It seems that at least Hbl has woken up to the question by what new model of jet fighter(s) to replace the slowly-ageing Hornets of the Finnish air force: on Lö 29.04. it devoted two full pages to the advice of some pilots of the British RAF that Finland, same as the United Kingdom, should buy two different types of jet fighters (so that each type should be able to compensate for the weak sides of the other).
It is possible that the advice of those pilots is honestly well-meant. What it fails to consider is, though, the fact that Great Britain has more than ten times the number of inhabitants (from whose taxes one would have to pay for those fighter planes) than Finland. Which means that the up-to-now result of the discussion in this blog seems still the best idea: SAAB’s Gripen, because it is not only a reasonably good jet fighter, but also because it could get the possibility to use Swedish airfields and there get help from ground crews who are familiar with and equipped for just the Gripen.
If one should see really urgent reasons why it would be essential to have, in addition to the Gripen, e.g. a really stealthy fighter (such as the astronomically expensive F-35), then one would have to try and improve the European collective defence that way that there would be a fund into which every EU member pays and from which are then bought those stealth fighters. Of course these collectively payed-for fighters would then have to be available for the defence of EVERY EU country. – It is in this context perhaps not so bad that Great Britain is not any more a member of the EU. We have seen how blindly it has in the past been following the USA into any even doubtful military adventure, and it would not be so very economical if collectively payed-for systems would be used up for such adventures only because, e.g., Britain would claim that the adventure were essential for its security.