US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil 439
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a Reuters report shedding light on one consequence of increasing knowledge of the extent of U.S. government spying: "Brazil awarded a $4.5 billion contract to Saab AB on Wednesday to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, a surprise coup for the Swedish company after news of U.S. spying on Brazilians helped derail Boeing's chances for the deal. ... The timing of the announcement, after more than a decade of off-and-on negotiations, appeared to catch the companies involved by surprise. Even Juniti Saito, Brazil's top air force commander, said on Wednesday that he only heard of the decision a day earlier in a meeting with President Dilma Rousseff. Until earlier this year, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had been considered the front runner. But revelations of spying by the U.S. National Security Agency in Brazil, including personal communication by Rousseff, led Brazil to believe it could not trust a U.S. company."
Boohoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems fair. The US government does the same to Chinese companies for the same reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you understand. There are two groups of people. Those who pay. And those who don't. And those who don't aren't about to start.
M'kay?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, there are three groups of people: those who know how to count,and those who don't. I know what group I belong to.
Re:No No! Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, good luck with that popular revolution when the powers-that-be own their own army of Terminators. Don't think it's coming? Ten years ago I wouldn't have thought local police would have TANKS either.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
For some reason I have the feeling that most Americans didn't see much of a problem in the spying on other countries. From what I read in the news, the main perceived problem was not the spying, but that they didn't filter the domestic data out. Maybe decisions like this will change the perception, and consequently maybe the foreign policy as well.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Penn and Teller's Bullshit did a really nice petition basically saying that the USA is #1 at everything.
A depressing number of people signed it instantly without hesitation.
*THAT* is where the problem is.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Not a bit. Any more than anyone else sees a problem with their country spying on other countries.
Or are you silly enough to believe that YOUR country doesn't spy on other countries?
Maybe my country does, although I consider them quite incompetent in this regard. The difference is that I still find it problematic, and so do most of my friends here. Another difference is that most people I know accept that other countries will react on the aggression of our government, and that it is our responsibility to rally against it.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that Japan was already at war with much of the western world, including a bunch of countries that had been our allies in that big war we'd fought just a couple decades earlier, that's a perfectly reasonable analogy. After all, there's really no difference between the Japanese government, military, and international policy of 70-odd years ago and Brazil's of today... </sarcasm>
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Insightful)
But the US people will pay again for the arrogance of the government.
I, like the vast majority of the US, am neither a shareholder nor employee of Boeing. Explain to me how this costs me a lot of money.
You pay in a couple of ways. This hurts our entire economy. So any stocks you own(of which most retirement accounts are made up of) will lose value. There's the entire supply line that is now impacted, so further damage has been done(why else did so many support the auto bailout). You lose in that this lack of trust in one company means that the world might not trust another in which you are directly involved with, which will cost you. Don't think that a major country's petty BS that leads to them cancelling negotiations with a US company won't hurt you just because you have no vested interest in that company. The ripples are far bigger than you might think.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Interesting)
"When Russia brought planes (don't remember if it was bomb planes or not) to Gotland and later close to where FRA (our surveillance agency) was operating they never seemed to get any planes up into the air regardless. We have very few at stand by for such activities."
They never actually crossed into Swedish territory, but the mission orders was a practice run on a trajectory suitable for bombing FRA. And yes, it was 2 bombers and 4 fighters. The issue, however, of Swedish fighters not scrambling is entirely political. Carl Bildt want his russian oil and gas money, and further pats on the back from the US, same with Reinfeldt, so they'll continue to cripple the Swedish Armed Forces.
Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Insightful)
A fighter jet is made of:
a hull
wings
engines
electronics
rubber
wires
antennas
computers
which are made of:
metal
more metal
semiconductors
oil
which are made of
ore
sand
and are all made by companies, people etc.
$5B as end price likely tickle through the economy as somethign like $30B total gross product. The tax on that alone is surely beyond $5B.
Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Informative)
That US$4 billion doesn't just go to a safe at Boeing to rot for the next thousand years.
A portion of it goes to purchasing the materials used to manufacture the airplanes and the necessary maintenance parts for them. Each of these things, when sold, incur sales and export taxes that go to our state and federal governments. The purchases -- some of which come from other US companies -- cause the same effect to them as happens to Boeing.
A portion of it goes to the employees at Boeing, some of which only get jobs because of this contract. Those employees pay taxes on this income, which goes to our state and federal governments. Additionally, those employees go out and purchase things with this money they earn as a direct consequence of this contract, which, again, causes the same kinds of things to happen whenever money moves (taxes, etc.). All those people that had goods purchased from them made more money, too!
A portion of the funds may be kept in reserve for corporate profits or other holdings, but these moneys still do not rot in a safe somewhere. They are invested mutual funds, treasury bills, insurance investments, stocks, bonds, etc. This means even the money that Boeing *doesn't* spend still gets used in the economy by loaning it out to people that need it. Oh, and, of course, any profits here get taxed by the federal government as well.
All those monies that end up in state and federal governments go towards services provided to our nation: funding the army, social security, police, fire departments, transportation departments, education departments. You know, everything that lets us maintain our standard of living. That money doesn't disappear, either. The people working those jobs earn those tax dollars as salary, and spend those tax dollars on materials just like any other business.
This is how economies work: moving money around and creating incremental value, while losing a percentage to taxation. Money doesn't *disappear* unless you literally take it out and burn it or bury it. That US$4 billion purchase probably creates ten times that value in economic power by greasing the wheels of our economy.
Now, the NSA's illegal and abusive policies have cost the US billions in foreign investments, and that means hundreds of millions in tax dollars and hundreds of jobs over a decade or more. It's very difficult to justify a national security policy that significantly impacts your foreign policy and your economic policy.
Re: (Score:3)
The US relationship with Brasil has had numerous spats over trade issues, so most likely the reason for the decision has nothing to do with NSA spying, but NSA spying make a good excuse.
Re:Boohoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Then stop running Hummers, and other gas guzzlers. I lived in the USA for a while, in Texas it looks like everybody has a big pickup truck with cargo capacity they don't need just to drive a single person to/back from work every day.
The US can save US$ 5B every week if they stopped the oil insanity !
Recently US congress killed a research project to make US aircraft carriers self sufficient in jet fuel (using heat from nuclear reactors, H2O from sea water, CO2 also from sea water, producing Jet Fuel).
And the american people said nothing.
Your trade imbalance is 100% your own fault (american people letting the Oil / Coal special interest tell the US govt what to do).
You guys need lots of Nuclear energy now.
The US could be a major oil exporter (exporting half what is produces) by 2030 if you just stopped being so energy irresponsible.
Brazil also has plenty of cheap energy, we have lots of Hydro and Natural Gas electricity, and a ton of Oil.
If it wasn't for our own govt incompetence, we'd be net exporting 20-30% of our Oil production already.
This Gripen NG decision was one of the few smart decisions I saw the Brazilian govt doing in a long time (we have just as many insanities as the USA, except we're not considered a developed country anyways).
Re:Boohoo (Score:5, Informative)
The Super Hornet was never the favorite of the Brazilian Air Force.
Unlike other serious govts in the world, here we had the favorite of the Air Force and the favorite of the president.
It was the favorite of the Air Force because:
- Lower cost both procurement and operational costs (I could joke there my Brazil don't have an air force, instead it has an air farce)
- better air to air performance (let's face it, Brazil hasn't had a single bomb dropped in a military operation since WWII, what we need is air defense, the Super Hornet excels at being a bomb truck, even US Army Hornet pilots have admitted the SH leaves something to be left desired against even a much older Mig29 in a dog fight)
- Generation 2 AESA radar with full technology transfer
- Full technology transfer on the aircraft itself
- Local manufacturing of most aircraft under license
- Prospect of a partnership in future Gripen upgrades, Embraer will be the Brazilian partner on this, they have a world class track record on military and civilian aircraft sales, which dwarfs SAAB experience with exporting aircraft
- You see, Boeing x Embraer would never be a really good partnership, Boeing is a competitor of Embraer in many markets (my forecast is Embratel will eventually produce a 737 sized aircraft, then they would become a full fledged competitor, but even the E-jets compete with 737 despite of the size difference)
- The only advantage the SH had was it could be used on our single aircraft carrier, that stays in port the vast majority of the time
The espionage scandal was just a good excuse to get back to basics and do the right thing.
Buying the SH would have been a bad economic decision anyways.
Brazil needs cheap military hardware, no F35's for us, ever. Even the SH would be too expensive in the long run (twin engine, part costs, fuel consumption)
Realize the Brazil is operating F-5E, Mirage 2000, subsonic AMX, all aircraft that are cheap to operate.
Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
You made the correct choice, Brazil! For more than one reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's fortunate that they've gone with a country that doesn't spy on its friends. Säpo would never do anything like that. :)
Anyway, this is more grist for the "NSA bad behavior is bad for business" argument. Sucks for the Boeing employees who miss out on this work, but it's an entirely understandable outcome.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the planes have some sort of hidden software that allows someone to monitorate/control the planes remotely, they're not the best anymore.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
No even need of a hidden software. A government can force to reduce the maintenance from the manufacturer. This is why the Brazil want a full technology transfer.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.
Even the people at f-16.net [f-16.net] appears to like Gripen more. The consensus seems to be that F-16 is a better at carrying loads at long distances but Gripen in better in direct combat or situations where maneuverability is of importance.
In any training missions where both planes were used Gripen came out ahead.
The thing is that the designs are different for a reason. Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes. The F-16 have sacrificed some of this ability to make it more usable as a medium range offensive unit.
So if you want to take out tanks in Iraq, go for F-16. If you want to defend yourself against F-16, use Gripen.
I don't know what you mean with "over here" but I'm pretty sure you don't mean over at Boeing.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Gripen is designed to defend a relatively small airspace against intruding planes.
Brazil is not a small country. "Medium" range would probably be more appropriate.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Informative)
The areas needing defending is an area the size of Israel (New Jersey) surrounding Rio and Sao Paul, the meager capital city of Brasilia, and a thin strip of settlements down the coast 10 miles wide running south to Uruguay. The interior has virtually no infrastructure, certainly no highway system of note. Major inland port city Manus is only reachable by air or water 7 months out of the year.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
gripen isn't shit and it has the cheapest TOC of jets of it's class apparently.
the engine is general electric and it can use weapons from all providers. it also has the modern radar now that usa stopped playing games with it as well.
it might fit their use profile better than the super hornets anyways... probably better for shitty airstrips and improvised runways too(assumption in nordic countries is that in case of conflict all the airbase runways are bombed within half an hour or so.. that's why finland and sweden is littered with suitable road straights).
it is a bit of a vendetta, in the sense that they had been in talks and considerations to buy the jets for almost a decade. maybe they just couldn't make up their mind who to buy from - now the decision was put on their lap. it's also likely that a sizeable chunk of the spying was targeted exactly to make the boeing deal happen!
mind you, usa has bought plenty of weapons from sweden as well. perhaps the swedes were more willing to share firmware to the planes too(basically a country is stupid to buy jets if not, finnish non-super hornets have had considerable firmware modifications in finland too..).
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun detail: our large intercity older roads are actually not that straight for most part, as they are intended to be repairable after B-52/TU-95 does a carpet bombing run. Large roads tend to slightly curve back and forth, so carpet bombing from a bomber flying in a straight line would miss most of its load. This makes road repairs much easier.
Side roads on the other hand are often designed to be functional as small air strips, so they are straight.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the curving is ore to prevent drivers falling asleep. ;D
At least that is the "official" claim in ermany
Re: (Score:3)
huh? I design highway safety improvements (including highway design) in Alaska, and work with people who have been doing so for 30 years. I assure you that whether a road is curved or straight is based entirely on the terrain and the suitability of the ground, though there are traffic calming measures that may introduce curves to control speed.
I also just took a look at an older design guide, and can find no mention of carpet bombing as a design consideration. Perhaps this is exclusive to a few roads aro
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Interesting)
For Brazil it's better to have a Gripen with a full control of his maintenance, than having a USA fighter with a political dependency for his maintenance. The question is not to have the best fighter, the question is to have a fighter that are operational in any political situation.
Re: (Score:3)
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time something like that happened. Now if only all European countries showed the same level of responsibility, maybe the USA would learn to treat their "friends" better.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullies have no friends.
Re:You are wrong about that unfortunately. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, my point is that everyone the bully thinks is in the former group is actually in the latter. Once the bully weakens, his former "friends" will inevitably betray him.
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
> and neither party will dare to defend the status quo
During the campaign? Maybe. Once one of them has won? The new administration will find a "balanced compromise" that'll give spies even more powers and put them under even less oversight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, I think it's inevitable that spying will be a central issue in the 2016 Presidential election, and neither party will dare to defend the status quo.
Until elected. As usual.
Re: (Score:3)
... after that, perhaps they could even start treating their citizens better.
Re: (Score:2)
We do, the Eurofighter was a mind bogglingly expensive project and a fleet of Boeing aircraft would have been a much cheaper option but we went for the locally grown one.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's not so much about the fact that it was hidden until now. We've heard about spying by the USA, for instance in order to help Boeing win contracts, for a long time (I know I have). It's more about the fact that so far nobody dared say anything because the USA are the biggest player. Of course other countries do it as well, but this time the biggest bully doesn't get away with it and that's something to be appreciated.
Re: (Score:3)
From whose ass did you pull out that definition?
Re:About time (Score:4, Informative)
You don't get to invent your own definitions just to satisfy your own ignorance. The phrase has a very clear definition and has for over half a century, arising out of the Cold War.
Second World - Soviet Union, eastern European countries they dominated, Yugoslavia, sometimes China
Third World - Everyone Else
Re: (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
BRIC isn't the threat. The threat is multinational corporations aiming for short-term profit. And that's not only a US threat, that's what is going to collapse the world economy.
Remote control? (Score:2)
Plus, if I were them, I'd be worried that the USA would insert a backdoor in the avionics that allows the plane to be remote controlled by the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, if I were them, I'd be worried that the USA would insert a backdoor in the avionics that allows the plane to be remote controlled by the USA.
If they are procuring them with the hope of surviving any sort of even brief conflict with the US, they will be sadly disappointed no matter who they buy their jets from. A more troubling backdoor would be a listening post on each jet that scoops up data on to a drive in a secret compartment, which can then be downloaded by a CIA/NSA agent pretending to be a Boeing service tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, if I were them, I'd be worried that the USA would insert a backdoor in the avionics that allows the plane to be remote controlled by the USA.
If they are procuring them with the hope of surviving any sort of even brief conflict with the US, they will be sadly disappointed no matter who they buy their jets from. A more troubling backdoor would be a listening post on each jet that scoops up data on to a drive in a secret compartment, which can then be downloaded by a CIA/NSA agent pretending to be a Boeing service tech.
I wouldn't expect them to get into a direct conflict with the USA, but if they were in a conflict that the USA didn't want them to be in, or if they were interfering in a covert USA operation, the USA could ground their jets or enforce a "no fly" zone purely in software.
Re: (Score:2)
and I think that will happen with any weapon manufactured by another country, read about France helping UK with the Exocet missiles owned by Argentina [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it.
Vader: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Sometimes it's more about resisting than conquest.
Re: (Score:2)
"Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it.
Vader: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Sometimes it's more about resisting than conquest.
And the power of religion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remote control? (Score:5, Informative)
F-18 E/F (aka super hornet) mainly differs from C/D varians (normal hornet) in size. It's the same air frame with increased size, enabling it to carry more load.
It's reason for existence is in the cancelled naval F-22 variant, which meant that US Navy needed replacement for F-14s quickly. F-18 C/D didn't have the size to carry enough fuel for the maritime patrol tasks, so size was increased in E/F variant, which enabled it to carry more fuel and weapons.
Calling it a "whole new beast" is a bold faced lie. It's the same airframe that was enlarged with minor evolutionary upgrades at best.
Re: (Score:3)
All of these are minor evolutionary upgrades. Most of ones you listed can be summed up under "bigger aircraft" (more payload hardpoints, more fuel, bigger wing surface...) Avionics upgrades have been retroactively applied to C/D models.
Re:Remote control? (Score:5, Interesting)
If that is their worry, then buying any NATO countries produce would not help them. AFAIK The SAAB Gripens use American engines, avionics and components. Apart from the airframe and the final country of assembly (and some local parts), they are not really making much a difference as far trust of the hardware goes.
If that was the real worry, then you'd have to buy someone elses (probably Russian), but they went out of the race a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking along similar lines. The Gripen is a great aircraft, it compares very well to the competition, but we know Swedish Intelligence has been positively prostrate in terms of simply giving the NSA whatever they want and not even demanding anything in return, so I would not have any more faith in it not being compromised than I would the F18s (IIRC) they were thinking about buying from Boeing instead.
I think this is mostly a symbolic gesture though, and it may be effective in that sense. It signals
Re:Remote control? (Score:5, Interesting)
they have source to the avionics, the radar etc.
it is normal procedure to buy it so that you as the buyer have the source, at least finland does even for the hornets(the smaller non-super) and there has been domestic modifications to the fw. certainly the swedes do for the components they buy from usa and code sharing has been a part of their negotiation tactics.
and last time I checked, Sweden wasn't a NATO country and has no intention of being one either. norway is and that's how norway was pressured into buying f35's and not gripens(the leaked cables reveal all about it)... the 3rd country in the race was france and they are a nato country.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been recent rumours about Brazil again considering the russian PAK-FA project.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying "I don't trust US-Based stuff" could be technical, but its more likely a means to punish the US... "making sure the chickens come home to roost"
Punishing the US which is about the ONLY THING that has any hope of real change - if big US corporations start losing deals because of the shenanigans form the NSA, they'll start throwing their weight around and the politicians will listen.
Probably more to it (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the Saab is a better deal anyway, their latest plane is a newer design, and more agile.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Read the NY Times article. The SAAB is much cheaper to operate. Looking at it, I think of it as an updated Northrop F5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point. I remember building a model of the YF-17 (the forerunner of the F-18) when I was in junior high... in 1975... almost 40 years ago. However much lipstick you put on the pig, you can't get around the fact that it is a pretty old design.
Re: (Score:2)
The Superhornet is largely a new airplane. It is only related to the original Hornet in name and shape.
Re: Probably more to it (Score:5, Interesting)
... and easier to maintain as well. The Saab Gripen is an awesome aircraft and a good choice. On the other hand the Gripens do still have lots of US parts in them so it's not as if US companies don't stand to gain, they'll just gain less. Theoretically the USA can even veto the sale because of the US parts in the Gripen if they want to be really petty about this and piss the Brazilians off even more. The most delicious part of this development (from the point of view of Airbus, EADS, Sukhoi, Dassault et al) is that Boeing, a long time beneficiary of US government sponsored industrial espionage, has been hosted by it's own petard for a change.
Re: Probably more to it (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe so too, JAS Gripen squadrons have impressive results from Red Flag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_exercise [wikipedia.org]
The Gripen is also designed to interface with the compact Ericsson Erieye AWAC system which is often mounted on either a Saab 2000 turbo-prop airliner to cuts costs and eases maintenance but you can also build the Erieye into a small jet like the Brazilian EMB-145. I remember reading somewhere that the Swedish air force actually had to downgrade it's data-links in order to become NATO compatible so this combination is a good force multiplier. The one caveat with the Gripen is that Brazil had better keep a stockpile of Gripen spares. If they ever get into involved in a shooting war the parts supply from Sweden will dry up faster than you can say 'embargo'.
Re: Probably more to it (Score:4, Interesting)
Downgrade is the proper term, since it is a move to a highly inferior system that cripples the planes performance. The Swedish data link system fully integrates between land, air and sea forces as well as ground-based weather telemetry stations etc.
Aircraft facts (Score:5, Informative)
Just for info : they have decided for the better plane.
The JAS SuperGrippen (Grippen NG) has a much larger ferry and combat range (twice as much as the F/A18), is a lot faster (Mach 2.2, even faster than the F35), more agile AND cheaper both in initial costs and per flight hour. It's comparable to the Eurofighter. Except that the JAS 39 NG has the much better radar.
It has a bit lower weapon payload, though (5.3 metric ton (JAS39) vs 6 metric ton (F/A18)). But for the cost of one american plane, you can buy two JAS39 and thus have air superiority.
Re:Aircraft facts (Score:4, Interesting)
It's in no way comparable to the Eurofighter. The JAS aircraft actually works, it's not a political football, it's not a vast waste of scarce defence money and it is fit for purpose. The Eurofighter fits none of those criteria.
Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts) (Score:3)
Just for info : they have decided for the better plane.
You forget the Rafale which is by far superior to the Gripen.
See Switzerland: they also have chosen the Gripen for political and price reason, even if it doesn't meet the military requirements!
End of page 2 [newsnetz.ch]:
The Gripen has been rated unsatisfactory in the accomplishment for Air-to-Air and Strike missions.
The Gripen obtained the 3rd rank in the evaluation of the effectiveness.
Based on flight test results, the Rafale is the candidate which fulfil all Swiss Air Force requirements and ended with the best score recommended as new fighter for the Swiss Air Force.
Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah yes, that report, written by Dassault themselves, even in the face of Gripen curbstomping Rafale in red flag excercises, and Gripen proving that it was better at strike missions in Libya.
Basically, Dassault has such a foothold in the Swiss Air Force that they can write the requirements and testing specs to favour Dassault. It's like trying to sell Gripen or Typhoon to the US or Russian Air Forces.....
Re: (Score:3)
[...], and Gripen proving that it was better at strike missions in Libya.
Err... no.
In Libya the Gripen has only been used for recognition, not for strike.
Why ? Political choice, so they do not risk to kill civilians, and here [expressen.se] Carl Bildt said the Gripen was not suitable for strike (which is BS, but an excuse for not to strike).
About Dassault writing the report, I'm interested in anything backing this idea (fact,quotes,...). To me it doesn't look like so.
Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts (Score:5, Interesting)
The official mission was recon, but their RoE didn't preclude strikes, if there was a pressing need.
2 times, 39's simultaneously engaged and destroyed multiple ground targets, and at least 3 other times they provided the target data to Rafale's(Too bad 39's have to run with reduced datalink capacity to interface with NATO planes, including the Rafale)
As for Dassault involvement, they are issuing bearer bonds to Swiss politicians, Dassault "consultants" are working as personal advisors to at least 3 defense ministry officials, and are also suspects in the brewing indian bribery scandal regarding the Rafale procurement. Keep in mind, SAAB and the Swedish government have sidestepped BAE for the Swiss procurement, because BAE is too corrupt, and Dassault has an operational record just as dirty as that of BAE, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, with the belgian scandal being just one of them.
When general Gygax made a revised statement of operational capacity after 2010, when Gripen NG showed off the planned abilities, there was an immediate lobbying blitz and further bearer bonds thrown in the direction of parliament and defense ministry.
In fact, Dassault are still pushing the 2006-2008 evaluations to the swiss parliament, completely ignoring the post-2010 evaluations. They even willfully broke the rules of the tender by attempting to renegotiate after the bidding timeframe was closed.
Sometimes you win some times you lose. (Score:4, Informative)
Sanctions have started. (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA will eventually find itself alone, and without allies. And it's not just the spying, it's the drone attacks on soil with countries we are not at war with. Recently we blew up a wedding party in Yemen, killing over 13 which I'm sure included women and children. But oh no, we're not evil. We're the good guys. Uh huh.
Little by little, we are making enemies of the world, and until we change our ways, less and les of the world is going to want to do business with us because we have shown we're not trustworthy.
And to the poster who blames a 4.5 billion dollar loss on the economy to Ed Snowden, screw you. All Snowden did was CONFIRM what everyone knew already, but just couldn't prove. He will be shown to be a hero, this decade's Cindy Sheehan.
We are in the wrong, but people who wrap themselves in the flag are unwilling to admit it. And until we learn to act a little more humble, we're going to see more of this. We're making the typical over-exaggerated gestures of a failed empire. And as things get worse here, we're trying to take the rest of the world down with us.
And more to come (Score:2)
I remember my first comment about this sort of thing on here so long ago. I said it would affect US business and many people said it was impossible that US industries and technologies were too entrenched. Amazing. I almost wish I was wrong. But we can add one more large business to the list of businesses lobbying to stop the NSA. I hope they act quickly enough.
This is not about spying or the best technology (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not just a response to the NSA leaks. Everyone spies, we all know that.
The problem is American exceptionalism. No, not because we think that (every nation does), but because we can't shut up about it. The image we project is of spoiled kids, arrogant and rotten to the core. We shove our defensiveness in everyone's faces, and that makes America a very bad salesperson. We are the tight-ass at Macy's who thinks his feces doesn't stink, and won't even pay you any attention because you have the wrong shoes. No on wants to deal with that.
This isn't about who has the best warplanes. This is diplomacy. This is business. This is about saving face and national egos. It's about time we learned a little finesse in this area. It's something the Chinese do exceptionally well.
Vindication tastes like ashes in your mouth... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The NSA problem ruined it for the Americans," a Brazilian government source said on condition of anonymity.
A U.S. source close to the negotiations said that whatever intelligence the spying had delivered for the American government was unlikely to outweigh the commercial cost of the revelations.
"Was that worth 4 billion dollars?" the source asked.
Political theater (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that the military didn't even know about this snap-decision (after TEN YEARS of "on again, off again" negotiations) shows that Dilma Rousseff is simply stomping her little feet angrily at the US. The US/Brazil relationship has always been touchy - Brazil is hypersensitive, and the US *was* overbearing and arrogant.
Ms Rousseff is either acting or stupid. Let's be absolutely candid: Brazil is NOT a first-world country. I would imagine that *any* first-world security agency that has wanted to spy on Brazil HAS been spying on Brazil. Frankly, the only people not spying on Brazil would be anyone who doesn't give a shit about Brazil, and for Ms Rousseff (or anyone with a brain) to not recognize that is simply ignorant or in denial.
She has public constituencies to salve, and is merely making political capital out of the always-useful-bogeyman, the US. That they decided on SAAB in such a snap decision suggests to me, in fact, that they'd qualified either vendor to their own standards, and were just waiting for the bribes/'compensations' to rise to the level that finally justified selecting one vendor or the other.
Re:Political theater (Score:4, Insightful)
A "First world" country is a country that was allied with either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. during the cold world. You were "one of the 2" on one side or the other. The term "third world" came about as a way to refer to those countries unaligned in the conflict. They tended to be poor with little strategic influence and were ignored by the 2 super powers.
Being 3rd world is not a bad thing. It just means you didn't take sides in a war that never happened and has been over for decades. Rousseff has every right to be angry with the US. What the NSA is doing is criminal. We're currently the most powerful country the world has ever known. We have a military that could kill every human being with the flip of the switch. There is not threat to our sovereignty and there's no need for this ridiculous invasion of every person on earths right to privacy.
Re:Political theater (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that the military didn't even know about this snap-decision
The decision might seem sudden but Brasil have already chose Gripen in several occasions during the last 10 years. Those decisions have been interrupted by sudden economic downturn, and corruption, political instability and other stuff. Gripen seems to have been favored by the Brasilian military and Industry all these years though, and since all competitors are eliminated du to various reasons (technical, political, corruption, cost), there was no reason not to take the decision now.
Not a snap decision (Score:3)
The FAB (Brazilian air force) always wanted the Gripen. It was not a snap decision; it was the government finally realising it is better to be a junior partner than a minor customer.
Transfer of technology (Score:4, Interesting)
SAAB has made many concessions over the transfer of technology. I wonder how it will work out. Plus they propose to "make" them in Brazil. I wonder how much it will cost them since embraer has to outsource the assembly of many of their planes in Europe to be cost efficient.
The Gripen has many parts which are originated from the USA. The volvo engine used by current Gripens is a modified general electrics one. No small part of their electronics is American too. Besides, the Gripen NG now exists only on paper. It has short range and carry little ordinance. Best contender wasn't the F18 but the Dassault Rafale. Except in the US press of course. The French were ready to make a technology tranfer the americans would have never accepted, with good reasons. The Brazilians and the French already cooperate closely on Brazil's future nuclear submarines and that was supposed to seal a military alliance between the two countries. Sarkozy had even agreed to buy some Brazilian tranports France doesn't need to sweeten the deal.
And everyone who is even slightly interested in defense matters know the everyone which has the means spy on everyone. The Brazilian military knew this like the others Snowden or no Snowden.
The ones who rage and are really surprised now are the French, no the US.
Better Headline (Score:5, Funny)
US Spying Costs Boeing a Brazilian Dollars
Can we ever trust US planes? (Score:3)
Think about this - will the US build in a kill switch into those planes? They can control drones on the other side of the world, why not a fighter plane? Can we trust that those planes don't communicate with a US base and let them know where it is, what's being said and done inside?
Boeing Decisions (Score:5, Interesting)
This might change some of Boeing's thinking with regard to relocating their commercial operations. Back when I worked there (before McDonald Douglas took over), Boeing Commercial Aircraft was largely a stand alone enterprise. In fact, there was some talk about spinning off the military and aerospace divisions. That changed after the merger and some of the recent reorganizations have combined commercial and military aircraft engineering groups.
But if the rest of the world perceives Boeing as being a tool of the USA's political/military complex, they might want to reconsider tainting their successful commercial jet business with that reputation. The F/A-18 deal is lost. But the company will really be up a creek if they start losing commercial sales as well.
Re:This is only one tree in a big forest (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Brazil and you couln't be more wrong. We have a consolidated democracy and will elect a new president in 2014 (and governors), it's that simple. Yes, we do have a massive income distribution program, but it's not used politically as much as it have could been.
Re:This is only one tree in a big forest (Score:5, Insightful)
The main source of despots in Latin America has been US, which used despots to keep countries in severe poverty while it's multinationals shipped profits to US.
"Bolivarian socialism" has evolved to prevent this exploitation, and succeeded in increasing quality of life in the region significantly. Obviously at the cost of profits for multinationals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Grippen WAS the frontrunner in the beggining. The technicians from the brazilian airforce always said the grippen was better (for some reasons I don't really know).
In the last government, the french Rafale was the frontrunner. The reasons were not technical, but political: to get close to france and, maybe, get a chair at the UN backed by France.
Then the president of Brazil changed (Lula -> Dilma) and the odds changed too. The f-18 was, then, the frontrunner with the new president. But after the NSA shit
Hate to burst this dumbass talking point (Score:3)
Scale. Pervasiveness.
Funny how you survillance state apologists are always talking "gosh, everyone does this" but never talk about how New Zealand has tapped Obama's personal cell phone, or how Romania is monitoring every phone call and email sent by every American citizen. You don't because you can't.
Arguing that because Bumfuckistan has an intelligence agency, budget $3 million USD, so all things are equal is as asinine a