[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.