Facts are facts and no amount of crying and complaining will change them. The F-35 has moved more quickly than the Eurocanards did. That is a fact.

No, it didnt, not by a very long shot.

Portugal
yes, you forgot that tiny state. At one point or another, they will need to buy something and discard their 16. Obviously the SH or Rafale will be the front runners but long term sustainability and Danes teach us that for a small fleet, it might even be cheaper to buy the LM fighter.

Rafale for the Portuguese Air Force? There would have to be some very strange combination of events for that to happen.
Right now there are two companies that the FAP aproached for informations, LM for the F-16V (upgrade) and Saab for the Gripen.
Chances are that the Viper fleet will soldier on for a very, very, very loooong time, we kept the F-86 Sabre in active service till 1980, the F-16 will follow the same route (there will be Vipers flying with the USAF by the 2030´s, so…)

The Boeing claims are that the SH costs were inflated by 50% to 100% not by ‘up to 50%’. If you have to do that to make your aircraft of choice competitive then something is rotten in the state of Denmark. (apologies to William Shakespeare)

Making your operational choice to look “publicly pretty” is far from being a Dane or JSF thingy.

The Gripen E is an exercise to modify a lightweight fighter design to match medium fighter types such as f-16, Typhoon, rafale and super hornets.

General Dynamics with the YF-16 won the USAF “Lightweight Fighter program”.
The YF-16, at 6.1 Tons weighted half a ton less than a Gripen A, the Block 60´s at roughly ten tons weights the same has a Rafale.

Are the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, Su-35, and Pak Fa all on-time, on-budget, and on-track to being delivered with their full envisioned capability compared to their original procurement plans? Building fighter jets is hard stuff. The F-35 was the victim of a laughably optimistic original sales pitch to congress, but it hasn’t run into any more difficulty in development than any other high performance fighter jet. The real difference compared to any earlier fighter program is how transparent and open to public scrutiny the JSF development process has been.

The JSF certainly has found “more difficulty in development” than a great big chunk of their predecessors, the development and deployment timelines are public, and i would add that programs like the ATF and FEFA/EFA/Eurofighter were equaly publicly scrutinized.
I can remember the EFA chaps threatning to sue Bill Sweetman!
The JSF had all the development pains of their most recent stablemates (namely the cutting edge Raptor and the devilish political Phoon) with the added complexity of the STVOL requirements (Good old Lusty elevators…), i can remember Roy Braybrook circa 1998 stating that whatever came out of it was going to be expensive and late, he was right.
Good thing is that its finaly getting mature.

(sorry for the awful English, not exactly my first language)

For CAS, I do understand that the LO characteristics of the SH (weapons pod) and extended loiter time with CFT might play a role.

Or the Danes noticed that external fuel tanks on the phoon are quite tiny and the numbers of ATOG weapons and recon pods integrated on that thing are paltry by comparison with the SH?
The Phoon won on the ATA scenario and lost to the SH in the ATG and recon scenarios, why is anyone surprised?!

Good Lord well speak for yourself. Western democracy is a total sham. Example, Finnish government one year after elections is conducting an aggressive thatcherite campaign of privatization but before the elections none of the coalition parties had announced that privatization would be there intention. They also want to find reason to subjugate Finland to NATO although most of the governing coalition had rejected that in their election platforms.

Yes, Western Democracy a “total sham”…
I am quite sure that the North Koreans are, oh, so much better than the Fins…

Costs are not constant for 1. Second, Denmark being a JSF nation they are paying dues, as opposed to buying Super Hornet they have to pay FMS fees, and R&D fees. Those can’t be waived by the maker of airplane its US gov required= its the deal structure. 3rd, as super hornet prduction slow, the cost rises because scale economies can’t be used. Boeing has said it is trying to go from 36 per year, to 24 per year without cost jump. But they are not getting 24 per year… Super hornets were around 70 million for the Navy in 2012, the latest deal they were 77 milllion for the exact same thing.

and most obviously, How do you buy a buy a Super hornet in 2022 when they stop making them before 2020?

Sensible