@siddar, get back to your board games!
The power and wealth of the west is and has been built on free trade, I’m sure US government is very happy that they export high tech components. I do not think that SAAB or Boeing care on what side of the border a great product is made as long as it can contribute to their own product.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/free-trade-opposition-unites-political-parties-in-bloomberg-poll

Siddar, look at the pictures again, they are surely directed to different markets, the last one showing the large participation of Brazil companies in Gripen construction are, IMO, ment as a “convincing” PR argument to select it instead of Rafale or SH.

Take the canopy for example, it’s still made in US I think but just not mentioned, same for other little bits here and there, they are just not shown. The us total parts procentiges are somewhat lower though.

Whatever… A big chunk, the engine is US, about $20-25 million a piece. To think that Us would start a trade war over fuel tank sealants and some mechanical parts and lose export is stupid…

BTW, Sweden(Saab) export quite a lot of military equipment to US Army and AF so…

Very likely you’re right but I’m taking both at face value until proven otherwise.

Engine is not 20-25 million not even half that, 4.5 million seems to be the price per engine.

as long as it has a US engine, the US can block the export, so, removing smaller US-made parts for euro-made ones (and a few israeli ones) doesn’t remove the US capacity to intervene in the choice of customers. However, If the initial equipments were US-made, it may have been also because they were more readily available. If SAAB gets better deals from other manufacturers, the problem is on US side (companies, not government) and is part of normal competition.

If the USA tried to block the gripen to protect US companies for a european product, besides being illegal, it would trigger a response that would cost the US much more than the benefit for participating in these few airframes

The global aviation industry does not work like that. Replacing all US content except engines on a plane is not a economic action.

If you sell military equipment to other countries, every sale is political by nature. It increases the military capability of the customer country.

Have you got a screw loose? If Volvo export a car to a customer in France or Chile or America that could have been supplied by an American manufacturer, is that intolerable? What do you suggest the USA does? Nuke Sweden?

You are correct every military sale is a political act. Every time US approves a Gripen export sale it is a political act. Saabs removal of US content was also political act as well. Now explain why US should not react to the political action taken against it by Saab.

Please also remember the sequence of events here is Saab taking actions that harm US interests and a potential US response.

The only ones with a screw loose would be those who think US should not respond to Saab’s actions.

Where did you get the idea that “those parts” are “based” on American non compliant ITAR hardware?
Last time I’ve checked the Swedes are entirely free to use things like a new Israeli MAWS or a German radio in their new version of the Gripen.

The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms. The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.

And just to add no I don’t think the shift in origins of part shown was based on competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.

Gripen – could not be more wrong. This is not a mid life upgrade its pretty much a brand new plane.

Typhoon will be in service for 25 years plus with Germany. They will have to invest in upgrades. Same for the UK.

The French are committed to the Rafale for the next 25 years.

The teen series are at risk of course. I expect there will be F15s flying for 20 to 25 years in the US and the Super will fly until they have a replacement. Again you are looking at 15 to 20 years at least.

No Gripen is a upgrade of a existing aircraft with a very small fleet size. At a certain point you simply have to move on to a new plane.

Rafale maybe in French service for 25 years. But upgrades will slow to almost nothing well before that. Buying a plane that will be in service with Canada twenty years after it leaves French service is not a good idea. The same applies to F18.

The Typhoon has suffered from the slow pace of upgrades there is major upgrade happening now but it will likely be the last major upgrade.

F15 and F16 are now likely seeing there last major upgrades funded by US government beyond that most upgrades will fall upon a increasingly smaller number of users.

The reason F18 purchase for Canada has worked out for the past 35 years is because they bought the planes at roughly the same time as US navy. The upgrade path of Canada, US, Australia were all roughly the same. If you choose a existing plane that has already reached close to the 50% mark of its originating countries intended service life or more. You face the risk of funding upgrades by yourself to a orphaned platform.

You don’t seem to grasp the fact that Canada is a massive country with a tiny defense budget and needs to be able to buy a capable plane it can actually afford to purchase, maintain and fly without crippling every other aspect of our national defense. It’s not a difficult equation.

Yes this is exactly why they will buy the F35 instead of waiting for a sixth generation fighter or a fourth generation aircraft that will become obsolete halfway through its likely forty years of service.