"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The main benefit I see with the Gripen is the potential that it could be easier to support with limited/rapidly trained technicians.
The Gripen is a more modern airframe than the F16 with a better performance and should be at least as good electronically as the F16. As you mention it is designed to be easier to maintain than the F16 and was also designed from the start to operate from roads and other temporary surfaces.

However what hasn't been advertised as much, and could be its biggest advantage is the Ukraine have been given the use of some Saab 340 AEW aircraft. There is a data link that exists between the Saab 340 and the Gripen. This will give Ukraine an unmatched advantage in the air war against Russia who don't I believe have this capability.
 
The F-16s sent have been through the Mid Life Upgrade (MLU) program so aren't in the same configuration as originally purchased. I also would question if the Gripen is rated as having better kinematic performance than the F-16.

I definetLy agree re the maintain aspect which is why I stated so above.

As for the road operations, both can theoretically do. I do think this is a somewhat overrated feature though and is only practical if one also has the associated support systems in place lest one just end up with a fighter parked on a roadside somewhere.

Speaking of which, if this was a major determiner, I would go further and push for some Harriers to go to Ukraine. Just saying.
Yes the datalink is potentially useful though again I believe the F-16MLUs have Link16 which is a partial equivalent. More importantly though is that with only two 340s, their availability will be at a premium. Useful no doubt but limited.

OverLl, don't get me wrong, I like the Gripen and agree it will be a good choice longer term but as much as I find the F-16 boring, I have to admit that it is probably a smart immediate choice if only because of the broader support system that exists.
 
Yeah, but practically how much is this used?

More percipiently, how much can it be used? You still have to get fuel and ammo out to road-parks, snowplow the highways, and so on. It's hard to say. But on the other hand, it's not like the Russians can smother an area with ground-attack strikes or even missiles if there's defenses in play.

Air control, superiority, and supremacy all seem to be past concepts in this war. I don't have an answer to your question, because the fleas and flies make it all very hard. But I do think that having a/c able to work off rough surfaces could be useful if the logistics are in place to make that happen.
 
2025 will be a new stage in this war.
  1. The Russian economy is proving to be robust
  2. The Ukrainian people are increasingly supporting a negotiated solution.
  3. Starting in January, we can expect dramatic changes to US foreign policy and lethal/monetary aid
  4. The EU and NATO are reticent about Zelenskyy's victory plan, and have pushed out NATO membership.
This was why everyone was looking to the 2023 spring offensive for Ukraine to make considerable gains. That was Ukraine's chance. Let's look ahead - now it's spring 2025, and I expect much of the support for Ukraine's total victory and reclaiming all its pre-war 2022 or 2014 territory has dramatically waned.
 
Last edited:
Let's be brutally honest. The war to save Ukraine was just lost. They will be stabbed in the back and front now. NATO will effectively die.
 

Users who are viewing this thread