The purpose of inviting (paying) Swedish forces to US-led exercises is to get an idea of the possibilities of foreign available technology, when competently led. Furthermore it should be from a nation, where war - even by the furthest streaches of imagination - even mine - is not a contigency to be given serious thought. This in order to ensure that the exercise opposition is not deliberately incompetent or incapable due to the fear of exposing true tactical ability. Sweden fits that bill very well
The setup of the exercise will be made so that the invited will perform well. Not so much to pander to egoes, but to test the assumptions of the exercise - generally with a build up to a critical point, where success is touch and go. Off the top of my head I can think of two historical examples;
1. An exercise in Denmark, when the Eagle was young. The Eagle was allied to begin with; but after an hour it was made hostile. The conclusion was that the airdefence of Denmark was not immediately in need of F-15 support and was not gravely influenced by the Eagle as an opponent.
2. A Red Flag with the participation of Vulcans - which to begin with was not doing well, the assumption had to be changed to normal British standard -i.e. flying so low that deployment of the undercarriage would mean taxiing. This must have given valuable information as to the capability of the successor,Tornado, when used according to the proper tactics.
Ironically: The better the Gripen performed, the less likely the Brazilian order, as the US will not allow technologically advanced weapons in South America - and has made that clear in no uncertain, but diplomatic, terms.
The Gripen is in my view not a realistic option for Denmark:
1. The need for range, as the important missions are far from Denmark - and I do not mean Afghanistan. The Baltic countries have forsaken a proper AirForce, as it is more cost effective to let them train light infantry. Air Defence is provided in turn by other Nato countries.
2. The need to operate in a Nato context - the Gripen could do that; but the F-35 has an unfair advantage by design. The F-22 is a tactical reserve to be drawn on, if the F-35 are interfered with to any noticable extend. As long as F-35 plinks enemies and clean the air to expectation, there is no need for the F-22.
3. The need for replacement of attrition losses in war. One of the huge advantages of the F-16 during the cold war was that ANG units could reinforce Danish, Norwegean, Dutch and Belgian forces without much ado.
4. The benefit of double operational lifetime. May I remind You: The competitors to F-16 (the Mirage F1 and Viggen) have both been withdrawn from serious operational use years ago. The F-16 still performs nicely - having had a facelift and a belly tuck now and then.
Finally the producers of Gripen, Taifun and Rafael are not incompetent and their politicians are not morons; but they do not have access to the engine technology which is crucial in fighter design.
The best example of a good airplane with a dubious engine is the F-14. To perform adequately it used every trick in the aerodynamic book, ending up being a maintainence nightmare.
I don´t agree with many of your conclusions.
First - the US already knows about the Swedish defence material and how it's being used. The US-Swedish cooperation regarding defence equipment is very extensive, much more extensive than the US/Danish cooperation in these matters. This is of course logical since Saab has a vast portfolio of products in it´s portfolio. Such a vast portfolio doesn´t exist in any other nordic country. The US is also a big customer for Swedish defence products, so in that context, the US test a lot of Swedish products and systems. Just for your information, the US "agressor" units use Swedish air control systems and has done so for at least 20 years.
Your conclusion that the better Gripen performs, the less likelyhood that the US will approve that Gripen is being sold to Brazil is...eccentric. This has happened once that I know of. Saab wanted to sell Viggen to India but that was blocked by the US. The US didn´t give approval to supply the engine to India. I think Saab has learnt from that and I don´t think the US want to take that path again. If so, I think Saab will quickly switch to EJ200 and that would not be good business for GE. The US has tried to use that card when it comes to air to air missiles - the result is that all European manufacturers go for European air to air missiles, i.e. Meteor and IRI-T, instead of US. I think the lesson the US learnt in that case was tough - years of abuse with "well, if you don´t buy our plane, you wont be allowed to buy sidewinders and amraam/sparrow" - now two deadly missiles exist, Meteor and IRIS-T, that the US would have been more comfortable if they didn´t.
Regarding range and the Baltic countries, your arguments are not convincing. The Baltic countries do lack fighter jets but they dont lack air fields. It is also quite many alternative air fields in Poland, Sweden and Finland.
I guess that most other Nato countries will have a problem in operating in a Nato context since most of them wont have F35??? Not convincing...
Attrition - sure if that would be relevant?
Operational life time - historical data that is not relevant. Why don´t you bring up the long bow next time? Other technologies like special coating and special paints might be just as effective to distort radar signals like the airframe design and then you don´t have to compromise the aerodynamics.
How thick or thin do a coating have to be in order to be able to distort a radar signal? I think the advances in this field will progress in a very quick pace.
Regarding the F14 example, it´s irrelevant since Gripen uses F404/F414 engines. The maintenance costs for Gripen is best in class. It could be that Sweden uses engines from UK or France in the future but it is not on the table today.
