To an non-expert like me the Gripen just seems so well-suited for Ukraine's Air Force in this conflict - relatively inexpensive, can land/operate in tougher conditions, can be serviced nearby (Czechia), outfitted to handle Western/NATO missile tech. I wonder what caused them to push so hard for F-16 instead.
Sweden was publicly clear they weren't going to make the Gripen available to Ukraine, the planes exist in small enough quantities that some new manufacturing would need to happen in order for any of its operators to swap their existing inventory out and give it to Ukraine (not impossible in the long run since there is a new variant that some countries might want to acquire someday, but not happening in the short term), and - this is the big one - there are roughly twenty times as many F-16s in service worldwide as there are Gripens.
Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
I think the question of which ally would supply what to Ukraine was generally pretty flexible - there were various statements about not supplying hardware like Bradley, Leopard, Challenger and F-16, I guess due to Russian threats about how it'd consider that an "escalation". But those appear to have melted away, so I just figured such statements were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Flexible is right, but with the weird caveat that the company which manufactures the hardware (and the nation in which it's headquartered) generally gets a veto when it comes to any one of its customers sending any given item to Ukraine, if they want it. That's about the contracts and terms military hardware is sold under, and the need for ongoing maintenance contracts. It's why Germany, after gifting Ukraine with some anti-aircraft equipment, couldn't send surplus Oerlikon ammo to Ukraine. Switzerland, where the ammo was manufactured, would not allow it.
(not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
Yeah, the Swiss neutrality has the same quirks and hypocrisies of every neutrality that ever existed. Specially when it has a relevant arms industry.
With the banking part it was always easier to skate most pressures because at the end of the day the World is controlled by rich people and they all have interest in the "safety" of Switzerland. With weapons they are in this narrow "Buy now from us, because we will not sell during the your conflict.". When sh*t hits the fan these typical Swiss dances don't work and I'm guessing they'll have an hard time selling anything of relevance in the future..
I don't have any insight into Swiss politics (and I might not be up to date on the news in this area) but it surprises me that they didn't find a way to make an exception for Germany and Ukraine, given it would have involved a purely defensive weapon system that saves a lot of civilian lives. And it would perhaps have saved their arms export industry.
One of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries.
Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
The F-16 is not a Lockheed plane, which why it's so popular. Lockheed planes are expensive and high maintenance. The FB-111, B1B (8% readiness rate), OV-102 (space shuttle, 40% of which failed), and of course the F-35.
The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
The F-16 is the most numerous fighter jet in existence today and some countries are replacing them with F-35s, so there are a few dozen F-16s that might be available soon for Ukraine.
On the other hand, the amount of Gripens available is in the low hundreds, which in practice means that Sweden would have to donate a significant part of it's current air force capability to Ukraine.
Easy: avaiability, in every sense. There are many, many more F-16 in service to draw from. As are more operators, making training easier. And maitennace, everything from spqres to sites to people, is much easier to come by at scale for F-16s.
All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
Ah yeah I only just looked at its wiki page now, there's about 150-ish in total and under 30 in Central Europe (14 in ČR, 14 in Hungary - suspect the latter wouldn't be too keen to help out Ukraine).
Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
I would guess the F-16 fleet is easier to quickly expand than one based on Gripens as the supply of F-16:s is larger. Also creates a direct link to US military industrial complex which will help with US support in coming years (good business). The intake in f-16 seems really troublesome for takeoffs in ruddy envorinments.
