My understanding of the Finnish eval is that unlike many others it will first short-list, and then it will pick the most capable solution amongst those short-listed.

Gripen no doubt is very cost-effective (if payload/endurance requirements are met) however it will not be able to beat the F-35 if one of the main criteria is ranking of technical capabilities. There is so much capability in the F-35 a/c (built-in) that no 4.5 gen fighter will be able to compete. IMHO.

Had they chosen to instead define “minimum capability criteria” and then select the cheapest package then perhaps Gripen E would have had a chance in Finland. But with their process I don’t think it will have a chance.

Politics may also play a role, in favor of a US solution. Sweden is a near neighbor and very important partner to Finland of course, but after the Swedish military has been decimated over many years, I don’t see Sweden ever become in a position to give any substantial support to Finland, Sweden will struggle to defend itself! The only country that can support Finland and provide a credible deterrence is the US. Thus if Finland believes that the US support will still be there (in spite of all the America First talk) then politically it makes the most sense to buy US fighters.

I doubt that. According the programme director (AFM, Jul 2017), the Rafale F4 will feature upgrades to its radar, EW system, comms & weapons and enter service around 2025. No airframe modification or thrust upgrade is envisaged. In the same time-frame, the F-35 will be available in the Block 4.4 configuration i.e. with the second hardware upgrade (the first being rolled out around 2022). So the capability gap might well end up widening by the next iteration.

You misunderstood — what I meant was that the capability gap between Rafale F4.2 and F-35 will be smaller than the capability gap between Typhoon and F-35…