Glide bombs are cheap only if the jet returns safely

Just missing the AFU Eireyes flying radar.

I grew up in Nashville TN in the 60's and 70's. My dad was a saxophone player in Johnny Cash's stage band for his show that ran 3 years. That reference made me smile ear to ear ,Cap.

Great video, Cap. Just to add an extra layer to this Air Defense onion: what about the couple of SAAB Erieye AWACS the Ukranians have? Would these give even better situational awareness to the Grippens and a bit more of a 'head start' versus the Russians?

Wouldn't Ukraine use their donated Saab 340 AEW&C?  They ought to be able to detect much earlier, and direct the fighter.

First of all, thank you for making videos about Ukraine. I thought you might find a few additional details interesting. Ukrainian pilots and aviation experts occasionally reveal useful bits of information in interviews. According to them, the Su-34 typically releases its glide bombs from 30–70 km (16–38 nautical miles), not farther, and from altitudes of up to 12 km (about 39,400 ft).

The aircraft are reportedly not covered by MiG-31, but by Su-35 armed with R-37M missiles. After Russia lost several A-50 AEW&C aircraft, they started using MiG-31 near the front instead. Two of them rotate shifts, pointing their radars toward Ukraine to provide airborne radar coverage.

The biggest change over the past few months has been Russia's loss of a very large number of SAM systems and ground-based radars, many of them destroyed by Ukrainian FP-2 drones. The Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces have published plenty of strike footage.

Soviet/Russian air doctrine relies heavily on controlling aircraft through ground-based radar networks. That has become much more difficult for them. As a result, Ukrainian aircraft have become noticeably more comfortable operating near the front when releasing their own glide bombs. F-16 have also started intercepting cruise missiles over frontline regions, something that used to be considered too risky.

Because of that, deploying S-400 systems close enough to the front to protect Russian strike aircraft is no longer really practical.

Ukrainian pilots have repeatedly said that they receive radio warnings about enemy aircraft and even the estimated distance to incoming missiles. I don't know exactly how they're doing it, but I'm confident it's not because Patriot batteries are sitting near the front. After the launcher that had been ambushing Russian aircraft was destroyed (see the 13 May 2023 Bryansk Oblast military aircraft crashes), that tactic was abandoned. The large strategic radars remain deep in the rear.

I'd really appreciate seeing more videos about Ukraine in the future. They always brighten my day.

If a Su-34 releases its bombs but gets destroyed, that is a HUGE success. That plane won't release anything tomorrow. Also, the Gripen doesn't actually has to be there - the mere possibility that it might be there and might shoot down the Su-34 changes the entire calculation on the Russian side and render the gliding bomb tactic much less effective.

Grippens were designed to launch/land/refuel/rearm from highways, so having them show up randomly near the front isn't unreasonable.... but really it seems like the big difference is that Meteor is smaller so you can carry more of them. Which means you can throw 1-2 at the interceptor(s) and potentially deter them, and still be able to take a couple shots at the strike package before you're Winchester....

why didnt u include the saab awacs?

The fist Gripen scenario WAS a win. Russia can’t afford to lose 4 airframes to get 12 glide bombs down range… A few more run-ins like that and they’ll have to stop the missions.

"What if Ukraine had APKWS guided rockets?" Would be a direct counter to said "economic weapon"

An important difference between Meteor and Amraam (and the Russian missile) is the flight paths. The normal flight paths of missiles like Amraam is a ballistic flight path that gets most range out of the missile, the downside is that the missile lacks ability to do direction changes while high up in the thin air making it fairly easy to evade by not being where the missile comes down. Meteor on the other hand flies a direct path and can keep adjusting for evading targets all the way. Amraam can be fired directly, but the range is very short, much shorter then any of the engagements here. But this is also why they actually have managed to shoot some Russian planes down as if the Amraam does end up in the right spot, then it can hit a target even at long range. Meteor would mostly do the same, but all the time making it no longer worth it for Russian planes to risk it.

I wouldnt count the third run as a failure, if you lose one SU-34 for every hundred bombs dropped Youd only getting 25 flights from your plane before its confetti. itd still be too costly for Russia to carry on.

thats a pretty conclusive win in my opinion.

Nice, Cap.

Love gripes. More please!

20 grand is nothing. Shows you how little we are in the scheme of things. Even though it's our money they chuck 20k at a pop

After taking a look at your map, I had to look out the window first to see if there really were air battles taking place over my hometown of Leipzig. Fortunately, the sky is clear.

Gripen can take off from highways, so it could take off from much closer if needed and have its radar off etc so more undetectable and combined with the awacs it’s gonna see even further

Awesome science in this video!  What software are you using?  I have DCS, but it doesn't look anything like this!

Interesting but remember the Gripen is made to operate from improvised field bases. Place it much closer to the front line but on the ground. Will it have time to scramble, fire the missiles and land before the Russian missile hits it?