
Lost Brazil order raises threat to Boeing fighter jets - geekfactor
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-boeing-fighters-analysis-idUSBRE9BK03420131221
======
fiatmoney
There's also a related issue of the F-35, where the US isn't sharing the
source code with partner countries. There's always the delightful possibility
that your country and the US get into a tiff, or a competitor country is smart
enough to reverse-engineer it, and suddenly your very expensive air force
stops working. Makes it very difficult to justify pouring money into an
increasingly expensive program.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/25/us-lockheed-
fighte...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/25/us-lockheed-fighter-
exclusive-idUSTRE5AO01F20091125)

~~~
bayesianhorse
If you get into a "tiff" with the US where you need F-35 fighters, you have
more urgent troubles than these Fighters being unreliable...

~~~
Crito
That's not the point. You are assuming the fighters are only for use against
the US.

There is the possibility of Brazil (or any other country that has bought
F-35s) getting into a _diplomatic_ tiff with the US, losing access to their
fighters because of it, and then being unable to use them for standard
training exercises or boarder enforcement against neighboring countries.

Having your fighter fleet grounded would be "disappointing" in far more
situations than _" is in a hot war with the US"_.

~~~
bayesianhorse
Aha, and then what other country would they use that ability in support of?
Cuba? Venezuela? Bolivia? Also they would probably take a near-total hit on
their weapons export bussiness...

------
auctiontheory
Bad job to not win a deal despite having access to all your prospect's
internal communications.

~~~
a3n
Double edged sword. Once your prospect learns with virtual certainty that you
have access to all their internal communications, the prospect must assume
that they are your bitch, regardless of how good the deal may appear.

They may also feel they've been treated more like an adversary or enemy than a
potential trading partner.

If I learned that the Ford dealer had been looking in my bank account to
adjust their negotiations, I'd walk.

~~~
MisterWebz
I hadn't thought of that. I wonder how it'll affect the Transatlantic Trade
deal or the TPP.

------
minor_nitwit
The article acts like there's a chance that Boeing is in serious trouble, but
the US government has programs to prevent the loss of defense manufacturing
capabilities.

The status quo is, if a product is not needed in the US, but the manufacturing
base to produce it is, to cover a potential major conflict, then the US sends
foreign aid to another nation, who in return agree to buy our defense
products. In the end, the government just wrote a direct check to a defense
contractor to build a weapon for someone else, who probably didn't need it,
but it shakes out as being 'foreign aid.' For a good example of this, check
out how many tanks the Egyptian government has.

~~~
apayan
NPR's Planet Money podcast had a great episode about Egypt and all their extra
tanks and jets that they get paid to buy.
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/23/214928040/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/23/214928040/episode-482-why-
the-u-s-keeps-sending-weapons-to-egypt)

------
Mikeb85
The F/A-18 has an old airframe, and is outclassed by every modern Russian and
European plane... The only reason any of them sell is the US' political clout.

~~~
icegreentea
Technically, the Super Hornet airframe is quite new. While certainly a
development out of the older Hornet platforms, its fair to say that
aerodynamically anyways, the Super Hornet has a pretty recent (development
started in early 90s) airframe.

Further, it lost its bid to the Gripen, which is approximately as old as the
Super Hornet (airframe-wise anyways).

You are right to say that the Super-Hornet is outclassed in a huge variety of
roles by modern planes from every country, but those are hardly the only
considerations. As you say, political clout is important, but it's not just an
American thing.

[1] is the leaked report for the Swiss Air Force from their procedurement
program between the Gripen, Eurofighter, and Rafale. In summary, the Rafale
was the clear winner by all metrics. The Swiss went with the Gripen. We don't
have a leaked report on how -that- came to be, but likely a combination of
realizing that they don't in fact need the best possible platform (likely what
Brazil did as well... their final three airframes were the Gripen, Rafale, and
Super Hornet, and I cannot believe that the Super Hornet can do anything
better than the Eurofighter (or the Rafale)), and some political maneuvering.

[1]
[http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf](http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf)

~~~
Mikeb85
The Gripen has some unique advantages. It's ease of operating, servicing, and
STOL capability allows it to be deployed from just about anywhere - you can
land it on a forest road, service it, and it can take off from a very short
runway again. And it still has great performance.

It's really the perfect fighter for Switzerland - a country which doesn't
really need a 2-engine fighter. The Rafale's main advantages are range and
payload, which does nothing for a small country whose only need is self-
defence...

~~~
sanoli
Which is the main issue with Brazil's choice of the Gripen -- range. Brazil is
huge, larger than the US's lower 48. From this point of view, the Rafale was a
clear winner.

~~~
pitiburi
The BIG reasons seem to be the transfer of technology and the fact that Sweden
hasn't any presence or interests in South America or South Pacific, while
France and USA certainly do. So, with the Swedish fighter they have no strings
attached.

------
rogerbinns
It sounds nice to blame the NSA, but Brazil was unlikely to buy the Boeing
jets anyway. Richard Aboulafia wrote about this, how the Brazilian Air Force
budget changes with economic times, their needs and lack of prior history with
the more complex (and expensive) jets:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2013/12/19/braz...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2013/12/19/brazils-
fighter-buy-that-nsa-narrative-is-probably-wrong/)

~~~
salient
I actually read that Boeing was in the lead for winning this contract before,
but I don't remember the source.

~~~
Theodores
I remember this but I don't think that the F/A 18 was ever a serious
contender. However:

The government may have 'leaked' to some in the media that the deal was going
to be for F/A 18s purely as a negotiating tactic with their preferred
suppliers.

At some stage Boeing may have said the deal was as good as done. This would
have enabled them to impress other buyers and their own shareholders.

Ultimately though, the SAAB plane was a better deal, easier to maintain, with
technology transfer and perfectly suited to the needs of Brazil. Whereas the
F/A 18 was 'better at dogfights' (which haven't happened since the 1960's) and
the French bid was expensive.

The deal is not actually a bad one for USA Inc. as the avionics on the SAAB
are mostly American.

~~~
foobarian
Makes me wonder why the US is so cavalier about selling top end warplanes to
weird foreign countries like Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it's because they can't
stand up to unmanned aircraft.

~~~
huxley
Global Issues has an interesting article with some good linked resources on
how much money is spent and by whom.

[http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-
big...](http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business)

------
protomyth
Not a good time for Boeing with the whole South Korea fiasco. I am really not
fond of the US government picking the same company for both the F-35 and F-22.
Of course, I still don't think the the F-35 specification was a good idea in
the first place.

[edit] To explain how weird the world is, here is a agreement between Boeing
and Saab [http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-
xml/AW_...](http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-
xml/AW_12_16_2013_p30-645781.xml)

------
willvarfar
Its fascinating how British decryption of French diplomatic cables, which gave
them deep insight into de Gaulle's position on Britain's entry to the Common
Market, didn't give them a way to stop him then either. (Source: Spycatcher by
Wright)

Reading the mail of those you negotiate with doesn't always give you a sure
bet.

------
rakoo
> Brazilian Air Force Commander

> Writing on an iPhone

There is still some progress to do.

