https://saabevent.screen9.tv/media/u0iPj_oSVyWv8auSRizXQw/gripen-live-stream
>>29985533
>We will need this new Gripen E to compensate for the fact that we will have a lot fewer aircraft in the future.
Only in Sweden can they cut the air force in half and call it an improvement.
>4th gen aircraft
>new or exciting products
Pick one.
>>29985654
Aaaaaaand here we go
>>29985654
the gripen is 3.5 at best
>>29985688
Gripen E is 4.5+, that's what's being rolled out.
>>29985688
And why doesent it qualify as a 4th gen?
>>29985695
canards
>>29985695
Because it's basically just a Viggen with a body kit on it
>>29985629
gotta provide more money to jamal and malik instead.
>>29985712
>>29985712
Are you that vatnik who got roasted by swedes over in the russian AF thread before?
>body kit
>much smaller airframe
Wanna get in on that quantum folding technology
>>29985709
Unlike all other yuro fighters?
>>29985763
all euroaircraft with canards are 3.5 gen
>>29985810
ebin comment xD
These threads are almost as bad as JSF threads. Why does no one want to talk about the aircraft or what's being said in the stream?
>WUB WUB WUB
>WOB WOB WOB
>PLRLRLLSSSHT
really?
>>29985833
Vatniks get mad because they get roasted in their threads so they shit up other threads in revenge. 'merifats cannot comprehend the concept of other nations making a good aircraft so they automatically assume that they are at least 20 years ahead in every single area so they enter to shitpost and insult everything not 'merifats.
Chinese shillbots come to proclaim chinese superiority over all western systems.
Left is the dozen yuropoors who browse /k/ and they rarely even own funs so they are mentally filtered by jaded /k/ goers.
>>29985833
Because they're inferior to the F-22 and F-35 we rolled out 20 years ago so no Americans care. I personally love SAAB and their aircraft and I'm not going to sit through a sales pitch for an outdated platform either.
Meh. It's a bit bulkier around the wing roots and fuselage, that's about it for the external changes.
Also Saab apparently can into bants:
>"The only fighter on time and budget"
>>29985712
They are not even remotly similar on the inside. And the JA-37 would qualify as a 4th gen.
>>29985870
fuck i never thought of it this way. what a shame
>>29985904
heh. just a bit sad csaab dont make cars anymore desu
>>29985629
200 aircraft is too much for a small country like Sweden anyway, it eats away on all the other military branches
>>29985973
We currently have 96 aircraft.
200 might be a bit to much but we have never under any period had 200 Gripens.
>>29986001
201 aircraft were ordered and delivered in 1996. 96 is probably the number of aircraft in operation today, with a number being leased to other air forces or put in reserve.
>>29986020
204 aircraft was delivered in total. But most of those were A/B-variants. And there was absolutly not 201 aircraft in 1996.
Some A/Bs was converted to C/Ds. And some new C/Ds was delivered up untill last year. But yes a few was/is leased out.
t. Enlisted in the SwAF.
>>29985533
So how will this stack against the other yurocanards?
Less endurance and payload but better sensors and avionics?
>>29986432
Worse than T3 Eurofighters by far, reaching near parity with T2s in some areas.
Worse than Rafales in most areas.
>>29986451
Unless SAAB stuffed old avionics and sensors in there, I have a hard time seeing how this is the case?
Limited by less payload and fuel I can understand but having worse sensors than the Rafale despite being more than 15 years younger I can not.
So, which fighter should we Finns buy?
>>29986451
>Eurofighters
>good
Choose one.
The Eurofighter programme makes the F-35 look straightforward and cheap.
Ask the Austrians how well their Yurofighter worked for them.
>>29986478
Super Hornet, Eurofighter or Gripen are my favourite. The biggest thing that decides in the deal is not the performance, but the maintenance and supply packages etc. Basically the cheapest and most efficient system will probably win.
This is bad news for JSF as Patria probably wants to keep maintenance in their control. We are "island" after all.
t.Finn
>>29986478
What does it matter? You can afford like 8 super-cheap fighters or 2 expensive fighters. Either way, it's pretty pointless.
>>29986478
F-35 if they can afford it.
You'd get the latest in aircraft and trigger the vatniks to a raging fit.
>>29986467
Its why I said most. While newer is generally better, you have to account for the fact that Eurofighters/Rafales have hardly gone without an upgrade. CAPTOR-E for example is pretty much brand new and a fucking huge AESA.
It kind of depends what you're using it for, honestly.
>>29986500
I'll pick both.
![[peacemakes internally].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IyO70sD.jpg "[peacemakes internally].jpg")
>>29986467
some test was done where the 2nd gen Gripen so to say compared unfavorably to the Rafale. new one is not compared to practically compared to anything in my knowledge
>>29986505
and this guy is right, even if the Eurofighter might be a bit expensive
pic unrelated
>>29986478
If the Super Hornet can't win a transparent competition where the original hornet is still in service to a country that isn't a JSF investor, then the hornet line is doomed. Well, maybe SAAB is a better contender thanks to over all price and some of its fighters only recently being retired from the Finnish air force.
>>29986513
Back in the day when we bought Hornets our country was in super bad recession. Even then we managed to scrounge enough money for the purchase. Another note is that apparently our pilots are pretty damn good and have achieved good kill rations during foreign training. For example in Frisian Flag our Hornets got 100:6 kdr.
>>29986505
That basically eliminates Eurofighter, because from what I understand, their maintenance is as shady as F-35's. Or I might be confusing it with some other plane. Rafale at least flies but seems to be focusing on air-to-ground capabilities and its weapons selection is limited. Super Hornet's future is looking pretty grim, because they don't seem to have many buyers, so their production and support might end soon. And it's unsure whether the F-35 will even be ready ever. So many problems.
>>29986513
I think we're going to save some money and buy a few dozen. Currently the plan seems to be to replace our Hornets one to one.
>>29986520
I'm not sure, if we can and the project has been going on for so long that many fighters have surpassed the F-35 in many areas. And the F-35 isn't even ready yet.
>>29986582
The last Draken was retired 16 years ago, so I'm not sure if that's recent.
>>29986654
Yeah your pilots are pretty good over all and when you consider the abysmal training budget and total flight hours compared to wealthier countries it's pretty incredible.
Sadly, even at a 100:6 KDR, when you only have 6 planes and literally all of your potential opponents have like 2000, you're still screwed.
>>29986525
>new one is not compared to practically compared to anything
Delirium tremens?
>>29986432
>Less endurance and payload but better sensors and avionics?
Less endurance and payload is correct, but the E version brings it near on par with with the T3 Eurofighters and Rafales in terms of sensors, avionics, and data links.
Overall the Eurofighter and Rafale are superior aircraft, but the Gripen's lowered performance isn't a dealbreaker (think buying F-16s instead of F-15s, for a rough comparison)
It's a very attractive buy for nations that want a cheaper alternative to the Eurofighter and Rafale. If you're a small European country, the Gripen E is a great choice. It's cheap, available, Saab have favourable tech transfers & support programs, and their running costs are low.
The Eurofighter and Rafale are superior aircraft, but what's the point of buying more expensive, superior aircraft when you can't afford to fly & maintain them?
>>29986708
oh yeah, i kinda fucked that up
>>29986700
1 to 1 replacement is currently the thing. We can find the money.
>>29986706
Potential opponents have 2000 planes, that is new thing for me. Could you please clarify?
>>29986782
Russia and China.
Not saying all 2000 are gen4/gen5 fighters, but they have over 2000 operational combat aircraft.
Who else would even conceivably pick a fight with you guys?
>>29986763
Gripen E has a 7 tonne payload, Gripen A/C had a 5.5 tonne payload.
>>29986763
wtf the gripen can supercruise?
>>29986798
E = NG?
>>29986763
>That jap price
Man those zaibatsu's are fucking their defense industry up
>>29986823
Yep. NG (Next Generation) was the development name.
>>29986823
yeah
first called NG now E (and G for a 2 seater maybe?)
>>29986823
Yeah, the NG was the development name.
It's now the E/F, and the specifications state a 7 tonne payload (at least for the E, the two-seater F may have a lower payload).
>>29986844
F is the two-seat version.
>>29986840
>>29986844
Oh, thought NG was some swedish name or something. E sounds nicer.
>>29986790
>over 2000 operational combat aircraft.
>Russia
And China against us lol.
Russia has about 400 Su-27 derivate aircraft in service. Of which we can believe about 60% is in Finnish Front, that means 240 aircraft that can fight offensively in Finnish airspace. Of which 80% is in usage due to maintenance and possible fighting damage, that is 192 Because longer distances and ground attack missions we believe that they can do 3 sorties a day, that is 576 sorties.
In comparison our 60 Hornets, 48 after 80% availability can do 5 sorties a day from being in defensive and having mainly to worry only A2A missions. This means 240 Sorties a day.
In air we take in consider that Russia has to provide cover for their older bomber aircraft Su-24, Su-25, Su-34, Su-35 and Tu-22. Of most cannot defend themselves against proper fighter jets.
Then we have to remember that we have considerable anti air coverage from ground to throw a wrench in their plans. All in all we are in quite good situation.
Sadly I cannot post my usual copypasta now so you have to rely on this small piece of text.
>>29986798
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
Sure isn't 8.5 tonne?
>>29986850
fucking hell, i thought i had learnt the alphabet by now, bu nonono
>>29986852
well, it does mean "ny generation" or "new generation" in english, not that exiting
>>29985973
>>29986001
>>29986020
>>29986052
Maybe not 200 gripens, but the air force had significantly more planes prior to it.
>>29986884
>ignoring all the MIGs
>ignoring all the older aircraft that'll probably be flying escort
>ignoring the fact that an actual war will probably see the Russians rearranging to put more planes on the front that's actually fighting
I still say you're screwed if Russia's actually serious. If they're dicking around with you guys like they did with the Ukies you're probably okay though.
>>29985870
I dont filter you, EuroFRIEND!
Yay finally.
>>29986763
That chart is so off I don't even know where to fucking begin.
>>29986971
Pls make a list. Fill our autism.
>>29986934
>>29986934
Older Mig-29s are a big question if they can provide offensive air patrol on foreign airspace effectively. Newer ones maybe.
Older aircraft in bomber escort duty is suicide against Hornets and G2A defenses.
Russia also cannot strip all of their best equipment from other possible fronts, but has to maintain enough fighters to provide defense against possible NATO attack.
>>29986984
Why bother, people will just post that shit again, I'm sure.
The costs are flat-out incorrect entirely.
Supercruise / G loads are really misleading (i.e only capable while in clean configuration)
Combat radius is entirely dependent on loadout which isn't specified.
Gripen techie here, AMA. I'll try to answer as well as i can, no specifics though.
>>29986985
The Mig-29 is fine, even the older ones. I'd question their pilots and armament more than the airframe.
Suiciding older planes on escort duty sounds distinctly Russian, pretty sure they'd do that.
You don't have enough G2A to really pose much of a threat against a concerted attack. Yes, they'd take their toll, but unless the Russians are dumb enough to leave them completely untouched throughout the entire war (they're not) you'll only have an effective G2A network for the first couple days. If that. Especially since they have EW versions of the MIG-29 and supposedly the SU27.
Russia doesn't have to strip every last plane off the other 2-3 fronts to have enough aircraft to steamroll you guys. NATO takes long enough to react to stuff, if they pulled 50% off each front all of a sudden they've tripled the airpower on the Finnish front. Which is enough to steamroll your air force and have most of them back at their home stations several days ahead of any NATO reprisal.
>>29987024
What fighter should we buy?
t. Funland
>>29987029
-24 NASAMS IIs
-16 ITO 05 (ASRAD-R)
-86 ITO 05M (MANPADS)
-20 ITO 90M (Crotale NG)
-200 ITO 15 (Stinger)
That is quite lot of missiles.
Then we have 16 Oerlikons, 400 Zu-23-2s and 6 Marksmen
That is much much more than some European NATO countries.
>>29987045
F18 is a cool aircraft, also dat synergy with F18 / Gripen / F35.
Buying gripen would make things interesting over here.
F 35 is cool as well but it seems like a bit of a troublemaker.
Honestly, i don't think it matters greatly as long as you choose one and roll with it. It will have its problems, and it will be expensive as fuck, but it's not the plane that wins the conflict.
So to answer your question: Buy Gripen E.
>>29987107
And about 3/4ths of those can't reach a bomber or its escorts.
>stinger/MANPADS
>good against anything but helicopters
k den.
>>29986052
Which wing?
>>29987107
I still think we should have gone with Aster for our SAMs. Nasams provides volume but the gaping hole that retiring BUK left is would've been easily filled with Aster 30.
>>29987138
Do you think that Russia is going to do their bombing campaign while flying 5km+ altitudes. So if Russians decide to start their flying their strike aircraft up high it effects their accuracy and reconnaissance capabilities.
>>29987173
NASAMS was probably chosen because Nammo makes AMRAAMs which it shoots. Supply decision.
I don't know about you guys, but I just love how the Gripen looks.
>>29987189
>Nammo makes AMRAAMs
Oh, now I see.
So what's exactly the difference with the NG ?
>>29987189
Russia isn't in the stone age anymore. They have SNIPER pods just the USA and Europe. Perhaps not as advanced, but good enough to carry out bombing missions from high altitude without a reduction in accuracy.
>>29986934
You're forgetting many American built planes, even in foreign services, are equipped with the most advanced radar in the air, and they are designed to shoot missiles over the horizon. While russia may have that capability, it's not as advanced or as reliable as the US built aircraft.
>>29987216
The difference is huge. The Gripen NG has a more powerful engine to allow for supercruise as well as a far more advanced sensor package than the original Gripen. Range is somewhat longer too.
>>29987219
I do know that, having seen their wonderful bombing footage from Syria. Do you know what is consistence in those videos especially on older aircraft, not hitting their target well. They do manage to saturate the target with bombs but constant direct hits is something that doesn't happen always.
Then comes the second part of my post. Reconnaissance is hugely important for successful bombing campaign, but if they are forced to fly high and use their camera equipment on trying to find targets from air. Their success finding other than decoys is lacking. Forests make super good air coverage even without camo nets. Having seen picture comparison of real D-30 battery and decoy battery from air, you really cannot tell them apart. Same thing with other fancy decoy equipment.
If you know how to avoid been spotted from air and know how to operate during possible air threat, it heavily increases your survival rate and their failure rate.
>>29986719
>on par with with the T3 Eurofighters and Rafales in terms of sensors, avionics, and data links.
How can the Rafale be on par when it's sensors and radar are 15 years older? The last version of the Rafale came out in 2001 IIRC. The T3 Eurofighter has a pretty baller radar but the Gripen is still has a more advanced system on account of it being newer.
>>29987484
Rafale's AESA was introduced in 2010 iirc
>>29987498
>Rafale's AESA was introduced in 2010 iirc
Then the question is, what makes the radars, EOTS an avionics in Gripen E so much worse? That they are roughly equal I can buy but reading this thread one would belive that Gripen E barely even touches decades old Rafales and Eurofighters
>>29987240
The NG cannot supercruise.
>>29987890
>>29987484
They're not decades older, and they're not light fighters.
T3 Eurofighters / F3 Rafales are pretty much cutting edge. Literally a few years old if that.
>>29988035
uhh, yes it can
>>29988035
[citation needed]
>>29988035
>t. L "if my fighter can't supercruise then no one else can either" M
>>29988061
>>29988078
>>29988100
#triggered
>>29988035
lel yes it can
>>29988112
1.2 Mach without afterburners.
>>29987189
>standard bombing altitude for pretty much any bomb made after ~1950 is 35,000-50,000ft/10-15km straight up, making the actual distance from whatever G2A battery >15km
Yes.
I mean shit, standard US policy is ferry altitude for HELICOPTERS to be >10,000ft specifically to avoid opportunistic MANPADS, and the Chinook has an operational ceiling of 17,000ft.
>>29986828
Jap defence industry costs are pretty ridiculous
They spend ~$3000 USD per Type 89 rifle
>>29986919
At the peak (mid 60s) we had over 600 combat aircraft. The swedish air force was the worlds 4th largest and it consisted of very modern aircraft.
>>29987170
F 21
>>29988057
>They're not decades older, and they're not light fighters
No but if you read the thread people go on about how Gripen E will be worse in pretty much every area compared to earlier T2 EF and the Rafale.
According to what I can find, the Rafale C is the latest variant which entered service in 2001. If there has been any major updates since I don't know but proofs are provided I'd be interested to see them.
Given that Gripen E is currently the youngest of the lot one would think that it would have at least parity if not superiority in avionics and sensors.
>>29988795
2004 was the first delivery of F2 Rafales, and they're currently undergoing F3 upgrades.
T3 Eurofighters (which includes the fucking massive CAPTOR-E) were first delivered in 2013.
Gripen-E may be the youngest but it isn't built to the most expensive spec, too. There are also physical limitations like radar aperture size that dictates sensor ability.
>>29989213
Both the CAPTOR-E and Raven looks similar in size to me. Do you have any specifications on them?
>>29989314
Raven has in the region of 800-1000 T/R modules.
CAPTOR-E has in the region of 1500 T/R modules.
They're both able to be mechanically scanned, though the CAPTOR-E manages a 200* FOV as opposed to Raven's 100* FOV.
Software/Hardware processing of the signals recieved is also very important for obvious reasons, but the T3 Eurofighter upgrade also dealt with this.
wish Saab would go back into making cars
For a country like Serbia, which is currently looking at new fighter procurement. Would a MiG-35 which we are looking into, plus Modernizing the 29's to the M2 varaint. Letting the pilots retaining there training and not needing to switch out logistics. Or going for the Gripen E's that clock in at the same price as the 35's.
>>29989933
Fuck.. My brain died. Let me try again.
Would the MiG-35's which we are looking into, plus Modernizing the 29's to the M2 varaint be a better package then going for the new Gripens? They clock in the same price range per unit.
>>29989859
Same. They were much cooler in general than Volvos.
>>29989933
I'd say always go with western tech. Being in Russia's sphere of influence doesn't usually end well.
>>29989980
Saab was amazing at implementing cool tech with their cars. Their problem was that they sucked at marketing. They invented the turbo and lots of other great things but they never managed to get their brand associated with it. So they ended up being a no-name brand who were really popular with the few people who actually knew anything about them.
So they had these amazing sporty cars but never managed to brand themselves as a company who made cool cars.
Volvo has definitely succeeded in branding themselves with safety. So they're boring, but safe. Saab sadly didn't brand themselves as anything.
>>29986700
>And it's unsure whether the F-35 will even be ready ever. So many problems.
>on schedule since 2012
>>29986822
Only the Raptor and Eurofighter have shown the ability to supercruise by the original definition.
>>29990057
Hard to say what went wrong but marketing is definitely one of the things. My aunt's husband is actually a Saab hobbyist. He's even in some club, if I remember correctly.
>>29990097
Is it supposed to be combat ready at some point? Marketing speeches, advertisements and development models don't shoot down Russian planes.
>>29990114
So where do the Gripen E and Rafale fall short?
>>29990127
Being purchased by GM was the killing blow i think. Up until then they had survived on being unique and attracted the hobby people like your aunt's husband. Building vehicles on the GM platform restricted them a lot so they became too generic.
Volvo was close to meeting the same fate actually, their Ford era cars were quite shitty to be honest, but now they're back to making their own thing. I actually live in Gothenburg so i see them test driving around town a lot. So i saw a V90 test car 2 weeks ago, they look really damn nice.
I have a couple of uncles who used to work at the Saab manufacturing plant, they went unemployed after Saab died. Never was a big saab fan but it sucks they lost their jobs.
I have a lot of friends from university working at Saab electronic defense these days instead.
>>29987498
How many Rafales even have that radar?
>>29990173
Forgot about GM completely. Are there currently any plans to resurrect the car manufacturing? They tried it a couple of years ago but I think they ran out of money back then.
Volvo also seemed to have some problems, when the Chinese bought them. My father's coworker's new Volvo burst into flames for no apparent reason, when she was leaving the parking lot. Good thing they are branded as safe cars... :D
>>29990127
USMC already declared IOC for their F-35B's and the USAF is on track to declare IOC for its F-35A's by the end of the year.
>>29990304
I'm talking about FOC. All bugs sorted out and so forth.
>>29990274
All Volvos manufactured recently that aren't the new XC90 are still running on Ford tech, so if the car caught fire then you can blame ford. The new cars are designed and manufactured in sweden instead of being made out of Ford standard components. Engines, chassi, electronics, drive trains, everything. Saying that Volvo got problems after being bought by the chinese would be a complete lie, Volvo became more swedish after they became chinese. The chinese aren't stupid enough to wreck a brand they just purchased by lowering the quality.
Look at Jaguar as another example. After they were purchased by Indian Tata they handed the development and production over to the brits instead of their former american owners. And the recent Jaguars have amazing quality since they went back to their british roots.
The saab factory has also been bought by the chinese, but in the current situation they're only licensed to manufacture Saab 9-3's in it since the 9-5 is a GM design so they can't make those. Which is good because that car is ugly as fuck. So there may or may not be electric cars made on the older saab platforms. I doubt anything meaningful will ever come of it. Saab is dead, don't get your hopes up.
>>29990376
I just remembet that the incident happened shortly after the change in ownership, so I'll go with your information. Don't know any better myself.
My only hope in car industry is that Toroidion becomes a succesful company and starts making a more affordable model.
By the way, I have one of these waiting for me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_164
It's my grandfather's old car. Red with white interior. It's a model of 1970, if I remember correctly.
>>29990496
Yeah, in the modern days cars are mostly electronics so they've lost their charm. Can't really tinker around with them in your garage anymore. Colin Powell is a huge old school volvo enthusiast actually.
That's a pretty exclusive car! I hope you take good care of it. I've handled Volvo Amazon and PV from that era but that looks like a really special car. I hope you realize how rare that car is. Only 12 199 ever made from what i can read. Never seen one in person i think.
To keep things military related the old army transport cars in sweden were made out of the same standard components as the Amazon and PV cars too. Probably shares a lot with that car too.
>>29990369
The tech /software for FOC comes late next year, but due to fleet size requirements, IOT&E requirements, personnel requirements, etc, the first F-35 FOC isn't until 2021 or 2022, with the USAF. By comparison mind you, the Gripen E has IOC in 2023. That's 18 years to develop a new variant of an existing fighter...
>>29986500
whats wrong with austrian eurofigher?
>>29990369
Hello goalposts.
>>29990613
It's not pretty exclusive, it's very exclusive. The original owner was some banker from Oulu, so the register plate has just number one on it after the alphabet part, which was very rare at the time. I've been told that the interior also has some custom work done to it at the Volvo factory but I haven't looked into to it, so I don't know what it is exaclty. Apparenly the banker's wife traveled to the factory to oversee the interior work. Still, it looks pretty normal to me, so maybe it's just some small details.
I think this was Volvo's first real luxury model, so that's also quite special.
My plan is to restore the car and get a better garage for it. It's in pretty good shape considering the age but not good enough to be a "museum car".
The engine is similar at least. Not same but similar.
>>29989933
Get the Mig-35, buying SAAB just means more tax dollars for refugees & fags.
>>29990821
If that makes you happy
>>29990876
It does. There are many good memories related to that car. But now I have to go to sleep.
>>29990902
I assume that gay sex is one of those memories. The feeling of your man-hymen being ripped as your grandmother is honking in the front seat while you're being anally penetrated by the duke of Westphalia.
>>29991073
Try to cash in your special snowflake points elsewhere.
>>29991087
Tell me, why are you so upset?
>>29991100
For your sake i hope you're asking this question ironically. Because being retarded shouldn't be part of your master plan.
>>29991116
No really. How can cars make you so angry?
>>29991125
Cars? What? Really? You're too stupid to realize that the topic has changed? I feel sorry for you. This is not about cars. Or origami.
>>29991151
I do realize that. And before I was talking about fighters but that faded, because there was only some LM marketing guy talking about F-35's IOC and I'm still waiting for an asnwer to my question about Gripen E's and Rafale's supercruise. So it shouldn't hurt that much that two guys are bumbing the thread while they wait conversation to continue.
>>29991242
Sure, if that makes you feel better.
>>29985533
Too bad it's $100 million a pop now. The price was the best differentiator that the Gripen C/D had.
>>29986763
That's blatantly wrong. The Gripen E/F (what the NG became) is $100 million per aircraft.
>>29991267
Actually it did. I don't remember, when was the last good conversation I had on /k/. Usually every topic turns into shilling, calling other people stupid, praising 'Murica/getting angry that 'Murica isn't praised or a DI vs gas piston debate. So while that conversation was off-topic, it was civil and informative.
But now I really have to get to bed, so you can proceed with questioning other people's sexuality, or however you usually have conversations.
>>29988664
>had
>>29991350
It's 40 mill tho?
>>29987019
No go full autism, I have no odubt it's bullshit but I want to see it all.
>>29991487
Not even in your wildest fuckin' dreams is it $40 million.
>>29986478
F-35, most capable aircraft of the lot and you get that comparability with the Danes and Norwegians going. F-18E after that, and the gripen sits with the eurocanards.
>>29986985
you guy got bought my MS right?(nokia) that means you get F-22 backup day one. just saying major US company has a lot o money in finland so not nato does not really matter we got your back.
>>29991740
MS only bought the phone division of Nokia and that failed hilariously at least if we look at how well the Windows Phone has done.
There aren't any major US investments here, so we can't trust that we get any help in case of war. Even if we were in NATO, because I don't think our country is valuable enough to others to risk fighting a war with Russia.
>>29990057
the uk invented turbines of both the steam and hot gas variety sorry give the limes their boot.
