BFR said:
None of that means Jack squat. It's not about which plane is newer or has better sensors. It's about which plane has a better COMBAT history. If I was a military pilot, I would take the Fighting Falcon over the Gripen, in a heartbeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_operational_history |
The F-16 can be very problematic because any gravel can destroy that multi million dollar jet engine of the F-16. Maintenance is also very difficult for the F-16 and it is known to be a diva. Training new pilots on the F-16 is also much harder, because the Gripen is light like a bird compared to the larger F-16, and also simpler maneuvering. So the skill bar is lower for both pilots and maintence of the Gripen. Now, Qwark mentioned some other advantages of the Gripen but I am looking at it from the mechanical perspective as well and that stuff matters too because you don't want some lugnut no-nothing mechanic trying to fix a plane and have it not done correctly. He'll have a much easier time with the Gripen because it's a simpler system. It is so light that it doesn't need all of the engineering bells and whistles that the F-16 has. And, that's why its cheaper. They can spend their $$$$$ on something else. So they will be getting a lot of literal and figurative bang for their buck if they go with the Gripen.
What if the Russians send drones out to put holes in the runways? Even if they are drunk half the time, the other half they'll do alright. The F-16 sits a lot lower than the Gripen and sucks up a lot more air and potentially thinks like rocks or gravel. So you need a much higher quality runway for the F-16 than with the Gripen.
So there's a lot more to it than just the araments and such. Lots beneath the surface of this.
Last edited by shavenferret - on 23 October 2025
