Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. 3:01 "They didn't do much during the war", that's just not correct. They didn't achieve much maybe. But do much? The border between Austria-Hungary and Italy was a bloody front just like the others. In some ways it was arguably worse.
    122
  2. 5:03 Some of the Gripen fighters belong in the excellent category I'd say, or at the very least the "very good" category. It depends on the exact Gripen model. But the newest ones should be more than a match for even the best Russian planes.
    46
  3. 5:23 That's part of the point with the Swedish planes and their tactics. Remember that they're not meant to be operated from actual normal airfields but rather improvised airfields. Possibly taking off from one then landing on another etc. So the Russians would kind of be playing wackamole... And the Swedes would be able to do surprise hit and run attacks with their fighters. Think of how difficult it can be to deal with shoot and scoot artillery units. Taking down and keeping down all of those improvised airfields in all of these countries would be quite a task...
    38
  4. +Primarch Alpharius This is about more then just the people living on the islands. It's also about the rights to the resources within the waters around the islands both fishing, oil drilling and mining rights as well as strategic importance and national pride for two nations. The only way to settle the issue long term is some kind of compromise from both sides. Sharing the islands is potentially one such solution.
    26
  5.  @tomk3732  DCS is a game and the performance there is irrelevant to how it performes in real life... Real life exercises actually uses the actual plane with its real capabilities unlike flawed simulations made by progrmers that does not have access to enough information to come even close to accurately simulate the plane. Looking at simulations and specifications you'd think that the 109 is a better plane then the 190 for instance losing information about things like how the 190 is designed to be less likely to lose controll due to combat damage because of electric powering of the control surfaces for it instance amoung a number of other features that makes it function better on a real life battlefield then statistics like top speed or service celling might suggest. The same kind of things applies here. The Grippen is easier to maintain and operate, has better situational awareness and electronic warfare capabilities and compatibility with more weapons systems and has lower drag then the F16. When not using the electronic warfare systems it might have a bigger signal then modern American fighters. But when those are active it's actually competitive. Being smaller reduces the signals to begin with, and with the electronic warfare systems and networking systems to these planes can have a advantage in situational awareness even against modern US fighters when used to its strengths unless the Americans have some tricks up their sleeves that they haven't used in the previously mentioned exercises. I'm not saying that the Grippen in a 1 v 1 is better than the modern US fighters, it's clearly not. But in a 10 vs 10 or more the Americans are not guaranteed a win and might end up with a pyrrhic victory if they do win the engagement with a modern fighter. A F16 would be clearly outclassed in a multiple Grippen vs multiple F16 engagement though. For offensive engagements the F22 or F35 might be better options in a advanced nation vs advanced nation engagement. But in a defensive engagement the Grippen might actually surprise you with its capabilities. And vs less advanced foes it's preferable due to its operating costs.
    16
  6.  @tomk3732  You know just as well as me that military sales are just as much about geopolitics as actual capabilities. As for realism. Like I said there's nothing realistic about simulations, especially not the ones made by private game companies. Military ones intended for exercises at least are somewhat realistic when it comes to the capabilities of their own planes but might be off about their opponents. You can only get so much intelligence from spies, satellites and other information channels. Exercises might not be perfect but they're still way better than any commercial games. And honestly I'm kind of shocked that you consider DCS a valid information source about the capabilities of modern fighter jets. It's approximations at best. And I very much doubt that DCS simulates the latest in electronic warfare technology even close to accurately. Maybe one day when everything is fully declassified it'll be another story. But not right now. Also, players do things in these games that's outlandish in real battle for the simple reason that in reality you only die *once*. That's another argument for the Grippen. A plane that's cheaper to operate equals more experienced pilots for the same amount of money. That experience difference matters in combat as a less experienced pilot simply can't push the plane or their own body quite as far as a experienced one can simply because they don't know how far they can go without "ending in a casket" (if there's enough left for one).
    15
  7. Where we watching the same video?!? Because as far as I can tell he predicted most factors involved correctly and was close to spot on. Yes, Ukraine holds more land then in his scenario, they've done well given the circumstances. But that doesn't change that his predictions pretty ended up being close to accurate. He was right about Russia targeting Kiev, about potentially taking the coast to link up with Transnistria, about the Ukrainian air force being no match for the Russian air force, about the west supplying intelligence and air defense assets to Ukraine, helping them contest their airspace despite their inferior air force. The insurgency activities, that Russia would be outnumbered in terms of number of troops with some combat experience etc. Some of the things he got wrong is things that pretty much all analyst did. Like that Russia would struggle with doing sead and dead missions against Ukraine. Or that the Russian and the Russian speaking population in Ukraine would be so much against the invasion as they where. Russia and quiet frankly the world expected far less unity from Ukraine, among other things.
    13
  8. 14:36 You might be right about the blue water navy situation. But both Sweden and Norway have a lot of island etc along the coast making it very difficult to deal with for any attacking force allowing smaller naval ships to launch surprise attacks from positions invisible to radars etc either at sea or on a different side of the various islands. Something that the Scandinavian countries have a lot of experience with. I believe that you are underestimating Scandinavian overall defensive capabilities.
    13
  9. They are. They have power generators and drone jammers on their tanks under the shed. The shed protects the generator and the jammer.
    11
  10. 6:35 Might be true for the planes we have here in Norway, or those of the Danes and Finns. But again, the Swedish ones are designed for that. Why would their effectiveness be impacted given the limited amount of gear and trained personnel required to operate them?
    11
  11. France is quite warlike. But Germany and Sweden has heavy restrictions on who may buy their weapons due to their pacifism, and that's hurting their sales in a similar way that US geopolitical and security restrictions on sale of US weapons hurts their sales. France doesn't have those restrictions. When buying Russian, Chinese or American you're essentially taking a side in the conflict between them. With european planes less so. But like I said, other than French weapons the rest of them often have many strings attached of their own.
    10
  12.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  That's just not how hacking works. You can't just sit down and hack these planes real time. If that's your plan you've already lost. No if they're going to be hacked then the work is going to have to be done prior to the war even starting. You need to hack the companies making the planes, get the specifications, the component lists etc. You need to find zero day vulnerabilities and craft a targeted program that can defeat these planes and either leave it dormant in the planes till you trigger it with a external trigger and hope that it won't be discovered. Or save it on the outside for a future attack where you run it, and just hope that they haven't patched out the vulnerabilities you count on to get in between getting the specifications and the start of the war. A small or big front really doesn't matter much in this context...
    10
  13.  @tomk3732  Even with a fixed number of pilots a cheaper plane allows you to train said pilots more at the same cost. The actual radar in the plane is mostly relevant over enemy territory. Grippen is designed for networking, communicating with both ground and air units for better situational awareness. And it's easy to upgrade due to its software design. As for Canada, I think a mixed Grippen and something else fleet would be best. Grippen has some range problems that might be problematic in parts of Canada, although they could offset that with more roads they might want something else to support their fleet further away from the coast. Also, did you ever see those pictures of the black holes made by combining data from multiple observatories? While not anywhere near that level the communication between the Grippen fighters means that their radar will work better with more of them than just one can.
    9
  14. The penguins don't need a nuclear war to improve their situation, they'd probably be more harmed then helped. I guess there's a chance that such a nuclear winter might help the polar bear though...
    8
  15. Regarding Finland being a part of Scandinavia. There's a difference between the terms Fenoscandia, Scandinavia and Nordic.
    8
  16. 9:50 Gripen E is supposed to be in the "small" category from what I understand. If it was the cannards dragging it down one tier that could make sense, but the Eurofighter has cannards too... 10:40 Gripen doesn't have as much thrust to weigh as some planes, but it has a low drag design. 10:57 Sorry, but the turn rate of the Gripen is incredibly high... How does it end up essentially as "average" here?!? 11:49 Sorry, but are you mixing up the Gripen E with its older variants? I get that it's not necessarily at the top of any of these categories, but come on... 12:36 Okey, at least Gripens capabilities isn't entirely ignored on this one. But given that it's essentially designed around electronic warfare instead of stealth... 12:52 This one was probably Norways main issue with the Gripen... We have large maritime territories to cover, and the Gripen doesn't have as good a combat range as the F35... :-/ (Interesting that he lists a longer ferry range?) 13:53 Okay, so you claim that the F35 and Gripen is basically equivalent in practical range? Interesting. I don't know if that's accurate, but definitely interesting.
    8
  17.  @rhodium1096  It's incredible how ignorant the alt right movement is about how the Scandinavian countries actually work and what state they're in... The alt right movement takes data entirely out of context to try to prove some point that's essentially a 180 compared to reality...
    7
  18. +Pieter van der zwaan No country wants to face China *alone*. While China would have the edge vs either India or Indonesia in a 1 v 1 fight, the two of them combined would have the edge vs China together... Also, the more countries gets involved the more other countries again might choose to get involved... And I suspect that on the whole that would favour India more then China...
    7
  19. No nukes wouldn't have lead to a invasion, Japan was already trying to offer a surrender. their only condition was to keep the Emperor, something they ended up getting anyway... So if the US had been willing to accept this conditional surrender with next to no strings attached they'd have saved a whole bunch of lives on both sides...
    7
  20. I suspect that you underestimated the Hungarians a bit. The Gripen is designed for defensive operations and can be operated on worse airfields and be maintained easier and cheaper. It will therefore probably be able to spend more time in the air over the battlefield. I agree that they probably can't push into Romania, but the overall air war might not turn out the way you expect. The tank battles might also be... Interesting... Local numerical superiority isn't necessarily required in a defensive battle. Israel was beating a significantly bigger tank force on the Golan heights. There's no reason why Hungary can't do the same if they choose their fights carefully. The overall outcome will probably not change much. But Romanian advance might be slower and might not reach as far in. Also, let's just say that these Romanian tanks are not the most capable in the world... Check the link at the bottom for reference. 4:10 Yeah, if you assume that the Gripen a are able to relocate faster and take down a few Romanian planes early on the fight could end up being surprisingly even. Remember that the Gripen has advanced electronic warfare capabilities. Not sure what exact Gripen variant they have, but it should be doing well compared to the planes it's facing regardless. On the tank side... https://youtu.be/ypm9bOoohnM
    7
  21. 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...
    7
  22. +Cesar Muroya Bombing cities is so effective at ending wars... -_- Just look at the British, they surrendered right away during the bombing of London... /sarcasm No, but seriously, you can bomb a city, but that really doesn't help much on its own in a war and often increase the will to fight instead of reducing it...
    6
  23. Some EU subs have enough of a technological edge to essentially be able to almost ignore US anti-sub assets and operate almost freely. They do have limited endurance though...
    6
  24. 2:08 Not exactly, they just wanted a conditional surrender, the main condition being something the US ended up doing anyway...
    6
  25. +Yuri Gagarin Britain might not have a chance against Spain on the Spanish mainland. But Melilla and Ceuta might be possible to take. Ceuta can then provide a helicopter base to attack Gibraltar from, and Melilla got an airport that can be used for the fighting in Gibraltrar. And both cities got ports that can be used for British warships.
    5
  26. +MrCastodian As already mentioned the Royal Navy is superior in its capabilities to their Spanish counterparts. Melilla can be cut off from Spain 100% by said navy, Ceuta is more difficult, but once Melilla is held It would be plausible I think. If cut off the troops already present there can be defeated. I'm not saying that it's easy, but it would be a possible jump off point to reclaim Gibraltar.
    5
  27. Because the Gripen is cheaper to operate day to day and handles battlefield conditions with dispersed maintenance etc better? All your airfields may be gone, most of your technicians dead, the enemy has air superiority etc yet you can keep the Gripen flying while the F35 would struggle without way more ground support.
    5
  28.  @kingmac6638  Look at the casuality numbers on that front and then say that again... Like seriously... The fighting there was absolutely brutal. Now on the achievement side of things I can agree. They didn't achieve much since the terrain favored defenders even more then the trenches on the western front did.
    4
  29. +MrCastodian Why do you think that the troops in Melilla would be superior to the British ones? This whole scenario hings on the assumtion that Gibraltar is attacked with little to no warning. If that's the case then Melilla would not have significant troop deployments yet and the Royal Navy would probably be able to stop any reinforcements from being moved to Melilla. Also, troops would be needed all along the Spanish coast to stop the UK from both invading Spain and stopping the UK from incursions, special ops missions etc. In short, troops would be tied up on the Spanish mainland for the most part. Also, any troops landing in Melilla would not be without air support, it just wouldn't be the full strength of the Royal Airforce. And the UK could do enough damage to the airfield to make landing fighters there a rather bad idea leaving Spain with the issue of not having fighters close by at a moments notice just like the UK. If the UK is able to surprise Spain they could get local air superiority for long enough to make the landing. And I doubt that such a small area would hold particularly long so the brits would probably be able to move their own fighters there fairly quickly. Basically the axioms you're stating that I don't believe to be the case is presence of significant Spanish forces. What's currently there is just these: Tabor Alhucemas I Tabor Rif II 1st Legion Tercio So three regiments... Or something along the line of 9 000-15 000 men. Since 2/3rds of that are local volunteers whose training is I suspect less rigid then their professional brethern from the Spanish mainland. So only 3 000- 5 000 troops that are high quality. I'm fairly sure that the UK can beat that. Especially if the regiments in question are on the smaller side of what a typical Spanish regiment tend to be. 3 000 professionals and 6 000 essentially "militia" should be easy enough to beat. 5 000 professionals and 10 000 "militia" on the other hand would be tougher, but not impossible to beat.
    4
  30. +MrCastodian Spain has little in access to spy satelites though while the UK has a decent number of them. So UK bombing would presumably be more efficient then the Spanish ones since they'd know what to target. And while you're right that the Spanish air defense is superior to the British ones the British ones does exist for one and the Spanish ones are not likely to stop the majority of those missiles. So I doubt Spain would end up with the upper hand if it comes to cruise missiles. As for Spain taking Gibraltar without too much trouble, you're right, they can. But in a long term war after such an action Britain would have plenty of options to make life difficult for Spain and retaking Gibraltar might even be possible even if it's not easy. With the help of locals (as well as probably many Spanish nationals who have worked in Gibraltar and might be inclined to want British controll over the area to continue) special ops attacks on the place would probably be possible after the Spanish occupation is started. And with Melilla and possibly Ceuta a proper landing and proper fighting would be possible. Britain might even manage to retake the most of Gibraltar before significant defenses can be put in place if the attack is surprising enough. Then Britain would just have to hold the ground they've made. Holding most of Gibraltar, all of Melilla and possibly Cauta or even the Canary Islands would give Britain a good negotiating position during the peace talks afterwards. Britain would probably regain Gibraltar. But I doubt they'd gain any territories... Don't get me wrong, Spain could probably make this costly for Britain. But there's no way that they'd give up Gibraltar, even if the costs are high.
    4
  31. +Johny Ricco China is not a superpower, at least not yet, and the US is slowly losing its status as a superpower even though it still is one. China does not have the capability of fighting an effective war far from their homeland. The US does (the reason they're still a superpower) but that capability is diminishing for a number of reasons. If the US and China where to fight a war then yes, strategic bombing would indeed play a role. In a war between India and China however, there's no way in hell that strategic bombing would play any role at all in any war lasting less then 6-7 years... The Himalayas just completely negates any material advantage on either side in any shorter wars... Now, if we where to imagine a war actually being faught for 10+ years then yes, strategic bombing might indeed play a role as it could potentially allow China to break out of the Himalayas and start invading the Indian subcontinent... But wearing down the Indian forces to a point where breaking through the Himalayas would be non-suicidal would take at least that long... And starting bombing strategic targets like factories in India would just be a waste of resources for any war expected to be shorter then that as the impact simply won't be noticable on the battlefield *at all*.
    4
  32.  @tomk3732  Grippen actually won vs the F35 in some exercises they've done together. I'm not aware of any between it and the F22. Can you share a link or something? I'd love to watch or read about it.
    4
  33. 6:10 Well, one of the arguments for the Gripen back when they where competing with the F35 here in Norway was that it was cheaper then the F16 in operating costs... So placing it above seems... Odd... That said, I never heard the actual sum. It was also originally cheaper to purchase then the F35, although the manufacturer claimed that the F35 would be cheaper, and it looks like they now have a similar purchase price at least... 7:42 I'll take your word for it. It was never a part of the open debate here in Norway. 9:20 It's disappointing to see the Gripen so far down, but given the claims in the previous video it's not surprising... There pretty much wasn't a single factor where it was placed where they probably should have been. It's far superior to the F15EX and for defensive war probably better then the Eurofighter. It's probably a bit weaker on the offense though... 10:10 Yeah, Gripen has fewer hard points, that makes the ground attack role less effective in some ways. Still it won't have to fly as far to reload. 12:26 It's not. The Gripen is severely underestimated here... It would be at the top of value and top 3 in performance if it was more accurately evaluated...
    3
  34. @Binkov's Battlegrounds Regarding the favoring of medium size satelites over large size ones. Remember that you can combine data from multiple satelites through the use of software to essentially get a higher resolution picture then what a single big satelite can create.
    3
  35.  @paulpeterson4216  Maybe long term you'd be right. But the UK was already sending equipment before US resources where relevant, and by the time Germany invaded Denmark and Norway the merchant navies of these nations (both fairly sizable) where added to the British war effort. Britain was more than capable of providing aid to Russia for quite some time into the war even without US involvement. However you're right, continued submarine attacks would probably take its tole and the UK might have been forced to reduce its aid down the line. But helping other nations in Europe with war materials is something that the UK has done through many wars through history. And would have taken place even without US involvement.
    3
  36. That sounds about right. Honestly Ukraine is doing surprisingly good, especially since neither they nor anyone else expected Belarus to allow Russian troops through.
    3
  37. The CV 90 allow you to flank enemies by using terrain that their tanks and IFVs can't traverse to surprise them. Terrain that the Bradley can't traverse.
    3
  38. I think you might be underestimating Russia slightly. Even with US help Russia could probably get troops and supplies through the ice using their ice breakers and establish a foothold in northern Canada. And the ice would offer some protection from NATOs navies since our fleets are seriously lacking in ice breakers.
    3
  39. Yeah, had forgotten about AUKUS. That is a factor.
    3
  40.  @kermittoad  I'm not Russian... There's plenty of them doing propaganda work too. But my point is rather that Americans constantly thinks their equipment is better then everyone elses, European, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Indian etc. And when tests show that this isn't true it's not learned till the US finds itself genuinely humiliated like with the Gotland class subs. And when other countries experience poor results with American equipment it's dismissed as poor usage of the equipment etc instead of acknowledging that it's not as great as Americans think. It's much the same as how Americans think that the US is the best place to live in when it most definitely is.
    3
  41.  @mattiasrolf1868  Yep, of course Russia would win eventually if we don't get help from outside the Nordic region. But people seriously underestimate how capable our militaries are at defense in our own terrain.
    3
  42. Side grade. In sufficient numbers the networking capabilities of the patriot makes it better, but in lower numbers... Not so much...
    3
  43.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Because the increase in capabilities that you get from networking far outstrips any and all disadvantages as the Swedes demonstrated when they started with this stuff. Your plane could be inferior in every other way and still come on top with networking because you end up with better situational awareness (and also you're less likely to be shot down by friendly fire, both from the ground and air)
    3
  44.  @DefaultProphet  He's right that it could happen, but I dissagree with him about the conclusion. The advantages of networking just are too big to ignore even with the added risks. It's simply worth taking the chance.
    3
  45.  @bigGullyV  You claim that no one else is close in capabilities, but have you actually been in the cockpit of European or Japanese top of the line planes and seen what they can do? Americans always seems to underestimate other countries capabilities and overestimate their own. Don't get me wrong, the F35s are impressive planes, but so is many others, and I doubt that they're sharing information about all of their capabilities with you even if you're allies. The latest generation Gripens are quite capable for instance with a focus on networking, avionics and electronic warfare, but they're still very reluctant to actually show anyone their true capabilities.
    3
  46.  @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.
    3
  47.  @xdas11  Eh. Stealth might be overrated. Yes, you need a way to counter enemy sensors, but there's more then one way to do that. Electronic warfare makes targeting you as difficult as if you're in a stealth plane, but it's way easier to upgrade your electronic warfare suit once it gets countered, sometimes all you need is just a software upgrade. While stealth requires you to research a completely new airframe and replace the old ones once they're countered. That's also part of why stealth planes aren't as available on the export market, you need to trust anyone you sell them too much more than a fighter that relies on electronic warfare suits for defense.
    3
  48.  @dr.j5642  Finland, Japan and South Korea are all within the US sphere of influence and relying on US aid in case of war. Their choices are likely as much or more geopoliticaly motivated then motivated by capabilities. Don't get me wrong, the F35 is capable. But those nations have a reason to overstate the capabilities of the F35 and downplay those of the others. For Japan the F35 might indeed be a better fit then say a Gripen. For Finland I'm convinced that a Gripen is better. For South Korea... I'm honestly not sure. It depends on the exact scenario playing out.
    3
  49. I wonder what the Ukrainian air force could do with some Gripens. Send some pilots and ground personell up to Sweden for training for a few months. And if we here in Europe fund some Gripens for them they'd have a air force able to counter the Russian air force fairly well, and make use of the Ukrainian countryside and its roads for bases. And it's not that expensive or complicated to operate.
    3
  50. You guys are dreaming...
    2
  51.  Libs Hate Montesquieu  Poland, maybe, Finland, not so much... Russia could take small pieces of Finland, but taking the whole country would require a pyrrhic victory so severe that it's essentially a loss.
    2
  52. +Bobby L It's in the interest of any nation in the world that's not landlocked that Gibraltar is held by as many countries as possible. And yeah, NATO would step in if that happend.
    2
  53. +Joaquin Andreu Their economy isn't in the greatest of shapes, but they're still doing better then Spain in this regard. In both cases significant forces can be fielded if the political will is strong enough, but that would have to happen at the cost of something else. The UK got significant military assets available but how long it'll take those to be ready for prime time is a open question.
    2
  54. +Krešimir Koržinek For the most part you're right. However I do think that Melilla is a plausible target, possibly even the Canary Islands. And in the case of Gibraltar that would actually be a partial British home field advantage as the citizens of that area are aligned with Britain. An attempt at retaking the area might be more plausible then any other part of Spain. And the area is small enough that Britain might achieve local numerical superiority, especaially since Spain would need to defend all of the country while Britain would be free to make use of most of their forces abroad due to the superiority of their navy. My idea is simply to take Melilla, use the airport there to try to gain local air superiority over Gibraltar. If Britain can regain Gibraltar, hold Melilla, move enough planes to those two airports and station enough forces in Gibraltar it would be quite difficult for Spain to recapture the area even if both sides would probably lose a lot of troops and materials... And while Spain can without doubt get local numerical superiority and rush Gibraltar a sufficient defense of that area probably won't be sustainable through a long term war as Spain also have other territories to defend.
    2
  55. +Badger0fDeath To be fair, the premis of this whole video was to limit everything to just Gibraltar...
    2
  56.  @w8stral  The UK merchant fleet wasn't the only one involved. For instance the Danish and Norwegian merchant fleets where both sizable, and where made available to the allied war effort.
    2
  57.  @paulpeterson4216  Maybe, but I suspect that the UK could have kept up the production of the merchant fleet to keep up with the losses if needed. No one had the ship building capacity of the UK back then. Even the US needed time to catch up. And even then at least initially could only do so by focusing on obsolete designs that could be built by unskilled labour. Look up the Emergency Shipbuilding Program for details. The war in Europe would have been won without US aid, although it would have been a long and drawn out war.
    2
  58. Seems fairly quiet so far...
    2
  59.  @cacogenicist  Not as bad as you seem to think. Remember that there's a information war going on. And for once Russia isn't the country winning that information war. Videos etc being shared is often edited to fit a narrative that suits one of the warring parties. Look up the video by the chieftain recently on the topic for a good example. Also, Ukraine isn't just using American anti-tank weapons, we've also sent many other ones.
    2
  60.  @Bustermachine  Exactly. Within the confinements of his scenario he has been fairly accurate. The weather for logistics was also better back then, with the current spring making the situation worse for the Russians.
    2
  61.  @dr.j5642  The Gripen is good for homeland defense regardless of political climate. But you're right that the F35 is a better offensive option. And having some offensive capabilities in your toolbox can be useful sometimes.
    2
  62.  @Back2Lobby334  The Gripen is a formidable opponent. In my view it's probably a better defensive option then the F35 for countries near a offensive enemy. But the F35 also allow you to fly over enemy airspace with less risk of being shot down due to its stealth capabilities. The stealth doesn't make the F35 invisible. But it makes its signature smaller, especially from some angles. Different planes have different advantages and drawbacks. The Gripen is a better frontline fighter since it can operate on short runways and is easier to repair. F35 is better for penetration of enemy airspace due to its stealth. Rafael has way more payload then either and is better for ground support in already secured airspace and also quite capable in a fight. In a war the F35, Rafael and Eurofighter would have to use bases further away from the frontline then the Gripen and fly in to help the fight there. That said, planes like the Rafael and F35 also has a longer range then the Gripen. That's part of why Norway picked the F35. Finland picking the F35 was probably more geopolitical then strictly capability motivated though. For Germany they need a weapon to carry the US nukes, replacing their aging fleet of American planes that already did that role. The Eurofighter and Gripen couldn't do that, so they'd need either the Rafael or a American fighter of some kind. Geopoliticaly the US is kind of preferable right now. After all, Germany don't want the US to relocate some of those military bases on German soil or rethink its military commitments to NATO like Trump suggested. Sure, Biden isn't saying anything of that sort, but we haven't forgotten Trump, and don't take US support for granted anymore.
    2
  63.  @dr.j5642  Eh, on home turf a airforce with the Gripen purchased for equal amount of money to the F35 would probably win defensive engagements. It's way more capable then you give it credit for. But you're right about the F35 being more offensive. It had longer range. And while its stealth still hasn't been fully countered it's probably safer over enemy airspace then the Gripen even though the Gripens formidable electronic warfare suit does make it harder to pinpoint then most people think.
    2
  64.  @lightningteam8560  Yes, it's a more defense oriented plane. But I still think people underestimate its offensive powers a little bit. You're right that a F35 is preferable over a Gripen for offensive operations, because of its stealth capabilities allowing it to penetrate deeper into enemy air defenses then the Gripen can easily do. And sure, having more hardpoints gives the Rafael more options in load out pr mission. But on the whole you can still seek out and destroy enemy air defenses with a Gripen, you can still engage enemy fighters. And bomb ground targets just fine. While bigger planes can stay in the air for longer and provide a lot of air support that way the Gripen can be stationed closer and be on the wing fast and support troops with a low response time that way. Not quite the same as holding air superiority and simple stay in the air over the troops in case they need it. But if you can't afford enough Rafael's to cover your needs then a fleet of Gripens isn't the worst idea in the world as you probably wouldn't be able to afford enough planes to have air superiority anyway. With Gripens they're cheap enough to operate that you maybe can afford decently trained pilots. And maybe enough of them to achieve local air superiority or carry out specific planned missions.
    2
  65. der kaiser Ukraine isn't a NATO member yet. As a result the US and other NATO countries might choose to stay out of the conflict. However I think Ukraine has joined the EU, no? Large nations like Germany has a interest in showing European strength even if the energy issues might discourage conflict with Russia.
    2
  66. The west kind of rely on India as a counter to China. While neither Russia nor India are a full ally to their respective sides in the US-China conflict both play a role for their respective sides geopolitical chances. Without India the west just doesn't have the population to truly counter China. Without Russia China would have problems. Russia provides China with support in international organizations, provide them with vital resources like oil and gas and gives China a relatively safe northern border allowing China to focus south and east. As for west of China, while they're rivals for power there they both play a much bigger role there then the west...
    2
  67.  @bbbb8301  It's kind of hard though. Because let's say that we reward Russia for invading Ukraine by giving them land. What's going to stop them from taking more later? I live in Norway. What if they invade us next? They'll probably stay away from our mainland due to NATO, but I wouldn't be surprised if they'll invade say Svalbard next... And to avoid a nuclear war the US might just claim that islands are different and refuse to accept a attack on Svalbard as a valid trigger for article 5... They've done that kind of things before... Going along with the Russian demands for land is just not a option, nor is it to take away the options of Ukraine to choose their own destiny. Only Ukraine can negotiate anything there. But for them that's also a issue. If they accept not joining NATO and/or the EU they risk ending up in this same situation again, without the protection that's being a NATO member gives... Russia signed a treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and freedom, and now they're walking back on that. What credibility does Russia have left? How can you negotiate with someone like that? Prior to Putin it was possible to negotiate with Russia. Even during the cold war. We did, despite being in NATO and we found compromises and shared solutions. But under Putin it's just not possible to trust Russia anymore. It's not possible to negotiate, because Putin has no remaining credibility.
    2
  68. Despite Norway being a NATO country and not a EU country I believe we're more likely to join the EU in a defensive war vs Russia then Sweden is.
    2
  69.  @isetbudsonfire  That's not necessarily as big of a problem as you might think. At least not with regards to Japan. As long as there's civilian roads left there's still western plans that can operate there providing some air cover while airstrips are being repaired (and if Sweden joins NATO then their Gripen would be perfect for that job).
    2
  70.  @deankruse2891  That really isn't the case. It's a good platform, no doubts about that, but "better than anything out there? Just no...
    2
  71.  @BertoxolusThePuzzled  Any war where these planes actual capabilities are tested is likely to have a significant death of satellites too... It's pretty much the first target in a war between the US/NATO and either China or Russia directly.
    2
  72. +-Juno- Strat Daddy Actually, it was done in real life, but not in modern combat. Back during WW2 it was used, something you'll actually see reflected somewhat in tank kill statistics etc. Mind you, them being used does not equal the tactic being successfull...
    2
  73. Well, technically Denmark and Sweden where arch enemies for the majority of their history with more wars between each-other then England and France. And for a huge chunk of that time Norway was in a personal union with Denmark sharing the same king, essentially being the same country in a lot of ways... As a result Norway and Sweden have fought a lot of wars with each other. Of course these days danes and norwegians only fight the swedes with jokes (and of course the swedes does the same) Prior to some UN lead wars in the nineties (I think?) Sweden hasn't taken part in any wars since the Norwegian independence from Sweden (and I don't think there was any before that either since Sweden fought Denmark-Norway during the Napoleonic wars... Anyway, the wars between Norway and Sweden after Denmark-Norway lost Norway where mostly stand offs with no real military activity and mostly just diplomacy with some military maneuvers included to back up the respective sides arguments with few or no causalities caused by enemy fire, although some died due to accidents... Of course I don't remember everything exactly so I won't say any of this under oath...
    1
  74. Eh, I think you're significantly underestimating the death tolls by a bomb strike. Also, Russia got better cyberwar capabilities and a more hardened infrastructure with regards to nuclear war. They got a ton of bunkers all around the country that would most likely survive such a war enabling them to keep fighting long after most of the US ones are gone. The US got some too of course, but I haven't really heard of all that many of them... So yeah...
    1
  75. I wonder how the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class would do against Russia... Not to mention the rest of our defenses... Our resources would have to do exceptionally well to counter the numerical superiority of Russia...
    1
  76. They don't need to accept anything. They're prioritizing other things right now. But the only lasting solution to the conflict is something involving concessions from both sides. This isn't just about what people on those islands feel. But also about things like fishing rights, mining rights, drilling rights and so one as well as the strategic importance of the islands and national pride for both nations.
    1
  77. Yes, that does sound about right. That said, Norway would probably have a tiny edge in winter combat in terms of mobility due to skiing being a slightly more popular sport in Norway then in Sweden making the Norwegian soldiers just that tiny bit quicker on average while more of the Swedish troops would be an urban population not really that used to skiing. Also, Norways main sources of income are oil platforms that's quite distant from Sweden, I'm guessing that the distance would make it harder for Sweden to significantly harm the Norwegian economy then the other way around, especially since a war between the two nations would disrupt trade going to and from Sweden by sea due to the nations location. And add to that the economic damage from losing Norway as a trade partner in the first place... Honestly while Sweden might have a bigger population I do think Norways economy would be able to be able to counteract much of the advantage of the Swedish population in a long drawn out war of attrition. Sweden would simply run out of money for new equipment long before Norway would leading to Norway getting more and more of an relative equipment advantage the longer such a war would last. My guess is that such a war would end in a stale mate.
    1
  78. Don't hold your breath...
    1
  79.  @jukeseyable  It's not a "stealth" plane. It can be as hard to detect its actual position as a stealth plane, but only when the electronic warfare systems etc are actually active. A stealth plane has the advantage of being hard to detect through passive means. Gripen has a low signature, but unlike a true stealth plane it doesn't have next to non. An enemy won't have a clue about where it actually is, but they'll know for sure that there's something there, unlike with the F35 or F22. But yes, they can get eerily close before their position can be pinned down. Because they can use two planes to completely hide the position of a third one in the chaos of electromagnetic signals they create. But the presence of said signal are undeniable. It's just making sense of them that's damned near impossible. Or in other words, if Sweden where to send Gripens in over Russia the Russian airforce would definitely know that there's foreign military planes of some kind in the air above their territory. The just wouldn't know where or get a radar lock once visually located. So they'd definitely be on high alert even before the strike. In contrast a F35 or F22 striking a enemy would initially not alert that enemy at all. If the US where to dona first strike against Sweden without declaring a war they would have a advantage with their stealth fighters because of that. However they'd also struggle with pinning down the Swedish airforce. 1 vs 1 the F35 is a better plane because of that. However pr dollar spent through the lifetime of the plane on maintenance, training etc I ndo think that a similar amount of money spent on each would be awfully close if Sweden was defending in a theoretical situation with equal funding for each side... Of course the US has insane funding... And a single aircraft carrier of theirs visiting us here in Norway was more powerful then our entire airforce... So there's that... But yeah, promote the capabilities it does have, don't pretend like it has some it doesn't.
    1
  80.  @SerbanOprescu  A modern war with modern fighters would be challenging for all participating nations. The Eurofighter, Gripen, F35 and F22 are all extremely capable planes. Thankfully we're all on the same side...
    1
  81.  @jukeseyable  True. The numbers used by Binkov would actually make sense if he was comparing the A variant. It would probably score even lower to be honest... But the E variant is truly a beast able to compete with the best of them.
    1
  82.  @SerbanOprescu  Yes, fingers crossed that we'll all stay at peace. Looking at Ukraine is a eerie reminder of just how horrible a war actually is, also for civilians... And it would be terrifying to live through that...
    1
  83.  @SerbanOprescu  Yep, electronic warfare isn't perfect. Nor is stealth. Gripen vs F35s would have many casualities among the pilots on both sides regardless of the final outcome...
    1
  84.  @SerbanOprescu  Close to "them"? And yeah, war is definitely hell... And not something I'd wish on anyone...
    1
  85.  @SerbanOprescu  What parties do you have in mind here?
    1
  86. 3:11 Um, why would you say that the Austrian planes are better? The Gripen seem pretty equal to the Typhoon to me at least each have some advantages and dissadvantages vs the other.
    1
  87. Hum, where have you heard that the Typhoon is more manuverable? The Gripen can land on a smaller airfield then the Typhoon, it can the rearmed by a team of only one technical and 6 conscripts (vs 10 specialists for the Typhoon) meaning that it can just land on a road in the middle of nowhere and as long as there's a single technican there and equipment/ammunition it can take off after 10 minutes from the same road. Defensivly that means that if some Typhoons flys in over land you controll you could potentially have a Gripen take off behind them and ambush them from the middle of nowhere with next to no time for the Typhoons to react. The Gripen has a radar with a wider field of view then any other plane radar I'm aware off and it can provide guidance to a rocket while facing the other way and flying away from the engagement if needed giving it shoot and scot options. It has a longer range then the Typhoon without fuel tanks with better fuel economy according to most of the sources I've read, although they seem a bit conflicting to be honest. With fuel tanks the Typhoon retakes the lead in range (it simply has more hardpoints...) If the engine is damaged and needs to be replaced you can replace the one in the Grifen in 45 minutes, the Typhoon? Not so much... From what I've heard the Gripen is also slightly faster to turn at least at some speeds then the Typhoon. And the Gripen has also been designed to make component upgrades very easy and cost effective making it more likely to be up to date (not to mention that it's cheaper both to purchase and to fly missions in). But yeah, they're generally very close in performance, and with way more hardpoints the Typhoon is more hard-hitting.
    1
  88. +Lukas Longus I'll conceed the speed advantage of the Typhoon, the manuverability however is a different matter. They both pull about 9 G at the most, but the instant turn rate of the Gripen is just a tiny bit faster as far as I can tell. Can you provide a source where the two has actually gone up against eachother stating otherwise, something that's not just musing of some kind by people on youtube? =) I guess the Hungarian Gripens might need a avionics update... I honestly don't know what upgrades they have or don't have over there...
    1
  89.  @EGE3101  Don't underestimate Russia. But I do agree that it's more effort then it's worth. But if Russia genuinely decided to do it they would be capable of it.
    1
  90. 1:46 I'm pretty sure that it's not "fordon"
    1
  91. + @davidegaruti2582  and +Klobi for President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland Basically the Swizz don't have the insanity that is the US system of gun laws... Unlike in the US a gun can't be sold to someone without a carrying permit when sold by a private individuals (people other then stores) meaning that the goverment can actually enforce that crazies and criminals don't get access to guns. Also, the types of weapons available to citizens is limited to the less lethal variants. For instance the army weapon has to be converted to a fully automatic to a semi-automatic weapon after the end of the service. And guns can't be transported in public without a good reason (I don't know for sure if they have a provision where the police is able to and required to check the justification for a weapon being moved when they observe one like they are in my own country but it sounds like they are given the information I've seen so far). But yes, weapons are quite frequent in Swizerland. More then common enough to make invading the country a real pain in the bottom...
    1
  92. + @davidegaruti2582  An armed civilian population don't really contribute to defense. What it actually does is just increase the number of attackers as you'll be fighting of armed factions on top of the invading enemy... They're really only usefull when they're a part of a goverment run militia that have some form of control of the weapons...
    1
  93. What about using such a war to take Ceuta and using that as a launching base to support the fighting in Gibraltar? While Spain can easily provide enough supplies to troops fighting in Gibraltar they'll probably struggle with Cauta if Britain sets their minds to it. Taking Cauta Britain would get a local base for helicopters, warships, infantery and supplies. And Melilla can also be invaded to provide a local airport allowing them to get most of their airforce into the air if needed. They'll have to fly a lot of fuel to Melilla and then store it there for a bigger push later on. But they could potentially get most of their own airforce into the air all at once and do a large scale air invasion of Gibraltrar then provide heavy weapons by ships afterwards when they're ready for more traditional warfare. A lot of supplies would probably have to be taken all the way around Africa and through the Suez channel. But Britain could spend some time to prepare the attack in Melilla.
    1
  94. +MrCastodian  "First of all, Melilla are defended by several units. 1 Armoured group. 1 Spanish Legion Regiment. 1 Infantry Regiment. 1 Artillery group 1 Air defence group. 1 Engineer battalion. 1 logistic group." Where is your source of that? Because all I've see documentation for as permanent garrisons there is 9 -15 000 mainly infantery. I'm sure that air forces and tanks are frequently based there to support operations in North Africa, but I haven't seen any documentation of them actually being permanently based there. "This forces have heavier equipment and they are more numerical then all the forces U.K. can land in Melilla. U.K. do not have the landing capability to send more then 3-4000 troops, and to send them to Melilla would take a LONG time, all the way around Africa in to suez. It’s not like U.K. have a landing force near by." Also remember that if Spain is at war those troops might be needed on the mainland. And yes, you're right, the UK troops would have to be moved around Suez, that is my assumtion too. "You say that UK would block the path, but how? U.K. do not have a fleet in the Mediterranean sea, you have 1 ship, an that stop the Spanish Navy from sending reinforcement ? Obviously not." They don't need all that many troops nearby. The UK often have flees in the Mediterranenan sea and it varies how many they deploy there. In case of a war with Spain they'd have to send more via Suez but that shouldn't be a problem. They have bases further east in the Mediterranean sea that they can use for their ships as a base of operation. It's too far away for their air force to support from there but they can use their aircraft carrier with Harriers (and potentially buy and use F-35s on it if needed) They certainly have plenty of anti-air capability on their navy, while they won't be able to hold the Spanish airforce at bay long term they can do short term support of a surprise landing force and pose a significant risk to the fighters that Spain can scramble there at short notice. Remember, the UK don't need permanent air superiority, just local air superiority to support troops there while landing. If they're to capture the place they can then dig in and the anti-air capabilities of their ships becomes a more viable defense against the Spanish airforce and navy in the sense that the goal don't need to be to keep fighters and ground attackers at bay as much as just keeping paratroopers and other transport planes and ships at bay so Spain can't retake the those areas. "So, they can reinforce Melilla from mainland Spain, the closest base are 170 km distance, and that is the Spanish Legion Armoured Brigade and they can be transported by ferry faster then U.K. can send forces to cut the way to Melilla, and they are in no way any pushovers." Yes, if Spain is aware of the UK plan to take those areas they'd be able to send forces over faster then the UK would be able to react. But that is a big if. The UK does have other bases in the Mediterranian so deployment of UK troops through the Suez canal can't really be easily interprented. It could be intended as a invasion of the Spanish mainland in the northeast for instance in support of a landing in the northwest to cut off Spanish forces defending the coast. It could be a diversion to pull forces away from the northwestern coast before a operation there etc... Yes, I know just as much as you do that the UK wouldn't be able to take and hold a bridgehead on the Spanish mainland at all. But that doesn't mean that Spain can afford to not react to the *possibility*. Because the only thing that does make it impossible is said reactions. The UK would be able to bide their time. They have more spy satelittes, and probably more actual spies in both Spain, Gibraltar and possibly also Melilla etc too. Frequent raids against the Spanish mainland doing damage but always pulling back before the attacking troops get too harmed could help pull troops away from Mellila as Spain would need as many troops as possible on the mainland. Sooner or later a situation would form where those islands are weak, and if not then the Spanish mainland will probably have plenty of temporary weaknesses. "And you say they need forces all over to protect the shores, but they do not, if it was USA they would, but not U.K., you have 5 landing ships, max capacity is about 3-4000 troops, so really no fear of an invasion, that amount of troops without air support wouldn’t stand a chance invading my Spain." "3-4 000" to begin with, if there's not troops all over then those could then create a bridge head where regular transport ships (that all costal countries have thousands of) can operate and transport in essentially the whole UK army. Yes, Spain can easily crush those 3-4 000 troops, but that's not the point, Spain has to be ready to crush those 3-4 000 troops everywhere at all times fast enough to stop the UK from moving in more troops with regular shipping. And the UK could use a hit and run approach with those 3-4 000 landing ships too and build more landing ships while doing so. Frequently attacking random parts of the Spanish coastline, doing as much damage as they can then withdrawing before Spain can deploy enough troops to crush them. Sending in special operation forces at night to sneak past Spanish defenses and move into the mainland to prepare an attack from behind on a new location etc. Won't be easy at all, but it can be done. "And no, you would not have air support, you have a carrier, not fighters to deploy on them, even Spain have more carrier fighters then U.K.." Yes and no. They got Harriers and they could buy a few vtol capable F-35s midwar for anti-air duty to protect the harriers and helicopters, it would take the Spanish airforce a little bit of time to get there and the British navy could intercept quite a bit of their fighters with anti-air missiles. And while the harrier is inferior to the fighters that Spain can field between local superiority of harriers, helicopters and ship based anti-air missiles they could take and hold local air superiority for a little while as Spain would have to scramble and group up a large enough fighter force to take them down even after losses from the ship based anti-air missiles before they can move in to attack. Don't get me wrong, once they do it'll be a massacre in the air. But for a short while they could hold local air supperiority and support the troops on the ground. "And the “local volunteers” in Melilla, are no militia...They are highly trained forces, exactly as the rest of the Spanish army, same training, same equipment and they are just like the rest of Spanish army professional soldiers, they are local by the name, just like U.K. regiment have names from different areas, like the scotch guards." "Scots Guards" as they're from Scotland and not just a group of raving alcoholics ("Scotch" is a drink). But fair enough, if you say so. Do you have any documentation on what kind of equipment they have? "Most people here missing that U.K. do not have an significant landing capability, 5 ships, that’s all, and the Royal Marines are light infantry, grate soldiers, but they can’t land in a territory controlled by an superior enemy force without a massive air superiority, it’s not militarily possible to do." True, but they can get air support for a short while, and if they can take the harbor then regular transport ships can be used to deliver the rest. Also, while the landing crafts probably do most of the job don't forget that those are not the only ships that can be used to land some forces. For instance we here in Norway practice deploying troops from submarines underwater. Yes, fine, I admit that the number of troops that's trained well enough to do so is small, but it can be done, and the UK certainly have plenty of submarines that can do just that and probably a fair share of troops trained to do that kind of things compared to us here to the north, especially if they draft people who might otherwise have retired. Also even regular ships can land a small number of forces with things like Inflatable boats. The UK would easily be able to use that kind of impromptu approach to significantly boost their landing capabilities if needed for an attack like that. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would work. They can use the remaining L9A1 51 mm light mortars and the new M6 mortars with their infantery. And the AT4 and MBT LAW can be used vs the tanks. And there's plenty of other anti-tank weapons on the market that can be purchased fairly quickly and cheaply at a relativly low cost. For instance the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle would probably be quite usefull for such a landing as it can be used against both tanks, armored vehicles and personell, is reusable and if needed can be used as a rocket launcher with the rocket boosted projectiles for a effective range of up to 1 km against stationary targets (although 3-500 m is optimal vs tanks etc). Granted, the very newest tanks out there probably can't be taken out with the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, but if you take out the infantery supporting those tanks you can get close enough to finish them off with other weapons. Training to use such a rifle wouldn't take all that long time, and could easily be done within the scope of such a war. Listen, I'm really not saying that something like this would be easy to pull off, or that it can be done without significant casualities. But I do believe that it is possible to pull off. Extremely difficult, yes. But possible.
    1
  95. +Guaire Fernandez Amil  Most Catalonians didn't want independence before the Spanish central goverment went overboard... Now they do however because of Spanish actions...
    1
  96. +si68  First of all NATO. Either Spain or the UK attacking the other would bring down the wrath of the whole alliance on the agressor including the US... Secondly the economic, political and diplomatic cost would be *huge*... No, a invasion is impossible in the current political enviroment. Spain does maintain its claim on Gibraltar though meaning that if the situation ever changes they'll have a plausible causus belli for an attack.
    1
  97. +Johnny  When have NATO faught? "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." That's the exact formulation in the treaty. Neither side can safely attack the other without risking being on the recieving side of the wrath of NATO. Granted the treaty doesn't specifically state what actions NATO need to take, but it's assumed that it in most cases would involve a war vs the agressor even if the agressor is another NATO member.
    1
  98.  @w8stral  Eh, not exactly small. Denmark and Norway both stayed neutral in most European conflicts since the Napoleonic wars and traded with all sides, growing our merchant fleets and wealth. We helped supply the UK and France during the Crimean war for instance. Profited from WW1. Submarines and mines of course took their toll. But our merchant fleet was still big. And had been for a long time. Combined it had always been a concern for Great Britain. The reason the UK attacked Denmark-Norway during the Napoleonic wars was concerns about our merchant fleet being used to transport troops more than it was abou our actual navy helping Napoleon, although that of course did play a part too in motivating the preemptive strike. Neither Denmark nor Norway could compare with the UK alone, but combined our merchant navy was significant. And we wheren't alone. The Dutch navy and merchant fleet as well as the navies and merchant fleets of pretty much every other European nation invaded by Germany ended up supporting the allied war efforts. Greek merchant ships, many French ones, fleets from the Balkans, Belgians, etc, etc... It all adds up.
    1
  99.  @waelomar7065  Not doing so would also have lost Britain its empire. The European continent as a whole would always be more powerful than the UK, the country stayed on top in part by always helping the underdogs against the biggest powers on land in order to ensure a balance of power where the UK could maintain its influence.
    1
  100.  @w0mblemania  Remember when Sweden sunk a US carrier in wargames, not just once or twice but repeatedly? Don't get me wrong. It has limitations, and wouldn't be able to strike US soil due to lack of endurance. But for the defensive capabilities it's designed for, it would definitely be a serious concern for the US.
    1
  101. +Johny Ricco Neither side are likely to want to keep a war going long enough for strategic bombing of anything not very close to the front to have any effect at all... Sure China could theoretically launch missiles at a city or some such, but what would they gain? No, the only use of strategic bombing would be locally in or near the Himalayas, distrupting supply lines etc.
    1
  102.  @Bustermachine  Including Belarus would complicate matters. His analysis of wars is always is based on a scenario without allies, moral etc.
    1
  103. A sound assessment. Norways assets would probably be focused on the Norwegian coast though to prevent a Soviet landing... Not that we'd have much of a chance of keeping them from taking Northern Norway anyway...
    1
  104. Fun but a little silly. :-P
    1
  105. Given Ukrains situation I'd actually say that the Gripen is a better option. If someone where to intervene from the outside however then the Rafael or F35 would do a great job. The Rafael has a bigger potential payload then the competitors, and the F35 has its stealth. Each of those has its advantages and drawbacks.
    1
  106.  @karenrompis6989  With that many islands a plane like the Gripen wouldn't be suitable as you'll want more range to cover all that airspace over the sea. For Ukraine... If they had the Gripen prior to the war then the Gripen would probably have performed better. But as is giving them any Gripens would be wasted as they don't have anyone trained to utilize its advantages.
    1
  107.  @devilish2136  Drones and drones are very different things.
    1
  108.  @karenrompis6989  And my point is that if you are thinking about either a expensive fighter capable of defending your troops and civilians but that you might not be able to afford or just a drone that's mostly a offensive weapon/surveillance tool but that's cheap then the drone still isn't the solution and you need to look at third options, Gripen being one of the more capable budget options.
    1
  109. + @rileyhawkins5577  Hum, that is indeed more then I was aware of.
    1
  110. + @stepanfedun9122  The point there is that it would give Russia a foothold that the US and Canada would not be able to easily dislodge. A foothold that could potentially be used for further advances or at least as a bargaining chip down the road. It could also help get the support of other powers. For instance if China saw a proper foothold in northern Canada they might choose to move their own troops and ships over in secret to begin an invasion themselves. The west coast isn't really viable due to the rookies. Also, it's too close to the US. The east coast would involve going past too many European nations.
    1
  111. You're optimistic. Americans always tends to overestimate their own equipments capabilities...
    1
  112.  @anchorread68  Jeah, I was also thinking about the JDAMs as that's fairly recent news. Running out of ammunition isn't necessarily a flaw, but it's one of many considerations you have to take when picking a weapon.
    1
  113.  @ReMembrane  Pretty much...
    1
  114.  @Back2Lobby334  What do you mean?
    1
  115.  @PG-3462  The Gripen E was designed recently and has new engines, sensors etc. Also the F35 started development in the late eighties early nineties. There's not nearly enough new knowledge that has been discovered since back then about materials or other tech to invalidate the Gripen design as being state of the art. It was designed using a forward thinking approach and with ease of upgrading.
    1
  116.  @PG-3462  2) Okey fair. That said, Sweden was offering to start production of parts in Canada and had made deals with the local Canadian aircraft industry, a industry that used to be fairly advanced...
    1
  117.  @PG-3462  3) Fair enough. Although I believe it's a bit more nuanced then that.
    1
  118.  @PG-3462  That said, I suspect the biggest deciding factor was the range... Canada is big. And there's not that many roads or airstrips in certain parts. A longer range fighter might be useful.
    1
  119.  @didierlemoine6771  Gripen has taken part in combat, just not against enemy planes. As for the F35. It hasn't faced any modern fighters yet. So if your definition of combat proven is combat with another fighter then it hasn't proven anything more than the Gripen. The two drones that the Israelites shot down with the F35 really doesn't qualify... If bombing ground targets is your definition, then the Gripen is just as battle proven as the F35. As far as I'm aware shooting down two drones and flying over outdated Soviet era air defenses in the middle east is the F35s only claim to fame. But the Gripen has taken part in operations in Libya etc too. And given how outdated those air defenses where it's not really much of a achievement for the F35. All it proved is that the stealth isn't entirely useless.
    1
  120.  @TheGirard62  Yep, pretty much... That and minor things like lower range and lower payload that some countries consider as deal breakers.
    1
  121.  @PG-3462  You're assuming that Canada would be the only western hemisphere nation with production of parts. And that Canada wouldn't be given the information needed to make the remaining parts themselves. And that the remaining parts where all made in Sweden (the Gripen isn't all made with Swedish parts, some are imported from the US).
    1
  122. It sounds like they're doing it for sensor accuracy primarily.
    1
  123.  @CCCP-j3q  That's not available in this app I'm afraid. And I don't have a computer available right now...
    1
  124. ​ @no-nonseplayer6612  The UKs military capabilities is somewhat limited...
    1
  125. Air forces that want something cheaper can go with the Gripen. While it's definitely outclassed in terms of number of hardpoints and sheer weight of payload by the Rafael it's more capable in certain other areas as well as far cheaper to both purchase and operate, and also cheaper and more capable than say a F16. Sweden does have some more strings attached, and there's more US components there, so anyone embargoed by the US might prefer (or have no other choice then) the Rafael even if they can't afford as many Rafael's as Gripens. There's also Russian and Chinese planes if you don't care about your relationship with the US. And yes, there's the drones you mentioned. But you still want some fighters even if you have drones. You want that capability in your toolbox. Otherwise you risk that an enemy gets a force multiplier that you can't counter.
    1
  126. Perun and Kraut for one... And Willy OEM.
    1
  127. Norway and Finland wouldn't remain under Germany in the case of a ceasfire and peace negotiations I think. Hostile population with a lot of resistance fighting, better supply lines for the Soviets and allies then the Germans, vulnerable to British attacks. France might be held, or at least portions of France would. Finland like Sweden would probably try to play the two sides against each other to the best of their ability. I'm not sure about the Baltics etc...
    1
  128.  @michaelm1589  Probably, but not *necessarily*. Pasifism is a legitimate political view/opinion held by people on both the left and the right. In the US it's mostly certain christian denominations that's against taking part in war or killing in any way, shape or form. On the left like here in my country, Norway it's a combination of ethics (you shall not kill) and the sense that wars usually are decisions made by the upper classes while it's the lower classes, both civilians and in the military that usually ends up suffering the consequences while the objective rarely if ever are in the interests of working class people. The extreme left in my country also believes in conspiracy theories about NATO essentially setting this up to weaken Russia and that they want the carnage in Ukraine... And they're also worried about this turning into WW3 with nukes flying about... I'm far left but not extreme left, and our point of view essentially is that while the agressive wars started by NATO definitely are problematic this still remains a defensive war where a imperialist agressor is trying to take away the Ukrainian peoples right to self determination... So while we still have mixed feelings about the war we're supporting Ukraine. While his way of phrasing his views indicates that he doesn't mind actively seeking out conflict (trolling) it's not necessarily a Russian or Russian aligned individual and while the wording is definitely off the overall sentiment it's necessarily that far out there...
    1
  129.  @jubasniper254ck3  May I ask what your objection is?
    1
  130.  @ltfreeborn  The maintenance of the Russian ones might be so-so. But the soviet union had good engineers and while having its issues it wasn't controlled by Putin and his cronies...
    1
  131.  @saattlebrutaz  Russia under Putin isn't what it once was. While there was cultural issues even during the cold war there's a reason why the west worried about Russia before the war. Russia had a lot of good engineers during the cold war and was actually ahead of the US in some areas back then, like I'm rocket engines. The US always had the edge in other areas like electronics though. When it comes to air defenses the two sides are pretty closely matched with each having some strengths and some weaknesses. In a country with a lot of anti-air assets I'd feel safer being protected by the US system though. But in Ukraines situation the S 300 might actually be better. Just like the Swedish Gripen would be better for them then a US F35 for Ukraines use (lack of safe runways, low budgets and technical staff, less air defense assets etc)
    1
  132. Exactly, this video underestimates the Scandinavian defenses. While it of course won't change the overall end result the assumptions in the process of getting there are just off... And the progress at the one year mark will probably be slightly lower.
    1
  133. ​​ @petergrandien1440 unny. But I do hope that engines capable of burning hydrogen might show up in vehicles like this with time. Gasoline and diesel is probably going to be the main fuel still due to the need for longer range etc, but you can produce hydrogen in the field even if you're surrounded or the enemy have fire control over your supply line. You just need electricity of some kind. The increased environmentalism is just a bonus. Also, multi fuel engines are just practical with regards to using resources you come by.
    1
  134.  @alexanderbarkman7832  Rubber tracks reduce noise, increase comfort for the crew and reduce weight. And does less damage to roads etc. On the other hand it has less durability from what I understand... In other words, you can move them to the frontline on tarmack roads without ruining them, the crew won't be as exhausted when they arrive making them more combat effective, the lower weight may allow you to traverse more terrain and you have a okey chance at sneaking up on the enemy due to less noise. But you'll end up having to use more logistics capacity on replacing the tracks...
    1
  135. 5:23 That might not be quite as true as you think as our doctrines, especially the Swedish ones assumes enemy air superiority and relies on large number of improvised airfields in the form of stretches of road and planes capable of making use of them. It's a bit hard to bomb a enemy fighter if you don't even know where its base is located. 6:35 Depends, like I said, it's a part of our doctrine, especially the Swedish one, so a high sortie rate might still be maintained. End of video: I agree with this assessment with the exception of the impact of Russian attacks on Scandinavian airfields, a effect that I think you're overestimating a bit.
    1
  136. Russian missiles might be faster and harder hitting, but NATO ones tend to be smarter, and even many of the good Russian ones often rely on at least some components from countries within NATO. Also, NATO has demonstrated anti-missile and anti-satellite capabilities that's superior to what Russia has demonstrated so far. That might of course change by the time of such a hypothetical war, but that's the case here and now as far as I can tell.
    1
  137. Hum... Would attacking through the stans be a option? They're south of Russia so they might be reluctant to help the US for that reason... But I've yet to see a proper analysis of that side of things...
    1
  138. The F35 has stealth reducing the risk when trying to penetrate enemy airspace. And it has longer range then the Gripen at least. And there's geopolitical reasons to buy American planes right now if you want to align with them.
    1
  139. End of the video. The overall end result is definitely correct in this video. We have no illusion about that. We're just too outnumbered, especially in terms of infantry... I think you underestimate Swedens airforce and Norways navy. And regarding the progress of the war... Why would Norway and Sweden try to defend the less mountainous areas near the border that's also almost without trees once Finland falls? Makes more sense to preserve the troops and withdraw towards the forests and mountains then counter attack from cover against the more exposed Russian troops etc... So the early parts of the push into Norway and Sweden would probably be faster but slower later on.
    1