you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 7 points 11 months ago (9 children)

I'm kinda shocked people have strong opinions on fighter planes of all things. I barely know those two models of plane exist. I would answer "don't know".

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    Do you know that the aircraft need servicing after every flight, otherwise it's grounded, and that supplies would come from the country of origin? US for F35. Sweden for Grippen.

    Does that change your outlook?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I guess, but I still wouldn't feel qualified enough to offer a confident answer. There are lots of factors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago

    So in Europe there was a desire to send F35s into conflict in Ukraine. US said no by saying that servicing supplies would not be made available.

    Sovereign nations are unable to use their planes how they want to.

    Now with Gripen it might be a similar situation, but Sweden has been trustworthy thus far.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 10 months ago

    Big investments like this are often very politicized-even before Trump and all-because it's to a large degree just geopolitics. Gripen is in all likelihood the better alternative, but F35 has been considered an excellent choice for countries wishing to suck up to America. Until recently sucking up to America was considered good defense policy among parts of the political spectrum.

  • source
  • parent