2 ms·

tone: friendly, yet exasperated discussion According to your own analysis, does not the Gripen fit NATO's goals much more than than the F-35 A? NATO, until it

tone: friendly, yet exasperated discussion According to your own analysis, does not the Gripen fit NATO's goals much more than than the F-35 A? NATO, until it was first destroyed via Desert Storm, was just supposed to defend us all from the imperialist ambitions of Moscow. The Gripen has a dispersed field capability that can be supported by only 2 trained men, and a few conscripts + 2 x 20 TU containers... vs. F-35 A... I feel like only one product is correct for the EU, which has only defensive ambitions. Meanwhile, with F-35 A, not only is the supply chain a question, but it cannot be deployed unless the selling country, and selling company, feels like it on that given day. This is right to repair/right to save your own effing country. Can someone please explain to me how we are at this point, in 2025? https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-321 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-321 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105341.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105341.pdf

bigyabai 11mo ago
I'm absolutely empathetic to the European sentiment - the Gripen should be a mainstay in EU air forces on merit alone, F-35 be damned. But many of the nations buying the F-35 aren't being swindled into it, they're filling a capability gap that really does threaten Russia in a meaningful way. Both systems can work together to leverage their advantages, and are designed to cooperate using Link 16. It doesn't have to be one-or-the-other, and buying both systems hedges against the possibility of either side pulling support. If Europe doesn't want a deep strike capability against Russia, don't buy the F-35. Fill the gap with a regional stealth-bomber program like China did, or pool the various European stealth fighter projects together in a serious joint project. As-is, the only competitor to the F-35 can be bought from China, who will be more capricious with the supply chain in the long run.
- consumer451 11mo ago
  This is an excellent reply. The EU/NATO is still used to sucking on the teet of the USA, even though that is now gone. I only recently learned that "may you live in interesting times" was a curse, and not a blessing.
- consumer451 11mo ago
  Secondary, for fun question: Help me win a dark bet with my mother. Given two locations: 1. Seattle, USA 2. Wrocław, Poland In which location is the military most likely to be seen outside of my window in 2026?

bigyabai 11mo ago

I'm absolutely empathetic to the European sentiment - the Gripen should be a mainstay in EU air forces on merit alone, F-35 be damned. But many of the nations buying the F-35 aren't being swindled into it, they're filling a capability gap that really does threaten Russia in a meaningful way. Both systems can work together to leverage their advantages, and are designed to cooperate using Link 16. It doesn't have to be one-or-the-other, and buying both systems hedges against the possibility of either side pulling support. If Europe doesn't want a deep strike capability against Russia, don't buy the F-35. Fill the gap with a regional stealth-bomber program like China did, or pool the various European stealth fighter projects together in a serious joint project. As-is, the only competitor to the F-35 can be bought from China, who will be more capricious with the supply chain in the long run.

consumer451 11mo ago
This is an excellent reply. The EU/NATO is still used to sucking on the teet of the USA, even though that is now gone. I only recently learned that "may you live in interesting times" was a curse, and not a blessing.
consumer451 11mo ago
Secondary, for fun question: Help me win a dark bet with my mother. Given two locations: 1. Seattle, USA 2. Wrocław, Poland In which location is the military most likely to be seen outside of my window in 2026?