In case of the small countries it is also common to form defense coalitions. Because they commonly lack of strategical depth (Baltics) or numbers to cover sparsely populated territory (Nordics). So I would exclude them from the equation.
Well, maybe I'm a little bit biased. But it feels like it was doing worse in areas where it has specialized in these rankings... And I'm not sure if that's really fair...
@@Cheka__ While it's true that Norway also make good military hardware in this case we're talking about Swedish military hardware, across the border from us (they make even more things then we do) Gripen is a Swedish fighter. We produce other things like anti-ship missiles and air-defense systems in Norway.
The F-35's targeting / recon "pod" is the ETOS that's built into the plane. This pod is designed for both hi-rez targeting of air and land targets and recon purposes. It also contains the laser to guide A/G weaponry.
I think ground maintenance is also important to consider, especially for smaller countries that doesn't have the luxory of hundreds of airfields. Best way to take out most planes is to keep them grounded. (I'm totally not biased towards Gripen)
That is certainly true and so is how long it takes to train pilots and ground crew. You also have to consider how easy it is to get parts for the plane and to replace it, and the time it takes to refuel and re-arm the plane for a new mission. I don't think there is a perfect plane for everyone. Different nations have different needs and their military doctrine will vary. Even your nations infra structure and terrain matters. Not to mention how many planes you have, the F-16 is a very good plane if you have a large air force but it do spend a lot of time in a hangar, while a plane like a Gripen is quick to get into the air again so if you only have like 50 planes the Gripen gets the advantage there but if you have hundreds of planes it isn't really much of a problem if service and maintenance takes more time. How large airfields you need to lift and land also matters a lot, some planes require long strips to even get in the air while there is a VTOL version of the F-35. And of course range is an important factor if you for instance have large jungles like Brazil or have an island nation while it isn't a big deal for a small nation like Belgium. It is a rather complicated calculation to figure out exactly what plane would work best for a specific nation and in reality, few countries even bother and choose for political reasons (and bribes) instead. Brazil didn't pick Gripen because it was their best choice, but because they trying to not pick a side between US, Russia and China. It wasn't a bad choice for them from a technical standpoint but they would have been just as fine with for instant an F-15 EX, but from a political standpoint they will seem more independent from the larger political blocks with it. Denmark on the other hand picked F-16 because using American planes win them points with US even if a Gripen or Rafaele might have fit their specific situation better.
Factors not taken into account seems to be: 1. The ground turnaround time - how long has the plane stay on the ground to get serviced before being in the air again for the next mission? 2. Operational cost - what's the cost per flight hour? 3. Airfield requirements - what's the requirements on the ground real estate to keep an aircraft operational. If you need a specialized airfield or if you can do with a piece of decently paved road can make a huge difference when you perform your operation. But overall even though it increases the cost there's an advantage in having more than one aircraft type in a conflict since it would cause the enemy to not being able to hone a perfect weapon but instead a more general weapon. A single target type opponent weapon means that it's easier for missiles to do IFF identification but with multiple opponent types then the risk of misidentifying a friendly craft as an enemy increases and "friendly fire" events increases. It's of course a marginal situation.
Sounds like you are talking about the virtues of the Gripen. I agree. Those are important considerations in a real war. Gripen's ability to use highways as runways is a huge advantage. While the F-16's need for 10,000 ft runway in pristine condition is a problem, IMO.
Yeah, multirole fighters are already obsolete. Now it's all about drones connecting to drones, sharing data and launching each other's armaments from beyond its own sensor range. A multirole fighter that doesn't plug into that network and command it from a safe distance is useless in the current generation of warfare if there's ever a near-peer conflict. But if all you need to do is beat up on some 3rd world country, you can get away with practically anything.
I think something to consider too is longevity. Like how much room the plane has for future updates and upgrades. I know that is supposed to be one of the strong selling points of the f-35, because it has rapid software updates as well as excess power and infostructure to support future tech.
F-35 is also going to stay relevant for the next 50 years because it's an answer to challenges from this very era (low observability) Gen 4 + airframes were an answer to challenges from another time : sustained turning rate & manoeuvrability in dogfights for example. By 2045 - 2050... when Gen 6 aircraft will fly in combination with F-35's... any nation using Rafale, Gripen, F-16, etc... as their main fighter jet will look like those countries still operating Mig 21 & F-4.
Alot of people when looking at cost seem to forget that it's not just buying cost but also operational cost that matter, even if you bought it cheap if you cant afford to operate it it's just an expensive paperweight.
I feel like the Super Hornet is a tragically underrated airframe these days. It can do almost any mission, has an incredible range and dynamics to make it a nightmare for any opposing force.
Super Hornet is extremely capable but is a heavy aircraft ( 21000k with just fuel ) only useable from an airport length runways ( it would damage road surfaces ) though it could potentially land/take off from s straight road. Gripen C ( 10000k with fuel ) was designed for ease of replenishment at roadside and can safely do so on even icy roads. This comparison is not a reflection of airborne capabilities just of practical operating use from a Ukrainian roadside that Russia can't easily target.
Purchase price is important, but so is the cost to operate and maintain the plane. Another factor is service life. The F-15EX has two to three times the service life as most other planes, for example.
What we are missing is that apart from the US no one has the logistical capability and also the wide spectrum of additional supporting assets with the fighter jets. Tiny Euro-country 12 airframe buy is not the same as the same number plugged into the US Defence capability. What is very wise is how the Scandi countries have combined the air fleets into one force. Cheers.
Ukraine will probably end up with F16 for quite a while. When they stop using those they'll probably end up getting a modern generation jet, so not Gripen. At least not the current variant of it.
The F-35 is by far and away the best fighter aircraft in the world. Not only does it feature a 20:1 kill ratio against 4th generation aircraft, its AESA radar provides an unparalleled situational awareness of what is happening on the ground.
All of these advantages, but it costs an arm and a leg for nations to buy and maintain. Non stealthy multirole jets are still the better choice for nations that don't have world superpowers as their enemies.
@@nigaballs9603 Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland have gone all in on the F-35. None of them chose a 4th generation fighter. Every nation that can buy the F-35 will choose it. Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey and so on will never be able to buy it.
@@johnroberts9922 the US has said the F-35 is to expensive to get the amount they would require. Leaving them to depend more on legacy systems. Simply put it maybe the best, but it might not be worth it's weight in gold so to speak
Grippen should be desirable to most nations because of low maintence and ability to use unprepaired runways. Even if you did a high low with F-35. Grippen should be in more air forces.
Something worth noting is that because the F35 mounts weapons internally, it effectivly is always flying "clean" where other jets will have drag from their weapons. That will affect manuverability & range. Another thing I'd consider is the F35's block 4 upgrades are coming very soon which includes upgraded engines & systems so "upgradability" is part of this. Cost could be it's own video because what one country pays can be very different than another. The Swiss noted cost as one of the reasons they chose F35 but other countries won't get the same deal
I assume that the f35 only internally mounts small-medium sized munitions. Anything large (bigger than a 250kg bomb) will go on a wing pylon simply because it can't fit in the internal bay. Lrasms (long-range anti ship missile) can't be mounted internally, and neither can 1000kg bombs. I would argue that since the f35 is not optimised for long range flight with externally mounted munitions, its range will suffer more than the range of a plane designed with external carrying capacity in mind. And about cost. Yes, I can't agree more. The rafale is the most expensive plane on the list, but only because not enough of them have been made to offset the development costs...
@@johnbenoy7532 F35 has been designed from the begining to have it's "beast mode" config using external mounts getting up to 22,000lbs total. It's also integrated the JASSMs with no noted issues. However it can carry a pair of 2000lb JDAMs or Paveways internally & naturally the B61 can also be carried so with nuclear sharing a country gets a nuclear capable stealth aircraft. It's also getting new internal mounts that increase the number of internally carried weapons.
@@thearisen7301 engineering a highly advanced aircraft to better suit its secondary use case sounds a bit much to me. Usually when we design a plane, we make sure its primary goal is done to the best of its ability and then try to get the secondary capabilitys as high as possible without too much compromise. When you bud a plane for external carrying of heavy munitions, there are a whole lot of compromises that need to be made to the physical airframe which negatively impact the stealth of the plane (even when unloaded). I'm not doubting that the f35 can carry a lot of missiles and very heavy bombs, but stating that it may not be as good at it as other non stealth options. This same problem applies to smaller sized aircraft such as the rafale (yes it can carry a nuke, but not very many large bombs).
F35 is the best deal for anyone the US is willing to sell to. Rafale for anyone the US won't sell to, but France will. If you can't get F35 or Rafale, you probably can't get Gripen anyway. If you're in the market for used jets, F16s are flooding the market atm (hopefully most go to Ukraine though). New F16s is only good if you already had F16s and can't get F35 or Rafale. If none of the above applies to you, at that point you're probably looking to buy Chinese, discuonting Iran, I doubt anyone wants to buy Russian again. And Iran only wants to buy Russian so that they can steal, I mean, buy, the tech to build engines viable in the 1980s, as opposed to the 60s vintage ones they can sort of produce currently.
I would say that the worst underestimation is in the "offensive sensor" and "defensive aids" categories. Su-35, F-18 should definitively not be above in the first. Many other rankings are strange.
@@Benjamin.Jamin. When looking at the comparisons made by the swiss air force during the ‘’air2030’’ program, I really expected the Eurofighter to be ranked much lower in this video
Not among the cheapest by a longshot. And that's of course if you entirely discount the R&D and initial investment pool. It's the single most expensive weapons program in history. By far.
@@Emanon... The current unit price a buyer would expect to pay per plane is the only figure relative the conversation based on the premise of the video. $78-80 million each for the F35a
@@Emanon... Dead wrong. The unit costs factor in program costs, production has just been made very efficient (almost 1000 have been made), and program costs have been spread out over those aircraft. You’re operating off of outdated information. And no it’s not the most expensive program in history, not even close.
@@SeeLasSee Also, while it has higher maintenance costs (spare parts and RAM materials are expensive), it’s actually much much easier to maintain than basically any other fighter out there. It has a maintenance hours/flight hours ratio of about 4-5. For context an average ratio for most fighters will be double or triple that number, I believe an SU-27 has a ratio of about 12.
I think you're forgetting the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System which is basically a stealthy targeting pod. I noticed you listed the F-35 as not having a pod in the recon section. It is already in active use by F-35s.
Uh... according to F-35 pilots, that aircraft offers unprecedented situational awareness both in the air and on the ground. It's like a mini AWACS... and I'm pretty sure its EOTS / DAS is more advanced than any other external pod on the market right now.
For exports, the meteor is proposed with the 2 ways datalink for Rafale. F15 EX is not offered for export. Russian radars are inferior to Western equivalent. Beside the geopolitical element which is crucial, another element that should have been included is maintenance/availability/customer support. This makes all the difference. If you cannot get good customer service, if your planes lack spare parts, if your electronic is unreliable, you quickly loose over 50% of your asset. And if your plane is heavily dependent on the green light of your country 's supplier to operate in conflict, you may also be left with a grounded fleet...
Well, when you buy from US, you are limited to diplomatic actions US agrees with. If you dont, stuff you buy from them as good as the ones you buy from Russians.
It is tho, Indonesia has had talks with the US regarding the purchase of F15EX(s) and news is that the US is supportive of that deal(cus of geopolitics more than anything)
Gripen. Jack of all trades, exceptional at coordination, easy for logistics, requires only paved or even dirt roads to launch from, and most importantly cost similar or even less than the Su-35 as well as ALL American and European planes on the list, especially when bought in bulk. This would save LOTS of money from logistics and maintenance to be used to buy a few F-35s for instance.
Jack of all trades is often master of none. I would have to disagree. The best combination is most likely the pair of Rafal and Su-35. Rafals to do pure air superiority and Su-35s to do multirole. Both come from producers with significant industrial base and production capacity. Sweden otoh has ... limited capabilities.
Its a very interesting topic and also a difficult list to compile with a lot of details to take into account. Perhaps another topic to discuss would be a list of the best carrier based fighters?
Interestingly the f-18 looks like a very good option. For countries like Ukraine I would consider the Gripen, F-16, f18... The reason for the last two is both availability and overall Good performance. The reason for the first one is or should be obvious. But what really sells me for the Gripen, is the meteor, which means that only the European air frames currently would make the most sense and of those obviously the swedish entry is the overall winner. But production and availability of airframes matters. For a different country with well-developed GADS, and airfields, especially a bunch of smaller but well maintained ones, and strong technical skills either by training or just in general available in the population, The price and availability with overall capability trumps any other considerations. So most oil-rich Middle East countries should probably go for f15, f-18, F-16, Raphael, while poorer but with good technical skills I would also consider the F-16, f-18, a country that's next to a much greater power might seriously consider getting a license to create a factory for the Gripen. Poorer and less technical skills, might consider the total cost benefits of Gripen, both in training for the ground crews, the maintaining of airfields and logistics, but there I suspect the low cost of entry for the F-16, the large amount of availability of it, will decide. Of course politics is the first and foremost reason, all these technical reasons are secondary to that
@@marcm. The Swiss with F18s practice take offs from motorways just like the Swedes with Grippens both would be more than suitable for Ukrainian needs as air bases are practically a non starter.
Hope your going to factor lifecycle cost instead of the rather poor cost per flight hour metric. Life cycle takes costs per flight hour and also includes the cost of support equipment, simulators, training, support personel, spare parts, ect. Its the whole package to support the plane.
However that is also quite variable depending on the receiving nation and what kind of preexisting infrastructure they already have, which is why you see such wildly variable unit costs.
FA-50 PL (block 20) will have: AESA Phantom Strike GaN radar AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9X Sniper Targeting Pod KGBB stand-off bomb (>100km) and maybe JSM Refuling system going to be affordable, light and advance multirole fighter.
@@MostlyPennyCat Lol found the Brit. The Eurofighter has some better attributes going for it here and there, but the Rafale is the most potent multirole fighter hailing from Europe. And it is pretty evident on the market. The F-35 is the best fighter overall though.
Well, it's about two decades younger in practice. So it had better be good! Gripen's big advantages are low cost per flight hour, simple maintenance, and rough-field performance. While it's really hard to determine from known data (as neither aircraft has been in a real war) I think you'd really want some F-35s for SEAD, anti-AWACS and important strikes, but just for keeping your airforce flying during peacetime or when the bombs have been raining for a while Gripen may actually be more useful (one flying Gripen beats ten grounded F-35s).
Okay I may be biased I live in fort Worth Texas home of the F-16 I'm going to go ahead and say that if you on a budget this is going to be your best plan
Grippen is best on a budget. Its literally designed for that. Average perf in air superiority, but much cheaper to operate. Not efficient for high intensity conflicts and terrible for power projection, but a good deal for countries like Brazil who just need to police their airspace
@@inteallsviktigt The Gripen is not strong in ground striking. The Gripen is strong in what Sweden felt it needed, and everything else has been traded for low expense per flight hour. OP is right, if you're on a budget and want an Swiss army knife with wings the F-16 is it. The F-35 will eventually become that (due to scale of production and continuous refinement). The latest Block 72/Viper upgrade even focuses on making it the ideal companion plane for the F-35, so countries with medium large budgets can go get a few F-35s but generally "fill the ranks" with F-16s.
One thing to consider for your next video: F-35 has a subscription model maintenance. US government does not own all the necessary intellectual property rights to maintain their own planes. At a certain point, they always have to call on Lockheed Martin for that. So the bill for maintaining F-35s is very very high and there is a very high risk of bottlenecks. US military is already saying the plane is too expensive and has a poor readiness level. You can easily verify this information as well.
It is much more about politics as well as expected missions and adversaries than about pure capabilities. While the F35 is great for deep strike missions or against opponents of a high tech level, it would be a waste of money if you only need it for air policing or to fight insurgents. The Rafale is a great option for countries that want a capable jet but aren't on friendly terms with the USA. If you are, the F16 is arguably a cheaper option with similar capabilities. When you are on bad terms with the west in general, the chinese are the way to go even if russian jets might offer better price/performance on paper. They are the more reliable supplier, will likely offer better tech in the future and can help out with financing. Also, establishing better relations with the chinese is worth more than establishing better relations with russia.
I wish I could give this comment more than one thumbs up. I agree with it emphatically. China started out copying Russian designs, but they have definitely moved past that phase. Also, they're less likely to want to meddle with a country's internal politics, or ( gasp) try to bring democracy to them. The J-10 Is a very capable plane with a lot of growth potential. The latest version is an easy match for the f16c/d and possibly the grippen except for the austere field capability.
Quite wrong. While the Chinese equipment will come quickly, a lot of armed forces, for example Bolivia, have complained about spare parts taking too long or just never arriving.
I think the FA50 was conceived not as a 'true' multirole fighter in the same class as an F16 or F18 but rather as a tactical, close air support fighter that can defend itself against low-altitude enemies (like the Su25 or enemy helicopters) while performing ground support strikes for front line forces. For proven performance I'd go with either F16 or F18, F35 if the country in question has a high enough GDP. For best 'bang for buck' but still very capable and relatively easy to maintain and upgrade I'd go with the JAS39, it's also got an 'unimproved' air strip capability allowing ti to easily use roads and highways.
If it were my country and we could afford 100 jets.. 50 FA-35 for air superiority. 30 F-15 to bomb the crap out of the enemy. 20 F-18 for maritime strikes.
F-15 has no dedicated anti-ship capabilities. F-16 is single engine and I’d prefer twin for survivability. If it was a developing nation with a limited budget, I’d probably go for 100 F-16’s
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 With the upcoming grid integration it might be more price effective to get 60 F-16Vs and 20 F-35As and every mission pod type for the F-16 in reasonable quantities. This will allow you to pair each F-35 with three F-16s that just hang back and serve as "bomb and missile trucks" that take targets from the F-35. This is the "sales pitch" of the Block 72/Viper upgrade of the F-16: it turns it into the perfect companion/helper plane of the F-35.
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 F-35 has anti-ship capabilities (it is deck fighter). Having dedicated fighters only for that papoose, seams weird? As good as F-15 is, it is also quite costly. US operate them as missile trucks, what make sense for larger countries, what can afford both stealth and strike wings (they are High not Low option). If you need dedicated low option, pick F/A-18 instead.
Simple answer *F-35* if you can get it and you can run the logistics as it's the best at BVR. *Gripen* if you can't buy the F-35; it's the best for logistics and _attrition warfare,_ running cost and pilot flight hours, and it can still carry long range AA missiles like Meteor as well as easily be upgraded for new future hardware due to its modular software. However if you get the F-35, having a lower running cost dedicated ground attack aircraft/missile truck would help save money and increase the "bang for the buck". Either the F-15X or even a turbo prop CAS plane once all the SAM's have been eliminated. With its very low flight running cost, the Gripen doesn't need a "low cost" supplement. However if you have the Gripen and your enemy has the F-35 ... you're getting hit before you even spot them.
@@paw1ak_248 The Gripen is better than the F16, the thing is that the F16 is more readily accessible and by now also cheaper due to economies of scale.
@Paw1ak_ The F-16 is a lot harder to run day to day with logistics. For example, Its air intake is underneath so the runway has to be immaculate, meanwhile the Gripen can land on a highway and be rearmed and refuelled by four regular soldiers with trucks in a half hour - who then book it before a precision strike can target them. That is a massive advantage and part of the design brief of the Gripen. It's the opposite of a hangar queen. The cost per hour of flight is also the least of any jet on the list by a lot, so that means in peacetime pilots get a lot more flight hours practice. The advantage of the F-16 is just the production run. In Ukraine's case for example there are so many F-16's available that cannibalising some for spare parts or even having more planes than experienced pilots and revolving planes out of Ukraine for servicing in NATO countries becomes an option. There are probably more F-16's in storage than there are currently Gripens in existence.
The advantage of JF 17 is the lowest cost among all of the listed multi-role fighters. That fits the need who want modern fighters but with limited budgets.
@@rainboworiental9521 block 2 is a fine 3.5 gen aircraft , block 3 stands well as a decent one on paper but at that cost the idea of a f16 becomes much better proposition or even a su 30 or su 35
@@hiteshadhikari block 2 cost is around 25 million and block 3 costs around 50 million block 3 have aesa redar and pl15 and pl10 missiles and it's lighter weight via composite materials and more payload capacity and more hard points and advance missile and radar warning receivers and new and improved cockpit and helmet, which means block 3 is up to 50% better than block 2 and in real warfare scenario it has more than twice the power of block 2
@@maryamhammad1451 block 3 costs around 50-60 million and the aesa radar used is a low power one, i wonder how they will be powering electronics with single engine. Klj 7a fitted in aesa has no data of TRM or power so how good it will be questionable. Thats all to see in future but paying 60 mil for jf17 when u can get a f16 block 50ish for same price with better subsystems is more reasonable but then pak doesnt have access to money or those jets anymore Its easier to buy jf17 and j10 because the purchase is backed by chinese loans now ( pak purchased recent j10 with a few billion dollar loan they got)
If something is military, I'm going with the US option. It won't be the best in every single category of weapon/system, but I'll end up with the best overall success rate.
And generally speaking they undersale their equpment so you'll be pleasantly surprised as to what it can really do. Compared to its Russian counterparts that have overplayed their equipment.
US equipment is exported at a huge markup and never when fully modern, mainly bought for US logistics benefits and political purposes, besides being often good there are almost always competitive alternatives
@@SilvanaDil The Chinese don't even build engines as well as the Russians. A lot of their doctrine, which guides design, is descended from the Russians. And Russians seem to want maneuverable flying artillery, strictly directed by ground control. So zero faith from me. Or, to put it another way, if Russian design was any good, why do we not see their stealth fighters over Ukraine? Until recently, the best anti-air missiles the Ukrainians had were the S-300 and maybe some S-400 older variants. If they were successful, it would be great advertisement for the Russian arms industry, very important to their economy.
I‘d take EF T4 as it is the most capable of the bunch in BVR and as a platform still has a lot of potential for growth. To my knowledge it has the largest supersonic flight envelope, a low RCS and the best performing radar (range against stealth and 180 deg FOV). Only problem would be initial procurement cost, but that‘s mitigated over its service life. Then again I‘m likely biased.😅
The newer variants of FA-50 will have AESA radar and bvr capabilities if I'm not mistaken. The plane is more of a light fighter/trainer, but still nice to see it included in the video.
Gripen would probably have been the best buy a couple years ago, but today? I doubt it. F-35 have dropped their cost dramatically and Rafales bang for the buck is better today as well than earlier. From what I can find about RCS Gripen should most definitely be in the best category out of the non-stealth aircrafts as well.
@@Arkan_Fadhila Yup. As weird as it sound, F-35 + Gripen or F-16 or F-18 (slightly different advantages) create good High-Low combo. Rafale is best pick if you want have strictly singular platform.
Hands down, F-35A is the victor due to its exceptional performance in all critical aspects demanded by the modern world combats such as stealth, sensors, firepower, self-defense, sitiational -awareness, electronics, and radar. It holds title of 'Excellent' in each of these categories. The Eurofighter ranks second in terms of technology, closely followed by the F-15EX.
If this was a crafts magazine, there would be an award for the absolute finest on market, best value for money, and Dave's pick- a contrarian and offbeat selection but always with a surprisingly good rationale.
The appropriate way to make this comparison is fix the budget. Say a country can spend $10B on procurement and $10B more over the next 20 years on operations and maintenance. That might mean you get 200 JF-17's for 625 hours per airframe per year or 50 F-35's for 230 hours per airframe per year. Which of these fleets is more effective? If you're Israel you probably want the F-35's to deep strike Iranian nuclear labs. If you're Afghanistan, you'd rather have a lot of JF-17's todominate your peasant neighbours.
@Hiznogood is not better than modi's 56-inch chest bulletproof armour...that nuclear missiles bounce off... even has a chaiwallah cup holder to it....please don't interfere. Otherwise, RSS cow brigade will come and do to you what they do to people who they THINK are transporting cows
Have to agree even though I dislike the damn thing. Just so versatile and definitely gets way too much hate. It is a great plane even if it can't do everything the best. I'll listen to pilots who love the damn thing and have experience in other aircraft. I'd say the F 15ex but it is so expensive and no stealth but it looks like a freaken work horse once air supremacy is achieved. Maneuverability I think is over rated these days. It isn't Vietnam and missiles have gotten so much better. If the F 15 ex was one third the cost of it I would say that. America really loses out by not having the Meteor which I personally believe is the best A2A missile in the world. I've read Isreal has some variants on jets and such that may be better and if there is one country with sneaky ass equipment it is them. That was just things I have read but didn't really go into so it could be hearsay. Also Japan's F 16s from Mitsubishi are overpriced as hell haha.
I think it's a bit unfair to put the FA50 on the list. The plane the light attack configuration of a supersonic trainer aircraft whereas every other plane on this list was a purpose built multirole fighter
@@TheRezro But it might be worth considering to simply pay the country selling you fighter Jets to also train your pilots. I am not sure how expensive that would be in comparison, but I'd wager it is cheaper then operating a trainer full time
Its often the add-ons that make the deal, for instance when India bought Rafale it was because Eurofighter weapons could be politically restricted. While France offered a complete deal including weapons package. The Grippen also suffers because its armament is supplied by 3rd parties
Yes, both Gripen and Euofighter have a third party restrictions for Export. only the French, US, and Russian fighters are able to export their fighters without a third party export restrictions. For example, Swedish Gripen has American power plant and Avionics, so if the Swedish government wants to export the Gripen they will need export license from the USA.
If you think Korea's military is weak because of the FA-50, keep in mind that these are just for training purposes. South Korea's real combat aircraft are much more capable, such as F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s.
@@TheRezro You're right, Binkov didn't actually say that. I was partially preempting any North Korean/Russian/Chinese trolls from bashing South Korea's military this way and partially to let people know of this fact in case they thought that the FA-50 was South Korea's main fighter jet (I was slightly confused too).
@@yuluoxianjun Of those rockets very few can even hit the capital due to having short range. World War 2 rockets are of no use if they can't hit far enough.
I found this video to be elucidating, though I'm less favorably disposed toward any of the top contenders than I was before watching it. good job as usual.
Maybe? Since they haven't used any stealth aircraft we don't really know for certain. Also ECMs can be as effective as stealth probably if they're done right. Both sides are using mainly old planes with outdated systems (including ECMs) and radars get better all the time as well so what's stealth today might not be stealth in a decade or two.
You said "all plans will be consider in their advance but currently available variants" in the video and 10 block 3 variant have been rolled out about a year ago, I believe at this time more than 20 jf 17 block 3's have been produced
I dont really get how you can make the Typhoon T4 excellent in "offensive sensor capability", but Rafale F4 just "Good" when the Rafale beat the Eurofighter during multiples competitions in that regard. The Typhoon will receive a new AESA that it never had before, while the Rafale is already being fitting with second gen AESA and a Gan version is being developed (there is over a decade of experience and development separating both new AESA from typhoon and the rafale). We also know the EW suit of the is better on the Rafale than the Typhoon and is say to not only be passive but also have offensive capabilities. Also, the F-18E is supposed to be more advanced than the F-15EX regarding this matter. Having big raw numbers on a radar is not the only thing that matter and the F-18E radar is more advanced that the one of the F-15EX because they both are mean to fight in very different environments and missions. Rafale and F-18E are very close in that regard, while F-15EX and Typhoon are also very close. The F-18E and Rafale should be in Excellent, while the F-15EX and Typhoon should be in very good (maybe the F-15EX in excellent but i'm not certain it had an as good low altitude and EW warsuite as the F-18E). Again, it all come from the fact the first 2 have more versatility and complexe missions they are supposed to handle than the last 2 (lot of come from these first 2 being Navy planes, so pretty much supposed to do everything an airforce would do by using multiple different planes, hence the F-35 also being as much versatile).
Regarding the F/A-18E - F-15EX comparison, you are misinformed. The APG-82(v)1 uses exactly the same backend processing as the APG-79 but it has a bigger and more powerful emitter. It's literally a straight upgrade over the APG-79.
Which can go, perform a mission successfully and return to do it again. Most of the rest, fuel economy, weapons load etc. are apri ore , included before the definition is made
@@rick7424 Yes i chose 100. The video said 10-100. My point was the rough distribution of each, but if you want to do more math to make my number more accurate - have at it, but please add a few spares of each.
Sure, if you can afford that. It's probably the most expensive option, out of all listed (more so than just 100 F-15EXs, because you don't save money on air fleet standardization).
@@Hypernefelos You do save money on standardization, you just don't maximize the way you would with only one plane. As for expense, it's a value proposition - that's the whole point of the series. And with the expected service life of the current F-15 EXs rolling off the assembly line, long term it's cost efficient.
Jf 17 blk 2 uses the aselsan targeting pod, it also has anti radiation missiles MAR 1/LD10 as well as Raad stealth cruise missile for nuclear strikes. Good effort though
Its a theoretical capability overstated by the Swedish marketing deparment. None of these airplanes can truly be operated from roads. Yes, you CAN retain usability of some of them from "austere enviroments" (read: take off / land refuel / rearm from highways) but this isnt really realistic beyond very short term. Longer you operate your airplane like this, more and more its technical resources will deteriorate. For example Soviet airplanes were designed to require very little in terms of runway quality and look how much Ukrainian Su-24 and Su-25 fleet has deteriorated in less than a year. If they werent given new airplanes they would have ran out of them 6 months ago.
@@joeblack5393 Sorry but get your fact straight, yor are clearly underestimating the gripen. The get maintained by an experience tech on the road as well. But yes, EVENTUALLY it needs a proper gothru but since it can land on all roads you still dont need an airfield to do it stupid. XD raise a tent and do it. XD
@@joeblack5393 First I would like to say that I love your answer.. it hit the weak spot! In anyway in a Nato/Russia full out war.. every airbase gonna be nuked or Iskanderished on both sides! Then there is only swedish airforce/Hungarian and Chech republic that have any airforce left.. if we did dispere them in good time! You have to forgive me beeing swedish.. and our military doctrine as a non alliance country have to be sustainability! Befor our western friends have several conferenses about if they want to suport us.. kinda like in Ukraine! And we have applyed for NATO membership.. and we altso hope for US bases on our land, payd for by US taxpayers! In anyway.. I still think that NATO doctrines have a flaw, that of air supremacy.. its a WW2 doctrine.. count that Russia nuke all NATO airbases, at the first day! Then NATO mayby have a few airbases in UK, french colonies and in USA.. try to get air supremacy over Russia with that! Anyone that have anykind of flying assets at this time kinda is a winner.. if we dont get kild in a nuclear harmagedon!
If your airbases have been nuked, I doubt getting those few remaining planes up in the air will be much of a priority. The world is probably fucked already then.
@@stiglarsson8405 1/ Russia is unlikely to destroy every airbase in Europe (through conventional means)... let alone carriers / amphibious assault ships. Especially since they will be heavily defended. 2/ In case of nuclear attack...Russia would be nuked as well ... so, what would the point be ?
@@apolloaero The thing has been in service 10 years and has crashed 10 times, mostly due to electronical failures. The F35 is far from being finished. It can outclass other planes in some scenarios and I would hope so considering the shit ton of money that went into it
@@parodyclip36 Su-57 has been in service for 2-3 years and has had 1 crash with only about 10 made. There's currently about 900 F-35s. Tell me which one has a higher failure rate. Better yet, compare the failure and crash rate to any 4th gen or 4.5 gen, and then come back. Also, your F-35 crash numbers are low, yet nowhere near the failure rate of Su-57. You'd need 90 F-35 crashes and failures to match Su-57 incompetence
Indeed, not badly rated at all. Seems like an actual decent choice. Now see how much it costs, also for the ammunition and how maintenance is on it as well as the soft data. (usage for the pilot, integration in the military system, etc.)
I think there is an argument to be made for availability of good airfields. As we have learned lately, having an airfield is quite necessary, and is one of the first things an enemy would target. Which is why so many think Gripen would serve well in Ukraine, for example. It can take off and land on any 800m length straight road. While the F-16 does require a team sweeping the airstrip before, because it has a huge intake near the ground that can suck in debris. Meanwhile the russian jets can pretty much handle any flat surface while ingesting birds, gravel , haystacks and the occasional mobik. A bit exaggerated, but I think you get the point. ;) A small country with good airfields might be at a huge disadvantage, as these airfields would be within range of the enemy. So a plane that can use smaller, or less good airstrips makes it harder to ground them by hitting the airfields. (since there is more options) On the other hand, a country with a good airfield well behind the borders, could rest assured they will always have that available, even if it's a bit far away from the action. the range of the plane would be more important here. I often see the capability of using STOL being ignored in these kinds of videos. But I think it can make a huge difference if the enemy is able to strike your airfields. And even if that's not the case, being able to land closer to the missions for refueling and rearming can make a big difference in how many missions you can fly per day. ( just as much as maintenance can.) Also, in the same kind of vein, the ability to land on aircraft carriers is huge. I know that isn't quite what we're comparing here, but for nations with carriers, that is a thing. Perhaps an idea for a future video?
Your argument for the Grippen would be satisfied even better by the AV-8B Harrier which is abundant and available at low cost as it's being replaced by F-35B by most countries. Same if not better ability to operate from austere airfields and roadside if necessary with VTOL capability. Probably lower ceiling but would not be a factor in Ukraine where most aircraft are flying on the deck to avoid ground based air defenses. Like the Grippen supports all NATO munitions. Main drawback is that because the AV-8B is being phased out, it's no longer in production and many parts suppliers no longer make those parts but as long as many nations continue to fly the AV-8B, probably most parts should be more or less available somewhere.
Hands down F-35 in almost all categories: Fighter jet with 2nd smallest radar cross section after the F-22 and the best sensors in any fighter jet. Best Aircraft for Air Superiority after the F-22 Best Aircraft in dogfights thanks to DAS (Distributed Aperture System) Can out-range any SAM ...
Lol wtf 😂 F-35 is extremely poor at air superiority. Both R-37 and METEOR will outrange it. And in dogfight Rafale has proven better. DAS is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA system but still not as good.
@@aimgorge Firstly, comparing the R-37 and METEOR, which are air-to-air missiles, to a multi-role combat aircraft like the F-35 is like comparing apples and oranges. These are weapons that are used by fighter aircraft, not a measure of the aircraft's capabilities themselves. Speaking of capabilities, the APG-81 radar in an F-35 is a powerful tool in electronic warfare. It is designed to jam and suppress enemy air defenses more effectively than the RBE2 AESA radar of the Rafale. The APG-81 3rd generation AESA radar of the F-35 has 1676 transmit/receive (TR) modules, almost double the 838 TR modules of the Rafale's RBE2 AESA. This makes the APG-81 a more powerful and matured platform, making it harder to intercept due to its low probability of intercept (LPI) radar. In terms of detection and resolution, the APG-81 can detect targets faster than the RBE2 and can generate higher resolution SAR images for target identification, missile launches, vehicles, and intelligence gathering by generating 3D maps of the target area. The F-35 also boasts the AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which provides a comprehensive picture of the battlefield and maximum situational awareness for the pilot. This system can identify, monitor, analyze, and rapidly respond to potential threats using advanced avionics and sensors. It also detects and geo-locates electronic emitters, giving pilots the option to evade, engage, counter, or jam threats. As for the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) mentioned, it is not a copy of the Rafale's SPECTRA system. They are similar in concept, but the implementation and integration with other systems in the aircraft are quite different. The DAS system is one or more generations more advanced than SPECTRA in almost all areas. It also makes it possible to target and destroy enemy aircraft behind you. The Rafale has very good systems, but currently there is nothing that can compete with the F-35: its sensors, radar, sensor fusion, HMD and the integration of these systems. The goal of the F-35 is: I see all enemies but all enemies do not see me. The systems of the F-35 cannot be described on paper. To say that these systems of the F-35 are a copy would be like saying the first iPhone is a Nokia/Blackberry copy.
@@jul1anuhd LOL. I had a good laugh. First you can't tell the difference between "EW" and "EW defense" so the whole radar paragraph is a waste of time showing you have terrible reading comprehension. Secondly, AN/ASQ-239 is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA. And yes weaponry has as much to do with a plane's capabilities as the radar it harbors, that's why Binkov is taking it into account. I had a good laugh, thank you.
As good as the F-15 is (it’s my favorite too), I’d have to go with the Gripen, they have good fighter capabilities, radar, and avionics. The Gripen is incredibly easy to maintain and it’s small too. F-16’s are also good small multirole fighters, but the Gripen is better for more disastrous scenarios.
My nation just bought F-35, and while I personally don’t see the point of a small nation like us having cutting edge fighter planes dependent on parts and support from halfway around the world when Gripen is produced in our own backyard, I reckon that whatever capability that made the F-35 a better pick is probably classified. That, and the politics of the situation. Our PM wants to ascend to a top position in NATO when she is done on the local political scene, and buying American planes may very well be a career advantage for her.
The F-35 might be assembled in the USA but parts are manufactured in every part of the world (especially in Europe) and often soon if not already in countries that purchase the F-35.
@binkov's Battlegrounds if you are considering the most advanced & currently available version of each jet then you should put JF-17 block 3 instead of block 2. It is already in service & is a big leap in terms of capabilities over it's predecessor.
@@СтеванСтаменић You are right but Binkov is considering it a Chinese aircraft & not a Sino-Pak jet. By that logic, Pak's in service block 3s are Chinese exports. Even if we consider them as jointly produced between China & Pakistan, they are still available for exports and 2-3 countries are in talks to buy them.
@@huzaifarawat78 no, he said something like ,,but it hasn't been used outside of Pakistan, so it won't be included", not really sure word for word, still kinda sucks it wasn't included, as unlike the F22 or J20 which will never be exported, the JF17 block has a pretty good chance
@@СтеванСтаменић "all plans will be consider in their advance but currently available variants" that what he said in the video and 10 block 3 variant have been rolled out about a year ago, I believe at this time more than 20 jf 17 block 3's have been produced for more than 2 years now
J14??? I disagree, basically anything not western is shit in your opinion but that isn’t true, that’s a western superiority complex that doesn’t take into account the real world, non-debatable capabilities of eastern aircraft. The j10c is an advanced aircraft, better than a f16 block 50, probably around the performance of a block 60 f16. Even the j15 b and d variant will be pretty capable with an aesa radar too. Jf17 is a smaller, light weight aircraft that isn’t toothless. Su35 is overhyped but it shouldn’t be dismissed. I believe it’s main issue is it’s pesa radar which makes it easy to jam. The ka 50 is still being developed so it’s unfair to include it, but it will be a decent light fighter in the future, with the apg 83 radar and aim 120 integration in the near future. Don’t let nationalism cloud yourself from objectivity
@@majesticface3631 the performance of the Russian air force in Ukraine has been very disappointing. I don't know what the Chinese have up their sleeve, so you may be correct in this regard
@@kilianklaiber6367 It's not really overpriced, the price has gone down quite a lot and isn't much cheaper than the other European planes. It's also superior to them. The fact is that a lot of plane fans have been downplaying how good F-35 is.
@@rowaystarco Oh I doubt that very very much. The acquisition price is pure deceit. The cost of running the airplane is astronomical. Finally, "stealth" is overhyped and the F-35 is a one trick pony. Once it is unstealthed it has no chance of survival.
I believe air superiority will be a priority for my country (Greece). The land borders with turkey are short so we can easily defend. If we control the air then we partially control the soil. However a plethora of ground to air and ground to ground missiles is very important too. Missiles cost less and they don't need pilots. The solution for average powers is air superiority combined with lots of missiles and UAVs controlled by AI.
Your air superiority is already over since Kizilelma stealth Drone and TFX Kaan your pilots will fight against robot (Kizilelma) which can stand up against 10g and can do maneuvers which Pilots cant so as long as you have manned jets it doesnt matter which Plane you buy you will get smocked
@@yourmomslover2288 We are also starting to produce our own drones, we will aquire anti-drone systems and we are investing in electornical warfare. Also Rafales won't be even seen by the turkish side in time. Especially the f35. Turkish analysts know that Greece has invested the most in its airforce and that they can't win in the air. Thats why they beg the united states for f16s and britain for eurofighters. But if you ever get them it will be much much later than the conflict we will have. The west is backing Greece and turkey will make a greater mistake than russia if it attacks. The difference between Greece and turkey is much smaller and greece is in nato eu and has defensive alliances and close cooperation with some of the strongest states in the world and region. The air is in our favour and in the sea we are similar but we will also get an edge there. France will also send ships and fighters in a potential war. The overconfidence you turks have will be your ruin.
A defence is to protect the sovereignty of the small country. Buying American (or "Swedish" or Eurofighter or Korean) just make them even more subjugated and make them have even less sovereignty. Buying Chinese will have the same effect within a decade. Hence, only French and Russian designs should be considered. Because Russia is too weak to subjugate a small country by soft power. And France is even weaker than Russia and somewhat independent from USA and a famously dependable and loyal supplier.
For any 🇪🇺 country, buying a European jet means unrestricted access to spare parts, upgrades and European weapons. That's why 🇺🇸 at the time put a lot of effort into preventing the development of the Meteor. Without it's own alternative to AMRAAM, 🇺🇸 could have basically put an end sooner or later to any 🇪🇺 military endeavor it didn't like.
Spamming different variants of the F/A-18 Hornet might be a good buy. Since it is good at almost anything and the different variants are tailored to their specific scenario, you only have to get parts and (maintenance) training for one aircraft. It can be used on aircraft carriers as well (was designed with that in mind). Unless one f*cks up with good old 'merica there will be an endless supply of spare parts and maintenance is not as costly as for example the Eurofighter. It is also significantly cheaper than F-35, Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter. Additionally there is almost no mission that can not be executed with F/A-18's only. Their frontal stealth is roughly comparable to the Eurofighter and the Prowler version of the F/A-18 can perform missions against radar protected areas in a different manner, than one would with a F-35. Maybe not as efficient but it should be possible. Of course this leaves out all the political and economical agendas, which is at least as important as raw firepower. Developing an even more expensive fighter jet with its own weapons is often the far better choice for a country than buying someone else's system. If you pay a foreign company to get you the latest tech, all the money goes to a foreign country, all the knowledge and infrastructure is improved outside your country. In the end you really lose money, knowledge and tech + you are more dependent on somebody else than otherwise. Which for example is the reason I believe, the Eurofighter despite its flaws and high costs is worth the effort and putting more money in domestic development is a good thing in this case. Or at least better than the alternative.
you complain about buying foreign but use the eurofruitcake fighter as an example, which is a cooperation of several nations, not one. and also about developing ones own aircraft industry, ask india how that is going for them. usa, china, russia, and france are the only nations that can produce home grown aircraft without assistance. and dont even mention the grippen as its 60% american with f18 engines.
@@paul123ggggggggg You are correct but EU countries often work hand in hand when it comes to the military and the Eurofighter is a corporation of 4 countries, which are not exactly sworn enemies (besides UK baking its own fruit cake). Of course Estonia won't be able to build a top notch fighter jet on its own for example. If the pressure is there and the participants are willing to work together it is certainly possible to get a good result. The Panavia Tornado is still flying as an example. Long story short: Not necessarily has the aircraft to be made in one country alone but it might not be a good idea to leave it the US, China and France alone.
![เปิดใจ "อาจารย์เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม" อดีตเคยสุดทุกทาง ถ้าใช้หนี้หมดไปบวชแน่ l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IxeE0xVhy08/mqdefault.jpg)
![“อาร์ต พศุตม์” เกือบเอี่ยวทุกคดีดัง เอ๊ะไว้ก่อน ไม่มีอะไรได้มาง่ายๆ | แฉ 16 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0Gx-0-kUBv8/mqdefault.jpg)
Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ydijozc4
😳amongus
Jas 39 gripen
@Binkov’s Battegrounds wicked Pissah Cool Video
Jf 17 black 2 really..!?
Block 3 is in production about 2 years
In case of the small countries it is also common to form defense coalitions. Because they commonly lack of strategical depth (Baltics) or numbers to cover sparsely populated territory (Nordics). So I would exclude them from the equation.
As someone considering buying a multi role fighter in the near future, this is very timely.
*I don't know why I clicked on this video.*
*I'm not even looking to buy a multirole fighter jet right now.*
YET
Good. Because your photo looks sketchy and they wouldn’t sell to you.
Finally a guide to help me make the right decision
Let’s not forget the time when mr krabs sold SpongeBob’s soul for 62 cents
Flying Dutchman: “This has got to be the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals”
Bet you’ve been saving that zinger up for when you were one of the first to comment on a Binkov vid. Hilarious
@@quartzking3997 I know, I’m hilarious, thanks for the comment
@@pabcu2507 I’m not saying you’re hilarious, I’m saying whoever you stole the joke from is hilarious
@@quartzking3997 so comments have a copyright on them that’s you’re saying? Since when? Also this joke has been around way longer than you remember
Love how our Gripen places fairly well in most categories, not bad for a country with a population less then metropolitan Paris.
Well, maybe I'm a little bit biased.
But it feels like it was doing worse in areas where it has specialized in these rankings...
And I'm not sure if that's really fair...
Not surprising. Norway makes a lot of good military hardware.
@@Cheka__ you mean Sweden?
@@Cheka__ While it's true that Norway also make good military hardware in this case we're talking about Swedish military hardware, across the border from us (they make even more things then we do)
Gripen is a Swedish fighter.
We produce other things like anti-ship missiles and air-defense systems in Norway.
Sweden has a population about the size of an average American State but builds competitive Submarines, Aircraft, Tanks, Missiles and export to the US.
The F-35's targeting / recon "pod" is the ETOS that's built into the plane. This pod is designed for both hi-rez targeting of air and land targets and recon purposes. It also contains the laser to guide A/G weaponry.
15:08 The F-35 has a built-in optical targeting system
I think ground maintenance is also important to consider, especially for smaller countries that doesn't have the luxory of hundreds of airfields.
Best way to take out most planes is to keep them grounded.
(I'm totally not biased towards Gripen)
That is certainly true and so is how long it takes to train pilots and ground crew. You also have to consider how easy it is to get parts for the plane and to replace it, and the time it takes to refuel and re-arm the plane for a new mission.
I don't think there is a perfect plane for everyone. Different nations have different needs and their military doctrine will vary.
Even your nations infra structure and terrain matters. Not to mention how many planes you have, the F-16 is a very good plane if you have a large air force but it do spend a lot of time in a hangar, while a plane like a Gripen is quick to get into the air again so if you only have like 50 planes the Gripen gets the advantage there but if you have hundreds of planes it isn't really much of a problem if service and maintenance takes more time.
How large airfields you need to lift and land also matters a lot, some planes require long strips to even get in the air while there is a VTOL version of the F-35.
And of course range is an important factor if you for instance have large jungles like Brazil or have an island nation while it isn't a big deal for a small nation like Belgium.
It is a rather complicated calculation to figure out exactly what plane would work best for a specific nation and in reality, few countries even bother and choose for political reasons (and bribes) instead.
Brazil didn't pick Gripen because it was their best choice, but because they trying to not pick a side between US, Russia and China. It wasn't a bad choice for them from a technical standpoint but they would have been just as fine with for instant an F-15 EX, but from a political standpoint they will seem more independent from the larger political blocks with it. Denmark on the other hand picked F-16 because using American planes win them points with US even if a Gripen or Rafaele might have fit their specific situation better.
Factors not taken into account seems to be:
1. The ground turnaround time - how long has the plane stay on the ground to get serviced before being in the air again for the next mission?
2. Operational cost - what's the cost per flight hour?
3. Airfield requirements - what's the requirements on the ground real estate to keep an aircraft operational. If you need a specialized airfield or if you can do with a piece of decently paved road can make a huge difference when you perform your operation.
But overall even though it increases the cost there's an advantage in having more than one aircraft type in a conflict since it would cause the enemy to not being able to hone a perfect weapon but instead a more general weapon. A single target type opponent weapon means that it's easier for missiles to do IFF identification but with multiple opponent types then the risk of misidentifying a friendly craft as an enemy increases and "friendly fire" events increases. It's of course a marginal situation.
Sounds like you are talking about the virtues of the Gripen.
I agree. Those are important considerations in a real war. Gripen's ability to use highways as runways is a huge advantage. While the F-16's need for 10,000 ft runway in pristine condition is a problem, IMO.
Not to mention that those considerations have proven to be very relevant in Ukraine.
@@henrikg1388 Yep. Gripen was designed to fight Russia, in real war conditions.
What makes a good fighter jet?
Europe: TRIANGLE
One of the most important factors is not even mentioned: Tactical data links and network capability.
Yeah, multirole fighters are already obsolete. Now it's all about drones connecting to drones, sharing data and launching each other's armaments from beyond its own sensor range. A multirole fighter that doesn't plug into that network and command it from a safe distance is useless in the current generation of warfare if there's ever a near-peer conflict. But if all you need to do is beat up on some 3rd world country, you can get away with practically anything.
FA-50 was just happy to be there😭
lol.
I was in the market for a Multirole Fighter. This video helped me a lot. Thanks! 👍
I think something to consider too is longevity. Like how much room the plane has for future updates and upgrades. I know that is supposed to be one of the strong selling points of the f-35, because it has rapid software updates as well as excess power and infostructure to support future tech.
F-35 is also going to stay relevant for the next 50 years because it's an answer to challenges from this very era (low observability)
Gen 4 + airframes were an answer to challenges from another time : sustained turning rate & manoeuvrability in dogfights for example.
By 2045 - 2050... when Gen 6 aircraft will fly in combination with F-35's... any nation using Rafale, Gripen, F-16, etc... as their main fighter jet will look like those countries still operating Mig 21 & F-4.
Alot of people when looking at cost seem to forget that it's not just buying cost but also operational cost that matter, even if you bought it cheap if you cant afford to operate it it's just an expensive paperweight.
I feel like the Super Hornet is a tragically underrated airframe these days. It can do almost any mission, has an incredible range and dynamics to make it a nightmare for any opposing force.
Super Hornet is extremely capable but is a heavy aircraft ( 21000k with just fuel ) only useable from an airport length runways ( it would damage road surfaces ) though it could potentially land/take off from s straight road. Gripen C ( 10000k with fuel ) was designed for ease of replenishment at roadside and can safely do so on even icy roads. This comparison is not a reflection of airborne capabilities just of practical operating use from a Ukrainian roadside that Russia can't easily target.
It's kinda ass if you were trying to play guerilla like Sweden though.
Purchase price is important, but so is the cost to operate and maintain the plane.
Another factor is service life. The F-15EX has two to three times the service life as most other planes, for example.
Great timing! I was just about to place an order for a new fleet but now I'll definitely be informed.
What we are missing is that apart from the US no one has the logistical capability and also the wide spectrum of additional supporting assets with the fighter jets. Tiny Euro-country 12 airframe buy is not the same as the same number plugged into the US Defence capability. What is very wise is how the Scandi countries have combined the air fleets into one force. Cheers.
F35 overall probably.
For Ukraine atm...probably the Gripen as it's features encompass exactly the type of warfare it was designed to fight.
Ukraine will probably end up with F16 for quite a while. When they stop using those they'll probably end up getting a modern generation jet, so not Gripen. At least not the current variant of it.
Ah, yes, thank you. I was wondering which fighter jet to buy.
The F-35 is by far and away the best fighter aircraft in the world. Not only does it feature a 20:1 kill ratio against 4th generation aircraft, its AESA radar provides an unparalleled situational awareness of what is happening on the ground.
All of these advantages, but it costs an arm and a leg for nations to buy and maintain. Non stealthy multirole jets are still the better choice for nations that don't have world superpowers as their enemies.
@@nigaballs9603 Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland have gone all in on the F-35. None of them chose a 4th generation fighter. Every nation that can buy the F-35 will choose it. Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey and so on will never be able to buy it.
@@johnroberts9922 the US has said the F-35 is to expensive to get the amount they would require. Leaving them to depend more on legacy systems. Simply put it maybe the best, but it might not be worth it's weight in gold so to speak
@@ironwoodnf Basically you are talking about only third world nations, those who do not matter on the global stage.
Compared to the hundreds to 1 of the F-15 platform?
Grippen should be desirable to most nations because of low maintence and ability to use unprepaired runways. Even if you did a high low with F-35. Grippen should be in more air forces.
Something worth noting is that because the F35 mounts weapons internally, it effectivly is always flying "clean" where other jets will have drag from their weapons. That will affect manuverability & range.
Another thing I'd consider is the F35's block 4 upgrades are coming very soon which includes upgraded engines & systems so "upgradability" is part of this.
Cost could be it's own video because what one country pays can be very different than another. The Swiss noted cost as one of the reasons they chose F35 but other countries won't get the same deal
I assume that the f35 only internally mounts small-medium sized munitions.
Anything large (bigger than a 250kg bomb) will go on a wing pylon simply because it can't fit in the internal bay.
Lrasms (long-range anti ship missile) can't be mounted internally, and neither can 1000kg bombs.
I would argue that since the f35 is not optimised for long range flight with externally mounted munitions, its range will suffer more than the range of a plane designed with external carrying capacity in mind.
And about cost. Yes, I can't agree more.
The rafale is the most expensive plane on the list, but only because not enough of them have been made to offset the development costs...
@@johnbenoy7532 F35 has been designed from the begining to have it's "beast mode" config using external mounts getting up to 22,000lbs total. It's also integrated the JASSMs with no noted issues.
However it can carry a pair of 2000lb JDAMs or Paveways internally & naturally the B61 can also be carried so with nuclear sharing a country gets a nuclear capable stealth aircraft. It's also getting new internal mounts that increase the number of internally carried weapons.
@@thearisen7301 engineering a highly advanced aircraft to better suit its secondary use case sounds a bit much to me. Usually when we design a plane, we make sure its primary goal is done to the best of its ability and then try to get the secondary capabilitys as high as possible without too much compromise.
When you bud a plane for external carrying of heavy munitions, there are a whole lot of compromises that need to be made to the physical airframe which negatively impact the stealth of the plane (even when unloaded).
I'm not doubting that the f35 can carry a lot of missiles and very heavy bombs, but stating that it may not be as good at it as other non stealth options. This same problem applies to smaller sized aircraft such as the rafale (yes it can carry a nuke, but not very many large bombs).
F35 is the best deal for anyone the US is willing to sell to.
Rafale for anyone the US won't sell to, but France will.
If you can't get F35 or Rafale, you probably can't get Gripen anyway.
If you're in the market for used jets, F16s are flooding the market atm (hopefully most go to Ukraine though). New F16s is only good if you already had F16s and can't get F35 or Rafale.
If none of the above applies to you, at that point you're probably looking to buy Chinese, discuonting Iran, I doubt anyone wants to buy Russian again. And Iran only wants to buy Russian so that they can steal, I mean, buy, the tech to build engines viable in the 1980s, as opposed to the 60s vintage ones they can sort of produce currently.
Heavily underestimating the Gripen in most performances, not the least it’s radar “visibility”
I guarantee you even the first prototype su57 with all those panel gaps is magnitudes more “stealthy than a grippen
Good joke! HAHAHA!
I would say that the worst underestimation is in the "offensive sensor" and "defensive aids" categories. Su-35, F-18 should definitively not be above in the first. Many other rankings are strange.
Man, I didn’t know the Rafale and the Eurofighter were this good and this close to each other.
The 2 best competitors imo 🔥
Agreed. The Eurofighter seems to come out much better than I expected.
@@Benjamin.Jamin. When looking at the comparisons made by the swiss air force during the ‘’air2030’’ program, I really expected the Eurofighter to be ranked much lower in this video
The latest costs of the F35 now production numbers have been ramped up makes it one of the best as well as one of the cheapest
Not among the cheapest by a longshot. And that's of course if you entirely discount the R&D and initial investment pool.
It's the single most expensive weapons program in history. By far.
@@Emanon...this is about buying and ordering Today. F35 is the cheapest upfront but higher hourly use cost.
@@Emanon... The current unit price a buyer would expect to pay per plane is the only figure relative the conversation based on the premise of the video. $78-80 million each for the F35a
@@Emanon... Dead wrong. The unit costs factor in program costs, production has just been made very efficient (almost 1000 have been made), and program costs have been spread out over those aircraft. You’re operating off of outdated information.
And no it’s not the most expensive program in history, not even close.
@@SeeLasSee Also, while it has higher maintenance costs (spare parts and RAM materials are expensive), it’s actually much much easier to maintain than basically any other fighter out there. It has a maintenance hours/flight hours ratio of about 4-5. For context an average ratio for most fighters will be double or triple that number, I believe an SU-27 has a ratio of about 12.
I think you're forgetting the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System which is basically a stealthy targeting pod. I noticed you listed the F-35 as not having a pod in the recon section. It is already in active use by F-35s.
Uh... according to F-35 pilots, that aircraft offers unprecedented situational awareness both in the air and on the ground. It's like a mini AWACS... and I'm pretty sure its EOTS / DAS is more advanced than any other external pod on the market right now.
The F-16V still holds out nicely as the Swiss army knife of air planes.
Thanks for posting the video, I was really confused which one to buy, now I have made my choice
For exports, the meteor is proposed with the 2 ways datalink for Rafale. F15 EX is not offered for export. Russian radars are inferior to Western equivalent. Beside the geopolitical element which is crucial, another element that should have been included is maintenance/availability/customer support. This makes all the difference. If you cannot get good customer service, if your planes lack spare parts, if your electronic is unreliable, you quickly loose over 50% of your asset. And if your plane is heavily dependent on the green light of your country 's supplier to operate in conflict, you may also be left with a grounded fleet...
Well, when you buy from US, you are limited to diplomatic actions US agrees with. If you dont, stuff you buy from them as good as the ones you buy from Russians.
It is tho, Indonesia has had talks with the US regarding the purchase of F15EX(s) and news is that the US is supportive of that deal(cus of geopolitics more than anything)
@@RENO_K True, but no deal yet though, this seems a complex deal
Yes,USA already did this awful thing
Gripen. Jack of all trades, exceptional at coordination, easy for logistics, requires only paved or even dirt roads to launch from, and most importantly cost similar or even less than the Su-35 as well as ALL American and European planes on the list, especially when bought in bulk. This would save LOTS of money from logistics and maintenance to be used to buy a few F-35s for instance.
Jack of all trades is often master of none. I would have to disagree. The best combination is most likely the pair of Rafal and Su-35. Rafals to do pure air superiority and Su-35s to do multirole.
Both come from producers with significant industrial base and production capacity. Sweden otoh has ... limited capabilities.
@@joeblack5393 expensive as hell, you'd go broke with that combo
Its a very interesting topic and also a difficult list to compile with a lot of details to take into account. Perhaps another topic to discuss would be a list of the best carrier based fighters?
The F-35 has it's recon pod internalized.
maybe i can treat myself this christmass on a brand new fighter jet
All fine aircraft but for me best bang for buck is the JAS39 Grippen.
The Viper my Brother !
@@romainlavoie1526 You're forgetting the Swedes offer the Grippen E as a package with an Erieye AEW and control aircraft the Swedes know their stuff.
Interestingly the f-18 looks like a very good option. For countries like Ukraine I would consider the Gripen, F-16, f18... The reason for the last two is both availability and overall Good performance. The reason for the first one is or should be obvious. But what really sells me for the Gripen, is the meteor, which means that only the European air frames currently would make the most sense and of those obviously the swedish entry is the overall winner. But production and availability of airframes matters. For a different country with well-developed GADS, and airfields, especially a bunch of smaller but well maintained ones, and strong technical skills either by training or just in general available in the population, The price and availability with overall capability trumps any other considerations. So most oil-rich Middle East countries should probably go for f15, f-18, F-16, Raphael, while poorer but with good technical skills I would also consider the F-16, f-18, a country that's next to a much greater power might seriously consider getting a license to create a factory for the Gripen. Poorer and less technical skills, might consider the total cost benefits of Gripen, both in training for the ground crews, the maintaining of airfields and logistics, but there I suspect the low cost of entry for the F-16, the large amount of availability of it, will decide. Of course politics is the first and foremost reason, all these technical reasons are secondary to that
@@marcm. The Swiss with F18s practice take offs from motorways just like the Swedes with Grippens both would be more than suitable for Ukrainian needs as air bases are practically a non starter.
Hope your going to factor lifecycle cost instead of the rather poor cost per flight hour metric. Life cycle takes costs per flight hour and also includes the cost of support equipment, simulators, training, support personel, spare parts, ect. Its the whole package to support the plane.
However that is also quite variable depending on the receiving nation and what kind of preexisting infrastructure they already have, which is why you see such wildly variable unit costs.
" Paper planes will not help you win the war "
Challenge accepted 😎
FA50 already has a BVR capable variant, the Block 20
FA-50 PL (block 20) will have:
AESA Phantom Strike GaN radar
AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9X
Sniper Targeting Pod
KGBB stand-off bomb (>100km) and maybe JSM
Refuling system
going to be affordable, light and advance multirole fighter.
This video reminded me how badass the F-15EX is
And next to it sits the Typhoon!
Very impressive piece of kit.
@@MostlyPennyCat Lol found the Brit. The Eurofighter has some better attributes going for it here and there, but the Rafale is the most potent multirole fighter hailing from Europe. And it is pretty evident on the market. The F-35 is the best fighter overall though.
F-35 is OP. Incredibly advanced and not super expensive. As a Swede, I’m inclined to call it unfair.
I love the Jas-39 as a canadian but i understand why our government chose the f-35.
@@fz8691We also have way more data and flexibility of modifying the jet according our needs for F-35 because of being part of the program.
Well, it's about two decades younger in practice. So it had better be good!
Gripen's big advantages are low cost per flight hour, simple maintenance, and rough-field performance. While it's really hard to determine from known data (as neither aircraft has been in a real war) I think you'd really want some F-35s for SEAD, anti-AWACS and important strikes, but just for keeping your airforce flying during peacetime or when the bombs have been raining for a while Gripen may actually be more useful (one flying Gripen beats ten grounded F-35s).
rofl@not superexpensive
@@martinwinther6013 Cost drops each year, if I'm not mistaken all 3 variants are under 100 million.
Okay I may be biased I live in fort Worth Texas home of the F-16 I'm going to go ahead and say that if you on a budget this is going to be your best plan
If you're on a budget you can't beat the Gripen as its much cheaper and easier to maintain and robust
Grippen is best on a budget. Its literally designed for that. Average perf in air superiority, but much cheaper to operate. Not efficient for high intensity conflicts and terrible for power projection, but a good deal for countries like Brazil who just need to police their airspace
@@inteallsviktigt The Gripen is not strong in ground striking. The Gripen is strong in what Sweden felt it needed, and everything else has been traded for low expense per flight hour. OP is right, if you're on a budget and want an Swiss army knife with wings the F-16 is it. The F-35 will eventually become that (due to scale of production and continuous refinement). The latest Block 72/Viper upgrade even focuses on making it the ideal companion plane for the F-35, so countries with medium large budgets can go get a few F-35s but generally "fill the ranks" with F-16s.
One thing to consider for your next video: F-35 has a subscription model maintenance. US government does not own all the necessary intellectual property rights to maintain their own planes. At a certain point, they always have to call on Lockheed Martin for that. So the bill for maintaining F-35s is very very high and there is a very high risk of bottlenecks. US military is already saying the plane is too expensive and has a poor readiness level. You can easily verify this information as well.
It is much more about politics as well as expected missions and adversaries than about pure capabilities.
While the F35 is great for deep strike missions or against opponents of a high tech level, it would be a waste of money if you only need it for air policing or to fight insurgents.
The Rafale is a great option for countries that want a capable jet but aren't on friendly terms with the USA. If you are, the F16 is arguably a cheaper option with similar capabilities.
When you are on bad terms with the west in general, the chinese are the way to go even if russian jets might offer better price/performance on paper. They are the more reliable supplier, will likely offer better tech in the future and can help out with financing. Also, establishing better relations with the chinese is worth more than establishing better relations with russia.
I wish I could give this comment more than one thumbs up. I agree with it emphatically. China started out copying Russian designs, but they have definitely moved
past that phase. Also, they're less likely to want to meddle with a country's internal politics, or ( gasp) try to bring democracy to them. The J-10 Is a very capable
plane with a lot of growth potential. The latest version is an easy match for the f16c/d and possibly the grippen except for the austere field capability.
Quite wrong. While the Chinese equipment will come quickly, a lot of armed forces, for example Bolivia, have complained about spare parts taking too long or just never arriving.
I think the FA50 was conceived not as a 'true' multirole fighter in the same class as an F16 or F18 but rather as a tactical, close air support fighter that can defend itself against low-altitude enemies (like the Su25 or enemy helicopters) while performing ground support strikes for front line forces. For proven performance I'd go with either F16 or F18, F35 if the country in question has a high enough GDP. For best 'bang for buck' but still very capable and relatively easy to maintain and upgrade I'd go with the JAS39, it's also got an 'unimproved' air strip capability allowing ti to easily use roads and highways.
I'm surprised you didn't include maintenance in this. All these capabilities are useless if the plane is sitting in a hanger, broken.
If it were my country and we could afford 100 jets..
50 FA-35 for air superiority.
30 F-15 to bomb the crap out of the enemy.
20 F-18 for maritime strikes.
Why F-18s? What F-18s can do that the F-15 or F-16s can't?
@@zomgbrattodilolrenzor6081 land on aircraft carriers
F-15 has no dedicated anti-ship capabilities.
F-16 is single engine and I’d prefer twin for survivability.
If it was a developing nation with a limited budget, I’d probably go for 100 F-16’s
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 With the upcoming grid integration it might be more price effective to get 60 F-16Vs and 20 F-35As and every mission pod type for the F-16 in reasonable quantities. This will allow you to pair each F-35 with three F-16s that just hang back and serve as "bomb and missile trucks" that take targets from the F-35. This is the "sales pitch" of the Block 72/Viper upgrade of the F-16: it turns it into the perfect companion/helper plane of the F-35.
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 F-35 has anti-ship capabilities (it is deck fighter). Having dedicated fighters only for that papoose, seams weird? As good as F-15 is, it is also quite costly. US operate them as missile trucks, what make sense for larger countries, what can afford both stealth and strike wings (they are High not Low option). If you need dedicated low option, pick F/A-18 instead.
Simple answer *F-35* if you can get it and you can run the logistics as it's the best at BVR. *Gripen* if you can't buy the F-35; it's the best for logistics and _attrition warfare,_ running cost and pilot flight hours, and it can still carry long range AA missiles like Meteor as well as easily be upgraded for new future hardware due to its modular software.
However if you get the F-35, having a lower running cost dedicated ground attack aircraft/missile truck would help save money and increase the "bang for the buck".
Either the F-15X or even a turbo prop CAS plane once all the SAM's have been eliminated.
With its very low flight running cost, the Gripen doesn't need a "low cost" supplement.
However if you have the Gripen and your enemy has the F-35 ... you're getting hit before you even spot them.
F-16>gripen
@@paw1ak_248 The Gripen is better than the F16, the thing is that the F16 is more readily accessible and by now also cheaper due to economies of scale.
@@arga400 in what sense better? F-16V tops the gripen
@@arga400 F16 later version are better
@Paw1ak_ The F-16 is a lot harder to run day to day with logistics.
For example, Its air intake is underneath so the runway has to be immaculate, meanwhile the Gripen can land on a highway and be rearmed and refuelled by four regular soldiers with trucks in a half hour - who then book it before a precision strike can target them.
That is a massive advantage and part of the design brief of the Gripen.
It's the opposite of a hangar queen.
The cost per hour of flight is also the least of any jet on the list by a lot, so that means in peacetime pilots get a lot more flight hours practice.
The advantage of the F-16 is just the production run. In Ukraine's case for example there are so many F-16's available that cannibalising some for spare parts or even having more planes than experienced pilots and revolving planes out of Ukraine for servicing in NATO countries becomes an option.
There are probably more F-16's in storage than there are currently Gripens in existence.
The advantage of JF 17 is the lowest cost among all of the listed multi-role fighters. That fits the need who want modern fighters but with limited budgets.
The block 3 is costing over 50 million and upto 60 million
Not cheap in any way tbh
@@hiteshadhikari But this video only discusses the block 2 variant and Block 3 gets some significant upgrades in equipment and tech.
@@rainboworiental9521 block 2 is a fine 3.5 gen aircraft , block 3 stands well as a decent one on paper but at that cost the idea of a f16 becomes much better proposition or even a su 30 or su 35
@@hiteshadhikari block 2 cost is around 25 million and block 3 costs around 50 million block 3 have aesa redar and pl15 and pl10 missiles and it's lighter weight via composite materials and more payload capacity and more hard points and advance missile and radar warning receivers and new and improved cockpit and helmet, which means block 3 is up to 50% better than block 2 and in real warfare scenario it has more than twice the power of block 2
@@maryamhammad1451 block 3 costs around 50-60 million and the aesa radar used is a low power one, i wonder how they will be powering electronics with single engine.
Klj 7a fitted in aesa has no data of TRM or power so how good it will be questionable.
Thats all to see in future but paying 60 mil for jf17 when u can get a f16 block 50ish for same price with better subsystems is more reasonable but then pak doesnt have access to money or those jets anymore
Its easier to buy jf17 and j10 because the purchase is backed by chinese loans now ( pak purchased recent j10 with a few billion dollar loan they got)
If something is military, I'm going with the US option. It won't be the best in every single category of weapon/system, but I'll end up with the best overall success rate.
And generally speaking they undersale their equpment so you'll be pleasantly surprised as to what it can really do. Compared to its Russian counterparts that have overplayed their equipment.
@@KioneWinterHowl - Indeed. And, I suspect the Chinese do that even more than the Russians, esp. with so little actual experience.
US equipment is exported at a huge markup and never when fully modern, mainly bought for US logistics benefits and political purposes, besides being often good there are almost always competitive alternatives
@@ece5925 When the shooting starts, logistics is huge.
@@SilvanaDil The Chinese don't even build engines as well as the Russians. A lot of their doctrine, which guides design, is descended from the Russians. And Russians seem to want maneuverable flying artillery, strictly directed by ground control.
So zero faith from me.
Or, to put it another way, if Russian design was any good, why do we not see their stealth fighters over Ukraine? Until recently, the best anti-air missiles the Ukrainians had were the S-300 and maybe some S-400 older variants. If they were successful, it would be great advertisement for the Russian arms industry, very important to their economy.
I‘d take EF T4 as it is the most capable of the bunch in BVR and as a platform still has a lot of potential for growth. To my knowledge it has the largest supersonic flight envelope, a low RCS and the best performing radar (range against stealth and 180 deg FOV). Only problem would be initial procurement cost, but that‘s mitigated over its service life. Then again I‘m likely biased.😅
The newer variants of FA-50 will have AESA radar and bvr capabilities if I'm not mistaken. The plane is more of a light fighter/trainer, but still nice to see it included in the video.
Let's hope Binkov gives an overall ranking for each plane next video.
Thanks for the video, i am in a market for a multirole fighter jet rn. This video really helped me
"Paper planes will not help you win the war." *sad paper plane noises*
Definitely, not Russian fighter jet, I'm sure about that.
Non stealth AirPower doesn’t seem to be very important in the Ukraine war due to the abundance of SAMs on both sides
Gripen would probably have been the best buy a couple years ago, but today? I doubt it. F-35 have dropped their cost dramatically and Rafales bang for the buck is better today as well than earlier. From what I can find about RCS Gripen should most definitely be in the best category out of the non-stealth aircrafts as well.
While gripen isn't super cheap compared to the competition but gripen still hold advantage over F-35 in maintenance area. Lets wait until next week
@@Arkan_Fadhila Yup. As weird as it sound, F-35 + Gripen or F-16 or F-18 (slightly different advantages) create good High-Low combo. Rafale is best pick if you want have strictly singular platform.
Thanks for the break down, I've been looking for a new home defense jet
It looks to me like the F-15 EX is near the top of every list.
But the Gripen with meteors is all most mid sized countries need and it's cheap too.
F-15 is specific. It make sense only for larger countries.
Thank you for this information, on my way to the dealer now.
Hands down, F-35A is the victor due to its exceptional performance in all critical aspects demanded by the modern world combats such as stealth, sensors, firepower, self-defense, sitiational -awareness, electronics, and radar. It holds title of 'Excellent' in each of these categories. The Eurofighter ranks second in terms of technology, closely followed by the F-15EX.
@@Cheka__ what's wrong in his comment?
I'm think the Rafale is ahead of the EF if we compare the latest versions, idk much about the EX tho.
If this was a crafts magazine, there would be an award for the absolute finest on market, best value for money, and Dave's pick- a contrarian and offbeat selection but always with a surprisingly good rationale.
The appropriate way to make this comparison is fix the budget. Say a country can spend $10B on procurement and $10B more over the next 20 years on operations and maintenance. That might mean you get 200 JF-17's for 625 hours per airframe per year or 50 F-35's for 230 hours per airframe per year. Which of these fleets is more effective? If you're Israel you probably want the F-35's to deep strike Iranian nuclear labs. If you're Afghanistan, you'd rather have a lot of JF-17's todominate your peasant neighbours.
What about the flying Samosas the Tejas... say good stuff about it or Modi's curse be upon you
@@razal-ghul1105 Are they anything like your tank, then paper planes would perform better!😉
@Hiznogood is not better than modi's 56-inch chest bulletproof armour...that nuclear missiles bounce off... even has a chaiwallah cup holder to it....please don't interfere. Otherwise, RSS cow brigade will come and do to you what they do to people who they THINK are transporting cows
Lone f35 in Iranian airspace, i don't think so
Short answer: F-35
Have to agree even though I dislike the damn thing. Just so versatile and definitely gets way too much hate. It is a great plane even if it can't do everything the best. I'll listen to pilots who love the damn thing and have experience in other aircraft.
I'd say the F 15ex but it is so expensive and no stealth but it looks like a freaken work horse once air supremacy is achieved.
Maneuverability I think is over rated these days. It isn't Vietnam and missiles have gotten so much better.
If the F 15 ex was one third the cost of it I would say that.
America really loses out by not having the Meteor which I personally believe is the best A2A missile in the world.
I've read Isreal has some variants on jets and such that may be better and if there is one country with sneaky ass equipment it is them. That was just things I have read but didn't really go into so it could be hearsay. Also Japan's F 16s from Mitsubishi are overpriced as hell haha.
Cost per flight hour also needs to be considered
Ill go with the Gripen since it is fairly cheap and I can maintain it in my garage 👍🏻
It's not cheap 😂
I think it's a bit unfair to put the FA50 on the list. The plane the light attack configuration of a supersonic trainer aircraft whereas every other plane on this list was a purpose built multirole fighter
Doesn't the EO/DAS system on the F35 essentially give it a built in recon pod?
I’d say so. By that metric, so does the Eurofighter. Eurofighter was the original platform DAS was meant for and saved the F-35 program.
JF-17 Blk 3 is operational btw
"Gun is a luxury and rarely used"
-New age of drone warfare has entered the chat.
Drones are usually small and relatively much slower. Would be hard for a fighter jet to hit them with a gun I imagine.
FA 50 was only invited for a participation trophy
But if you are from poorish medium size country. Having trainers what can do some combat missions. Is actually quite smart.
@@TheRezro But it might be worth considering to simply pay the country selling you fighter Jets to also train your pilots.
I am not sure how expensive that would be in comparison, but I'd wager it is cheaper then operating a trainer full time
Its often the add-ons that make the deal, for instance when India bought Rafale it was because Eurofighter weapons could be politically restricted. While France offered a complete deal including weapons package. The Grippen also suffers because its armament is supplied by 3rd parties
Yes, both Gripen and Euofighter have a third party restrictions for Export. only the French, US, and Russian fighters are able to export their fighters without a third party export restrictions.
For example, Swedish Gripen has American power plant and Avionics, so if the Swedish government wants to export the Gripen they will need export license from the USA.
If you think Korea's military is weak because of the FA-50, keep in mind that these are just for training purposes. South Korea's real combat aircraft are much more capable, such as F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s.
I don't think he ever said that. Idea of armed trainers is actually quite clever.
@@TheRezro You're right, Binkov didn't actually say that.
I was partially preempting any North Korean/Russian/Chinese trolls from bashing South Korea's military this way and partially to let people know of this fact in case they thought that the FA-50 was South Korea's main fighter jet (I was slightly confused too).
i mean,even North Korean just use some WW2 rockets.South korean capital still cant hold on under 6 hours fire.
🇰🇷 Korean stick don't bark
@@yuluoxianjun Of those rockets very few can even hit the capital due to having short range. World War 2 rockets are of no use if they can't hit far enough.
Capability wise I really like the Rafale when it comes to 4th gen crafts. It can just do so much.
I found this video to be elucidating, though I'm less favorably disposed toward any of the top contenders than I was before watching it. good job as usual.
F-35A, hands down. One of the major lesson of the Ukraine War that non stealth planes are hopelessly outdated against the double digit SAMs.
Give it 10 years with next gen AA and we're back to logistics and cost efficiency. The F35 loses that competition badly.
@@Emanon... BS
@@Emanon... Thought the S-400 already did that?
Maybe? Since they haven't used any stealth aircraft we don't really know for certain. Also ECMs can be as effective as stealth probably if they're done right. Both sides are using mainly old planes with outdated systems (including ECMs) and radars get better all the time as well so what's stealth today might not be stealth in a decade or two.
The F35 is absolute trash
You said "all plans will be consider in their advance but currently available variants" in the video and 10 block 3 variant have been rolled out about a year ago, I believe at this time more than 20 jf 17 block 3's have been produced
I'd factor in survivability of the pilot. And how easy it is to train on.
And maintenance
F16 and done F35 if you can get them. Saab Grippen if you’re rural and basing them in a scattered style.
I dont really get how you can make the Typhoon T4 excellent in "offensive sensor capability", but Rafale F4 just "Good" when the Rafale beat the Eurofighter during multiples competitions in that regard. The Typhoon will receive a new AESA that it never had before, while the Rafale is already being fitting with second gen AESA and a Gan version is being developed (there is over a decade of experience and development separating both new AESA from typhoon and the rafale). We also know the EW suit of the is better on the Rafale than the Typhoon and is say to not only be passive but also have offensive capabilities.
Also, the F-18E is supposed to be more advanced than the F-15EX regarding this matter. Having big raw numbers on a radar is not the only thing that matter and the F-18E radar is more advanced that the one of the F-15EX because they both are mean to fight in very different environments and missions. Rafale and F-18E are very close in that regard, while F-15EX and Typhoon are also very close.
The F-18E and Rafale should be in Excellent, while the F-15EX and Typhoon should be in very good (maybe the F-15EX in excellent but i'm not certain it had an as good low altitude and EW warsuite as the F-18E). Again, it all come from the fact the first 2 have more versatility and complexe missions they are supposed to handle than the last 2 (lot of come from these first 2 being Navy planes, so pretty much supposed to do everything an airforce would do by using multiple different planes, hence the F-35 also being as much versatile).
Regarding the F/A-18E - F-15EX comparison, you are misinformed. The APG-82(v)1 uses exactly the same backend processing as the APG-79 but it has a bigger and more powerful emitter. It's literally a straight upgrade over the APG-79.
Which can go, perform a mission successfully and return to do it again. Most of the rest, fuel economy, weapons load etc. are apri ore , included before the definition is made
I'd buy 75 F-15 EXs with conformal tanks, and 25 F-35s.
Those are divisible into squadron sizes... Did you just list numbers that would add up to 100?
@@rick7424 Yes i chose 100. The video said 10-100. My point was the rough distribution of each, but if you want to do more math to make my number more accurate - have at it, but please add a few spares of each.
Sure, if you can afford that. It's probably the most expensive option, out of all listed (more so than just 100 F-15EXs, because you don't save money on air fleet standardization).
@@Hypernefelos You do save money on standardization, you just don't maximize the way you would with only one plane. As for expense, it's a value proposition - that's the whole point of the series. And with the expected service life of the current F-15 EXs rolling off the assembly line, long term it's cost efficient.
Jf 17 blk 2 uses the aselsan targeting pod, it also has anti radiation missiles MAR 1/LD10 as well as Raad stealth cruise missile for nuclear strikes. Good effort though
You forgot to talk about wich plane could operate on road bases when all ones airbases have been nuked!
Its a theoretical capability overstated by the Swedish marketing deparment. None of these airplanes can truly be operated from roads. Yes, you CAN retain usability of some of them from "austere enviroments" (read: take off / land refuel / rearm from highways) but this isnt really realistic beyond very short term. Longer you operate your airplane like this, more and more its technical resources will deteriorate. For example Soviet airplanes were designed to require very little in terms of runway quality and look how much Ukrainian Su-24 and Su-25 fleet has deteriorated in less than a year. If they werent given new airplanes they would have ran out of them 6 months ago.
@@joeblack5393 Sorry but get your fact straight, yor are clearly underestimating the gripen. The get maintained by an experience tech on the road as well. But yes, EVENTUALLY it needs a proper gothru but since it can land on all roads you still dont need an airfield to do it stupid. XD raise a tent and do it. XD
@@joeblack5393 First I would like to say that I love your answer.. it hit the weak spot!
In anyway in a Nato/Russia full out war.. every airbase gonna be nuked or Iskanderished on both sides!
Then there is only swedish airforce/Hungarian and Chech republic that have any airforce left.. if we did dispere them in good time!
You have to forgive me beeing swedish.. and our military doctrine as a non alliance country have to be sustainability!
Befor our western friends have several conferenses about if they want to suport us.. kinda like in Ukraine!
And we have applyed for NATO membership.. and we altso hope for US bases on our land, payd for by US taxpayers!
In anyway.. I still think that NATO doctrines have a flaw, that of air supremacy.. its a WW2 doctrine.. count that Russia nuke all NATO airbases, at the first day!
Then NATO mayby have a few airbases in UK, french colonies and in USA.. try to get air supremacy over Russia with that!
Anyone that have anykind of flying assets at this time kinda is a winner.. if we dont get kild in a nuclear harmagedon!
If your airbases have been nuked, I doubt getting those few remaining planes up in the air will be much of a priority. The world is probably fucked already then.
@@stiglarsson8405 1/ Russia is unlikely to destroy every airbase in Europe (through conventional means)... let alone carriers / amphibious assault ships. Especially since they will be heavily defended.
2/ In case of nuclear attack...Russia would be nuked as well ... so, what would the point be ?
Modern military’s of the axis powers (entire army, navy, Air Force, etc) assisting their ww2 counterparts (can be in the year 1940, 1941 or 1942)
Rafale for high end multirole and Gripen for light multirole
F-35 for high end
@@apolloaeroF35 barely even works
@@parodyclip36 funny how something that barely works routinely dominates all 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft
@@apolloaero The thing has been in service 10 years and has crashed 10 times, mostly due to electronical failures. The F35 is far from being finished. It can outclass other planes in some scenarios and I would hope so considering the shit ton of money that went into it
@@parodyclip36 Su-57 has been in service for 2-3 years and has had 1 crash with only about 10 made. There's currently about 900 F-35s. Tell me which one has a higher failure rate. Better yet, compare the failure and crash rate to any 4th gen or 4.5 gen, and then come back. Also, your F-35 crash numbers are low, yet nowhere near the failure rate of Su-57. You'd need 90 F-35 crashes and failures to match Su-57 incompetence
You don't hear about the eurofighter much anymore, but it seems to rate pretty well here.
Indeed, not badly rated at all. Seems like an actual decent choice. Now see how much it costs, also for the ammunition and how maintenance is on it as well as the soft data. (usage for the pilot, integration in the military system, etc.)
well it should tell you something... it was rated lowly by potential customers...
I think there is an argument to be made for availability of good airfields.
As we have learned lately, having an airfield is quite necessary, and is one of the first things an enemy would target. Which is why so many think Gripen would serve well in Ukraine, for example. It can take off and land on any 800m length straight road. While the F-16 does require a team sweeping the airstrip before, because it has a huge intake near the ground that can suck in debris. Meanwhile the russian jets can pretty much handle any flat surface while ingesting birds, gravel , haystacks and the occasional mobik.
A bit exaggerated, but I think you get the point. ;)
A small country with good airfields might be at a huge disadvantage, as these airfields would be within range of the enemy. So a plane that can use smaller, or less good airstrips makes it harder to ground them by hitting the airfields. (since there is more options)
On the other hand, a country with a good airfield well behind the borders, could rest assured they will always have that available, even if it's a bit far away from the action. the range of the plane would be more important here.
I often see the capability of using STOL being ignored in these kinds of videos. But I think it can make a huge difference if the enemy is able to strike your airfields. And even if that's not the case, being able to land closer to the missions for refueling and rearming can make a big difference in how many missions you can fly per day. ( just as much as maintenance can.)
Also, in the same kind of vein, the ability to land on aircraft carriers is huge. I know that isn't quite what we're comparing here, but for nations with carriers, that is a thing. Perhaps an idea for a future video?
Your argument for the Grippen would be satisfied even better by the AV-8B Harrier which is abundant and available at low cost as it's being replaced by F-35B by most countries. Same if not better ability to operate from austere airfields and roadside if necessary with VTOL capability. Probably lower ceiling but would not be a factor in Ukraine where most aircraft are flying on the deck to avoid ground based air defenses. Like the Grippen supports all NATO munitions.
Main drawback is that because the AV-8B is being phased out, it's no longer in production and many parts suppliers no longer make those parts but as long as many nations continue to fly the AV-8B, probably most parts should be more or less available somewhere.
@@tonysu8860 Perhaps a bit off topic, but the F-35B is certainly something that could be included in this video comparison.
Hands down F-35 in almost all categories:
Fighter jet with 2nd smallest radar cross section after the F-22 and the best sensors in any fighter jet.
Best Aircraft for Air Superiority after the F-22
Best Aircraft in dogfights thanks to DAS (Distributed Aperture System)
Can out-range any SAM
...
Yeah basically. Sure it is expensive but it damn worth it.
Lol wtf 😂 F-35 is extremely poor at air superiority. Both R-37 and METEOR will outrange it. And in dogfight Rafale has proven better. DAS is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA system but still not as good.
@@aimgorge What world do you live in? We have the Red Flag data.
@@aimgorge Firstly, comparing the R-37 and METEOR, which are air-to-air missiles, to a multi-role combat aircraft like the F-35 is like comparing apples and oranges. These are weapons that are used by fighter aircraft, not a measure of the aircraft's capabilities themselves. Speaking of capabilities, the APG-81 radar in an F-35 is a powerful tool in electronic warfare. It is designed to jam and suppress enemy air defenses more effectively than the RBE2 AESA radar of the Rafale. The APG-81 3rd generation AESA radar of the F-35 has 1676 transmit/receive (TR) modules, almost double the 838 TR modules of the Rafale's RBE2 AESA. This makes the APG-81 a more powerful and matured platform, making it harder to intercept due to its low probability of intercept (LPI) radar.
In terms of detection and resolution, the APG-81 can detect targets faster than the RBE2 and can generate higher resolution SAR images for target identification, missile launches, vehicles, and intelligence gathering by generating 3D maps of the target area.
The F-35 also boasts the AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which provides a comprehensive picture of the battlefield and maximum situational awareness for the pilot. This system can identify, monitor, analyze, and rapidly respond to potential threats using advanced avionics and sensors. It also detects and geo-locates electronic emitters, giving pilots the option to evade, engage, counter, or jam threats.
As for the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) mentioned, it is not a copy of the Rafale's SPECTRA system. They are similar in concept, but the implementation and integration with other systems in the aircraft are quite different. The DAS system is one or more generations more advanced than SPECTRA in almost all areas. It also makes it possible to target and destroy enemy aircraft behind you. The Rafale has very good systems, but currently there is nothing that can compete with the F-35: its sensors, radar, sensor fusion, HMD and the integration of these systems. The goal of the F-35 is: I see all enemies but all enemies do not see me. The systems of the F-35 cannot be described on paper. To say that these systems of the F-35 are a copy would be like saying the first iPhone is a Nokia/Blackberry copy.
@@jul1anuhd LOL. I had a good laugh. First you can't tell the difference between "EW" and "EW defense" so the whole radar paragraph is a waste of time showing you have terrible reading comprehension.
Secondly, AN/ASQ-239 is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA.
And yes weaponry has as much to do with a plane's capabilities as the radar it harbors, that's why Binkov is taking it into account.
I had a good laugh, thank you.
As good as the F-15 is (it’s my favorite too), I’d have to go with the Gripen, they have good fighter capabilities, radar, and avionics. The Gripen is incredibly easy to maintain and it’s small too. F-16’s are also good small multirole fighters, but the Gripen is better for more disastrous scenarios.
Nope 😂
@@goodputin4324 honestly I changed my mind, F-15 all the way.
F35, there is currently no competition to that plane.
@@eddgar-ce3md incredibly expensive however, but yes it is the ideal multirole fighter and it has stealth, my pick would be the F-15EX as of now.
@@eddgar-ce3md compared to the F-22 it’s cheap, but still on the more expensive side compared to other fighters.
My nation just bought F-35, and while I personally don’t see the point of a small nation like us having cutting edge fighter planes dependent on parts and support from halfway around the world when Gripen is produced in our own backyard, I reckon that whatever capability that made the F-35 a better pick is probably classified. That, and the politics of the situation. Our PM wants to ascend to a top position in NATO when she is done on the local political scene, and buying American planes may very well be a career advantage for her.
Finland huh?
Danish
The F-35 might be assembled in the USA but parts are manufactured in every part of the world (especially in Europe) and often soon if not already in countries that purchase the F-35.
There's a reason both Norway, Denmark and Finland chose the F-35.. And just imagine how coordinated those three countries can be with their airforces.
@binkov's Battlegrounds if you are considering the most advanced & currently available version of each jet then you should put JF-17 block 3 instead of block 2. It is already in service & is a big leap in terms of capabilities over it's predecessor.
Yeah but he said the planes must have an export contract concluded, which the JF17 block 3, currently doesn't
@@СтеванСтаменић You are right but Binkov is considering it a Chinese aircraft & not a Sino-Pak jet. By that logic, Pak's in service block 3s are Chinese exports.
Even if we consider them as jointly produced between China & Pakistan, they are still available for exports and 2-3 countries are in talks to buy them.
@@huzaifarawat78 no, he said something like ,,but it hasn't been used outside of Pakistan, so it won't be included", not really sure word for word, still kinda sucks it wasn't included, as unlike the F22 or J20 which will never be exported, the JF17 block has a pretty good chance
@@huzaifarawat78 no one cares about pakistan or what they do or have.
@@СтеванСтаменић "all plans will be consider in their advance but currently available variants" that what he said in the video and 10 block 3 variant have been rolled out about a year ago, I believe at this time more than 20 jf 17 block 3's have been produced for more than 2 years now
How about a video on how to build a small nation’s military on a budget and the equipment best suited.
You planning something?
@@harshbutt If I told you you’d end up have an unfortunate accident….
Perun did a presentation on this not so long ago
1st: f-35
2nd: tie f-15ex, rafale, eurofighter
3rd: tie f-18, gripen, j-14
4th: f-16
The rest irrelevant
Except for the F-35, I largely agree... The F-35 is overpriced and overhyped.
J14???
I disagree, basically anything not western is shit in your opinion but that isn’t true, that’s a western superiority complex that doesn’t take into account the real world, non-debatable capabilities of eastern aircraft. The j10c is an advanced aircraft, better than a f16 block 50, probably around the performance of a block 60 f16. Even the j15 b and d variant will be pretty capable with an aesa radar too.
Jf17 is a smaller, light weight aircraft that isn’t toothless. Su35 is overhyped but it shouldn’t be dismissed. I believe it’s main issue is it’s pesa radar which makes it easy to jam. The ka 50 is still being developed so it’s unfair to include it, but it will be a decent light fighter in the future, with the apg 83 radar and aim 120 integration in the near future. Don’t let nationalism cloud yourself from objectivity
@@majesticface3631 the performance of the Russian air force in Ukraine has been very disappointing. I don't know what the Chinese have up their sleeve, so you may be correct in this regard
@@kilianklaiber6367 It's not really overpriced, the price has gone down quite a lot and isn't much cheaper than the other European planes. It's also superior to them. The fact is that a lot of plane fans have been downplaying how good F-35 is.
@@rowaystarco Oh I doubt that very very much. The acquisition price is pure deceit. The cost of running the airplane is astronomical. Finally, "stealth" is overhyped and the F-35 is a one trick pony. Once it is unstealthed it has no chance of survival.
I believe air superiority will be a priority for my country (Greece). The land borders with turkey are short so we can easily defend. If we control the air then we partially control the soil. However a plethora of ground to air and ground to ground missiles is very important too. Missiles cost less and they don't need pilots. The solution for average powers is air superiority combined with lots of missiles and UAVs controlled by AI.
Greece has made an excellent choice combining f16V Rafales and f35s
@@TheHunterOfYharnam True!
Your air superiority is already over since Kizilelma stealth Drone and TFX Kaan your pilots will fight against robot (Kizilelma) which can stand up against 10g and can do maneuvers which Pilots cant so as long as you have manned jets it doesnt matter which Plane you buy you will get smocked
@@yourmomslover2288 We are also starting to produce our own drones, we will aquire anti-drone systems and we are investing in electornical warfare. Also Rafales won't be even seen by the turkish side in time. Especially the f35. Turkish analysts know that Greece has invested the most in its airforce and that they can't win in the air. Thats why they beg the united states for f16s and britain for eurofighters. But if you ever get them it will be much much later than the conflict we will have. The west is backing Greece and turkey will make a greater mistake than russia if it attacks. The difference between Greece and turkey is much smaller and greece is in nato eu and has defensive alliances and close cooperation with some of the strongest states in the world and region. The air is in our favour and in the sea we are similar but we will also get an edge there. France will also send ships and fighters in a potential war. The overconfidence you turks have will be your ruin.
A defence is to protect the sovereignty of the small country. Buying American (or "Swedish" or Eurofighter or Korean) just make them even more subjugated and make them have even less sovereignty. Buying Chinese will have the same effect within a decade.
Hence, only French and Russian designs should be considered. Because Russia is too weak to subjugate a small country by soft power. And France is even weaker than Russia and somewhat independent from USA and a famously dependable and loyal supplier.
For any 🇪🇺 country, buying a European jet means unrestricted access to spare parts, upgrades and European weapons. That's why 🇺🇸 at the time put a lot of effort into preventing the development of the Meteor. Without it's own alternative to AMRAAM, 🇺🇸 could have basically put an end sooner or later to any 🇪🇺 military endeavor it didn't like.
Spamming different variants of the F/A-18 Hornet might be a good buy. Since it is good at almost anything and the different variants are tailored to their specific scenario, you only have to get parts and (maintenance) training for one aircraft. It can be used on aircraft carriers as well (was designed with that in mind). Unless one f*cks up with good old 'merica there will be an endless supply of spare parts and maintenance is not as costly as for example the Eurofighter. It is also significantly cheaper than F-35, Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter.
Additionally there is almost no mission that can not be executed with F/A-18's only. Their frontal stealth is roughly comparable to the Eurofighter and the Prowler version of the F/A-18 can perform missions against radar protected areas in a different manner, than one would with a F-35. Maybe not as efficient but it should be possible.
Of course this leaves out all the political and economical agendas, which is at least as important as raw firepower. Developing an even more expensive fighter jet with its own weapons is often the far better choice for a country than buying someone else's system. If you pay a foreign company to get you the latest tech, all the money goes to a foreign country, all the knowledge and infrastructure is improved outside your country. In the end you really lose money, knowledge and tech + you are more dependent on somebody else than otherwise. Which for example is the reason I believe, the Eurofighter despite its flaws and high costs is worth the effort and putting more money in domestic development is a good thing in this case. Or at least better than the alternative.
you complain about buying foreign but use the eurofruitcake fighter as an example, which is a cooperation of several nations, not one. and also about developing ones own aircraft industry, ask india how that is going for them. usa, china, russia, and france are the only nations that can produce home grown aircraft without assistance. and dont even mention the grippen as its 60% american with f18 engines.
@@paul123ggggggggg You are correct but EU countries often work hand in hand when it comes to the military and the Eurofighter is a corporation of 4 countries, which are not exactly sworn enemies (besides UK baking its own fruit cake). Of course Estonia won't be able to build a top notch fighter jet on its own for example. If the pressure is there and the participants are willing to work together it is certainly possible to get a good result. The Panavia Tornado is still flying as an example. Long story short: Not necessarily has the aircraft to be made in one country alone but it might not be a good idea to leave it the US, China and France alone.