The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, etc. are not comparable to the F-35. The F-35, beyond being a purpose-built stealth jet, is almost as much an electronic warfare pl

The Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, etc. are not comparable to the F-35. The F-35, beyond being a purpose-built stealth jet, is almost as much an electronic warfare platform as it is traditional multirole fighter. The tech is as much on sale as the ability to fly is; 35's software, sensor suite, etc. is famously advanced. Neither can really be substituted for the other; the US' own A-10 and F-15/16 modernization projects failing to really keep pace demonstrate this. This is why SaaB had to throw in two GlobalEye AWACS platforms with their offer of 64 Gripens to match LM's 64 F-35s (and Boeing's 14 EA-18Gs with their 50 FA-18Fs). Finland pretty much knew who would win the testing when they selected their definition of success, ignoring the unexpected (which to be fair did eliminate two competitors); either you want the traditional fighter model with inherent low cost and you go with Gripen, or you want in on the F-35's technology platform and true multirole capability (higher payload) and you politically bully LM into delivering you a reasonable price cut (probably on the basis of US jobs in the short term, I'd guess), like the article seems to describe. And frankly, good on the Finns for doing it.