Don't let Thomas know you want Swedish products ;)

Why not? What's the problem with the JAS39 Gripen? I'm no expert on the subject but it seems like a fine aircraft to me. A true multirole fighter with capacity to do everything that The Royal Danish Airforce would want it to do. And it is manufactured by our Scandinavian brothers, meaning that we could probably secure a lot of work for Danish contractors without supporting a industrial-military complex like the USA or the EU.

Nothing wrong with Gripen, its a fine aircraft. Just that Thomas has a grudge on Sweden :)

I think we should buy Eurofighters.

And support the EU crazy arnaments plans with hard cash? No way! We will end up having the entire European continent run by a military-industrial complex just like in the USA. Sweden and Denmark are like brother and sister. The entire Scandinavia should cooperate more closely instead of selling out of our freedom and wellbeing to the EU bureaucrats!

Here is my vision: 72 JAS 39 Gripen divided in 6 wings of 12 each. With our commitment in Afghanistan, where at least 35 strikes have already been carried out resulting in who knows how many terrorists killed, we need an Air Force at least as capable as the Cold War force of 50 (or is it 60) F-16's. the JAS 39 Gripen continues the Air Force's tradition of using only one type of aircraft for all missions. It is the obvious replacement for the F-16.

Actually the problem is not the RDaAF 2020 - it is the RDaAF beyond that. The Gripen could be a fine aircraft if it wasn't for to factors: 1. I would not be a significant improvement on the present updated F-16. 2. Experience with Draken showed swedish products to very, VERY expensive to maintain. 3. swedish aircraft have a lot of money put into features needed for the Swedish scenarios: Of air station deployment for instance. The advantages of the JSF: 1. The USA is a very reliable source of weapons - and cheap. We have from time to time had the need for supplement buys of F-16, where we have gotten fine second-hand aircraft for about 5 mio USD (needed update for another 5 mio) which is a nearly symbolic price the days. There is always a reliable and reasonably priced supply of spare parts (and aircraft need a lot of those), so we do not have to carry a large spare parts inventory. 2. When we get a new fighter aircraft the expected service life is going to be 40 years, and the Gripen cannot be expected to be able to meet the challenges that far into the future. Our experince with the F-16 has been very good indeed. Not only will it have a sevice life of about 40 years, but it has been able to face radically changed scenarios that could be handled with updates. 3. The industrial offset has been very rewarding with the F-16 - it has been only small parts, but the market has been very large. To be quite honest: I don't think You can get anybody to recommend a purchase of the Gripen for Danish use.

Yes I'm back from vacation. I didn't go to Swedish occupied Denmark after all. In fact I wrote it, because I have a notion that the Swedish SÄPO (all unclassified litterature indicate they are not the biggest brains) is monitoring this website. Instead I went to Turkey for some real fun: Having my teeth fixed for the first time in 20 years.

Also, albeit Gripen being an excellent aircraft, it will be dated when we start replacing the F-16's in 2012+. Add to that, Denmark is a low-level partner in the JSF programme. Btw, our industri also complains about the limited acces to technology and contracts. I'm not sure that swedish weapon systems are so expensive. But fighters may be an exception.

Swedish weapons systems price tag is low, but spare parts and maintainance is very expensive! Plus the question of availability of the spares. Swedes are known to use delivery of spares as a blackmail. Furthermore I think the swedish concept of a swing-fighter (i.e. the use of the same plane as airdefence and attack IN THE SAME MISSION) is a misunderstanding. If the offensive mission comes first, there will be no fuel for dogfight/dash (air defence mission are extreemly fuelthirsty). If the defensive mission comes first, the hardpoints have been taken by airground armament - which will have to be jettisoned - and this stuff is very expensive now adays (plus the question of keeping them in stock for the only reason that they are to be dumped). Air defence loaded down with bombs - I think not. We haven't even touched the problem of crew training!! I do support the notion of a flexible fighter, where the mission is determined as late as possible before take-off and rearmament is a concern of the airbase priority between groundattack, airdefence and recce.