Fórum Defesa Brasil

Túlio escreveu:Ainda bem que ianques e Franceses NUUUUUUCA fizeram isso, né...???

Santiago escreveu:

Túlio escreveu:Mas é cristalinamente ÓBVIO: ninguém viria com a charla de 'comprem os 36 caças de nós e levem a SAAB de brinde', isso não se faz. Agora, se for programa DE ESTADO, a oportunidade de DESENVOLVER conjuntamente com um construtor experiente uma versão avançada de um excelente CAÇA como o Gripen é simplesmente IRRECUSÁVEL, um passo de gigante. Ninguém vai nos dar nada de bandeja (como Franceses e ianques insinuam), tipo 'tá pronto aí, pode copiar', vamos ter de trabalhar duro, desenvolver de modo autóctone novas tecnologias, e isso não tem preço, é sinal de MATURIDADE! Ademais, é sodas me dizer que os Suecos não estão vendo que NÃO VAI SER SÓ A FAB A COMPRAR, temos influência num monte de outros Países, temos o BNDES, somos BRIC, dou risada dos 'argumentos' do tipo 'um caça que só io Brasil vai comprar', que tale dizerem o mesmo do Super Tucano e do futuro KC-390, é achar que só tem burro na EMBRAER pensar assim. E aí chegamos ao nó górdio: será que a EMBRAER acha um bom negócio? Dá para encarar? Deve estar havendo um balaio de reuniões lá sobre o assunto. Cabôco, e aí???

Túlio,

Tb acho que é por ai.

O presidente da Embraer disse que eles estava em negociação com os 3 proponentes, que não se iludia com "bandejas" e tinha interesse em montar os caça aqui.

Para o bem ou para o mal, os receptores das tecnologias e dos off sets industriais a serem transferidos acabam sendo parte relevante no processo, com maior peso obviamente para a Embraer, o grande player nacional do setor. Uma coisa é falar de ToT no campo abstrato. Na hora de se por em pratica é necessário definir os objetos, quem será o receptor de cada tecnologia, cronograma, recursos necessários inclusive humanos, financiamentos e contratos. Se o jogo for combinado com a FAB (ao contrário do que ocorreu no FX-1), teria-se uma proposta quase imbatível do ponto de vista industrial, tecnologico e mercadologico, na minha ótica. O ótica politica ficaria para o Governo decidir. Como não sabemos o conteúdo dos 3 BAFOS, fica complicado apontar a melhor proposta. Mas pelo que foi tornado público, a proposta da Saab claramente está sincronizada com a charla do MD.

Se o Brasil se torna sócio do programa Gripen NG, ele poderia ter participação nas vendas e/ou poderia ser inclusive responsável pela comercialização em certas regiões. Se der SH ou Rafale, teríamos a possibilidade de algo parecido? Essa pode ser uma janela de oportunidade única.

OBS.: Por curiosidade: India invited to become a partner of the Eurofighter programme (http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3822)

[]s

Mapinguari escreveu: Com tudo isso, é bom não perder de vista que, mesmo "dona" de toda ou de parte da Saab, se isso vier a se confirmar mais tarde, isso não garante transferência de tecnologia automática. Não tenho dúvidas de que a Embraer sabe projetar excelentes aviões. O que temos que saber é: "que tipo de tecnologia usada nos caças que concorrem ao F-X2 interessam à Embraer absorver"?. E, para que haja transferência de tecnologia, é precisa saber fazer as perguntas certas. A Saab, ou qualquer um dos outros dois concorrentes, não vai mandar um time de engenheiros e técnicos para a Embraer dizendo "e aí? O que vocês querem saber?".
Nós é que temos que chegar junto deles e fazer as perguntas certas. Para isso, é preciso dominar algumas tecnologias e técnicas, para poder avançar mais. Tenho certeza que uma das áreas de maior interesse da Embraer deve ser a de materiais compostos. A Embraer já domina alguma coisa nessa área e fabrica várias partes de seus aviões em compostos. Mas deve ter coisa que ela ainda não domina. Aí, cabe perguntar à "sócia".

PRick escreveu:

Flávio Rocha Vieira escreveu: Concordo em 100% em ambos os parágrafos. Essa foi a estratégia da SAAB.
Dentro da grande complexidade que uma parceria desse porte acarreta, e sem ficar procurando pêlo em ovo, foi simples assim : "Pretendemos uma parceria de fato com a indústria (privada) aerospacial do Brasil". Todos tiveram a oportunidade, mas até aqui me parece que a SAAB foi mais agressiva e apresentou a proposta mais eficaz, que atende a demanda dessas empresas privadas por lucratividade, sobrevivência, etc e do Brasil (Estado). Não vejo como jogada ou qualquer coisa que fira a ética do processo, como também não vejo como imposição, o governo brasileiro compra a idéia se assim decidir. E se as empresas brasileiras pretendem aprender de fato como fazer, assimilar tecnologia, desenvolver seu parque industrial essa me parece a melhor forma. Concreta, objetiva e perene.

Esta é a minha opinião, cunhada em um ambiente de poucas informações, algumas evidências, e onde sobram especulações, inclusive essa .

Um fraternal abraço,

A Dassault e a Boieng não propuseram isso porque já tem caças prontos, portanto, não empurraram para nós a conta do desenvolvimento. Nem a insegurança da produção de um produto inexistente.

Queremos a tecnologia, não importa se de um caça pronto ou em desenvolvimento, porém, não precisa ser gênio para saber o que sai mais barato.

[]´s

soultrain escreveu:Alfredo,

Concordo consigo, já aqui escrevi inúmeras vezes sobre isso, mas sem êxito.

PS: Importa-se de deixar de usar o termo Rafaeleco? Se não se importar, estar sempre a escrever isso incomoda-me.

Agora, se a SAAB não está mal das pernas, então tudo isso seria desnecessário, até porque a parceria não seria interessante para a Embraer (a menos que isto não seja verdade, o que me parece razoável). Porém, do ponto de vista de negócios a longo prazo, sim, se a SAAB não vender, algum problema virá mais adiante, então a quebradeira não é, está para acontecer.

Um produto mais avançado só recebe verbas de pesquisa e desenvolvimento quando um produto "intermediário" é finalizado e colocado no mercado, com o mínimo de garantias de vendas. Assim sendo, o Gripen NG é mais importante para a SAAB do que se imagina (repito, importante para a SAAB, não necessariamente para o governo sueco). Porém não se vê movimentação expressiva da Suécia para adquirir este caça, ficando, até agora, especificamente para exportação.

Outro ponto importante é a terminologia que se usa para este acordo entre SAAB e Embraer (boato ou não). Não me importa se a expressão correta é compra, fusão, parceria ou outra coisa, pra mim trata-se (se for confirmado) de um acordo comercial com troca de conhecimentos via parcerias tecnológicas.

Túlio escreveu:Mas é TUDO o que tenho postulado, e sido sempre distorcido: PARCERIA, POWS!!!

EMBRAER comprar SAAB ou SAAB comprar EMBRAER é pura especulação e a tigrada fica batendo sempre nessa tecla por pura passionalidade, porque um é viúva do Flanker, outro usa até papel higiênico 'made in France' em casa, outro...

A questão eu não vou explicar DE NOVO, vou apenas repetir: ToT é uma kôza, copiar algo que outro já fez; PARCERIA é outra, a gente desenvolve JUNTO!

E para mim chega, parecem aqueles xaroposos tópicos de 'yzquêrdya' x 'derêitcha' eivados de ideologice lá dos 'Geraes', é sodas isso...

ME RENDO, QUE VENHA O MELHOR, PRONTO, MESMO QUE DE PRATELEIRA!!!


Afffffffffffff

soultrain escreveu:Extra, Extra,

SAAB acusada em diversas acusações de suborno a autoridades para a compra do Gripen, antigo ministro da defesa Sul Africano 100 M€, Hungria, Republica Checa...

Mais pormenores adiante...

'Detective thriller'

Thierry Jean-Pierre spent two years researching "Taiwan Connection - Scandals and Murders at the Heart of the Republic."
Reading like a detective thriller, the story takes Mr Jean-Pierre from the study of a pipe-smoking intelligence agent in Paris - his main informant - to the skyscrapers of Taipei and the sands of Mauritius.

It begins in the late 1980s, when Taiwan, in a state of chronic alarm about the threat from mainland China, is seeking to upgrade its fleet.

Sensing a rare opportunity, the then state-owned French defence electronics company Thomson teams up with the Naval Construction Directorate (DCN) to talk the Taiwanese admirals out of a nearly-completed contract with Hyundai of Korea.

But the admirals need a good reason to opt for France's La Fayette class frigates, which are still at the design stage and actually fail to meet many of Taipei's own specifications.

That reason turns out to be a massive commission.

Not unusual in itself - but then the commissions start to multiply.

A three-armed lobbying operation is put in place. A middleman called Andrew Wang is paid to oil the wheels in Taipei.

The seductively-named Lily Liu undertakes to buy off opposition to the deal in Beijing.

And in Paris, Alfred Sirven, of Elf slush-fund fame, tries to influence former Foreign Minister Roland Dumas via his girlfriend Christine Deviers-Joncour.

Strange deaths

The cost of all this is monumental. By the time the six frigates are finally paid for, their price has rocketed to Ffr16bn (2.44bn euros), of which nearly a third is estimated to have been the cost of the bribes and commissions.

The question is: where has this money gone? About half has been identified and some of that frozen in accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere.

But that still leaves FFr2.5bn (380m euros) unaccounted for.

When I compare our old democracy with Taiwan, a country where martial law was lifted a short while ago, I am seized by shame

According to Mr Jean-Pierre, the obstruction of the French political establishment can only raise one suspicion: That some of the missing millions came back to France in the form of the famous "retro-commissions" - the illegal rake-offs used to fund political parties and personalities that were the stuff of a series of trials over the past 10 years.

This would be shocking enough - but there is much more.

Since the signing of "Contract Bravo" in 1991, Mr Jean-Pierre says at least eight people who knew about the affair have died in suspicious circumstances.

They start with Yin Cheng-feng, a Taiwanese naval official who was about to blow the whistle on the commissions. He was murdered in December 1993.

Later Yin's nephew died an unusual death, as did a Taiwanese bank official who acted for the naval dockyards there.

In France, an intelligence agent named Thierry Imbot plunged to his death from his Paris flat.

He had been charged with following the frigate negotiations for the secret service.

Deaths continue

A year later, former Taiwan-based Thomson employee Jacques Morrison also fell to his death from a high window.

He had told friends he feared for his life because he was the last witness to the talks.

More than enough then to justify a judicial investigation into what Mr Jean-Pierre describes as "easily the biggest politico-financial scandal of the last 10 years".

And yet in France all efforts to cast light on the affair are stymied.

In Taiwan, by contrast, the furore generated by the scandal helped bring down the Kuomintang regime in 2000, and the new government has made sure judges have access to all but the most highly-classified documents.

"The reputation of France has been seriously stained," concludes Mr Jean-Pierre.

"And when I compare our old democracy with Taiwan, a country where martial law was only lifted a short while ago, I am seized by shame."

Corruption allegations
There have been numerous allegations that the Al Yamamah contracts were a result of bribes ("douceurs") to members of the Saudi royal family and government officials.

Some allegations suggested that the former prime minister's son Mark Thatcher may have been involved, however he has strongly denied receiving payments or exploiting his mother's connections in his business dealings.[20]

In February 2001, the solicitor of a former BAE Systems employee, Edward Cunningham, notified Serious Fraud Office of the evidence that his client was holding which related to an alleged "slush fund". The SFO wrote a letter to Kevin Tebbit at the MoD who notified the Chairman of BAE Systems[21] but not the Secretary of Defence.[22] No further action was taken until the letter was leaked to The Guardian in September 2003.[23]

In October 2004, the BBC's Money Programme broadcast an in-depth story, including allegations in interviews with Edward Cunningham and another former insider, about the way BAE Systems alleged to have paid bribes to Prince Turki bin Nasser and ran a secret £60 million slush fund in relation to the Al Yamamah deal.[24] Most of the money was alleged to have been spent through a front company called Robert Lee International Limited.

In June 2007 the BBC's investigative programme Panorama alleged that BAE Systems "..paid hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan."[25]


[edit] 1992 NAO report
The UK National Audit Office investigated the contracts and has so far not released its conclusions - the only NAO report ever to be withheld. Official statements about the contents of the report go no further than to state that the then chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, now Lord Sheldon, considered the report in private in February 1992, and said: "I did an investigation and I find no evidence that the MOD made improper payments. I have found no evidence of fraud or corruption. The deal... complied with Treasury approval and the rules of Government accounting."[26]

In July 2006, Sir John Bourn, the head of the National Audit Office, refused to release a copy to the investigators of an unpublished report into the contract that had been drawn up in 1992.[27]

The MP Harry Cohen said, "This does look like a serious conflict of interest. Sir John did a lot of work at the MoD on Al Yamamah and here we now have the NAO covering up this report."[27] In early 2002 he had proposed an Early Day Motion noting "that there have been... allegations made of large commission payments made to individuals in Saudi Arabia as part of... Al Yamamah... [and] that Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network have received substantial funds from individuals in Saudi Arabia."[28]


[edit] Serious Fraud Office investigation
The Serious Fraud Office was reported to be considering opening an investigation in to an alleged £20 million slush fund on 12 September 2003, the day after The Guardian had published its slush fund story.[29] The SFO also investigated BAE's relationship with Travellers World Limited.[30]

In November 2004 the SFO made two arrests as part of the investigation.[31] BAE Systems stated that they welcomed the investigation and "believe[d] that it would put these matters to rest once and for all."[32]

In late 2005, BAE refused to comply with compulsory production notices for details of its secret offshore payments to the Middle East.[33] The terms of the investigation was for a prosecution under Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.


[edit] Threats by the Saudi government
At the end of November 2006, when the long-running investigation was threatening to go on for two more years,[34] BAE Systems was negotiating a multi-billion pound sale of Eurofighter Typhoons to Saudi Arabia. According to the BBC the contract was worth £6billion with 5,000 people directly employed in the manufacture of the Eurofighter,[35] while other reports put the value at £10billion with 50,000 jobs at stake.[36]

On 1 December The Daily Telegraph ran a front page headline suggesting that Saudi Arabia had given the UK ten days to suspend the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE/Saudi Arabian transactions or they would take the deal to France,[36] but this threat was played down in other quarters. A French official had said "the situation was complex and difficult... and there was no indication to suggest the Saudis planned to drop the Eurofighter." This analysis was confirmed by Andrew Brookes, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, who said "there could be an element here of trying to scare the SFO off. Will it mean they do not buy the Eurofighter? I doubt it."[37]

There were reports of a systematic PR campaign operated by Tim Bell through newspaper scare stories, letters from business owners and MPs in whose constituencies the factories were located to get the case closed.[33]


[edit] Investigation discontinued
On 14 December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced that the investigation was being discontinued on grounds of the public interest.[38] The 15-strong team had been ordered to turn in their files two days before.[33] The statement in the House of Lords read:

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office has decided to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract. This decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the Director concerning the need to safeguard national and international security. It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.[39]

The Prime Minister justified the decision by saying "Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel and Palestine. That strategic interest comes first."[40]

Jonathan Aitken, a former Tory government minister and convicted perjurer, who was connected with the deals in the 1980s, said that even if the allegations against BAE were true, it was correct to end the investigation in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia.[41]

Mark Pieth, director of anti-fraud section at the OECD, on behalf of the United States, Japan, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Greece, addressed a formal complaint letter before Christmas 2006 to the Foreign Office, seeking explanation as to why the investigation had been discontinued.[42] Transparency International and Labour MP Roger Berry, chairman of the Commons Quadripartite Committee, urged the government to reopen the corruption investigation. [43]

In a newspaper interview, Robert Wardle, head of the Serious Fraud Office, acknowledged that the decision to terminate the investigation may have damaged "the reputation of the UK as a place which is determined to stamp out corruption".[44]


[edit] Judicial review
A judicial review of the decision by the SFO to drop the investigation was granted on 9 November 2007.[45] On 10 April 2008 the High Court ruled that the SFO "acted unlawfully" by dropping its investigation.[46] The Times described the ruling as "one of the most strongly worded judicial attacks on government action" which condemned how "ministers 'buckled' to 'blatant threats' that Saudi cooperation in the fight against terror would end unless the ...investigation was dropped."[47]

On 24 April the SFO was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the ruling.[48]. There was a two-day hearing before the Lords on 7 and 8 July 2008.[49] On 30 July the House of Lords unanimously overturned the High Court ruling, stating that the decision to discontinue the investigation was lawful.[50]


[edit] U.S. Department of Justice investigation
On 26 June 2007 BAE announced that the United States Department of Justice had launched its own investigation into Al Yamamah. It was looking into allegations that a U.S. bank had been used to funnel payments to Prince Bandar.[51] On 19 May 2008 BAE confirmed that its CEO Mike Turner and non-executive director Nigel Rudd had been detained "for about 20 minutes" at George Bush Intercontinental and Newark airports respectively the previous week and that the DOJ had issued "a number of additional subpoenas in the US to employees of BAE Systems plc and BAE Systems Inc as part of its ongoing investigation".[52] The Times suggests that, according to Alexandra Wrage of Trace International, such "humiliating behaviour by the DOJ" is unusual toward a company that is co-operating fully.[52]