@kreyren might make more logistical sense to go with the Gripen or Typhoon if Sweden joins as expected. Canada recently did a competition with the Super Hornet, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, and Lightning II. Lockheed beat out Saab at the end, but the understanding is that it mainly came down to Canada needing close integration with the US. Finland probably places more weight on working with the Swedes and British, thanks to their recent security agreement, where Canada placed it on working with the Americans.
@khird Comparing the two based on known data:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripen#Specifications
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A)
Speed's not everything, yes lightning II is slower (Mach 1.6 vs Mach 2), but it's has significantly better manuverability **and stealth** with longer range which makes it more capable aircraft for air2ground assault while not being directly designed for dog fights which is why it needs a support aircraft like Raptor (F22), but despite that it should be more then capable in a combat against ruzzia unless they use Felon (Su-57) which is reportedly battle ineffective.
E.g. see reconstruction of Raptor v. Gripen in DCS by two capable pilots:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=W60cQhAB-Ow
And Felon v. Typhoon
https://youtube.com/watch?v=F-DtYo0vGMU which is close to gripen dog fight-wise.
@kreyren
> Gripen or typhoons are significantly less combat-capable
by what metric? The Saab has a five-to four advantage in max speed, and about two-to-one in thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading (= better manoeuvrability). The Lockheed has a fifty percent greater range and about eight percent more munition capacity by weight. Obviously range is really important if you want to defend an airspace as large as Canada's, but no point in Finland is more than about 300km from the Russian border, so it's well within both craft's ranges.