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

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
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
@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
@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
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
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
@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
Regarding Finland being a part of Scandinavia. There's a difference between the terms Fenoscandia, Scandinavia and Nordic.
8
@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
@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
@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
You guys are dreaming...
2
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
@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
 @no-nonseplayer6612 The UKs military capabilities is somewhat limited...
1
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
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
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