Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Why is the Rafale outselling even the F-35? (since 2021)" video.

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
Yeah, had forgotten about AUKUS. That is a factor.
3
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@devilish2136 Drones and drones are very different things.
1
@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
@ReMembrane Pretty much...
1
@Back2Lobby334 What do you mean?
1
@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
@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
@PG-3462 3) Fair enough. Although I believe it's a bit more nuanced then that.
1
@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
@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
@TheGirard62 Yep, pretty much... That and minor things like lower range and lower payload that some countries consider as deal breakers.
1
@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
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
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