The Gripen E is least capable fighter produced in Europe. Both Rafale and Eurofighter are much more capable and those two are still less capable than the F-35A.
Even the F-15EX is more capable than the Gripen E. No Air Force with access to either F-35A, Rafale or Eurofighter 1/9
will buy the Gripen E. It's just not happening.
The Gripen E carries the least amount of weapons over the shortest distance.
And stop with "Gripen E is improved for arctic conditions": where do you think Eielson Air Force Base is? 2/n
Besides, at 10,000m / 33,000ft the temperature is -50°C / -58°F. Much colder than "arctic conditions".
And the "Gripen E can take off from roads" / "only needs a short runway" arguments - roads: so can the F-35A, so can the Eurofighter, etc. 3/n
And if a very short runway is your main concern... nothing can compete with the shortness of F-35B runways.
Sure you sacrifice fuel and weapons load if you operate F-35B instead of F-35A, but even the F-35B carries more fuel and weapons than a Gripen E, because the 4/n
advertised Gripen E weapons load requires to cut back two thirds on the internal fuel, and the advertised Gripen E combat range requires external fuel tanks.
The Gripen E is a good fighter; surely better than anything the russians have, but it is a lightweight fighter, which 5/n
just can't compete with the West's best fighters: F-35A, Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15EX.
It's main competitor is actually the F-16... but the newest F-16 version, the F-16V Block 70/72 is also a better fighter than the Gripen E. 6/n
Of all the mentioned fighters, the F-35A is the cheapest. Big production run equals lower cost.
And unlike the Gripen E (the third generation of the Gripen after Gripen A/B and Gripen C/D) the F-35 will evolve: new variants and weapons will be added over the next 40+ years. 7/n
The F-35 also has by far the best radar and avionics, and that is the reason 🇦🇺🇧🇪🇨🇦🇨🇿🇩🇰🇫🇮🇩🇪🇬🇷🇮🇱🇮🇹🇯🇵🇳🇱🇳🇴🇵🇱🇷🇴🇸🇬🇰🇷🇨🇭🇬🇧 have chosen the F-35.
Only 🇧🇷 has chosen the Gripen E, which in the defence black hole South America are, and will be for decades, the most advanced fighters. 8/n
So for Brazil the Gripen E makes sense, also for i.e. Ireland, as they just need to patrol their airspace.
But for everyone else in Europe, the F-35A is a better choice, followed by the Eurofighter or the Rafale. If you can't get these three, buy F-16 Block 70 as 🇧🇬🇸🇰 did. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course russia can quickly seize the Suwałki Gap and cut of the Baltics from the rest of NATO... but have you had a look at Kaliningrad's border and the flat dry country beyond?
There are 9 Polish brigades in that area (and 11 in reserve, with 4 more forming). Sure russia 1/5
could move 50,000+ men to Kaliningrad to secure the border or build a defence line along the Pregoła river... but those need to be supplied from Belarus, which also is easily invaded unless russia sends 50,000+ troops to secure its flank there. A buildup of 200,000+ russian
2/5
troops in Belarus would be noticed by NATO (and ordinary people in Belarus, who would upload 100s of videos of the arriving russians).
In summary the main risk isn't that russia suddenly seizes and fortifies the Suwałki Gap... the main risk is that russia starts building up
3/5
The North Atlantic - one of the key battles in a russia-Europe war.
If Europe is defeated here, which with Europe's current forces and capabilities, is almost certain to happen... then russia can nuke the UK without fear of retaliation.
This will be a unsettling thread:
1/40
This battle will be very different from the battles in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, which I discussed in an early thread, which is linked below.
To understand the North Atlantic Battle we need to look at Imperial Germany's WWI submarine campaign,
2 days ago I did a thread about the reasons russia can't defeat Ukraine and yet is still a deadly threat to Europe and NATO (link to the thread the next tweet).
Today I will talk about three of the fronts of a russia-Europe war: 1) Black Sea 2) Baltic Sea 3) North Atlantic
1/36
These three fronts will be air and sea battles, while Finland and the Baltics will be air and land battles; about which I will talk in another thread in the coming days.
I do not believe the US under control of Trump or Vance would come to the aid 2/n
• russia has no chance to defeat Ukraine
• russia is a deadly threat to NATO and the EU
Both of these are true... because as of 2025 Ukraine fields a far more capable military than NATO's 30 European members combined (!).
Let me explain.
1/39
As of August 2025 russia fields more than 1,3 million troops; at least half of which are fighting in or against Ukraine.
Ukraine has an estimated 1 million troops... maybe even 1,1 million troops. NATO's European members have double that: some 2.2 million troops, but 2/n
(there is always a "but" with European militaries):
• with more than double the personnel European NATO members manage to field only 20% more combat brigades than Ukraine. Partly because Western navies and air forces are bigger, but mostly because in all European militaries 3/n
People forget that for most if its history Europe was much, much more militarized than even during the Cold War.
Italy, from the end of the Third War of Independence in 1866 to 1939 fielded always 360-400 battalions, which fell to 110-115 during the Cold War, as the US
1/14
backed its European allies with the its massive air force. Today Italy fields 41 battalions (infantry, tanks, recon, special forces, rangers).
Likewise the British Army fielded for most of its history (especially after the 1908 Haldane reforms) 450-480 battalions, which came 2/n
in three types: 150-160 regular battalions (of which a third was always in India), around 100 reserve battalions to provide replacements for the regular battalions, and 200-220 territorial battalions, which (at least on paper) could not be deployed overseas. The British Army
3/n
And this is how Berlin would look like 3 days after putin attacks Europe... because Germany doesn't have the air defence ammo to defend any of its city for more than 2 days.
1/12
This is Copenhagen.
And this is how Copenhagen would look like the morning after putin attacks Europe... because Denmark doesn't have any air defence to defend itself.
2/12
This is Paris.
And this is how Paris would look like a day after putin attacks Europe... because France only has SAMP/T air defence systems, which is as of now has very limited capabilities against ballistic missiles.
3/12