The best known example is probably the Humvee, built too wide for Europe streets and even for forests, it was bought by nobody.I believe the Euro fighter is superior in flight, the F-35 slightly superior in communications and electronic integration. If you are defending your homeland, superior flight is what you need.
I know the Saab planes are always highly rated, but what is interesting is Swedish airforce planning. Recognizing they are a smaller country - with a smaller airforce, their wartime plans include not havinig airfields. Roads are built with stretches that can be landed on, where planes can either be refuelled, rearmed and return to a mission, or can just be taken off the roads and disappear into forests or bunkers. That is something that would work exceedingly well in Canada. Military experts I have heard don't believe America could take Canada, but Canada's response would not be big battles. The military would pretty much melt away and operate more of a guerrilla style war. Which is how a lot of EU warfare is considered. They may not be so impressive in size, but an armoured car that car turn in a street or drive through a forest without having to fell trees, or a plane that can hide under the cover of a gas station or some trees, is infinitely more useful than one that needs the pristine deck of an aircraft carrier.
Too many countries have been buying machinery designed or America's idea of war. EU weapons are designed to fight to protect a town or region against a superior force - because the enemy was aways assumed to be Russia. Nuclear submarines and troop carriers designed for seizing desert oilfields have never been that useful in the EU
= new reply since forum marked as read