Why can't Boeing accept humble pie and cooperate on the Gripen E and market it through FMS?
I think the armed T-7 with an APG-83 will nearly match the Gripen E performance yet cost nearly half as much to purchase. The T-7 will set a new benchmark in terms of value for money.
Value for money is very important this is why the F-35 wins often. Let's take four different fighters.
Fighter A: Performance 100%, cost $80 mil
Fighter B: Performance 80%, cost $100 mil
Fighter C: Performance 40% cost $60 mil
Fighter D: Performance 40%, cost $40 mil
Now which fighter would you buy? Option A and D are the only ones worth considering. High end air forces are selecting Fighter A nearly every time. I'll let you work out what fighter that is. Fighter D will be AESA T-7 perfect for smaller air forces.
You have secret knowledge? Maybe that's true (I don't know you) , but most people on the internet who claim secret knowledge ...
Just because it isn't on Wikipedia for you doesn't make it secret knowledge. Watching the live stream of the Dubai airshow had lots of information. Dan Draeger the chief test pilot for T-7 did a good presentation. Two points stood out. The T-7 has already reached 28 degrees angle of attack in testing and is still very stable thanks to the twin canted tails. The T-7 matches the best front line fighters in terms of roll rate, turn rate and G (his words). So that is vastly superior to the T-50.
And one of the Boeing business guys mentioned that multiple countries are requesting the light fighter variant from Europe and Asia. Boeing already has the light fighter variant ready to go according to him.
To me it seems Boeing believes the market is big enough that they will produce the light fighter regardless of a USAF order. Commonality with the T-7 trainer variant will be high enough to make it a logical low cost development that Boeing should self fund.
I wonder if the general isn't just grand standing.
He saw what could be done with the T-7A. So he make the statement setting up congress for the PR battle to come knowing full well that the F/T-7A is the airplane that is closest to what he wants and probably quickest to field.
This would have been entirely initiated by Boeing.
A little back story. The USAF planned back in 2018 to refurbish or SLEP over 800 F-16's to make the fleet last until 2048. Now the contract has not been awarded yet as lots of research has to be done on what parts should be replaced to get the required service life. In the meantime 72 low milage F-16's are already planned to have APG-83 AESA upgrades with the first few already operational.
Boeing has told the USAF that it can provide a brand new fighter jet based on the T-7 for not much more than cost of refurbing an F-16. Boeing would have provided data that the hourly operating cost saving would quickly cover the extra purchase price.
The USAF unfortunately has to run a competition. Lockheed will probably enter the FA-50 to atleast keep Boeing's price honest. The FA-50 sold at cost price could never beat Boeing on price. It would be awesome if Lockheed and Northrop pull a full cleansheet design with the same low production cost techniques. They could beat Boeing on capability by adding a bit of budget stealth.
I'm sure the US has never refused to sell an F404 or F414 to any Gripen customer that Saab has or wants. This is just not a problem.
It doesn't work like that. Sweden would have a list of countries before starting a sales campaign. There are no doubt plenty of countries Sweden wish they could sell to but are on the naughty list.