Oh wow i am first noice. As a bulgarian we mainly buy F-16s mainly cuz they are pretty chap like we bought 10000000 previus year...

How to join the channels community page?

Is this video targeted towards India, Even if not it's very good for education of Fighter jets.

I mean. Multirole fighters are known from almost half century. Concept date as far as F-4 Phantom II. Though it was not until recently when Russia mastered the concept. If they even did that.

​@@mtf_savage_beasts2565buy British, comes with tea making facilities.

Honestly, I'd say that it is counted in his mentions of "not being noticed by the enemy", but I'm just glad to see a comment that isn't just a US/Russia bot.

If you are expecting your adversary to be fairly advanced (4th gen fighters, S-300/Patriot SAMs), F-35 is clearly the winner. One F-35 and the Kerch Bridge would be toast right now. The only reason to do otherwise is if you simply cannot afford even a handful or if you are mainly concerned with insurgents or poor neighbors that couldn't shoot down a B-17 let alone an F-35.

What many people don't know is that stealth has more value than just in itself. Stealth is a force multiplier, many other capabilities get "boosted" by stealth, particularly with electronic warfare, where jamming will be much more effective if it's conducted by stealth aircraft due to inverse square-law effect.

Penguin kingdom downvoted this comment

Nah tails the fox tornado>

Koopa Clown Copter best CAS

Porco Rosso will dominate the sky.

@@ahriise9570 wrong Lizzo is the ultimate ATG munition

But manufacturing in FabLabs is now much much easier

They competed against each other for military contracts with the USAF. F-16 won being more thoroughbred as a fighter. The F-16 then ended up being widely exported with 4600 and counting airframes built. The USN then picked up the F-18 later since it was able to replace 3 of their older fighter and attackers due to versatility and durability.

F18 is designed for carrier ops. It isn't as maneuverable and it's more complex maintenance wise.

We will sell tech but only to our closest allies. Like we transferred tech for F-16 to Japan and they built it over there as F-2. But yes to countries like Brazil, with which we have ok relations but a lot of differences as well, we won't transfer tech.

​@@coreyleander8123what he's saying is that even when a country is prepared to pay the billions of dollars for intellectual property, the U.S still wont agree to transfer it

💯 Given how well the F-15EX ranked in just about every category, I’m surprised it ended up so low on the list.

I actually agree with this. Probably having mostly f-15s with about a third of the total planes being F 35s would be best. But small-to-medium-sized countries with enough to run two airframes, which is usually avoided like the plague

Gripen wont go to Ukraine as there simply isnt any aircraft left over. The immense surplus of F16s negate any real advantage and really makes the point moot. Gripen would be perfect for Ukraine, if Ukraine had bought 60+ units in 2014 but now Brazil and SwAF have all capacity tied up simply to replace existing C/D variants with Gripen E.

Gripen was designed for long grueling wars with Russia, F16 was designed to topple small countries who wants to stop using $ for oil trade.

​@@SverkerSuperThe Gripen C might be available to Ukraine next year and it's roadside ability makes it a better choice than F16 plus you can fit a wide range of missiles not just AIM 9X or IRIS T it also has A Darter on S.African version and Python is compatible also. Ukraine have sent pilots for training in Sweden!

@@NATObait Yes, this has been known for some time - Still does nto solve the main issue. Even if the Gripen would suit UAF needs - There isnt enough airframes or manufacturing capacity to fill that void, where as the F16 has hundreds of aircraft awaiting a new assignment. The best option is the one you have at hand, even if i think we all would be happy to finally see a win for SAAB as Gripens in Ukraine would be its just not realistic as SwAF need every avaliable aircraft for home defence, except maybe 12 pcs (Just as with the 122s)

F35 for a/a mission and f18sh/rafalef4 for a/g mission!

I think the combo should be Nato wide. F 35 for rich countries with big fleets and grippens for smaller poorer countries.

The F-35A is already a workhorse.

Fighter Mafia may hate the F-15 for its size and weight, but larger size means more rooms to grow, and this is what allows the F-15 to fly into the future. Radars and engines in particular, benefited greatly from increased size, turbofans are more efficient the larger its diameter, for example.

Well you're wrong here because it's not that old F15, it's a much newer F15 strike eagle that has about 25-30 years. And a much much newer EX that has a couple of years

I see what you did there 😁

We have enough f35s to win handily

The F18 and F35s are hangar queens, but when they fly. They can basically do everything.

My unasked opinion is: Australia will become some sort of western bastion in the Pacific. Like.. a front state. You guys get the best tech from all over the west, in every domain. As far as I know, at least. Nuclear subs, F 35, neat Agis destroyers, the Lynx and Boxer Family for the mech troops..... and maybe someday even Nukes. As a german, I hesitate to congratulate you guys, for the front state status. Because every tactical nuke of the theatre will be aimed at you, like it is for us. Maybe a few more of those really neat destroyers?

@@heinzkabofke6791 it’s always good to hear opinions from other countries. Thanks for the praise haha, I don’t know if we are as influential as you might think though. We have a relatively small but well trained and equipped land army. It is optimised to work with American and other allied forces overseas. Similar to Britain I guess. We also have the luxury of spending a higher preposition of our defence budget on force projection platforms since we don’t have an existential threat on our boarder like Finland and Vietnam do. The only real potential threat to us is Indonesia but we have a relatively good relationship with them and even if they were able to land tens of thousands of troops here we’d be able to disrupt their supply lines with air power while they die of thirst haha. There isn’t much infrastructure in the norther parts of Australia 😜. Oh, your point about being a target for nuclear attacks. I think the fact that we don’t have nukes is what makes us a target. I can imagine a lot of scenarios where China and America are in direct conflict and China decides to escalate and thinks that striking Australia with a nuke might achieve a ceasefire or at least put the ball in Americas court so to speak. If China nuked New York then Beijing would get nuked next. But what if they nuke a town in central Australia that kills 10,000 people. That leaves a lot of room for America to say “ok ok, let’s stop and talk”

@@chrisc2671 We neither have nukes. But we were a front state. They targeted our military infrastructure and the large formations. tactical.

Yeah, when choosing a plane it's best to go with the winning side of the political and economic conflicts going on, and will be a reliable partner in peacetime.

🤣

Visually appealing aswell

USN Budget Overviews have the Super Hornet at gross cost $95mil each while the F-35A has fallen to $85mil each. The F-35B last I checked a few years ago was $140mil each and the Marines were holding out for them.

That's another strong reason Ukraine wants Gripen complementing the coming F-16's. It's roughly as capable as F35, but also purpose built for the kind of warfare Ukraine is fighting - and specifically the Russian's!

Yeah f35s are scouts running ahead as a force multiplier while the 4+ gen stuff are the missile carriers coming in behind

Not if they want to keep purchasing the hardware from the original seller. If you drag the F-16s name through the mud by dishonestly offloading rundown equipment, don't expect Lockheed or whoever to cut you a good deal in the future.

In general I agree with you, have a light, small and cheap one engine plane like the Gripen together with the F-35 or F-15 EX is the best of 2 worlds but that wasn't really what these 2 episodes were about. I think we are missing something when we are dependent on a single plane doing all roles because a Jack o' all trades are master of none. The earlier doctrine of having specific planes for each role is more expensive but it is very effective. However, a small country can not operate 5 or so different combat planes, it get's way too expensive and if you do go up against a nation like the US you are pretty much screwed in the air in any case, even if you focus on super advanced planes that could go one on one with the American planes you will not be able to keep that up for long. 2 types is still possible unless you are really small so I agree with the 1/3 2 engine and 2/3 one engine as long as you minimum could afford 25/50 planes, otherwise you should probably just buy something really cheap in larger numbers instead, having less then 75 planes is not a great idea and I rather have 200 really cheap Russian or Chinese planes then like 50 Gripen and F-15 together. Planes can also get taken out on the ground and so few planes are really vulnerable. I would prefer the Gripen to the F-16 since it is easier to maintain and spend way less time in the hangar which is important when you have few planes, Binkov didn't really go into that part and it doesn't really matter if you can afford hundreds of planes. It also require smaller landing strips (or just a straight good highway) which might or might not matter depending on your infra structure (if you have good highways and few airfields it matters a lot, if your roads suck but you have large air strips it doesn't matter much). Sadly, the Super Hornet is not in production anymore so I would count that out as an option.

@@loke6664 The Grippen is underrated. I'm sure it could be link 16 connected to the F-35.

@@scottstewart5784 That part isn't a problem, Gripen have worked with F-35 in a bunch of training exercises already and Gripen is built to work with NATO planes. You really just get a problem when you are operating Russian or Chinese planes together with NATO planes, those aren't exactly made to link to the same AWAC planes and so on and can't carry the same weapons. It is still a bit more logistics when you operate more then one type of plane but the military advantages is worth it. Gripen's big problem is that manufacture time is higher then for instance F-16 and it isn't easy to get hold of some used older models cheap either (Hungary are renting their model C Gripen so they succeeded with that and got them cheap but it is pretty inferior to the latest model). Used F-16 planes are dime a dozen and you can get those for almost nothing if you don't mind flying older technology. That is also the reason Ukraine is getting F-16 now, Gripen would have fitted their needs better but there is no way they could get enough planes in time to make a difference, just finding 36 planes of different models would be a hard task but 200 F-16 is pretty easy to get, particularly when Denmark (and is it Holland or Belgium) are phasing theirs out for F-35. A lot of NATO countries have a few F-16 planes they can gift to Ukraine. If you are a small country and have a few years to wait, Gripen is a great plane to get but if you need it *now* because your larger neighbor is invading, F-16 is certainly your only choice. And both F-16 and Gripen are small one engine planes, that is great in some situations but larger 2 engines planes have their advantages too and certainly can take more weapons, particularly if you don't need stealth for your current mission.

I'd argue we still need to see stealth planes in widescale combat to determine the validity of that statement.

@@itsmederek1 i mean it's already proven from iraq to kosovo. See first shoot first is the air battle today. Reducing the range you can be seen lets you get in range to engage enemies with missiles that may have shorter ranges. The AIM120D3 has a 112mile range to chinas pl15's 120miles. But if an f35 is undetected until 20-30 miles range then it can shoot first.

@@kdaltex I understand the logic but we need to see if stealth really functions the way we think it will in a complex warzone before we confidently consider stealth a modern necessity. I really hope it proves true personally as it would be great to keep that tech edge within the west. It makes me happy to hear that the AIM120D3 has such a great range though.

I think it depends on who you expect to fight. If you are Mexico, for instance, don't even bother showing up with anything that isn't stealth if you are going to war on the northern border. If you are going south, you are probably going to be better off with 3x more F-16s or MiG-35s until you hit French Guyana or Brazil.

Also without stealth fighters you can have your fleet grounded because you can't use it at all due to the enemy's air defenses, or you can't do almost any operation. How much does it cost?

I have no idea, how he came up with the actual stats, he put into the percentage masks. Did I miss that?

You think a nation that was denied the F-35 will buy another American jet fighter?

@@patta8388 If a nation can't get F-35, Rafale is the next best option. That explains the recent success in exports.

@@hackfleisch7424 When it fits their needs, yes. The Rafale is an excellent multirole fighter.

On the other hand the costs for this version of the plane would be a lot higher than estimatet in this video.

Outdated? Same as saying F16 is outdated. Or F18. The cold era ones no bs are old, but closer here they got a few major upgrades as MiG 29M and then 35

F-35 is the best on paper but that will be unaffordable to many nations because 1) political reasons 2) cost 3) sensible technologies within. Sure the Pentagon won't want the likes of Iran/Iraq getting their hands onto one of those. That means not only the US Congress is barring or vetoing F-35 sales directly to the likes of Iran or Iraq, but also to countries where it would risk falling into the wrong hands. To me, it was pointless to even consider it within this list. It's not even a mystery the F-35 is limited to the NATO members and only a few key US allies overseas like Australia or Japan. Besides that, no country has any hopes of buying a single one of them.

It's a sponge in the way that it soaks up taxpayer money. Almost 30 years in the making, went from $400B to $1.5T expected at end of program (while slashing the amount of units made in half) but well all know were gonna be looking at $3T for a jet that might one day fulfill its promise to cost 25,000$ an hour to fly but atm costs 40,000$ an hour. F-35 is a total failure. Any program that multiplies its costs by 10 and adds multiple DECADES to its expected program life is nothing but a JOKE.

@@Leadblast Is there a nation that was offered the F-35 and refused it ? As of now, I'd say it's the best bang for your buck if you plan on having a competitive air force for the decades to come. Buying any fighter jet that has been designed in the 80's is likely to become a bad investment... and chances are, those nations would have to buy a new - more modern - platform 25 years from now.

​@@Jopino594 The problem with you guys... is that you don't even understand what you read about that jet 😂 1.5 T was the price tag for the F-35's whole operational life... until 2070... including fuel, maintenance, staff, training, further development / modernizations... etc. And for a platform that gives you that kind of edge against your enemies... it's really not that expensive.

​​​​​@@artiefakt4402was there ever a nation being offered the F-35 besides NATO allies, Australia and Japan? Tell me. For that matter, we're not even sure if it's that "much bang for the buck" even from a pure benefits vs cost sense. The fact that the F-35 relies so much on its own stealth to do things (and said stealth is inferior to the F-22's so it's not even "top stealth"), for example is a huge liability. The moment Russia or China develop a radar being able to detect the F-35, it is done for. With all its technology the F-35 is still inferior in many ways to the 4th gens like F-15E or F/A-18E, and the US know this, which is why they still keep the latter two around.

As Binkov said, this list is biased towards cheaper planes which may not survive in conflict with a well equipped enemy. I think that statement is very important to take into account when evaluating the accuracy of the list. Ultimately, the best plane may largely depend on the war it's used in.

@Corey Leander Yeah, it’s astounding to see how well the Ukrainian air defenses have held up, although they might be finally being ground down outside Kiev. I was imagining it might be like the NATO intervention in the Balkans or the Iraq War with overwhelming suppression and air superiority in weeks but it’s been a long, drawn-out slog, and that’s even with Ukraine having nowhere near state of the art.

You have to consider he added VAT to the cost of the eurofighter and rafale, and since he said figures were taken from existing contracts, you have to take into account that pretty much all eurofighers were tranche 1 or tranche 2 bought at full price with then years of spending money on them and investing not in buying new functionalities but developing them. Saying "Europe" sold Eurofighters to UK or France is pretty silly considering the eurofighter was never meant for export, but rather to be bought by the countries that developed it: Germany, Spain, UK, Italy and France (though France pulled out mid-way to fork the project and develop their rafale). Honestly considering that the cost is competitive enough with VAT in the mix in a joint project between various countries and industries, while still delivering easily the best gen4.5 jet out there (barring carrier ops) is amazing. SImilarly the F15EX is not cost effective because in reality the maintenance is insanely high due to stupidly powerful engines developed about 40 years ago now, while the rest of the western planes have relatively new engines with way better maintenance costs.

Cost per flight hour does no matter today when the cost for purchase is the same. The same number of Gripens (+2 Global Eye thrown in as glazing) cost the same as the same number of F35 (according to most recent Finnish Evals). Sure, the $ per flight hour is something our neighbours will have to bear for years to come but the initial cost is simply to high now that F35 has gotten such numbers produced. *Insert rant about Gripen being capable but loosing out simply because of a small nation believing it can compete with the largest military economy in the world (And of course, some friendly spying)*

This exactly, the Eurofighter being ranked less capable than a F15 also feels strangely unnatural despite the methodology

You guys have no idea what you are talking about you should stop.

The Swiss chose F35 over Rafale & Typhoon in part because the F35 was cheaper

​@@thearisen7301 And we know why: lower costs are the result of a drastic reduction in flight hours... replaced by simulation hours, as Lockheed claims.

​@@thearisen7301Lmao everyone laughed at Switzerland when they said that. Only reason they buy the F35 is because the US are making a tantrum and forcing it down everyone's throat. It's not about price or capabilities but about politics and if you want to piss the US or not

No surprise.

Like trying to use a Phantom II in 2023

uhh during 1991 it was 24 F-14, 24 F/A-18 and 10 A-6 now it is only 48 F/A-18

It's not completely different, it shares 25% common parts with the old F-18C.

F-18 hornet among my few favorite American plane, mostly because of its capabilities and similarities in appearance with my favorite Russian/Soviet MiG-29 or Su-27 series

@@usslexingtoncva-1639 The Navy lost some throw weight when they got rid of the S-3 and A-6 but added more when they went all Super Hornet. It was a cost cutting measure but the Navy is finally picking up stealth aircraft.

As are the others...

@@chefchaudard3580 Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15 and F-35 were never designed to be good value, just good.

Yes, the worst part is figuring out real world use. Against most opponents that don't have networks of quality surface to air missiles and MANPADS all over the place, having numbers of bomb trucks works. In high intensity fighting, with layers of modern SAMS everywhere plus an opponent with quality modern jets, even a little advantage in the right spots means surviving and being able to be used tomorrow. But some of that requires good training too, which costs. A non-aircraft example is that Saudi Patriot crews are apparently not good at using them to stop Iranian made missiles. But Ukrainian crews are shooting down Kinzhals and Iskanders, which Americans did not think the system was capable of.

lol

Aye, while I, as a Swede, really love Gripen I must say that sticking with it at this point and not just going F-35 seems strange. But I guess it depends, Gripen is probably better if you expect all your airbases to be taken out. That being said, I do think the EU, perhaps in cooperation with Japan, should develop their own fighter. Not because America Bad, but because competition is good, and so is keeping the know-how and having production lines in more places than just the US. I'm also a fan of European strategic autonomy but still want a strong alliance with the US.

@@Fuhrerjehova Well the F-35A is essentially NATO's fighter. The Gripen will keep Sweden's military aerospace sector alive. If they give up their fighter jet their knowledge will be lost and it will be nearly impossible to get it back decades later.

Purchase price is almost irrelevant in the lifetime of the plane. Running costs is what matters in the long run. 140 or 85 mil purchase price per unit is just a rounding error during the lifespan.

@@Fuhrerjehova not to mention, you produce the Gripen in Sweden and you export it to other countries. While you may give up on defence a bit, not only does it keep your industrial sector alive, much of Europe would have to rely on local industry in the face of a war which is another bonus for Sweden(its been helpful for Ukraine, whatever wartime industry it has, has been in full priduction). Its good for your economy, good for Europes defence, and also keeps Sweden in the technology game that many countries aren't in.

@@SwedishVilsten As is the cost and ability of update. I'm going to trust the American updates more than the Russian ones.

I doubt that would be as consequential currently, since the bulk of air denial revolves around ground-based air defense systems.

@@chayoto Valid point, but it did not come to eradicate the air war as we know it. In other words, true, but not actually relevant to my point.

Yes

For Ukraine specifically they'd ideally want a NATO compatible western aircraft since they could be directly fed the datalink from western AWACS already operating in the area.

Can Indonesia efforts F35? Can they even know how to operate F35?

@@user-vv3se4wt7v Your question is exactly what the US question lmao.

I Think not all people have known the upg on the aircraft, the newest FA-50 (Korean/Polish) could have the same potential as the Gripen, but with AMRAAMS’ instead of Meteors and Sidewinders instead of ASRAAMs. Just a lower range.

What you you mean by "Lori"? I tried searching for this capability but I found no results.

@@CynicallyDepressedx I heard a report months ago that gripen could be stored in a truck and deployed on a highway. I have been looking for that source of information but i cannot find it...

@@242tdryan "Stored in a truck" might be pushing the definition of storing a bit (I guess it might be able to be transported on a special truck), but it can use highways as bases and can be refueled and rearmed in about 10min by a technician and five conscripts. Engine replacement can be done in an hour (by the same level and amount of staff).

The "truck" is all that you need to service and rearm at a disbursed roadbase.its never transported on one

There are advantages to both. Wheeled vehicles have much lower maintenance costs, are faster on roads and hard ground, and don't damage tarmac. Tracked vehicles cope better with soft ground, have a turning circle measured in nanometres, and are more resilient to ammunition.