Fórum Defesa Brasil

Carlos Mathias escreveu:E depois dessa cacetada, a coisa vai vazar de vez.

alex escreveu:Minha humilde opinião.
A presença do Gripen e F-18 nesta lista mostra o quanto é fragil a politica da FAB e do governo quanto a absorção de tecnologia. Mostra quanto esta politica pode ser negociada.

Primeiramente pensei que seria uma forma de destacar a escolha pelo Rafale mostrando que este estaria de acordo com as normas da FAB. Depois pensei que isto não faz sentido pois a escolha do F-18 nesta lista mantém a pressão do governo americano sobre o Brasil o que deve ser no mínimo desconfortavel . Seria mais facil fazer uma lista de dois caças por exemplo Gripen e Rafale e a choradeira Americana duraria uns dois dias e depois acabaria. Isso me leva a crer que a FAB leva em conta a qualidade do caça americano e também a custo de manutenção do sueco. Portanto deve haver um forte grupo de brigadeiros que adotariam com prazer um FX com F-18 ou Gripen.

Outro fator: não sei se há no FX-2 algum fator de offset, se há há também temos que relevar as industrias suecas e nem vamos falar da capacidade americana no setor, com ou sem crise mundial.
E é só, pe-ss-oo-all.

knigh7 escreveu:

Carlos Mathias escreveu:E depois dessa cacetada, a coisa vai vazar de vez.

espero que sim. Tomara que a Editoria peite a parada.

Mas os franceses estão jogando pesado. Onde mais que eles tem chaces de vencer com o Rafale??

Bourne escreveu:

knigh7 escreveu:
espero que sim. Tomara que a Editoria peite a parada.

Mas os franceses estão jogando pesado. Onde mais que eles tem chaces de vencer com o Rafale??

E os norte-americanos vão jogar tão ou mais pesados que os franceses

knigh7 escreveu:

Bourne escreveu: E os norte-americanos vão jogar tão ou mais pesados que os franceses

Mas não com propina. Isso é com a Dassault que está fazendo e fez no FX1

Túlio escreveu:Que eu saiba, offset e transferência tecnológica são kôzaz BEM diferentes, Knight véio...

soultrain escreveu:Provavelmente essa informação das malas é falsa e plantada por alguem...

soultrain escreveu:

Santiago escreveu: Se o Boeing SH for agora selecionado, nada impede que em 2025 o Brasil adquiria o LM "bomb truck" F-35, se necesario...se ele nao estiver custando USD 250mi/unidade...

[]s

Adquirir tudo bem, faz sentido. Dar capacidade para produzir ou participar num 5ª geração... Comprar o SH é comprar a uma empresa via FMS, comprar à Dassault é "comprar ao Estado Francês".


[[]]'s

FMS: Foreign Military Sales

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program manages government-to-government purchases of weapons and other defense articles, defense services, and military training. A military buying weapons through the FMS program does not deal directly with the company that makes them. The Defense Department serves as an intermediary, usually handling procurement, logistics and delivery and often providing product support and training.
FMS should be distinguished from the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program, which oversees sales between foreign governments and private U.S. companies, and the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants and loans for FMS and DCS purchases.

Security Assistance Organizations (SAOs), military personnel stationed at U.S. embassies, promote the sale of U.S.-produced defense items and carry out most tasks associated with managing FMS "cases," or agreements to make a sale. SAOs advise foreign defense ministries on potential military purchases, often by coordinating "security assistance surveys" to assess perceived needs and occasionally by aiding the development of procurement plans.

A possible FMS case begins when a foreign government requests "price and availability data" (P&A data) on the U.S.-produced items it is interested in purchasing. The SAOs in the embassy cannot provide this data unless the State Department, through its Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, issues its approval. Without this approval, an FMS sale will not proceed any further.

If the State Department approves, P&A data are provided to the purchasing government, which then decides whether to buy the items through the FMS program or another source, such as the DCS program or another country. An implementing agency within the Pentagon -- the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Defense Logistics Agency, depending on the type of item being considered -- negotiates the terms of the sale. If agreement is reached, both parties sign a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA), the contract which sets an FMS "case" in motion.

Once an LOA has been signed, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), a Defense Department agency that oversees security assistance programs, buys the item or items from U.S. manufacturers. This purchase normally goes through Defense Department procurement channels, and may not happen quickly; the time lag between an LOA and a delivery can take a year or more, particularly for complex weapons systems. The price quoted in the LOA may not match the cost of the items upon delivery, though in fact most final prices fall below the original estimate.

The U.S. government applies a 3 percent "administrative surcharge" to all FMS sales. An additional 3.1 percent "logistics support charge" is applied on certain spare parts, equipment modifications, secondary support equipment and supplies. These surcharges recuperate some of the costs incurred while promoting and managing sales of commercially-manufactured U.S. weapons. FMS surcharges pay a significant amount of the salaries and operating costs of Security Assistance Organizations (SAOs) and other Defense Department personnel who carry out the program.

FMS versus DCS [1]

Though the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program tends to be speedier and less transparent, purchasing governments may choose FMS for several reasons.

Countries desiring closer military-to-military contact with the United States will opt for an FMS sale. Contact between military officers occurs in all stages of the sale, and in many cases while providing follow-on training and support.
FMS sales are often less expensive, particularly for more advanced items. When purchasing items from manufacturers, the Pentagon frequently combines its own orders with its requests on behalf of foreign governments. This can result in lower prices through economies of scale despite the FMS surcharges.

FMS sales often carry guarantees of U.S. service and training.
Countries with limited experience in negotiating complex procurement contracts find FMS convenient, as the Pentagon negotiates with the arms manufacturer and handles the paperwork.
Because FMS sales are publicly recorded, at least to some extent, countries may opt for this channel to show they have "nothing to hide."

High-tech arms sales

As noted above, a purchase of high-tech weaponry normally goes through the FMS program. In 1997, the U.S. government lifted a twenty-year-old "ban" on sales of high-tech weapons to Latin America. Under this policy, the State Department had made clear that it would issue automatic denials to Latin American requests for price and availability data on high-tech weapons.

In March 1997, the policy was softened to allow Chile to request P&A data on fighter aircraft. In August 1997 the ban was lifted altogether. In 2002, Chile agreed to purchase ten F-16 fighter aircraft through FMS.

knigh7 escreveu:Vinícius,

100% do valor do Off-set em tranferência de tecnologia. São para essas 10 tecnologias-chave