Slashdot Mirror


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."

39 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Boohoo by Nemesisghost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But the US people will pay again for the arrogance of the government.

      I, like the vast majority of the US, am neither a shareholder nor employee of Boeing. Explain to me how this costs me a lot of money.

      You pay in a couple of ways. This hurts our entire economy. So any stocks you own(of which most retirement accounts are made up of) will lose value. There's the entire supply line that is now impacted, so further damage has been done(why else did so many support the auto bailout). You lose in that this lack of trust in one company means that the world might not trust another in which you are directly involved with, which will cost you. Don't think that a major country's petty BS that leads to them cancelling negotiations with a US company won't hurt you just because you have no vested interest in that company. The ripples are far bigger than you might think.

    2. Re:Boohoo by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

    3. Re:Boohoo by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A fighter jet is made of:
            a hull
            wings
            engines
            electronics
            rubber
            wires
            antennas
            computers
      which are made of:
          metal
          more metal
          semiconductors
          oil
      which are made of
            ore
            sand
      and are all made by companies, people etc.

      $5B as end price likely tickle through the economy as somethign like $30B total gross product. The tax on that alone is surely beyond $5B.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Boohoo by macpacheco · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Super Hornet was never the favorite of the Brazilian Air Force.
      Unlike other serious govts in the world, here we had the favorite of the Air Force and the favorite of the president.
      It was the favorite of the Air Force because:
          - Lower cost both procurement and operational costs (I could joke there my Brazil don't have an air force, instead it has an air farce)
          - better air to air performance (let's face it, Brazil hasn't had a single bomb dropped in a military operation since WWII, what we need is air defense, the Super Hornet excels at being a bomb truck, even US Army Hornet pilots have admitted the SH leaves something to be left desired against even a much older Mig29 in a dog fight)
          - Generation 2 AESA radar with full technology transfer
          - Full technology transfer on the aircraft itself
          - Local manufacturing of most aircraft under license
          - Prospect of a partnership in future Gripen upgrades, Embraer will be the Brazilian partner on this, they have a world class track record on military and civilian aircraft sales, which dwarfs SAAB experience with exporting aircraft
          - You see, Boeing x Embraer would never be a really good partnership, Boeing is a competitor of Embraer in many markets (my forecast is Embratel will eventually produce a 737 sized aircraft, then they would become a full fledged competitor, but even the E-jets compete with 737 despite of the size difference)
          - The only advantage the SH had was it could be used on our single aircraft carrier, that stays in port the vast majority of the time

      The espionage scandal was just a good excuse to get back to basics and do the right thing.
      Buying the SH would have been a bad economic decision anyways.
      Brazil needs cheap military hardware, no F35's for us, ever. Even the SH would be too expensive in the long run (twin engine, part costs, fuel consumption)

      Realize the Brazil is operating F-5E, Mirage 2000, subsonic AMX, all aircraft that are cheap to operate.

    5. Re:Boohoo by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  2. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Yay! by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the planes have some sort of hidden software that allows someone to monitorate/control the planes remotely, they're not the best anymore.

    2. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They made the right choice as long as they don't need to use what ever they get as a replacement. We still make the best planes over here.

      Even the people at f-16.net 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.

    3. Re:Yay! by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      gripen isn't shit and it has the cheapest TOC of jets of it's class apparently.

      the engine is general electric and it can use weapons from all providers. it also has the modern radar now that usa stopped playing games with it as well.

      it might fit their use profile better than the super hornets anyways... probably better for shitty airstrips and improvised runways too(assumption in nordic countries is that in case of conflict all the airbase runways are bombed within half an hour or so.. that's why finland and sweden is littered with suitable road straights).

      it is a bit of a vendetta, in the sense that they had been in talks and considerations to buy the jets for almost a decade. maybe they just couldn't make up their mind who to buy from - now the decision was put on their lap. it's also likely that a sizeable chunk of the spying was targeted exactly to make the boeing deal happen!

      mind you, usa has bought plenty of weapons from sweden as well. perhaps the swedes were more willing to share firmware to the planes too(basically a country is stupid to buy jets if not, finnish non-super hornets have had considerable firmware modifications in finland too..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Yay! by jcdr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No even need of a hidden software. A government can force to reduce the maintenance from the manufacturer. This is why the Brazil want a full technology transfer.

    5. Re:Yay! by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fun detail: our large intercity older roads are actually not that straight for most part, as they are intended to be repairable after B-52/TU-95 does a carpet bombing run. Large roads tend to slightly curve back and forth, so carpet bombing from a bomber flying in a straight line would miss most of its load. This makes road repairs much easier.

      Side roads on the other hand are often designed to be functional as small air strips, so they are straight.

    6. Re:Yay! by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Informative

      The areas needing defending is an area the size of Israel (New Jersey) surrounding Rio and Sao Paul, the meager capital city of Brasilia, and a thin strip of settlements down the coast 10 miles wide running south to Uruguay. The interior has virtually no infrastructure, certainly no highway system of note. Major inland port city Manus is only reachable by air or water 7 months out of the year.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  3. About time by toutankh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's about time something like that happened. Now if only all European countries showed the same level of responsibility, maybe the USA would learn to treat their "friends" better.

    1. Re:About time by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullies have no friends.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:About time by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:About time by toutankh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's not so much about the fact that it was hidden until now. We've heard about spying by the USA, for instance in order to help Boeing win contracts, for a long time (I know I have). It's more about the fact that so far nobody dared say anything because the USA are the biggest player. Of course other countries do it as well, but this time the biggest bully doesn't get away with it and that's something to be appreciated.

    5. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > and neither party will dare to defend the status quo

      During the campaign? Maybe. Once one of them has won? The new administration will find a "balanced compromise" that'll give spies even more powers and put them under even less oversight.

    6. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BRIC isn't the threat. The threat is multinational corporations aiming for short-term profit. And that's not only a US threat, that's what is going to collapse the world economy.

  4. Probably more to it by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: Probably more to it by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and easier to maintain as well. The Saab Gripen is an awesome aircraft and a good choice. On the other hand the Gripens do still have lots of US parts in them so it's not as if US companies don't stand to gain, they'll just gain less. Theoretically the USA can even veto the sale because of the US parts in the Gripen if they want to be really petty about this and piss the Brazilians off even more. The most delicious part of this development (from the point of view of Airbus, EADS, Sukhoi, Dassault et al) is that Boeing, a long time beneficiary of US government sponsored industrial espionage, has been hosted by it's own petard for a change.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  5. Aircraft facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just for info : they have decided for the better plane.
    The JAS SuperGrippen (Grippen NG) has a much larger ferry and combat range (twice as much as the F/A18), is a lot faster (Mach 2.2, even faster than the F35), more agile AND cheaper both in initial costs and per flight hour. It's comparable to the Eurofighter. Except that the JAS 39 NG has the much better radar.
    It has a bit lower weapon payload, though (5.3 metric ton (JAS39) vs 6 metric ton (F/A18)). But for the cost of one american plane, you can buy two JAS39 and thus have air superiority.

  6. Sanctions have started. by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA will eventually find itself alone, and without allies. And it's not just the spying, it's the drone attacks on soil with countries we are not at war with. Recently we blew up a wedding party in Yemen, killing over 13 which I'm sure included women and children. But oh no, we're not evil. We're the good guys. Uh huh.

    Little by little, we are making enemies of the world, and until we change our ways, less and les of the world is going to want to do business with us because we have shown we're not trustworthy.

    And to the poster who blames a 4.5 billion dollar loss on the economy to Ed Snowden, screw you. All Snowden did was CONFIRM what everyone knew already, but just couldn't prove. He will be shown to be a hero, this decade's Cindy Sheehan.

    We are in the wrong, but people who wrap themselves in the flag are unwilling to admit it. And until we learn to act a little more humble, we're going to see more of this. We're making the typical over-exaggerated gestures of a failed empire. And as things get worse here, we're trying to take the rest of the world down with us.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  7. Re:Remote control? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If that is their worry, then buying any NATO countries produce would not help them. AFAIK The SAAB Gripens use American engines, avionics and components. Apart from the airframe and the final country of assembly (and some local parts), they are not really making much a difference as far trust of the hardware goes.

    If that was the real worry, then you'd have to buy someone elses (probably Russian), but they went out of the race a while ago.

  8. This is not about spying or the best technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not just a response to the NSA leaks. Everyone spies, we all know that.

    The problem is American exceptionalism. No, not because we think that (every nation does), but because we can't shut up about it. The image we project is of spoiled kids, arrogant and rotten to the core. We shove our defensiveness in everyone's faces, and that makes America a very bad salesperson. We are the tight-ass at Macy's who thinks his feces doesn't stink, and won't even pay you any attention because you have the wrong shoes. No on wants to deal with that.

    This isn't about who has the best warplanes. This is diplomacy. This is business. This is about saving face and national egos. It's about time we learned a little finesse in this area. It's something the Chinese do exceptionally well.

  9. Vindication tastes like ashes in your mouth... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The NSA problem ruined it for the Americans," a Brazilian government source said on condition of anonymity.

    A U.S. source close to the negotiations said that whatever intelligence the spying had delivered for the American government was unlikely to outweigh the commercial cost of the revelations.

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

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  10. Re:This is only one tree in a big forest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in Brazil and you couln't be more wrong. We have a consolidated democracy and will elect a new president in 2014 (and governors), it's that simple. Yes, we do have a massive income distribution program, but it's not used politically as much as it have could been.

  11. Re:Remote control? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they have source to the avionics, the radar etc.

    it is normal procedure to buy it so that you as the buyer have the source, at least finland does even for the hornets(the smaller non-super) and there has been domestic modifications to the fw. certainly the swedes do for the components they buy from usa and code sharing has been a part of their negotiation tactics.

    and last time I checked, Sweden wasn't a NATO country and has no intention of being one either. norway is and that's how norway was pressured into buying f35's and not gripens(the leaked cables reveal all about it)... the 3rd country in the race was france and they are a nato country.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  12. Re:Remote control? by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

    F-18 E/F (aka super hornet) mainly differs from C/D varians (normal hornet) in size. It's the same air frame with increased size, enabling it to carry more load.
    It's reason for existence is in the cancelled naval F-22 variant, which meant that US Navy needed replacement for F-14s quickly. F-18 C/D didn't have the size to carry enough fuel for the maritime patrol tasks, so size was increased in E/F variant, which enabled it to carry more fuel and weapons.

    Calling it a "whole new beast" is a bold faced lie. It's the same airframe that was enlarged with minor evolutionary upgrades at best.

  13. Transfer of technology by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SAAB has made many concessions over the transfer of technology. I wonder how it will work out. Plus they propose to "make" them in Brazil. I wonder how much it will cost them since embraer has to outsource the assembly of many of their planes in Europe to be cost efficient.

    The Gripen has many parts which are originated from the USA. The volvo engine used by current Gripens is a modified general electrics one. No small part of their electronics is American too. Besides, the Gripen NG now exists only on paper. It has short range and carry little ordinance. Best contender wasn't the F18 but the Dassault Rafale. Except in the US press of course. The French were ready to make a technology tranfer the americans would have never accepted, with good reasons. The Brazilians and the French already cooperate closely on Brazil's future nuclear submarines and that was supposed to seal a military alliance between the two countries. Sarkozy had even agreed to buy some Brazilian tranports France doesn't need to sweeten the deal.

    And everyone who is even slightly interested in defense matters know the everyone which has the means spy on everyone. The Brazilian military knew this like the others Snowden or no Snowden.

    The ones who rage and are really surprised now are the French, no the US.

  14. Re:This is only one tree in a big forest by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main source of despots in Latin America has been US, which used despots to keep countries in severe poverty while it's multinationals shipped profits to US.

    "Bolivarian socialism" has evolved to prevent this exploitation, and succeeded in increasing quality of life in the region significantly. Obviously at the cost of profits for multinationals.

  15. Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ah yes, that report, written by Dassault themselves, even in the face of Gripen curbstomping Rafale in red flag excercises, and Gripen proving that it was better at strike missions in Libya.

    Basically, Dassault has such a foothold in the Swiss Air Force that they can write the requirements and testing specs to favour Dassault. It's like trying to sell Gripen or Typhoon to the US or Russian Air Forces.....

  16. Better Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    US Spying Costs Boeing a Brazilian Dollars

  17. Re:You are wrong about that unfortunately. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  18. Re:Political theater by Henriok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The fact that the military didn't even know about this snap-decision

    The decision might seem sudden but Brasil have already chose Gripen in several occasions during the last 10 years. Those decisions have been interrupted by sudden economic downturn, and corruption, political instability and other stuff. Gripen seems to have been favored by the Brasilian military and Industry all these years though, and since all competitors are eliminated du to various reasons (technical, political, corruption, cost), there was no reason not to take the decision now.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  19. Boeing Decisions by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This might change some of Boeing's thinking with regard to relocating their commercial operations. Back when I worked there (before McDonald Douglas took over), Boeing Commercial Aircraft was largely a stand alone enterprise. In fact, there was some talk about spinning off the military and aerospace divisions. That changed after the merger and some of the recent reorganizations have combined commercial and military aircraft engineering groups.

    But if the rest of the world perceives Boeing as being a tool of the USA's political/military complex, they might want to reconsider tainting their successful commercial jet business with that reputation. The F/A-18 deal is lost. But the company will really be up a creek if they start losing commercial sales as well.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re:No No! Re:Boohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  21. Re:Official flight test results (Re:Aircraft facts by Shinobi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The official mission was recon, but their RoE didn't preclude strikes, if there was a pressing need.

    2 times, 39's simultaneously engaged and destroyed multiple ground targets, and at least 3 other times they provided the target data to Rafale's(Too bad 39's have to run with reduced datalink capacity to interface with NATO planes, including the Rafale)

    As for Dassault involvement, they are issuing bearer bonds to Swiss politicians, Dassault "consultants" are working as personal advisors to at least 3 defense ministry officials, and are also suspects in the brewing indian bribery scandal regarding the Rafale procurement. Keep in mind, SAAB and the Swedish government have sidestepped BAE for the Swiss procurement, because BAE is too corrupt, and Dassault has an operational record just as dirty as that of BAE, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, with the belgian scandal being just one of them.

    When general Gygax made a revised statement of operational capacity after 2010, when Gripen NG showed off the planned abilities, there was an immediate lobbying blitz and further bearer bonds thrown in the direction of parliament and defense ministry.

    In fact, Dassault are still pushing the 2006-2008 evaluations to the swiss parliament, completely ignoring the post-2010 evaluations. They even willfully broke the rules of the tender by attempting to renegotiate after the bidding timeframe was closed.