>P-please, buy our aircraftWhy would any country choose buying 12 F-16s over 24 Gripens?
>>64276298Because you want in on the USA grift dumbass, weapon purchases like this are 80% politics
>>64276298But also why buy 24 if 12 will do?
>>64276298>why would anyone buy 12 good planes instead of 24 meme planeshmmmm
>>64276298They're getting AIM-9x and the future possibility of AIM-120C as part of the deal. The Swedes sell you planes with no weapons and you have to suck somebody else off for missiles.
>>64276298because you'd be getting 12 good planes rather than 24 bad planes
>>64276298>why do people buy one of the greatest fighter jets ever made?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3abPnEEGE
Approving sale =/= making a saleIt just a export permit and a previous step to be considered in a competition.
>>64276565>>64276877Why Gripen bad?
>>64276298Fighter jet purchases confuse me. Like in Denmark we got F-16s in the 80s and flew them until now where we're replacing them with F-35, where the jets competing with the F-35 included Super Hornets, Gripen, Eurofighter and I think Rafale. And now Gripen is competing with F-16s for new countries and also there's been talk about other countries buying our second hand F-16s. I get there's significant differences between blocks, but still.
>>64276298What was the Gripen's accident rate per flight hour?
>>64277135Gripen: 9 hull losses and 1 death (in an airshow) with ~400,000 hours since the 1980s.F-16: 670 hull losses, 219 fatalities with ~20 million hours
>>64277004F-16 is just a good solid plane. If it didn't exist all these countries would be buying F-18s instead.
>>64277171>since the 1980s.Anon, I...
>>64277217Yes, and I included the accidents during development.>First flight 9 December 1988https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/type/SB39
>>64276908Gripen bad because nobody buy Gripen
>>64277221The very tail end of the 80s, 1988Whereas the F-16 is solidly a 70s plane: first flight 1974Arguably, anon, in-service date is more indicative of modernity because work on planes can be delayed a long time to accommodate new tech. For example the F35's first flight was in 2006, but it was accepted into service in 2016.
>>64276908Swedes only work 6 months out of the year
>>64277255That's why I posted the FLIGHT HOURS to.
>>64277263too*
>>64276851If you need anything more than guns to defeat your enemy that's called a skill issue
>>64277281>resident evil 6
>>64277263>>64277265Yes and that's the key information. But it's also useful to have in-service dates because more modern planes tend to have fewer accidents per flight hour, because our tech has improved.
>>64277353>The US is ahead the rest only when it's convenientcurious
>>64276298In classic peruvian fashion, I'm sure they either end up buying the lone 12 aircraft and never complete the projected 24 or the program gets cancelled completely
>>64276298The Gripen has yet to score an actual kill, and while it's operated in combat zones in a recon role I can't find any evidence it's actually engaged in ground attacks either.
>>64276298>Why would any country choose buying 12 F-16s over 24 Gripens?Because if your airbase only has space for 12, you buy the biggest aircraft you can afford, and that is why Gripen is doing so poorly on the arms market, Gripen is simply too small, and only third world airforces on a shoestring budget are interested.
>>64276851The Iris-T and Meteor are better and you can buy them from multiple countries, not just one
>>64277171This was the latest one btw
>>64277804Peru has 4 air bases, numbered one to five, so the might be hiding one
I don't think it actually matters to anyone but I didn't realize until this thread how much more powerful the F-16's engine was vs the Gripen's and that it has a somewhat better (~13% at full fuel) thrust/weight ratio as a result despite being the bigger aircraft.
>>64278802Yup. The Gripen is basically half a hornet. Saab overstates it's capabilities compared to other aircraft. The engine output puts hard limits on performance that they cannot explain away with Bofors flat-pack meatball magic.
>>64278739They tend to kill a lot of people, pilots and spectators even if the aircraft are in their best condition.>I consider all airshows with extreme maneuvers as something retarded.
>>64278875No, it's ok, they simply allowed (aka a reinforced landing gear and structure) extra MTOW for the striker configuration, it's not the only multirole doing that with a T/W as low as 0.60 at MTOW.That aside it has more internal fuel capacity than a F-16 while being lighter. It's a small F-16XL and that Falcon Delta was excellent even if the USAF didn't want it.
>>64276908Gripen is unproven and the Swedish government keeps threatening its customers with a sales and spare parts/technician embargo every time a country that operates Gripens tries to use them.https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2025/08/01/swedish-gripen-fighters-deal-on-hold-as-foreign-minister-refuses-to-sign-off-over-thai-cambodia-clash/
>>64277281t. Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte
>>64277437if you like you can also compare accident rates of say the Mirage III and the Rafale
>>64276908>>64280253 plus low airworthiness rates in countries that operate them. For example South Africa>inb4 Africahas had points where no Gripens were airworthy because Saab parts and support doesn't just suck, it blows. Brazil and Czechia have had the same issues too. Not well versed enough on Thailand to tell you about their service records. Additionally, there is a reason why Saab has had very few export operators of their combat aircraft historically too, despite being very competent designs.
>>64277779It did a bunch of bombing against Cambotards this year
>>64276298>Peruvians rearming themselvesIs the Inca Empire coming back?
F-16 has closer support and higher-volume support from the supplier. And both planes use US engines anyway.Also, US will likely remain as defining the cutting edge and always be piping that into F-16, whereas Saab will likely remain catching-up (but not by much) to the US, which means slower Gripen updates.Unless you can somehow set up a tech transfer from Swedecucks, then I'd say the scales are even.>>64276565They're not memes, they're fine. Simple servicing is also a big plus for a country with many Incan peasants and scant flatlands.If Swedecucks continue to pipe money into development, the Gripen will even be here to stay. They won't ever have stealth shaping, but if that's forever beyond your reach anyway, then it's fine.
>>64280466There is already a peruvian (US) pope, the next logical step is to have a peruvian emperor.
>>64280466Neat and cute heraldry in the Squatemalan proto-nations.A little too busy and hard to tell from a distanc though.t. Casual Vexillologist
>>64280405Both are in service and in production in current year. The Gripen is safer than the F-16.
>>64280504>stop asking inconvenient questions!>*insistently repeats dogmatic statement without further inquiry or evidence*lel
>>64280512>I can't deny the Gripen is safer than the F-16 I accept your concession.
>>64276298Large user base and compatible with the shitload of weapons F-16 has and will use. Large skilled maintenance base including many retired USAF technicians. Large support equipment base. Large manufacturing subcontractor base. Large education and training base.Spectators see aircraft. Aviationists see systems of systems we often worked with. We see the constellation of systems that enable combat air power. F-16s are easy to work on. I did that for twenty years (before that Phantom and Bronco) as an engine troop (Pratts and GE) then merged with crew chiefs (cool because faster promotions thanks to large career field). Training foreign tech school students is much older than the jet age. Twelve aircraft can support a small sortie rate which is all they should reasonably expect to need with one down at any time for inspection, periodic maintenance, mods, TCTOs or paint. It's not as if they have dangerous neighbors. Fighters in Central and South America are very much a prestige purchase and way to have a small modern core force. >>64277353This. New and recent F-16s only resemble early blocks. I've seen them naked, depaneled them, caressed their LRUs, run them on trim pad and in hush house. pulled and inserted their engines, tenderly penetrated them with borescopes, serviced their struts, and watched Life Support replace soaked seat cushions after burst piddle packs because fuck touching that shit.
>>64280534Without a granular comparison of loss categories and missions flown mere numbers are of little use. Current safety rates flying current missions should be compared to get useful, current understanding as should prior rates to their contemporary missions including multiple wars. Desert Storm era Block 30 and 40 F-16s are not Block 50 versions and those are getting Block 70 upgrades.
>>64280625>backtracking like thatCurious.
>>64277437If you had paid attention the F-16 was only really problematic for it's first few iterations. After that it stabilized to become one of the most reliable single engine aircraft ever produced. There's a reason everyone buys them and not Chinese exports even if the Chinese exports are sold at a loss and with state financing
>>64280631>Raise of hands who's buying the Gripen?Nobody? Okay
>>64276298>Why would any country choose buying 12 F-16s over 24 Gripens?Why would anyone buy 12 F-16s instead of 12,000-15,000 Po-2 biplanes?
>>64280636Brazil
>>64276298because gripens are shit, C models are inferior to most multiroles and the E variant is more expensive than more capable Rafale or even F-35it's a third worlder plane, cheap and easy to maintain
>>64280667if Ukraine had 15,000 Po-2s they could probably level every Russian city in flying distance in a week
>>64280478>t. Casual VexillologistHow vexing
>>64280799how do you respond to this without sounding vexed?
>>64280856you could always wave the white flag and change the topic. although one might consider that a red flag in and of it's self.if you think it would you've no option but to proudly fly the flag for vexillology.
>>6428077015,000 Po-2s x 6 50 kg FAB 50s x 7 days x 2 sortie a day=63,000,000 kg. In one week 15k PO-2s could deliver 63MT of bombs, the math works out.15k PO-2s=Czar Bomb.Or just kill them via crop failure by blotting out the sun with canvas wings.
>>6428092963 million kg is 63 kilotons
>>64280933Ack, missed a few decimal points.Eh, make them incendiaries. It's still over 1.2 million 50kg bombs. Just fucking BURN EVERYTHING.
>>64280929Norktard, Po-2s have worse survivability than a droneUkraine runs through 15,000 drones in a bad month>7 days x 2 sorties a dayRussian attacks on Kyiv suffer a minimum 80% attrition rate on a good day. and that's just a one-way attack, never mind getting back outyour fleet of Po-2s will likely be wiped out in a single sortie
>>64281054Drone usage in this war has been idiotic. Drones as attrition to deplete defenses typically focuses on cities or well defended targets. The proper way to use them is not to solely focus on major targets (mind you that you should do that, but only 50% or so) but to also attack as many minor distributed targets as possible.Throw a drone every day at every cell tower, gas station, car lot, small town water treatment plant, police station, ect that you can reach. A pick up truck in a driveway is a target. The smallest most minor thing that could be considered 'infrastructure' is a target. 25 acre farm harvesting potatoes? Blast the trucks they are being loaded on. Hit the garage the tractor is in while you are at it. You would use PO-2s like that. Hit EVERYTHING that is somewhere that defenses are not. A thousand pinprick attacks, all meaningless alone but as a gestalt a steady degradation of everything modern humans need to exist. Forget rail hubs, declare 'no vehicle' zones where anything with a internal combustion engine is fair game. Do actual total war, not this half assed shit that BOTH sides are doing like wasting drones on old guys walking their dogs. Hitting that guy is meaningless, if you can hit him you can hit his car or set a house on fire. Shelter or a vehicle have value, killing a retiree and his pet actually helps your foe by reducing the national logistical burden of a non combatant.Neither side in this conflict has a truly objective understanding of what it means to destroy a culture or nations existence despite at least one (Russia) having that as a goal, nor do they have an objective and/or logical blueprint on how to do that. Example: You know what would be a great target? Pulp mills that make paper products like toilet paper and tampons. See how much Russia's civilian population likes not being able to wipe their asses or their women having blood dripping down their legs once a month.
>>64276298America is literally the only country in the world that can make good planes. Europeans literally couldn't make a good balsa wood biplane these days.
>>64281054The whole point of this theoretical is that if 15000 airplanes entered Russian airspace at once they would be completely incapable of coping and suffer a complete breakdown of all AA capabilities. Every pantshit, s300, s400, and everything inbetween would be completely depleted of ammunition after the first 2000 planes. All of Russia's advanced AA systems theater wide are now sitting ducks and would be destroyed. with all AA platforms destroyed by the endless Po-2 onslaught, air superiority decisively shifts into Ukraine's favor. Ukraine can now operate its real airforce in this newly sanitized airspace while Russia cannot. Russian ground forces would then be systematically obliterated a la desert storm style
>>64280856You cant>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canting_arms
>>64281783I'll never ride a boing-into-the-ground.
>>64276298Weapons purchases aren't dependent on warfare technicalities, especially for nations such as Peru.
>>64276298Why the autistic devotion to just one platform? Variety is the spice of life. Sure there's an argument for having standardized aircraft for logistics in the national air force BUT why not also encourage a strong volunteer militia air force as a means of hardening ones defenses even more so?In my ideal world every old farmer would have an old but well maintained Harrier F15 or MIG laying around in their barn. Every apartment complex would have their own drone building program and radio towers to control them and every kid 15+ would learn how to pilot and do maintenance on said drones so in times of conflict they can respond even faster than the national army. Lastly every home owner would be heavily subsidized and encouraged to install anti air defense systems on their roof.Sadly we can't have cool shit like that because the world is gay and lame though and Gooberment wants you to be a helpless serf who can't defend themself or their property...>>64276908>Why Gripen bad?It's not bad, it just doesn't do F-35 things like being stealthy or whatever but if your only aggressive neighbor is some third world dump like Cambodia or Russia then a Gripen is fine. Brazil got into the Gripen game too with the threat of Maduro potentially invading Guyana by taking a shortcut through their borders because commies are retarded and can't fathom the idea of just building a new road.>>64276851>The Swedes sell you planes with no weapons and you have to suck somebody else off for missiles.Just build your own weapons? Start with some simple dumb bombs and then work your way up to more advanced stuff once you've figured out how to do it reliably.Necessity is the mother of innovation after all.
>>64278739dam, what was he thinking there?
>>64282671>was I supposed to begin the maneuver at 1000m or 2000m?
