The technical evaluation assessed the Gripen both in the C/D version and in the E/F version, and the E/F version still fell short.
From what I’ve been able to deduce the techincal evaluation assesed Gripen C/D and Gripen C/D+ (which is not the same as E/F, but the proposed MS21 configuration at the time of evaluation).
Low scores where given to capabilities that where not ready/risky/immature at the time of the 2008 and 2009 evaluations.
Fast forward 2-3 years and the development of these capabilities have progressed significantly, yielding higher scores in a final evaluation and by doing so meeting the requirements. Since meeting the requirments and being the most cost-effective alternative, it won the tender.
Sign In
