So as was somewhat expected, Boeing offer for Finland does contain Growlers, and Boeing now secured export permit for them:
U.S. Government Approves Release of Boeing EA-18G Growler to Finland

Being the only stealth aircraft in the mix, F-35 will obviously enjoy big advantage in tactical scenarios, which I gather will be somewhat similar as in Danish evaluation.
However economic realities will prove hard to meet for many, if not all, competitors. FAF expects to operate same number of planes as today with budget no bigger. It’s hard to see how Eurofighter and F-35 will be able to meet this criteria and others might have problems as well. Combine with looming economic downturn, I think the odds are long that the procurement will progress as planned without a hitch.

Gripen has good chances there, thanks to sweden giving strategic depth. Can anyone here tell meto what degree Finland is integrated into NATO systems (i know it is not in NATO, but things like L-16 etc.?)

Yes, Finns extensively use Link16 nowadays, and in MLU Hornets had the domestic datalink replaced with Link 16 (to chagrin of some…). Similar what Swedes did with Gripen A/B -> C/D.

If armour belt was useful against modern anti-ship weapons, then modern warships would have armour belts.

Thick belt armour might help a battleship against some missile hits in some circumstances, but overall it would be minimal help.

F-117 shotdown: you can look here at Hornetfins post (he was radar operator), he has god insight in this things:

However, there may be other explanations for reported acquisition/tracking ranges, for example Serbs emitting only interminttently to avoid being attacked etc.
So many different things have been reported about F-117 shootdown (some of it deliberate misinformation) that it is hard to make many conclusions from publicly available information.

That isn’t reasonable, if EMCON is the reason then they won’t give APG-81 electronic attack ability. Beside, you are compare apple to orange, US F-16, A-10, AV-8B don’t have internal jammer because they don’t have to pay a lot of attention to RCS unlike stealth aircraft, and external pods are more flexible, you will also noitice that A-10, F-16, AV-8B don’t have internal forward looking infrared or missile warning system and as we know they carry missiles/bombs externally as well.

Yet there have been contemporary US fighters which had internal jammers (F/A-18) or internal IRST/FLIR (F-14). The reason why those fighters you mentioned did not have internal jammers was simple – there was no requirement when they were designed, and once such requirement came up, those planes had too little internal space to effectively install jammers, or it would have required too costly modifications.

Actually it is worthless. Start with your first point. It is not an indication of supersonic performance across the envelope. The Rafale is limited to 750 knots/ Mach 1.8. Does that mean it’s inferior to the F-4 in transonic or supersonic acceleration?

Is it? I don’t know.
What I do know is that Rafale has engines and control avionics 2 generations newer than F-4. So the comparison is probably quite fruitless.

We’ve seen the opposite is true, most recent fighters are limited to 700-800 knots (Mach 1.6- 2.0 ~30,000 feet). They can actually reach those speeds while armed. The same is not true of 3rd gen- early 4th gen fighters with Mach 2+ theoretical top speeds.

None of which in any way contradicts what I said.

Acceleration is far more important than a theoretical dash speed that is operationally unreachable.

The point which you are missing is that to some extent, latter predicts the former.

It specifically states jamming without interfering with radar.

Yes, but that probably refers to countermeasures – towed decoy, BriteCloud, chaff/flares.