this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
122 points (100.0% liked)

Buy European

8104 readers
80 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.


Matrix Chat of this community


Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content.

Useful Websites

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Friendica:

Matrix:


Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:


Banner credits: BYTEAlliance


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] MolochHorridus@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

Of course they do. They donโ€™t want to be the 51st state of the USA. Chances of that becoming true increase the more they have planes that can be disabled remotely by the imperialistic Trump war machine.

[โ€“] Eiri@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (6 children)

I'm kinda shocked people have strong opinions on fighter planes of all things. I barely know those two models of plane exist. I would answer "don't know".

[โ€“] cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

The question isn't as much "Which of the two fighter jets are better suited for service" as it is "Do you want our military to be dependent on the US military-industrial complex or on the European?"

[โ€“] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

Come on mate. Elbows up

The question was not only about the fighter jets themself. The participants got the necessary information in the question, see the caption in the graphics.

[โ€“] cabbage@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago

Big investments like this are often very politicized-even before Trump and all-because it's to a large degree just geopolitics. Gripen is in all likelihood the better alternative, but F35 has been considered an excellent choice for countries wishing to suck up to America. Until recently sucking up to America was considered good defense policy among parts of the political spectrum.

[โ€“] Sunshine@piefed.ca 6 points 1 month ago

Someone hasnโ€™t been paying attention.

[โ€“] wewbull@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Do you know that the aircraft need servicing after every flight, otherwise it's grounded, and that supplies would come from the country of origin? US for F35. Sweden for Grippen.

Does that change your outlook?

[โ€“] Kjell@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Lots of parts on Gripen are from US, but they will at least get less money.

[โ€“] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 4 weeks ago

It's not about money. It's about which country you trust to keep supplying you and not use your dependency to control how and when you use your planes.

[โ€“] Eiri@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess, but I still wouldn't feel qualified enough to offer a confident answer. There are lots of factors.

[โ€“] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 4 weeks ago

So in Europe there was a desire to send F35s into conflict in Ukraine. US said no by saying that servicing supplies would not be made available.

Sovereign nations are unable to use their planes how they want to.

Now with Gripen it might be a similar situation, but Sweden has been trustworthy thus far.

[โ€“] skozzii@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 weeks ago

Only 40% of F-35 planes are currently operational during non war times.

Now imagine how difficult it would be to keep this in the air during war when US keeps the parts for their own planes.

Now even further, imagine a world when the US is either a neutral party or an enemy, and zero of those planes are flying.

[โ€“] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting. I wonder why they're considering the Gripen instead of the Eurofighter Typhoon (German/British/Italian/Spanish) or Dassault Rafale (French). To be honest I really don't know what the differences would be.

[โ€“] HansGruber@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The interesting feature of the gripen is it's ability to land on rural roads. Sweden has many of those and Canada also. Another interesting feature is it's maintainability, just 6 man crew, fuel and ammo on a road between nowhere is enough for the gripen.

[โ€“] moderatecentrist@feddit.uk 3 points 4 weeks ago

I see, thanks for the info. Anyway it's good to see Canada wanting to buy defence equipment from Europe instead of the now unreliable US.

[โ€“] klairman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is the way! Not as technologically advanced as the F-35, but much better than a switched-off F-35 anyway.

[โ€“] Drekaridill@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 month ago

Can't believe 12% chose North Korea

[โ€“] mrdown@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Jets is the least needed thing for a non existant threat