Agree 100% no one wants to be spied on but I’m struggling to see how much of an impact this would have had on this selection. What info above and beyond what was available in the contract documents and assessment criteria provided to LM, Boeing and Airbus would have influenced LM or Boeing’s bid here? When a company bids on a big contract like this they are completely aware of the requirements, the selection criteria and the weighting and their bid is submitted multiple times across the process and refined each time based on the feedback provided. Same process happening in Finland, Switzerland etc. I expect LM thought Boeing would be their biggest challenger, and vice versa, over Airbus while Saab and Dassault withdrew anyway.
You would expect the classified information was handled Government to Government via appropriate channels and not transferred over the internet so not spied upon. That just leaves the commercial in confidence information which would be about general airframe and bid details, such as bid value, perhaps maintenance timeframes, contractual changes etc. Perhaps good information to have but hardly earth shattering, LM and Boeing’s bid still have to meet the criteria specified in the contract and no matter the info they have the Danes still subsequently evaluated each bid based on their criteria.
Wouldn't be surprised if similar illegal activities occurred during the Norwegian selection process where the US had delayed a request by Sweden for an AESA radar for the Gripen until after Norway had announced their decision to buy the F-35.
Saab and Sweden themselves have already admitted the Gripen proposed to Norway wasn’t capable enough to win the contest. For example in the Journal of Electronic Defense published in Nov 2019 is an article titled More than meets the Eye – MFS EW system provides the invisible shield for Gripen E
is the following quote,
“They [Norway] selected another fighter to meet their needs,” Kristoffer Broqvist, Project Manager Survivability and EW for Gripen E in the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV), told the EW conference in May. “We wanted to understand the reasons for their decision.”
“While we disagreed, or didn’t understand, in many areas, it was clear to us that they weren’t happy with the EW solution offered with the Gripen as it looked in 2008,” he continued. “We did our own thorough evaluation, and decided Norway was right – we didn’t like it either.”
The whole article is worth a read because it clearly acknowledges how much additional design effort and development was still required. Saab first flew the Gripen NG with an AESA in 2009 only after the Gripen NG demonstrator had its first flight in 2008. The NG just wasn’t mature enough to be considered seriously. Yes the F-35 was also still in development at that stage but the project had the backing of significant governments and reputable Air Forces and therefore was a lot more secure.
Plausibly, knowledge of these abuses are part of the reason Germany simply won't consider the F-35, as well. It's very corrosive toward relationships, as Merkel would probably attest.
That doesn’t make a lot of sense though as Germany is looking to acquire SH. I doubt LM would have some special track for US Industrial espionage over Boeing and therefore each would be viewed in the same light if that was the context. Brazil is a good example of this, Boeing lost the Brazilian bid which it was highly favoured to win by almost the whole military news media due to the Snowden releases. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/19/bo ... d-snowden/https://de.reuters.com/article/us-brazi ... 1C20131218
Germany not acquiring the F-35 is first and foremost the result of Airbus and Dassault pressure related to FCAS. We know from previously released info that the F-35 was the preference of the German Air Force but political pressure around FCAS and domestic industrial pressure pushed them away. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/german- ... ting-f-35/