F35 will solve our air force until 2050s at least. That is something that Gripen would not have done and we'd need to be buying replacement in 15 years.
Sure if we had to pay lump sum for them at once, we would not be able to afford it - but that is not going to happen. The payments will be laid out over time. Not to mention that in the long term (I.e. decades) F35 absolutely is the most cost effective choice.
Unless your ideal scenario is just slapping some A2A on L39s and calling it a day of course.
So yes, we absolutely can afford F35s.
Who does use Gripens anyway? Sweden and couple 3rd world shitholes that are too poor to afford American, British, or French planes but don't want to use Soviet surplus?
to add to this who else has them in the EU
ther Germs and Poles wants them too
Greece aswell and i bet i forgot some other too
If a third world shithole like Singapore with a population of less than 6 million can afford it, surely a developed EU member state with twice the population can
Because Czechs got cucked by the previous government into doing frickall about their military, and before that it was one bribery scandal after another.
>Because Czechs got cucked by the previous government
They rented Grippens they couldn't afford and now they want F35 they definitely can't afford. Nothing changed, and nothing will change in this regard.
Czechs brutally downsized their army precisely because they thought 'Nah NATO will take care of it' and just embezzled money for paper shit like Pandur, which they totalled, entire column, during routine travel on the highway.
Czechs wanted to BUY 36 Gripens, back when their current president was still a prime minister, but after the bribery scandal unfolded, they ended up leasing 12+2 instead.
>If a third world shithole like Singapore
are all PrepHole posters this fricking stupid nowdays?
is there even point coming to this place anymore?
I can literally smell the fricking high school coming off this board
I've travelled around the world and I can say that if Singapore is a shithole, United States is a shit in the gutter. What nation isn't a shithole by your standards?
obviously not but that never stopped the government.
What are the benefits of choosing a foreign-made equipment instead of domestically (for the region) produced equipment that will complicate logistics and parts availability?
while czechia actually has relatively decent amount of plane makers, only company that makes military planes is aero l-159 which is only a trainer/light attack.
https://i.imgur.com/VsFOm1o.png
Obviously the lynx isnt as good as certain people here like to claim it is.
source? i'd kinda like to read the report, can be in slovak.
https://i.imgur.com/hVD68Xh.jpg
Why no F-15s?
isn't that even more expensive, and US probably wouldn't sell it to pleb nations like us anyway?
So what's up? For decades we were RENTING two shitty Grippens, and suddenly we can buy subscription based platform like F-35? With 12% inflation?
surprisingly czech military makes quite good purchashing choices recently. the problem wthi gripen is that we have the old versions so even if we got them for free, you end up with shitty old plane that will need replacing soon anyway and the modernized gripens are like half entirely different plane which we'd have to pay for. so long term it should save money and give us actually modern airforce shared with slovaks and other nato c**ts.
F-15EX probably isn't going to be much, if at all more expensive than the F-35. People mention the first batch of F-15EX's being way more expensive but that's normal. Operating costs of both planes looks to be about the same, F-35 isn't cheap to maintain.
Real reasons you guys won't get the F-15 is that you shouldn't wait for the F-15EX, shouldn't buy older versions of the F-15, and really you shouldn't buy a plane that likely will never see another major upgrade program again.
This might come shocking to burgers, but places with limited army budgets have this tiny problem, if you buy a piece or two of ridiculously expensive equipment, which F-35 objectively is, you won't have money for other stuff. Like bullets.
In my mandatory 1 year military service I have shot two magazines out of vz58 and that was it and that was BEFORE a massive downsizing of our forces and equipment.
I know how to push up and clean floors though.
When the Gripen got selected for the first time, Czechs were still giving 2% of GDP on defence, and initially there were plans for three wings of Gripens (36 jets). That they ended up with 14 Gripens on lease was a result of bribery scandal years before the financial crisis, not Czechs being poor. That they keep leasing the Gripen for another decade is responsibility of by then minister of defence, who didn't bother with any procurement, and simply signed for another ten years with Gripen. Still, at the time there was a lot of money, and no crisis in sight.
True and since bribery and corruption is still national sport (althought much less than further east, funny how that works) I cannot imagine how much we will lose with F35.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well, indeed. If the F-35 order won't get through, we will end up somehow with 24 Gripens for the price of 24 F-35s.
I dont think thats really going to be a problem in the long run, the problem is going to be the current ruling party losing the next election and ANO winning again, probably even cancelling the contract.
ANO won't cancel shit. They are only sperging now, because they are THE opposition, but even Babish must be aware that keeping the Gripens would be worse option in the long run.
If you saw one of his underlings on TV yesterday, you would be doubtful just like I am, and you know how people are with the prices of shit, half of his coters are people who vote for him only because he gave them gibs, and he wont be able to do that of he has to pay for the F-35s
Who does use Gripens anyway? Sweden and couple 3rd world shitholes that are too poor to afford American, British, or French planes but don't want to use Soviet surplus?
They can fly and work which for jet fighters is a quality already but they're very light. The E's max takeoff weight is like 5,000 pounds less than an F-16.
Light fighters are nice because higher weight tends just mean a more expensive aircraft to operate but it also limits them heavily on things like range.
In terms of capabilities a new F-16 is better in a lot of ways. That doesn't go into even more modernized 4.5 gen fighters.
There's also a bit of a disdain towards it because of its insane marketing. One of the beetter examples is Gripen people talking about ECM non-stop when ECM and EW systems are common on jet fighters for aerial combat and the way they push it implies it's competing with a full sized EW plane like the Growler. It's not. It doesn't have the room for an EW system like that. It's a bit unfair but on the internet the insane shilling has left people disliking it.
All that extra weight means frick huge takeoff run. The Gripen is designed with using roads and unpaved runways, both of which is handy for exactly the kind of conflict like in ukraine.
Sweden needs to demonstrate the plane's abilities in combat. Ukraine is an opportunity. Lend a few.
Sweden isn't lending planes to Ukraine because Sweden's defenses have been sucky since we de-armed after the Soviet Union fell. The air force is what we have and we're not really interested in weakening it while we try to join NATO.
If we still had our old arsenal, sending a Gripen would probably be fine though since we could've use Viggen to fill in temporarily.
They are comparable to the f16, but then why not just buy the proven f16? Basically the gripen is in an awkward middle ground spot when it comes to value.
can they even afford it?
Brings up a valid point, between some of the highest inflation in Europe, being on their own currency, many industries just getting back to normal after covid, and the likely upcoming energy issues (cz gets the vast majority of its natural gas from russia, though there is also domestic coal and nuclear power)
the economy isn’t looking too great, and new planes would be a big purchase even in normal times for a country of 11 million people
Yes >less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks >half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons >Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V >more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
Only countries that bought them are those that SAAB managed to bribe into buying them
>less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks
Less fuel capacity is a non-issue in Europe. The extra operational range isn't needed, so a smaller airframe is preferable to a larger airframe with a greater fuel capacity.
>half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons
Again, Gripen is intended for a shorter operational range and thus doesn't need to carry as much ordnance for a single mission. A smaller airframe and a shorter turnaround time is preferable under these conditions.
>Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V
I don't know enough about the differences in avionics to have a clear opinion on this. How exactly are the avionics "much worse" than in the F-16V?
>more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
The F-16, being one of the cheaper jets to maintain, still has a cost per flight hour that is about 50% higher than Gripen.
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/
>tl;dr it doesnt matter the plane is shit because we designed it to be shit
Seethe and cope saabite.
Chances are that sweden itself will switch to F35s by 2040s and after that your company will be relegated to the dustbin tier of turkey or brazil tier companies that survive on nothing but selling cheap sugarcoated shit to thirdworlders, where it has always belonged
Operational and fuel range do matter because these planes wont just be doing air policing over the baltics forever.
One day, when we finally decide to solve the vatnik issue once and for all, the planes will need to be flying a long way. Russia's pretty big.
The AN/APG-83 has around 1400 T/R modules, the Selex ES-05 has 992. There are no real ways to know specifics but the size different and stronger power plant for the F-16V means it probably has a noticeably more powerful radar.
>I don't know enough about the differences in avionics to have a clear opinion on this. How exactly are the avionics "much worse" than in the F-16V?
it doesn't, this is typical burgerfat education levels.
F16V and GripenE are almost exactly on par in every way, the Gripen is more agile, the F16V has longer range.
Yes >less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks >half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons >Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V >more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
Only countries that bought them are those that SAAB managed to bribe into buying them
with the exception of Czech, all Gripen operators are developed non-NATO countries, and all Fat Amy operators/future operators are NATO or US aligned [Israel, Japan etc]. That is the primary reason for the buys, it is international diplomacy.
the F is a better missile truck than the Gripen but outside of that [range, payload], it is in every way significantly inferior to the Gripen, and Czech will quietly continue to upgrade and modernize its Gripen fleet because Saab specifically designed the plane to accept regular, modular updates across the board so you can turn a Gripen C/D into an E very inexpensively
Yes >less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks >half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons >Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V >more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
Only countries that bought them are those that SAAB managed to bribe into buying them
>bribe
undereducated people from low-trust, failing societies often see successful above-board negotiations as corrupt because they cannot imagine what honesty and hard work look like.
Less fuel capacity means less loitering time, which means more aircraft to fly out which means higher maintenance. Lower weapon capacity means more aircraft are needed to do the same task which also means higher maintenance. It quickly snowballs into a logistical clusterfrick.
As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive. For comparison, during the Croatian tender, F-16V clocked in around 20,000$ per hour and Gripen was around 25,000$. Rafale, even though it's a twin engine aircraft, managed far lower maintenance costs than Gripen, at only 16,000$ per flight hour.
>I don't know enough about the differences in avionics to have a clear opinion on this. How exactly are the avionics "much worse" than in the F-16V?
it doesn't, this is typical burgerfat education levels.
F16V and GripenE are almost exactly on par in every way, the Gripen is more agile, the F16V has longer range.
[...]
with the exception of Czech, all Gripen operators are developed non-NATO countries, and all Fat Amy operators/future operators are NATO or US aligned [Israel, Japan etc]. That is the primary reason for the buys, it is international diplomacy.
the F is a better missile truck than the Gripen but outside of that [range, payload], it is in every way significantly inferior to the Gripen, and Czech will quietly continue to upgrade and modernize its Gripen fleet because Saab specifically designed the plane to accept regular, modular updates across the board so you can turn a Gripen C/D into an E very inexpensively
[...] >bribe
undereducated people from low-trust, failing societies often see successful above-board negotiations as corrupt because they cannot imagine what honesty and hard work look like.
How many Gripen E's got manufactured? Last news I heard was that one was about to be delivered, and that was winter of 2021. Even Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E. Not to mention how Gripen E's avionics are worse compared to F-16V or Rafale
>As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive.
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/
2 years ago
Anonymous
And I'm talking about a real tender with real money and real aircraft with real experts who ran the costs, instead of a single paragraph written by a poo.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Real tenders with real money take real politics into account. If the politicians want to buy 'murrican, then the experts will find that the 'murrican option is superior.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Rafale won the tender, though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
In Indonesia? No, they won against F-16 F15 and Su-35. In UAE? No they were a default choice because the country was pissed off to be denied the F-35. In Greece they were chosen for political reasons.
It's still a very underated jet but it didn't win only thanks to its merits.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>for comparison, during the CROATIAN tender...
Choice was israelited F-16C, F-16V, Rafale and Gripen. Rafale won.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Didn't Croatia also picked the Rafale BECAUSE they were not allowed to buy the second hand F-16s, with Murica wanting to push the latest Vipers on them?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes correct, but F-16 lost especially because the USA would not let Croatia get second hand israeli F-16 block 30, but tried to sell overpriced F-16 block 70 built from old retired airframes, while France sold used Rafale with 2 thirds of their operational life remaining for a bargain at 47 million per aircraft. If I sold you a used Ferrari for half the cost of a brand new one, would you prefer a crashed then rebuilt Porsche for a higher price instead?
Is Rafale more comparable to f35 or f18?
It's inbetween both honestly. Has some EW capabilities making it close to the F-18G but will never jam as hard. It is 35% lighter and won't be able to carry as much fuel with the same weapons loadouts either. The navy version has no twin seater. It has a very good tactical picture and advanced sensor fusion, but lacks real stealth features like the F-35 despite some measures clearly visible.
It's a small aircraft with lots of good and bad points. It's different, strange, too french, and that's why it had so little success for such a long time before landing sales in a row because for a short time it looked like a hot thing.
Now with the F-35 democratized and the KF-21, even the Su-75 in a few years maybe, I don't see the Rafale being sold again in big numbers. Especially as the french themselves look for a stealth jet now, even if they won't buy the F-35 out of pride and arrogance. The same pride they display in not wanting to integrate american weapons like the Sidewinder and Amraam because they don't use it. They would sell more jets if they did, but then MBDA would lose money. See how it goes?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Especially as the french themselves look for a stealth jet now, even if they won't buy the F-35 out of pride and arrogance. The same pride they display in not wanting to integrate american weapons like the Sidewinder and Amraam because they don't use it. They would sell more jets if they did, but then MBDA would lose money.
It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with keeping the ability to develop aircraft independently and also avoid ITAR components that make exports risky. They have already been burned by ITAR rules several times in the past.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the Saab Embraer factory has been running since 2020 and there are 2 Gripen Es out of production as well as the prototypes. I expect more will be announced on tomorrows earnings call.
Less fuel capacity means less loitering time, which means more aircraft to fly out which means higher maintenance. Lower weapon capacity means more aircraft are needed to do the same task which also means higher maintenance. It quickly snowballs into a logistical clusterfrick.
As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive. For comparison, during the Croatian tender, F-16V clocked in around 20,000$ per hour and Gripen was around 25,000$. Rafale, even though it's a twin engine aircraft, managed far lower maintenance costs than Gripen, at only 16,000$ per flight hour.
[...]
How many Gripen E's got manufactured? Last news I heard was that one was about to be delivered, and that was winter of 2021. Even Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E. Not to mention how Gripen E's avionics are worse compared to F-16V or Rafale
>As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive.
it is the cheapest airframe to operate and maintain by a very large margin. It also has the most diverse supply chain using off the shelf and modular components where ever possible.
Less fuel capacity means less loitering time, which means more aircraft to fly out which means higher maintenance. Lower weapon capacity means more aircraft are needed to do the same task which also means higher maintenance. It quickly snowballs into a logistical clusterfrick.
As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive. For comparison, during the Croatian tender, F-16V clocked in around 20,000$ per hour and Gripen was around 25,000$. Rafale, even though it's a twin engine aircraft, managed far lower maintenance costs than Gripen, at only 16,000$ per flight hour.
[...]
How many Gripen E's got manufactured? Last news I heard was that one was about to be delivered, and that was winter of 2021. Even Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E. Not to mention how Gripen E's avionics are worse compared to F-16V or Rafale
>Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E
if you count the ones that cant fly or got crashed, I guess. The major difference there is that Saab is not lying and can and will actually produce more of its planes, and there wont be another SU-57 seen unless its CGI
another one buying the dogshit bloated planes
you've got to be kidding me
the bribery suspicion is probably real
Its diplomacy, which is official legal bribery. A concrete way to say, I back and am backed by NATO, of which the US is the default leader.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it is the cheapest airframe to operate and maintain by a very large margin
...is a claim that is entirely unfounded
No, just very much the >mom can i have f-16 >no we have f-16 at home
meme. decent, affordable, does everything a 4th gen fighter needs to do for basic air sovereignty roles.
That's about it. E's are only Brazil and Sweden. C/D is Thailand, Czechs, which is why them going with the F-35 is funny, Hungary and South Africa. As an aside, the Thai C/D completely blew out J-11s in BVR combat practice but lost in BFM.
If you can afford better but don't have access to the F-35 you'll go with the Rafale or Super Hornet. Latest block F-16s are really only popular in countries that already use them to cut down on training costs.
If you can't afford the Gripen you'll go with something like a militarized trainer. If you can't afford that you go with Sukhoi.
The KF-51 might be a good price point to compete and if it does the Gripen will probably do even worse in the future.
>If you can afford better but don't have access to the F-35 you'll go with the Rafale
Oh yeah?
Explain Greece then. They already bought the Rafale, both used taken from the french air force, and brand new to be delivered in 2 years, and they will have the F-35 in 2028. They also modernized 84 F-16 to block 70 standard and they keep their most modern Mirage 2000. All this in a super small NATO country of only 10 million people.
Explain UAE, they were denied the F-35, but still want it, so discussions have been restarted a few weeks ago. However they also bought 80 Rafale on the go without asking questions when they were first denied the F-35. Yet they also look at the KF-21 now due to american interference into their procurement strategy.
It's almost the same story in Indonesia, they knew they wouldn't get the F-35, so they embarked in the KF-21 and will definitely get it, but they also bought 42 Rafale!
This "either Rafale either F-35 depending on conditions", or "it's just a stopgap before getting something better" arguments have become ridiculous. You don't just keep an expensive fighter for 10 or 15 years. Even the leased Gripen C/D lasted longer in the airforces operating them.
This market is much more complicated than most people think.
Didn't Croatia also picked the Rafale BECAUSE they were not allowed to buy the second hand F-16s, with Murica wanting to push the latest Vipers on them?
First tender, where the Barak won, was cancelled because the israelites never asked for permission to sell from US. That tender also didn't include Rafale. Second tender that was started after the first one failed was the one where Rafale won. It also inlcuded Baraks, but they'd be de-israelitefied to a regular block 50/52 and were more expensive than Rafale
They have no ability to pay for them and despite what you think, all of Ukraine's sugar daddies are well aware that Ukraine is capable of winning the war without modern jets. Also warplane orders usually take something like five years to actually deliver just one functional squadron.
The fact that even Sweden's neighbors, with almost identical climate and pretty similar political conditions, would rather use American planes (even when Sweden promises a whole bunch of extra shit to go alongside with Gripen) kinda indicates that it isn't all that great of a plane.
Muh NATO may explain Denmark and Norway, but what about Finland, which, like Sweden, was a non-NATO EU member when it chose the F-35 over the Gripen? Finland in general is basically just Sweden, but 5–10 years behind when it comes to mass third-world immigration and the joys that that brings. Hell, they were even memeing about muh deeper non-NATO Nordic defence cooperation together with Sweden back when that decision was made, so if anything, politics should have favored Gripen, but yet they ultimately chose F-35.
You're moron if you don't think politics have anything to do with the purchase of fighter jets.
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol coper is coping
2 years ago
Anonymous
>claim that finland chose f-35 because muh politics >get pointed about that if anything politics should had made them choose gripen instead >muh politics made them choose f-35
Saab please, I understand that it might be upsetting that nobody wants your shit plane but c'mon.
You two are brain damaged morons. Frick off my board cancer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're just mad you're wrong.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>claim that finland chose f-35 because muh politics >get pointed about that if anything politics should had made them choose gripen instead >muh politics made them choose f-35
Saab please, I understand that it might be upsetting that nobody wants your shit plane but c'mon.
2 years ago
Anonymous
With that logic hungary and the czech republic should have bought F16s
finland has been eyeing NATO membership for several years now. it hadn't applied because finns are apathetic until roused, but most of the countrys leadership thought it was a wise idea.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lolno
T. Finn
2 years ago
Anonymous
the first time you tried to join NATO was 2007 , you lumpy snowcone. and its been talked about in every election since then.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Lol wut? Finnish public has been against joining NATO forever until now. Public opinion has constantly been 60% against and 25% in favor. Rest didnt care or know their stance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Being againt NATO was "free" until now. Its been the same in sweden but now public opinion is for NATO.
idk about finland but the defence establishment has been very pro nato for a long time in sweden.
2 years ago
Anonymous
FDF has been pro NATO over 30 years. It still doesn't change the fact that public was against NATO and changed their opinion when Vanja crossed the ukrainian-belarussian border. Joining NATO has not been a political topic in 2007 or after.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If opinion of NATO changed that quickly the public obviously was not against NATO for deep seated ideological reasons though.
They didn't see a reason for joining NATO and were thus against, perfectly reasonable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
im not talking about the proles.
go back and read what i wrote again
finland has been eyeing NATO membership for several years now. it hadn't applied because finns are apathetic until roused, but most of the countrys leadership thought it was a wise idea.
>most of the countrys leadership thought it was a wise idea
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then why didn't Finnish leadership apply to Nato in 90s when they had the chance? Only swenno-finns were openly pro NATO before and everyone else were either agaisnt or deemed it unnescessary. Joining NATO was never political topic during or between any elections.
>they were even memeing about muh deeper non-NATO Nordic defence cooperation together with Sweden back when that decision was made
No unlike moronic commie swedish politicans the finsish leadership understood that NATO was the only real alternative.
It was actually quite amazing to read both swedish and international media on the subject. The delusion in sweden was total.
>shitholes that are too poor to afford American, British, or French planes
lmao this homie is pretending that the countries that the US *ALLOWS* to have F-35s would ever consider the Euroshitter and the RaFail
What are the benefits of choosing a foreign-made equipment instead of domestically (for the region) produced equipment that will complicate logistics and parts availability?
1) Slovaks are buying them too (if I had to guess, they are the reason why we finally picked a winner after almost 10 years of trials)
2) at least partial domestic production is absolutely mandatory
Honestly, I thought we would have picked ASCOD or Lynx, and not because I think they are better IFVs.
GDLS had a very strong marketing campaign, shills and lobbyists everywhere and we already had business with them when they sold us Pandurs (maybe the reason why we did not choose ASCOD, now when I think of it)
Lynx was the most modern one so it seemed like a reasonable second option when Puma was deemed too expensive.
They will probably winge and end the minister's career through media, hoping to overturn the decision.
>blow our budget on F35s >save atleast some money on the IFVs
Probably good call. Its more likely that our planes will be used in combat than the mechanized division sill.
>basically every single one of your closest allies and most of your neighbours fly F35s, a plane that has half a dozen decades of service ahead of it as a NATO standard >but somehow it makes more sense to get inferior swedish joke of a plane that will be obsolete in a month and that literally nobody is going to be flying just because its creators happen to inhabit the same continent
Literally and unironically KYS
swedes got this weird superiority complex despite being the most cucked race on this planet by far
thats why they also always push their language "äccidently" like this
Not for long. With T-7 (which is developed by Boeing-Saab) is slated to have its own light combat variant, you could expect Saab to pull the same shit on FA-50 with its F-7
>Not for long. With T-7 (which is developed by Boeing-Saab) is slated to have its own light combat variant, you could expect Saab to pull the same shit on FA-50 with its F-7
Yeah, by then the FA-50 will be fully upgraded with AMRAAM integration and stand-off missile capabilities. T-7A's subsonic airframe allows it to reach a speed of only up to mach 0.9 and the synthetic body is already deemed too brittle for use as combat roles so the air force is turning to find other options by launching another trainer program which is obviously aimed at the newest version of T-50.
Does it even matter? Gripen already had that BVR and standoff capability and yet FA-50 still eat into its sales potential so what makes you think weaponized T-7 wouldn't do the same
>0.9 mach
The airframe is capable of at least transonic/low supersonic flight and any design deficiency can be rectified as it's caught early and the plane hasn't entere serial production yet
T-50 is twice as heavier than T-7 and so is the max take off weight, and unless the Boeing has come up with a magical material to overcome the law of physics I'm sure you know what that weight difference implies.
The biggest ironing is the f35 is a modern Gripen. Muricans used to hate single engine jets, wonder what made them change their minds.
It should be called the JAS 35 Lightning.
You rabid morons lol.
>Muricans used to hate single engine jets, wonder what made them change their minds.
Engines are expensive and maintenance intensive. 2 engines nearly double the workload.
That, and the concerns of engine flameouts are much lower nowadays, modern engines are more reliable and have more failsafes.
Was there even any doubt? No one want's some quirky Euro trash jet. The F-35 WILL be the ubiquitous multi-role platform for the next 30 years at least.
Absolutely. Literally the only argument for gripen is the price. Of course the thing is that knowers are aware that ultimately it might not even be low enough to justify the drawbacks.
If there's anything surprising its that we went for 24 planes instead of doing something moronic like sperging out at the last moment and getting just 16 thinking that well get the rest in indeterminate future or sth.
Indeed. Also commonality of parts/training is something the tards on this board never think of. There's a reason why there are hundreds of millions of AR mags on the cheap and it's because of the STANAG program. If everyone used F-35s then no one would have to depend on a single country for spare parts or personnel.
>If everyone used F-35s then no one would have to depend on a single country for spare parts or personnel.
No need for the "if".
F35 is already becoming the NATO standard, and with projected service life until like 2070s even the countries that decide to get some other plane now will probably end up getting the 35s eventually. Especially since they'll probably end up being the cheapest 5th gen anyway.
They are cool but really not practical. They're very draggy and require a lot of structural reinforcement which brings up the weight.
Plus they're poison for VLO design.
That's because Russia is fricking poor
But the Golden Eagle is gtg
2 years ago
Anonymous
if russia is so poor what makes you think they can fund designs that are not pieces of shit? All the other reasons for russians being subhuman notwithstanding.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if russia is so poor what makes you think they can fund designs that are not pieces of shit?
They didn't, Sukhoi was able to finance its own project and have it ready earlier, while also running an R&D programme and further evaluating/improving the design. By the time the Mikoyan MFI performed its first flight, the Su-47 was already taking part in air shows while serving as a testbed for various technologies (many of them finding their way to PAK FA).
2 years ago
Anonymous
that gibberish doesn't answer my question
2 years ago
Anonymous
Being too poor to mass produce an expensive design does not preclude the ability to come up with said designs. Duh
2 years ago
Anonymous
Warsaw Pact engineers are geniuses chained to increasingly stupid administrations, look at Ukraine reverse engineering random drone and artillery designs in real time in the middle of a war for example
2 years ago
Anonymous
We are better at engineering than westerners
2 years ago
Anonymous
is that why you never created an original design in your entire existence?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The vast wealth of history strongly disagrees
2 years ago
Anonymous
>We are better at bragging about our non-existent accomplishments than westerners
FTFY
You only got a satellite to space first because you brute-forced rocket design instead of making smaller warheads to meet in the middle.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There's a timeline where Russia joined NATO and put the Su47 and Black Eagle tank into service.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Russia is fricking poor
The only thing which makes that true is they're gullible enough to believe it. It's almost funny that the only effective weapon the West has deployed against the Russians is the St. Petersburg school of economics, but no one is smart enough to grasp that and thinks it's "sanctions".
>get a more expensive plane that will last into 2070s
Vs >get a sugercoated rehashed piece of shit used only by fourth world shitholes that will be obsolete in 15 years after which you'd probably end up getting F35s anyway
the F-FuddyFive will never be in a dogfight. It is an instantly obsolete show pony/white elephant good for nothing that cant be done better and cheaper by other planes and drones.
Gripen doesn't have stealth coating and it's IRST is forwards looking only. There's also no evidence of a towed decoy system, certainly not an integrated system like the F-35.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the stealth coating is worthless, which is why Sweden didn't bother. it has radar guided decoy missiles, which are quite an improvement over towed decoys, which is dinosaur tech in aeronautics
AN/APG-81 is better radar than Selex ES-05.
>Under 1000 T/R modules (vs 1500+ on F35) >Weaker power plant >Weaker cooling
Even if Selex modules were 20% more efficient than F35's modules, Raven would still have less power output with same power source. And guess what? F35 has lot more power available.
>AN/APG-81 is better radar than Selex ES-05
making equipment lighter and more efficient is a positive in aircraft design if you weren't told. the Selex is mobile on a swashplate and has better overall field and equivalent range.
Gripen E wins BVR again
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the stealth coating is worthless, which is why Sweden didn't bother >equipment lighter and more efficient
lol sour grapen strikes again
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the stealth coating is worthless
It's actually the best defense these days. > it has radar guided decoy missiles
Everybody has radar guided decoys. A towed decoy is cheaper and lasts longer. >the Selex is mobile on a swashplate and has better overall field and equivalent range.
Gripen E wins BVR again
Then why does the Gripen E have an AESA radar?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's actually the best defense these days.
it is worthless. the only things that matter are RCS and ECM
>towed decoy is cheaper
right. the F-354 went with the gyppo inferior version to save pennies >why does the Gripen E have an AESA radar
so they can stick it on a swashplate and let the avionics move it around at will.
dont mistake my meaing, the F-35 is superior to the Gripen in several ways. it weighs more, and is longer, and can do some cool Robotech-looking moves with its fuselage bits. it can also carry more bombs for longer distances, but you know what else can do that even better? bombers and drones.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it is worthless >the only things that matter are RCS
takey your meds anon
2 years ago
Anonymous
> the only things that matter are RCS
Stealth reduces RCS. Gripen might have a low RCS from the front but it looses out everywhere else. If the Gripen has to crank or go nose cold for any reason it's no better than any 4th gen plane. >right. the F-354 went with the gyppo inferior version to save pennie
AND it lasts longer. A launched decoy will eventually run out of fuel and drop to the ground but a towed decoy can stay active for as long as the plane does. Being cheaper and smaller also means you can carry more of them. >bombers and drones.
The F-35 basically acts as a signal relay and spotter for drones and does a fine job as a stealthy bomber. The B-2 is great but it's shear size means it's got a reasonable RCS. For a fighter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
AN/APG-81 is better radar than Selex ES-05.
>Under 1000 T/R modules (vs 1500+ on F35) >Weaker power plant >Weaker cooling
Even if Selex modules were 20% more efficient than F35's modules, Raven would still have less power output with same power source. And guess what? F35 has lot more power available.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Actually, I heard that the Gripen E has American made AESA radars. Unfortunately, this means the Gripen E will only match the F-35's radar performance at best and will more likely trail behind due to getting older, cheaper radar arrays.
2 years ago
Anonymous
it's just smaller and has less power to use F-35's radar, not to mention data processing. It's way too different of an aircraft to have a far cry at F-35's performance.
getting American is going to give it the most advanced radar it could ever get anyway
I'm a Radar Engineer at Northrop Grumman that works on the APG-81 program.
Basically to even suggest that any other country could ever in a million years *produce* an array that comes anywhere close to something made by NG (or Raytheon) is incredibly stupid.
It shows that you have zero engineering background and think radars are a "design problem", and not an industrial, production, and testing problem.
To your credit, you could give an elite team of Russians, Chinese, Eurocuck, or even Pajeet engineers 12 months and all the design tools and they could EASILY design an array that shits on an APG-81.
But they could NEVER hope to produce more than a single one.
Manufacturing an array unit isnt something you just "do", it's something that requires dedicated facilities whose air conditioning costs alone surpass the budgets of entire foreign defense industries.
I shit you not on my first day on the job while getting a tour of the facilities I thought "oh...so that's why the rest of the world cant compete and needs us to make them" and I finally understood.
It's something you genuinely have to see to believe. >TL;DR: you literally need an endless supply of American tax dollars to create things that compete with American avionics, and for now, no one else has American tax dollars
Honestly as a Swede we should just pour our effort into the Tempest project with the Brits and Nips to get our own Tempest variant some years down the line, then name it something fancy like "Döden" or "Oden"
What do you think?
I don't think you have much of a bargaining position to get into such a contract. Besides, Gripen still has a role to play, despite the fact that you've only managed to export the E variant to one country. I bet being in Nato will improve your sales chances until whatever that American low cost stealth fighter ends up being.
>I don't think you have much of a bargaining position to get into such a contract.
We're are already in the Tempest project, just not comitted yet. >By July 2020, trilateral industry discussions between UK, Sweden and Italy had begun;[25] also announced was an initial investment of £50m in the project by Saab and the opening of a Future Combat Air Systems centre in the UK.[25] Saab did not however explicitly commit to Tempest.[26] >The involvement of Italy and Sweden was confirmed by the signing of a trilateral MoU with the UK, called Future Combat Air System Cooperation (FCASC), on 21 December 2020, "defining general principles for co-operation on an equal basis between the three countries"
The idea seems to be that it might be the Gripen successor and also introduce some tech to let us upgrade Gripen further.
Chances are if Tempest gets made that we're probably gonna make some variety of modifications to it to fit the local climate and defense strategy so it can incorporate into a similar role of the Gripen.
We'd also probably get more drones, since 6th gen is all about that.
just for reference the last set of planes to the US was $71.1 million each, including the more expensive F-35B/F-35C, while the sale for Poland's "starter pack" of 32 in 2020 was $143.8 million each plane.
Lockheed unironically gives the US a BOGO discount compared to that, and their quoted export price for countries who have already made their first purchase in 2022 was $77.9 million, mysteriously 10% higher than what the US paid 3 years earlier (when the plane was allegedly over $80 billion)...
>just for reference the last set of planes to the US was $71.1 million
how nice of them to give a discount to the country that paid to have them designed and built in the first place.
no, I am comparing planes only packages to other planes only packages and at the same time pointing out that Poland's "planes+infrastructure+support+weapons" deal was double the same-year cost of just planes, which is insane, and that since a lot of the training money goes to the US military technically that's also just subsidizing the US to buy more F-35s
only because for a while now czechia had leased gripens as its airforce so the consideration was buy modernized gripens (and probably get the old leased ones for free). the selection few years ago was that or f16s apparently, but new government just went all out and decided for f35s.
obviously when it comes down to it it's the best decision, which is why its surprising because government usually chooses the bad decisions when buying stuff
The correct choice. It may have been debatable 5 years ago...but now? If you have the finances to buy a modern Western fighter jet there's hardly any reason at all to not buy the F-35. That's because due to the economics of scale you can now buy the best (and only) 5th gen on the market for the price of a top-of-the-line 4th gen. On top of that, your F-35s can plug into the same networks and battle management systems as everyone else. Large capability upgrades will be made available to everyone and which will also be cheaper thanks to economy of scale. Cost-cutting measures for ongoing maintenance upgrades developed by the US will be shared with everyone. Parts supply chain is so robust that you'll never have grounded F-35s due to lack of parts. It's just one benefit after the other.
>If you have the finances to buy a modern Western fighter jet there's hardly any reason at all to not buy the F-35. >>If you have the finances >czechnya
but otherwise you're right.
can they even afford it?
I doubt it.
t. Czech
F35 will solve our air force until 2050s at least. That is something that Gripen would not have done and we'd need to be buying replacement in 15 years.
Sure if we had to pay lump sum for them at once, we would not be able to afford it - but that is not going to happen. The payments will be laid out over time. Not to mention that in the long term (I.e. decades) F35 absolutely is the most cost effective choice.
Unless your ideal scenario is just slapping some A2A on L39s and calling it a day of course.
So yes, we absolutely can afford F35s.
to add to this who else has them in the EU
ther Germs and Poles wants them too
Greece aswell and i bet i forgot some other too
just the better choice for everything
those singapore numbers scream chinese reverse engineering op
you are literally black
have a nice day
calm down swede
of course, they have an open czech ready
Carlos I'm calling ICE
Absolutely not.
If a third world shithole like Singapore with a population of less than 6 million can afford it, surely a developed EU member state with twice the population can
m8 Singapore has a GDP 1.5 times bigger than Czechia and spends 4-5% on its military budget compared to CZ's 1%
Because Czechs got cucked by the previous government into doing frickall about their military, and before that it was one bribery scandal after another.
wow. lets compare
>not quite
good try sweatie
>lets compare
Prague actually can't into skyscrapers, because muh panorama, what you see is as tall they were allowed to do
>Because Czechs got cucked by the previous government
They rented Grippens they couldn't afford and now they want F35 they definitely can't afford. Nothing changed, and nothing will change in this regard.
Czechs brutally downsized their army precisely because they thought 'Nah NATO will take care of it' and just embezzled money for paper shit like Pandur, which they totalled, entire column, during routine travel on the highway.
Czechs wanted to BUY 36 Gripens, back when their current president was still a prime minister, but after the bribery scandal unfolded, they ended up leasing 12+2 instead.
>a third world shithole like Singapore
mola. llo, neev.
>If a third world shithole like Singapore
are all PrepHole posters this fricking stupid nowdays?
is there even point coming to this place anymore?
I can literally smell the fricking high school coming off this board
>singapoor
>not a shithole
SEAmonkey detected
I've travelled around the world and I can say that if Singapore is a shithole, United States is a shit in the gutter. What nation isn't a shithole by your standards?
For starters, those who aren't chink puppet states
Not him, just needed to call you a moron
obviously not but that never stopped the government.
while czechia actually has relatively decent amount of plane makers, only company that makes military planes is aero l-159 which is only a trainer/light attack.
source? i'd kinda like to read the report, can be in slovak.
isn't that even more expensive, and US probably wouldn't sell it to pleb nations like us anyway?
surprisingly czech military makes quite good purchashing choices recently. the problem wthi gripen is that we have the old versions so even if we got them for free, you end up with shitty old plane that will need replacing soon anyway and the modernized gripens are like half entirely different plane which we'd have to pay for. so long term it should save money and give us actually modern airforce shared with slovaks and other nato c**ts.
F-15EX probably isn't going to be much, if at all more expensive than the F-35. People mention the first batch of F-15EX's being way more expensive but that's normal. Operating costs of both planes looks to be about the same, F-35 isn't cheap to maintain.
Real reasons you guys won't get the F-15 is that you shouldn't wait for the F-15EX, shouldn't buy older versions of the F-15, and really you shouldn't buy a plane that likely will never see another major upgrade program again.
the f-15 was never in question anyway. it was always f-35s or gripen. which makes it more surprising somehow we ended up picking the right choice.
actually i'm wrong, apparently at first it was f16V or gripen but i guess new government decided to go full out. still good decision
I wouldn't be surprised if the US is financing this in some way or another.
depends on how many you buy.
We could barely afford to fly JAS-39s, there's no way our tight military budget can sustain this.
t. Pepik from Olomouc Oblast
This might come shocking to burgers, but places with limited army budgets have this tiny problem, if you buy a piece or two of ridiculously expensive equipment, which F-35 objectively is, you won't have money for other stuff. Like bullets.
In my mandatory 1 year military service I have shot two magazines out of vz58 and that was it and that was BEFORE a massive downsizing of our forces and equipment.
I know how to push up and clean floors though.
When the Gripen got selected for the first time, Czechs were still giving 2% of GDP on defence, and initially there were plans for three wings of Gripens (36 jets). That they ended up with 14 Gripens on lease was a result of bribery scandal years before the financial crisis, not Czechs being poor. That they keep leasing the Gripen for another decade is responsibility of by then minister of defence, who didn't bother with any procurement, and simply signed for another ten years with Gripen. Still, at the time there was a lot of money, and no crisis in sight.
True and since bribery and corruption is still national sport (althought much less than further east, funny how that works) I cannot imagine how much we will lose with F35.
Well, indeed. If the F-35 order won't get through, we will end up somehow with 24 Gripens for the price of 24 F-35s.
I dont think thats really going to be a problem in the long run, the problem is going to be the current ruling party losing the next election and ANO winning again, probably even cancelling the contract.
ANO won't cancel shit. They are only sperging now, because they are THE opposition, but even Babish must be aware that keeping the Gripens would be worse option in the long run.
>but even Babish must be aware that keeping the Gripens would be worse option in the long run
Depends. I was really curious what would be his reaction to russian war if the comrade agent Bureš was still in the office.
If you saw one of his underlings on TV yesterday, you would be doubtful just like I am, and you know how people are with the prices of shit, half of his coters are people who vote for him only because he gave them gibs, and he wont be able to do that of he has to pay for the F-35s
Are we talking about the same ANO that flipped the bird at Leonardo, and bought Vipers and Venoms directly from Murica?
We werent in an economic crisis back then, people are gonna want to see less spending, and Im afraid they will simply cancel it.
they aren't as expensive as they used to be
different models as well
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/czechs-want-f-35-fighter-jets-cv-90-fighting-vehicles-media-says
>unfortunately decent sources are only in Czech for now
Who does use Gripens anyway? Sweden and couple 3rd world shitholes that are too poor to afford American, British, or French planes but don't want to use Soviet surplus?
Give them to Ukraine, Sweden.
Are Gripens really that bad with no redeeming qualities. I'm not saying they are match for F-35 but how they fare when compared to let's say F-16?
They are pretty comperable. The f-16 makes more sense for parts availability alone
They can fly and work which for jet fighters is a quality already but they're very light. The E's max takeoff weight is like 5,000 pounds less than an F-16.
Light fighters are nice because higher weight tends just mean a more expensive aircraft to operate but it also limits them heavily on things like range.
In terms of capabilities a new F-16 is better in a lot of ways. That doesn't go into even more modernized 4.5 gen fighters.
There's also a bit of a disdain towards it because of its insane marketing. One of the beetter examples is Gripen people talking about ECM non-stop when ECM and EW systems are common on jet fighters for aerial combat and the way they push it implies it's competing with a full sized EW plane like the Growler. It's not. It doesn't have the room for an EW system like that. It's a bit unfair but on the internet the insane shilling has left people disliking it.
All that extra weight means frick huge takeoff run. The Gripen is designed with using roads and unpaved runways, both of which is handy for exactly the kind of conflict like in ukraine.
Which is exactly why Sweden hasn't loaned a single one to Ukraine. UGH.
Sweden isn't lending planes to Ukraine because Sweden's defenses have been sucky since we de-armed after the Soviet Union fell. The air force is what we have and we're not really interested in weakening it while we try to join NATO.
If we still had our old arsenal, sending a Gripen would probably be fine though since we could've use Viggen to fill in temporarily.
They are comparable to the f16, but then why not just buy the proven f16? Basically the gripen is in an awkward middle ground spot when it comes to value.
Brings up a valid point, between some of the highest inflation in Europe, being on their own currency, many industries just getting back to normal after covid, and the likely upcoming energy issues (cz gets the vast majority of its natural gas from russia, though there is also domestic coal and nuclear power)
the economy isn’t looking too great, and new planes would be a big purchase even in normal times for a country of 11 million people
>t. knower
Yes
>less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks
>half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons
>Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V
>more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
Only countries that bought them are those that SAAB managed to bribe into buying them
>less fuel, essentially requires external fuel tanks
Less fuel capacity is a non-issue in Europe. The extra operational range isn't needed, so a smaller airframe is preferable to a larger airframe with a greater fuel capacity.
>half the max payload, not to mention that the aformentioned fuel tanks take up almost half the pylons
Again, Gripen is intended for a shorter operational range and thus doesn't need to carry as much ordnance for a single mission. A smaller airframe and a shorter turnaround time is preferable under these conditions.
>Better avionics than F-16C, much worse avionics than F-16V
I don't know enough about the differences in avionics to have a clear opinion on this. How exactly are the avionics "much worse" than in the F-16V?
>more expensive to buy and maintain than F-16
The F-16, being one of the cheaper jets to maintain, still has a cost per flight hour that is about 50% higher than Gripen.
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/
>tl;dr it doesnt matter the plane is shit because we designed it to be shit
Seethe and cope saabite.
Chances are that sweden itself will switch to F35s by 2040s and after that your company will be relegated to the dustbin tier of turkey or brazil tier companies that survive on nothing but selling cheap sugarcoated shit to thirdworlders, where it has always belonged
Why are you so mad? Did a Gripen pilot sleep with your girlfriend or something?
I just hate people defending a plane that is objectively awful in every single way.
>a gripen pilot
A rare thing already. Good thing thing won't exist in two decades.
Butthurt
Operational and fuel range do matter because these planes wont just be doing air policing over the baltics forever.
One day, when we finally decide to solve the vatnik issue once and for all, the planes will need to be flying a long way. Russia's pretty big.
The Danes and Norwegians are quite pleased with the range, given the airspace that they cover as part of their QRA and EEZ's
The AN/APG-83 has around 1400 T/R modules, the Selex ES-05 has 992. There are no real ways to know specifics but the size different and stronger power plant for the F-16V means it probably has a noticeably more powerful radar.
>I don't know enough about the differences in avionics to have a clear opinion on this. How exactly are the avionics "much worse" than in the F-16V?
it doesn't, this is typical burgerfat education levels.
F16V and GripenE are almost exactly on par in every way, the Gripen is more agile, the F16V has longer range.
with the exception of Czech, all Gripen operators are developed non-NATO countries, and all Fat Amy operators/future operators are NATO or US aligned [Israel, Japan etc]. That is the primary reason for the buys, it is international diplomacy.
the F is a better missile truck than the Gripen but outside of that [range, payload], it is in every way significantly inferior to the Gripen, and Czech will quietly continue to upgrade and modernize its Gripen fleet because Saab specifically designed the plane to accept regular, modular updates across the board so you can turn a Gripen C/D into an E very inexpensively
>bribe
undereducated people from low-trust, failing societies often see successful above-board negotiations as corrupt because they cannot imagine what honesty and hard work look like.
>all Gripen operators
all what, 4 of them?
Less fuel capacity means less loitering time, which means more aircraft to fly out which means higher maintenance. Lower weapon capacity means more aircraft are needed to do the same task which also means higher maintenance. It quickly snowballs into a logistical clusterfrick.
As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive. For comparison, during the Croatian tender, F-16V clocked in around 20,000$ per hour and Gripen was around 25,000$. Rafale, even though it's a twin engine aircraft, managed far lower maintenance costs than Gripen, at only 16,000$ per flight hour.
How many Gripen E's got manufactured? Last news I heard was that one was about to be delivered, and that was winter of 2021. Even Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E. Not to mention how Gripen E's avionics are worse compared to F-16V or Rafale
>As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive.
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes/
And I'm talking about a real tender with real money and real aircraft with real experts who ran the costs, instead of a single paragraph written by a poo.
Real tenders with real money take real politics into account. If the politicians want to buy 'murrican, then the experts will find that the 'murrican option is superior.
Rafale won the tender, though.
In Indonesia? No, they won against F-16 F15 and Su-35. In UAE? No they were a default choice because the country was pissed off to be denied the F-35. In Greece they were chosen for political reasons.
It's still a very underated jet but it didn't win only thanks to its merits.
>for comparison, during the CROATIAN tender...
Choice was israelited F-16C, F-16V, Rafale and Gripen. Rafale won.
Didn't Croatia also picked the Rafale BECAUSE they were not allowed to buy the second hand F-16s, with Murica wanting to push the latest Vipers on them?
Yes correct, but F-16 lost especially because the USA would not let Croatia get second hand israeli F-16 block 30, but tried to sell overpriced F-16 block 70 built from old retired airframes, while France sold used Rafale with 2 thirds of their operational life remaining for a bargain at 47 million per aircraft. If I sold you a used Ferrari for half the cost of a brand new one, would you prefer a crashed then rebuilt Porsche for a higher price instead?
It's inbetween both honestly. Has some EW capabilities making it close to the F-18G but will never jam as hard. It is 35% lighter and won't be able to carry as much fuel with the same weapons loadouts either. The navy version has no twin seater. It has a very good tactical picture and advanced sensor fusion, but lacks real stealth features like the F-35 despite some measures clearly visible.
It's a small aircraft with lots of good and bad points. It's different, strange, too french, and that's why it had so little success for such a long time before landing sales in a row because for a short time it looked like a hot thing.
Now with the F-35 democratized and the KF-21, even the Su-75 in a few years maybe, I don't see the Rafale being sold again in big numbers. Especially as the french themselves look for a stealth jet now, even if they won't buy the F-35 out of pride and arrogance. The same pride they display in not wanting to integrate american weapons like the Sidewinder and Amraam because they don't use it. They would sell more jets if they did, but then MBDA would lose money. See how it goes?
>Especially as the french themselves look for a stealth jet now, even if they won't buy the F-35 out of pride and arrogance. The same pride they display in not wanting to integrate american weapons like the Sidewinder and Amraam because they don't use it. They would sell more jets if they did, but then MBDA would lose money.
It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with keeping the ability to develop aircraft independently and also avoid ITAR components that make exports risky. They have already been burned by ITAR rules several times in the past.
the Saab Embraer factory has been running since 2020 and there are 2 Gripen Es out of production as well as the prototypes. I expect more will be announced on tomorrows earnings call.
>As for its maintenance, it's extremely expensive.
it is the cheapest airframe to operate and maintain by a very large margin. It also has the most diverse supply chain using off the shelf and modular components where ever possible.
>Su-57 has more airframes than Gripen E
if you count the ones that cant fly or got crashed, I guess. The major difference there is that Saab is not lying and can and will actually produce more of its planes, and there wont be another SU-57 seen unless its CGI
Its diplomacy, which is official legal bribery. A concrete way to say, I back and am backed by NATO, of which the US is the default leader.
>it is the cheapest airframe to operate and maintain by a very large margin
...is a claim that is entirely unfounded
No, just very much the
>mom can i have f-16
>no we have f-16 at home
meme. decent, affordable, does everything a 4th gen fighter needs to do for basic air sovereignty roles.
That's about it. E's are only Brazil and Sweden. C/D is Thailand, Czechs, which is why them going with the F-35 is funny, Hungary and South Africa. As an aside, the Thai C/D completely blew out J-11s in BVR combat practice but lost in BFM.
If you can afford better but don't have access to the F-35 you'll go with the Rafale or Super Hornet. Latest block F-16s are really only popular in countries that already use them to cut down on training costs.
If you can't afford the Gripen you'll go with something like a militarized trainer. If you can't afford that you go with Sukhoi.
The KF-51 might be a good price point to compete and if it does the Gripen will probably do even worse in the future.
nice headcanon
>If you can afford better but don't have access to the F-35 you'll go with the Rafale
Oh yeah?
Explain Greece then. They already bought the Rafale, both used taken from the french air force, and brand new to be delivered in 2 years, and they will have the F-35 in 2028. They also modernized 84 F-16 to block 70 standard and they keep their most modern Mirage 2000. All this in a super small NATO country of only 10 million people.
Explain UAE, they were denied the F-35, but still want it, so discussions have been restarted a few weeks ago. However they also bought 80 Rafale on the go without asking questions when they were first denied the F-35. Yet they also look at the KF-21 now due to american interference into their procurement strategy.
It's almost the same story in Indonesia, they knew they wouldn't get the F-35, so they embarked in the KF-21 and will definitely get it, but they also bought 42 Rafale!
This "either Rafale either F-35 depending on conditions", or "it's just a stopgap before getting something better" arguments have become ridiculous. You don't just keep an expensive fighter for 10 or 15 years. Even the leased Gripen C/D lasted longer in the airforces operating them.
This market is much more complicated than most people think.
Is Rafale more comparable to f35 or f18?
Rafale is like a fat F-16 or a tiny F-15.
First tender, where the Barak won, was cancelled because the israelites never asked for permission to sell from US. That tender also didn't include Rafale. Second tender that was started after the first one failed was the one where Rafale won. It also inlcuded Baraks, but they'd be de-israelitefied to a regular block 50/52 and were more expensive than Rafale
Sweden needs to corner the Ukrainian market already. Ukraine is desperate for weapons and does not give a flying frick who sends the weapons.
They have no ability to pay for them and despite what you think, all of Ukraine's sugar daddies are well aware that Ukraine is capable of winning the war without modern jets. Also warplane orders usually take something like five years to actually deliver just one functional squadron.
You do realize that it was tailor made to swedish requirements, just like the CV90 and with that in mind it could hardly be considered a failure
The fact that even Sweden's neighbors, with almost identical climate and pretty similar political conditions, would rather use American planes (even when Sweden promises a whole bunch of extra shit to go alongside with Gripen) kinda indicates that it isn't all that great of a plane.
It's almost like politics are involved when a country decides on a certain jet
Muh NATO may explain Denmark and Norway, but what about Finland, which, like Sweden, was a non-NATO EU member when it chose the F-35 over the Gripen? Finland in general is basically just Sweden, but 5–10 years behind when it comes to mass third-world immigration and the joys that that brings. Hell, they were even memeing about muh deeper non-NATO Nordic defence cooperation together with Sweden back when that decision was made, so if anything, politics should have favored Gripen, but yet they ultimately chose F-35.
You're moron if you don't think politics have anything to do with the purchase of fighter jets.
lol coper is coping
You two are brain damaged morons. Frick off my board cancer.
You're just mad you're wrong.
>claim that finland chose f-35 because muh politics
>get pointed about that if anything politics should had made them choose gripen instead
>muh politics made them choose f-35
Saab please, I understand that it might be upsetting that nobody wants your shit plane but c'mon.
With that logic hungary and the czech republic should have bought F16s
finland has been eyeing NATO membership for several years now. it hadn't applied because finns are apathetic until roused, but most of the countrys leadership thought it was a wise idea.
Lolno
T. Finn
the first time you tried to join NATO was 2007 , you lumpy snowcone. and its been talked about in every election since then.
Lol wut? Finnish public has been against joining NATO forever until now. Public opinion has constantly been 60% against and 25% in favor. Rest didnt care or know their stance.
Being againt NATO was "free" until now. Its been the same in sweden but now public opinion is for NATO.
idk about finland but the defence establishment has been very pro nato for a long time in sweden.
FDF has been pro NATO over 30 years. It still doesn't change the fact that public was against NATO and changed their opinion when Vanja crossed the ukrainian-belarussian border. Joining NATO has not been a political topic in 2007 or after.
If opinion of NATO changed that quickly the public obviously was not against NATO for deep seated ideological reasons though.
They didn't see a reason for joining NATO and were thus against, perfectly reasonable.
im not talking about the proles.
go back and read what i wrote again
>most of the countrys leadership thought it was a wise idea
Then why didn't Finnish leadership apply to Nato in 90s when they had the chance? Only swenno-finns were openly pro NATO before and everyone else were either agaisnt or deemed it unnescessary. Joining NATO was never political topic during or between any elections.
>they were even memeing about muh deeper non-NATO Nordic defence cooperation together with Sweden back when that decision was made
No unlike moronic commie swedish politicans the finsish leadership understood that NATO was the only real alternative.
It was actually quite amazing to read both swedish and international media on the subject. The delusion in sweden was total.
Come on anon. It's about strengthening relationships
>tailor made to swedish requirements
it has a reciprocating dildo in the seat?
>shitholes that are too poor to afford American, British, or French planes
lmao this homie is pretending that the countries that the US *ALLOWS* to have F-35s would ever consider the Euroshitter and the RaFail
F35 only won because of dastardly underhanded dealings, I tell ya! Shenanigans! Skulduggery! Accursed dark money!
What are the benefits of choosing a foreign-made equipment instead of domestically (for the region) produced equipment that will complicate logistics and parts availability?
1) Slovaks are buying them too (if I had to guess, they are the reason why we finally picked a winner after almost 10 years of trials)
2) at least partial domestic production is absolutely mandatory
Honestly, I thought we would have picked ASCOD or Lynx, and not because I think they are better IFVs.
GDLS had a very strong marketing campaign, shills and lobbyists everywhere and we already had business with them when they sold us Pandurs (maybe the reason why we did not choose ASCOD, now when I think of it)
Lynx was the most modern one so it seemed like a reasonable second option when Puma was deemed too expensive.
They will probably winge and end the minister's career through media, hoping to overturn the decision.
Obviously the lynx isnt as good as certain people here like to claim it is.
>Borsuk 30
Ohnonono Poolack bros, what happened?
Nothing, they finished trials before even first one was completed
404: Borsuk not found
Cv90 is unfairly good
>blow our budget on F35s
>save atleast some money on the IFVs
Probably good call. Its more likely that our planes will be used in combat than the mechanized division sill.
>basically every single one of your closest allies and most of your neighbours fly F35s, a plane that has half a dozen decades of service ahead of it as a NATO standard
>but somehow it makes more sense to get inferior swedish joke of a plane that will be obsolete in a month and that literally nobody is going to be flying just because its creators happen to inhabit the same continent
Literally and unironically KYS
swedes got this weird superiority complex despite being the most cucked race on this planet by far
thats why they also always push their language "äccidently" like this
Looks like a few parts are made in Czech Republic but i wouldn't call it euro domestic.
Funnily enough it was the FA-50 that has cut into Gripen sales.
Not for long. With T-7 (which is developed by Boeing-Saab) is slated to have its own light combat variant, you could expect Saab to pull the same shit on FA-50 with its F-7
>Not for long. With T-7 (which is developed by Boeing-Saab) is slated to have its own light combat variant, you could expect Saab to pull the same shit on FA-50 with its F-7
Yeah, by then the FA-50 will be fully upgraded with AMRAAM integration and stand-off missile capabilities. T-7A's subsonic airframe allows it to reach a speed of only up to mach 0.9 and the synthetic body is already deemed too brittle for use as combat roles so the air force is turning to find other options by launching another trainer program which is obviously aimed at the newest version of T-50.
Does it even matter? Gripen already had that BVR and standoff capability and yet FA-50 still eat into its sales potential so what makes you think weaponized T-7 wouldn't do the same
>0.9 mach
The airframe is capable of at least transonic/low supersonic flight and any design deficiency can be rectified as it's caught early and the plane hasn't entere serial production yet
T-50 is twice as heavier than T-7 and so is the max take off weight, and unless the Boeing has come up with a magical material to overcome the law of physics I'm sure you know what that weight difference implies.
if only there was a war nearby where they could send gripens to prove that they are good machines to buy... if only...
Sweden has no balls to provoke russia. b***h nation.
The biggest ironing is the f35 is a modern Gripen. Muricans used to hate single engine jets, wonder what made them change their minds.
It should be called the JAS 35 Lightning.
You rabid morons lol.
>Muricans used to hate single engine jets, wonder what made them change their minds.
Engines are expensive and maintenance intensive. 2 engines nearly double the workload.
That, and the concerns of engine flameouts are much lower nowadays, modern engines are more reliable and have more failsafes.
I still hate single jet jets, they're ugly
Shut up.
If you think about it, a Gripen is pretty close to a Tigershark with the wings put on the wrong way around
One of the most aesthetic jet aircraft ever built
>they're the same because they're both single engine
kys moron
>Muricans used to hate single engine jets,
>what is f-16
>Swedish aircraft innovators
Do you have more hunter wiener pics? How big is your "Hunter's wiener" folder?
You love to see it
Only thing I'm gripen is MUH BALLS.
Was there even any doubt? No one want's some quirky Euro trash jet. The F-35 WILL be the ubiquitous multi-role platform for the next 30 years at least.
Absolutely. Literally the only argument for gripen is the price. Of course the thing is that knowers are aware that ultimately it might not even be low enough to justify the drawbacks.
If there's anything surprising its that we went for 24 planes instead of doing something moronic like sperging out at the last moment and getting just 16 thinking that well get the rest in indeterminate future or sth.
Indeed. Also commonality of parts/training is something the tards on this board never think of. There's a reason why there are hundreds of millions of AR mags on the cheap and it's because of the STANAG program. If everyone used F-35s then no one would have to depend on a single country for spare parts or personnel.
>If everyone used F-35s then no one would have to depend on a single country for spare parts or personnel.
No need for the "if".
F35 is already becoming the NATO standard, and with projected service life until like 2070s even the countries that decide to get some other plane now will probably end up getting the 35s eventually. Especially since they'll probably end up being the cheapest 5th gen anyway.
Why no F-15s?
F-35 and F-15 serves a different role. It's best to have both. That's what Poles, Czechs and Slovaks should get to form a common extend defence power.
Duck off that's our main ho
BEST PLANE KEEPS WINNING
COPE AND SNEED GRIPTARDS
COPE AND SNEED RAFAILERS
COPE AND SNEED BOEING EMPLOYEES
belly erotic
God bless America.
fugg, I never found f-35s particulraly sexy untill I saw the belly
It's a nice tummy
The futuristic organic-technical underbelly is so god dam hot its unreal. Like a muscular machine. Sexual morphism driven pure physics
the gripen is ok but just so retro/classical
The F-35 is a trap, no wonder /k/ likes it
So true
That's her pubic mound you dummies
Why is F35-chan so lewd?
"Aerodynamic streamlining" Just imagine her naked in a windtunnel while the eggheads figure out the best way to dress her.
Even American planes are fat.
So trve
You know Boeing makes money for every F-35 built
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBODY SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAID IT WAS EAAAAAAAAASYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Forward swept wings are so fricking cool. Forever mad they’re so rare.
let's go back to the start
They are cool but really not practical. They're very draggy and require a lot of structural reinforcement which brings up the weight.
Plus they're poison for VLO design.
The Su-47 tackled this problem by making extensive use of composite materials for the wings which offer greater durability at less weight.
it tackled the problem so hard that no more than one has been produced and it never flew again after just a decade of use
That's because Russia is fricking poor
But the Golden Eagle is gtg
if russia is so poor what makes you think they can fund designs that are not pieces of shit? All the other reasons for russians being subhuman notwithstanding.
>if russia is so poor what makes you think they can fund designs that are not pieces of shit?
They didn't, Sukhoi was able to finance its own project and have it ready earlier, while also running an R&D programme and further evaluating/improving the design. By the time the Mikoyan MFI performed its first flight, the Su-47 was already taking part in air shows while serving as a testbed for various technologies (many of them finding their way to PAK FA).
that gibberish doesn't answer my question
Being too poor to mass produce an expensive design does not preclude the ability to come up with said designs. Duh
Warsaw Pact engineers are geniuses chained to increasingly stupid administrations, look at Ukraine reverse engineering random drone and artillery designs in real time in the middle of a war for example
We are better at engineering than westerners
is that why you never created an original design in your entire existence?
The vast wealth of history strongly disagrees
>We are better at bragging about our non-existent accomplishments than westerners
FTFY
You only got a satellite to space first because you brute-forced rocket design instead of making smaller warheads to meet in the middle.
>There's a timeline where Russia joined NATO and put the Su47 and Black Eagle tank into service.
>Russia is fricking poor
The only thing which makes that true is they're gullible enough to believe it. It's almost funny that the only effective weapon the West has deployed against the Russians is the St. Petersburg school of economics, but no one is smart enough to grasp that and thinks it's "sanctions".
Too beautiful for this world.
God bless US industrial-military complex.
Wish someone took Norwegian F-35s and photoshopped them with Czech rounders.
another one buying the dogshit bloated planes
you've got to be kidding me
the bribery suspicion is probably real
Didn't saab offer gripen for free or some shit? Was the f35 just that much better
Obviously they would only get them for "free" if they buy another 12 of Gripen E
>Poles buy F-35
>Czechs buy F-35
>Puccia will soon become 3rd biggest 5th gen fighters operator among slavic countries.
Czechs alone will have more 5th gens than Russia lol
So what's up? For decades we were RENTING two shitty Grippens, and suddenly we can buy subscription based platform like F-35? With 12% inflation?
they decided to purchase the superior aircraft.
You skipped all of my points and posted obese single engine F22.
Compered to FAT32 it's slim.
keep talking shit about 32, see if he gives a frick. You'll never break his smile
GOOMBA
:DDDD
I answered every point, they selected the superior aircraft, yes in spite of expense and time sunk in other platforms.
i wanna lick her, bros
>get a more expensive plane that will last into 2070s
Vs
>get a sugercoated rehashed piece of shit used only by fourth world shitholes that will be obsolete in 15 years after which you'd probably end up getting F35s anyway
>you'd probably end up getting F35s anyway
With money we have we should be getting japanese Zeros.
Can the Gripen do this?
No, but neither can the F-35 unless you subtract all the weaponry and most of the fuel. A circus trick.
lol more cope
Go look it up.
That's only for vertical takeoff, which the US navy doesn't do. It can carry a normal combat load for short takeoff and vertical landing.
No and neither will the 35’s that Croatia is buying
>Another thread comparing two planes that never will see combat against each other instead of comparing how they fare against actual hostile planes.
the F-FuddyFive will never be in a dogfight. It is an instantly obsolete show pony/white elephant good for nothing that cant be done better and cheaper by other planes and drones.
F-35 doesn't need to dogfight. It snipes at BVR then runs off when you go nose cold.
Gripen E has better BVR/OTH than the F35. Already fully kitted up with BVRAAM and swashplate/AESA and everything
>Gripen E has better BVR/OTH than the F35
lol
refute it
Gripen doesn't have stealth coating and it's IRST is forwards looking only. There's also no evidence of a towed decoy system, certainly not an integrated system like the F-35.
the stealth coating is worthless, which is why Sweden didn't bother. it has radar guided decoy missiles, which are quite an improvement over towed decoys, which is dinosaur tech in aeronautics
>AN/APG-81 is better radar than Selex ES-05
making equipment lighter and more efficient is a positive in aircraft design if you weren't told. the Selex is mobile on a swashplate and has better overall field and equivalent range.
Gripen E wins BVR again
>the stealth coating is worthless, which is why Sweden didn't bother
>equipment lighter and more efficient
lol sour grapen strikes again
>the stealth coating is worthless
It's actually the best defense these days.
> it has radar guided decoy missiles
Everybody has radar guided decoys. A towed decoy is cheaper and lasts longer.
>the Selex is mobile on a swashplate and has better overall field and equivalent range.
Gripen E wins BVR again
Then why does the Gripen E have an AESA radar?
>It's actually the best defense these days.
it is worthless. the only things that matter are RCS and ECM
>towed decoy is cheaper
right. the F-354 went with the gyppo inferior version to save pennies
>why does the Gripen E have an AESA radar
so they can stick it on a swashplate and let the avionics move it around at will.
dont mistake my meaing, the F-35 is superior to the Gripen in several ways. it weighs more, and is longer, and can do some cool Robotech-looking moves with its fuselage bits. it can also carry more bombs for longer distances, but you know what else can do that even better? bombers and drones.
>it is worthless
>the only things that matter are RCS
takey your meds anon
> the only things that matter are RCS
Stealth reduces RCS. Gripen might have a low RCS from the front but it looses out everywhere else. If the Gripen has to crank or go nose cold for any reason it's no better than any 4th gen plane.
>right. the F-354 went with the gyppo inferior version to save pennie
AND it lasts longer. A launched decoy will eventually run out of fuel and drop to the ground but a towed decoy can stay active for as long as the plane does. Being cheaper and smaller also means you can carry more of them.
>bombers and drones.
The F-35 basically acts as a signal relay and spotter for drones and does a fine job as a stealthy bomber. The B-2 is great but it's shear size means it's got a reasonable RCS. For a fighter.
AN/APG-81 is better radar than Selex ES-05.
>Under 1000 T/R modules (vs 1500+ on F35)
>Weaker power plant
>Weaker cooling
Even if Selex modules were 20% more efficient than F35's modules, Raven would still have less power output with same power source. And guess what? F35 has lot more power available.
Actually, I heard that the Gripen E has American made AESA radars. Unfortunately, this means the Gripen E will only match the F-35's radar performance at best and will more likely trail behind due to getting older, cheaper radar arrays.
it's just smaller and has less power to use F-35's radar, not to mention data processing. It's way too different of an aircraft to have a far cry at F-35's performance.
getting American is going to give it the most advanced radar it could ever get anyway
lmao
I'm a Radar Engineer at Northrop Grumman that works on the APG-81 program.
Basically to even suggest that any other country could ever in a million years *produce* an array that comes anywhere close to something made by NG (or Raytheon) is incredibly stupid.
It shows that you have zero engineering background and think radars are a "design problem", and not an industrial, production, and testing problem.
To your credit, you could give an elite team of Russians, Chinese, Eurocuck, or even Pajeet engineers 12 months and all the design tools and they could EASILY design an array that shits on an APG-81.
But they could NEVER hope to produce more than a single one.
Manufacturing an array unit isnt something you just "do", it's something that requires dedicated facilities whose air conditioning costs alone surpass the budgets of entire foreign defense industries.
I shit you not on my first day on the job while getting a tour of the facilities I thought "oh...so that's why the rest of the world cant compete and needs us to make them" and I finally understood.
It's something you genuinely have to see to believe.
>TL;DR: you literally need an endless supply of American tax dollars to create things that compete with American avionics, and for now, no one else has American tax dollars
The sinews of war are infinite money, and the US is looking pretty ripped these days
Lol. The number of arrays made the Gripen E is eh.
? The F-35 have the D and the Meteor in its arsenal. And in the future, it's JATM.
>the F-FuddyFive will never be in a dogfight.
Because it'll only enter combat that close if it decides to.
Honestly as a Swede we should just pour our effort into the Tempest project with the Brits and Nips to get our own Tempest variant some years down the line, then name it something fancy like "Döden" or "Oden"
What do you think?
I don't think you have much of a bargaining position to get into such a contract. Besides, Gripen still has a role to play, despite the fact that you've only managed to export the E variant to one country. I bet being in Nato will improve your sales chances until whatever that American low cost stealth fighter ends up being.
Sweden needs to demonstrate the plane's abilities in combat. Ukraine is an opportunity. Lend a few.
No, they don't, and I don't think you understand what you are describing entails. tl;dr it's impossible without putting Swedes in harm's way.
>I don't think you have much of a bargaining position to get into such a contract.
We're are already in the Tempest project, just not comitted yet.
>By July 2020, trilateral industry discussions between UK, Sweden and Italy had begun;[25] also announced was an initial investment of £50m in the project by Saab and the opening of a Future Combat Air Systems centre in the UK.[25] Saab did not however explicitly commit to Tempest.[26]
>The involvement of Italy and Sweden was confirmed by the signing of a trilateral MoU with the UK, called Future Combat Air System Cooperation (FCASC), on 21 December 2020, "defining general principles for co-operation on an equal basis between the three countries"
The idea seems to be that it might be the Gripen successor and also introduce some tech to let us upgrade Gripen further.
Chances are if Tempest gets made that we're probably gonna make some variety of modifications to it to fit the local climate and defense strategy so it can incorporate into a similar role of the Gripen.
We'd also probably get more drones, since 6th gen is all about that.
The US is probably just subsidizing it. A drop in the bucket, insignificant amount to maintain the empire
nah our government is incapable of negotationing such a good deal that it'd make mutts pay for it
literally the opposite megasatan, the US subsidizes US production by forcing Lockheed to upsell foreign bids
just for reference the last set of planes to the US was $71.1 million each, including the more expensive F-35B/F-35C, while the sale for Poland's "starter pack" of 32 in 2020 was $143.8 million each plane.
Lockheed unironically gives the US a BOGO discount compared to that, and their quoted export price for countries who have already made their first purchase in 2022 was $77.9 million, mysteriously 10% higher than what the US paid 3 years earlier (when the plane was allegedly over $80 billion)...
>just for reference the last set of planes to the US was $71.1 million
how nice of them to give a discount to the country that paid to have them designed and built in the first place.
Sure your not comparing a planes-only package vs a planes+support infrastructure+weapons-deal?
no, I am comparing planes only packages to other planes only packages and at the same time pointing out that Poland's "planes+infrastructure+support+weapons" deal was double the same-year cost of just planes, which is insane, and that since a lot of the training money goes to the US military technically that's also just subsidizing the US to buy more F-35s
>empire handing out next gen tech nobody has but them to their vassals for free
dare i say, based?
People only buy American because 1 they want the political connection or 2 some official was bribed.
>w-why won't anyone buy my stuff!
>it's just as good!
How the frick are F-35s and Gripens in the same competition?
>competition
only because for a while now czechia had leased gripens as its airforce so the consideration was buy modernized gripens (and probably get the old leased ones for free). the selection few years ago was that or f16s apparently, but new government just went all out and decided for f35s.
obviously when it comes down to it it's the best decision, which is why its surprising because government usually chooses the bad decisions when buying stuff
No way in hell we're actually getting them
>noo we must keep flying the Gripens for another half of the century, please think of the (gypsy) children
They won't get deployed sooner than 2028
The correct choice. It may have been debatable 5 years ago...but now? If you have the finances to buy a modern Western fighter jet there's hardly any reason at all to not buy the F-35. That's because due to the economics of scale you can now buy the best (and only) 5th gen on the market for the price of a top-of-the-line 4th gen. On top of that, your F-35s can plug into the same networks and battle management systems as everyone else. Large capability upgrades will be made available to everyone and which will also be cheaper thanks to economy of scale. Cost-cutting measures for ongoing maintenance upgrades developed by the US will be shared with everyone. Parts supply chain is so robust that you'll never have grounded F-35s due to lack of parts. It's just one benefit after the other.
>If you have the finances to buy a modern Western fighter jet there's hardly any reason at all to not buy the F-35.
>>If you have the finances
>czechnya
but otherwise you're right.
>If you have the finances to buy a modern Western fighter jet
Lol we can't.
Is Prague reasonably safe for a foreigner to visit, Czech bros? Can't decide between there or riga this year
No, it is extremely dangerous eastern European shithole. You will get killed. Also radiation. Pic related is Prague, its richest city.
I just like kafka man
I like Kafka too but Prague should get an ERW treatment
Nah, a neutron bomb would be better, its a very pretty city after all.
Frick Prague