Hacker News Reader

Comment by _djo_ | Hacker News Reader

Claiming that the NSA scandal is the primary reason for the Saab win is an overly US-centric view.

While there's evidence that Boeing's chances were hurt by the NSA revelations, it's not true that Boeing was a clear favourite. Both Saab and Dassault had presented strong bids and were considered serious contenders, particularly as both offered much higher industrial participation and technology sharing than Boeing and as such had the support of Brazil's aviation industry. That cannot be underestimated, and it's why Boeing was at a disadvantage even before the NSA story broke.

The Saab Gripen met Brazil's FX-2 requirements, it has a lower operating cost than the Rafale or Super Hornet, Saab has agreed to transfer a massive amount of technology and Sweden has committed to investigate a quid pro quo acquisition of Brazilian KC-390 tanker transports. Boeing could not match all that.

View on HN

Claiming that the NSA scandal is the primary reason for the Saab win is an overly US-centric view.

From TFA: "Until earlier this year, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had been considered the front runner... "The NSA problem ruined it for the Americans," a Brazilian government source said on condition of anonymity."

Does it remain a "US-centric view" when Brazil is the party saying, "Because NSA"?

Not exactly, but consider that Brazil gains leverage simply by saying Boeing was in the running, even if they weren't. e.g., Brazil wants the NSA gone, but they don't have any means to apply the necessary pressure. Point at an already failed Boeing deal, and tada, now you have a pressure point.

Or possibly Brazil had promised to go with Boeing, but recently decided Saab was a better deal. Backing out would cost them whatever political capital is traded in smoky rooms. Now they can point to the NSA and save face.

International relations are complicated.

It's always surprising to me when people believe anonymous government sources, when the statement is in that governments interest. Government personnel are paid to act and speak in their governments interest, which includes lying, exaggerating, provoking, etc., and in my experience when that source is anonymous and when the statement is advantageous to that governments interests it's probably not true, or not the whole truth. It lets that government publicly disavow knowledge of the potentially inflammatory statement (we don't want to hurt US relations!), while simultaneously telling the opposite story with deniability (we want our citizens to think well gladly hurt US relations!).

For all we know this "leak" is being used to legitimize something else entirely, perhaps the Brazilian military is unhappy withy the decision and this story exists to deflect criticisms from domestic sources: we picked the unpopular aircraft because the NSA would use Boeings aircraft to spy on us. Or we want to send a message, etc.

Welcome to world politics, where the truth is rarely what people say it is.

Indeed, the Brazilian military had openly declared the Saab Gripen as their favorite after months of technical studies and tests.

On the other hand, the NSA spying on Brazil's president and on some large companies (sign of a commercial use of NSA's resources, not just defense as is otherwise claimed) may have contributed to the souring of some relations used to lobby for Boeing, therefore weakening it's position and enabling Saab to break the deadlock.

The Gripen jet fighter was already the Air Force favorite amongst the contenders. In 2009 the President had settled for the Rafale and it caused an uproar in the Air Force as they had not been consulted and had previously expressed that their fighter of choice would be the Gripen. The government had said multiple times that the F-18 was a too costly option, so this statement about the NSA is probably just a way to gain some leverage over the situation.

I love how people keep acting like Brazil is being somewhat evil here by trying to gain leverage...to stop us from constant illegal spying...Yep, super objectionable.

Nobody is saying it's evil or objectionable, they're just pointing out that it would be in Brazil's interest to exploit the issue. That's just how the world works.

There's a term for it: realpolitik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

We shouldn't forget the illegal spying happens against American citizens in American soil. I suppose the NSA's charter includes spying on Brazil and they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they weren't spying on us.

Much like we probably try to intercept every communication for of foreign diplomatic missions in Brazilian soil.

That's why Obama has his secret conversations inside his tent of secrets. (Not just in Brazil, but the picture of him in the tent happens to be from Brazil.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12810675

Never heard of the tent before, interesting - but why doesn't it cover the floor? I was assuming it was some kind of faraday cage, but the lack of floor covering is a bit weird...

Maybe it's a rug inside the tent?

Even if the NSA's spying program ended up not affecting the outcome of the fighter decision, it can still be worthwhile to claim that it did if they have an independent goal of reducing that program.

I think the NSA would know if that was the case and be able to pass that information along.

Very likely, although they probably wouldn't pass this on the public.

> "Until earlier this year, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had been considered the front runner..

That simply isn't true. The Brazilian government was very clearly pointing towards the Rafale while the air force was somewhat leaning towards the Gripen NG. There was enormous pressure not to drop the F/A-18 altogether, despite the clear shortcomings of Boeing's proposal.

The article does not source the claim about the Super Hornet being the front-runner, although previous reports have claimed that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff preferred the Super Hornet for political reasons.

The part of the sentence that's an actual quote doesn't contradict my post.

Surely not "because NSA" entirely.

It could also be because the USA has stopped a big sale from Embraer to Venezuela years ago.

And earlier this year the USA annulled a contract that Embraer had won to supply Super Tucano to the US Air force in favour of a local plane maker.

EDIT: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/15/u-s-air-for...

It might not be NSA itself, but learning that US is willing to implement backdoors in their interest is a big deal - especially in defense industry. You either have the trust or you don't.

That doesn't mean no one else is doing the same thing. You do recall all the nice embedded controller chips from china sold to the US:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95282643/Backdoors-Embedded-in-DoD...

That is a nice theory and all, but I must ask, is it more than that?

We got the comments from each party privileged to the private deals each company made. We can cut away the commentary of the article, and still be left with a finger pointing at NSA. At that point, we can either trust that they speak the truth, or think they are lying.

> lower operating cost than the Rafale or Super Hornet, Saab has agreed to transfer a massive amount of technology and Sweden has committed to investigate a quid pro quo acquisition of Brazilian KC-390 tanker transports

Was that a new offer on the table, or has it been there several years? What causes the negotiations to continue for years, and what caused the negotiations to stop now? Those are the question I am left with after reading parent comment in the light of the article.

Again, the NSA-as-primary-factor angle only applies if you believe that the Super Hornet was far and away the front-runner to win the F-X2 contract. Yet that's hardly certain, especially as the Brazilian defence industry and military had expressed a preference for the Rafale and Gripen.

The basics of the Saab offer have likely been the same for more than a year now, including talks on the KC-390 and the option of leasing JAS-39C and D aircraft for an interim capability.

What has changed is that Brazil has been forced to retire all 12 of its Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft by the end of the year, as they have reached the limit of their service lives without costly refurbishment. This has left a gap in the country's air defence capability that needs to be filled urgently, meaning that the government had no option but to finalise F-X2. Until now successive governments have treated it as a political football, being unwilling to commit to the high cost in case it cost them at election time.

In light of http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/report-snow... - I'd say it was pretty tough to make any credible case that NSA wasn't at the crux of the matter. Frankly to suggest otherwise just sounds like so much spin.

People need to realize that companies like Boeing, GE, etc. are hardly even viewed as "American" overseas. We (Americans) like to think they are, but these companies are decidedly multinational with huge operations in many, many countries that employ thousands. They also make lots, if not the majority, of their revenue in non-US markets. Their headquarters may be in the US (not always), but they could easily migrate elsewhere, and would, if it were in the best interests of the corporation. In fact, as the rest of the world develops and grows economically and the US becomes a smaller share of the global pie, many may choose to abandon the US market if it's no longer worth the hassle should an oppressive regulatory scheme develop.

I worked for Boeing, we definitely considered ourselves an American corporation. Because of ITAR [1] we could not simply pick up with all of our IP to another country.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR

There are only a few companies which are viewed as more "American" than Boeing or GE. MacDonalds and CocaCola maybe.

As a brazilian, I have to say you're right. Maybe the younger generation, much more focused on and exposed to computer/electronics brands, doesn't care much for Boeing or GE. But to anyone here over 30, Boeing is pretty dammn 'American'.

Or Apple.

(ducks)

Why duck? Apple is a reasonable example.

Apple has had a renaissance lately. I believe they are more of a world company based in Cali.

What does 'having a renaissance' have to do with whether they are American or not? If anything, they are becoming more 'American' with their high-PR plans to build stuff in the USA. Their products all have 'designed in California' etched on them. They are, and they want to be, American.

>Maybe the younger generation, much more focused on and exposed to computer/electronics brands, doesn't care much for Boeing or GE. But to anyone here over 30, Boeing is pretty damn 'American'.

This is why I said that, younger people see Apple more than older people do because of the "renaissance."

You could easily counter with the Apple 2 in the 80s...

Edit: they want to be Californian, they are different note how it doesnt say designed in America.

>note how it doesnt say designed in America.

Ha! I hadn't thought about that untill your post. What the hell is this 'designed in California' thing? Boy, Apple really does try hard to look cool. Someone probably said "why not 'designed in Silicon Valley'?" and he/she was fired for not knowing that it was too bourgeois.

I don't remember the 80s, so I don't know what you would say about the apple 2 :) as a non-American under 30, I consider apple very American. California is American like Hollywood and NYC.

This only makes them "more american". Many people feel that they are the extension of the US government abroad since they collaborate with the US so closely.

In a sense they are. Most of these companines are limited by what tech they can and cant export and who they are allowed to export to.

Swede here: Boeing and GE are viewed as about as American a company can get.

I would add McDonalds too. But can't figure out if NSA has to do anything with them... still thinking...

Greek here, I'd like to add Coca-Cola on that list.

As nether indicated, they are definitely viewed as American. Why? ITAR. Anything that's even been near America (or worked on by an American, or contains a tiny American component) suddenly becomes poisonous. While you might be right about some classes of large corporation (oil companies, banks etc), the defence industry has a HUGE divide between American and non-American.

Boeing are certainly regarded as a 100% US company in Europe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com