Anyhow, 3 years for the first airframe looks like they plan on new gigs, new factory, workers and tools, something that wouldn´t be needed otherwise (if they had diverted some early airframe form SwAF or Brazil to Ukraine).
3 years is more like a full cycle for new airframe, if order is placed now. I.e. long lead items need to be ordered right now.
New factory won't deliver anything this soon. And frankly, just ask Baykar how it goes for them - it's just blasting air.
It's only realistic for transfer of displaced C/D airframes, and only on a condition that SwAF won't grow for the time being.
The 2 big questions are how can they afford this and how would this impact relations with the U.S. ? Wouldn't it have been more politically wiser to negotiate the purchase of new F-16 airframes to keep the White House happy ? Because let's be honest, Ukraine needs U.S. support more than European support.
It's doubtful. The only money that can support such a deal are Russian assets in Europe, for which Europe takes massive financial risks (risks is a kind word; it's "certainties").
Taking these money to US will be quite a step too far. Up to debate frankly how much even Sweden itself is acceptable as a smaller nation without weight, but at least it's on the right side of the Atlantic.
Absolutely: Late block F-16s would actually probably provide more bangs for the buck since the US could "outprice" SAAB if they wanted to, and it may well come to that.
F-16V was and remains a weaker proposal for Ukraine even on merits alone. Even with APKWS addition. It can work the way it works right now, but expanding fleet over certain size and role just won't work out.
And while it's certainly possible to outprice Gripen E in fly away price (this price comes with a reason, though, and it isn't exactly a useless one for Ukraine), long term it just won't click.
Especially in Ukraine, where operations aren't peacetime.
