Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/ydijozc4
@TheGrace020
Жыл бұрын
😳amongus
@Fenrir.Gleipnir
Жыл бұрын
Jas 39 gripen
@tony5269
Жыл бұрын
@Binkov’s Battegrounds wicked Pissah Cool Video
@abdullahyounus77
Жыл бұрын
Jf 17 black 2 really..!? Block 3 is in production about 2 years
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
In case of the small countries it is also common to form defense coalitions. Because they commonly lack of strategical depth (Baltics) or numbers to cover sparsely populated territory (Nordics). So I would exclude them from the equation.
@JanFWeh
Жыл бұрын
*I don't know why I clicked on this video.* *I'm not even looking to buy a multirole fighter jet right now.*
@TheGrace020
Жыл бұрын
YET
@SeeLasSee
Жыл бұрын
Good. Because your photo looks sketchy and they wouldn’t sell to you.
@TJRex01
Жыл бұрын
As someone considering buying a multi role fighter in the near future, this is very timely.
@pabcu2507
Жыл бұрын
Let’s not forget the time when mr krabs sold SpongeBob’s soul for 62 cents
@looinrims
Жыл бұрын
Flying Dutchman: “This has got to be the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals”
@quartzking3997
Жыл бұрын
Bet you’ve been saving that zinger up for when you were one of the first to comment on a Binkov vid. Hilarious
@pabcu2507
Жыл бұрын
@@quartzking3997 I know, I’m hilarious, thanks for the comment
@quartzking3997
Жыл бұрын
@@pabcu2507 I’m not saying you’re hilarious, I’m saying whoever you stole the joke from is hilarious
@pabcu2507
Жыл бұрын
@@quartzking3997 so comments have a copyright on them that’s you’re saying? Since when? Also this joke has been around way longer than you remember
@MattiasKSe
Жыл бұрын
Love how our Gripen places fairly well in most categories, not bad for a country with a population less then metropolitan Paris.
@Luredreier
Жыл бұрын
Well, maybe I'm a little bit biased. But it feels like it was doing worse in areas where it has specialized in these rankings... And I'm not sure if that's really fair...
@Cheka__
Жыл бұрын
Not surprising. Norway makes a lot of good military hardware.
@randomcrashingfacility31
Жыл бұрын
@@Cheka__ you mean Sweden?
@Luredreier
Жыл бұрын
@@Cheka__ While it's true that Norway also make good military hardware in this case we're talking about Swedish military hardware, across the border from us (they make even more things then we do) Gripen is a Swedish fighter. We produce other things like anti-ship missiles and air-defense systems in Norway.
@NATObait
Жыл бұрын
Sweden has a population about the size of an average American State but builds competitive Submarines, Aircraft, Tanks, Missiles and export to the US.
@BENKYism
Жыл бұрын
15:08 The F-35 has a built-in optical targeting system
@Tekisasubakani
Жыл бұрын
What makes a good fighter jet? Europe: TRIANGLE
@AQDuck
Жыл бұрын
I think ground maintenance is also important to consider, especially for smaller countries that doesn't have the luxory of hundreds of airfields. Best way to take out most planes is to keep them grounded. (I'm totally not biased towards Gripen)
@loke6664
Жыл бұрын
That is certainly true and so is how long it takes to train pilots and ground crew. You also have to consider how easy it is to get parts for the plane and to replace it, and the time it takes to refuel and re-arm the plane for a new mission. I don't think there is a perfect plane for everyone. Different nations have different needs and their military doctrine will vary. Even your nations infra structure and terrain matters. Not to mention how many planes you have, the F-16 is a very good plane if you have a large air force but it do spend a lot of time in a hangar, while a plane like a Gripen is quick to get into the air again so if you only have like 50 planes the Gripen gets the advantage there but if you have hundreds of planes it isn't really much of a problem if service and maintenance takes more time. How large airfields you need to lift and land also matters a lot, some planes require long strips to even get in the air while there is a VTOL version of the F-35. And of course range is an important factor if you for instance have large jungles like Brazil or have an island nation while it isn't a big deal for a small nation like Belgium. It is a rather complicated calculation to figure out exactly what plane would work best for a specific nation and in reality, few countries even bother and choose for political reasons (and bribes) instead. Brazil didn't pick Gripen because it was their best choice, but because they trying to not pick a side between US, Russia and China. It wasn't a bad choice for them from a technical standpoint but they would have been just as fine with for instant an F-15 EX, but from a political standpoint they will seem more independent from the larger political blocks with it. Denmark on the other hand picked F-16 because using American planes win them points with US even if a Gripen or Rafaele might have fit their specific situation better.
@cshader2488
Жыл бұрын
The F-35's targeting / recon "pod" is the ETOS that's built into the plane. This pod is designed for both hi-rez targeting of air and land targets and recon purposes. It also contains the laser to guide A/G weaponry.
@QasimAli-to5lk
Жыл бұрын
FA-50 was just happy to be there😭
@yuluoxianjun
Жыл бұрын
lol.
@austinkaufman9402
Жыл бұрын
Finally a guide to help me make the right decision
@ehsnils
Жыл бұрын
Factors not taken into account seems to be: 1. The ground turnaround time - how long has the plane stay on the ground to get serviced before being in the air again for the next mission? 2. Operational cost - what's the cost per flight hour? 3. Airfield requirements - what's the requirements on the ground real estate to keep an aircraft operational. If you need a specialized airfield or if you can do with a piece of decently paved road can make a huge difference when you perform your operation. But overall even though it increases the cost there's an advantage in having more than one aircraft type in a conflict since it would cause the enemy to not being able to hone a perfect weapon but instead a more general weapon. A single target type opponent weapon means that it's easier for missiles to do IFF identification but with multiple opponent types then the risk of misidentifying a friendly craft as an enemy increases and "friendly fire" events increases. It's of course a marginal situation.
@craigkdillon
Жыл бұрын
Sounds like you are talking about the virtues of the Gripen. I agree. Those are important considerations in a real war. Gripen's ability to use highways as runways is a huge advantage. While the F-16's need for 10,000 ft runway in pristine condition is a problem, IMO.
@henrikg1388
Жыл бұрын
Not to mention that those considerations have proven to be very relevant in Ukraine.
@craigkdillon
Жыл бұрын
@@henrikg1388 Yep. Gripen was designed to fight Russia, in real war conditions.
@neutrality2
Жыл бұрын
I feel like the Super Hornet is a tragically underrated airframe these days. It can do almost any mission, has an incredible range and dynamics to make it a nightmare for any opposing force.
@NATObait
Жыл бұрын
Super Hornet is extremely capable but is a heavy aircraft ( 21000k with just fuel ) only useable from an airport length runways ( it would damage road surfaces ) though it could potentially land/take off from s straight road. Gripen C ( 10000k with fuel ) was designed for ease of replenishment at roadside and can safely do so on even icy roads. This comparison is not a reflection of airborne capabilities just of practical operating use from a Ukrainian roadside that Russia can't easily target.
@nebunezz_r
Жыл бұрын
It's kinda ass if you were trying to play guerilla like Sweden though.
@NothingIsKnown00
Жыл бұрын
F-35 is OP. Incredibly advanced and not super expensive. As a Swede, I’m inclined to call it unfair.
@fz8691
Жыл бұрын
I love the Jas-39 as a canadian but i understand why our government chose the f-35.
@niweshlekhak9646
Жыл бұрын
@@fz8691We also have way more data and flexibility of modifying the jet according our needs for F-35 because of being part of the program.
@henrikgiese6316
Жыл бұрын
Well, it's about two decades younger in practice. So it had better be good! Gripen's big advantages are low cost per flight hour, simple maintenance, and rough-field performance. While it's really hard to determine from known data (as neither aircraft has been in a real war) I think you'd really want some F-35s for SEAD, anti-AWACS and important strikes, but just for keeping your airforce flying during peacetime or when the bombs have been raining for a while Gripen may actually be more useful (one flying Gripen beats ten grounded F-35s).
@martinwinther6013
Жыл бұрын
rofl@not superexpensive
@logicplague
Жыл бұрын
@@martinwinther6013 Cost drops each year, if I'm not mistaken all 3 variants are under 100 million.
@anordman9659
Жыл бұрын
One of the most important factors is not even mentioned: Tactical data links and network capability.
@fakecubed
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, multirole fighters are already obsolete. Now it's all about drones connecting to drones, sharing data and launching each other's armaments from beyond its own sensor range. A multirole fighter that doesn't plug into that network and command it from a safe distance is useless in the current generation of warfare if there's ever a near-peer conflict. But if all you need to do is beat up on some 3rd world country, you can get away with practically anything.
@ricardosmythe2548
Жыл бұрын
The latest costs of the F35 now production numbers have been ramped up makes it one of the best as well as one of the cheapest
@Emanon...
Жыл бұрын
Not among the cheapest by a longshot. And that's of course if you entirely discount the R&D and initial investment pool. It's the single most expensive weapons program in history. By far.
@SeeLasSee
Жыл бұрын
@@Emanon...this is about buying and ordering Today. F35 is the cheapest upfront but higher hourly use cost.
@ricardosmythe2548
Жыл бұрын
@@Emanon... The current unit price a buyer would expect to pay per plane is the only figure relative the conversation based on the premise of the video. $78-80 million each for the F35a
@jonathanpfeffer3716
Жыл бұрын
@@Emanon... Dead wrong. The unit costs factor in program costs, production has just been made very efficient (almost 1000 have been made), and program costs have been spread out over those aircraft. You’re operating off of outdated information. And no it’s not the most expensive program in history, not even close.
@jonathanpfeffer3716
Жыл бұрын
@@SeeLasSee Also, while it has higher maintenance costs (spare parts and RAM materials are expensive), it’s actually much much easier to maintain than basically any other fighter out there. It has a maintenance hours/flight hours ratio of about 4-5. For context an average ratio for most fighters will be double or triple that number, I believe an SU-27 has a ratio of about 12.
@Eyeless_Camper
Жыл бұрын
Alot of people when looking at cost seem to forget that it's not just buying cost but also operational cost that matter, even if you bought it cheap if you cant afford to operate it it's just an expensive paperweight.
@artiefakt4402
Жыл бұрын
Uh... according to F-35 pilots, that aircraft offers unprecedented situational awareness both in the air and on the ground. It's like a mini AWACS... and I'm pretty sure its EOTS / DAS is more advanced than any other external pod on the market right now.
@theordinarytime
Жыл бұрын
F35 is the best deal for anyone the US is willing to sell to. Rafale for anyone the US won't sell to, but France will. If you can't get F35 or Rafale, you probably can't get Gripen anyway. If you're in the market for used jets, F16s are flooding the market atm (hopefully most go to Ukraine though). New F16s is only good if you already had F16s and can't get F35 or Rafale. If none of the above applies to you, at that point you're probably looking to buy Chinese, discuonting Iran, I doubt anyone wants to buy Russian again. And Iran only wants to buy Russian so that they can steal, I mean, buy, the tech to build engines viable in the 1980s, as opposed to the 60s vintage ones they can sort of produce currently.
@tluangasailo3663
Жыл бұрын
Hands down, F-35A is the victor due to its exceptional performance in all critical aspects demanded by the modern world combats such as stealth, sensors, firepower, self-defense, sitiational -awareness, electronics, and radar. It holds title of 'Excellent' in each of these categories. The Eurofighter ranks second in terms of technology, closely followed by the F-15EX.
@kwkfortythree39
Жыл бұрын
@@Cheka__ what's wrong in his comment?
@lucaj8131
Жыл бұрын
I'm think the Rafale is ahead of the EF if we compare the latest versions, idk much about the EX tho.
@GSteel-rh9iu
9 ай бұрын
What we are missing is that apart from the US no one has the logistical capability and also the wide spectrum of additional supporting assets with the fighter jets. Tiny Euro-country 12 airframe buy is not the same as the same number plugged into the US Defence capability. What is very wise is how the Scandi countries have combined the air fleets into one force. Cheers.
@ugaboj
Жыл бұрын
Ah, yes, thank you. I was wondering which fighter jet to buy.
@ruperthollandjkjk4387
Жыл бұрын
If it were my country and we could afford 100 jets.. 50 FA-35 for air superiority. 30 F-15 to bomb the crap out of the enemy. 20 F-18 for maritime strikes.
@zomgbrattodilolrenzor6081
Жыл бұрын
Why F-18s? What F-18s can do that the F-15 or F-16s can't?
@rickdubbink
Жыл бұрын
@@zomgbrattodilolrenzor6081 land on aircraft carriers
@ruperthollandjkjk4387
Жыл бұрын
F-15 has no dedicated anti-ship capabilities. F-16 is single engine and I’d prefer twin for survivability. If it was a developing nation with a limited budget, I’d probably go for 100 F-16’s
@andersjjensen
Жыл бұрын
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 With the upcoming grid integration it might be more price effective to get 60 F-16Vs and 20 F-35As and every mission pod type for the F-16 in reasonable quantities. This will allow you to pair each F-35 with three F-16s that just hang back and serve as "bomb and missile trucks" that take targets from the F-35. This is the "sales pitch" of the Block 72/Viper upgrade of the F-16: it turns it into the perfect companion/helper plane of the F-35.
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
@@ruperthollandjkjk4387 F-35 has anti-ship capabilities (it is deck fighter). Having dedicated fighters only for that papoose, seams weird? As good as F-15 is, it is also quite costly. US operate them as missile trucks, what make sense for larger countries, what can afford both stealth and strike wings (they are High not Low option). If you need dedicated low option, pick F/A-18 instead.
@thearisen7301
Жыл бұрын
Something worth noting is that because the F35 mounts weapons internally, it effectivly is always flying "clean" where other jets will have drag from their weapons. That will affect manuverability & range. Another thing I'd consider is the F35's block 4 upgrades are coming very soon which includes upgraded engines & systems so "upgradability" is part of this. Cost could be it's own video because what one country pays can be very different than another. The Swiss noted cost as one of the reasons they chose F35 but other countries won't get the same deal
@johnbenoy7532
Жыл бұрын
I assume that the f35 only internally mounts small-medium sized munitions. Anything large (bigger than a 250kg bomb) will go on a wing pylon simply because it can't fit in the internal bay. Lrasms (long-range anti ship missile) can't be mounted internally, and neither can 1000kg bombs. I would argue that since the f35 is not optimised for long range flight with externally mounted munitions, its range will suffer more than the range of a plane designed with external carrying capacity in mind. And about cost. Yes, I can't agree more. The rafale is the most expensive plane on the list, but only because not enough of them have been made to offset the development costs...
@thearisen7301
Жыл бұрын
@@johnbenoy7532 F35 has been designed from the begining to have it's "beast mode" config using external mounts getting up to 22,000lbs total. It's also integrated the JASSMs with no noted issues. However it can carry a pair of 2000lb JDAMs or Paveways internally & naturally the B61 can also be carried so with nuclear sharing a country gets a nuclear capable stealth aircraft. It's also getting new internal mounts that increase the number of internally carried weapons.
@johnbenoy7532
Жыл бұрын
@@thearisen7301 engineering a highly advanced aircraft to better suit its secondary use case sounds a bit much to me. Usually when we design a plane, we make sure its primary goal is done to the best of its ability and then try to get the secondary capabilitys as high as possible without too much compromise. When you bud a plane for external carrying of heavy munitions, there are a whole lot of compromises that need to be made to the physical airframe which negatively impact the stealth of the plane (even when unloaded). I'm not doubting that the f35 can carry a lot of missiles and very heavy bombs, but stating that it may not be as good at it as other non stealth options. This same problem applies to smaller sized aircraft such as the rafale (yes it can carry a nuke, but not very many large bombs).
@SilvanaDil
Жыл бұрын
If something is military, I'm going with the US option. It won't be the best in every single category of weapon/system, but I'll end up with the best overall success rate.
@KioneWinterHowl
Жыл бұрын
And generally speaking they undersale their equpment so you'll be pleasantly surprised as to what it can really do. Compared to its Russian counterparts that have overplayed their equipment.
@SilvanaDil
Жыл бұрын
@@KioneWinterHowl - Indeed. And, I suspect the Chinese do that even more than the Russians, esp. with so little actual experience.
@ece5925
Жыл бұрын
US equipment is exported at a huge markup and never when fully modern, mainly bought for US logistics benefits and political purposes, besides being often good there are almost always competitive alternatives
@recoil53
Жыл бұрын
@@ece5925 When the shooting starts, logistics is huge.
@recoil53
Жыл бұрын
@@SilvanaDil The Chinese don't even build engines as well as the Russians. A lot of their doctrine, which guides design, is descended from the Russians. And Russians seem to want maneuverable flying artillery, strictly directed by ground control. So zero faith from me. Or, to put it another way, if Russian design was any good, why do we not see their stealth fighters over Ukraine? Until recently, the best anti-air missiles the Ukrainians had were the S-300 and maybe some S-400 older variants. If they were successful, it would be great advertisement for the Russian arms industry, very important to their economy.
@odinbiflindi
Жыл бұрын
All fine aircraft but for me best bang for buck is the JAS39 Grippen.
@romainlavoie1526
Жыл бұрын
The Viper my Brother !
@odinbiflindi
Жыл бұрын
@@romainlavoie1526 You're forgetting the Swedes offer the Grippen E as a package with an Erieye AEW and control aircraft the Swedes know their stuff.
@marcm.
Жыл бұрын
Interestingly the f-18 looks like a very good option. For countries like Ukraine I would consider the Gripen, F-16, f18... The reason for the last two is both availability and overall Good performance. The reason for the first one is or should be obvious. But what really sells me for the Gripen, is the meteor, which means that only the European air frames currently would make the most sense and of those obviously the swedish entry is the overall winner. But production and availability of airframes matters. For a different country with well-developed GADS, and airfields, especially a bunch of smaller but well maintained ones, and strong technical skills either by training or just in general available in the population, The price and availability with overall capability trumps any other considerations. So most oil-rich Middle East countries should probably go for f15, f-18, F-16, Raphael, while poorer but with good technical skills I would also consider the F-16, f-18, a country that's next to a much greater power might seriously consider getting a license to create a factory for the Gripen. Poorer and less technical skills, might consider the total cost benefits of Gripen, both in training for the ground crews, the maintaining of airfields and logistics, but there I suspect the low cost of entry for the F-16, the large amount of availability of it, will decide. Of course politics is the first and foremost reason, all these technical reasons are secondary to that
@odinbiflindi
Жыл бұрын
@@marcm. The Swiss with F18s practice take offs from motorways just like the Swedes with Grippens both would be more than suitable for Ukrainian needs as air bases are practically a non starter.
@sharonishere
Жыл бұрын
I was in the market for a Multirole Fighter. This video helped me a lot. Thanks! 👍
@casbot71
Жыл бұрын
Simple answer *F-35* if you can get it and you can run the logistics as it's the best at BVR. *Gripen* if you can't buy the F-35; it's the best for logistics and _attrition warfare,_ running cost and pilot flight hours, and it can still carry long range AA missiles like Meteor as well as easily be upgraded for new future hardware due to its modular software. However if you get the F-35, having a lower running cost dedicated ground attack aircraft/missile truck would help save money and increase the "bang for the buck". Either the F-15X or even a turbo prop CAS plane once all the SAM's have been eliminated. With its very low flight running cost, the Gripen doesn't need a "low cost" supplement. However if you have the Gripen and your enemy has the F-35 ... you're getting hit before you even spot them.
@paw1ak_248
Жыл бұрын
F-16>gripen
@arga400
Жыл бұрын
@@paw1ak_248 The Gripen is better than the F16, the thing is that the F16 is more readily accessible and by now also cheaper due to economies of scale.
@paw1ak_248
Жыл бұрын
@@arga400 in what sense better? F-16V tops the gripen
@fqeagles21
Жыл бұрын
@@arga400 F16 later version are better
@casbot71
Жыл бұрын
@Paw1ak_ The F-16 is a lot harder to run day to day with logistics. For example, Its air intake is underneath so the runway has to be immaculate, meanwhile the Gripen can land on a highway and be rearmed and refuelled by four regular soldiers with trucks in a half hour - who then book it before a precision strike can target them. That is a massive advantage and part of the design brief of the Gripen. It's the opposite of a hangar queen. The cost per hour of flight is also the least of any jet on the list by a lot, so that means in peacetime pilots get a lot more flight hours practice. The advantage of the F-16 is just the production run. In Ukraine's case for example there are so many F-16's available that cannibalising some for spare parts or even having more planes than experienced pilots and revolving planes out of Ukraine for servicing in NATO countries becomes an option. There are probably more F-16's in storage than there are currently Gripens in existence.
@Sowlow04
Жыл бұрын
Man, I didn’t know the Rafale and the Eurofighter were this good and this close to each other. The 2 best competitors imo 🔥
@Benjamin.Jamin.
Жыл бұрын
Agreed. The Eurofighter seems to come out much better than I expected.
@Sowlow04
Жыл бұрын
@@Benjamin.Jamin. When looking at the comparisons made by the swiss air force during the ‘’air2030’’ program, I really expected the Eurofighter to be ranked much lower in this video
@SacredCowStockyards
Жыл бұрын
Why is this a question? F-35 is the only conceivable answer.
@RealSayef
Жыл бұрын
but majority of the world can't buy that jet because of 1. they are not us's ally 2. too much conditions
@dakiler2028
Жыл бұрын
Rafale is a very good contender for other reasons. Mostly hardpoint amount and the SCALP EG and Meteor missiles
@ayushthosar6005
Жыл бұрын
F-35 have heavy operational cost
@ThrawnFett123
Жыл бұрын
@Ayush Thosar this. Possibly the best exportable all rounder for most future mission profiles? Absolutely. "Bang for your buck" even putting aside availability mentioned above, no.
@rainboworiental9521
Жыл бұрын
The advantage of JF 17 is the lowest cost among all of the listed multi-role fighters. That fits the need who want modern fighters but with limited budgets.
@hiteshadhikari
Жыл бұрын
The block 3 is costing over 50 million and upto 60 million Not cheap in any way tbh
@rainboworiental9521
Жыл бұрын
@@hiteshadhikari But this video only discusses the block 2 variant and Block 3 gets some significant upgrades in equipment and tech.
@hiteshadhikari
Жыл бұрын
@@rainboworiental9521 block 2 is a fine 3.5 gen aircraft , block 3 stands well as a decent one on paper but at that cost the idea of a f16 becomes much better proposition or even a su 30 or su 35
@maryamhammad1451
Жыл бұрын
@@hiteshadhikari block 2 cost is around 25 million and block 3 costs around 50 million block 3 have aesa redar and pl15 and pl10 missiles and it's lighter weight via composite materials and more payload capacity and more hard points and advance missile and radar warning receivers and new and improved cockpit and helmet, which means block 3 is up to 50% better than block 2 and in real warfare scenario it has more than twice the power of block 2
@hiteshadhikari
Жыл бұрын
@@maryamhammad1451 block 3 costs around 50-60 million and the aesa radar used is a low power one, i wonder how they will be powering electronics with single engine. Klj 7a fitted in aesa has no data of TRM or power so how good it will be questionable. Thats all to see in future but paying 60 mil for jf17 when u can get a f16 block 50ish for same price with better subsystems is more reasonable but then pak doesnt have access to money or those jets anymore Its easier to buy jf17 and j10 because the purchase is backed by chinese loans now ( pak purchased recent j10 with a few billion dollar loan they got)
@jg3000
Жыл бұрын
Grippen should be desirable to most nations because of low maintence and ability to use unprepaired runways. Even if you did a high low with F-35. Grippen should be in more air forces.
@SP95
Жыл бұрын
" Paper planes will not help you win the war " Challenge accepted 😎
@CausticLemons7
Жыл бұрын
Great timing! I was just about to place an order for a new fleet but now I'll definitely be informed.
@notsocasualobserver
Жыл бұрын
FA 50 was only invited for a participation trophy
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
But if you are from poorish medium size country. Having trainers what can do some combat missions. Is actually quite smart.
@notsocasualobserver
Жыл бұрын
@@TheRezro But it might be worth considering to simply pay the country selling you fighter Jets to also train your pilots. I am not sure how expensive that would be in comparison, but I'd wager it is cheaper then operating a trainer full time
@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh
Жыл бұрын
For exports, the meteor is proposed with the 2 ways datalink for Rafale. F15 EX is not offered for export. Russian radars are inferior to Western equivalent. Beside the geopolitical element which is crucial, another element that should have been included is maintenance/availability/customer support. This makes all the difference. If you cannot get good customer service, if your planes lack spare parts, if your electronic is unreliable, you quickly loose over 50% of your asset. And if your plane is heavily dependent on the green light of your country 's supplier to operate in conflict, you may also be left with a grounded fleet...
@randomdude8202
Жыл бұрын
Well, when you buy from US, you are limited to diplomatic actions US agrees with. If you dont, stuff you buy from them as good as the ones you buy from Russians.
@RENO_K
Жыл бұрын
It is tho, Indonesia has had talks with the US regarding the purchase of F15EX(s) and news is that the US is supportive of that deal(cus of geopolitics more than anything)
@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh
Жыл бұрын
@@RENO_K True, but no deal yet though, this seems a complex deal
@yuluoxianjun
Жыл бұрын
Yes,USA already did this awful thing
@keilerbie7469
Жыл бұрын
Short answer: F-35
@dianapennepacker6854
Жыл бұрын
Have to agree even though I dislike the damn thing. Just so versatile and definitely gets way too much hate. It is a great plane even if it can't do everything the best. I'll listen to pilots who love the damn thing and have experience in other aircraft. I'd say the F 15ex but it is so expensive and no stealth but it looks like a freaken work horse once air supremacy is achieved. Maneuverability I think is over rated these days. It isn't Vietnam and missiles have gotten so much better. If the F 15 ex was one third the cost of it I would say that. America really loses out by not having the Meteor which I personally believe is the best A2A missile in the world. I've read Isreal has some variants on jets and such that may be better and if there is one country with sneaky ass equipment it is them. That was just things I have read but didn't really go into so it could be hearsay. Also Japan's F 16s from Mitsubishi are overpriced as hell haha.
@Delta5by5
16 күн бұрын
Cost per flight hour also needs to be considered
@TornadoADV
Жыл бұрын
"Paper planes will not help you win the war." *sad paper plane noises*
@shtorm2616
Жыл бұрын
I think you're forgetting the F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System which is basically a stealthy targeting pod. I noticed you listed the F-35 as not having a pod in the recon section. It is already in active use by F-35s.
@Ag3nt0fCha0s
Жыл бұрын
"Gun is a luxury and rarely used" -New age of drone warfare has entered the chat.
@correctionguy7632
Жыл бұрын
Drones are usually small and relatively much slower. Would be hard for a fighter jet to hit them with a gun I imagine.
@AChannelThatDoesNothing
Жыл бұрын
If you think Korea's military is weak because of the FA-50, keep in mind that these are just for training purposes. South Korea's real combat aircraft are much more capable, such as F-15s, F-16s, and F-35s.
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
I don't think he ever said that. Idea of armed trainers is actually quite clever.
@AChannelThatDoesNothing
Жыл бұрын
@@TheRezro You're right, Binkov didn't actually say that. I was partially preempting any North Korean/Russian/Chinese trolls from bashing South Korea's military this way and partially to let people know of this fact in case they thought that the FA-50 was South Korea's main fighter jet (I was slightly confused too).
@yuluoxianjun
Жыл бұрын
i mean,even North Korean just use some WW2 rockets.South korean capital still cant hold on under 6 hours fire.
@sjsukksksk-wk8on
Жыл бұрын
🇰🇷 Korean stick don't bark
@AChannelThatDoesNothing
Жыл бұрын
@@yuluoxianjun Of those rockets very few can even hit the capital due to having short range. World War 2 rockets are of no use if they can't hit far enough.
@appa609
Жыл бұрын
The appropriate way to make this comparison is fix the budget. Say a country can spend $10B on procurement and $10B more over the next 20 years on operations and maintenance. That might mean you get 200 JF-17's for 625 hours per airframe per year or 50 F-35's for 230 hours per airframe per year. Which of these fleets is more effective? If you're Israel you probably want the F-35's to deep strike Iranian nuclear labs. If you're Afghanistan, you'd rather have a lot of JF-17's todominate your peasant neighbours.
@razal-ghul1105
Жыл бұрын
What about the flying Samosas the Tejas... say good stuff about it or Modi's curse be upon you
@Hiznogood
Жыл бұрын
@@razal-ghul1105 Are they anything like your tank, then paper planes would perform better!😉
@razal-ghul1105
Жыл бұрын
@Hiznogood is not better than modi's 56-inch chest bulletproof armour...that nuclear missiles bounce off... even has a chaiwallah cup holder to it....please don't interfere. Otherwise, RSS cow brigade will come and do to you what they do to people who they THINK are transporting cows
@maryamhammad1451
Жыл бұрын
Lone f35 in Iranian airspace, i don't think so
@dirtey6559
Жыл бұрын
Gripen would probably have been the best buy a couple years ago, but today? I doubt it. F-35 have dropped their cost dramatically and Rafales bang for the buck is better today as well than earlier. From what I can find about RCS Gripen should most definitely be in the best category out of the non-stealth aircrafts as well.
@Arkan_Fadhila
Жыл бұрын
While gripen isn't super cheap compared to the competition but gripen still hold advantage over F-35 in maintenance area. Lets wait until next week
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
@@Arkan_Fadhila Yup. As weird as it sound, F-35 + Gripen or F-16 or F-18 (slightly different advantages) create good High-Low combo. Rafale is best pick if you want have strictly singular platform.
@Robert-nz2qw
Жыл бұрын
Heavily underestimating the Gripen in most performances, not the least it’s radar “visibility”
@MrYaxalot
Жыл бұрын
I guarantee you even the first prototype su57 with all those panel gaps is magnitudes more “stealthy than a grippen
@Robert-nz2qw
Жыл бұрын
Good joke! HAHAHA!
@henrikg1388
Жыл бұрын
I would say that the worst underestimation is in the "offensive sensor" and "defensive aids" categories. Su-35, F-18 should definitively not be above in the first. Many other rankings are strange.
@WincyjWincyj
Жыл бұрын
FA-50 PL (block 20) will have: AESA Phantom Strike GaN radar AIM-120 AMRAAMs and AIM-9X Sniper Targeting Pod KGBB stand-off bomb (>100km) and maybe JSM Refuling system going to be affordable, light and advance multirole fighter.
@hackfleisch7424
Жыл бұрын
It is much more about politics as well as expected missions and adversaries than about pure capabilities. While the F35 is great for deep strike missions or against opponents of a high tech level, it would be a waste of money if you only need it for air policing or to fight insurgents. The Rafale is a great option for countries that want a capable jet but aren't on friendly terms with the USA. If you are, the F16 is arguably a cheaper option with similar capabilities. When you are on bad terms with the west in general, the chinese are the way to go even if russian jets might offer better price/performance on paper. They are the more reliable supplier, will likely offer better tech in the future and can help out with financing. Also, establishing better relations with the chinese is worth more than establishing better relations with russia.
@dbell1016
Жыл бұрын
I wish I could give this comment more than one thumbs up. I agree with it emphatically. China started out copying Russian designs, but they have definitely moved past that phase. Also, they're less likely to want to meddle with a country's internal politics, or ( gasp) try to bring democracy to them. The J-10 Is a very capable plane with a lot of growth potential. The latest version is an easy match for the f16c/d and possibly the grippen except for the austere field capability.
@tetraxis3011
Жыл бұрын
Quite wrong. While the Chinese equipment will come quickly, a lot of armed forces, for example Bolivia, have complained about spare parts taking too long or just never arriving.
@imjashingyou3461
Жыл бұрын
Hope your going to factor lifecycle cost instead of the rather poor cost per flight hour metric. Life cycle takes costs per flight hour and also includes the cost of support equipment, simulators, training, support personel, spare parts, ect. Its the whole package to support the plane.
@jonathanpfeffer3716
Жыл бұрын
However that is also quite variable depending on the receiving nation and what kind of preexisting infrastructure they already have, which is why you see such wildly variable unit costs.
@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko
Жыл бұрын
Rafale for high end multirole and Gripen for light multirole
@apolloaero
Жыл бұрын
F-35 for high end
@parodyclip36
Жыл бұрын
@@apolloaeroF35 barely even works
@apolloaero
Жыл бұрын
@@parodyclip36 funny how something that barely works routinely dominates all 4th and 4.5 gen aircraft
@parodyclip36
Жыл бұрын
@@apolloaero The thing has been in service 10 years and has crashed 10 times, mostly due to electronical failures. The F35 is far from being finished. It can outclass other planes in some scenarios and I would hope so considering the shit ton of money that went into it
@apolloaero
Жыл бұрын
@@parodyclip36 Su-57 has been in service for 2-3 years and has had 1 crash with only about 10 made. There's currently about 900 F-35s. Tell me which one has a higher failure rate. Better yet, compare the failure and crash rate to any 4th gen or 4.5 gen, and then come back. Also, your F-35 crash numbers are low, yet nowhere near the failure rate of Su-57. You'd need 90 F-35 crashes and failures to match Su-57 incompetence
@firstcynic92
Жыл бұрын
I'm surprised you didn't include maintenance in this. All these capabilities are useless if the plane is sitting in a hanger, broken.
@HolyOllie
Жыл бұрын
maybe i can treat myself this christmass on a brand new fighter jet
@ToTheNines87368
Жыл бұрын
Capability wise I really like the Rafale when it comes to 4th gen crafts. It can just do so much.
@stiglarsson8405
Жыл бұрын
You forgot to talk about wich plane could operate on road bases when all ones airbases have been nuked!
@joeblack5393
Жыл бұрын
Its a theoretical capability overstated by the Swedish marketing deparment. None of these airplanes can truly be operated from roads. Yes, you CAN retain usability of some of them from "austere enviroments" (read: take off / land refuel / rearm from highways) but this isnt really realistic beyond very short term. Longer you operate your airplane like this, more and more its technical resources will deteriorate. For example Soviet airplanes were designed to require very little in terms of runway quality and look how much Ukrainian Su-24 and Su-25 fleet has deteriorated in less than a year. If they werent given new airplanes they would have ran out of them 6 months ago.
@samuelsmitz6410
Жыл бұрын
@@joeblack5393 Sorry but get your fact straight, yor are clearly underestimating the gripen. The get maintained by an experience tech on the road as well. But yes, EVENTUALLY it needs a proper gothru but since it can land on all roads you still dont need an airfield to do it stupid. XD raise a tent and do it. XD
@stiglarsson8405
Жыл бұрын
@@joeblack5393 First I would like to say that I love your answer.. it hit the weak spot! In anyway in a Nato/Russia full out war.. every airbase gonna be nuked or Iskanderished on both sides! Then there is only swedish airforce/Hungarian and Chech republic that have any airforce left.. if we did dispere them in good time! You have to forgive me beeing swedish.. and our military doctrine as a non alliance country have to be sustainability! Befor our western friends have several conferenses about if they want to suport us.. kinda like in Ukraine! And we have applyed for NATO membership.. and we altso hope for US bases on our land, payd for by US taxpayers! In anyway.. I still think that NATO doctrines have a flaw, that of air supremacy.. its a WW2 doctrine.. count that Russia nuke all NATO airbases, at the first day! Then NATO mayby have a few airbases in UK, french colonies and in USA.. try to get air supremacy over Russia with that! Anyone that have anykind of flying assets at this time kinda is a winner.. if we dont get kild in a nuclear harmagedon!
@rowaystarco
Жыл бұрын
If your airbases have been nuked, I doubt getting those few remaining planes up in the air will be much of a priority. The world is probably fucked already then.
@artiefakt4402
Жыл бұрын
@@stiglarsson8405 1/ Russia is unlikely to destroy every airbase in Europe (through conventional means)... let alone carriers / amphibious assault ships. Especially since they will be heavily defended. 2/ In case of nuclear attack...Russia would be nuked as well ... so, what would the point be ?
@greenberret60
Жыл бұрын
JF-17 Blk 3 is operational btw
@mowabb
Жыл бұрын
1st: f-35 2nd: tie f-15ex, rafale, eurofighter 3rd: tie f-18, gripen, j-14 4th: f-16 The rest irrelevant
@kilianklaiber6367
Жыл бұрын
Except for the F-35, I largely agree... The F-35 is overpriced and overhyped.
@majesticface3631
Жыл бұрын
J14??? I disagree, basically anything not western is shit in your opinion but that isn’t true, that’s a western superiority complex that doesn’t take into account the real world, non-debatable capabilities of eastern aircraft. The j10c is an advanced aircraft, better than a f16 block 50, probably around the performance of a block 60 f16. Even the j15 b and d variant will be pretty capable with an aesa radar too. Jf17 is a smaller, light weight aircraft that isn’t toothless. Su35 is overhyped but it shouldn’t be dismissed. I believe it’s main issue is it’s pesa radar which makes it easy to jam. The ka 50 is still being developed so it’s unfair to include it, but it will be a decent light fighter in the future, with the apg 83 radar and aim 120 integration in the near future. Don’t let nationalism cloud yourself from objectivity
@kilianklaiber6367
Жыл бұрын
@@majesticface3631 the performance of the Russian air force in Ukraine has been very disappointing. I don't know what the Chinese have up their sleeve, so you may be correct in this regard
@rowaystarco
Жыл бұрын
@@kilianklaiber6367 It's not really overpriced, the price has gone down quite a lot and isn't much cheaper than the other European planes. It's also superior to them. The fact is that a lot of plane fans have been downplaying how good F-35 is.
@kilianklaiber6367
Жыл бұрын
@@rowaystarco Oh I doubt that very very much. The acquisition price is pure deceit. The cost of running the airplane is astronomical. Finally, "stealth" is overhyped and the F-35 is a one trick pony. Once it is unstealthed it has no chance of survival.
@andrewkinkel4773
Жыл бұрын
Okay I may be biased I live in fort Worth Texas home of the F-16 I'm going to go ahead and say that if you on a budget this is going to be your best plan
@inteallsviktigt
Жыл бұрын
If you're on a budget you can't beat the Gripen as its much cheaper and easier to maintain and robust
@Jugement
Жыл бұрын
Grippen is best on a budget. Its literally designed for that. Average perf in air superiority, but much cheaper to operate. Not efficient for high intensity conflicts and terrible for power projection, but a good deal for countries like Brazil who just need to police their airspace
@andersjjensen
Жыл бұрын
@@inteallsviktigt The Gripen is not strong in ground striking. The Gripen is strong in what Sweden felt it needed, and everything else has been traded for low expense per flight hour. OP is right, if you're on a budget and want an Swiss army knife with wings the F-16 is it. The F-35 will eventually become that (due to scale of production and continuous refinement). The latest Block 72/Viper upgrade even focuses on making it the ideal companion plane for the F-35, so countries with medium large budgets can go get a few F-35s but generally "fill the ranks" with F-16s.
@wesselgroenewegen59
Жыл бұрын
The F-35 has it's recon pod internalized.
@rowaystarco
Жыл бұрын
Honestly, it's probably the F35A. It's going to be the new F16, as many countries are adopting it. Even Finland is buying F35 now (even before joining NATO)
@Big_Red1
Жыл бұрын
And it is cheaper than some of its gen 4.5 counterparts like the Eurofighter and Rafael.
@Jugement
Жыл бұрын
@@Big_Red1 RafaLE. French for Burst/Gust. And no, the F35A is not cheaper nor strickly superior than the Rafale F4. The main dealbreakers were politics and proxy access to american nuclear weaponry
@almightybogza
Жыл бұрын
@@Jugement less than 80 mil for a f35. 101 mil for a t3 rafale and 124mil for a eurofighter. Numbers dont lie
@Jugement
Жыл бұрын
@@almightybogza _"Please note: Final prices for F-35 variants following adjustments for Congressional plus-ups and other contractual settlements are as follows: F-35A - $89.3M; F-35B - $115.5M; F-35C - $108.8M."_ From the Lockeed article listed as source by Wikipedia, and that has been deleted from their website since then _(only the Wiki Archive remains available)_ And that was in 2019 Now factor in the inflation using the calculator available on the US Departement Of Labor website, and you're at $108m for a F35A. Worst than Rafale and more expensive. The F35B II is arguably more capable overall, but much more expensive. Numbers dont lie *provided that they are accurate* Cheers
@Eagerwerewolf
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for posting the video, I was really confused which one to buy, now I have made my choice
@sonar357
Жыл бұрын
I think the FA50 was conceived not as a 'true' multirole fighter in the same class as an F16 or F18 but rather as a tactical, close air support fighter that can defend itself against low-altitude enemies (like the Su25 or enemy helicopters) while performing ground support strikes for front line forces. For proven performance I'd go with either F16 or F18, F35 if the country in question has a high enough GDP. For best 'bang for buck' but still very capable and relatively easy to maintain and upgrade I'd go with the JAS39, it's also got an 'unimproved' air strip capability allowing ti to easily use roads and highways.
@andersjjensen
Жыл бұрын
The F-16V still holds out nicely as the Swiss army knife of air planes.
@petter5721
Жыл бұрын
Ill go with the Gripen since it is fairly cheap and I can maintain it in my garage 👍🏻
@goodputin4324
Жыл бұрын
It's not cheap 😂
@jul1anuhd
Жыл бұрын
Hands down F-35 in almost all categories: Fighter jet with 2nd smallest radar cross section after the F-22 and the best sensors in any fighter jet. Best Aircraft for Air Superiority after the F-22 Best Aircraft in dogfights thanks to DAS (Distributed Aperture System) Can out-range any SAM ...
@Frozander
Жыл бұрын
Yeah basically. Sure it is expensive but it damn worth it.
@aimgorge
Жыл бұрын
Lol wtf 😂 F-35 is extremely poor at air superiority. Both R-37 and METEOR will outrange it. And in dogfight Rafale has proven better. DAS is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA system but still not as good.
@rick7424
Жыл бұрын
@@aimgorge What world do you live in? We have the Red Flag data.
@jul1anuhd
Жыл бұрын
@@aimgorge Firstly, comparing the R-37 and METEOR, which are air-to-air missiles, to a multi-role combat aircraft like the F-35 is like comparing apples and oranges. These are weapons that are used by fighter aircraft, not a measure of the aircraft's capabilities themselves. Speaking of capabilities, the APG-81 radar in an F-35 is a powerful tool in electronic warfare. It is designed to jam and suppress enemy air defenses more effectively than the RBE2 AESA radar of the Rafale. The APG-81 3rd generation AESA radar of the F-35 has 1676 transmit/receive (TR) modules, almost double the 838 TR modules of the Rafale's RBE2 AESA. This makes the APG-81 a more powerful and matured platform, making it harder to intercept due to its low probability of intercept (LPI) radar. In terms of detection and resolution, the APG-81 can detect targets faster than the RBE2 and can generate higher resolution SAR images for target identification, missile launches, vehicles, and intelligence gathering by generating 3D maps of the target area. The F-35 also boasts the AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which provides a comprehensive picture of the battlefield and maximum situational awareness for the pilot. This system can identify, monitor, analyze, and rapidly respond to potential threats using advanced avionics and sensors. It also detects and geo-locates electronic emitters, giving pilots the option to evade, engage, counter, or jam threats. As for the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) mentioned, it is not a copy of the Rafale's SPECTRA system. They are similar in concept, but the implementation and integration with other systems in the aircraft are quite different. The DAS system is one or more generations more advanced than SPECTRA in almost all areas. It also makes it possible to target and destroy enemy aircraft behind you. The Rafale has very good systems, but currently there is nothing that can compete with the F-35: its sensors, radar, sensor fusion, HMD and the integration of these systems. The goal of the F-35 is: I see all enemies but all enemies do not see me. The systems of the F-35 cannot be described on paper. To say that these systems of the F-35 are a copy would be like saying the first iPhone is a Nokia/Blackberry copy.
@aimgorge
Жыл бұрын
@@jul1anuhd LOL. I had a good laugh. First you can't tell the difference between "EW" and "EW defense" so the whole radar paragraph is a waste of time showing you have terrible reading comprehension. Secondly, AN/ASQ-239 is a copy of Rafale's SPECTRA. And yes weaponry has as much to do with a plane's capabilities as the radar it harbors, that's why Binkov is taking it into account. I had a good laugh, thank you.
@vasilikosolov
Жыл бұрын
FA50 already has a BVR capable variant, the Block 20
@Juel92
Жыл бұрын
Some planes are going to suffer from classified functions. For instance with the Gripen E they've heavily touted it's ECM capabilities but we have no way of knowing how effective they will turn out to be.
@billballbuster7186
Жыл бұрын
Its often the add-ons that make the deal, for instance when India bought Rafale it was because Eurofighter weapons could be politically restricted. While France offered a complete deal including weapons package. The Grippen also suffers because its armament is supplied by 3rd parties
@siadwarsame2045
Жыл бұрын
Yes, both Gripen and Euofighter have a third party restrictions for Export. only the French, US, and Russian fighters are able to export their fighters without a third party export restrictions. For example, Swedish Gripen has American power plant and Avionics, so if the Swedish government wants to export the Gripen they will need export license from the USA.
@adriantoye
Жыл бұрын
Its a very interesting topic and also a difficult list to compile with a lot of details to take into account. Perhaps another topic to discuss would be a list of the best carrier based fighters?
@scottstewart5784
Жыл бұрын
I'd buy 75 F-15 EXs with conformal tanks, and 25 F-35s.
@rick7424
Жыл бұрын
Those are divisible into squadron sizes... Did you just list numbers that would add up to 100?
@scottstewart5784
Жыл бұрын
@@rick7424 Yes i chose 100. The video said 10-100. My point was the rough distribution of each, but if you want to do more math to make my number more accurate - have at it, but please add a few spares of each.
@Hypernefelos
Жыл бұрын
Sure, if you can afford that. It's probably the most expensive option, out of all listed (more so than just 100 F-15EXs, because you don't save money on air fleet standardization).
@scottstewart5784
Жыл бұрын
@@Hypernefelos You do save money on standardization, you just don't maximize the way you would with only one plane. As for expense, it's a value proposition - that's the whole point of the series. And with the expected service life of the current F-15 EXs rolling off the assembly line, long term it's cost efficient.
@majormoolah5056
Жыл бұрын
One thing to consider for your next video: F-35 has a subscription model maintenance. US government does not own all the necessary intellectual property rights to maintain their own planes. At a certain point, they always have to call on Lockheed Martin for that. So the bill for maintaining F-35s is very very high and there is a very high risk of bottlenecks. US military is already saying the plane is too expensive and has a poor readiness level. You can easily verify this information as well.
@GraniteStateofMind
Жыл бұрын
This video reminded me how badass the F-15EX is
@MostlyPennyCat
Жыл бұрын
And next to it sits the Typhoon! Very impressive piece of kit.
@Itachi951000
Жыл бұрын
@@MostlyPennyCat Lol found the Brit. The Eurofighter has some better attributes going for it here and there, but the Rafale is the most potent multirole fighter hailing from Europe. And it is pretty evident on the market. The F-35 is the best fighter overall though.
@alluraambrose2978
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this information, on my way to the dealer now.
@patclark2186
Жыл бұрын
It looks to me like the F-15 EX is near the top of every list. But the Gripen with meteors is all most mid sized countries need and it's cheap too.
@TheRezro
Жыл бұрын
F-15 is specific. It make sense only for larger countries.
@MoonParkCello
Жыл бұрын
The newer variants of FA-50 will have AESA radar and bvr capabilities if I'm not mistaken. The plane is more of a light fighter/trainer, but still nice to see it included in the video.
@RichelieuUnlimited
Жыл бұрын
I‘d take EF T4 as it is the most capable of the bunch in BVR and as a platform still has a lot of potential for growth. To my knowledge it has the largest supersonic flight envelope, a low RCS and the best performing radar (range against stealth and 180 deg FOV). Only problem would be initial procurement cost, but that‘s mitigated over its service life. Then again I‘m likely biased.😅
@frankdamsy9715
Жыл бұрын
I think it's a bit unfair to put the FA50 on the list. The plane the light attack configuration of a supersonic trainer aircraft whereas every other plane on this list was a purpose built multirole fighter
@thebigone6071
Жыл бұрын
I think most countries will go for the newest variant of the F-16 or, if they have a bit more money, the F-15EX. Versatile, proven platforms that can perform multiple roles, are relatively easy to maintain, pilots are familiar with and have a plethora of spare parts, weapons and logistical support available.
@charlesbruggmann7909
Жыл бұрын
Nearly all of Europe has chosen the F35 - until FCAS becomes available.
@thebigone6071
Жыл бұрын
@@charlesbruggmann7909 I’m thinking of relatively small and poorer nations that aren’t going against top tier or near peer competitors.
@Kyle-kc8cw
Жыл бұрын
@@thebigone6071 Ahh, quite a number of them are currently going with "FA50 first and then F16 later" type of plan.
@pabcu2507
Жыл бұрын
Modern military’s of the axis powers (entire army, navy, Air Force, etc) assisting their ww2 counterparts (can be in the year 1940, 1941 or 1942)
@karakarakiri9568
Жыл бұрын
I dont really get how you can make the Typhoon T4 excellent in "offensive sensor capability", but Rafale F4 just "Good" when the Rafale beat the Eurofighter during multiples competitions in that regard. The Typhoon will receive a new AESA that it never had before, while the Rafale is already being fitting with second gen AESA and a Gan version is being developed (there is over a decade of experience and development separating both new AESA from typhoon and the rafale). We also know the EW suit of the is better on the Rafale than the Typhoon and is say to not only be passive but also have offensive capabilities. Also, the F-18E is supposed to be more advanced than the F-15EX regarding this matter. Having big raw numbers on a radar is not the only thing that matter and the F-18E radar is more advanced that the one of the F-15EX because they both are mean to fight in very different environments and missions. Rafale and F-18E are very close in that regard, while F-15EX and Typhoon are also very close. The F-18E and Rafale should be in Excellent, while the F-15EX and Typhoon should be in very good (maybe the F-15EX in excellent but i'm not certain it had an as good low altitude and EW warsuite as the F-18E). Again, it all come from the fact the first 2 have more versatility and complexe missions they are supposed to handle than the last 2 (lot of come from these first 2 being Navy planes, so pretty much supposed to do everything an airforce would do by using multiple different planes, hence the F-35 also being as much versatile).
@appa609
Жыл бұрын
Regarding the F/A-18E - F-15EX comparison, you are misinformed. The APG-82(v)1 uses exactly the same backend processing as the APG-79 but it has a bigger and more powerful emitter. It's literally a straight upgrade over the APG-79.
@christiaanjaneke3830
Жыл бұрын
What about 1 trillion paper planes?
@brulsmurf
Жыл бұрын
they got the smallest radar signature
@AChannelThatDoesNothing
Жыл бұрын
Let's hope Binkov gives an overall ranking for each plane next video.
@SeeLasSee
Жыл бұрын
F16 and done F35 if you can get them. Saab Grippen if you’re rural and basing them in a scattered style.
@gail_blue
Жыл бұрын
I'd factor in survivability of the pilot. And how easy it is to train on.
@soaringbumnm8374
Жыл бұрын
And maintenance
@huzaifarawat78
Жыл бұрын
@binkov's Battlegrounds if you are considering the most advanced & currently available version of each jet then you should put JF-17 block 3 instead of block 2. It is already in service & is a big leap in terms of capabilities over it's predecessor.
@СтеванСтаменић
Жыл бұрын
Yeah but he said the planes must have an export contract concluded, which the JF17 block 3, currently doesn't
@huzaifarawat78
Жыл бұрын
@@СтеванСтаменић You are right but Binkov is considering it a Chinese aircraft & not a Sino-Pak jet. By that logic, Pak's in service block 3s are Chinese exports. Even if we consider them as jointly produced between China & Pakistan, they are still available for exports and 2-3 countries are in talks to buy them.
@СтеванСтаменић
Жыл бұрын
@@huzaifarawat78 no, he said something like ,,but it hasn't been used outside of Pakistan, so it won't be included", not really sure word for word, still kinda sucks it wasn't included, as unlike the F22 or J20 which will never be exported, the JF17 block has a pretty good chance
@paul123ggggggggg
Жыл бұрын
@@huzaifarawat78 no one cares about pakistan or what they do or have.
@maryamhammad1451
Жыл бұрын
@@СтеванСтаменић "all plans will be consider in their advance but currently available variants" that what he said in the video and 10 block 3 variant have been rolled out about a year ago, I believe at this time more than 20 jf 17 block 3's have been produced for more than 2 years now
@Shoeg4zer
Жыл бұрын
Doesn't the EO/DAS system on the F35 essentially give it a built in recon pod?
@mikemontgomery2654
Жыл бұрын
I’d say so. By that metric, so does the Eurofighter. Eurofighter was the original platform DAS was meant for and saved the F-35 program.
@coreymoyers
Жыл бұрын
The F-16 was consistently underestimated in this comparison.
@hellenictech
Жыл бұрын
I believe air superiority will be a priority for my country (Greece). The land borders with turkey are short so we can easily defend. If we control the air then we partially control the soil. However a plethora of ground to air and ground to ground missiles is very important too. Missiles cost less and they don't need pilots. The solution for average powers is air superiority combined with lots of missiles and UAVs controlled by AI.
@TheHunterOfYharnam
Жыл бұрын
Greece has made an excellent choice combining f16V Rafales and f35s
@hellenictech
Жыл бұрын
@@TheHunterOfYharnam True!
@yourmomslover2288
Жыл бұрын
Your air superiority is already over since Kizilelma stealth Drone and TFX Kaan your pilots will fight against robot (Kizilelma) which can stand up against 10g and can do maneuvers which Pilots cant so as long as you have manned jets it doesnt matter which Plane you buy you will get smocked
@TheHunterOfYharnam
Жыл бұрын
@@yourmomslover2288 We are also starting to produce our own drones, we will aquire anti-drone systems and we are investing in electornical warfare. Also Rafales won't be even seen by the turkish side in time. Especially the f35. Turkish analysts know that Greece has invested the most in its airforce and that they can't win in the air. Thats why they beg the united states for f16s and britain for eurofighters. But if you ever get them it will be much much later than the conflict we will have. The west is backing Greece and turkey will make a greater mistake than russia if it attacks. The difference between Greece and turkey is much smaller and greece is in nato eu and has defensive alliances and close cooperation with some of the strongest states in the world and region. The air is in our favour and in the sea we are similar but we will also get an edge there. France will also send ships and fighters in a potential war. The overconfidence you turks have will be your ruin.
@mustafa8988
Жыл бұрын
Jf 17 blk 2 uses the aselsan targeting pod, it also has anti radiation missiles MAR 1/LD10 as well as Raad stealth cruise missile for nuclear strikes. Good effort though
@matthiasbecker5064
Жыл бұрын
2:40 Why do these shapes remind me of France and Germany... 🤔
@juliusseizure3039
Жыл бұрын
Considering that the USAs current foreign policy ensures the free movement of commerce at will and the already established precedent of assistance in aiding other nations that ask for help, and the technological superiority: i would say the best buy in weapons systems would be the Americans. They might not be as cheap as other nations but as long as you subscribe to an international rules based order set upon the notion of trade and peace you can get good weapons systems and assistance in maintaining them. If you play your cards right you can also find yourself in a defensive and economic pact with the USA which will bring your economy billions of dollars.
@Jugement
Жыл бұрын
Politics are indeed the dealbreaker most of the time. The US also provides proxy nuclear weaponry with remote fire control for NATO members buying F-35 The FCAS might tip the scale since a joint program involving the French might finally enable them to share their own nukes, but thats yet to see
@juliusseizure3039
Жыл бұрын
@Law you should probably reword that cause the United States maintains control over the ability to deploy all nuclear weaponry. The United States is a signatory of The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This means that while American nukes might be in other countries it maintains control over their use.
@Pyreax865
Жыл бұрын
As good as the F-15 is (it’s my favorite too), I’d have to go with the Gripen, they have good fighter capabilities, radar, and avionics. The Gripen is incredibly easy to maintain and it’s small too. F-16’s are also good small multirole fighters, but the Gripen is better for more disastrous scenarios.
@goodputin4324
Жыл бұрын
Nope 😂
@Pyreax865
Жыл бұрын
@@goodputin4324 honestly I changed my mind, F-15 all the way.
@eddgar-ce3md
Жыл бұрын
F35, there is currently no competition to that plane.
@Pyreax865
Жыл бұрын
@@eddgar-ce3md incredibly expensive however, but yes it is the ideal multirole fighter and it has stealth, my pick would be the F-15EX as of now.
@Pyreax865
Жыл бұрын
@@eddgar-ce3md compared to the F-22 it’s cheap, but still on the more expensive side compared to other fighters.
@bladeslicemaster5390
Жыл бұрын
I think it's either the F-15 or 16. The 15 ranks the highest in more categories than any other plane, but the 16 will be the lowest cost to operate.
@angelosasso1653
Жыл бұрын
Spamming different variants of the F/A-18 Hornet might be a good buy. Since it is good at almost anything and the different variants are tailored to their specific scenario, you only have to get parts and (maintenance) training for one aircraft. It can be used on aircraft carriers as well (was designed with that in mind). Unless one f*cks up with good old 'merica there will be an endless supply of spare parts and maintenance is not as costly as for example the Eurofighter. It is also significantly cheaper than F-35, Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter. Additionally there is almost no mission that can not be executed with F/A-18's only. Their frontal stealth is roughly comparable to the Eurofighter and the Prowler version of the F/A-18 can perform missions against radar protected areas in a different manner, than one would with a F-35. Maybe not as efficient but it should be possible. Of course this leaves out all the political and economical agendas, which is at least as important as raw firepower. Developing an even more expensive fighter jet with its own weapons is often the far better choice for a country than buying someone else's system. If you pay a foreign company to get you the latest tech, all the money goes to a foreign country, all the knowledge and infrastructure is improved outside your country. In the end you really lose money, knowledge and tech + you are more dependent on somebody else than otherwise. Which for example is the reason I believe, the Eurofighter despite its flaws and high costs is worth the effort and putting more money in domestic development is a good thing in this case. Or at least better than the alternative.
@paul123ggggggggg
Жыл бұрын
you complain about buying foreign but use the eurofruitcake fighter as an example, which is a cooperation of several nations, not one. and also about developing ones own aircraft industry, ask india how that is going for them. usa, china, russia, and france are the only nations that can produce home grown aircraft without assistance. and dont even mention the grippen as its 60% american with f18 engines.
@angelosasso1653
Жыл бұрын
@@paul123ggggggggg You are correct but EU countries often work hand in hand when it comes to the military and the Eurofighter is a corporation of 4 countries, which are not exactly sworn enemies (besides UK baking its own fruit cake). Of course Estonia won't be able to build a top notch fighter jet on its own for example. If the pressure is there and the participants are willing to work together it is certainly possible to get a good result. The Panavia Tornado is still flying as an example. Long story short: Not necessarily has the aircraft to be made in one country alone but it might not be a good idea to leave it the US, China and France alone.
@jeremybrowand5941
Жыл бұрын
Eh, some of the info doesn't track with what I've heard. You say the f16 would be better in a one circle fight than an f18. The f16 is a dominant rate (2 circle) fighter. The f18 would have better nose authority to cash in energy to point its nose at it's foe and fire a high off bore sight fox 2. Its a better one circle fighter. In terms of speed, endurance, and rate the f16 is definitely better. The f18 would also have a more rugged landing gear than the f16 if that's a factor.
@dr.j5642
Жыл бұрын
F35 has the most bang for your buck. I’d rather have one F35 than two Grippens.
@spicesmuggler2452
Жыл бұрын
And then you go bankrupt in a year due to maintenence costs 😂
@hisredrighthand5212
Жыл бұрын
I don't know, how good is an F35 without stealth? All Iris-T SLM batteries (40 of which are currently being built as the middle layer of ESSI, the European Sky Shield Initiative of 15 EU countries to build a joint air and missile defense system with focus on Russia) include the Hensoldt TwInvis passive radar that famously tracked two F-35 departing after a Berlin air show. Lockheed Martin clings to the fact that the planes had their radar reflectors on for civilian air traffic to be able to see them. But that's irrelevant to the way a passive radar like TwInvis works. However they might not have been able to track them were it not for the density of strong German and Polish FM radio emitters in the area, since TwInvis gets a (still very imprecise) read of the jet by analyzing waves of any spectrum to find an object that changes how those waves propagate. 🇩🇪 also recently bought 35 of them to continue in the nuclear sharing program, since 🇺🇸 has simply refused to license any other modern jet for the program, but after that Berlin Air Show incident, the Bundeswehr not only got cold feet regarding the F-35 - they also decided that the 6th gen FCAS project would have to have more than stealth to rely on when it came to establishing air superiority...
@bentuttle9170
11 ай бұрын
@hisredrighthand5212 no stealth fighter is going to fly into such an area without there being some degradation of transmitters. Stealth is more than "my plane doesn't show up", it's also having the ELINT capabilities on-board that support avoiding things that they know might cause them to be picked up. In addition, good luck getting a fire solution from that radar to actually work. Whatever radar that energizes to actually build a firing solution is gonna immediately light up on ELINT. In conclusion, cope and seethe.
@martinan22
Жыл бұрын
A defence is to protect the sovereignty of the small country. Buying American (or "Swedish" or Eurofighter or Korean) just make them even more subjugated and make them have even less sovereignty. Buying Chinese will have the same effect within a decade. Hence, only French and Russian designs should be considered. Because Russia is too weak to subjugate a small country by soft power. And France is even weaker than Russia and somewhat independent from USA and a famously dependable and loyal supplier.
@hisredrighthand5212
Жыл бұрын
For any 🇪🇺 country, buying a European jet means unrestricted access to spare parts, upgrades and European weapons. That's why 🇺🇸 at the time put a lot of effort into preventing the development of the Meteor. Without it's own alternative to AMRAAM, 🇺🇸 could have basically put an end sooner or later to any 🇪🇺 military endeavor it didn't like.
@unclejoeoakland
Жыл бұрын
If this was a crafts magazine, there would be an award for the absolute finest on market, best value for money, and Dave's pick- a contrarian and offbeat selection but always with a surprisingly good rationale.
@TroyHardingLit
Жыл бұрын
I notice the 'hypothetical' has now been officially dropped from the outro. A shame it had to come to where we are now.
@WorshipinIdols
Жыл бұрын
13:25 these numbers are wildly off. For instance the Su-35, which is a huge aircraft designed for long range intercept missions has a shorter ferry range then both the F-16V as well as the Gripen E, which is absurd and comically false. At the same time the F-15EX is on part with the same 2 aircraft as well as the typhoon and Rafale despite the fact that the F-15EX was designed as a long range strike variant of the already range and long range F-15, plus the fact that it’s been improved with superior new engines which are more fuel efficient.
@biodidu25
Жыл бұрын
A country with a need for a wide range of missions and an aircraft carrier capable aircraft would most likely go for the Rafale or the F-15ex A country with a small or non existent costal are would be better off with a Gripen, a Eurofighter or a F-16. And a country with a bigger emphasis on force projection and strong navy component would proba bly have a better package with the F-35 when the aircraft in itself will have matured.
@dfgdfg_
Жыл бұрын
You don't hear about the eurofighter much anymore, but it seems to rate pretty well here.
@msct6080
Жыл бұрын
Indeed, not badly rated at all. Seems like an actual decent choice. Now see how much it costs, also for the ammunition and how maintenance is on it as well as the soft data. (usage for the pilot, integration in the military system, etc.)
@dEcmircEd
Жыл бұрын
well it should tell you something... it was rated lowly by potential customers...
@simex185
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video, i am in a market for a multirole fighter jet rn. This video really helped me
Пікірлер: 1,7 М.