing 'too risky which is code for chicken sh*t....
That bird has long since sailed. We recently spent billions so we could build warships here in Canada again. Do you know what a stealth program would cost? Even the Japanessse have given up on that recently citing the cost of the program as being cost prohibitive.
There's a lot of leftists here saying we should give up on replacing the hornets... and just not have combat aircraft. After all they contribute to climate change and bombing 3rd world countries...
The F35 has so many more capabilities than just stealth. The DAS alone is a game changer. Imagine having labels turned on in RL. Add the Aesa radar/EW suite and there really is no comparison. The F35A is the better choice for Canada. Being as it will likely be in service for 40 years or more it makes sense to go with the more advanced/future proof system.
Seeing as if it ever truly needed to throw down with this weapon system they'd already be on the verge of nuclear warfare - go with the cheapest. Because molten radioactive slag all looks the same regardless of the price. At least this way you might have saved enough for a proper nuclear shelter with a dozen hot chicks with which you could re-populate the earth - Dr. Strangelove style.
@@deaddropholiday Unlike the older Gripens, the E and F models are likely to cost even more than the F-35. India have been quoted $126M each for Gripen E and that's without any weapons.
Gripens AESA is far superior to that one of the F35, it have over 270 degree sperical covrage. The EW is also based of soft radio, making it at least potentiellaly much better You got to remeber, the suite of the gripen is 15 years newer than that of the F35
Saw someone talking about cost estimates, apparently things like t-pods are not included in those flashy headlines when people compare and say the f-35 is expensive.
I’d have gone with a bear/flanker intercept over the CG, as we mostly have them testing our airspace around North Pole, not so much coming from either coast… otherwise fun vid. Honestly just hope they pic something and get over it. They have been debating our next jet since I was in grade school, like 25 years ago… or at least it feels that way.
Our federal governments (regardless of party) and military are extraordinarily bad at acquisitions and most non-battlefield activities. Another example, was the NDHQ move to Kanata which was budgeted at 1 billion dollars and was mis-handled so poorly as to be way over cost and time. Part of the issue with the new fighters is, I think, a failure for the governments and military to know what activities are important. As you (should) decide doctrine first and acquire assets to fit the doctrine, it's hard to justify new acquisitions if the doctrine is unknown. Yet another example of executive failure. But no one ever gets fired ...
Totally not a fair comparison... I know I know its DCS... but thats a Gripen in C version, its radar, ECMs, engine, overall avionics RCS, and so much more were improved in the E version, to the point you could say it is a completely different plane now. they are actually capable of supercruise now, something that F-35 can't per example
One point that I think keeps getting overlooked when comparing the Gripen to the F35 is the question of why did the USAF move to explore building their own "Gripen ish " 4++ multi role fighter to replace the 1200 F16's in service now; dropping the longstanding plan to use f35's for this. They have the most experience of any nation with the F35 and know for certain how expensive and problematic it is to keep in the air.
Let's all admit this, the F35 was successful lobbying on the part of the US defence sector and nothing more. Its sad that US allies have been blackmailed into purchasing planes even the US military wouldn't trust in combat scenarios. Let's just hope we never have to call upon the F35 for combat and get on with the next generation of fighters. Only good news is if China did use F35 tech, they used faulty tech.
@@Dash101 the misinformation is strong in this one. Early developmental issues chief.. in reality after software limiters were removed, it can out rate, out manuver, and out accelerate the F-16, and has greater nose authority (aoa) than the F-18, and can pull off the pedal turn maneuver, a feat that only the F-22 has been able to pull off so far with thrust vectoring, which takes extreme levels of super maneuverability.
@@saltyfloridaman7163 and so it should. Those planes were made 20+ years ago. The real question is how long they'll be viable in providing client nations the ability to maintain air superiority over competitive platforms being developed in China and Russia
@@Dash101 currently the SU-57 isn't even a true stealth or 5th gen aircraft, it uses the SU-35 engines and has the same overall maneuverability as an SU-35. The engines it claimed to use would give in super maneuverability due to 3D thrust vectoring, but now it's just a slightly improved SU-35 with the radar cross section of a clean F-18. The J-20 isn't even worth mentioning, it's pretty capable, but an F-18 super hornet will best it in bvr and dogfighting capabilities. The current field of 5th gen fighters isn't very competitive yet, so the F-35 and F-22 will be the premier 5th gen platforms for the next 20-30 years
@@fqeagles21 The Gripen E/F has the better electronic warfare suite. It's intended to compensate for the lack of stealth. I think jamming is a very important par of Swedish air doctrine, which started during the period when they stopped upgrading their JA37 fleet and just waiting for Gripen to arrive. The Viggens had ever worse odds to come in close enough to fight the best Russian fighters, so they just smacked jamming pods on all of them and the results were better than expected.
The Gripen E had the worst EW suite of all submissions for Finland’s H-X program. The F-35A’s existing EW suite is breathtaking. Gripen E came in dead last in every category, far behind the Super Hornet, which came in a distant 2nd Place and didn’t meet the threshold 4 out of 5 requirements in H-X. F-35A scored an overall 4.7/5 after 7 years of evaluation.
Notes: First, thank you for running this SIM. Great job. It would awesome if there was a DCS mod for the E variant... That would prove a better and more fair comparison I would love to see a sim invasion over the North pole with a Russian mixed fleet of escorts and bombers vs 88 F35 and 88 Gripens. Note Gripen costs at least 30% less per unit and 7 times less operational costs, perhaps we should run based on purchase price 114 Gripens vs 88 F35 .. .Just saying LOL.... Your question re why did the Gripens start flying backward and formed a very wide diamond formation. That is the tactical formation as each Gripen acts like an AWACS for the other Gripens. Their electronic countermeasures, hyper-efficient radars that can detect even the small radar cross-sections sent targeting data to the other aircraft. 1. the Gripen used herein I believe is the C (2002) variant and not the E variant - 2021/2022 2. SAAB stated that they were originally thinking of changing the name of the E variant because there is such a great amount of differences between C and E variants 2a C variant E varaint 2b Engine 20% more thrust Supercruise at Mach 1.2 without afterburner 40 % more internal fuel The JAS 39E and F variants under development are to adopt the F414G powerplant, a variant of the General Electric F414. The F414G can produce 20% greater thrust than the current RM12 engine, enabling the Gripen to supercruise (fly at supersonic speed without the use of afterburners) at a speed of Mach 1.1 while carrying an air-to-air combat payload.[61] **F35 cannot supercruise, speed restricted to 0.7 Mach "The Pentagon is placing permanent flight restrictions on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters flown by the Navy and Marine Corps, restrictions that limit the jets to short bursts of supersonic speed at high altitudes. A deficiency in the aircraft’s design risks damage to the airplane’s tail section during sustained supersonic flight." 2c Hardpoints 8 10 3 Weapons All European, NATO, and USA weapons, - plus any new weapons easily added due to Software architecture. Note that if Canada purchases the JAS 39 E (Arrow Mk II ;-) they will select the meteor missile 4 Avionics C vs E The future Gripen E/F will use a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Raven ES-05, based on the Vixen AESA radar family from Selex ES.[65] Among other improvements, the new radar is to be capable of scanning over a greatly increased field of view and improved range.[119] In addition, the new Gripen integrates the Skyward-G Infra-red search and track (IRST) sensor, which is capable of passively detecting thermal emissions from air and ground targets in the aircraft's vicinity.[120] The sensors of the Gripen E are claimed to be able to detect low radar cross-section (RCS) targets at beyond the visual range.[121] Targets are tracked by a "best sensor dominates" system, either by onboard sensors or through the Transmitter Auxiliary Unit (TAU) data link function of the radar.[122][123] Operating costs Gripen JAS 39 E A 2012 Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting study compared the operational costs of a number of modern combat aircraft, concluding that Gripen had the lowest cost per flight hour (CPFH) when fuel used, pre-flight preparation, and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs were combined. The Gripen had an estimated CPFH of US$4,700 whereas the next lowest, the F-16 Block 40/50, had a 49% higher CPFH at $7,000.[57][148] The F35 operating cost per hour of flight... USD 33,600 per flight hour.......about 7 times more than Gripen. Runways.... Gripen - every airport in Canada, over the north from Yukon/Alaska border to Labrador 140 airports. Whereas the F35 across the territories and Northern Quebec it can only land at one airport. Gripen needs only 500m takeoff 600m landing while the F35 requires 2,400 m. on your drag race to 40K feet, there must be something wrong as noted in the length of runway required above. Active vs Passive Stealth Passive Stealth of the F35, - coatings replaced every 2 years max - damage to coatings with sustained supersonic flight - Passive Stealth is completely lost as soon as external hardpoints used - It has been reported that the small cross-section of the F35 has already been overcome in advances in Radars Active - able to keep pace with technological advances and stay ahead of the game. - Gripen in wargames flying their tactics were not seen by opposing forces at Red Flag 5-0, 5-1, 5-0 against the USA, and that was the C variant JAS 39E/F Data from Saab Gripen,[153][463] Saab,[470][471][472] and Aviation Week.[466] General characteristics Crew: 1 JAS 39E / 2 JAS 39F Length: 15.2 m (49 ft 10 in) JAS 39E 15.9 m (52 ft) JAS 39F Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) Wing area: 30 m2 (320 sq ft) Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) Max takeoff weight: 16,500 kg (36,376 lb) Fuel capacity: 3,400 kg (7,500 lb) (internal); 4535 L (3537 Kg) External with 3 drop tanks (2x1700L + 1x1135L) Payload: 5,100 kg (11,200 lb)[citation needed] Powerplant: 1 × General Electric RM16 (F414-GE-39E) afterburning turbofan engine, 61.83[473] kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner Performance Maximum speed: 2,460 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn) + Maximum speed: Mach 2 Combat range: 1,500 km (930 mi, 810 nmi) + Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) + Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) g limits: +9 -3 Wing loading: 283 kg/m2 (58 lb/sq ft) Thrust/weight: 1.04 Takeoff distance: 500 m (1,640 ft) Landing distance: 600 m (1,969 ft) Armament Guns: 1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds (single-seat models only) Hardpoints: 10 (three hardpoints under fuselage, two under each wing, one on each wingtip, and one dedicated for FLIR / LD / Recon pod) with a capacity of 5,300 kg (11,700 lb), with provisions to carry combinations of: Missiles: 9[citation needed] × IRIS-T (Rb.98), AIM-9 Sidewinder (Rb.74) or A-Darter 7 × MBDA Meteor (Rb.101) 2 × KEPD.350 6 × Rbs.15F anti-ship missile Bombs: 7 × GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb 8 × Mark 82 bombs 16 × GBU-39 SDB 12 × Alternative small-diameter glide bomb Other: 1 × ALQ-TLS electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod 1 × Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod 1 × Rafael Reccelite Reconnaissance Pod 1 × Litening III Targeting pod Avionics Selex ES-05 Raven AESA radar[474][475][476] Skyward-G IRST system[477][478][479][480] Air-to-air and air-to-surface tactical data link system[citation needed] Wide Area Display (WAD) (single screen display)[481] Targo helmet-mounted display (HMD)[468] ANVIS advanced night vision system/head-up display (HUD)[citation needed]
I think the tables would have been turned whenever theres a better F-35 mod and if there was a real Gripen E mod. And cheaper is most of the times better. +1
@@yatsie3635 Cheaper didn't work out so well for Iraq during the Gulf War. They got their asses handed to them by better technology that was also far more expensive.
In my opinion, the most important think is that Gripen showed irself equal or even better than F-35A in some missions. Another point: the version tested is the Gripen's "C" version, which means that the "E" version intended by Canadian's government could be much better in performance, reach etc.
Because the F-35 is not properly modelled nor properly used in DCS... You are using a video game with no known metrics to draw conclusions about real-life performance? I suppose by the same standard AIK in Sweden must be the best team in the world because I can beat FIFA 21 with it.
Considering they are neighbors with the U.S. it would make sense to get the F35. If the Saab can be built in Canada however it is a much more solid performer on paper and if they could get meteor it would make sense to counter long range strikes over the north pole from Russia.
The SAAB deal includes production in Canada. Personally I'd get both, the F-35 for our obligation to NATO/UN internationally and get a bunch of the Grippen C for national defense/northern operations.
Canadian Gripen-Es would be made by IMP in Halifax. Saab GlobalEyes are already made in Toronto. Canada's new Saab V-200 drones are being made in Alberta right now.
If I were in charge of procurement for Canada or Australia, I'd make range and speed the priorities--these are both large countries with small populations (and therefore small militaries). They have a lot of border area to defend, and not many crews/planes to defend it with. Maybe make the majority something like the F15EX, with a smaller number of F35s to back them up and provide a contingent for force projection, especially if it's possible they could run into cutting edge enemy fighters.
That’s what it seems America wants to do. But a bunch of F15EX Cause they can hold an insane amount of weapons and stand off while the F35 gets closer finds targets and sends that data to the F15 to take the shot. Guess that would work best for ground targets. I just think the F15 is an old plane and isn’t going to live very long in a real war fighting China over Taiwan. Especially since they’re a substantial amount more than the f35. It just doesn’t make sense to me. If anything just design a new plane thats a twin engine fighter bomber f35/ really f22 fighter bomber with modern computing and targeting abilities. F 15 just seems like Joe Biden thinking about the good ol days and a way to funnel money into their pockets having it cost more than a 5th gen fighter.
Thx so much for this ''test'', if I may add, the MAIN role of Canada's jet is Interception over the Artic of Russian Bears and their escorts. I would of liked to see the differece between them(Gripen vs F35) on such a task to see; 1) which plane will reach FIRST the Russian assets to ID 2) Once ID', scenario of the 2 escorts becoming HOSTILE to see which is a better dogfighter against Russian jets 3)Lastly, on international missions, which plane can takeoff and reach ground targets for CAS (similar to Syria & Afghanistan) to suuport Allied ground troups. Thx Capt ! From the Great White North ;)
1. F-35. 2. F-35. 3. F-35. Add to this that the F-35 has much better situational awareness, is much better at BVR, is much better at long-ranged strikes, and can act as AWACS.
It’s Canada. With their defense budget and Prime Minister, I’m betting they end up with a few squadrons of MiG 21s. Think of the social programs they could fund with all of the money saved.
Lots of performance parameters of theF-35 are withheld from our adversaries. I doubt these mods show any of the hidden potentials of either plane, especially the F-35.
We have hints from F-35 pilot interviews including Canadian pilots who have flown the F-35 and think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread and are the future of tactical fighters. And even they say that there are limits to the aircraft's performance. One of them being turn performance Ie they have one good turn before drag slows down the plane that it's turn rate and available g starts dropping.
@@pogo1140 One of the things that came out of Vietnam was a mistaken belief in the importance of guns and dogfighting for A2A combat at a time when they were rapidly becoming obsolete and aircraft without guns (Navy Phantoms) did significantly better than those with (USAF Phantoms) because of better pilot training and tactics. We have to be careful with the lessons learned from previous conflicts because often the popular perception turns out to be wrong.
Great job Cap, and as much as I'd love for my armed forces to be flying the f35, gripen is more than suitable. Canada primarily uses our military as a small part of larger coalitions, where CAP and deep strikes are carried out by more specialized equipment. We just don't need the stealth yet for the types of missions we participate in
@@angelarch5352 That is not how flight operations work or sustainment programs. It's not like buying water pumps for your car or munitions for your pistol
Yep and I am worried that as the price creep comes in, the govt of the time suddenly finds that they need less planes and cut the order. If the Saab's are made here (read Quebec) , there's a better chance of getting all the airframe, maybe even a few extra??
Fun to watch the DCS platform even though variables for both planes are off. In reality, Canada have already narrowed it down and are no longer comparing planes, but the whole package they come with and that is a question of politics. I mean, how much better does F35 have to perform to turn down the opportunity to create factories and jobs to build one’s own Gripens, but the real question now is more about international relations.
Where is the maintenance cost? I'm positive when it comes down to the better fighter, especially with the stealth the F-35 offers a massive strike advantage as well as offering manned ordinance in the sky for special forces operations. But if were talking which aircraft that Canada should buy, we need to look at a lot more than just the fighters them selves. Seeing Canada's involvement in combat operations since 2001 the Gripen will far more suit their needs at a far cheaper operating cost.
I don't know. If SAAB is to be believed the data link and ECM package of the gripen far out matches the F-35. Plus Canada will have access to the avionics and electronics. Something not offered by the F-35.
@@loganholmberg2295 According to the Finns, that's not true. Having said that, they probably should go with a cheaper option whether it be the Gripen or something else.
From what I understand 39 was made pretty much for A-A defence vs SUs, focusing on jamming instead of stealth. 35 is focused on being full multirole and is full gen5. Not sure they are as direct competitors as some see them.
why would Canada take a lateral step with the Gripen? The F-35 is a far better plane in real world. The Gripen is anice plane but its just a upgraded F-16
Just in case it wasn’t mentioned, Canada does use long range air-to-air missiles and was the first export nation for the AIM-120D, as well as evaluating the Meteor for procurement as part of the package with SAAB as well as previously with the Eurofighter typhoon, although as neither company was selected in the end the Meteor is no longer being strongly marketed to Canada, who appears to be sticking with the AIM-120D and AIM-9X Bk.2 for air-to-air missions now. Canada also remains a stakeholder in both the IRIS-T and ASRAAM (AIM-132) short-to-medium-range missile programs, and both are also being evaluated for use in their army as a mobile 8-cell GBAD, although the ASRAAM is being sold as the CAMM in that case
What Gripen version is this? I thought only the C/D was available in DCS. Which means that in spite of the good results seen here, you were testing the Gripen with an inferior engine (lower max thrust and no supercruise ability), inferior weapons, radar, electronic warfare suite, range etc.
@@trolleriffic More expensive than the C/D (which is why Saab intend to continue marketing the older, smaller versions, but with many E/F-features), still cheaper to buy and operate than F-35.
@@Smokeyr67 You need to compere the flight cost. Initial unit cost is just a very small part of the total cost for fighters during it's 40 year service life. You get at least three Gripen E for every F35 if you compera the total cost for each SYSTEM.
@@jakobholgersson4400 Not cheaper to buy considering India were offered Gripen Es at $126M for the aircraft alone or $142M with a weapons package which is quite a bit more than the F-35A. Operating costs might be less but the Finns didn't find Saab's claims for cost per flight hour to be credible and Norway is operating their F-35s for no more than it cost to fly their F-16s.
That option is off the books. 1 engine vs 2 is no big deal nowadays as the reliability of the turbofan engines are excellent. No Gripen (A/B/C/D) has ever crashed due to the engine (rm12 = single engine variant of the ge404).
Canada has a competition going on of sorts, in which the Super Hornet used to be a part of until a month ago when Canada announced she will move on to the top 2 finalists (the JAS and the F35). They are giving both current competitors the chance to make the best offer, in terms of both performance and price I believe. There were 2 other planes (both European, but I don't recall) that were going to participate in the competition, but they left after they deemed it unfairly siding the 2 American planes (i.e. Super Hornet and F35). Thus, Canada didn't plan to not go for a 2 engine aircraft from the beginning, but it just so happened that these are the 2 jets that they have to choose from at the moment. I guess they can still choose an aircraft not part of the competition, but if you are going to spend $80 billion CAD on planes, you will want to make a decent deal, which is mostly the point of this competition I think. Edit: The two European fighters that withdrew prior to the competition beginning are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Also, the FFCP (Future Fighter Capability Project) is planned to be about a $15 billion investment, not $80 billion like I said. I thought 80, because it is actually going to be 88 fighters that will be purchased.
The whole "2 engine requirement" is a thing of the past. That was important in the 50s-80s where jet engines were unreliable. But with modern technology, especially on the F-35, having one powerful and reliable engine is extremely useful. No need for 2.
I felt like I was in the Matrix when I read this. Someone a few days ago said something very similar which gave me a different perspective on the Military-industrial complex. The jets are not the main star of the show. It’s the weapons who take centre stage. When a new weapon (missile) is developed, they design the delivery vehicle around that. This makes sense in my head now.
Important point to be made about cost. The delivered cost is competitive because the F35 is made in greater numbers numbers, but the operational cost of a Gripen ($ per hour) is comparable to an F16 ---- about 1/7 th the cost of an F35 cost per flight hour. So, if you think that training your pilots is important, then the Gripen provides significant advantages. Bear in mind that the Gripen has a relatively low RCS and the E model might be thought of as a gen 4.5 airframe.
Great video, thx! 👍 The F35 should be a better plane, but it's a beast on operating costs. So unless you want your planes going deep into enemy territory (i.e. purely defensive), you may be better off with the JAS. The JAS will also perform well offensively if air superiority is given. The JAS has also been shown to be superior in training against Chinese Suchois, mostly due to long-range capabilities and maneuverability (if I remember correctly). It's actually no obvious answer here IMO.
When was the last time Canada actually had to fight in aerial combat with other fighter jets. Here's the answer. We haven't in decades. Our jets are mostly performing CAS duties for NATO missions. Which makes the F-35 a perfect fighter for Canada.
@@IPendragonI JAS is a multi purpose plane, which was clear in the sim, and it is certinly capable of CAS in an air superiority scenario. And because most NATO countries now have the F35, I'm pretty sure there would be enough other work for the JAS in a given conflict. Point is, The F35 may be the better plane, but it's extremely expensive to operate and maintain. I'm from Norway, I believe we ordered around 70 F35s, which are great, but I'm not convinced that was the best option for us simply due to price.
@@Kamellion Yes. But they still are far off from solving the high operating and maintenance costs and the long down-times. I haven't really calculated this, but with JAS you could have about twice (or 1.5 times) the number of fighters in the air at all times at the same cost. Also, the planes would last much longer because the F35 has some issues with durability. These are exactly the reasons why the USAF reduced its order for F35s (and Raptors) and replaced them with new F15s. You know, the knowledge is out there, there is Google. Just research plsssss.
It depends on which fills the gaps better in their existing support architecture, and what can shoot a hole in Russia’s better. For a discount because the canooks are sure to ask for one.
The Gripens main advantages over the F-35A's are: A short take of requirements and being more robust operating from roads, meaning it can be operated everywhere. Limited requirements for ground infrastructure and mechanics. Faster turn around time, 7 minutes with hot refueling. Being designed for extreme weather on the ground. Much lower lifetime cost. If putting one Gripen E up against one F-35A and only counting its ability in the air, surely the F-35A's will do best at most things, and therefore be the most obvious choice. When counting in everything else I'm not so sure. It's not really only about what plane is best at doing the missions, as long as both are good enough. It's also about being able to be where it's needed, do more sorties and do everyday air patrolling and training to a better price. Then when it comes to the economy you also have to take into account how many of the work hours can be kept at home. Also, there is the question about technology transfer, where the US keeps the cards close to the body while the swedes don't, and also being allowed to make changes to the planes by yourself to fit the national needs.
@@mbukukanyau I did specifically say F-35A. Anyway it’s not the F-35B Canada is considering. Also the F-35B would be problematic for Canada, they have really limited range, especially doing vertical or short takeoff and Canada are huge they need range. Also being able to operate from short runways or no runways for that matter do not help much but the requirements for the ground equipment are high.
@@mwtrolle Fair point ☝️☝️.At the end of the day, Canada is more closely Allied with UK and US than with Sweden, and in a Hot war, winning matters, being able to integrate with Kangaroos, Yankees etc is a much better proposition than patrol of northern skies, something NORAD is already doing. Meaning, Canada and USA jointly patrol the Arctic anyways, so same equipment makes it easier to train and fight. Hornets and Hornets, or F35's and F35's What if Canada finds itself supporting Anzac in southern Pacific?
@9:40 ish regarding speeds... I think because the Gripen can super cruise, it makes more sense to actually do so and go fast, thus saving fuel. While for the F-35 it might make more sense to stay subsonic for fuel efficiency. I think that might explain why the Gripens tend to go fast whenever they can. (at least for the AI in DCS, that might make sense.)
My understanding is that gripen can only super cruise clean. So it will not be able to super cruise while on patrol since it will need to carry external fuel tanks, the F-35 on the other hand holds over twice the fuel internally so it can either carry more weapons or carry them internally reducing drag and increasing fuel efficiency. It can also carry external fuel tanks but it sacrifices stealth and drag which is why no one(F-35) Carry them.
@@XTRaptor "Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load without using afterburner " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise It is a defined capability. And it would not make any sense to talk about super cruise, if the only use of it was to return to base.
The DCS I watched was against a Su35 and the Gripen was an E configuration and it destroyed the Su35 on every sortie on every every attempt. It wasn't a C iteration it was the E. Put the link on to the video you're talking about.
Cap, My son is currently is a Marine Corps Aviator. Very proud of him as he choose to follow a family tradition of Marine Aviators all the way back to 1940. My Grand Father , Father and my Son. I am the black sheep. When it comes to the capability of the F-35 DCS is pretty far off from what the platform can really do. 12 cameras on the plane give the Jockey a 360 full view . You see everything around you. There is nothing out there that I know of that gives you this kind of vision . The weapons menus , voice command module, and coms in this fighter are unparalleled. Not to mention a VTOL system that is automatic with a push button and this jet is super sonic with afterburners . Weapons payload in beast mode is large. One America Class LHA can carry up to 17 F-35 B variants and is assigning Marines back to Carriers in the F- 35 c . From what my Son is telling me their is no comparison flying the F - 35 to the F- 18. It is like being in the boxing ring and your opponents don’t even know they are in a fight. If Canada. One Marine LHA can take out the infrastructure of most Countries in the World and truly dominate the air . Their is not a mission this Fighter can not fly into and succeed in safely . There is not a system out there able to defeat it at this time. This fighter is a game Changer and Canada would be wise to defend their nation with it.
There's no such thing as equal. You neutered the Gripen by taking away its best weapon. The Gripen spread out to use it's link system. The AI in DCS is awful.
The F-35 has been notorious for terrible down times and never ending maintenance issues. I wonder if the F-35 is the Fiat of the air. How does the Grippen do in reliability and long term durability, comparatively? That's where the BIG $$$ is!
Brazil bought the Gripen E for $ 120M. / flight hour Cost 4700 Finland paid, F35 146 M / flight hour cost 35000 Brazil does not have a strong bond or dependence on the US. Did not need to buy their aircraft and opted out of that offer.
Though it was never on the table as an option in this competition the f-15 EX would likely be the best fit for Canada. Great range, twin engine, awesome performance in both fighter and attack roles, plus 1/2 the cost/hr and 3 times the airframe life of the F35.
@@grahamdrew5512 Very true, and that brings us back to the Gripen, though lengthening a couple runways is not a monumental task. Could easily be done before we receive the first new aircraft
Saab don't use Generations any more, it's modular and they upgrade continously. Stealth is defeated, sorry but they are not invisible, just smaller signature but detectors are catching up.
@@ytbabbler Modular? It doesn’t have a modular airframe. Stealth is defeated? By what? If stealth was defeated no one would be developing stealth aircraft any more. Stealth is here to stay and your claim that the Gripen doesn’t have a generation applied to it is ridiculous.
Just watched a video from an aeronaltical engineer saying that 50% of the produced F35s are still not capable of performing the mission they have been designed for due to malfunctions. The maintenance time is twice the expected and it demands so much infrastructure that an enemy could just destroy that on the ground to take the F35s out of the fight. Fighters are just too complicated to make comparisons.
Canadian here. Really hope we go with the Gripen. Saab is offering to share the technology and help us set up facilities to manufacture right here in Canada. Made in Canada fighters, bringing jobs and technical expertise to Canadians, helping us build an independent defence industry, would be far preferable to anything else. Helps that the Gripen is also more Arctic compatible and has operational advantages in less developed terrain. Suits our northern needs. We need a good deterrent fighter that can operate from every corner of our country and deter threats, not neccessarily a 5th gen stealth aircraft designed to support interventionist strikes abroad. Going with Gripen would also send a good message to the international community (specifically Europe) that Canada is open for business with them, and isn't married to or biased in favor of American products (concerns multiple European companies expressed while withdrawing from the contest). Our perceived insperabilty from the US embarrassingly cost us a UNSC seat... this is an opportunity to repair that image in part with a clear "made for Canada" policy that reflects Canada's independent interests and strengthens sovereignty. Less dependence on the US, more jobs and expertise in Canada... truly a Canadian Future Fighter investment that goes beyond any one model. Just my two cents on the issue. Opinions may differ, but I figured I'd present my take having looked at the offers as a Canadian and felt a preference for Gripen. Also love to any of our Swedish friends who might be reading! 🇨🇦🤝🇸🇪
While I totally agree on stepping out of America's industrial shadow, I must contradict you. The Gripen is a good aircraft on paper, given its extremely low procurement and operational cost. That is what appeals to most people, as expected. However the Gripen will not be able to deter modern Russian and Chinese threats. It is a 4.5 generation aircraft with no stealth capabilities, and unproven "Advanced EW suites." It may be a good pick now, but in 20 years it will be guaranteed obsolete. Canada intends to use these fighters until at the very least the mid 2050s, so the Gripen would not be able to protect Canadians at home, and also abroad as per our crucial NATO commitments. Also, the F-35 is a proven arctic fighter, just ask Norway, The U.K, Denmark, Switzerland and the U.S in Alaska. It is the best option to defend Canada's needs and interests at home and abroad. Guaranteeing mission success every time, with 0 losses. Some people brush off stealth as some expensive marketing term. This however is not true. Stealth is becoming more and more crucial in today and tomorrow's warfare. Seeing without being seen is the focal point of success. If only the F-35 weren't so expensive and didn't look us into a U.S product, I would support it even more than I already do. Now I totally just disagreed with almost everything you said, but I do wish you all the best, from a fellow Canadian! 🍁
I agree with you. Even though I think you guys will go with the American option as you have so often in the past, your arguments make a lot of sense, and I'd like to see the Canadians flying Gripens instead.
@@leogibney Your forgetting something very crucial. Soviet fighters do not have the range to hit Canada. It always has been Soviet bombers and long range strike aircraft that we have to intercept over artic. When it comes to defence I don't think the military is worried about China's and Russia's 5th generation fighter.
I wonder how it would've turned out had the F-35s AI not been so flaky. The 35s didn't appear to make any effort to evade the IR missiles, no flares or even evasive manuvers. Would've also been interesting to see if the S300s could've actually tracked and fired on the 35s in the DAS test.
The F35 costs have continued to spiral upward. The actual aircraft isn't bad, but the behind-the-scenes/hidden maintenance and cost per hour are astronomical. As was mentioned below, I don't know how the F35 would do in cold weather or harsh environments, which Canada has an abundance of..... Gripen has a ~2000 mile range while the F35 has ~1400 mile range. Gripen by a nose for me.
You need to state what cost, if you are only talking money then you have already traveled down the worse path to a decision. So much more needs to be taken into account. Development costs are high, but the cost per plane built is not that much of a difference Cost per flight hour is the most important one as it includes fuel, repairs etc. Down time between flights, time maintenance takes, how much maintenance hours per flight hour
@@mbukukanyauYeah, no idea what he's talking about. Norway already operates the F-35 around the artic circle and so does the US. These rationalizations are getting worse.
$79M per plane is about the cheapest of any competitive modern jet. Saab have offered the Gripen E to India for $126M per aircraft without a weapons package and $142M with one included.
@@grimreapers You usually say that is a you problem. If a player had crashed or bombed another player ? The Gripen must have crashed due to poor workmanship. LOL
The US air raids over N Vietnam had the same issue. The ECM systems blinded radar in front but not from behind. Once the N Vietnamese figured that out, and it didn't take thenm very long, the B52's started falling. The other flaw with those air raids was the B52's used the exact same flight path over and over and they paid for it. The US did the samething when they did the bombing of Germany in WW2. Sometimes the brass get stuck on stupid.
@@starexcelsior In WW2 it made some sense. The bombers and fighters in WW2 had a limited amount of fuel without lot of wiggle room. In 'Nam that wasn't a issue.
I think the main reason why the Gripens went into a diamond formation during the AA Defense is because irl the Gripen Data Link does best in a Diamond Formation, now I don't know if the Data Link for the Gripen in DCS is modeled correctly or not but if so then that might be one of the reasons as to why they went into a diamond formation
a lot of people are on here saying that stealth is completely useless to canada, and that long range and speed is priority. i think that due to our (relatively) small military power and lack of huge numbers of planes, stealth would be quite useful in prioritizing our limited resources. we also are very strong allies with the US, and they have an abundance of f35s, so compatibility and repairability between the two countries is extremely important
But who is Canada fighting to need stealth aircraft? I don't even think our aircraft engaged in any air to air combat over Kuwait or Iraq, only bombing raids and some combat air patrol without encountering any resistance. Correct me if I'm wrong because google is kinda useless for this but the last time the Canadian airforce was in air to air combat was probably Korea. If Russia invades, or even just decides to send a bomber or cruise missile attack we're screwed anyways, they ain't gonna send 1, or 20, it'd be a flood and our widely dispersed fighter squadrons would fight valiantly but 80 odd aircraft are not going to stop Russia if Mr Putin actually wants to hurt us. We'd be better served with more, simpler aircraft that we can build and maintain here which is what the Gripen is offering.
@@barrylinkiewich9688 “our 80 odd aircraft are not going to stop Russia if Mr Putin actually wants to hurt us.” exactly why we could use the f35. our 80 odd aircraft would have a much better time fighting if the attackers can’t see us. if we had a bigger arsenal, the gripen would be a great choice, because of its speed and maneuverability, but due to our limited access to planes, we need to use them tactically, and not just go full force at the attacker. edit: also, we would be buying the same number of planes as they are basically the exact same cost. the gripen might be slightly cheaper to maintain, but that isn’t really what the budget (at least right now) is for. that belongs to our overall defense budget.
@@marcs990 That is only true if you're talking about the Gripen C, as the Gripen E is a entirely different beast. The "E" isn't just an upgraded C-model, it's an entirely re-designed aircraft, complete with up-to-date technology. People need to stop thinking they're the same, they are not.
I would normally say F-35, but after looking into the Gripen,... The Gripen ties the F-22 in op-for exercises and beats every other plane so far by a huge amount with advanced integrated systems and sensors I was not aware of, plus expandability into the future that evens the playing field with the F-35. All things being equal, I think on the surface this is a tie-- But CANADA is cold, and BIG. For interception over long range, you need SPEED not endurance. It doesn't matter how long you fly if you cannot catch up to or intercept your target. The F-35 loses significantly against the Gripen in that area. Plus the Gripen is designed and fully tested for cold weather, and the F-35 is not. So... I'm switching my vote for Gripen for Canada! :) - (Plus the Gripen can land on shorter or unimproved runways or roads in Canada's Great white North, the F-35 cannot)
In order for the Gripen to reach it's maximum speed it would need to be nearly clean (no extra bags, no large loadout). In that configuration you wouldn't be able to maintain supersonic speed for any length of time. There is a reason Norway is using F-35s for intercepts. Functionally, the F-35 is better at the task.
Interesting..🤔.. I still think that we’re headed for a mixed fleet.. They might want a ‘general purpose’ fleet with the Gripen, but have a ‘smaller’ squad of F35’s for black ops missions.. just pondering out loud over my morning coffee 😉 ☕️ 😎✈️
Those numbers are untrue. Acording to the documents published by the Canadiab Fedeeral Government Canada will be getting the Gripen for Significantly LESS cost than the F-35.
@@connywestlund924 Gripen E and F are way more expensive than earlier variants and if a plane sells in smaller numbers then it's harder to implement cost savings and the price can end up going up. Look at how much India is being quoted to buy them.
@@trolleriffic the Brazil deal was 4.7 billion $ for 36 gripen E that includes everything weapon's spare parts and a complete thech transfer..Sweden been developing gripen for 25 years should they just give all that away for free?? I agree that f35 have the advantage of economics of scale and the US massive industry in the back.not to mention the political pressure they can assert..but Saab claims gripen E won't cost much more than gripen C in maintenance..If that's true it's much cheaper than f35.and now you will claim but it's so much better so it's not expensive.yeah every one is buying it so it probably is..but we don't see what the effects of it will be..it could be as awesome as they say and it could be a disaster too..gripen has proven in every exercise and even Libya that it's a far more capable aircraft than all of you experts think..it has its drawbacks that it's a smaller company that produce it with parts from all over the Europe and the US..but that got nothing to to do with capability.time will tell who's right
I don't see Canada having the budget to keep a stealth aircraft properly maintained. They should have gone with SH's or since they ruled them out the Gripen.
Not to be "that guy" but giving the time-to-climb win for the F-35 seems a little suspect when it was that close to a tie. Also, there are currently no external tank options for the F-35.
F-35A has better climb performance than just about every 4.5 Gen fighter when you combat-configure them all with the same amount of fuel. The Gripen E has the worst climb rate of any modern fighter, terrible T/W ratio much less than advertised here. Gripen E T/W with 50% fuel and the weapons shown is .92, not 1.08.
In the pricing source it clams 60M forbgtipen and 80-110 for F35 with a fot note that the E will "probobly" be more expensive... well.. that is a guess, not a source. Even if the cost would be exactly the same there are difrances in that Saab come with a set of spair part, simulator, trainer and a bunch of other stuff. On top of that , the hourly cost is 7 Times higher for F35, and there really just need to be a few thousand hours before the cost have been doubled. With a minimum of 200 hours a year, that us only 13 years. And with a more typical 500 hours of year, thar is really only a few years On top of that, everything but the size, thrust and wight in the game is based on C model, while F35 is based on F35. And... well both are mods and have not been verified
Gripen is to short legged. Ideal platform qould be the F15EX but Boeing disnt competen with it. Nevertheless, Boeing is a persona non grata in Canada after the Bombardier issue. The F35 is the only one left. However, Canada may first buy all available 2nd hand legacy Hornets until 2nd hand F35A will become available 😂🤣
They already have had to buy legacy hornets. Remember the Canadian gov has been dragging its heals so long its 10 years behind on the procurement schedule. In the Liberals attempts to "save" us money they cost the country hundreds of millions in extra aircraft for parts and upgrades that will have to be done to the legacy hornets to keep them up until they start receiving new aircraft.
@@loganholmberg2295 yupp from Australia. But the emphasis was buying ALL available remaining legacy Hornets in concurrence to Air USA (or so) gobally. I guess Mr. Trudeau is happy to hear that there will be more 2nd Hornets on the market soon (e.g. from Switzerland, Finland and Spain).
In this "simulation", they compared F-35A to Gripen C, and not Gripen E. Combat range / ferry range: F-35A: 1239km / 2800km Gripen C: 800km / 3200km Gripen E: 1500km / 4000km Is Gripen E still too short-legged?
@@johanarnfinnlvold5989 Well, these are wikipedia numbers only. Publicly disclosed data means you have to consider them with a grain of salt. My country, we considered first the Gripen E/F (but the people said no to it in a people's vote) before we decide to go for the F35A. The Eurofighter and the Rafale have lost in this 2nd evaluation too. Even the data / specs have not been communicated, our test pilots mentioned that the F35 has a "longer range than the communicated range of the Gripen E/F" for the evaluation [and of course of the older C/D]. I guess the Gripen with required missiles, bombs and bags in a specific loadout generates so much drag resulting in reduced range compared to the F35, which carries the loadout internally (beside of the 2 AIM9X). Further, the question is whether the F35A can also carry bags as the Gripen, which would increase its range accordingly.
They are flying longer without needing heavy maintenance meaning more f35 are ready to fly. So they are cutting back on the number needed. I wondered the same thing.
@@gustavomazonave8536 That is not true anymore as the f 35 is more mature. As both Switzerland and Finland said the f 35 are the best price out of all the competitor. Thailand say the F35A is cheaper then the Gripen E.
@@JC-in1fy Thailand that does not have the F-35 say it's cheaper than that of 39C? That is indeed a strange statement if they have made such a statement.
@@seantaylor2683 It will see allot of manufacturing done in Canada if approved. The Fedeeral gov here LOVES build it in Canada even to our detriment when it comes to cost.
F-35 Canada jobs won't be lost if Canada buys the Gripen. They will continue to make parts for the F-35 to sell to all the other countries that the USA tricks/pressures into buying it. In fact there will be more jobs, as Canadians build parts for both planes, and maybe build entire Gripens in Canada.
@@mecampbell30 Mhmm. How many F-35 will Canada sell? Parts? Yes! They have contracts for manufacturing parts, contracts that Canada are obliged to fulfill. How many extra jobs will the manufacturing of the Gripen add to that? So. Red Herring. Not much of that.
Gripens would come in at a low level when attacking the AA defended area, they would never be sent to just pass over them but would attack one layer a time unless they could fly around. Guess that's still a win for the F-35A's as the Gripens simply don't do that mission. But I guess you could make the mission so ut would fit the Gripens better.
