Only the US, some EU states like UK & France and Russia have truly mastered the art of designing and manufacturing turbofan engines for both commercial and military platforms. Period.
Japan have the capability, but why should they spend money on developing one from scratch if they easily get ToT options from the US?
Add China to the list.
This is one area where Japan is actually lagging in, for a country that is highly respected for its advancements in all areas of science and particularly, technology.
Aviation propulsion is not one of Japan's strengths, compared to Western, Russian or Chinese companies.
Bangladesh does not have net-centric warfare capabilities at present. IMO, India and China are currently working on that capability at present.
Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I still respect you for reasons I have mentioned earlier.
One request: do not ever mention China and that 'blot on humanity' blighted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world in the same sentence.
Also, whether you use an alphabetical list, or whether you use a list based on 'power ranking', China should come first, as China is far and away multiple times (4 to 10) stronger than that hellhole afflicted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world.
On topic: NO. WE SHOULD NEVER GO FOR GRIPEN-NG.
1. Price tag of $60 million is way too high for such a 'lightweight' aircraft with low payload and radar capabilities.
2. What air to air and air to surface missiles would we use on Gripen-NG?
3. Engines come from USA! Another big reason for a "No".
If some of these teenagers are so desperate, they should go and beg USA personally to donate 5 squadrons of F-16 block-60 for free to be delivered starting in 2013 and ending in 2018, let's say. That'd be much cheaper, comes with the same set of strings attached as a Gripen-NG, and same set of restrictions of warfighting capabilities as the West would impose if we go for Gripen-NG.