Oh, and people who like to indulge themselves in the idea that any country can be bombed into a prosperous democracy need to get their heads checked.

Well said. The only result of western intervention would be to prevent protests against despotic regimes in other arab countries and thus be counterproductive.

More low tech aircraft might be more useful, but aircraft cost is only one component of the cost of running the squadron. Having 1/4 of the squadrons is still 1/4 of the non-aircraft costs (basing, fuel, people, training, pensions…).

True of course but I have a strong feeling lower tech aircraft are cheaper to operate as well. Spares are cheaper, fuel is hard to tell but probably less, a simpler plane likely requires less maintenance and training.
Besides, airforces with 1-3 squads of fighters usually only have one main fighterbase. Thus the cost of basing and groundsecurity is not that much more.
You can embloy quite a lot of people for the cost of one single Typhoon.

Brittania no longer rules the waves

Mabye we should reopen the “Falklands-thread” ?

Secondly, What sort of powerplant for propulsion – British Avon? American JT8D? But would these countries allow Sweden to use their powerplants on a ‘nuclear bomber’?[/QUOTE]

The planned engine was the Bristol Olympus, same as in the Avro Vulcan and Concorde.
The estimated top speed was mach 2,14

The SAAB A-36

Swedens planned (but thankfully never built) supersonic nuclear bomber.

One or two German navy Bremen class frigates when they get available would be perfect. I doubt Montevideo can afford more than two (if any). Would be perfect in both boosting defence and provide out of area ops in east Africa and the likes.
But I guess I am just dreaming.
Enter the “Visby”! Lucky nobody can find it because the canoe is defenceless….

There are records about an Iraqi Mi-24 shooting down an Iranian F-4 Phantom with an anti-tank missile during the Iran-Iraq war.