> I live in a democracy, so its my duty to form an opinion about large controversial purchases my government proposes to make. Of course my opinion on most of them can't be an expert opinion, but it can be at least as good as my representatives'.

I agree with you that in a democracy it's a citizen duty to be informed of what is happening. Though in the case of fighter jets, or other high-end military systems, they are very complex and the exact capabilities (and how the military intends to make the most of those capabilities, which can vary greatly for different offerings in a tender) are highly classified. And to be fair, I'm quite sure our representatives don't know much if anything of the classified stuff either.

At least in the Finnish case, there was a procurement organization setup including, obviously, Air Force personnel but also lots of other expertise. They did a very expensive and thorough evaluation of the various offerings, including access to classified material I'm sure, before ending up at recommending the F-35. The politicians then more or less rubber-stamped the recommendation. That is not to say that politicians couldn't go against that recommendation, ultimately it's their decision. Things like industrial policy (aka jobs programs) related to major military acquisitions matter, and particularly during the cold war Finland tried to stay neutral and one way this was done was that major military acquisitions were divided between Soviet and Western gear (e.g. how Finland ended up with both Mig-21 and Saab Draken fighters). Though today if the politicians would decide to go against the recommendation of the procurement organization I'm sure that would cause quite an uproar and need some pretty hefty justifications.