Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Could modern Russian military conquer Scandinavia?" video.

Nah, Grippen are good but not that good. In tests with say F-22 they last like seconds. Su-35 can hold its own against F-22. Grippen is similar to F-16 class. I.e. Grippen is by far no match for Su-57 and would be toast if it cannot win BVR vs. Su-35. So his list is spot on - Grippen in capable category same as F-16 and same as say MiG-35 (preferably with AESA) which is just renamed MiG-29M2. Its one notch above older stuff like Su-27 (not upgraded) and one notch under Su-35.
4
@ericmyrs Problem is that these 3 roads also mean you have 3 roads. Demined road with artillery can be used - its a clearing. What if you ignore the roads and simply... do not use them at all? Move small well armed groups to block any movement by Swedes, strike any command and control with missiles, and quickly grab massive amounts of terrain via special forces raids. Block any possible counter strikes by mining roads that Swedes need & you do not. Remove any masses of conscripts with drone tech. make sure no one knows anything using electronic warfare jamming of all communications. Today's war is not fought with lots of soldiers but with few. One gaiant forest is same obstacle to both sides. Modern war is not a charge of masses of tanks supported by masses of trucks over just 3 roads that enemy can block. BTW, 3 roads is not that bad - usually in Canada we have 1 road or 0. 0 == you fly.
2
@Luredreier show me single exercise that is realistic. Just one. Come on. Do you see one? Nope. So simulator it us. Also if grippen was so great it would have more sales to neutral countries.
2
@Luredreier So you buying some Su-30MKI - I heard the won some red flag exercises! Lets do this logically. Grippen radar is similar to F-16V. Missiles are similar. Maneuverability is similar as Grippen uses a delta and to help it out front canards but that cannot go to much over F-16. So even if Grippen is better then F-16V it is not by much. So what do we have 1 notch higher Rafale. Better radar, better by far maneuverability, better everything. Clearly a better plane. Grippen advantage is in price. It is cheap. I advocated Grippen for Poland as they could get 2x as many and get tech transfer and offset. I advocated Grippen for Canada for same reason plus Canada mostly uses its fighters for air policing and maybe bombing some terrorists. It is unlikley Grippen will face hard opposition. As for Poland it will take a while before Russia has plenty of Su-35s and Su-57 & Grippen is even with MiG-35 AESA (MiG has worse avionics but Grippen cannot dog fight it)., Besides Grippen is not so terrible that it cannot BVR play Su-35 and if it gets close just run. Vs. Su-57 it is toast but how many will russia ever have - 100 max. New Su-75 will not arrive for a while - at least in 100+ numbers. Grippen is cool but lets not over play the hand. As for pilot training the problem is not so much $ as it is # of pilots.
2
This makes it a repeat of WWII with modern weapons. What about a modern war? War with use of Russian special forces? War with use of rapid deployment? War with deep missile strikes at command centers? War with electronic warfare? Scandinavia would have no chance as they are too geared towards fighting WWIII as it was WWII. Tactics have changed. Large numbers of reservists are of little use. Mother nature may not help you as well as it used to - see Armenia.
1
Well, it is spot on. Grippen == F-16. Why would it be better then F-16V? Both have similar avionics and BVR / WVR capability. Also same category as MiG-29M2 aka MiG-35. Again similar avionics with F-16 having an edge in BVR and MiG in WVR.
1
You are too much into WWII style. Roads could be demined in seconds with artillery strike. Fortified positions eliminated with suicide drones / smart ammo. Troops could go around them through marshes. Etc.
1
@ericmyrs Scenario is 1:1 - they would not walk in the forest - they would simply deploy mostly via air small groups of special forces or airborne - like a company size max. They have 60k so its not a big deal. Now these especial forces job is to simply have some boots on the ground. Main push would be through use of modern tech, such as drone tech or smart ammo. Note if there are only 3 roads there is not much people living there - its not like there will be 1000s of troops to oppose. Besides, how would the opposing force get there - they have to fly as well! Yes it is not really a geo political goal for Russia and political price is too much for some forest - besides Soviets already got all they wanted during WWII. Even at the end of WWII Finland was not added to the Soyuz so they are safe as they simply do not matter enough. But if there was a need it would not be that hard mostly b/c Finnish preparations are way out of date - Fins are ready for repeat of WWII. Not for WWIII. Repeat of WWII with modern weapons could be Helsinki push that is rather easy to see. Here it all depends how well Fins are prepared but I doubt they would hold out. Russia may not be Soviet Union but it still has a punch and remember Fauda Gap in Germany was only defensible with Nukes against Soviet invasion - here we have 50km front. Russia is half of Soviet Union but so is the gap. On the other hand Finland is not half of NATO. We also should consider how would Scandinavians fight if after first week Finland is out of the war (more or less). Would they mostly go into defensive mode or try to meet Russians on the road in Finland? Knowing modern Sweden they may not fight too long due to internal weakness of the country, especially if Russian claim is they just want to "teach fins a lesson for winter war". I expect same performance from other 2 in the alliance.
1
Depends on versions. T-90M quite capable with good armor and good fire control - probably equivalent to around A6 standard or A6+. T-72BM3 (depending on sub variant) is similar to Leopard 2 A4 - maybe some very upgraded ones to A5. T-80s have not been upgraded too much - latest upgrade is "meh" and I do not see it much more then A4. T-14 in this would be like mythical A9 - if it delivers. Through I doubt this would be intense tank on tank conflict. Russia would use modern tech to quickly eliminate enemy opposition. Lots of movement would be in the air, or if on the ground through marshes etc. Most Leo would be destroyed through the air using smart ammunition. Scandinavian countries are too much geared for WWII while Russia is already in WWIII.
1
@Luredreier You can go and see its combat record in DCS. Standard F-16 like plane. I trust a simulator far more then exercises such as "red flag" or similar.
1
@LazyBastard675 If that was true we would see sales to neutrals. But we do not. Also Sweden does not have high tech.
1
@LazyBastard675 If that was true for everyone - hence I said Neutral - small countries would not sell arms - including lots that Sweden sells. Really? Grippen sales are public. I do not see big sales - it is not even close to anyone from France - supposedly superior aircraft cannot sell even through its cheaper. Its marketing hype only. Once it goes head to head in evaluations it falls short. It is only bought as a budget aircraft. Main strength of grippen is that it is cheap and there is full tech transfer. Look at what they are doing to Canada - I mean they practically offer it for free compared to F-35. No airforce that expects to fight has bought grippen - major customers such as India - which needs a light fighter - avoided it. Even when they were desperate and very low on $$$. India went with French. Supposedly inferior and far more expensive. Again Saab is offering it for next to nothing, sending unsolicitated bids with not just full tech transfer, but also huge offsets and investments. So why Grippen cannot win anything given that it is so good, so cheap, offers huge offsets unmatched by anyone? Even their good buddies Finds chose, inferior, according to you F-18. Now Fins are again aiming to replace F-18 and we have Grippen x2 - would not be shocked if it lost again. Even if you family does not want it, must be not that great. I only look at grippen as a mid capability low cost fighter whose main strength is its price to what you get ratio. For about 1/2 intial price of F-35 you get aircraft that can do 85% of what F-35 can, plus 25 year ownership is like 1/3. So billions saved. It is based on same principle as say MiG-29M - very cheap, mid performance, cheap maintenance.
1
@LazyBastard675 Grippen was an alternative to F-35 as per Saab marketing. So sure I can. You have a point with Fins but not with India, as Indian one was few years ago. They are re-running it again as 2.0.
1
@LazyBastard675 Sweden uses mostly US tech that is not secret for non NATO country to use in Grippen. It is simply not financially possible for Sweden to develop a lot of stuff on its own. They don't have billions and billions to do so. Thus they use off the shelf stuff. The ones that use marketing a LOT are Swedes which made every troll out there believe that Grippen is great yet it for some reason is hated by people that acutally buy it. Even I am for a grippen - on price alone. For Canada I advocate Grippen - as a less capable but cheaper alternative to latest F-16. Sure its less capable but so what, marginally only and for bombing terrorists its great. Canada will not fight a defensive war on its territory at least not without US support - so Grippen would be escorted by F-35s for bombing runs - which it is great at. US will have F-16s for a long time - so its not like Grippen will be junk in next 20 years. Yet at 1/2 price of F-35 and 1/3 operational cost and tech transfer and offset its real project cost is 1/4 of F-35. Same deal for Poland, except Poland actually believes it will fight Russia - so Grippen is not seen as capable in the air vs. latest Flankers or new Su-57 or upcoming stealthy light fighter. BUT only 32 F-35s without any offset would mean program that can get Poland for same cost 20 years down the line of around 80 grippens. That would give a large sortie ratio for Grippens vs. so few F-35s. No matter how good F-35 is it cannot clone itself. Besides poor air capability of grippen can be somehow managed with sensor synergy on local territory - i.e. Grippens would quickly die over Russia - but for defense only they may be OK. For Poland, more so then India, political factors can be said to play major role. For Canada, there is little pressure as compared to Poland - so one can expect a fair evaluation. If Grippen looses despite 4 times price advantage its not a good opinion.
1
@LazyBastard675 If you believe that Grippen is so good you are easily manipulated by marketing. It cannot be that good as it has basic off the shelf stuff. It badly looses to Eurofighter and to F-35. It also looses to latest F-16V in almost all aspects except for maybe dog fighting (which F-16 looses to MiG-29). There are plenty of others - i.e. Grippen is not that great. Its strengths are not its performance, but its price to performance. Same as T-90 MBT, it may not be great but for the price is the best selling tank in the world right now.
1
@LazyBastard675 Oh for sure it will be less - Canada has a lot of non US equipment and is totally fine with it. If it was so political Canada would have had F-35s by now. Also there was a lot of sanctions in air industry - this is the reason Canada did not buy anything US made. I know both countries very well, both from military and political side.
1
@LazyBastard675 Dude, red flag is a joke and marketing ploy. In it Su-30MKI owned F-22. I take DCS simulation over red flag any day. The off the shelf components are indeed from some of the fighters I am talking about BUT not the very best. Certainly it has no F-35 quality radar or same latest pods as Eurofighter has. Reason is they cannot be shipped easily to anyone. Even what it has was vetoed by UK so no sales to Argentina. No one will easily give you latest tech - you could not buy F-22 engines even if you were US friend and F-35 program is well vetted. Go back to you red flag where today one fighter wins 100 to 1 and tomorrow it looses 200:1. F-16 has better networking then Grippen NG as the system existed for some time now and has elements from F-35 and F-22 - it is better tested & far more $$$ was spent on it. All modern NATO fighters can use smart weapons. Certainly its RCS is no better then other 4.5 gen fighters and kind of lags behind full on 5th gen.
1
@LazyBastard675 feeling is mutual.
1
@jooger69 If they get to the number of 72 - they are in no hurry. Why? Su-35 does the role and does it cheaper & they do not need so many long range strike aircraft. Heck US has now less then 200 with no plans to have more & they are replacing them soon with 6th gen (already announced) and I bet total will be around 100 planes. So 72 for Russia is a huge number. What Russia will have is the equivalent to the F-35 - same as everyone else in large numbers. Only country that will have large number of Su-57 / F-22s is China - mostly b/c their capability dwarfs everyone else & I also bet they will soon get their F-35 equivalent. Notice a pattern yet?
1
@Hejhå-h2f LOL, the G limits are official data for many planes. We know actual G limits posted by actual manufacturer. And we know we don't have materials to go much above that anyways. We also know actual speeds of said aircraft. We know exact engine thrust etc.
1
Actually Finland with some exceptions is not that cold. It is warmer by far then Canada and Russia. At least where people live. Norway is down right tropical.
1
Same way you guys fought to the end against Germans?
1
He means non upgraded ones - old avionics. So on par with old F-16s / F-15s etc. But Grippens (new ) all have better avionics.
1
But we do not have WWII - we have modern war.
1