• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    It’s a matter of opportunity cost. Why give Ukraine an expensive air superiority fighter that needs precious resources to operate, and is vulnerable to Russian SAMs, when they could have the equivalent cost in missiles instead?

    The Saab Gripen carries more explicit reconiassance/air-to-ground loadout, it’s designed to be cheap to maintain, it’s more flexible with short runaways and such.


    …Hence my uncertainty. I am not military, so I don’t really understand the need of a focused air superiority fighter like the Typhoon, as opposed to more SAMs + aircraft that can do A2A like the Gripen.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        But those countries could also keep their Typhoons and send their G2A instead (which the Typhoons cover the need for).

        It’d be more efficient for Europe to set up a no fly zone with them, or something like that.

        I realize I’m sort of arguing with myself here, heh.