>>1275147For Sweden, things were different. Sweden was initally interested in the Eurofighter project, but when it became clear that the new fighter jet would not be able to keep to the same specification as the Saab Viggen, Sweden proceeded to start development of the Gripen.
Saab would lead the development and manufacturing, but Saab did have extremely close co-operation with BAE Systems, Deutsche Airbus and Leonardo, since the Gripen would basically use many of the same avionics and weapons systems as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The main reason why Sweden went with the Gripen was because the specs of the Viggen were unique for a fighter jet. It would have to be capable of STOL from makeshift runways and roads, it would need to be easily maintained by even army engineers, and it would need to have rearmament possible with as few tools and equipment as possible. The Viggen and the Gripen were designed to operate from rural roads in forests, taxi to a hidden tent, be refueled and rearmed in about 40 minutes and then take off again. The Eurofigher could not do that.
This brings me onto the Eurofighter project. Or not quite. The predacessor was the Panavia Tornado. A strike fighter, the Tornado was developed out of the ashes of previously cancelled projects across Europe. Panavia was formed as a consortium of Deutsche Airbus, BAE Systems and Alenia Aerospace (which was rebranded later as Leonardo). Since there would be 3 customers, the RAF, the Luftwaffe and the Aeronautica Militare, Panavia would receive 3 sources of government funding. The Tornado was developed, and became highly successful, still in service by all 3 while also receiving an additional customer, Saudi Arabia.
Eurofighter was formed not long after, still with Deutsche Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo. The main objective was to build an air superiority fighter, unrivalled by anything else being made. This lead to the development of the Typhoon (because European jets are named after cyclones....).
