Hacker News Reader

Comment by sofixa | Hacker News Reader

Yep, and especially for smaller countries with smaller air forces and budgets, having more Gripens makes more sense than having fewer but more expensive F-35s. The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon).

Agree about Ukraine too. Sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn is wasting Ukraine's time - Gripens, maybe Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s make the most sense.

View on HN

> The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon).

I guess, it really depends on your threat model.

If you assume that Russia is the main threat, and assume that what's going on in Ukraine is what future combat would likely look like, forward deployed SAMs are the main threat to aircraft. I have to imagine that advanced stealth capabilities would really help Sweden maintain an air capability in such an environment.

From what I understand, the Ukrainian airforce has taken a pretty severe beating (understandably). Heck - the Russian airforce has been pretty limited as well - they do run sorties, but they aren't exactly operating with impunity.

> maybe Mirage 2000s

Stopped being produced 15 years ago.

> MiG-29

Ukraine can't get new ones.

> Gripens

Could be an option, but available only in low numbers.

The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production.

Ukraine can't afford a dead-end platform. Especially because "sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn".

The F-16 is probably the best option, still being made, but much more importantly, available in large numbers, thousands of them out there.

> The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production.

Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.

> Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.

Ukraine being a part of Russia is a mainstream opinion in Russia. It's a core part of Russian propaganda abroad and has been so since the 1800s (Novorossya).

I'm not saying it's impossible, but a new leader will adopt many of the nationalist tropes.

Russia completely leaving occupied territories, especially Crimea, diplomatically, will be extremely hard to do.

And Ukraine without Crimea will always be exposed. It's too easy to choke off their maritime access without it.

The thing is, Russian economy is in shambles. The only major trading partners they have left is China and India... and the West won't ever open up unless Russia at the very least leaves the occupied territories, which leaves the Ukrainians free to focus on regaining Crimea.

Some countries can be hellbent on self-destruction if they feel their "national pride" is being offended.

And European messaging is... strongly in favor of Ukraine but at reduced/no cost for Europe. So in practice European messaging is actually weak.

There are quite a few big European economies that would want to open up the Russian economy again. Conflicting interests are still fighting it out and we can't be sure which side will out. It could very well be that the winning political side in the West says a chopped up Ukraine is sufficient at the end of this war.

We'll see, it's super hard to predict.

Don't be so sure. Trump wants to "end the war" by cutting off help to Ukraine and force them to "negotiate" with Russia, i.e. surrender their territory. Orban is making things harder than necessary for EU to show a united front against Russia. Who knows what the political reality will be in a few years if the war continues then, too many wants things to go back to normal even if that means appeasing Putin.

> only… China and India

For Russia at least, wouldn’t that be plenty enough to get by on?

It is not a given that, if Putin is ousted, his replacement will stop the war. While there are factions that are not keen on the war (many of the oligarchs that have interest in trading with the west) , there are some others (the warlords) that are even more hawkish than Putin, and seeing as he is very careful to please them, they have a lot of power.

> Stopped being produced 15 years ago.

Doesn't really matter when there are hundreds in stock (recently decommissioned or soon to be decommissioned) - they're faster to deliver than ones that are yet to be produced.

> Ukraine can't get new ones.

They don't need new ones, they need flying ones, yesterday. The proposed swaps with various NATO countries like Bulgaria sounded like the best option - Ukraine gets jets they can fly today, and the other country gets an upgrade for their help.

Small, high-GDP countries like the nordics are also likely to rear a small amount of the high-quality pilots required for operating fighter jets. Maximizing those pilots by putting them in exquisite, high-end aircraft, with strong interoperability with aircraft operated by close allies (in this case most of the rest of NATO), makes a lot of sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com