but you all say its a better fighter because it can carry more bombs, i thought this was a poll about the best fighter and the f16 isnt better then the gripen and if there was a war i think the usa would have to fly them from the states to sweden, so what good is 2000 f16 then. This is from a Pilot who traind with the Finnish f18 he told me that 1gripen took out 6 f18 they could not see him i doubt that a f16 can do that, im looking for some truth behind that i have learnd that you cant belive all what them pilot say.
Your top 10 modern fighters
- Thread starter Chris_G
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And I heard from a F-16 pilot that he took out 20,000,000 MiG-29s before breakfast.
You are misunderstanding the point of the majority of people here. They are talking from a customer point of view, the F-16 is superior because of it's multi-role ability. That is what customers want, a plane that gives you more value for money.
In air-to-air ability the Gripen is superior to the F-16, correct. But the F-16 can take the fight further into the enemy homeland than the Gripen, and offence is the best defence. The Gripen also would not have an easy time fighting the F-16, or the F-18 for that matter.
Your argument seems to stem from "I'm Swedish, so anything Sweden build is the best," - fact of the matter is, I'm British and the F-22 (an American plane) is the best. The F-16 shows more value for money than the Gripen, as does the F-18; F-15; F-22; F-35. Basically, the Gripen is a specialised unit with little or no use outside of it's own scope. Hence the reason it's customer list is so small ... outside Sweden it has three customers, two of which are only leasing the equipment.
If the U.S fought Sweden, it would use F/A-18s operating off aircraft carriers in the North Sea, which would fight their way through the Gripens and go on to flatten their bases. If F-16s wanted to join in the fight, air-to-air refueling comes to mind.
You are misunderstanding the point of the majority of people here. They are talking from a customer point of view, the F-16 is superior because of it's multi-role ability. That is what customers want, a plane that gives you more value for money.
In air-to-air ability the Gripen is superior to the F-16, correct. But the F-16 can take the fight further into the enemy homeland than the Gripen, and offence is the best defence. The Gripen also would not have an easy time fighting the F-16, or the F-18 for that matter.
Your argument seems to stem from "I'm Swedish, so anything Sweden build is the best," - fact of the matter is, I'm British and the F-22 (an American plane) is the best. The F-16 shows more value for money than the Gripen, as does the F-18; F-15; F-22; F-35. Basically, the Gripen is a specialised unit with little or no use outside of it's own scope. Hence the reason it's customer list is so small ... outside Sweden it has three customers, two of which are only leasing the equipment.
If the U.S fought Sweden, it would use F/A-18s operating off aircraft carriers in the North Sea, which would fight their way through the Gripens and go on to flatten their bases. If F-16s wanted to join in the fight, air-to-air refueling comes to mind.
Henk
Master Sergeant
FlyboyJ, the thing is that the SAAF and the SADF have not been so good as it has been during the Angola war, but the assholes who were causing these problems are not there any more and things are looking up for now. The thing of the Gripen is that you save in maintenance and with the cost of the aircraft that you can spend more on training.
The problem in South Africa is that the black pilots are having problems with flying the fighter aircraft and does not make it most of the time, they can not make the landings and thus were sent to Botswana for testing there because the said the instructors are racists, but Botswana tested them and came to the same conclusion, they can not land and thus not make it.
South Africa are quite famous for its safety record when it comes to its aircraft. The SAAF were very happy with the Mirrages and the upgraded Merrage F1, the Cheetah.
Here is a pic of the Mirrage and then the Cheetah (the grey one). I got it from a site where they talked about a game that is based on the Bush War in Angola, a flight simulator.
Mirrage:
Cheetah:
I think that the Mirrage are mostly not even talked about and its success is also mostly forgotton.
Henk
The problem in South Africa is that the black pilots are having problems with flying the fighter aircraft and does not make it most of the time, they can not make the landings and thus were sent to Botswana for testing there because the said the instructors are racists, but Botswana tested them and came to the same conclusion, they can not land and thus not make it.
South Africa are quite famous for its safety record when it comes to its aircraft. The SAAF were very happy with the Mirrages and the upgraded Merrage F1, the Cheetah.
Here is a pic of the Mirrage and then the Cheetah (the grey one). I got it from a site where they talked about a game that is based on the Bush War in Angola, a flight simulator.
Mirrage:
Cheetah:
I think that the Mirrage are mostly not even talked about and its success is also mostly forgotton.
Henk
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Very Cool! I spent time in Botswana with the BDF and their F-5s....Same situation...
ozumn said:
That is not the point.
Besides within 24 hours the USAF could deploy whatever it needs to bases in England and Germany (ever heard of RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Rammstein and Spangdalem AFB) and from those they could reach well into Sweden.
Besides plan_D hit the nail on the head. The F-16 overall is a more superior aircraft because it can do a wider roll.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
He may be correct, but think about this - the Finnish AF F-18s have The AN/APG-73 fire-control radar. The Hornet's onboard computer is manufactured by Valmet. They might not of had an upgrade since 1998 or 99 so the scenario is possible. The US aircraft (F-16 and F-18 ) are going to be equipped with much more powerful radar and I doubt the same thing would happen if an exercise was conducted against US aircraft....ozumn said:
Given the right scenario the Gripen would most certainly take out multiple targets if it could stay on station long enough to do so.
Got some more info about them f18 they were almost fully armed i guess thats why it was easy must have been like a big blimp on the radar screen.
And Adler if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space oh and yeah still think gripen rules
And Adler if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space oh and yeah still think gripen rules
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Are we forgetting that the AWACS would have picked up that Grippen long before the Grippen locked in ANY American aircraft, let alone the F-18 with a superior radar set...
A war with Sweden would end very quickly pal....
Have u ever heard of something called Aircraft Carriers and Cruise Missles???
A war with Sweden would end very quickly pal....
ozumn said:Got some more info about them f18 they were almost fully armed i guess thats why it was easy must have been like a big blimp on the radar screen.
And Adler if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space oh and yeah still think gripen rules
A war between USA and Sweden?????? lol Thats funny, calling it a war would be alittle ....... over stating it..... more like a "war game" or "target pratice".
lesofprimus said:
we hace AWACS akso and the cruise missiles would be taken care off by BAMSE http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/ and the carriers can the sub take out dont think it woukd be a walk in the park we are not some Arab nations but yeah US would easy win if it was a suprise attack and offcurse i think US would win in the long run but it would not be easy as you would think well thats what i think and have to think, and now im off to invade US playing Canada in Doomsday hehe.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sweden doesn't have AWACS aircraft the size and capability of E-6s or ES-3Bs that could "blind" almost all of Europe with only 3 or 4 aircraft - Fighting Sweden wouldn't be a walk in a park - Sweden has a very well trained military designed to fight for a limited amount of time and then conduct guerrilla operations. It's whole military doctrine is to make an invasion painful for anyone who might try....ozumn said:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The Swedish AF only has one SAAB 340B available to do AWACS work, hardly enough to stop a sizeable force but probably capable enough to impede a localized intrusion. SAAB developed the SAAB 2000 ERIEYE AWE&C system, which seems to be a great short range platform but i think the airframe size would limit it electronic capability and it seems this system is being exported at this time, but looking at the Boeing E-3 you're probably looking at triple the price and four times the capability. Again I think you're in a same situation with the Gripen vs. the F-16 or Mirage 2000 - mission costs determining requirement...ozumn said:
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
well as you already stated the last time they crossed the pond they took the same route all light aircraft use when crossing more then likely Prestwick or Shannon to Keflivik then Narsasaquac or Bluie west in Greenland then Goose Bay or Gander that is the same route as any light shortranged a/c has used since crossing the Atlantic was commonplace even seen a Bearcat F8F use that route as well as Helicoptersozumn said:
Henk
Master Sergeant
Well talking of war, the thing is that the US have the man power, the Navy, the airforce and the technology, but I think that on the ground the US can kicks a**, but it depends on the will of the guys you are up against and the tactics used against the invader that will be the turning point of a war.
Lets take a example that I know very well. The Anglo Boer war. The UK had the most superior army and technology of that time, but they still got nowhere. They did take over Pretoria and most ground of the Boer nations, but still could not win the war man to man. They had more men than the Boers and still could not win.
To fight on the ground in a other country is not a easy thing. You can learn the maps and still it would not budge. Guruala war fare is the thing you can not crack or get controle of. Today the US would bomb South Africa into little peaces and burn the airfields and docks, but on the ground it can turn nasty.
South Africa developed most of their systems themselfs, has one of the best artillery in the world, the G-5 and the G-6. The Rooivalk attack helicopter can whip a** and so can our airforce. The thing of SA is that airfields is not easy to get to, but can be destroyed. We do not have any bombers like the US nor Aircraft Carriers, but our coast is a sun of a b**ch.
The way I see it that the US can take over much ground, but against Gorilla war fare they are not so good. The thing in Iraq is that those stupid sun of a bitches that is fighting against the US forces now, suck, that is not Gorilla war fare that is terrorism at its best.
Your guys must really have the will to fight and must be hard a** sun of a bitches that you wont leave near your daughter. Take the Bush war in Angola, the South African Army fought against more superior enemy and airforce, but they still did not get the South African Army or Airforce to go down on their knees, but who won at the end, the communists, because the South African forces pulled back.
The way it looks to me that the guys in Iraq that fight in the US Army does not really want to fight there. They do not have the will anymore for that bullshit.
You may have the technology and man power, but it still does not mean that you will win the war.
Henk
Lets take a example that I know very well. The Anglo Boer war. The UK had the most superior army and technology of that time, but they still got nowhere. They did take over Pretoria and most ground of the Boer nations, but still could not win the war man to man. They had more men than the Boers and still could not win.
To fight on the ground in a other country is not a easy thing. You can learn the maps and still it would not budge. Guruala war fare is the thing you can not crack or get controle of. Today the US would bomb South Africa into little peaces and burn the airfields and docks, but on the ground it can turn nasty.
South Africa developed most of their systems themselfs, has one of the best artillery in the world, the G-5 and the G-6. The Rooivalk attack helicopter can whip a** and so can our airforce. The thing of SA is that airfields is not easy to get to, but can be destroyed. We do not have any bombers like the US nor Aircraft Carriers, but our coast is a sun of a b**ch.
The way I see it that the US can take over much ground, but against Gorilla war fare they are not so good. The thing in Iraq is that those stupid sun of a bitches that is fighting against the US forces now, suck, that is not Gorilla war fare that is terrorism at its best.
Your guys must really have the will to fight and must be hard a** sun of a bitches that you wont leave near your daughter. Take the Bush war in Angola, the South African Army fought against more superior enemy and airforce, but they still did not get the South African Army or Airforce to go down on their knees, but who won at the end, the communists, because the South African forces pulled back.
The way it looks to me that the guys in Iraq that fight in the US Army does not really want to fight there. They do not have the will anymore for that bullshit.
You may have the technology and man power, but it still does not mean that you will win the war.
Henk
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Now I don't know where your hearing or reading that - Adler was there and he'll tell you different. The guys that have gone to Iraq ARE NOT conscripts - they joined the military freely and there are many who have done 2 and 3 tours. My brother is a 2 tour Vietnam Vet, 56 years old and is still waiting orders to go to Iraq - he views himself as a professional soldier and will fight anywhere when called upon, there are many serving in the US military with the same sense of duty and dedication. As usual I think you're only hearing the negative press. Currently 125,000 soldiers are trying to police 7 million Iraqis.Henk said:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
