@Vespers: I misspoke (or mis-typed, rather). I meant to write that the Gripen would probably be cheaper to maintain and fly (than older US models like the F-4 Phantom). That was just an educated guess, though, and I very well could be wrong. Do you know off hand if a newer build F-16 is cheaper, off-the-shelf, and to fly and maintain, than a current model Gripen? I guess I fell for the Saab marketing that the Gripen is a low-cost alternative to NATO's Gen 4 offerings.
Another thing the Gripen has going for it is it's ability to operate dispersed from conventional airbases and take off from and land on roads. It's also designed to be serviced by conscripts. Add all of that to a closer working relationship with Sweden, and I think it might be worth it to the Baltics to pay a little more (and NATO to subsidize the whole deal).
@Chico: I agree. Sweden and Finland have been toying with the idea of NATO membership for close to a decade now (IIRC, Russia's takeover of the Crimea in 2014 and cyber attacks on the Baltic States shortly thereafter were catalysts). If they don't join NATO now, when, if ever, will they? Actually, it makes sense to wait a bit until things cool off a bit, at this point. If Putin thinks the west is piling on, it may push him to take more drastic action.
-