F-X deal is back on. Brazil back in action

[Salty Dog]

Brazil already has a very successful domestic aerospace industry. Embraer is the third largest manufacturer of commercial aircraft.

What Brazil wants is access to more advanced technology than it already has. I doubt that subcontract work on F-18E structures would be enough, unless it helped them make more advanced structures, & Boeing might be reluctant to help Embraer in that field. Embraer seems to be moving towards directly competing with the 737 or its successor.

The Brazilians may be looking to boost their avionics & missile industries, where willingness to undertake co-operative development would be needed.

Saab probably has the edge industrially, because its willing to get more deeply involved than the others. It also has the best record in this area - see South Africa, which the Brazilians will be well aware of.

Interesting that you brought up Boeing. While Brazil is their biggest Latam customer for commercial aircraft, AFAIK Boeing has not sought partnerships in Brazil as they did in India. Could be due to having Embraer around.

SAAB has a nice relationship with the FAB due to the Erieye program.

I feel Israel has the closest relationship with the FAB due to their participation in the F-5 upgrade program and Python AAMs.

 

[Salty Dog]

NEW RFPs for F-X2

The Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has issued new RFPs on 30 Oct for the F-X2 fighter competition. RFPs were issued to Boeing (F/A-18E/F), Dassault (Rafale), and SAAB (Gripen NG).

After receiving the Request For Proposals, the companies will have until the 2nd of February of 2009 to present their proposals, which will be submitted the in-depth analyses, on the basis of the requirements established by Air Force Headquarters.

In this stage, the companies must detail operational, logistic, industrial, commercial, technical, commercial compensation (offset) and technology transfer aspects of their offers.

FAB PRESS RELEASE (in Portuguese)

 

[Beazz]

Many folks outside the military-industrial complex take "technology transfer" and "offsets" as directly related to the actual system or product of acquisition. Often the technology transfer and offsets are in other areas such as manufacturing, industrial research, medicine, agriculture, fisheries, etc. Much of the technology that goes into weapons systems development is proprietary to the point that the US Armed Services themselves aren't completely privy to all the technological details. They concentrate instead on developing uses and tactics to employ their systems. After all, that's why they are acquired in the first place.

That's pure non-sense:

Technology transfer is the process of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing and facilities among industries, universities, governments and other institutions to ensure that scientific and technological developments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then further develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications, materials or services.

In short that means if full transfer was granted the country obtaining it could not only produce the product and SELL it but improve on it as well. When this transfer is granted, the receiving country has now gained the expense and time of the country that developed it. It happens to be one of the sticking points that has come up between the UK and the US in regards to the F35 right now. They want complete tech transfer and not sure if the US is willing to give it. I think we would be fools to give it to anyone. The US will have 60billion dollars in R&D in the F35 and then give it to some other nation because they put up 2 or 3 billion dollars?
Also read somwhere that Brazil wishes to have this as well. No way is the US going to give Brazil the tech transfer behind this a/c so they can in turn wind up selling their own version of the F35 one day? Yea right.

As for who is privy to it. The US Military/Government OWNS every piece of it and can see it as they so desire and at any time take possesion of it from LM or Boeing if they see fit. It is the property of the US government and the GOVERNMENT tells LM, Boeing, etc. what they can offer to another country for sale. It's not up to the company Salty Dog. [/COLOR]

 

[swerve]

In short that means if full transfer was granted the country obtaining it could not only produce the product and SELL it but improve on it as well. When this transfer is granted, the receiving country has now gained the expense and time of the country that developed it. It happens to be one of the sticking points that has come up between the UK and the US in regards to the F35 right now. They want complete tech transfer and not sure if the US is willing to give it. I think we would be fools to give it to anyone. The US will have 60billion dollars in R&D in the F35 and then give it to some other nation because they put up 2 or 3 billion dollars?

This is incorrect. The UK has not asked for technology transfer, in the sense you mean. It is asking for (& was promised, when it originally joined the JSF programme) the ability & permission to maintain & modify its own aircraft. No rights to sell, & relatively little transfer of knowledge. Mostly permission to do what the UK already has the technical ability to do (it would not have been granted a Tier 1 partnership if it had not demonstrated that ability), & access to source code & interfaces so that it can integrate its own weapons & avionics without needing to ask permission, & pay, for a US firm to do it. It's been called "operational sovereignty" by the UK. Control over the aircraft the UK buys, nothing more.

Note that the USA has full access to the UK-supplied parts of the JSF. A little reciprocity might be in order.

 

[Beazz]

This is incorrect. The UK has not asked for technology transfer, in the sense you mean. It is asking for (& was promised, when it originally joined the JSF programme) the ability & permission to maintain & modify its own aircraft. No rights to sell, & relatively little transfer of knowledge. Mostly permission to do what the UK already has the technical ability to do (it would not have been granted a Tier 1 partnership if it had not demonstrated that ability), & access to source code & interfaces so that it can integrate its own weapons & avionics without needing to ask permission, & pay, for a US firm to do it. It's been called "operational sovereignty" by the UK. Control over the aircraft the UK buys, nothing more.

Note that the USA has full access to the UK-supplied parts of the JSF. A little reciprocity might be in order.

Well what was *promised* by the US I would not know, and I doubt you would either. But come on, just what do you think *source code* is, if not tech transfer? That is the brains behind the machine and with it you have it all. Even integrating your own weapons systems is a thing that has to be negotiated with every a/c the US sells. Not just the JSF. I don't think that is the problem though. The source code is indeed a diff story and the US is not wishing to give it up. Why should they? You invest maybe 3 bil dollars and now want access to something the US has invested 60 billion to develop?

I am aware the UK would not be a country that would take the code and try and sell it. But that is not the point. It is not yours and simply buying 100 planes does not make any diff IMO. The US has access to the UK supplied parts because the US developed and paid for them! Every part of the JSF was developed by the US and then the partner nations were allowed to make certain parts. But the US still paid for the entire thing and owns the rights to it. If the US was unhappy with what the UK was doing, they could cut the UK, or any other nation off, and make the part themselves. The partner nations cannot however do the same to the US. Even the Rolls Royce engine will be owned by the US government if it is allowed to continue because the US government is the one paying for it.

BTW, I am not anti UK. The UK is 1 of only 3 nations I consider a friend to the US and being so one of only three I would trust to have this tech. The US may in the end allow it and I wouldnt lose any sleep over it. On the same line of thinking, do you think the US should allow said tech transfer to lets say, Turkey simply becaUSE they are a partner nation and wish to do all the things you say UK wishes to be able to do as well? My point was simply about what tech transfer is and why its not given away as some seem to think it should be was all. The brains behind stealth a/c is somthing only the US to date has done, and to give it away to anyone is no small matter.

 

[JohanGrön]

BTW, I am not anti UK. The UK is 1 of only 3 nations I consider a friend to the US and being so one of only three I would trust to have this tech.

Just out of curiosity who are the other two nations you consider friends to the US (no irony intended)?

My point was simply about what tech transfer is and why its not given away as some seem to think it should be was all.

Well that would effectively cut out the Super Hornet then. Lets see ... Rafale and Gripen left.

 

[Beazz]

Just out of curiosity who are the other two nations you consider friends to the US (no irony intended)?



Well that would effectively cut out the Super Hornet then. Lets see ... Rafale and Gripen left.

Some tech is more vital then others. Stealth tech is an American only project so far. Every nation on the planet has 4th gen a/c. We never sold the F117 or B2 tech and there's a reason for it. It's virtually unbeatable for the time being. And no way are the source codes for all things SH, F15 or F16 released to every nation that owns them either.

The other 2 nations are Australia and Israel. Maybe friends was to vague of word. The US has many more friends then that I know. But those are the only 3 nations that would come to the aid of the US if She was under attack and in danger of being defeated. I also believe that if any of those nations were ever attacked and needed US help it would be forthcoming and in full force. I would expect my country to defend those 3 nations no matter the cost in life or money.

 

[Vivendi]

Well that would effectively cut out the Super Hornet then. Lets see ... Rafale and Gripen left.

If complete tech transfer is a requirement then I think Gripen would have a problem as well. AFAIK Gripen NG will get roughly 50% US parts.

So that would leave Rafale...

V

 

[Beazz]

If complete tech transfer is a requirement then I think Gripen would have a problem as well. AFAIK Gripen NG will get roughly 50% US parts.

So that would leave Rafale...

V

I have no idea what goes into the Gripen NG, but I doubt very seriously there is any top secret US tech in it. I'd bet any thing the US is selling for the Gripen could be bought somehwere else if need be. Thats not the same thing as giving away stealth secrets, or more importantly, how to MAKE it. At any rate, the US is not going to give Brazil the source codes to the F35 or F18SH, period.

 

[swerve]

Well what was *promised* by the US I would not know, and I doubt you would either. But come on, just what do you think *source code* is, if not tech transfer? That is the brains behind the machine and with it you have it all. Even integrating your own weapons systems is a thing that has to be negotiated with every a/c the US sells. Not just the JSF. I don't think that is the problem though. The source code is indeed a diff story and the US is not wishing to give it up. Why should they? You invest maybe 3 bil dollars and now want access to something the US has invested 60 billion to develop?

I am aware the UK would not be a country that would take the code and try and sell it. But that is not the point. It is not yours and simply buying 100 planes does not make any diff IMO. The US has access to the UK supplied parts because the US developed and paid for them! Every part of the JSF was developed by the US and then the partner nations were allowed to make certain parts. But the US still paid for the entire thing and owns the rights to it. If the US was unhappy with what the UK was doing, they could cut the UK, or any other nation off, and make the part themselves. The partner nations cannot however do the same to the US. Even the Rolls Royce engine will be owned by the US government if it is allowed to continue because the US government is the one paying for it.

BTW, I am not anti UK. The UK is 1 of only 3 nations I consider a friend to the US and being so one of only three I would trust to have this tech. The US may in the end allow it and I wouldnt lose any sleep over it. On the same line of thinking, do you think the US should allow said tech transfer to lets say, Turkey simply becaUSE they are a partner nation and wish to do all the things you say UK wishes to be able to do as well? My point was simply about what tech transfer is and why its not given away as some seem to think it should be was all. The brains behind stealth a/c is somthing only the US to date has done, and to give it away to anyone is no small matter.

Where to start? There are so many errors in this it's hard to know.

Let's start with simple stuff: the USA has not developed every part of the F-35 & subcontracted manufacturing. It has subcontracted design & development. Non-US firms have bid to design components & subsystems, to specifications supplied by the JSF design office. Secondly, there are different levels of partnership, with different levels of partnership. The UK is the only Tier 1 partner. It is not appropriate to compare the level of access of Turkey ( a Tier 3 partner, contributing less than 10% as much as the UK) & that of the UK.

Note that there is no question of the USA "giving away" anything. It is a matter of the USA providing what has been paid for. Not $60 billion worth, but a small fraction of that.

As for what was agreed, this is something that is not known in detail, but there have been public statements by British government ministers, which have not been disputed by the US authorities, that the access requested by the UK was agreed.

 

[Beazz]

Where to start? There are so many errors in this it's hard to know.

Let's start with simple stuff: the USA has not developed every part of the F-35 & subcontracted manufacturing. It has subcontracted design & development. Non-US firms have bid to design components & subsystems, to specifications supplied by the JSF design office. Secondly, there are different levels of partnership, with different levels of partnership. The UK is the only Tier 1 partner. It is not appropriate to compare the level of access of Turkey ( a Tier 3 partner, contributing less than 10% as much as the UK) & that of the UK.

Note that there is no question of the USA "giving away" anything. It is a matter of the USA providing what has been paid for. Not $60 billion worth, but a small fraction of that.

As for what was agreed, this is something that is not known in detail, but there have been public statements by British government ministers, which have not been disputed by the US authorities, that the access requested by the UK was agreed.

You can't be serious? That is like saying the US gov subcontracted work to LM to design it so they DON't own it? Yea right. You know as well as I do that ALL critical parts to the JSF are under lock and key and what the UK is asking for would in effect give them the ability to literally produce and/or sell the JSF on their own if they had the money to do so. Again, I am NOT saying I do not trust the UK, because I do. But that is not the point. You seem to think because you paid maybe 3 billion of a 60 billion dollar price tag you are now entitled to the most top secret parts of this a/c that the US has devoted all that money and literally decades of R&D to bring to fruition?

Regardless of what *tier* you wish to call yourself, you have contributed maybe 5% or less of the R&D but wish to have for all practical purposes, the whole enchilada for it. You talk about Turkey contributing less then 10% as much as the UK, well the UK has contributed over 95% less then the US on this adventure. Regardless of who exactly was contracted to make any certain part, LM holds the floor plans to it and if directed by the US gov could close down every partner nation and MAKE the entire JSF right here stateside and we both know it. That's the way it works when you own something and ALLOW someone else to participate. For that matter, if the US gov wanted to they could take the whole dang thing from LM and give it to Boeing and say make this a/c and thats the way it would be. The US gov owns this a/c regardless of how you seem to be trying to paint it.

I think I will just have to respectively disagree with your entire concept on the JSF and leave it at that. Seems to be turning into a pissing contest which I am sure no one cares to read. Have a nice day and hope to see the JSF flying in both nations arsenals as soon as possible.

 

[AegisFC]

You can't be serious?

Yes he is serious, the fact of the matter is that you are wrong.

UK is asking for would in effect give them the ability to literally produce and/or sell the JSF on their own if they had the money to do so.

That isn't what is going on. The UK is asking for the ability to put their own equipment in these planes without having to pay Lockheed to do it, that's it.

You seem to think because you paid maybe 3 billion of a 60 billion dollar price tag you are now entitled to the most top secret parts of this a/c that the US has devoted all that money and literally decades of R&D to bring to fruition?

The UK plans on buying significantly less F-35's than the US so it is only appropriate that they put less toward development. Per plane their contribution toward the development matches the US pretty close.

Regardless of what *tier* you wish to call yourself, you have contributed maybe 5% or less of the R&D but wish to have for all practical purposes, the whole enchilada for it.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

That's the way it works when you own something and ALLOW someone else to participate.

We didn't allow anyone to participate, we needed partners to pull this project off if we wanted it to remain affordable.

 

[Beazz]

You can't be serious?

Yes he is serious, the fact of the matter is that you are wrong.



That isn't what is going on. The UK is asking for the ability to put their own equipment in these planes without having to pay Lockheed to do it, that's it.

Here is what the UK wants: Operational sovereignty is defined as the UK having control over essential aspects of the aircraft so that it can be operated through life at the time of the UK’s choosing, says the Ministry of Defence. "We need to be able to integrate the JSF into the UK operating environment; operate, maintain, repair and upgrade the UK fleet to meet evolving through-life requirements; and certificate the aircraft as safe to fly," Drayson says.

This is considerably MORE then simply putting your own *equipment* on it and you know it!

The UK plans on buying significantly less F-35's than the US so it is only appropriate that they put less toward development. Per plane their contribution toward the development matches the US pretty close.

Oh puleeezzz.. The number of a/c you are buying is totally irrelevant and you know it. To get those same 150 a/c without the US you would have to invest the same 60 bil we did. You are trying to get 60 billion dollars worth of work at the discount price of 2 billion dollars and we both know it. There is no requirement that any level tier nation buy X amount of a/c. Italy is buying almost as many as the UK as it is now and they are just a tier 2 partner. All the *tier* leval gurantees you is a bigger say in the *requirements* of the JSF. It has NEVER guaranteed any nation the same level of access to the most secret parts of it, or the FINAL say on what the requirements are, nor should it. You think because the UK put up a measley 2 billion dollars they now can dictate and demand anything they wish about the JSF?

As for the Rolls Royce engine, I'd tell the UK if they wish to see it produced, then they can fork over EVERY dime neccesary to make it. They wish to scream and shout about this second engine that we do NOT need but on the other hand, wish of course the US to fund it right? Oh yea thats right, they paid 2 billion dollars so by all means let the US fork over how many MORE billions for this second engine that is PURELY political and NOT needed nor wanted by the US military, who just happens to be the the ONE partner that is paying the lions share of this joint venture.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

You either apparently.

We didn't allow anyone to participate, we needed partners to pull this project off if we wanted it to remain affordable.

Yes we wanted to save money. But with or without the partner nations the US is going to be flying the JSF. Without the US, NONE of the partner nations would have even heard the name JSF. Personally I think it was a major mistake including Europe in this at all. Lokk how well the UF has went. They all trying to back out, sell their planes to anyone who will but them, etc, etc, the A400m with its constant delays due to Admin: Text Deleted, Post Reported. Please read the rules re acceptable posting behaviour. You can make a point without using this type of language. , and now these same folks are gonna be part of the largest US a/c buy since the F16 with us relying on them to deliver *parts* to it on time? Yea right. Major screw up if ya ask me.

 

[Salty Dog]

That's pure non-sense:

Technology transfer is the process of sharing of skills, knowledge, technologies, methods of manufacturing, samples of manufacturing and facilities among industries, universities, governments and other institutions to ensure that scientific and technological developments are accessible to a wider range of users who can then further develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications, materials or services.

Whist that may be a good "definition" of technology transfer, that is not necessarily happens when put into practice. A country may buy a gen 4.5 fighter aircraft, however they may be limited to technology transfer to construct the wings, structural members, or flight control systems.

In short that means if full transfer was granted the country obtaining it could not only produce the product and SELL it but improve on it as well. When this transfer is granted, the receiving country has now gained the expense and time of the country that developed it.

Also read somwhere that Brazil wishes to have this as well. No way is the US going to give Brazil the tech transfer behind this a/c so they can in turn wind up selling their own version of the F35 one day? Yea right.

That is why full there is never a full technology transfer on the system that is purchased nor will there ever be. For Foreign Military Sales (FMS), part of the RDT&E cost is passed on to the customer country. This is a part of the FMS contract.

As for who is privy to it. The US Military/Government OWNS every piece of it and can see it as they so desire and at any time take possesion of it from LM or Boeing if they see fit. It is the property of the US government and the GOVERNMENT tells LM, Boeing, etc. what they can offer to another country for sale. It's not up to the company Salty Dog.

How did you come up this this? The US Government is a customer to contractors which are corporations with share holders. Systems are the property of the US Government once purchased. US Gov't just can't "take possesion" as they see fit.

All US contractors must have an export license to market their products and services overseas, so yes, the US Gov't has a degree of control in the process.

 

[simdude97]

You can't be serious?

Yes he is serious, the fact of the matter is that you are wrong.



That isn't what is going on. The UK is asking for the ability to put their own equipment in these planes without having to pay Lockheed to do it, that's it.



The UK plans on buying significantly less F-35's than the US so it is only appropriate that they put less toward development. Per plane their contribution toward the development matches the US pretty close.



You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.



We didn't allow anyone to participate, we needed partners to pull this project off if we wanted it to remain affordable.

Frankly I think it is you who need to educate yourself about the program. The UK has invested about 2 billion of a 60 billion dollar development program. Further the UK, in the form of Rolls Royce has gotten "free" funding for the alternative engine that they and GE are developing against the USAF's wishes. In return the UK and the other partner nations have been allowed to have a say in the mission requirements and the right to bid on work for the entire 250 billion dollar project. The UK will get about 15-20 percent of every F-35 produced so for a 2 billion dollar investment they get 40 or 50 billion dollars in economic benefit. That is a sweetheart deal and has nothing to do with affordability since the UK and the other partner nations have chipped in less than 10% of the development cost.

How anyone can come to the conclusion that such a small fraction of the development cost entitles the UK to the source code for the flight systems of the F-35 is simply amazing. Frankly, if the UK does not like the deal we should cheerfully refund their 2 billion dollars and wish them luck flying Typhoons off of their carriers. I am sure Boeing and others would be glad to take the UKs work share for the F-35.

 

[windscorpion]

The money is only one aspect of this, expertise and technology is another. "America" is not building this plane, private companies using nationally and commercially funded R&D are. BAE are not making part of the plane because of some charitable thoughts by the US government, i'm sure the expertise BAE have in the various exotic technolgies to be used was a more valid reason.

 

[swerve]

The UK will get about 15-20 percent of every F-35 produced so for a 2 billion dollar investment they get 40 or 50 billion dollars in economic benefit. That is a sweetheart deal and has nothing to do with affordability since the UK and the other partner nations have chipped in less than 10% of the development cost.

I think you need to study the programme a little more.

Firstly, the share of work done in the UK is less than that done by British companies, since a large part of it is accounted for by the US subsidiaries of Rolls-Royce (e.g. the former Allison) & BAE.

Secondly, it is written into the JSF agreements that contributing n% to development costs does not give a right to n% of workshare. There are no quotas. Work is theoretically allocated on merit*, according to quality & price. Every contract won by a British firm has been won in competition with other bidders. Would you rather have the workshare allocated according to quotas, regardless of quality & price?

*In practice, all the complaints I know of about preference being given to national firms have referred to US firms getting work that firms in other partner countries think they can do better, & IIRC have generally been caused by perceived defects in the bidding process & rather than overt bias in selection. In particular, non-US bidders not being allowed sufficient information about the requirements to prepare bids. I have read of some comical cases (all corrected eventually, I think), where non-US firms have found that their own technologies have been deemed too sensitive for non-US bidders to be informed about.

 

[simdude97]

The money is only one aspect of this, expertise and technology is another. "America" is not building this plane, private companies using nationally and commercially funded R&D are.

Development cost is about 60 Billion dollars. The F136, another several billion dollars. The UK and partners are spending about 5 billion total to be part of the definition phase of the JSF. Do the math. The US pretty much owns the rights to this plane since they funded it.

I think you need to study the programme a little more.

Firstly, the share of work done in the UK is less than that done by British companies, since a large part of it is accounted for by the US subsidiaries of Rolls-Royce (e.g. the former Allison) & BAE.

"The SDD phase is estimated to be worth $2.4 billion to BAE Systems in the UK and a further $750 million to BAE Systems North America. Production could be worth $16.5 billion to BAE Systems UK, and a further $4.5 billion in the U.S. These figures do not include export sales, support or other opportunities such as upgrade programs."

Source = http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-locations/5133261-1.html

I have done my homework Swerve. Have you?

*In practice, all the complaints I know of about preference being given to national firms have referred to US firms getting work that firms in other partner countries think they can do better, & IIRC have generally been caused by perceived defects in the bidding process & rather than overt bias in selection. In particular, non-US bidders not being allowed sufficient information about the requirements to prepare bids. I have read of some comical cases (all corrected eventually, I think), where non-US firms have found that their own technologies have been deemed too sensitive for non-US bidders to be informed about.

Care to back those claims up with facts.

 

[Todjaeger]

Development cost is about 60 Billion dollars. The F136, another several billion dollars. The UK and partners are spending about 5 billion total to be part of the definition phase of the JSF. Do the math. The US pretty much owns the rights to this plane since they funded it.

Perhaps it is just me, but what does the SDD and other program costs of the F-35 JSF have to do with the Brazilian F-X program? AFAIK the F-35 was not under consideration. At one point the F/A-18 and the F-16 had been in the running, but IIRC due to logistical and tech transfer issues that had been eliminated.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Perhaps it is just me, but what does the SDD and other program costs of the F-35 JSF have to do with the Brazilian F-X program? AFAIK the F-35 was not under consideration. At one point the F/A-18 and the F-16 had been in the running, but IIRC due to logistical and tech transfer issues that had been eliminated.

-Cheers

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

JAS-39C/D Gripen

and Rafale are the 3 short-listed fighters for the Brazilian Air Force program.

I wonder if they have observers status at the Swiss aircraft evaluation currently underway? (Technical and flight evaluations have been conducted on Rafale and Gripen so far)...

They could save a bit of cash that way I'd reckon...