US Spying Costs Boeing Military Jet Deal With Brazil

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."

Comments

Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems fair. The US government does the same to Chinese companies for the same reason.

Re:Boohoo

[houstonbofh]

In once sense... But the US people will pay again for the arrogance of the government. It is about time that the people in government start to pay as well.

Re:Boohoo

[scarboni888]

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:Boohoo

[alanwarrick4]

Remember citizens who needs money when you can buy food with secrets.... Wait... Walmart doesn't list secrets as a form of payment. On the bright side though the NSA should be able to warn companies in advanced when foreign companies are going to drop US vendors.. for a little while.. oh wait too late.

Re:Boohoo

[dkleinsc]

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.

I agree that the way the NSA is spying on everyone is really really stupid, arrogant, and against the basic principles of civilized government. But I also don't think that Boeing has a right to contracts with anyone in particular, and that foreign governments can stop doing business with US-based businesses for any reason. And while this scuttled deal is certainly bad for Boeing, I don't see how what's bad for Boeing is necessarily bad for America.

Re:Boohoo

[Nemesisghost]

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

[q.kontinuum]

Just imagine, USA would be a democracy, and people would elect their leaders. Then it would be fair again, right?

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

[paiute]

*Grumpy Old Men

Re:Boohoo

[houstonbofh]

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?

Occasionally, the people in the later group get dragged in mass to the former. The French Revolution is one example. The thing about "the masses" is that we outnumber everyone.

Re:Boohoo

[houstonbofh]

So when Boeing and it's suppliers lay thousands of people off, those unemployment benefits came from magic pixie faeries? And the money they no longer spend with your business has no effect on you? Just look to Michigan to see what happens in a state when major factories close. (Or Trenton, for that matter.)

Re:Boohoo

[angel'o'sphere]

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

[CrimsonAvenger]

For some reason I have the feeling that most Americans didn't see much of a problem in the spying on other countries.

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?

the main perceived problem was not the spying, but that they didn't filter the domestic data out.

The NSA has a mandate to do FOREIGN signals intelligence gathering. Note that word "foreign", it's important. They do NOT have a legal mandate to violate the Fourth Amendment (it's actually impossible to have such a legal mandate) by doing signals intelligence gathering against American citizens.

And no, foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution when they're outside the USA. If you believe that you should be, I suggest you invoke the US Fourth Amendment (just to see how far it gets you) next time you are arrested in wherever you are.

Re:Boohoo

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hence the interest in robots.

Re:Boohoo

[nedlohs]

It's pretty simple economics, which you surely must have come across at some point in the past?

Money that would have come into America will now not go into America. That means higher prices on imports (less exports to balance them currency wise) - though this really doesn't seem to apply to America for the moment since the rest of the world is happy with dollars anyway. That means a loss of jobs in America which means both lower tax revenues and higher spending on welfare - bad if you happen to be an American tax payer. And of course the knock on effects on suppliers and so on.

And no Boeing didn't have a "right" to the business. But actions of the US government seem to have cost them some business and you would expect there to be less noisy instances as well. Which is a cost of those actions and hence should factor in future cost/benefit decisions about future actions (but of course will not).

Re:Boohoo

[q.kontinuum]

For some reason I have the feeling that most Americans didn't see much of a problem in the spying on other countries.

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

[aliquis]

Then again Sweden possibly had to (no contract signed yet) buy stuff back worth four times more from Brazil whereas US can spend wherever they want. The Brazilians also wanted technology transfers and some production over there plus it seemed they also wanted a model developed so that it could carry Brazilian weapons.

So what is the better deal in the end? For SAAB or for the tax payers (is it a good idea that we develop planes ourselves? Sweden have already bought about 200 Gripen/JAS-39, the idea is to order 60 more. Offer to Brazil was for 36 planes. What do we need 260 planes for? 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. Also in the 80s I think we had closer to 800 planes at most, we've scrapped a whole lot of Viggens/JAS-37 (all? =P, we don't use them regardless) because we don't need them.)

The positive for us is of course that we've already leased / leased and sold planes to Hungary and ... the Czech republic. Thailand and South Africa have bought planes, the Swiss government want to buy some but the people will vote on it. Now if Brazil buy some who knows whatever India, Denmark or some other countries (I think I've missed at least one) will buy some too.

It's likely a better deal to share the production and cost with others rather than just built it for yourself at least. Even if we may have to sell them in very attractive deals.

Re:Boohoo

[ACE209]

Sadly sometimes it takes a dark age or two before the dragging starts.

And as long as most of those masses are occupied with the democrat or republican partisan game, nothing will happen anyways.

Divide and conquer still works like a charm.

Re:Boohoo

[kelemvor4]

Just imagine, USA would be a democracy, and people would elect their leaders.

We can only dream of such things here in the USA.

Someday, maybe.

Re:Boohoo

[PPH]

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.

Do you have a pension or a 401K invested in a mutual fund? If so, you are almost certainly a shareholder of Boeing.

Beyond that, Boeing is a part of the military industrial good-old-boy club. Much more so after they were taken over by McDonnell-Douglas. In that club, rule #1 is: You will not lose money. If you lose an important sale, Congress will see to it that the Pentagon buys as many $500 hammers and $2000 toilet seats as it takes to make up the difference. Guess who pays for that?

Re:Boohoo

[q.kontinuum]

Good luck... I have the same dream for us here in Europe. Imagine a democratic elected parliament with some real power instead of the EU commission doing the decision... Imagine ministries, where the ministers and staff design new laws rather than "Advisers" being officially employed e.g. by the pharma industry...

Re:Boohoo

[hoggoth]

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

[228e2]

People pay into their own unemployment, that isnt tax subsidized. You're thinking about welfare/foodstamps/ just about every other public assistance program except unemployment.

Re:Boohoo

[yurtinus]

To hell with the Viggen, bring back the 900!!!

Re:Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm quoting Bad Santa.

My Father (born 1908) used that exact phrase on my as a child more than once. You must be quoting him.

Re:Boohoo

[msauve]

You're confused.

Re:Boohoo

[jellomizer]

If you have been looking at Brazil politics, they are more or less finding reasons to say No to the US, anyways.

Re:Boohoo

[excelsior_gr]

$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.

Hmm... How is this even possible when the suppliers, from the oil and ore up to the computers and the fuselage, all factored in their costs, profits and taxes in the price? Doesn't the $5B price include all that? The $5B will "tickle through the economy" exactly as $5B, unless some of the companies involved shut down because of this deal not happening. You could argue about the fact that Boeing will also not be manufacturing any spare parts, but this must be a comparably small amount.

What you wrote would have had better chances of making sense if the planes would have been used within the US, in which case they would have provided employment to military personnel, maintenance engineers etc. for many years. But this is not the case.

Re:Boohoo

[q.kontinuum]

There is more than black and white, you know... I expect^wwould wish for the police to do their work, still I exp^wwould wish they'd respect privacy and adhere to the principle of innocence until proven otherwise, and freedom of speech, and civil rights. The same I wish I could expect from secret agencies. What our Government is not allowed to do to us, it shouldn't be allowed to do to other people as well.

Re:Boohoo

[SleazyRidr]

It all depends on how you count it. This comic isn't really related but kinda helps explain it: http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/03/08/#.UrMtOdJDuQA

Brazil pays Boeing $5B for plane, Boeing pay Alcoa $4B for metal, Alcoa pays Rio Tinto $2B for Alumina, Rio Tinto pays some mine owner $1B for Bauxite. You'd count that as the same $5B, but Economists count it as $12B of economic activity.

Re:Boohoo

[budgenator]

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

[Shinobi]

"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

[cbhacking]

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

[lgw]

Imagine ministries, where the ministers and staff design new laws rather than "Advisers" being officially employed e.g. by the pharma industry...

We try to do that here in the US, but it doesn't work. On average, a congressional staffer gets 15x as much pay when he moves to his job in industry. You don't need to be officially employed a company while working as an advisor in order to be working on behalf of a company.

Re:Boohoo

[q.kontinuum]

Unfortunately the NSA,did take care that EU traffic was unnecessarily routed through the US, tapeired politician phones, abused save harbour agreements for data centers etc. I don't consider this fair game. And if spying on Brazil is seen as justified action of war because they harbour someone (I wouldn't know about it), irt shouldn't be surprising if Brazil doesn't order war equipment from their "enemies"...

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

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.

Re:Boohoo

[dontbgay]

Is that why Unemployment Insurance was a big point of contention in the last budget debate?

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

You Americans are nuts.
Yes, the SH production line is at risk of being shutdown, but would a single 36 aircraft order keep the line running ?

The USA needs to be far more worried about loosing F35 exports, those are serious dough, hundreds of billions of US$ in exports.
There's speculation Canada could give up on the F35 and replace it with the Gripen NG, it would be a serious downgrade, but at least the Gripen NG isn't plagued with enormous cost overruns, over weight issues, under performance, and other ultra serious issues given the price tag of the F35 !
The SH don't have those issues, but it's far from being a 5th generation aircraft.

I believe there are a lot of Boeing employees here that will blow everything out of proportion (for the average american that has nothing to do with the military industrial complex).

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

You're wrong. Added value is what matters, GDP would consider that 5B in economic activity, not 12B.
As far as cash flow, than yes, that's 12B worth of cash flow, but only 5B worth of economic activity.

Re:Boohoo

[SleazyRidr]

I may be wrong, but you're an idiot who can't keep track of a conversation over more than two comments.

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

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

[macpacheco]

I just started commenting on this topic.
If this logic was true, then reselling stuff multiple times would balloon the GDP, and I'm positive this isn't true !
Added value is what matters.
If boeing sold US$ 5B worth of fighters, with US$ 2B of aluminum and instead of buying from Alcoa, bought it from abroad (assuming everything else came domestic) then there would be US$ 3B worth of GDP, not US$ 5B.
That's your mistake.

Re:Boohoo

[JimSadler]

Maybe some consideration could be given to conditions other than factories closing in Michigan. First the rust belt states were fixated on growth. Growth is an unusually dangerous idea in the first place. New York city has the same nightmare. Growth requires attracting a huge population in order to have an employee pool. During boom times that works out just dandy. But when times get slow that huge population can no longer live like human beings and all kinds of physical and social decay takes place. Making it worse conservative personalities always want to return to the social attitudes that existed when growth was about to bloom. That assures misery and failure. For example Detroit lost sales of cars so they wanted to double up. Make a bigger, heavier car with more flash and supposed style and use every gimmick known to man to sell the beast. No new thinking going on there at all. Then they try propaganda and spew nonsense about the US building the only quality cars. Meanwhile Japan and others build efficient, smaller cars, that cost less to own and operate and gradually the American car market went down the tubes. New thinking and letting go of the past are vital for success and survival as well.

Re:Boohoo

[weilawei]

If they use those hammers on the toilet seats, they can buy even more!

Re:Boohoo

[cheater512]

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

[Bacon Bits]

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.

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:Boohoo

[hoboroadie]

Pearl Harbor was a good example of what happens when you don't do a good job of spying on other countries.

I always thought of it as an example of what happens when we interfere in Asia.
Apparently, that's why we're here.

Re:Boohoo

[SleazyRidr]

I'll answer in comic form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2855

I would also like to point out that my entrance into the conversation was purely in an effort to help excelsior_gr understand angel'o'sphere's calculation, not to try and prove a point. You are correct that Brazil paying $5B to the USA does lead to there being $5B more in the USA (less the cost of parts sourced from other countries). This whole discussion started when dkleinsc claimed that it would not affect her due to the fact that she is not employed by Boeing, but the economic impact spreads a lot further than just one company (and probably a lot further than you'd think.)

Re:Boohoo

[gtall]

Read about the Rape of Nanking sometime if you think the Japanese having a free reign in Asia meant they were fluffy bunnies.

Re:Boohoo

[Artifakt]

Most of those Americans who don't see the problem with spying on other countries think the NSA is watching the military activities of those countries, looking for terrorists, mad bombers, and organized warfare risks. Ask those people if it's right to spend that many billions on helping huge international conglomerates, which happen to be headquartered in the US, beat out their competition, which just happens to be huge international conglomerates which in some case actually employ more US citizens, but are headquartered in other countries, and see what the level of support is for that.

Re:Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Brazil has a problem with the U.S. spying on other countries military. That is normal spying. It is all the other spying . . .

Re:Boohoo

[Maritz]

Nope. Not a bit. Any more than anyone else sees a problem with their country spying on other countries.

It becomes a problem when they are incompetent, and get caught spying on allies. You ought to have a problem with that, because it's costing the USA money and credibility. Sure, in national terms, maybe it's fine to be a prick; it can work to your advantage. Being outed as a prick, however, has repercussions - one of which is the subject of this article. (If it's actually the reason, and not hyperbole. But even if it isn't the reason here, it is/will be in other instances - plenty of them.)

Re:Boohoo

[HornWumpus]

Give me a 900 with a Viggen engine.

Re:Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How the hell am I expected to prove to the world that I'm a rugged Texan if I have to drive some dirty little foreign compact? Efficiency be damned, there are women out there who need to be convinced I have an enormous cock.

Re:Boohoo

[mdielmann]

Another item to note. Without the contract, Boeing will have less for their employees, which means they will have less to spend on whatever they like. This means, to some degree, any market that is supported by a typical employee, from farmers to hair stylists to fast food employees to airplane parts manufacturers are affected, to a greater or lesser degree. Of course, for those who understand, this is what the concept of "the economy" means...

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

I just found out, the technology transfer isn't just so Embraer / Brazilian Air Force is fully independent (no backdoors, zero risk of being cut off maintentance wise)
But also, Embraer can close deals and export Gripen NG to other countries (don't know about royalties) but Sweden would have zero authority to forbid re-exporting the product on a political basis.
Plus if Brazil decides it wants another batch of aircraft, they can just produce it here. Done.
What's unclear is if the 36 aircraft will be partially produced here (even if they were to be 100% produced in Sweden, the rest of the deal is way too sweet anyhow).
Funny thing is the turbofan that equips the Gripen NG is american made, so it's likely the US could create trouble should Brazil try to sell this to some country the USA don't like, while Sweden wouldn't be able to say a word...

Re:Boohoo

[reve_etrange]

This hurts our entire economy.

Maybe a little. About 33% of the Gripen is sourced from the US [1].

Re:Boohoo

[reve_etrange]

Our insuranced-based aid programs (unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, FDIC deposit guarantees, etc) are contentious only because of 1) anti-government ideology or 2) a belief that the premiums (entitlement taxes) will prove insufficient to cover claims.

Further, most people do not understand how these programs are constituted and funded, so it is easy for politicians to treat them as if they were the same as discretionary spending programs like SNAP (food stamps).

Re:Boohoo

[Grishnakh]

The tax on that alone is surely beyond $5B.

I'm not so sure on that. Taxation is really different when you get into manufacturing and B2B. For instance, if you're build a Widget, and you have to buy a bunch of smaller components to assemble into that final Widget, you don't pay any sales tax on those components, because you get a resale exemption. Only your final customers have to pay any sales tax. Of course, there's a bunch of other taxes involved in any business, but there are breaks.

Re:Boohoo

[turbidostato]

"So, you'd prefer a Pearl Harbor of your very own?"

Do you think you would have had a Pearl Habor if USA didn't started an oil war on Japan first?

On the other hand, intelligence services be damned, what were your politicians thinking? Didn't they learn anything out of Port Arthur battle?

Re:Boohoo

[Grishnakh]

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.

Yes, I saw the exact same thing when I used to live in Arizona. Everyone there has a pickup truck or SUV with a lift kit getting 10 mpg, and drives an hour or more every day at 75mph; do the math.

However, Boeings are made in Washington state, not TX or AZ. I haven't actually been to WA myself, but I have been to Oregon, and I didn't see that kind of silliness there. I live in the northeast now, and I don't see it up here either; most people drive normal-size cars up here.

You guys need lots of Nuclear energy now.

We have nuclear power. More isn't going to change much; our electricity costs are actually very low I believe. Our coal is domestically-produced, so it's pretty cheap, and we have lots of hydropower, plus some nuclear, and more and more solar and wind. The problem is our stupid vehicles all need fossil fuels. Nuclear power won't help here, until we're all driving Teslas.

Re:Boohoo

[Grishnakh]

Each of these things, when sold, incur sales and export taxes that go to our state and federal governments.

No they don't. Items purchased for resale (like things a local retailer buys in bulk to sell individually to customers) and components used in the manufacture of goods for resale are exempt from sales tax.

Re:Boohoo

[MacDork]

Oh, and, of course, any profits here get taxed by the federal government as well.

Hahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! What a maroon. What an ignaramous!

Boeing doesn't pay taxes. They get a tax return. Fuck Boeing and their entire supply chain. Fuck them in the ass with a cactus.

Re:Boohoo

[macpacheco]

I apologize for being three times out of topic....
1 - I care about the environment (far more than I care about the US deficit)
2 - If there were enough nuclear power plants, there would be far more than the usual, GE-Hitachi, Westinghouse (plus one supplier from each nuclear country) cartel, if there were 10x more nuclear power plants in operation and in construction the market would be very different
3 - With economies of scale and effective competition, a nuclear power plant would be much cheaper to operate than a coal or natural gas power
4 - The only way to solve the oil waste problem in the US is to tax the hell out of it, like it's done in Europe, Japan, Brazil and many other countries, then people will think with their wallets, an extremely unpopular solution for the US. Europe and Brazil pays about the same for a liter of gas (one quarter gallon) that you americans pay for a gallow, even in the UK and Norway (Oil exporting countries), my solution is to zero all payroll taxes even on the middle class and compensate for it on taxes on Oil and Coal (zero net increase)
5 - Brazil makes its own nuclear fuel, which is the largest long running cost of nuclear power plants (we have just 3 operating, I think Westinghouse technology, all within 20 miles of each other), you do know that there's zero competition for nuclear fuel in the USA, each manufacturer of the Nuclear Power plant is the sole supplier of fuel for that nuke ? It's a cartel, they don't want to compete with each other. Sell the plant at a tiny profit, then gouge on the nuclear fuel for its life. Result, there are many nuclear power plants being closed !

I call myself a peaceful, legal, one man wikileaks, no secret documents here, but tons and tons of facts that are often downplayed, ignored, ridiculed that if everybody knew about it (and acted on it), the world would be a much better place.
I'm no Green Peace environmentalist (I found most of what they do pointless).
I'm a pragmatic Green guy with the hobby of exposing everything the mainstream media buries that could change the world for the better.

Re:Boohoo

[dbIII]

Ten years ago I wouldn't have thought local police would have TANKS either

Twenty years ago "Tank Police" was an over the top Japanese satire by the guy that later did "Ghost in the Shell". It was mostly about abuse of power and why police should not have tanks.

Re:Boohoo

[dbIII]

However the government assistance to Boeing could be approaching or exceeding it's contribution to the economy considering the vast sums going in and issues like the industrial espionage at taxpayers expense for their benefit that came out in court a few years ago. In the end it may be less of a drain to just buy stuff from Airbus instead of socialising the losses from the company copying their designs with the aid of spies.

Re:Boohoo

[dbIII]

So when Boeing and it's suppliers lay thousands of people off, those unemployment benefits came from magic pixie faeries?

The Chinese economy is booming so the people working for those suppliers won't have much trouble finding work.
Boeing and it's suppliers have already laid a lot of people off and outsourced.

Re: Boohoo

[Lynchenstein]

Brazilian weapons? That's a lot.

Re:Boohoo

[7-Vodka]

There's no such thing. Money is fungible. The people who think they're paying for their unemployment and social security are actually paying the creditors who loaned the government money 3 years ago and the government is also going out and borrowing more and printing it.

Everyone who is not in the sanctum of power is liable for the 17 and going on 19 Trillion dollar debt.

That's 150 thousand dollars per tax payer, in today's dollars. Good fucking luck.

Re:Boohoo

[7-Vodka]

And just to add, that's ~ $24 thousand in interest owed per tax payer for 2013 without paying the principle. Happy new year.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Re:Boohoo

[shutdown -p now]

There are plenty of trucks in WA, but they're mostly on the east side of the Cascades. SUVs are plentiful in Puget Sound area, though.

OTOH, you do see a lot of Priuses and Leafs here. And an occasional Tesla.

Re:Boohoo

[shutdown -p now]

And no, foreigners are not protected by the US Constitution when they're outside the USA. If you believe that you should be, I suggest you invoke the US Fourth Amendment (just to see how far it gets you) next time you are arrested in wherever you are.

This is a non sequitur. The reason why you won't get far by invoking 4A is because it's usually not the US government arresting you, and 4A is a limitation on the power of that government. If you're detained by US armed forces, for example, then the Constitution fully applies - basically, it applies wherever there is effective US jurisdiction, whether it's on US soil or not. That's why a bunch of Gitmo shenanigans were ruled unconstitutional.

Re:Boohoo

[aliquis]

The point was mostly that even though we have and have bought a bunch of planes we have few to none which are ready to actually go up there if needed.

Also I guess if they where to bomb the response would come too late.

Bildt claim the Russians likely haven't even noticed the talk about FRA helping NSA collect information from their area, Gotland was completely undefended and I have no idea where the communication cables are in the Baltic sea but I at least assume Gotland and the surrounding area is of some strategic interest and that possibly some cables can be around there. And regardless what was the practice round towards the FRA for if not to state an example? Maybe it was just a coincidence or practice which happened to have that target that time ..

Of other interest is that Russia got S-400 SAM in Kaliningrad with reach well into Sweden whereas Sweden haven't got jack shit of such capability.

What good are your planes when they (never reach the air or) are shot down?

As for crippling we still spend more than say Finland. I don't get why US would appreciate little defense in Sweden? Oil money maybe. Or federal. Or whatever.

#amigaswe?

Re:Boohoo

[angel'o'sphere]

I was more thinking about payent to workers and taxes which you can't avoid like on energy or oil.

Re:Boohoo

[Shinobi]

And, as I said, the decision for that is political. According to Bildt, Reinfeldt etc, there is no threat model to Sweden, thus there's no need for patrol readiness....

And well, Bildt claims a lot of things, but do not forget that he has a lot of investments in Russia's oil and gas industry, and he stands to lose those if he starts to make any comments that Putin could consider negative. Russia are very much aware that FRA has been working with NSA for years. There's nothing coincidental about it at all.

As for the range of the SAM's, it's not quite that simple. At those ranges, fighters are very hard to hit since they don't tend to fly in straight, easily predictable patterns, compared to the ICBM's, AWACS and bombers they are primarily intended to defend against.

As a percentage of GDP, we spend less than Finland. There's also the problem that the Swedish Armed Forces don't get any extra budget or out-of-budget funding for all the international missions, while in most of the rest of the world, international missions get either budget increases to cover it, or comes from separate allotments. That means that Sweden's Armed Forces have less money to spend on maintenance, forces on standby, excercises and such.

And yes, I used to hang out in #amigaSWE... Are you Toaster-Ali? :p

Re:Boohoo

[Hognoxious]

but Economists count it as $12B of economic activity.

Not unless the went to DeVry.

Re:Boohoo

[RespekMyAthorati]

If this leads to a bankruptcy for Boeing, who will be paying for the bailout?
You, that's who.

Re:Boohoo

[crimson tsunami]

It's very difficult to justify a national security policy that significantly impacts your foreign policy and your economic policy.

Not really.

Terrorists.
It's a secret.
Think of the children.
Usually work well enough to keep the simpletons distracted long enough till the next celebrity/gossip story.

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

You made the correct choice, Brazil! For more than one reason.

Re:Yay!

[mellon]

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!

[Z80a]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 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!

[gl4ss]

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!

[OptimalCynic]

F-18, not F-16. Honestly, reading the article might be too much effort but at least try reading the summary now and again.

Re:Yay!

[jcdr]

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!

[jcdr]

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:Yay!

[Luckyo]

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:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, not Säkerhetspolisen. FRA on the other hand...

Re:Yay!

[saider]

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!

[jcdr]

One more reason to do a full technology transfer.

Re:Yay!

[q.kontinuum]

Hm. Maybe, getting some good contracts might save the SAAB AG from being bought out. Maybe this is also part of the thinking by Brazil government. Also, the EU might not want Boeing to purchase SAAB AG...

Re:Yay!

[Hadlock]

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!

[angel'o'sphere]

The Gripen is not designed to defend a "relatively small airspace", the AC made this up, and likely never looked at a map of sweden. Ah ... well, map projections ;D
Indeed the strike range is only 430 nm, travel range roughly 1600nm (with extra tanks).
As an air superior fighter a F18 has a strike range of roughly 540nm. As a bomber, less.
As far as I have heared the Gripen is regarding maneuverability and acceleration far superior to any american plane. Radar and other electronics are likely very siilar.

Re:Yay!

[angel'o'sphere]

I believe the curving is ore to prevent drivers falling asleep.
At least that is the "official" claim in ermany ;D

Re:Yay!

[bored_engineer]

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 around military bases?

Re:Yay!

[parkinglot777]

My god, the plane is so small that travels in nanometer (nm)!

**I know it is supposed to be Nm. ;)

Re:Yay!

[Luckyo]

Let me help you here. It's not about ground or suitability. The roads, like the old Turku-Helsinki road here in Finland on high speed portions near cities curve left and right and contain almost no straight sections. It's all geometrically even curves.

It's about as "based on terrain" as North African borders.

Re:Yay!

[neoritter]

The Gripen is an air superiority fighter, the Hornet/Super Hornet is a multirole fighter. The Hornet is by nature of it's purpose not as good as the Gripen for the specific task of air-to-air combat. If you compare the Gripen to the Eagle/Strike Eagle or the Raptor the in close dog fighting is comparable (the Raptor wins every time though when at range against the Gripen). Not really sure what Brazil's intended roles were for the new aircraft, but the Gripen is much more limited and is designed from a defense perspective. The Super Hornet is more capable in a variety of roles. I have read that Brazil was looking for a carrier based aircraft and last I checked the Gripen is not carrier capable. The Super Hornet is. There is a Sea Gripen but it is a proposed model and does not exist yet.

Re:Yay!

[bored_engineer]

Ah. Sorry, I made a bad assumption: I assumed that you were talking about US roads. (I was puzzled about the B-52 reference.) I'll try not to repeat the assumption here.

Re:Yay!

[neoritter]

They should've, the Rafale can be deployed to carriers and Brazil was looking at that.

Re:Yay!

[cbhacking]

Pretty sure Alaska isn't concerned about B-52 carpet bombing. I don't know where the parent of your post (Luckyo) is from, but I suspect it's not the USA. We've never been very concerned about carpet bombing here. Compared to Europe, with its massive numbers of historically hostile political entities packed into easy strike range (with minimal interception time) of each other, on the other hand...

Re:Yay!

[Hadlock]

That doesn't discount the fact (or meat of my point) that a full 95% of the population lives inside an area the size of New Jersey, a small defend-able area the GP was talking about. I've drove from Rio, through Sao Paulo to the Uruguay border and further south to Buenos Aires in 2009, I'm very familiar with population density in that region.

Re:Yay!

[emj]

Hadlock. Get your facts straight, my friend. The State of Sao Paulo, where I live, would still be in the G-20 if it was an independent country, with a world class infrastructure.

Maybe, even though the Sao Paulo republic has a huge amount of filthy rich people, it wouldn't survive 5 minutes in South American politics. Just saying.

Re: Yay!

[Z00L00K]

Also be aware that it's the Gripen/E that Brazil will get. Improved specs over earlier versions.

The original design was done to allow it to be serviced by conscripts with a relatively short education using roads as runways. Therefore it was designed to have a relatively short take-off and landing distance. Things that may make a difference when things gets hot.

Re:Yay!

[angel'o'sphere]

The Gripen is AFAIK also a multi role fighter craft.

Re:Yay!

[JimSadler]

These days bombs from US aircraft tend to fit exactly what they aim at. The real issue is the price of these munitions.

Re:Yay!

[cold fjord]

There is a Grippen variant designed for carrier use. Oddly enough it is called "Sea Grippen."

Re:Yay!

[Sique]

Your math doesn't add up. Manaus, Belém, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador da Bahia, Brasilia, Porto Alegre and Goiania together have more than 20 mio inhabitants, are each more than 1000 km away from Sao Paulo, and comprise more than 10% of the Brasilian population. (And if we add the suburbs of each of the cities, we easily arrive at more than 25%...) And that's just those few cities.

Re:Yay!

[breeze95]

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 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.

Nonsense. Both aircraft are roughly equal in capabilities and performance. The F-16 is older but has a more powerful engine. This translates into faster acceleration and a higher ceiling for the F-16. The F-16 is slightly more versatile than the Gripen due to 40% more takeoff weight and can handle 31% more external stores than the Gripen. The Gripen can out turn the F-16 and has a greater combat radius. Personally, I would take both the Gripen and F-16 over the F-18 Hornet. Here is a comparison between the two aircraft. http://www.brighthub.com/science/aviation/articles/92292.aspx

Re:Yay!

[Sique]

Actually, it's AB (for aktiebolaged).

Re:Yay!

[gatkinso]

A battle tested bad design that has dominated for two decades. Yeah.

Re:Yay!

[shutdown -p now]

Dominated what? Ancient Soviet jets that are several decades older than it?

Re:Yay!

[shutdown -p now]

Most countries in the world really primarily focus on their defense capability. This is especially true of South America, which doesn't seem to be a fan of that whole "peacekeeping" business.

And Brazil only has one aircraft carrier.

Re:Yay!

[neoritter]

It's only in the proposal stage from what I've read.

Re:Yay!

[neoritter]

All I know is that BAF's Fighter-X2 program highlighted the ability of using the new aircraft in carrier based operations. Which is probably why they went initially with the F/A-18 over the Gripen, even though at the end of the evaluations the Gripen had been placed ahead of the Hornet and Rafale by the BAF (primarily because of costs). The only reason the F/A-18 wasn't committed to was because when Rousseff selected them, they couldn't push forward due to financial constraints.

Re:Yay!

[Occams]

Huh? You want to be able to attack an intruding enemy, bomb his troops, ships, and tanks wherever he is in your country. In Brazil, that could be at a distant border a long way from you fighter base, or way out to sea.

About time

[toutankh]

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

[mrchaotica]

Bullies have no friends.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, we should never punish people for crimes because they will only get better at committing them.

Re:About time

[SirGarlon]

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. Corporate campaign donors are starting to see the economic implications, and they'll be raising a hell of a fuss by the time two more years have gone by.

Re:About time

[toutankh]

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:About time

[Nerdfest]

... after that, perhaps they could even start treating their citizens better.

Re:About time

[Kkloe]

hahaha, do you even know about Sweden?, Sweden is not so far off USA in the monitoring of its citizens or spying on the neighbours, and the spying is even done for the US http://www.svt.se/ug/fra-spying-on-energy-and-baltics-for-usa

Re:About time

[Some Bitch]

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

[jones_supa]

+1

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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:About time

[Stormwatch]

From whose ass did you pull out that definition?

Re:About time

[OptimalCynic]

Actually that's exactly what happens when you imprison people for minor crimes - they get better and try the major ones.

Re:About time

[OptimalCynic]

By which you mean the 1780s.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:About time

[The123king]

Exactly. If you're going to be a career criminal, learn to not get caught!

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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:About time

[Barsteward]

or when you need more training, get caught and imprisoned for a while

Re:About time

[cusco]

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:About time

[jma05]

The spying story will continue to be interesting through at least half of next year. I doubt it will hold steam until 2016. But if it does, we will see Ron Wyden and Justin Amash feature prominently in the race. They earned it.

Re:About time

[Guppy06]

At this point, I think it's inevitable that spying will be a central issue in the 2016 Presidential election

No. This is a "foreign policy" issue and that barely makes it onto the voters' radar when the "foreign policy" issue is an ongoing war. That, and the election is still 3 years out.

I wouldn't even hold my breath about voters caring during next year's midterm.

Re:About time

[sdoca]

Not that I don't disagree with you, but who was it that gave him the Nobel Peace Prize less than a year into his first term? I wonder if there's second thoughts going on in the minds of the committee members that made that decision now...

Re: About time

[AvitarX]

Maybe one will even say phone company immunity is bad, and close down Guantanamo.

Re:About time

[Princeofcups]

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.

How about I take that bet. Neither party will willing bring up spying, and will quickly change the subject when asked any such questions.

Re:About time

[Ralph Wiggam]

Now if only all European countries showed the same level of responsibility

You don't think that every NATO country in Europe has been working side by side with the NSA for decades? The UK signed the "Five Eyes" signals sharing agreement in 1946.

Re:About time

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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. Corporate campaign donors are starting to see the economic implications, and they'll be raising a hell of a fuss by the time two more years have gone by.

You cannot possibly be American if you think that. As someone born and raised in the USA, I can assure you that my countrymen have a memory span of about 5 minutes and whatever the 2016 election's main story is, concern about NSA issues will not be it. The economy will likely be the biggest issue of 2016 with both major party candidates arguing that they've got the best plan to create new jobs.

Re:About time

[macpacheco]

Let me tell you a little (not so) secret.
USA, UK, French, German, Russian aircraft are priced based on what their own air forces are willing to pay for them.
Russia pays less for their own military hardware, so their aircraft don't end up being soo expensive, but in all other cases, those aircraft become un-affordable for exports into developing world.

The last US fighter that was mass exported into developing world countries was the Northrop F-5E, which was designed for that market. It was considered a crappy aircraft for USAF's own usage, although it was cheap (to buy and operate), very maneuverable, supersonic, but it was considered too fragile in face of enemy fire.

France seemed to be an exception, they sold lots of Mirage worldwide (probably because their prices weren't overblown). The same aircraft supplied to its own airforce in it's prime. Brazil had a history of buying aircraft from the french (Mirage III, replaced by surplus Mirage 2000)

My prediction is the Super Hornet, F35, F15 won't ever be sold to developing countries. OPEC countries and South Korea are the exceptions because they have to contend with Iran and North Korea, and have an interest in kissing USA ass to keep their military alliances alive.

Re:About time

[cold fjord]

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.

Would that mean that European countries would stop spying on the US? Will they start living up to their agreed upon NATO treaty spending requirements for their own defense? I assume the answer to both is no.

Re:About time

[cusco]

Yugoslavia wasn't a part of the Soviet orbit really, either. Both were often lumped in with the Warsaw Pact countries because they were communist, though.

For some reason my other sentence got eaten, which was: First World - US, Canada, NATO countries + France, Japan and sometimes Israel.

Re:About time

[ebvwfbw]

Really? You remind me of the Chief of Police in this clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME .

Shocked, shocked that nations spy on each other.

Of course they knew they were being spied on.

Re:About time

[Uberbah]

And legal discrimination against ex-cons provides an incentive to (re)turn to a life of crime. Can't even get a job flipping burgers because McDonalds will just employ one of the other 5 unemployed applicants who don't have a criminal record. And you can't get food stamps to feed yourself, since you're an ex-con. So, what to do to feed yourself, what to do....

The Cost ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the costs of unintended consequences. I expect some to blame Snowden for this loss of business because blaming the perpetrator isn't as popular as blaming the messenger.

Re:The Cost ...

[macpacheco]

The NSA debacle was just the cover story for the decision.
Brazil wanted an aircraft that could be integrated with it's own present and future a2a missiles, it's own datalink system, and any other aspects they might desire to do in the future.
All other choices were (pick two out of three): Too expensive, bad for our tecnological/operational sovereignty, bad for our economy profit over the deal.
Countries shouldn't go out and spend billions of dollares in tech from other countries without large technological transfer unless they had no choice.
The Boeing choice wasn't the worst choice, but it was bad enough compared to the Gripen NG deal.
We would be tied with purchasing spare parts from Boeing forever.
And wouldn't be able to learn from this tech.

Remote control?

[hawguy]

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:Remote control?

[jeffmeden]

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:Remote control?

[hawguy]

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:Remote control?

[BobMcD]

"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:Remote control?

[hawguy]

"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:Remote control?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not in this day and age.

The F15 is a cold war antique. The F18 is getting long in the tooth. The F22 is a flaky bitch and we don't have enough of them anyway to make a difference. And the F35 is nothing but defense contractor welfare.

If things keep going the way they are going, we, the US, will be buying jets from the EU.

Re:Remote control?

[robmv]

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

Re:Remote control?

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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:Remote control?

[BigSlowTarget]

Not necessarily. The same could be said for the power of experience, leadership, morale, training or logistical support. The US military is neither Jedi nor Sith but they are pretty well led, trained and supported. Having the biggest guns does nothing to help you when you pull the trigger and it goes 'click' because you're out of bullets, didn't maintain it or forgot to flip the safety.

Re:Remote control?

[OptimalCynic]

How many divisions has the pope?

Re:Remote control?

[OptimalCynic]

The F-18 Super Hornet is a whole new beast. It's not long in the tooth at all, and the only reason it shares a designation with the original Hornet is political. They wanted to avoid the "new plane" procurement nightmare.

Re:Remote control?

[Arker]

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 potential competitors to the US arms industry around the world that the market is ripe for more competition.

Re:Remote control?

[gl4ss]

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:Remote control?

[Extremus]

There have been recent rumours about Brazil again considering the russian PAK-FA project.

Re:Remote control?

[Luckyo]

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:Remote control?

[jeffmeden]

A US invasion of any Latin American country larger than Costa Rica would make our current decade-long fiasco in Afghanistan look like a walk in the park. The US could invade all right, but hold on to that territory? Much less make a profit off the project? No, not hardly, and the Fifth Column that would appear overnight among the US Latino population would terrify even the Pentagon brass.

Panama is larger than Costa Rica... You might want to read a bit about pan-american history.

Re:Remote control?

[angel'o'sphere]

It is an open secret that Iraks Exocets (and radar stations) where "deactivated" by frensh forces in gulf war I.
Most western europe high tech weapons can be deactivated remotely ...

Re:Remote control?

[cusco]

Oh, you're right, 1903 is just exactly the same as 2013. /sarcasm

Not even a confirmed lunatic like Ronnie Raygun or an utter moron like Shrubbie dared invade a Latin American country, the Joint Chiefs may be greedy and corrupt but they're not stupid enough to go along with a plan like that. The most that they can safely get away with is funding mercenary/drug cartel groups such as the Contras and the Colombian militias, or trying to bribe military officers like in Venezuela. Invade and suddenly the generals are going to have to worry whether their Bolivian gardener is going to plant a bomb in their car or if their Guatemalan maid is going to poison them. They don't become generals by bravely leading the charge, they get there sitting behind the lines sending other people's kids to die.

Re:Remote control?

[ACE209]

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.

Well, technology is not everything. What about morale? When enough troops realize they are not fighting for their people anymore but for the bottom line of some fat cats, that might change a lot.

Re:Remote control?

[DigitalSorceress]

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.

Re:Remote control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Major differences -
    1) new engines
    2) new inlets
    3) new ECS system (look for the smokestacks on the aft fuselage between the verticals)
    4) new wing design - Google "F/A-18 wing drop" to see how effective that was
    5) substantially higher gross weight, makes a difference when the boat limits how much energy the arresting engine can absorb
    6) using two wing mounted drop tanks versus a single centerline drop tank to make published range goals (obviating the advantage of having two additional store stations)
    7) significantly canted (toed out) store stations - see item #2

The main reason for the F/A-18 E/F is the cancellation of the A-12 attack jet, not the cancellation of the NATF

Re:Remote control?

[Dahamma]

If things keep going the way they are going, most of these ridiculously expensive strike fighters will be obsolete eventually, anyway.

I'm sure there will always be special uses for manned fighters (interception/air-to-air defense, etc), but for the large part it's going to be much more cost effective to build and operate 10 UAVs vs. 1 F-22 or F-35.

Oh, and the US already has almost 200 F-22s. "Make a difference" at what? If more than 200 F-22s are ever required in a conflict, the world in general is going to be pretty much fucked, anyway.

Re:Remote control?

[cbhacking]

The Panamanian invasion was centered on a fairly specific area (the Canal Zone, which conveniently borders their major cities, and in which we already had military forces) but I'll fully grant that the post you responded to was hyperbole bordering on bullshit.

Re:Remote control?

[Richard_at_work]

Im afraid that the F/A-18E/F has less than 10% commonality with the C/D. Its an entirely new aircraft.

Re:Remote control?

[Luckyo]

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?

[Luckyo]

No, it has less than 10% common parts. For rather obvious reasons too. The damn thing is bigger, which means everything except for frontal assembly needs to be sized up.

Re:Remote control?

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, thats what commonality is...

Re:Remote control?

[gtall]

Just because you have 200 F-22 doesn't mean you can field 200 F-22 at the same time. Some are down for repair, some will get cannibalized after training damages, etc. They'd be lucky to get 100 airborne for any one conflict.

Re:Remote control?

[macpacheco]

True, but the SH is a great bomb truck, ok for medium range a2a combat, but crappy at short range. For a non stealthy aircraft.
In many ways the SH has been defined worse than the F18D for a2a combat.

The problem is the same, the US defense industrial complex is unwilling to do something really cost effective, for as long as there's budget (and clout with congress) to keep overcharging for military hardware.

The US would do itself a lot more good requiring cheap multi purpose UCAV aircrafts (a three/four way competition, contracting the two top winners), buy 4x more of those then it's fighter inventory at the height of the cold war, and keep only the F22, B1B and B2 as manned fighter/bombers (reactivating the F22 plant for another 100 aircraft and cancelling the F35 which is a failed project).

And try really hard to select at least one new company (not Boeing or Lockheed Martin).
Ideally both options from new companies.
A big part of the problem is keeping business as usual.
There's way too much corruption between the Military Industrial Complex and the US Congress / DoD.

Of course, then I just woke up from my dream. What me, a Brazilian telling the Americans what to do ? Well, I lived in the US for a while, and would have stayed if I realisticly could, so I think I want USAF + US Navy air wings to continue being the best in the world.

Re:Remote control?

[Luckyo]

You may call me "English as a third language". How many languages do you speak on this level?

Re:Remote control?

[Dahamma]

Oh, and the US already has almost 100 F-22s. "Make a difference" at what? If more than 100 F-22s are ever required in a conflict, the world in general is going to be pretty much fucked, anyway.

Re:Remote control?

[shutdown -p now]

It doesn't make it a new design, though.

Re:Remote control?

[Richard_at_work]

Yes it does, otherwise the B-2 and the Boeing 767 would be considered the same design as the B-2 uses a lot of subsystems from the Boeing 767 (landing gear for one, a lot of the avionics for another) as Boeing was a major subcontractor for the program.

Probably more to it

[rossdee]

Maybe the Saab is a better deal anyway, their latest plane is a newer design, and more agile.

Re:Probably more to it

[CapeDoryBob]

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:Probably more to it

[wcrowe]

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: Probably more to it

[Savage-Rabbit]

... 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

[Brandano]

Almost. I would place it roughly in the category of the F20 Tigershark, but with modernized avionics and greater weapon load and flexibility. It doesn't have a long range, but that only really becomes a problem when you are concerned with attack missions rather than defending your country.

Re:Probably more to it

[nitehawk214]

The Superhornet is largely a new airplane. It is only related to the original Hornet in name and shape.

Re:Probably more to it

[jittles]

Almost. I would place it roughly in the category of the F20 Tigershark, but with modernized avionics and greater weapon load and flexibility. It doesn't have a long range, but that only really becomes a problem when you are concerned with attack missions rather than defending your country.

I think that depends on the threat. Personally I would rather engage a hostile air force as far away from home territory as possible. If I can intercept them 200 miles away from their target its a lot better than having to wait until they are only 50 miles from target and perhaps capable of launching their attack. Plus Brazil is a large country and may need to scramble fighters from all over in the event of a real honest to goodness surprise attack. Of course I say all of that without doing a time on station comparison between the two aircraft.

Re: Probably more to it

[Savage-Rabbit]

I believe so too, JAS Gripen squadrons have impressive results from Red Flag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_exercise

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

[aliquis]

At least I doubt trust had much to do with it as far as the actual planes go. More likely political reaction from being spying upon before.

I don't know which plane is the best deal, both planes was the ones being under consideration since they had forgot about Rafale due to cost.

I wouldn't be surprised if SAAB/Sweden bends backwards a lot and try to give a really good deal for the trade to happen.

US/Boeing may not have or want to.

Re:Probably more to it

[Ralph Wiggam]

Brazil clearly picked Saab because it's a better choice, and then the President saw an opportunity to bolster his "I'm not America's boy" reputation at home. Well played.

Re: Probably more to it

[iktos]

"Downgrade" data-link isn't exactly right: It was a replacement of the Swedish with Link 16. Which doesn't have all the features the Swedish did 20 years ago but has the important feature that it's NATO compatible. The problem was (is?) that there's not space for both in a Gripen, so suddenly the C/D version wasn't compatible with most data-link resources in the defence force, but the older A/B version was.

Re: Probably more to it

[Savage-Rabbit]

"Downgrade" data-link isn't exactly right: It was a replacement of the Swedish with Link 16. Which doesn't have all the features the Swedish did 20 years ago but has the important feature that it's NATO compatible. The problem was (is?) that there's not space for both in a Gripen, so suddenly the C/D version wasn't compatible with most data-link resources in the defence force, but the older A/B version was.

Yeah, I didn't remember the exact details, but it made me laugh when that the Swedes actually lost features going over Link 16 so in that sense it was a downgrade.

Re: Probably more to it

[Shinobi]

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.

Re:Probably more to it

[rasmusbr]

It's sometimes compared to the Mig-21. Cheap to operate and maintain, sturdy enough to use roads as runways, at least the A/B/C/D versions. Brazilian engineers will get to co-design the Gripen E if they want to, so it's likely to be a compromise between Swedish, Brazilian and possibly Swiss needs.

Re: Probably more to it

[DaChesserCat]

The JAS at the beginning of the designation stands for the Swedish words for Fighter, Attack and Reconnaissance. It's a true multi-role fighter. The F/A designation means the SH is supposed be a Fighter and Attack aircraft but, considering its larger size, it's more Attack than Fighter. Don't waste your time with the Reconnaisance on the SH.

It has been pointed out that it is designed to operate from short fields, mostly just short stretches of roadway. Most US fighters would have a problem with that. The SH would definitely have a problem with that. Yes, it has longer range, but it's also considerably heavier.

Since Sweden requires a year of military service from all citizens, much of their enlisted military is made up of people who won't be around long enough to do six-month- or year-long training programs. The Gripen is designed so that a squadron of them can be maintained by a handful of experienced sergeants and a large bunch of barely-trained grunts. That means the maintenance tasks have to be kept relatively simple. Parts replacement has to be relatively easy, assuming the people wielding the wrenches are at least competent mechanics, not necessarily aerospace mechanics.

Also, the engine supplied with it is a modified version of a licensed GE engine design. Good luck vetoing the shipment of those engines to other countries. The plane can take armaments from a variety of countries. So, they are not dependent on good trade relations with the US.

Finally, yes, local industries stand to benefit from an influx of "fresh blood" from SAAB. I suspect they've already absorbed most of what they can get from Boeing. So, in terms of helping the local industrial base, the Gripen is a better choice.

Re:Probably more to it

[SgtAaron]

Brazil clearly picked Saab because it's a better choice, and then the President saw an opportunity to bolster his "I'm not America's boy" reputation at home. Well played.

Dilma Rousseff is female :-) First woman to hold the office.

Re:Probably more to it

[shutdown -p now]

The idea, I think, is that if your politicians do their job well as far as foreign affairs are concerned, you don't have a hostile air force that's camping out there. So you only really need it in case of a sudden attack (or, really, to prevent one from happening in the first place).

Children at the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

...didn't think about the consequences of their actions. All conspiracies are revealed because someone always talks. Ethics aside, the NSA should have been just as concerned about how the world would react. There will be much more blowback from the NSA's actions. We told the entire world that cyberwarfare is a go. Brazil can't do that much, so this is how they react. But we should be more concerned about technologically capable nations doing what we did to them to us. The irony is that they may have created the very situation they were trying to avoid with regards to cyberwarfare. Why do we keep doing this?

It's a chess game, and General Alexander is a poor chess player.

Not "US spying" - cost and technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

Brazil has no real threats (as a Greek i wish we had the same situation as Brazil has), so the 36 (Swedish) Gripen (plus 50 -more or less- old but modernized American F5 that will use until 2040) are more than enough - plus, the Gripen is much cheaper to obtain and has half the operation cost per hour of the F18... plus, SAAB would transfer technology to the Brazilian Embraer.
And from what i know (few years now), it was the Gripen that was "considered the front runner" (not the F18) - mostly because that technology transfer.
This "US spying" thing has nothing to do with the decision - it's not even used as an excuse from the Brazilian government.

Re:Not "US spying" - cost and technology...

[LavouraArcaica]

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, things changed back again.

Re:FRA

[znrt]

I don't get it, FRA works for NSA so what's the difference?

demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy
- the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. Also demagoguery.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demagogy

that you even have to ask shows how good they're at it.

Aircraft facts

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[OptimalCynic]

It's comparable to the Eurofighter. Except that the JAS 39 NG has the much better radar.

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.

Re:Aircraft facts

[Drethon]

Sounds like the same arguments I've heard for the F-14 vs the F-18 (though I think the maintenance on the F-14 was higher but the F-14 had much higher payloads). Still the F-18 won out in the eyes of the government. Not that that means much these days.

Sometimes you win some times you lose.

[heson]

NSA has been good to US companies in the past, sometimes it fails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial_espionage

Sanctions have started.

[tekrat]

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.

Re:Sanctions have started.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Little by little, we are making enemies of the world, and until we change our ways

There's little reason for the world to believe in any change until we change our form of governance. Yeah, yeah, the GOP & Dems will give the issue lip service, but it'll be just like Obama's campaign promises unless the system itself gets an overhaul. The current system will provide current results.

Re:Sanctions have started.

[charyou-tree]

[Snowden] will be shown to be a hero, this decade's Cindy Sheehan.

Huh. Interesting. I must've missed the "Cindy Sheehan is a hero" memo. At least one of us is out of touch.

Re:Sanctions have started.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Nonsense. Regimes that hate or hated freedom like the Soviet Union and the PRC have plenty of allies. The US will still have its friends. The major ones who really matter aren't leaving.

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.

Brazil's president is a quite a bit more anti-US anyway than her predecessor who despite coming from a supposedly anti-US background was actually pretty friendly towards the US while president. Let's just say that the whole spying affair has provided her with a convenient excuse to pile on the anti-Americanism when she was already leaning that way since she took office. There are a lot of internal problems within Brazil right now and being able to thumb her nose in Uncle Sam's face helps to distract the population from real problems that her government has been completely unable to make any progress on solving. This is an old strategy used by more countries than I can even mention. Whenever there are big problems at home, just blame the US for something. I'm not sure that Cuba and Venezuela's government could even exist if the ability to blame all of their problems on the US boogeyman got taken away from them.

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.

I don't know anything that could possibly make you appear more of a nut job than to actually think Cindy Sheehan is a hero. Almost nobody knew what the NSA was up to. It was only nut jobs like you who always suspect the worst of government who just got lucky this time with your wild guess.

And more to come

[erroneus]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is not about spying or the best technology

[geoffrobinson]

Name me one other country in our same position who wouldn't bully other countries. Name me one country that would have as much of a history, for good or ill, of at being somewhat restrained in our use of power?

Russia, China?

Re:This is not about spying or the best technology

[gl4ss]

I really, REALLY doubt that swedes would insert backdoors to ericcson equipment just to get an upper hand in export negotiations. it's just not the nordic way.

however usa got caught for spying for economic gain..

Re:This is not about spying or the best technology

[ColdWetDog]

No, they would just get some incredibly attractive blonde woman to waltz into the a contractors office, hand them a contaminated USB drive, smile sweetly and walk away.

Why bother with all of that technical crap?

Re:This is not about spying or the best technology

[excelsior_gr]

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.

Wow! I better go make some pop-corn...

Re:This is not about spying or the best technology

[david_thornley]

The problem is American exceptionalism.

Is this really so much more annoying than what other countries did when they were on top?

Sue the goverment!

[AndyKron]

Sounds like a major lawsuit is brewing. Hopefully.

Re:Sue the goverment!

[ColdWetDog]

In America, we brew lawsuits like we do coffee.

Vindication tastes like ashes in your mouth...

[Sir_Eptishous]

"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.

Re:Vindication tastes like ashes in your mouth...

[cold fjord]

Vindication tastes like ashes in your mouth...

"Was that worth 4 billion dollars?" the source asked.

It's not vindication but rationalization. It is easier to blame the NSA than explain why your more expensive airplane lost out to investors. The Grippen is both less expensive to buy and operate, and very capable. It has been winning contracts for years both in Europe and around the world. A number of other countries are currently considering it as well.

Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts)

[advid.net]

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:

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:Go, NSA!

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA revelations, on top of the ridiculous gap between rich and poor and the drop in healthcare and welfare support (excluding Obama's healthcare bill) lead me to believe there is, or at least will be, a shit-ton of unrest in the country. And given that it's a constitutional right to "bear arms", i'm sure there's enough guns, and enough means of communication, to effectively organise a civil war overnight and overthrow the government. I give it 10 years before the USA turns itself into a warzone, instead of some other oil-bearing country.

Re:This is only one tree in a big forest

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hate to Burst the Bubble

[geoffrobinson]

I guarantee you that our "friends" spy on us, especially for economic information. The problem I have with the NSA is that they spy on American citizens. It is THEIR JOB to spy on foreign citizens and governments.

Re:Hate to Burst the Bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

... that our "friends" spy on us, especially for economic information ...

Hmmm. And where does putting secret admin accounts into computer equipment fit in this data-gathering? The USA refuses to buy technology from other countries because the same thing can be done to them. The USA isn't just spying, it is conducting cyber-terrorism against its allies.

Then one could discuss the excessive methods the USA uses to gain economic information.

It's a bit like sticking your penis in your daughter. Sure, she learns the price of living with a man but the only person who benefits is you. It's a different matter regarding housework though. All family members benefit when your daughter does the cleaning and cooking plus she gets the skills needed to run her own house.

Political theater

[argStyopa]

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

[Charliemopps]

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

[Henriok]

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.

Re:Political theater

[swb]

Whatever the political origins of the term, "third world" is most routinely used as an economic descriptor of mass poverty and limited industrialization and economic sophistication, not a label of political alignment.

Suharto aligned Indonesia closely with the West during the cold war but almost no one would consider Indonesia a "first world" country, especially in the late 1960s and early 1970s at the beginning of the Suharto reign.

Re:Political theater

[LavouraArcaica]

That's quite right. The airforce voted for grippen MANY times. It was always the 'best' for their technical views.

Re:Political theater

[LienRag]

What seems to be the situation is that for ten years, the Brazil government did not want to buy american jets, but had not enough power to say a definitive "no" to such a "caring friend" as the American government.
Now the Snowden scandal gives Rousseff a good reason to go for the better plane without risking too much of political backlash from both US governement and Boing and US Army friends in Brazil.

Re:Political theater

[Uberbah]

Brazil is NOT a first-world country

Sure you want to go throwing stones there? Brazil has universal health care - the United States does not.

Why won't they roll their own?

[DSElliot]

I'm actually surprised that Brazil didn't pick Embraer to roll their own jet fighter more tailored to their own threats. Brazil has the money, the technical know-how, the and the educated workforce to pull it off. Although I suppose a Saab today is better than a less-capable Embraer fighter ten years from now.

Re:Why won't they roll their own?

[Henriok]

Embraer and SAAB has a history of collaboration and this is one of the key points of the deal. Embraer will be assembling these aircraft and they will be involved in future evolution of the aircraft. This spirit of collaboration between Sweden and Brasil is something that the US couldn't offer.

Transfer of technology

[Voice of satan]

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.

Re:This is only one tree in a big forest

[Luckyo]

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:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts

[Shinobi]

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.....

The Swiss were political

[Voice of satan]

In the Case of the Swiss, they had indeed noted the Rafale and the Eurofighter favourably, stating the Gripen was not only weaker but also below their minimal requirements. It has flunked the exams.

Still, they chose the Gripen. Why ? Simple, Eurofigher is partially German, Rafale is French and both Germany and France have heavily pressured the Swiss to reform their beloved banking system so EU citizen can't elude their taxes with a Swiss account.

The Gripen choice was the retaliation.

No No! Re:Boohoo

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, there are two groups of people! But they are not as you assume.
There is the group that believes there are "two groups of people", and the other group that believes "there are not"!

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[scarboni888]

Yeah. We'll see.

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[LordNimon]

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

[ACE209]

Wasn't that: there are 10 groups of people, those who know binary and thos who don't?

*sigh* yeah I'know - I miss the days when this was still funny.

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[angel'o'sphere]

It still is funny :D

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Amongst our many groups are such diverse elements as those who know how to count, those who don't, those with a ruthless dedidcation to the pope and ... I'll come in again.

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[yurtinus]

and those with a ruthless dedication to the pope, and those who put their left shoe on first (the heathens), and those who never learned the true meaning of zero, and those with stars upon thars, and those who have a potassium deficiency, and those who like parrots, and those who don't like parrots, and those who don't use a mouse mat, and lefties, and righties, and ambidextrousies, and those about to rock, and those named Spartacus, and those who can only count in hexadecimal, you insensitive clod.

Re:No No! Re:Boohoo

[turbidostato]

The one I'm interested in is count... basie

You are wrong about that unfortunately.

[Marrow]

They always have friends. And an armada of satellite wannabe bullies.

Re:You are wrong about that unfortunately.

[mrchaotica]

They always have friends. And an armada of satellite wannabe bullies.

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.

empire earth

[znrt]

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

you'll always have israel or saudi arabia ... oh wait.

And as things get worse here, we're trying to take the rest of the world down with us.

to be fair most of the rest of the world is trying hard too. i guess we need some more snowdens of different nationalities just to get an approximate picture.

it's just business. the rest of the world has been happy to indulge and even collaborate in those wrong ways, many times. they just get a bit picky when it comes to snooping into their private affairs, even more let it be publicly known. but in the end it's the same gang al over the world and there's the honor among thieves. we need to expose them all, i see no other way.

Better Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

US Spying Costs Boeing a Brazilian Dollars

Re:Better Headline

[cold fjord]

Thank goodness there is no country named Kajil buying planes.

Can we ever trust US planes?

[rvw]

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?

Re:Can we ever trust US planes?

[Spy Handler]

that's why Brasil dropped the Boeing and bought the Gripen, duh

Re:The cheaper and worst perfs. See the Swiss repo

[mindstormpt]

Are you suggesting the Swiss couldn't afford whatever plane they wanted? Of all the reasons they could have had to go with the Gripen, good or bad, do you really think cost was the deciding factor?

Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts

[advid.net]

[...], 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 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.

Not so simple

[leandrod]

The best for what against what?

Both Brazil and Switzerland lack credible menaces. For us (I am Brazilian but have an attachment to Switzerland, my son having been born there), the Gripen is more than enough, and enables us to participate in the project, which is more useful than simply buying the latest toy.

BTW, why is a Swiss report written in English? I would expect German.

It wasn't the spying that cost them the deal; ...

[Ihlosi]

... it was the part where they got caught.

Re:The cheaper and worst perfs. See the Swiss repo

[advid.net]

Are you suggesting the Swiss couldn't afford whatever plane they wanted?

No, for Swiss it was political reasons, as explained above by other ./ user. But price isn't completly ignored, even for Swiss, they do have a budget, it isn't "no limit".

For Brasil it was 1st price and 2nd political, according to some specialists I trust.

Boeing Decisions

[PPH]

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:Boeing Decisions

[the eric conspiracy]

Boeing has a very large backlog (345 billion) of orders in the commercial sector.

I really doubt they will be up the creek any time soon.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_10_24_2013_p01-02-629774.xml

Politics

[Voice of satan]

My comment was eaten by a black hole it seems...

Ths Swiss did a political choice. The Rafale and the Typhoon not only bested the Gripen but were also the only ones who passe the miltary criteria. The Gripen is considered insufficient by Armasuisse.

But The Typhoon is part German and the Rafale is French and bot Germany and France have pressured the Swiss to reform their beloved banking system.

This was the retaliation

Re:Politics

[Shinobi]

"The Rafale and the Typhoon not only bested the Gripen but were also the only ones who passe the miltary criteria. The Gripen is considered insufficient by Armasuisse."

The Gripen NG was given penalties in the 2006-2008 evaluation because some of the features were still in development. In the post-2010 evaluations, Gripen NG defeated them all. Armasuisse is just shilling for Dassault, as is the Swiss defense ministry(Just look at how many of them own or have cashed in Dassault bearer bonds....)

We do not have the commitment

[leandrod]

In the 1980s the Brazilian government wanted to do just that, after the AMX project, where we were junior partners to the Italians. But the 1980s debt crush, followed by the 1990s bubble burst and tiger economies’ crises, and then populist governments during the 1980s and 2000s, totally killed any viability to a Brazilian supersonic.

Not only that, the market is already too cramped. It makes much more sense to just become a junior partner with Saab (now; it could have been someone else, even if it is hard to see whomever) in the hopes of becoming an equal partner in the future.

Not that I believe in any such future. We simply do not have neither the long term vision, nor the first rate education, nor the need nor the demographical viability.

Not a snap decision

[leandrod]

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.

Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts

[Shinobi]

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.

Re:This is only one tree in a big forest

[Sir_Eptishous]

but this may be the final nail in the coffin for any hope of avoiding becoming another despotic socialist state.

This pablum gets modded Insightful?
"Despotic Socialist state"...
What John Birch Society pamphlet have you been smoking?

Not merely the purchase of 36 planes

[perplexing.reader]

Moreover, this is not merely the purchase of 36 planes (28 made for a single pilot; 8 with space for a co-pilot). Long-distance missiles, bombs and towable targets for training are all part of a larger package of logistics and training materials. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2013/12/1387576-after-more-than-10-years-dilma-chooses-swedish-jets-for-fab.shtml

Is Snowden A Whistleblower?

[LifesABeach]

If so, he could sue for damages?

whaaaaaaat?

[luis_a_espinal]

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 would be better serve by taking a few classes in Economics than by reading some post on the internet. But to give you an e-lecture is just too good to pass.

See, imagine if something were to happen to Silicon Valley, and half the engineers employed there become unemployed. Google collapses and shit. Don't you think such an event would affect the economy? Or do you live in an isolated compound somewhere in Montana, living off the earth and shit?

I mean, think what happened when IBM left South Florida. The tech region never recovered because there were a whole bunch of ancillary businesses dependent on IBM. And all the jobs in the service industry that depended on the engineers spending money.

So we have one of the largest engineering firms in the world losing a 4 billion contract. Are you that much of an ignorant idiot to think that won't have a negative effect on the American economy?

You forgot the biggest input....

[tacokill]

Energy.

That, here in the USA, is cheap and plentiful

Technology Transfer

[tomhath]

FTFA:

At the briefing in which they announced their decision, government officials said Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer SA would be Saab's principal partner. The transfer of technology is crucial to help Brazil develop future generations of fighter aircraft. "There isn't necessarily a need to produce all the parts in Brazil," Amorim, the defense minister said. "What's important is that specific aviation technology is transferred to Brazil so we can develop it."

Brazil has a longstanding policy of spending to develop their own technology infrastructure.. The NSA angle makes for good headlines, but I have to believe the partnership/technology transfer has more to do with it.

NSA Sabotaging US Economy

[FrodoOfTheShire]

The unchecked spying without oversight is now leading to huge damage to the US economy. It's no wonder that IT companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple etc.. want reform in the NSA because they stand to lose a huge amount of worldwide business after the Snowden revelation fallout. Countries don't trust the US or US based companies now and they will look elsewhere for their IT and hardware needs as evidenced by the loss of the 4.5 billion contract mentioned in this article. I'm from Canada and IT companies I work with are now trying to minimize their exposure to US software and hardware and I'm sure it's the same in other countries.

Re:NSA Sabotaging US Economy

[cold fjord]

Then I suspect the people in the companies you work with aren't particularly observant or thoughtful.

Does Canada do signals intelligence and internet spying? Yes. In fact there was a scandalous revelation a few weeks ago about Canadian spying on Brazil. Does Britain do signals intelligence and internet spying? Yes. Does Australia do signals intelligence and internet spying? Yes. New Zealand? Yes. France? Yes. Sweden? Yes. Germany? Yes. Italy? Yes. Norway? Yes. Netherlands? Yes. Spain? Yes. Russia? Yes. China? Yes. .... N

Canadian Police Arrest Man on Trying to Spy for China
Snowden documents show depth of Canadian spy agency amid ‘misinformation’ fears

You are also incorrect when you refer to "unchecked spying without oversight," that certainly isn't true.

The simple fact is in the competitive business world, people will milk this for all that it is worth. They will do so both to persuade clients, and explain failure of sales. Most of the time it is likely there will be little truth to it.

Grippen won because it was inexpensive to buy and operate, a great, highly capable aircraft, and the business terms were friendly. It is as simple as that.

Gripen in Libya: 650 combat mission

[G3ckoG33k]

From defencetalk.com (http://www.defencetalk.com/mission-completed-swedish-gripen-back-from-libya-37964/)

Gripen in Libya: "650 combat missions, almost 2,000 flight hours and more than 150,000 reconnaissance photos"

So, it does have some real-life experience too

How right you are, with details:

[couchslug]

Modern fighters rely on a STEADY flow of sophisticated parts from the manufacturer and subcontractors. Many of those parts must be returned to their manufacturer for repair/overhaul/upgrades which means you must buy "some" extras if you want to fly sorties.
Many parts are so expensive you can't have a local Supply operation with more than a few. Even the US Air Force must monitor Supply stocks globally and have parts shipped from base to base or deployed location to maintain fleet readiness. This vital juggling act relies on Fedex, DHL and other carriers as well as USAF assets. Repair and overhaul of jet engines is especially critical. If you have a problem component, say in the hot section, which fails periodic inspections you need to pull and stuff engines quickly to maintain operations.
If you don't get full tech transfer with local manufacturing you can end up with a bunch of expensive "ramp decorations" like Venezuelas F16 fleet.

US Coffee Torture

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one circumstance in which I can see myself drinking US coffee, and that's if the only other beverage available was US tea.

Re:Boo-de-fucking-hoo

[hoboroadie]

Cry me a river.

Need and numbers

[Z00L00K]

What will happen with the Swedish Gripen planes is that they probably will upgrade the existing aircrafts to the E version, not necessarily purchase brand new.

Re:Need and numbers

[aliquis]

Yeah, that is what I had assumed to.

On Text-TV with some commentator the text said order 60 new ones so I had to go with what it said.

I also find the price interesting because those 60 (even more so if they are upgrades) are supposed to cost us 90 billion SEK (google it now and it seems like it says over 30 years ..) whereas these possibly 36 would had been a deal worth over 30 billion SEK.

Some difference in price there. But maybe we get more of a maintenance and service package of the Swedish planes or it's including financing/interest rates or we simply pay more to help SAAB / have them done and others get a better deal.

Re:This is only one tree in a big forest

[Luckyo]

Which dictatorships? Democratic ones?

You know, there was a really good write up a while ago on al-jazeera about free trade and democracy. Specifically how to free trade, democracy is a despot, and despotic ruler is a good one. Because corporatism and fascism relies on pliable leaders willing to sell out their constituents, and democracy, when it works, produces leaders that do not.

The so called "bolivarian socialist places" such as Venezuela are a great example. Even with the massive economic punishment unleashed upon them by both multinationals and US, leaders of which apparently felt massively insulted by the fact that people actually dared to resist it, they managed to stand on their own two feet and improve their lives dramatically.

So do tell me, how are they "the same"? Do they push people into poverty in the name of enriching multinationals in Venezuela? Because last I checked, they keep nationalizing key industries, and using the profits to subsidize things like cheap food for the poor.

If that is "more of the same", we do not live in the same world, for I live in reality and you apparently live in the fantasy world filled with stars, stripes and freedom.

Hate to burst this dumbass talking point

[Uberbah]

I guarantee you that our "friends" spy on us, especially for economic information.

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 as saying that Canada has an army and a navy so it's equal with the United States. Nevermind the fact that the U.S. spends more than the rest of the world combined.

Re:This is only one tree in a big forest

[Uberbah]

Luckyo: Please read up a bit on the current living conditions in Bolivia and Venezuela, and then come back here and rectify yourself.

You mean where the standard of living for the poor has risen dramatically, while the richest people in the country are still the richest people in the country? What about it, brownshirt?