[Stealhead]

In many respects the Gripen is a better aircraft than the competition in this case.Much more bang for your buck really and it has very good rough field capabilities.The Super Hornet does not.

The Sweds can operate Gripen with just on trained tech and 6 or 7 untrained troops in rough field conditions. Gripen has been popular the Czechs went with them and so did the Thai Air Force.

A fully equipped Gripen costs $60 million USD while a Super Hornet cost $66 million.That and the Gripen is Swedish engineered.The Super Hornet is really 35 year old technology with a face lift when you get down to it.

I think you will see more nations choosing not to buy American military technology partly for political reasons but also because there is competing technology that is just as effective and costs less.

I must disagree on the Russian aircraft what they export is crap compared to what they use and it is inferior to western technology not to mention the important factor that Russian pilots see the amount of training in a year that a Western pilot sees in 90 days.Gripen is far superior to the MiG-29 the closest thing to a multi role aircraft that the Russians market.A wise smaller air force would do better buying a few less Gripens for the same cost and focusing on good training with that they'd dominate any local air force.As a matter of fact Hungary acquired the Gripen to replace the MiG-29s they had in their inventory wise choice.In modern warfare quality does trump quantity.