Comparing the fighter jets that could be sent to Ukraine
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2022
- Ukraine has made persistent calls for fourth-generation fighter jets to form part of Western military aid packages.
So far, fighter jets have not been part of the deliveries but there have been hints from the US military that this could change.
Forces News has analysed the jets being talked about as potential candidates for the Ukrainian air force.
More here: www.forces.net/ukraine/fighte...
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.79[1/2] แก๊งไทบ้านพาบุกเมืองบั้งไฟโก้ ยโสธรรรร!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ldr3_fvTEXk/mqdefault.jpg)
I wish we saw more Gripens operating in the world, the Swedish made a pretty unique fighter and did it on a very tight budget.
Gripens would be perfect - easy to maintain, more modern than f16 and could serve for a longer period down the line.
Plus it takes off from roads and can be resupplied by a couple trucks.
@@mikek9297 I mean it's specifically designed to be maintained by a majority conscript force - you couldn't get a better match for the situation in Ukraine if you tried.
There is a very good reason there aren't more gripens in the world. Let's take a look at south Africa. A smaller less rich nation bought a low-capability light weight Gripen C. Unfortunately, it's not nearly as cheap as SAAB claims. In fact, it's cost per flight hour according to a Swiss evaluation exceeded that of older US F-16s. Meanwhile the Gripen E, the more capable aircraft, has an upfront cost more than an F-35A, with strike and payload capabilities that are inferior to even an F-16. This is due to literally one of the worst thrust to weight ratios of any 4th gen fighter. The reason gripens aren't popular is because it's too expensive for poor nations, and not capable enough for countries that can afford something better. If you don't need something super capable, you'll probably buy a JF-16 instead of Gripen, and if you can afford a Gripen E, you'll probably prefer an F-16 Block 72, Rafale, or F-35A depending on your specific needs and ITAR. It doesn't help that Gripen's supply chain is all over the place. Take a look at how much of the Gripen is actually swedish.
@@Johnnyprc stop believing the Saab Kool-Aid. Tell me why the Gripen is better for less established air bases than f-16s? Try to do it without Saab marketing
@@Johnnyprc how is Gripen better for multirole when it has inferior range and payload.
The Gripen would be a perfect choice, literally developed and built to counter Russia.
Edit: Obviously, most, if not all, Western fighters are built with Russia in mind. My point, which wasn't clear, was that Gripen is built for a conscription-based military operating from dispersed rugged airfields and converted highways. It's easier to train on and can handle rougher runways.
So was every jet in nato lmao
@@Aron-ru5zk Yeah exactly, op was sleeping lol
Not many are buiilt.
Gripen would be perfect but they are not built in large numbers because Sweden's govt refuses to promote the sale of these jets explicitly in the world arms market because of their neutrality. The Swedish Govt needs to stop being so anal about their neutrality because NOW is not the time to be anal about neutrality in Europe at the moment. If your neutral and slap bang between Russia and Nato your the meat in the Sandwich. Best thing Sweden can do is get the arms deal for say 2 squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine and get the USA to back the finance for Ukraine via the lend lease deal because by far the Gripen is the best available fighter for the type of war Ukraine is defending and hoping to fight back in.
@@Aron-ru5zk LOL
As a Swede seeing this conflict evolve, i feel very grateful to our military leaders here at home. To me, this Russian attack has proven time and again that our leadership have been making the right calls pretty much across the board. The equipment and strategies we have developed turns out to be exactly what is needed to repel a Russian attack; the Robot 57 (NLAW), the Carl Gustav (MAAWS), the pansarskott m/86 (AT4), the BONUS self-guided artillery round, the Archer shoot and scoot artillery system, the easy-to-demolish bridges, the JAS Gripen and much more. It turns out that what we have is exactly what Ukraine needs. 🇸🇪
Yes,and Sweden has been willing to donate,TY!
I cant wait till I move to Sweden. it seems to be doing pretty good right now. jag älskar det svenska jets och speciellt det gripen ( feel free to correct my swedish)
Russian Trolls are about. Must of been promised some thin soup and dry bread for their dinner...
You’re so far fetched from reality
They so so love to defend neo Nazis for a bread crust.
Why not just say Borsht and vodka?
@@Coldcasereview Too expensive for them
@@trekkienzl2862 we are trolls and got paid. So we can afford it
I agree, both the F16s and the Gripen E are good choices. Ultimately, I think it will be the F16 as the US has budgeted $100 million for pilot and related training. Then, who knows what other aircraft would meet the Ukrainian Air Forces needs in the near future and onward.
@Turtle Racer Good choice for close air support once local air supremacy is achieved. Add F15s as bomb trucks with JDAMs and other smart munitions… I would not want to be on the receiving end of all that hurt.
I think they should keep it simple, with all those manpads in Ukraine friendly fire is probably a huge problem. Ground to air missile systems and tons of ammo for HIMARS and it's game over I would think...
@@hsaurid I honestly don’t they they would send f-15 Maybe the f-18 but the f-16 for sure
@@therealman2016 F18 isn’t as capable as the F15 in the ground attack role or even the air supremacy role. Check out the latest variant, the F15 EX. Even the F18 Super Hornet falls short.
However, recent developments suggest the JAS 39 Gripen E would be a better fit for Ukraine economically and its capability to land and take off from short stretches of highway put it ahead of the American offerings.
@@hsaurid the question is which country willing to pay for this, this cost more then artillery gun is not a small number that country willing to provide air force. Switzerland share border with Russia will they want risk the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons. Although Russia cannot fight two war but they have intentions of using nuclear weapons.
You forgot the f-18c. Their are a lot knocking about since the navy has been retiring the old Hornets for the super Hornets, can operate from rough fields with low maintenance, and training can be spread out over the us navy/marine, Spain, Finland, Australia, and Canada.
US training Ukrainians inside if Germany aswell
Very expensive. Gripen is x0.3 the cost + conscript level to maintain + license to produce domestically + platform
They could obviously handle short runways too, being made for carriers. So that's good for Ukraine. They do cost around $30k/hr to operate though.
@@dm0065 yeah but that puts it about equal to the su-27 Ukraine is already using. I don't think that is a bad deal over all.
@@micindir4213 problem with the gripen is there are far to few to send, getting a factory in Ukraine going will take years, and only Hungary, Czechia, Uk, and Sweden have experience with them thus increasing the training cost per country substantially.
F16. Not because it's the best but because it's disposable, and as far as we know, pilots from Ukraine are already being trained on them. Conversion is a difficult process because some of the instruments are the reverse of what Ukraine pilots are used to. That's dangerous in a high pressure situation.
Though if you can't get Gripens Hornets or Super Hornets are better, as they are designed for carrier operation they got a stronger landing gear and can take off and land at lower speeds.
The Rafale could also be a good choice as it can be carrier-capable, or maybe even Mirage 2000 or France of some stored away, though they are kind of old by now.
convensional wings to delta wings ,, thats hardworks for UKRAINE pilot..
They were having trouble finding export customers for the Gripen. Maybe if they donated a few to Ukraine we could see them in action (might impress other potential buyers) 😉
Gripen is an expensive asset , you domt just donate that beauty to get lost , do you?
SAAB lost against F-35 due to the fact that the Gripen E was Not Flying at that Date, while the F-35 was Flying. Well the F-35 need to get production methology-updates after the Deals, while the Gripen E flys now.
@@ELITE-xn3sh No, the losing is supposed to happen to the other side. That would be the whole point of the Gripen.
@@charleschristner7123 well i wish , im just pointing out that when a country is in need of a product for themselves , like the grippen , its not very usual of them to give it , or train others how to use it , since they havent pretty much used it themselves.
I also got another thing in mind , what would happen if the russians actually captured one of these trained pilots , wouldnt that be russia getting info abt an enemy's asset?
@@ELITE-xn3sh Wow buddy, it was just a bit of sarcasm(F-16 is the practical choice). Also Russia has had a number of their own pilots captured, they would be keen to trade back.
The gripens are the best option in this case, but there's not many of them
Agreed.
Thank you for repeating the exact point made in the video 👍🏻
Embraer of Brazil and SAAB of Sweden in combination can source enough SAAB Gripen E/F.
Cheers dits
Only 12 lease aircraft are in the Czech Republic that can be used short term. But more will take a lot of time to produce. The short term would favour a combination of the F-16 and A-10.
F 16 just for sheer availability and the number of nations with instructors available for both flying and maintenance ... With this and the planned upgrade program could be a new lease of life for the aircraft
The US Navy has retired their F/A-18C Hornet. I think that F/A-18 could be a good choice for Ukraine's Airforce in the shorter term. They can use all weapontypes needed, and they have a long range (edit: long enough range). They are probably the best suited of the US fighters for Ukraine's, let's say a bit "rugged", airfields.
(edit: one of the better. Finland use F-18 in a similar way to how Sweden is using JAS,-39 Gripen.)
The US Navy will eventually replace their F/A-18E Super Hornet with F-35C. The Super Hornets could then become available for Ukraine.
In the longer term I think JAS-39E Gripen is the better choice.
edit: F-16 is what the Ukrainians has asked for themselves (afaik). It's probably the most suitable aircraft for them, and also most likely what they will receive.
The US Navy has also retired the EA-6B Prowler. These electronic warfare aircraft, with AGM-88 HARM, would be a useful addition to Ukraine's Airforce.
The legacy hornet may have rugged landing gear but it still requires at least an 8,000 foot runway for land based operations, and it has some FOD concerns. So unless the Ukrainians are doing FOD walks before every launch cycle, it won't be useful to them in rugged or austere environments.
F18 is what I thought of as well. Tough carrier landing gear and (from what I hear) very good reliability and you have an aircraft that could likely operate from roads. A quick look at Davis Monthan and you can see about 50 F18s sat around gathering sand. Quite a few F16s as well.
Super Hornets will fly along side F35C until the F/A-XX comes along.
British harriers would be best because of short take off
Legacy Hornet airframes are not airworthy
Give them the Grippen and for that matter, Taiwan should be getting more aircraft like the Grippen as well.
I would say give Ukraine the Gripen is was designed to counter Russian aggression, ideal for maintenance, weapons compatibility and being multirole it can be adaptable to the varied missions it will need to undertake.
The F-16 makes more sense from a production and logistics standpoint makes no sense to build Gripens when they have little going for them when it comes to economics of scale plenty of Nations can supply spare parts for f-16s
@@spartanx9293 F16 landing gear is just to fragile for use in Ukraine imho.
@@woolyimage it's not that fragile the planes not delicate I don't know where people get that idea from
Send Tom Cruise with one Tomcat two footballs a motorcycle and a guitar.
It seems far off that the swedish government would send the JAS Gripen, even older C or D models. Although given that most western support have some ulterior motives behind them, I can't help too think that it would be great value for future sales of the Geipen platform too have them proven in battle, and as the video points out, it is really an ideal platform. I know its a ruthless mix, commercial coverage in an ongoing conflict, but I'd even consider sending the never model, no doubt, as an gen 4,5 fighter, it would perform well. God willing, may ukraine have the power to end this conflict. Slava Ukraini!
Agree, the Swedes did a great job with the Gripen, the biggest problem with it seems to be finding customers.
We can probably spare some now that like half of our pilots will be retiring soon if they aren’t coerced into staying
Don’t be surprised if the South Korean FA50 becomes the fighter jet in this conflict.
The Gripen is more is the better single engine ,all rounder fighter and is already built to use the wider variety of weapons in NATO’s inventory….and not to mention the turnaround times and maintenance that can be done in the field by only Four Conscripts.
Gripen numbers are so small. There is no surplus Gripen. And Sweden produces them very slowly.
And it can land on ordinary ok roads. We have aloth of widened roads in sweden. Wont be so vunerable in a airfield
Pretty sure the C/D is out of production and the E/F is too new and expensive, it only had its first flight in 2017.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD maybe its much more expensive if they have less good planes. More material will be desteoyed for ukraine on the ground
Add some A-10 Warthogs and we he have a perfect couple of hardy, STOL, cheap and quick turnaround types that compliment each other perfectly.
Would the Refale be any good?
The aircraft matter, but the radar and weapons systems, and pilot training and tactics matter far far more. The aircraft are largely just a delivery system.
Delivery system until you lose said delivery system
Meteor and IRIS-T are badass, and work on the Gripen.
The point is that for the weapons to be delivered the plane must be able to take off on a short roadstrip, land on a short roadstrip, and be supported by a handful of guys who got limited training.
There is no TopGun Sunday-school facility support in Ukraine avaliable atm. It is raining rockets and bombs that makes the airfield looking like a swiss cheese!
Giving them just a few old Buccaneers would be useful. Ultra low level ground attack. Give them something, for God's sake.
Amen
My gf's dad used to fly those
@@Coldcasereview He was scared of heights then!
Does the F-16 not require something like 20-30 hours maintenance per flight hour?
Man hours Ie but take 20 hours for one man to perform maintenance
If your statement was actually accurate
SAAB are an exceptional company, the planes are ideal for what Ukraine needs. SAAB also made decent cars.
Yes, that is why the are no more Saab cars on the road 😁😁😁
@@absoluteanonomity6994 That's the parent company, not SAAB's fault!
Absolutely // sweden
@@absoluteanonomity6994 That was the action of Gangster Motors 🤬 (GM).
@@absoluteanonomity6994 GM bought them, then it went down!
The C and D version of the Gripen have recieved constant upgrades since the 1990's with things like the Radar and ECM system being upgraded every few years.
I can see benefits in both the saab and f16. Would it be too difficult to have a mixture of both aircraft. Probably the biggest problem would be training, although logistics of parts and maintenance could be a pain too. Having said that, I have to wonder if I'm the only person who thinks that there might be merit in having some of both aircraft.
If the f16 needs decent runways, it's no good if they keep getting bombed, SAABS close to the front and f16s a little further away..
It would be good to get actual comments on this rather than just likes or dislikes since I'm torn on this myself
F16 probably the best choice there are a ton of them compared to the Saab gripen and the US is better able to supply parts plus all the second hand f16s there are. Griffon is a great plane but there are like 10 times more f16 that have been built
Yes it will be a good opportunuity to show off non US weapons.
Definitely, if it is possible to arrange. I’m sure Ukraine would bite your hand off.
@@julianputnam8290 You can have all the f16 parts in the world land in Ukraine, but it won't do any good if there are no trained f16 airplane mechanics. Ukraine's biggest bottleneck is training. They can't get enough people trained on the latest Western technologies. The Gripen's advantage is simpler maintenance that enables conscripts with wrenches.
The problem with F16 is that after a flight it will be grounded for a while, idk about the Gripen but it is a nice aircraft and has to be good challenge to the thrust vectoring Su 35, because both are 4th and are best in the 4th gen from their country
Just send a few of each. US has the budget to secure some of the Swedish ones and they can act to fill in the gaps while capacity is developed to maintain F-16.
Create a logistical nightmare, sensible.
And why exactly what the United States build a foreign jet when we could just apply them with one of our own domestically built ones? You're also confusing the fact that economics of scale and spare parts availability has more to do with maintenance than a simple marketing statistic that Saab provides
I would have the thought the Gripen would have been ideal.
Gripen and the harrier. Harrier can be used to take out tanks and helicopters. Gripen can be used as air surpirioty armed with meteor missile and some bombs
Very interesting point in Ward Carrols interview on this subject
Whoa, i didn’t know there were so many military aviation experts floating around youtube comments sections
The problem of few gripens could soon not be a big issue since the Swedish air force is currently beginning to receive 60-70 newer gripen e variants, and operating 150+ planes is costly so they might retire some of the older variants. Although there are no current intentions of this as far as i know.
Sweden are planning to keep some of the C/D longer and upgrade them to a standard closer to the E variant so they can operate together for a longer period instead of just directly replace them.
Good point, didn't know this. Thanks
There are more Gripens than what the Swedish airforce have.
@@xifel72 TELL ME MORE, i'M INTERESTED....THANKS IN ANTICIPATION.
@@xifel72 Correct, but with the exception of Sweden, the current fleets of Gripen C/D in each airforce is rather limited with most airforces having around 12 each. Ofc even 12 Gripen C/D will make a significant difference in the ongoing war if an airforce will be able to trade them out fully, but for a more significant number probably Sweden has to be involved. (Brazil will get much more of the Gripen E/F variant but that just started to be delivered last year.)
They need JAS 39 Gripen. Then they need a road and two conscripts för tech and loading.
Recycled Mirage 2000 could also be an option. Lots of countries could give them (Greece, India, Abu Dhabi,....). Same for the Panavia Tornado.
the tornado would just become a flying coffin. No one is desperate enough to fly this against Russia. And the Mirage 2000 could really work but I don't see anyone giving them up like that. Especially since a lot of those lying around are modified or upgraded versions, not just stock Mirages 2000
What about the gripens leased to the Czech republic? The lease expires soon and Sweden has no intent on taking them back
The saab jas39 would be amazing. Short takeoff and landings on highways. Quick to operate and inexpensive
Not viable very few of them have been built outside of Sweden and the ones that have been exported are only on lease there are far more f-16s and hornets than there are Gripens
@@spartanx9293 sure, but there is a lot of old stock with gripen c, some old b variants etc that could be brought into action again. 200+ for sure
But as they said in the video, how are you supposed to support f-16? For basic rearming and fuleing you only need a ground crew of four with the jas, two could theoretically be viable aswell. Haven't seen any f16 take of and land from normal roads...
Its not about how many planes we can send over there or what they theoretically could do in the air, its about how much they cost to fly/support and if thats at all even possible. A grounded plane is a useless plane.
The migs they fly right now are built like tanks and thats almost a requirement considering how their airorts probably look right now. Lets just reasure their not up to the US standrad of airport cleanliness and support.
The Vipers are the obvious choice due to the many units aging out among multiple allied forces. There could be some strategic ambiguity as to which exact countries are supplying them. The Ukrainians need to obtain some Israeli anti-air systems to defend their runways from missile attacks and operate from the western part of the country.
Iron dome rocket defence is ok for single/multiple grad rockets (this is what hezbollah uses with improvised tubes + battery to ignite rocket), but it seems it wouldn’t work against cruise and ballistic missiles because it’s designed to intercept small and slow targets. At least some sort of mod is required.
In fact even littering old s 300 throughout the country could work if its dense enough. I’m pretty sure we’ll have to come up with better anti missile system ourselves. As we have data on what’s works and what doesn’t. Outcome of the war might be advances in anti-rocket systems and at least some desintegration of icbm deterrence strategy.
Or not, if west has lost its hustle
Swedish Gripen ticks all the boxes, not the F18. Common sense first.
The biggest box is availability. Thats why the F16 is more likely.
the problem with Gripen is we only really have one factory for them as well as we don't have a large backlog of them all the E-models are currently gong to sweden and brazil and we don't have capacity to build c models so even though I work for Saab Aeronautics I gotta say in this case where they need a lot of fighters fast the F16 is probably the better choice unless we have a stupidly smaller training time and we are okay with cutting down our airforce given we're the user with the most of them
When you talk about aircraft, its all about logistics. How can the technicians and ground crews be trained to support the operations in such a short time? It is useless if the aircraft can only make 1 sortie and then it is grounded.
Exactly. It’s a little late now.
They seem to have forgotten how much maintenance needs to be done on there machines. Forget about training pilots which would take months if not years, what about training mechanics and setting up logistical hubs for the spare parts which will be obliterated by Russian air strikes as soon as possible.
F-18c is by FAR the best option. Spain or the USMC can give theirs. Hornet can handle road ops and with the aesa radar,aim-120d, aim-9x and hmd upgrades that the usmc have there’s no russian plane that could take it on…
The Legacy Hornet airframes are not airworthy. Without a catapult and arrestor wire, it’s launch and landing requirements are worse than Grippen.
@@asterixdogmatix1073 not true. F-18’s can land much slower and hit the road with more vertical velocity. Just watch a riat swiss f-18 landing and you’ll see how they stop on a dime compared to a gripen. Look up “riat arrivals” on yt and you’ll see both of them landing. Also if they weren’t airworthy then spain, usmc, finland, Switzerland, canada, Malaysia, and kuwait wouldnt still be defending their homelands with them.
I would love to see this. It also performed respectably in Independence Day considering the threat was off world and arguable far more advanced. Jokes aside though airframe hour limits tend to heir on the conservative side and we put our toys away before the are broken.
@@Mako2-1 Extending past the airframe lifespan hours is not worthwhile for use in this conflict. Do you know more than Justin Bronk?
@@asterixdogmatix1073 You can say what you want but facts are facts and the numbers don’t lie
What a pity there are no more F-5 Tigers around. They would have been a cheap piece of equipment, (relatively) easy to maintain, cost-efficient (especially when you look at F-35...).
The other option is the F-18, which like the Grippen is designed for short landings and take offs (carrier plane!)
F 16 is awesome machine for Ukraine. It is relatively cheap with basic setup, highly extendable and customizable per needs. Also Ukrainian fighters has been training with f16 according to the official news
Couple mistakes:
1. The F-16 achieved initial operational capability (entered service) in 1980. The first production aircraft were delivered in 1978, but it was not yet in service.
2. "4+ gen fighter" is not a term the western defense community uses, that's actually a Russian classification for fighters which was a knee jerk reaction to the US generation classification system. Typhoon and Rafale are 4.5 gen fighters, 4+ is more vague and not as useful in my opinion.
2:17 _"hammers and you know wrenches and things"_ haha
Can you tell me how are you going to get these jets in without being detected? disassembled in a box? and once built how will you protect it ?
Does it matter? I think we're well past the point of worrying about some Ukrainian pilots hoping on a bus to Germany and then flying home as an "escalatory step"
Russia hasn't been able to stop much of anything coming in from Poland. Or they can be flown in from the south away from Belarus from Romania. Russian pilots are terrified of Ukrainian airspace so getting them there isn't an issue
It’s the Gripen, any other decisions are purely political. It’s the better plane and designed for the very job it is needed for.
Send them Western veteran pilots too. Volunteers.
And go there yourself no?
Give them the B2 , a lot of them to end this early.
excellent show! thanks
To further our interests its Intel that wins wars. Sun Tzu said sucessful warriors win then go to war defeated warriors go to war then seek to win. Understand the level of critical mass needed to defeat the enemy.
the faster they give denmark the f35 the more f16's available
The same goes for Belgium and the Netherlands
The factories are booked solid for years and years.
thanks, great information
Why is the Gripen not in use now?
Great content. I hope they get the gripen.
The issue is teaching the pilots how to effectively use the plane
1:50 Correction: The A/B version was deployed in the 90s. The first C-versions were deployed in 2002.
Gripen is the best so we can finally see Gripen on actual Combat!
which combat..??they will just be taken out within the first 2 weeks probably by russian air defences
@@briant5685 phew Russian airdef? They cant even take down Ukrainian drone! Filmibg how ukraine destroy russian tank Lmao
As many Gripens as realistically possible with NATO members supplying every Soviet era plane they have and getting backfilled with F16s to compensate. Time is more important than anything here but also they have to get over the stigma that flying them from their bases into Ukraine is escalatory. We are way past that bs.
Yeah I hope we're past that too. And it's getting harder to see what Putin could do as a mid level response too. He's already turning off the gas , and the conventional RF forces seem a bit asthmatic in Ukraine
Some of the best aviation art at your fingertips!
The Gripen is the only real choice but getting to them is a problem
Hands down the Gripen should be the choice for Ukraine, this theatre is exactly what the aircraft was designed for.
F16 is faster and carries more ordnance than Gripen and has Wild weasel versions ready to go. US is the major ally so would make sense to go the F16 route.
Again,training which can take up to 3 years and repair complexity,the gripen is superior in an operational standpoint and if they have something to put missiles onto Russian aircraft then no matter its speed whether it be Mach 1.8 or Mach 2.3, it would still work
Exactly. Both platforms would most like work but logistically the gripen looks like the better option. Still I hope they get something.
How long do you think it takes to learn to fly or maintain an f16?!! They just need about 150 mig29's
@@blades4741 Ukraine pilots have actually been learning to fly F-16 this whole time. Just in case, a handful of them have been in the US learning how to fly this entire time. The F-16 can hold way more bombs and different type of missiles or precision guided bombs, more than the gripen.
@@snsproduc Yes but operational costs, personnel, equipment is endless compared to the Gripen. It was designed for this type of conflict and no matter who supplies the aircraft, it still opposes Russia either way.
Unfortunately we won't know how they'll use or misuse our equipment given to them after the war.
I believe Zelensky knows which side his bread is buttered on.
Lot many people are talking about f/a -18 as a worthy contender but someone in a thread correctly mentioned of fod walks on highways being a problem. And this option naturally came to our mind because of the landing gear issue raised by the presenter, but now I am wondering why not f-15? It's a older land based fighter with kill ratio unmatching anything ever built.
@@soulsphere9242 same from where fa-18 and f16 were going to be procured.
Other option is to provide older Russian jets for now until a decision is met and prepare ground crew, pilots for training on Griphen/F16 (what ever the case), logistics for ornaments and spare parts in the meantime.
But personally I think it probably be the F16 due to availability. Parts and training can be achieved close by from NATO states.
Nevertheless I take it with a grain of salt and it could be a totally different planes to get the Russians of guard.
Easiest way is this - ukrainians already know how to operate them. Provide favourable F-16 for Mig-29/Flanker swap deals to 3rd party countries and you can get jets quite quickly. Plenty of Migs and Sukhois in eastern europe, north africa
@@echosmith5256 they would like to have modern western planes. Other option is to deliver both planes but support equipment and training would be a hard. Lots of incompatible parts.
What about tornado aircraft they were built to take on russian armour and air
How airworthy are they though?
@@callumrae5769 most of them will be I mean the germans wanted them for parts so even if we assume half is airworthy then the other half be used for spares
What about the A10?
F16 are not ideal in the near term but abundant in availability and price but Grippen is the ideal aircraft but they are relatively expensive and not a medium to long term solution. That said Ukraine has a dire short term need so it would still make sense to acquire Grippen.
Warthogs, old chap! A-10 Warthogs! Be a perfect match and mix with the Gripen (and F-16). Warthogs, like the Gripen were designed for this sort of war in these sorts of conditions. STOL, quick and cheap turnarounds/unprepared runways/roads/fields, what-ever. The USA has just modified up its Warthog fleet and it is about time to turn it loose on Russian adventurers in Ukraine.
Yes but also no, A-10 just can't survive in current contested airspaces where long range AAMs or ground based air defense systems could knock it out as it flies low and slow. In a dominated airspace where the A-10 could essentially attack Russian positions uncontested then yes it would be a highly effective platform, but that is not the current situation, and just look at the casualty rates of the Su-25, the Russian analogue of the A-10. For both sides, sending slow flying aircraft to assault positions protected by air defense platforms is nearly a suicide mission, enough so that Russian helicopters are opting to lob unguided rockets in an arc from a distance rather than get close enough to get a visual and be put at risk of enemy air defence.
The F-16 or Gripen can perform the same CAS role to a lesser degree while still being very capable in BVR engagements and more importantly, SEAD operations, which the Ukranian airforces have lacked up until recently with their MacGyvering of Mig-29s to work with HARMs, even if with limited capabilities. Getting the Viper or Gripen into country is far more important to establish Ukranian control of the air and provide support to ground forces, along with establishing the capability to hunt and destroy Russian artillery batteries from the air. The A-10 just absolutely cannot do these jobs. Add on that the logistical strain it will put on the Ukranian airforce to establish the support systems necessary to operate even one of these planes is going to be huge undertaking, and the idea of setting up two separate support systems is just not feasible.
Seeing A-10's create the Russian equivalent of the highway of death out of that 40 mile convoy would have been a hell of a thing though. Hog and Apache pilots will be talking about "the convoy that got away" for decades.
@@IAmDonut_ Hi, point well made but Russia has removed its jets, or most of them from the local area under attack by Ukraine. So the west side is fairly safe, at least compared to the west. The A-10, particularily with F-16 top cover would be excellent to turn Russia's retreat into a route because of the huge morale boost to Ukrainian forces and opposite effect on trapped Russians. I note that Putin's 40 mile bridge will give both aircraft an oppertunity relive Iraq's road of destruction and provide redeption for depriving them of the earlier attak on Kyiv. The A-10 has had massive improvements since the Gulf war and can take more punishment than any other aircraft. Time, however, is of the essence; no time for full a peaceful training program! Winter will interesting as the Ukrainian east can be resupplied but those Russian forces are trapped and vulnerable in such conditions. Thanks for your input, much appriciated.
@@phlogistonphlyte A10 is a tin can that has no business fighting an enemy with a decent circulation of MANPADS let alone an enemy with an endless supply of Buks, Kubs, Tunugskas, Tors, S300s and S400S. Sending A10 to Ukraine would be equal to shooting their pilots dead in this current situation. Both Ukraine and Russia have lost a lot of SU25s which are way more agile than A10 and have better protection from fragmentation.
Gripen 100%
South Africa should just donate all their SAAB gripens..
It's not like, they're using/flying them anyways (no money for fuel 😂).
Shame we didn’t keep a few tornados ‘surplus to requirements’
I believe the UK has some Gripen they use for training purposes, they could probably send them if the Swedes agree not to block it.
To bad Ukraine didn't already have Gripens from the start of the war, they were looking to buy or rent some. Would really have changed things I think.
No they dont, The Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) lease the use of 2 seat Gripens D's directly from Saab explicitly for fast-jet aircraft and associated requirements, for the ETPS fixed-wing European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) compliant Test Pilot and Flight Test Engineer courses. Flight operations are conducted at Saab’s Flight Test Department in Sweden, with ETPS instructor pilots flying under Saab supervision.
The gripen it the ideal solution for Ukraine, it is a advanced low cost fighter jet with enhanced avionics and it is easy to operate and maintain, plus Sweden its in close proximity to Ukraine, the delivery would be much faster. Most people tend to underestimate this jet capabilities.
Aggree /// sweden here
I agree that it would be the most suitable aircraft solution but cheap to buy it isn’t but maintenance totally offsets that issue so yeah go Grippen I say!
You missed the F-18. There are plenty of surplus Hornets, they are strongly built for carrier operations and have robust landing gear. They can carry everything that an F-16 can. I think Gripen would be ideal but there aren’t many available. Hornets kinda mix the most suitable capabilities of both the options you mentioned .
No mention of logistic support?
As they mention in this video, the F16 is not an good option for the logistics reason alone. The Gripen is the clear option, however that option would take a long long time due to politics.
Since Sweden is joining NATO if Russian mistress Turkey just stop their blackmailing and since Sweden again is spending money on getting volume in their smal but very good military, I see that Sweden not only need to use their money wise but that they will use existing Gripen's for upgrading.
Though I'm sure even 10 of them would help Ukraine I still doubt it will happen soon, also there is an election in Sweden next month so what happens after that is another story, still Sweden is increasing their own military at the moment.
Turkey is not Russia's mistress at all.
@@Coldcasereview
No?
They just buy their grain, oil, gas and let Russians fly there and have holidays, a safe harbor for their Superyachts.
You want more or is that enough?
@@AndyWoohoo666 Look at their history, Turkey is pretty much all in the western camp. Save the odd misstep from the AKP but Erdogan won't be around forever and Erdogan is not Turkey or Turkye or whatever they call themselves nowadays
@@soulsphere9242
Logistics and support..You understand the meaning of that? Also one thing with Gripen is that it can land and take off from roads, no need for an airfield, that is just one of all advantages.
@@soulsphere9242
You just can't argue with stupid...sigh
i think gripens are the best choice,and throw in some a10s since the ukrainians are already on simulator training.
Well A10 are gonna take a lot of L, because Ukraine doesn't have air superiority and they gonna keep on going done by some 4th gen Sukhois. Also the A10 is slow so like the S300/S400 can get easy kills.
@@saadsajidul9001 I also think A10 are a bad choice but not because of s300/400. UA is flying despite these systems, just fly at low altitude and not to near. Maybe the HARM will take a toll on the Russian SAMs. The reason that A10 is a bad choice is because of Manpads and maintenance.
@@FRIPPE_THE_GREAT Flying an A-10 at low altitude is a waste of its capabilities. It needs to get a good look from above and pick off targets with the targeting pod/laser designator or by using the seekers on Maverick missiles. Flying low would mean doing blind rocket volleys like the Su-25, which they don't need.
I'm all for sending fighter jets to Ukraine, but don't they need a whole lot of training for the pilots and especially for the maintenance crewmen? F-16 and SU-27 are vastly different, like comparing a digital watch to analogue one.
Excellent Informationen, my sincere compliments.
I vote for the grippens
Gripen would slay them russian jets 🤙
Sweden can't spare them.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 But Embraer in Brazil Like SAAB in Sweden can build both SAAB Gripen E and Gripen F.
@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 Apparently Sweden can't even afford to pay its fighter pilots so we have a lot of spare planes and a government with no brain.
Yes! I'm hoping some way is found to get the Gripen to Ukraine.
This is a must for Ukraine since they needed a newly fighter jets for their own nations and new tech for combatting the Russian newly fighter jets developed.
On one hand, the Gripen would make sense since it can be landed, refueled and rearmed on literal uneven highways. And they're also cheaper to operate. But the F16 has a pretty robust electronic counter measure system. Perfect for jamming S300s, which the Russians have probably littered all over the Ukrainian country side. That is a tough choice.
you mean alq-184?
Why not both.
Start with the Gripen by the end of the year 2022.
Then move forward to F-16/ F-15s.
@@shooth100 should be in the opposite order. There’s a lot more surplus f-16s around than Gripens. It would take less time to arm Ukraine with a significant force of them.
@@shooth100
Unfortunately that isn't how it works. Those are 2 different jets and would require 2 different pilots, maintenance crews, and parts. Even countries who aren't getting bombed regularly and are richer don't buy 2 different planes so close to each other in a short time frame. That's why countries choose which one they want and not just mix and match so quickly.
@@shooth100 because when you are struggling logistically operating more than one aircraft is a stupid decision
What is mostly needed is an air-to-ground fighter - Warthog A10 - why aim for air superiority when only a few enemy planes are in the air - and perhaps a handful of F16 to cover the A10s
a10? lmfaooooooooooo
A10 is a sub sound aricraft and you have to control the airspace first. So not good for Ukrina. SU-27/29 eill be a good choise
They already have SU-25s, there is no need for A10s.
Harrier would be better than A10 due to vertical take of and landing. Harrier can duck in and out from trees making it much harder to shoot down.
I reckon it would be better if UK and US gave Ukraine the harrier jet and Sweden gives Ukraine the JAS 39 gripen D. For air surpirioty armed with meteor missiles and bombs and some anti ship missiles for long range strike against Russia air defence systems
@@Nathan-ry3yu Extremely difficult to fly - you need years to be good at it - and they do not have the time
I am Ukrainian. All our military experts say we need jets right now. It means we do not have a time to waiting for production Gripen or F-16. Swedish manufacture is very slowly. That's why the best option is F-18 Hornet or F-16 from American warehouses!
Typical you want everything for nothing.
Problem is that those aircrafts need airfields and airfields can easily be targeted.
The Hornets can be run from roadways, they have heavy landing gear for carriers
Gripen for sure. Always thought the UK should have bought them as a Jaguar replacement.
Ukrainian pilots would have to be trained on the aircraft before they were sent. It is possible the decision has been made and pilots are being trained at this moment. It would make sense for them to "suddenly appear" in Ukraine without the warning of an announcement
They've had pilots and maintainers training on the Viper in Nevada for around 3 months now is my understanding.
Ukraine has selected 30 pilots to train on F-16s. When training starts, Ukraine estimates pilots will need 9 months and maintenance personnel much, much longer.
Honestly I don't see them ever fielding a western jet without significant improvements to their airfields and contract maintainers to supervise their newly trained maintenance personnel.
@@donwyoming1936 probably why the Gripen makes more sense. I'm not super clear on the performance differences but if the Gripen is 20% easier for Ukraine to get in the air, then it's basically 20% more airframe and 20% less pilots needed (or something like that). The point being ease of use will pay off on every way
Unlikely to be the Gripen, it is just too expensive and there are not many used models available to give over to Ukraine since not many countries operate it. On the other hand the F-16 is the most widely used fighter in the world and a competent jet compared to most of the Russian forces (Turkey already shot down a Russian Su-24 with F-16). The US also has hundreds of F-16 variants that have already been retired and are just sitting in storage lots. What’s the more likely choice 🤷♂️
Speed 1530mph for the Gripen? No. I think this figure comes from erroneously assuming Mach 2 as sea level.
You forget French Mirage2000 . It’s light fighter one engine like F16 . A great fighter for Ukraine 🇺🇦 . French Air Force has a lot of these angry birds and can be transfer to Ukraine Air Force quickly with one or two training in France 🇫🇷 . Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦 !
Grippens would be the best choice. If it was 20yrs ago, I would suggest the Harrier.
As effective as Harrier would likely have been in such a conflict, I really don't think Harrier is a good choice for any situation where you want to train pilots quickly.
Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II. The Flying titan-armored Tank would suit for the Phases in Ukraine better than the (Sea) Harrier.
@@nielsen9691 so you want to obtain Air Superiority with the (sea) Harrier or the Slow F-35 (far below Mach2)?
@@espacesX They already have Su-25s.
@@espacesX Combat at Mach 2 is unheard of.
these should have been sent 6 months ago to end the war
As an American the F-16 is quite adaptable but the SAAB Gripen checks all the boxes for the immediate future with Ukraine.
Would they have enough PILOTS?!
Sounds like the Saab is what is needed, I wonder if the US would cover all of Sweden’s need with F-16s on loan and have SAAB doing maintenance and training in Ukraine while more Grippens are built? I assume the US doesn’t want to do the MiG-29 swap with Poland because Russia will regard that as their sphere of influence / a fighting offence - ?
Sweden are due to swap out their older Gripens for newer E & F models so their C & D's will be surplus in a few years.
@@TheNinjaGinger and 12 are available directly in the Czech Republic if they are replaced ad interim. They have them on lease from the Swedish air force.
@@jacksonteller1337 Only available when their replacement F-35s are ready.
@@TheNinjaGinger those can be moved up to facilitate if the US government wants to. They did the same thing with the F-4 for Israel.
@@jacksonteller1337 It's possible yes but with how many nations have orders for the F-35 and the production rate per year not increasing too much for the next couple years realistically it's not do able.
Gripen......sweden expert army
I'm a Brit, and I've always said that the Grippen is the best choice for Sweden, Finland, Ukraine etc.
@@Aeronaut1975 The British Royal Airforce conitnues Operation of a SAAB Gripen fleet. These Jets are as far as I know leased from SAAB.
It's Training and Getting familiar with Mission by the British Royal Airforce.
RAF started with SAAB Gripen C/D, while I'm Not Sure If RAF has a two-seat Gripen D in Operation.
@@espacesX I didn't know that RAF was leasing Gripens. Are you sure about this? and do you have any source?
@@kristofferhellstrom If I recall correctly its one school that is leasing them , and I dont think its part of the RAF.
I dont know why not a lot more Countrys went with the Grippen it punches way over its weightclass
Lets hope they arrive in numbers soon.
U.S. is retiring the F22's, so why not give Ukraine those instead of the F35s huh?
We don't even sell the 22 to our closest allies. Too much classified technology in it. There is absolutely no way they'll ever get a raptor. And 35s though we are selling those, they are highly maintenance intensive. Especially since it's stealth. They won't be able to operate them effectively. Not to mention it will take a lot of time to train pilots and crews to use them. Best to give cheaper and good enough planes.
Because the F-22 is absolutely forbidden for export