The Differences Between The SAAB GRIPEN and The EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON 

Maybe it's because the Gripen is the only Otan fighter never deployed on battlefield in 20 years?! The Gripen has never proved anything in the true life, maybe it's a great aircraft in true conditions but maybe not...

@@RowhiderRCRacing true

@@ykchannel2391 libya

@@RowhiderRCRacing Well.... from Wikipedia: By October 2011, Gripens had flown more than 650 combat missions, almost 2,000 flight hours, and delivered approximately 2,000 reconnaissance reports to NATO. Now, 9 years later it is reasonable to assume there has been more combat missions flown. Still no engine failures. Apparently, take an american design and hand it over to swedish engineers and you get something very reliable (the GE404/Volvo RM12 engine).

@@DennisWallman I'm not sure that Baltic air policy could be considered as true combat missions...

It us and fir defence in a coyntry lune Sweden, YK still bying F35s so

@@silweragentum739 For the life of me I have tried, but, i have no idea what you just said. Could you explain it in english? This is my best approximation: it us and fir are referring to country codes? if so i get IT and US but wtf is FIR? Your next words are nonsensical "defence in a coyntry lune Sweden" ??? And what is YK? Please enlighten this unlearned pleb.

Yes but compare the new Gripen E with 40% more power fuel and two more hardpoints

With that comes not just the price difference but also some performance aspects. Due to those engines the EF outclimbs the Grippen and it is able to go supersonic without using its afterburners. Not sure the Grippen is able to do the same but also havent heared otherwise.

The f35 has also just one engin and still is the must exensive plane to date

Not only the WAD, but the HUD and HMD as well.

Así es

No, older 39's are not to be re-manufactured into the 39E standard. It's not possible as they are physically different. There were however plans to use few parts from older 39 when building new 39E.

@@AlexKall - Brazil is going to be buying *both* the E and F variants. They've also signaled some interest in the electronic warfare variant, but they already have a pretty potent AWACs-style force, so this might not be particularly important. Should they ever acquire an aircraft carrier, my guess is that the Gripen Maritime carrier-based version might actually see production, but that's a long shot. Brazil *is* buying a helo carrier from the Royal Navy, but unless they're thinking of buying F-35Bs (they're not) or used AV-8Bs (they're not), no planes will be taking off from it.

@@VisibilityFoggy E and F versions are being made in partnership with Brazil's Embraer, their are being made to focus Brazil's needs, like longer flight autonomy since Brazil is much larger than Sweden, of course Sweden also wins with that better flight performance. at least it's what's being told in SAAB's website abou the gripen.

"Some of the early Gripens are to be re-manufactured into the E standard." wow.. you do NOT pass go you do NOT collect $200 you go straight to ftard jail It is NOT realistically possible to do that ans SAAB have clearly stated th ct. The design changes in the basic airframe for the main LG alone prohibit this from being an option nevermind other factors... Sweden was the signatory that green lighted the development of the E/F in thr first place for THIER OWN USE which includes the F variant for a pile of reasons too long to bother listing here. As for the EFT there are also huge issues with keeping them in the air regardless of the CPFH due to incompatible subsystems and parts not being available.. Germany alone is fubar for that aspect and that said the EFT is still light yrs ahead of the p flyin turkey 35... and the abomination of parts alone for it nevermind the fact its a turd no matter how much anyone tries to polish it.

@@AlexKall ...well what I know Sweden are going to upgrade the electronics for some C fighters to E standard...

Fantastic. I read out of a fleet of 25 purchased. The total sum of 2 are airworthy. What happened with the investment . Civil aviation will have to defend

@@antongruber5978S.A. is an economic disaster. Don’t have the funds to maintain the airframes.

Gripen E would fit Canada like a glove.... = larger plane then the C version = 40% more internal fuel then C version. 1300 km combat range 4000 km ferry range. Latest ASEA radar and IRST from Leonardo. METEOR and IRIS-T missiles AREXIS EW suite saab.com/air/electronic-warfare/ew-systems-for-fighters/arexis/ Britecloude countermeassures Separated filght control and weapon system = very cheap and easy to upgrade. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zol1xA_8_Cw.html

But it is single engine, not great for long distances then. Traditionally craf is wary of this.

@@dinglebeey Why? Gripen hasn´t had a engine failure since 1988....

Agreed, it reminds me of a modern super sexy Arrow. Would love to see a Maple leaf on the Gripen!

@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc and thats the year of the first flight

1. No, it was supposedly in Red Flag 2006. 2. The story is a total fabrication.

Thanks for the compliments. Brazil have sent 350 engineers to develop Gripen E together. The Wide Area Display "WAD", the HUD and HMD are all Made in Brazil.

Damnnnn Snowdens a traitor? Thats quite a controversial view

You're acting like Snowden is the bad guy here

yes.

Sueden and UK/german plane are egualy crapy, Only the Rafale Have a Active Aray Radar and an advanced jammer system like the F35 (spectra).... but Also stealt technologie and IRST traker system camera.

@@dodolfe57 false the Saab Gripen e/f also has an active electronically scanned array radar system which itself is also capable of radar spectrum jamming. The E/F is also covered in radar-absorbent material reducing radar cross-section. maybe go look at Saab's website before you claim things that they themselves debunked before you even stated them

@@brandondaway1 The vertion is not yet in use, it seems to me. The radar is not operative. While it's been 10 years at Dassault. I have good hope that they do (Saab or Airbus) On the one hand the Swedes are good at this technology, and on the other hand it is Thales who takes care of the active antenna for Airbus. (Thales who participated in the design of RBE2 AA with Sagem.) But today it is still not opperative. Of course there is an effort of absorption on the Saab and reduction of the radar reflection. But an aircraft that does not have a design to reduce the reflection. And a powerful phase shift system is condanned to be easily detected by modern radar. Another problem is the size of this fighter It can carry and have range. In this conditions it is difficult to load equipment (weight that reduces even more range) To Have a powerful avionics is heavy. (like a big radar, laser target designation, infrared traker system camera or electronic warfare (with phase shift, jamming etc) And not just hortates that are not practical in opperation. Here i life, they chose Saab, and I am forced to see that Swedish planes fly even less often the old F16 ...

@@dodolfe57 The Rafale has no HMD

Yet again vidoegrapher research and knowledge of the platform score 0.5 and the .5 is just me being generous. Person in comments research and knowledge of the platform score 8.0. Well done .

Another unique feature of Typhoon: it has the unique ability to dogfight at 9G for FAR longer than is possible in any other fighter. The flight suit worn by the pilot and the plane's systems allow extended use of 9G as a norm, not only in short bursts as with most other fighters. Also it's climb rate is simply phenomenal! Pilots who have flown both say that Typhoon and F-22 RAPTOR perform pretty equally at close quarters, but with different strengths and weaknesses. Of course, the F-22 stealth capability give it an advantage in BVR, but the CAPTOR radar helps narrow this down very fast as range decreases. In a near-peer scenario, the Typhoon would be odds-on favourite, with F-22 tops!

Totally agree. Typhoon is a double engine air superiority fighter. On the other hand Gripen is a multi role light weight fighter.

Gripen**

@Molanda Moseley of the FBI, so do you fly aircraft or are you just part of the F-14 cult?

@Molanda Moseley of the FBI, because the F-18 performs its mission much better. It doesn't need the same range with the increase in SAM tech and BVR missiles. Not to mention that the F-18 out performs the F-14 in all aspects excluding speed and range. I'll also add that the Super Hornet has minor stealth properties, but sure. I would also say 10 AMRAAMS is a better fleet defense loadout than 6 Phoenixs, which are awful, but say what you will.

@@Molanda Moseley of the FBI So basically, you just an F-14 whinner. "he f18 is useless in any war with a major power whereas an f14 can at least do some damage protecting the carrier" Lets look at facts shall www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11355/this-syria-bound-super-hornet-is-carrying-a-uniquely-massive-bomb-load Here is an F-18 loaded with ten 1000bls JDAM Versus twitter.com/rowlandwhite/status/840623655038136321 The F-14 at best carried 4 JDAMs or PAVEWAY, a under half of what the F-18 can carry Next weapons the F-18 can carry JASSM,LRSAM, SLAM/ER, HARMs, JSOW, MAVERICK, whereas F-14 can carry nada See whiner, the F-14's problem was its design. The F-18 adopted the A-6s wing design which allows it carry a great deal of weapons. The F-14 only usable area was the SMS in the middle which limits the weapons it can use. The wing design allows the F-18 use the buddy store as well be adopted for electronic warfare. So the F-18 hands down has vastly superior air to ground capabilities. Now lets look at ACM as well Bob Kress, and Rear Adm Paul Gillicrist, the famous F-14 whinners who couldnt get a clue. The F-14s mach 2.3 speed plus AIM-54 and AWG-9 made it very effective fleet defense fighter for its time but that combination had its problems First the AIM-54 was massive. Weighing at 1000lbs. Secondly the AIM-54 was only used by the F-14. F-14 rarely carried a full load of AIM-54 as stressed the airframe. There too few improvements made the AIM-54 to justify trying to adapt to other plane. Advancements in technology showed that the lighter AIM-120 could be adapted for the fleet defense role and it was. While the AIM-54 was a strictly a USN project, the AIM-120 was joint so there was plenty funds available. An F-18 can carry up to 10 AIM-120 compared to just 6 on the F-14. Most importantly, the lighter AIM-120 does not stress the frame of the F-18 The AWG-9 biggest issue was that it's powerful signal would light RWR on planes it targeted. The F-18s APG-65/73 didnt match or exceed the AWG-9 as those radars are built for multi role whereas the AWG-9 was solely air defense. Just like before, advances in technology, the newer AESA AN/APG-79 exceeds the AWG-9 capabilities. Kress and Gillcrist were trying save the F-14 similar to how the USAF developed the F-15E however the F-14 had already left a sour taste in congress mouth. Iran, the TF-30s, Kara Hultgreen. More to the point, the F-15 was performing like a rock star in the middle east They just couldnt accept the F-14 was a flawed plane

except the fact that the typhoon would destroy 2 gripen before they even saw it coming. so the 2 for the price of 1 is irrelevant

@@thaprezidnt1 Red Flag results suggest otherwise, actually.

@@brianwesley28 The British and Italian German Spanish pilots say otherwise. Plus the Spanish and German riders who are considered the best typhoon riders

@@ser43_OLDC Links?

@@brianwesley28 also links about you said. While I search

None of those videos are owned by him... You should realise that considering they are in different languages, and different qualities

quite realistic tbh

The PS4 is actually a Pentagon DARPA program. It takes real-world situations in real-time and they appear as various avatars in various alternative worlds. But every time you pull the trigger or launch... real people die.

Except the Army turned to game developers to help them make training simulators and scientist turned to game developers to help them solve problems that they could not

@@SunriseLAW nope

@@revolutionariesoffreedom Are you a pilot? if not go back in the corner an shut up

@@philglobalnomad I want to know something. Is the eurofighter better than rafale or gripen? Which do you think is better. And if your air force was going against planes like f16, f15 eagle, f15 strike eagle and su-35, which fighter would you choose( one to combat all these)?

Ok imma do maths yh the gripen will win in a fight but it will lose in a 1v1 So look the gripen can take off from roads which means there will be more gripens in the fight then typhoons so there is likely double the amount of gripen e's so the typhoon will lose but in a 1v1 the typhoon will win

@@Sarxell69 OK so 1 typhoon vs 2 gripen E's who will you put money on?

@@philglobalnomad eurofighter is no joke

That's what misses me the most, where he read that? And how he can calculate It? Biggest wingspam and higher thrust /weight ratio are better for dogfight so probably Eurofighter is better in dogfight than Saab Gripen. But I don't know how he calculate that %

xoán t4nquex The Gripen has a higher turning rate than the Eurofighter though

@@vberl9573 the EF is the only plane that is alowed to pull 9+ Gs on Mach though

Iluminas as far as I can find the Gripen E is designed for maintained flight at 9Gs and a maximum of 12Gs though I may be wrong. Gripen C has a lower turning rate

@@vberl9573 yes many Jets can pull 9Gs and more but only the EF is cleared to do that at Mach and that up to Mach 1,2. Below Mach it can also go fo 12+ Gs

Typhoon has a lower RCS and far larger, more powerful radar.

The Typhoon's Captor-E has a range of up to 390 km against a 2.5m² RCS. An F-35 with a reported RCS of 0.00126 m² can be picked up at roughly 50 km range.

The Eurofighter has no problem detecting the Gripen in 90% of scenarios. That said in exercises with the Swedes in mountainous terrain have said that the Gripen's EW suite is excellent and combining it with low flying allowed them to get "alarmingly close". That said those EFs were not installed witht he CAPTOR E AESA radar which brings a large improvement in counter EW. That said there is not really any other advantage the Gripen posesses in the A2A role. The lack of 2 engines hampers the thing's TWR and overall the Eurofighter is a more powerful aircraft. That said the Gripen is an excellent rugged and cheap aircraft thar will do really well in asymmetrical scenarios. Overall its about what each country needs. Sweden spends less than others so the Gripen is an excellent cheap and effective aircraft whilst nations like the UK which spend more on defence can benefit from the more powerful but costly Eurofighter.

@@ukoctane3337 "The lack of 2 engines hampers the thing's TWR " To clear things up with regards to what makes an aircraft fly. Aerodynamics! So good TWR and 2 engines doesn't = 2 times as fast. People tend to blindly stare at the factoids like TWR with out understanding how that fits with the rest of the design.The Typhoon is however a good design.

@@ukoctane3337 well said!

Sorry for late answer but they used Ace Combat games. They are more like arcade shooter games than simulators

I smile

Agreed, the rafale is beautiful and capable plane and I kind of wish it were on the test bed for Canada's next fighter.

That is a really hard question to answer. Depends on so many different things. A rough estimate for the Brazilian's Gripens E/F is about U$150 million each, no weapons included. On the other hand there will be a few plants for local production of different parts being setup and a whole technical and logistical chain to support the fighters' operation, making it even cheaper to fly. If there is another batch of fighters, which is planned, the overall cost per unit will drop considerably. The weapons are being acquired outside of the aircraft's contract, are already in inventory or being locally produced. What makes it even harder to determine a final cost. They are yet to choose a BVR missile for the Gripen E/F (locally it will be officially known as F-39), some say it will most likely be the METEOR but there is no official word on that so far. The only contract for a new missile that has been confirmed for them is a batch of IRIS-T and no cost or number of units acquired has been released, as far as I know. I figure the situation for the Typhoon is pretty similar as they have to suit and deal with different countries and their contracts.

Make an offer . 23 are grounded in zuid afrika. 2 are airworthy

Same

Vaccine Hero You obviously know nothing about either aircraft.

Glenn Ridsdale >comparing Aircraft >Both gave almost the same speed >The SAAB is a 9 but the Euro is a 10 >SAAB is SIGNIFICANTLY cheeper and being able to take of on small runway, SAAB has multipule varanits including a naval version suited to usage on aircraft carrier. >Procceds to state MY opinion on comments >”You don’t know anything on aircraft” real fucking nice of ya.

Get wrecked Glenn

@@swedishmeatballs7818 As intelligent as your first foray.

Very different

Even so, I understand that the Gripen, as a Red Team participant at that, handed the Typhoon it's ass as a Blue Team participant, during Red Flag exercises in Nevada.

You forget that the Gripen E is a lighter aircraft than the Typhoon. It can take off from smaller airfields, and has a similar thrust-to-weight ratio as the Typhoon. Both can super-cruise as well. Not to mention that the Typhoon weighs nearly twice as much as a Gripen.

@@rokuth actually, both the Gripen E and the Typhoon need less than 700m for takeoff. Gripen E has an advantage of roughly 50m, the earlier Gripen versions actually need more than the Typhoon. And TWR on the Typhoon is way superior, with 1,18 at typical mission loadout (Gripen E: 0,95) and 0,78 at max. takeoff weigth (Gripen: 0,62). Max. takeoff weigth on the Gripen E is 16100 kg (Typhoon: 23500 kg) so the Typhoon isn't twice as heavy, but 50% heavier at max. loadout.

@Partifakta 2018 the Typhoon is rated at < 700m for takeoff, the Gripen E is rated at ~ 600m. Pretty close if you ask me. Which makes sense because european military doctrine for almost all countries requires combat jets to be able to start from highways if necessary. The Tornado could do that, too.

@Partifakta 2018 the only way the Gripen will take off within 400m is when it's empty. An empty F-15 will take off in 300m btw. The Gripen needs a considerably longer landing strip, compared to the Viggen. Because the Gripen lacks reverse thrusters. The Viggen can even roll in reverse and turn on runways. Wiki rates the required landing strip for both Typhoon and Gripen E at ~ 600m. Which again is in line with european requirements. If you need to take off from highways, you'll also need to be able to land on them.

@@svenschwingel8632 well yea but the typhoon needs around 900m to land

Bwoah I might be wrong but u sound like u're talking abt the Volvo engine...which is used on the previous versions of the Gripen but not on the E/F version...

Volvo Engine HHAHAHHAHAHAH ;-)

@@gbgtompa ? Det sitter en Volvomotor i Gripen A-D..

Thrust, maneuverability, altitude ceiling, and most element of air to air battle. Typhoon wins hands down. Operation cost wise Gripen is better. Due to it's single engine. So it's more practical to compare with F16.

It's hysterical how Gripen-wankers seem to operate under the illusion that just because the engine is put into a Swedish airframe that somehow makes it extra safe. JAS-39C uses the same engine as F-18, and F-18 has suffered engine failure.

The most thing I care about is the engine is white and hot pink engine that will take my heart I will drive it

What do you expect from a gamer lol

You don't know either so probably what SAAB claims...... Mach 2

Eurofighter has to be one of the ugliest planes ever tho

Bahahahahahaha! Unless you mean the Italian military 2000 years ago, which was by all accounts very good indeed.

Rafale*😉

good call.

You looks like one.

Lägg inte ut nått på nätet tror inte försvarsmakten skulle gilla det.

@@80Loke Nej då, de tänker jag absolut inte göra. Då blir man la åtalad för landsförräderi, haha.

@@kingnorlen ja det kan bli mycket problem av olika slag..

PANAVIA*😉

Ikea the well liked furniture range . Well we live in a disposable world. 23 G s are grounded in Sa

IKEA products are very reasonable and very inexpensive products. I’ve found that one have to be very logical of mind and spirit to be able to bang together a shelve, a table, a chair, a whole kitchen by IKEA which is why I hate buying at IKEA. Their breakfasts, lunch, other goodies however are second to none. As for fighter jets, I’ve always had a fancy for the Draken, followed by the Viggen, and then the Gripen, and wondered why no one take after them. However, I do think SAAB’s think delta canard combination inspired many aircraft designers around the world. .

It would be easier to get parts with more countries dick head

Croatia buying 12 used Rafale for $1.2 billion Greece buying 12 used Rafale and 6 new for $3 billion ...... Q. How much are 6 new Rafales?

@@NATObait 1.8 billion?

@@oelholm I presume the price includes weapons, training and spares. India paid $255m for 36 F3R . Switzerland and Finland are paying about $170m for a similar package ( F35A ). Brazil got Gripen E for $115m and the right to build them too.!

so what are you saying...

gripen is still better mate

@@AELINIC in what ways

@@AELINIC Gripen is brilliant. It really is. But you're gaga if you think it's superior to Typhoon.

@@AELINIC its really not, a great aircraft the gripen is but compared to the typhoon is a bust

Noah Wulff Guldbek innit

Noah Wulff Guldbek And Then you look at lifetime costs and suddenly it’s quiet in Texas.

The Typhoon is actually superior to the F35 in almost every single way, other than the fact that the F35 does have more stealth capabilities and a few more scanners/cameras.

Mark Scarisbrick I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous. Typhoon is streets ahead kinematically, it’s true, but in terms of payload, range, and sensors (including sensor fusion) the F-35 is well ahead at the moment, even ignoring its LO features. Of course Captor E will narrow that gap, and will have some advantages over AN/APG-81, but the US radar will continue to evolve, too. Dismissing DAS as “a few cameras” shows a very poor understanding of the capabilities of the system.

@@glennridsdale577 It was just a quick overview, nothing more than that. The Typhoon and F35 are very different aircraft indeed, but I believe overall the Typhoon is mostly superior.

@@matthewward8292in which combat...we're and pls don't tell me about Syria the testing base off all the countries to tag there fighters to combat proof..if any other combat in which tyfoon is participating pls tell...

If you are a combat pilot, which one you choose?

@@michaelhoang6221none off them...I choose raptor if money is not a problem...why buy midiocur planes...if money is essential which is always does going for two Grippens instead of one tyfoon..bcs them cost the same....

@@sadynasty Well, most air forces don't have a shit ton of money like the US.

@@tandem_heat9427 yes u r right..that's why I think Grippen is far better choice than tyfoon....who is even costlier then f35.lightning...

Fantástico.

If you think that firing first is the key to defeating a Gripen, then you have done NO research on the Gripen. If you think that the F-35 works, then you have done NO research on the F-35. The US DOT&E has been VERY clear on how screwed up the F-35 still is so it couldn't shoot down a Cessna right now if it wanted to. As for the reason that first shot doesn't give an advantage against the Gripen? I'll let you find out. The information as to why isn't exactly buried.

@@AvroBellow You're often going to be in Within Visual Range combat range with a Gripen, even if your intention was otherwise, before you're able to get a shot off against it. I understand that their EW/ECM is superb. Typhoon fighters have allegedly stated that the Gripen can get terrifyingly close before it can be detected. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cKt0_MHe8bk.html

For the typhoon I think it's jasf

Air superiority fighter are purely made and used for air-to-air combat, they only carry AAMs, have great manouvrebility and other dogfighting characteristics. Multiroles are the jack of all trades, master of none fighters. They can conduct air superiority, strike, reconassaince, even interception missions. These are much more flexible.

@@sxleong thanks bro..

@Harry Lagom Saab is only good in Marketing. Gripen isn't Better than Typhoon and Rafales.

O please! Come on now, the gripen is equal to EF when it comes to speed, maneuverability and dogfight! How can you get the gripen to a sitting duck? Gripen also has lower RS and add to the equation that you get 2-3 Grippens for each EF...... a sitting duck?

@Harry Lagom SAAB warfare avionics are so good Eurofighter have bought into it and it will be fitted to the British Typhoons at least. A very good system.

@@shashwatshrey9248 They are about the same. But Sweden built the gripen solo for half the cost.

Obviously,you have mistaken Gripen with Viggen.The aircraft flying 30 years ago was Viggen with delta wings and front canards.

@@johntsoukas8723 actually Gripen was in air during the early 1990s while Sweden still had Viggen in the air

So what the F-16 is 45 years old

Yes i know.Actually all of today's fighters have started being developed in the 90's.Viggen and Draken had been developed in the 60's and 70's.F-16 is a 70's aircraft.@@Groza_Dallocort

@@johntsoukas8723 Draken first flew back in 1955 and started active service in 1960. Draken looks way younger

Mathias Stoffersen ace combat 7

LOL! Perfect :)

It was a political issue with the Swiss. The government had decided to go with the Gripen, but according to Swiss laws, this had to be brought up as a public vote. The Swiss public voted against the purchase. In a small country like Switzerland, range was not and issue. Considering that the Gripen and the Hornets have the same engine, fuel consumption was not an issue either.

@@rokuth And considering that the Gripen doesn't have the areodynamics of a brick like The Hornet...yes fuel consumption is not a thing. And the Swiss voted No to *any* new fighter purchase in the near future.

F35 is the new choice as 🇨🇭 plan to use the stealth to drop chocolates around Europe like Santa Claus.🤞

No. JAS-39 costs more to fly than 8000 USD. You are comparing apples to oranges. JAS-39E costs the same as Eurofighter with regards to procurement costs. All fighters can take off from regular roads.

Oh boy.... Do you really believe any kind of tech transfer will happen to a third world country?? Also Saab isn't Swedish for some time, this is British BA subsidiary.

@@1vespa really*

@@1vespa Nay Saab is 40% Bae system and the rest is Swedish. And yes Brazil will get tech transfer because in their contact signed with Saab it says that they can built AND sell the Gripen F

Aurinko Maata 3rd the one of the largest economic in the world 🖕🏽 most richest country on natural resources

This 3rd world country has the 8th biggest economy in the world and would destroy your country in a actual war