Looks like some shittier version of the offspring between the Euroshit Typhoon and the Rafale, with 1 engine instead of 2.
If it is so good as they claim, why no one is buying them?
Is the gripen the best non-stealth figther?
Looks like some shittier version of the offspring between the Euroshit Typhoon and the Rafale, with 1 engine instead of 2.
If it is so good as they claim, why no one is buying them?
Are the F-15/16/18s considered stealth?
>no supercruise
>best
kek
and why would supercruise be the most imporant thing?
supercruise gives you a better efficiency at speeds above mach 1.2 but being able to fly 200km more just to arrive and doing frick all is not that useful.
Also air refueling is a thing and the f-15 can bring 35,550lbs of fuel giving it 3450 miles of ferry range.
the gripen is smaller so it can only bring 15400lbs of fuel giving it 2500 miles of ferry range
The f-15 has a much greater payload than a gripen and a bigger radar.
To be fair to the gripen it is unfair to compare it to the f-15 since they do have different roles.
Compared to his competitor, the f-16 the ja-39 is much better. But 4 600 f-16 have been produced, the last block is very impressive and built by the guys who make the best radars in the world. Meanwhile only 300 ja-39 are flying around so you will have troubles finding parts, maintenance personnel, software engineers that can work on it, upgrade packages will come in lesser numbers, etc etc... (also US corruption in procurement does not help the gripen)
holy cope
NTA
nothing he said is cope
Does any of these have supercruise?!?
Bvr: f15 > su35 >gripen
Dogfight: su35 > f15 > gripen
Cost: gripen > su35 >f15
>Dogfight: su35 > f15
Do people actually buy this lol?
>su-35 even making the list
Anon, I am baguette and I love the Rafale but the Gripen is a marvel of technology and engineering.
It is tailor made for countries that want an efficient and versatile non stealth fighter at a reasonable cost.
It is build by people who had the will to make their own fighters, to rival soviet ones.
I have no doubt that it is equal if not superior to many modern planes.
And you get to go to Sweden to negociate contract if you want.
the Gripen is literally just a shittier F-16 that somehow manages to be more expensive than the F-35
wrong it's shit and the F-16 is a better plane even though it's much older than the Gripen
>Gripen
>bang for buck
lmao
Gripen is certainly not shit.
Big arms contracts involve more things than what is the best product. Servicing and spare parts contracts are huge parts of any deal, as are other diplomatic factors like: if you buy these we will also help you get re-elected, or help fund this highway project so your people will like you, or keep including you in our international intel debriefing for non-adverderial non-allies, or keep aknowledging your claims to Guyana in the UN or whatever else.
The US managed to sell a frick ton of crap machines and a ton of great machines, but no deals were isolated from other aspects o diplomacy. Sweden has fairly little to offer other countries outisde a few choice fields.
Gripen's main point is stol:ing, avionics, and broad capabilities with excellent handling. They are easy to maintain, and fairly cheap comparatively to most other planes in its class. It is obviously not peak in terms of either dogfighting (not a tremendously useful skill to have nowadays), or bombing, but it does both well, it is excellent at recon and excellent at long range engagements. It is far from shit.
>Gripen is a marvel of technology and engineering.
>at a reasonable cost.
>versatile non stealth fighter at a reasonable cost.
why does it cost nearly as much as a stealth fighter then?
Gripen is definitely the best bang for your buck jet fighter money can buy at the moment, if you are a small nation and need a jet that can cover all roles without relying on your allies, then it's perfect. Especially if you want to do a little sneaky asymmetric warfare. There's better jets in each role, but the Gripen is just so cheap and simple to maintain it should be the default choice.
I used to be like you. I believed the Russian jets were actually not complete shit. Then Ukraine happened and I'm sorry but the Su-35 is fricking worthless.
>I used to be like you. I believed the Russian jets were actually not complete shit. Then Ukraine happened and I'm sorry but the Su-35 is fricking worthless.
None of the conflicts Americans have been in have been against a peer adversary with SAM systems and awacs they've all been against goat frickets fighting in sandals. When you realize this, kill to win ratio goes out the window.
>None of the conflicts Americans have been in have been against a peer adversary with SAM systems and awacs they've all been against goat frickets fighting in sandals. When you realize this, kill to win ratio goes out the window
>muh excuses
>muh sam sites
>muh radar
>muh unfair war
these are the facts cry about it, the point of war is not to fight fair is to win with overwhelming superiority
Yeah even if this is only counting air to air kills it's just plain wrong, at least as far as f16s are concerned.
For the US 7 were lost in the Gulf War, 1 in Bosnia (by Serbs) and another one in Serbia.
If it's counting only air to air, then there's the Turkish F16 that got shot down by the Greek Mirage but also the Pakistani one that Pakistan claimed was "friendly fire" (we all know it wasn't).
it's just air to air
even assuming that it was not friendly fire or sams is 76 - 2 good job i guess?
>uhmm sweetie that statistic is plain wrong because it excludes things that I do not want excluded which will make my arguments easier but still wrong
I hope they ain't paying your moronic ass
Imagine being this stupid
You can't substantiate your claim.
>a peer adversary with SAM systems
You mean Iraq?
I guess Vietnam doesn't count, either. Wasn't the birthplace of SEAD or anything.
None of the teen series were in vietnam
>Dogfight: su35 > f15 > gripen
Upgraded and fully up to date F-15s will beat the Su-35 in WVR because of superior avionics and weapons.
arguing which fighter is better for dogfighting is like arguing which assault rifle has the best bayonet
BVR is how the fighting is being done these days even by Russians themselves
Military acquisitions are not made based on quality but politics. They are typically sideshows used to show good will and encourage business.
Idk maybe the su30?
They'd probably get more sales if they didn't have to ask America if they could sell to the country everytime(American engine)
Only reason why anyone buys these is because Sweden gives you lenient financing options which allows broke states to buy fighter planes to dazzle their voter base. Also full ToT doesn't hurt.
Why do they all look like the Mig 144
Because Russian Federation makes better demo planes than Western service planes, I guess.
Where is this from?
Swiss procurement programme.
They went with Gripen that was the clear loser of the evaluation.
://defence.pk/threads/swiss-air-force-documents-on-the-evaluation-of-the-eurofighter-gripen-ng-rafale.408245/
If you are interested, they linked further docs and evaluation data in the thread.
>Spoiler Alert; Rafale won by a mile.
ESL turdie ignored
>If it is so good as they claim, why no one is buying them?
Too small, 1x F-18 does the job of 2 gripens and the F-18 is a medium weight fighter.
Check this out! Fighter Jet World Cup! Nations compete with their domestic designs. See who has the best design and best pilots.
It is already speculated that the French have been collecting signature data of much of the Eastern airframes via Rafales in service of countries with mixed airforces and fencesitting c**ts that do exercises with Western enemies.
Imagine the shitshow that this would be.
>Air to Air kills? But WHAT ABOUT ...[shuffles cards]... ! Ground to Air kills !
>USA never fought a peer enemy because they are simply too powerful, that is why our airframes have been consistent failures since the creation of Russian air forces
yawn
>USA never fought a peer enemy because they are simply too powerful, that is why our airframes have been consistent failures since the creation of Russian air forces
unlike the VKS that has fought near peers such as ukraine, chechnya and some africans
Why haven't they dropped troops into Ukraine yesterday with the confidence they did with in third world shitholes then?
Nukes.
Disintegrated Russia would lose all capacity to govern their legion of ICBMs.
B8
Not really.
USA can disintegrate Russia at any moment it wishes, but proliferation of the nuclear weapons will be catastrophic and might cause unprecedented instability in the world.
It seems you're not up to date on this info. May I present to you pic rel.
You honestly think you are going to fire your nukes when Americans can fly over Moscow without you knowing?
>Russia doesn't have nukes in subs parked all around the world
Russians have also claimed to see stealth.
Why are you so adamant on nuclear war anyways? You do realize the repurcussions include a global nuclear winter and crop loss for a few decades regardless of who nukes who?
They could tsar bomb themselves and start one.
inb4: muh nukes are fake cope
>Russians have also claimed to see stealth.
Their most capable systems can't cope with fricking SCALPs that aren't even full stealth.
>Why are you so adamant on nuclear war anyways?
Russians won't do anything.
>Russia doesn't have nukes in subs parked all around the world
Americans have been capable of tracking them for decades now.
>You do realize the repurcussions include a global nuclear winter and crop loss for a few decades regardless of who nukes who?
Carl Sagan myth.
>nukes don't work
>but Americans still won't directly engage them despite them having "inferior tech" like they would've with sandBlack folk
Nukes do work.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Is it because your "arguments" don't work otherwise?
Well you gave me that Carl Sagan cope how'd you expect I'd interpret it?
Nuclear Winter was invented by a group of scientists which included, and was lead by, Carl Sagan.
They miscalculated the effects of nuclear weapons would have on our atmosphere on purpose.
Mount Tambora, a VEI-7 event, caused a cooling effect that didn't last longer than half a year.
No
It's so good Swedes are afraid to send it to real war
Brazil ordered, like, 70 of them and have gotten the license to produce them domestically. I guess it makes them feel good knowing they can dab on Argentina anytime they want with them.
How does production of gripen happen? I've heard countries like Argentina cannot buy gripen because UK will veto it. But how does that work? I know it uses a British rolls royce engine. So does Britain build the engine and then gets sent to the factory? And because Britain doesn't want X to have it, it wont allow or build the engine?
The best of 4th gen:
Bomb/missile truck for richgays: F-15
Minmax for poor countrylets: Gripen
Problem with F-16: Low intake means it needs squeaky clean runway or it will vacuum FOD. Operating from shitty Ukraine runways or god forbid roads is asking for trouble.
As much as I love Gripens and think they are criminally underrated and have mogged F-16', F-15' and a couple of chink fighters in training the fact of the matter is that modern fighter jets are not an isolated purchase. It's more of signing a contract of cooperation to the manufacturers country whether that be USA, Russia, France, Sweden or China etc.
And out of all those Sweden is by far the smallest fish that gets you the least extras.
Draken, Viggen and Gripen have one purpose, to defend Sweden according to their needs and that is what they have done, getting to sell a few has just been a bonus.
J-20 is the best 4th gen.
Who knows
>Delta wing
>Cope canard on the front
>best at anything
Only third world countries buy delta wing aircrafts.
yeah
ye
If you took a Su-35 and loaded it up with high-end Western electronics — sensors, CPUs, etc — how would it be as modern fighter? Could it reach 4.5 gen?
Rafale is a 4th Gen body with 5th Gen sensors/weapons and it is considered 4.5th Gen.