[actionfromafar]

> Building runways is cheap?

I don't think you understand. Sweden always planned to fight a contracting, losing war, eventually devolving into partisan warfare.

If I recall the Cold War plans correctly, one of the more realistic plans prepared for 3-4 weeks of war before being overrun and partisan warfare starting. The road-as-runway plan was critical for this, there would be no time to build anything, just keep everything flying and attacking from surprise locations for as long as possible. The submarine force tied into to this also, with its ability to stay submerged for 3 weeks.

The whole idea was never for Sweden to really win, just to make the Soviet win so momentally Pyrrhic they would think twice about an actual ground invasion. From a military standpoint, we never hoped for our major cities to be spared nukes. We counted on them being bombed to oblivion day one.

Try building runways when all major infrastructure and the country is in total chaos. That's why there were arms and fuel depots everywhere, with everything from missiles down to submachine guns.

Edit: and you say propping up defence industry as if insinuating it's just a boondoggle. When it comes to geopolitics, it's not. It's the only way to have total control of supply chains and constant upgrade of arms.

Gripen may have become something of a boondoggle over time, but it was born from the Cold War and still traces most of its design goals from that situation.

[gggggg5]

That's cool and all, but in 2023 you aren't going to successfully operate jets in those conditions. You'll either fly right above the treetops or get shot down, well, actually the enemy jets with down-looking radar will shoot you down anyway. Even if you manage to keep flying, you won't get much value out of those jets in partisan warfare.

The idea of Sweden being overrun in 3-4 weeks is a bit absurd anyway, perhaps it's just not a reasonable assumption to start building upon.

>Edit: and you say propping up defence industry as if insinuating it's just a boondoggle. When it comes to geopolitics, it's not. It's the only way to have total control of supply chains and constant upgrade of arms.

Well, that's not what I was insinuating. But since you bring it up, the Gripen isn't exactly a great example of "total control of supply chains". That's a big part of why nobody wants to buy it, if you're going to deal with ITAR you might as well buy the F-35.

[actionfromafar]

Now we are getting somewhere and getting more nuanced. I think the Ukraine airforce actually has proven some of my points. They have operated out of roads and unexpected locations, and also operate old MIGs without stealth, to great effect, despite very old, short range missiles.

Regarding ITAR and such, I can only agree, except "might as well". F35 is more expensive and complicated to operate, Gripen is surprisingly expensive per airframe. But I think they still are very different systems good for different things. And as the Cold War wound down, Gripen became more of a pure industrial project. Still, for Sweden and Finland, it looks like hand-in-glove.

[gggggg5]

Ukraine is very far from being overrun, almost entirely operates from regular airfields and not roads or other unexpected locations.

Are they operating to great effect? The HARMs are nice, but surface-launched anti-radiation missiles would be both far cheaper and more resilient than Gripens.

Presumably in a "partisan warfare" scenario, you wouldn't be worrying about stuff like Shahed drones destroying your infrastructure either.

> F35 is more expensive and complicated to operate

It does provide advantages for that money, and certainly has a brighter future than the Gripen E which nobody will buy.