MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil leaning for the US F-18 Super Hornet fighter bomber, says Sao Paulo media
The Brazilian air force, awaiting the outcome of the selection process for purchasing 36 fighter jets, is leaning toward the F-18 Super Hornet of the US, which is competing against the French Dassault Rafale and the Swedish Gripen, Istoe magazine said. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPlease buy some eurofighters to really piss off TMBOA
Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1 Already been eliminated from the competition on cost grounds.
Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oh well we can dream, anyway she's still pissed at us building Brazils 3 new corvettes as well as the proposed building of 6 type 26 frigates for Brazil
Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3
Dec 10th, 2012 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't build 3 'corvettes' for Brazil, what happened was BAE built 3 OPVs for Trinidad and Tobago and they cancelled the order meaning BAE had 3 'cheap' OPVs going which Brazil picked up.
Makes sense as a cheap aircraft the F-18 is a good all rounder, however in the long run I predict that a certain degree of regret will be experienced as these aircraft age and more sophisticated designs come around, not to mention having to compete with the likes of the Typhoon and Rafale in performance characteristics.
Dec 10th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 yeah i know didn't say we built them FOR Brazil, but we still built them and they bought them
Dec 10th, 2012 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FAA selection of a Mirage replacement is depending much on this outcome. Nilda Rousseff had placed a hold on a replcement fighter after her taking office. Things are apparently moving along again. If F-18 is selected FAB, then expect F-18 for FAA. The RFQ for F-18 was submitted by the FAA in Nov. 2011 pending receipt of technical and cost data. The RFQ has been publicly published and it calls for a late model with all of the bells and whistles
Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0including single and dual seat version.
It is worth about $2B. Money has been set aside for this procurement some time ago, final agreement on both sides only needed. FAA does not need too much convincing as to which platform to procure. They have been convinced for years that this is what they want. Boeing has been lobying heavily for this contract for
the last three years, first with Nilda Garre and more recently with Arturo Puricelli.
Boeing needs the sale and it will hapen with full US Government support.
7
Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0COD?
@7 nice dream. Dilma might let you have a few of their F5 Tigers when they retire them though.
Dec 10th, 2012 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 nice cut and paste from an article 2 years old idiot, I know you've cut and pasted it (google) because your not clever enough to put that many words in a sensible paragraph, however, did you not read the second last paragraph, obviously NOT. The tender process is currently suspended due to the government's deep budget cuts intended to ease the impact of the world economic crisis. Sorry to dissapoint you AGAIN. Really please do some homework which means actually read the article your cutting and pasting instead of just reading the headline and cracking on. By the way hope they do buy the F18 more business for our friends the USA and will go nicely with the type 26 frigates they are going to buy off Britain :)
Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 08 Joe Bloggs (#) “COD?”
Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's right! No credits. Money put away safely by the MOD and just yearning to be spent on hot Super Hornets. Palms on receiving end just waiting to feel those hot green bills. Lot's of Jobs on the line. Mmmhhh. It sends Chills all over my body.
9 JuanGabriel (#) “@7 nice dream. Dilma might let you have a few of their F5 Tigers when they retire them though.”
FR-18's “ma Boy, F-18's. That's what I've said.
What do you mean by ”let you have”? My country has been producing and selling these planes for over 30 years. Dilma has no saying into what the US or Argentina procures. FAB is anscious for FAA to have common equipment to fascilitate joint Ops. Remember, these Babies will include landing hook for Carrier Ops. I like the sound of that.
The FAA wants these and it's what they'll get. Cash on the Table Boys, yes put the money on the table Boys! Put there!!!
@11 one real fault with your stupid last statement can Brazils aircraft carrier accomodate these aircraft, answer NO, it's not big enough and lacks the technology ie CATS to support it so once again you are talking shite, and whats this my country shite Rgenweener have never produced anything worth a mention, you are not American no matter how hard you try to convince yourself and others so get over it
Dec 10th, 2012 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 012 slattzzz (#) Brazilian carrier can accomodate F-18's. One reason Brazil wants them. Also, Future RG Carrier will also accomodate it. A question of time.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0@13 ProRG
Dec 11th, 2012 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Future RG carrier”???
That's a laff !!
You can't even afford F-18's. How do you expect to pay for a carrier???!
Wouldn't it be better for CFK to invest in more hotels to generate some $$$ income??
@13
Dec 11th, 2012 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha ha ha!!! Oh you are a funny one sir. Argie land retired her only worn out carrier years ago with no replacement as a result of costs and a significant amount of rust. Not only that but the Argie airforce just retired the last of their interceptor aircraft without replacement.
Why would Argentina buy any such junk from the EU or US? Fourth rate garbage stripped down of any firepower or tech secrets, and the loser nations in Asia, South America and Middle East buy it full price.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's like buy a Mercedes minus the engine (replaced by a Daewoo 2 cylinder), minus the leather seats, minus all the luxuries and replacing the on-board computer and music player with a cassette deck.
It would indeed be much better for CFK to invest in hotels, and better yet ditch the military fire all the officers and the billions saves on salaries and useless ships and planes used to build an air-defense system to ward off air attacks.
@16
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why would Argentina buy any such junk from the EU or US?
2 points
1: Argentine can't actually afford such aircraft so the issue is mute as this article is about Brazil.
2: Argentine, if it did have the money to buy aircraft, would be forced too buy “EU/US junk” because she cant develop her own fighter technology for previously mentioned reasons and a lack of expertise.
You are retarded. First of all, Argentina chooses not to buy... You are a fool for believing otherwise.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 02nd... we do have the scientific background it just needs to be reconstituted may I remind you we had a 2000km range missile in the late 80s, and that knowledge is still there. It would only take a minor investment to refine that and build 50k-100 thousand such missiles to be used in case on of you dumb boys decides to invade us one day... to make the loses to your aircraft so steep it either deters you or you win a phyrric victory.
@16
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Retarded? That wasn't called for. I happen to no more about military matters then you. Argentina cant afford new aircraft at the moment, hence the retiring of the FAAs last interceptor aircraft without replacement.
Argentina does have some technological experience but most of what you highlighted is outdated design work that never got past the drawing boards.
@19
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can't afford it... because the money is simply not appropriated, it's going into infraestructure or subdidies to energy, transport, etc.
And it doesn't need to be ultra-technological, just enough to cause some threat to craft... and then build so many and in so many places that air superiority, the key stone of the NATO alliance for world subjugation, is achieved at a SEVERE price. Why do you think NATO has done squat in Syria.
@20
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0????? What are you on about? You brought up this nonsense before and it didn't make sense. As I said before, Argentina can spend the money how she wants but the point is, it is not spending it on arms and never will.
@13
Dec 11th, 2012 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Future RG Carrier will also accomodate it. A question of time.
Wtf would the argies want a carrier for? seeing the last one they had when they could of used it in a actual fucking war hid in port
20 Tito The Clown Troll
Dec 11th, 2012 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Can't afford it... because the money is simply not appropriated, it's going into infraestructure or subdidies to energy, transport, etc.”
It is pantomime season at the moment......... Oh no it isn't!!!
There is no money full stop. If there was KFC / TMBOA / Ol' Turkey neck / The Harpy would have had it away, or it would have been “appropriated” for a new chain of hotels.............. Clown!!
@20TTT,
Dec 11th, 2012 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I once knew a man from New Zealand who bought an ex-Egyptian Air Force Mig 15.
lf l can find his address again, l'll give it to you.
He might let you have it for a pound or two.
Of course it was second hand when the Egyptians got ahold of it, so it might need a bit of work.
But hey, it was a real goer in its day(1950, maybe?).lol
#18
Dec 11th, 2012 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK had an ICBM in the 1960's...so what ?
You could build 100,000 missiles with a range of 2000Km.
Yes, that could certainly wipe out the Falklands.
What do you think that Chile and Brasil would say to you having an arsenal of this size. They would have to get on a parity with you JUST IN CASE !
#20
Syria....watch this space ! With your country having no experience of diplomacy on the world's stage apart from screeching and invading a small peaceful neighbour, your comments on the situation are superflous.
Come ongays
Dec 11th, 2012 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0If [ @13 ]
Thinks f18 s can fly of the Brazilian carriers, then f18s CAN fly of the Brazilian carrier.
And we happen to agree with him whole heartedly,??
Remember , we said they could fly of the carriers,
We did not say, when they get to the end of the carrier runway, they would fly into the air,
They would in fact, just fly straight into the sea,
Are we correct .lololol.
.
@13 Glad to hear that the Brazilian carrier can “accommodate” the F/A-18E. The big question is: “Can they fly off it?” Your little carrier is 75,800 tonnes lighter than an American carrier and, crucially, 68 metres shorter.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16 Yes, yes, yes. The crews of the tanks in our armoured divisions will want somewhere nice to stay!
@18 A 2,000 kilometre missile. Wow! But then we have an 11,000 kilometre missile. For which there is no defence! By the way, the Condor II only had a range of 1,000 kilometres and you needed Egypt and Iraq to help.
@20 There's a HUGE list of things that I CHOOSE not to buy. Because I can't afford them.
@26 Perhaps they are going to strap their missile underneath and fire it!
@20 We don't have a good military, and haven't had a decent one for decades. The military junta showed their incompetence by picking on unarmed college students, and sending kids to war. Our army sucks massively, and it's a miracle nobody has been tempted to take advantage of that.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The money also isn't being managed very well for infrastructure. The frequent power outages, the pre 70's plumbing. I have to call someone twice a month to clean the dirt out of the faucets. The money is spent on keeping Cristina's voting base happy and you know it. The only semblance military we will have under Miss Botox is one full of pathetic drug addicted thieves that like shooting children, babies and old people. You've seen it for yourself.
There are some Argentinians that give the rest of us a bad name by spouting hotblooded insults, and arrogant political remarks, and make the rest of us look bad. Observe and don't get so emotional.
Shit,,
Dec 11th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry all,
Yes I know it said [gays] it should have said [ GUYS] bloody keyboard.
Sorry. Sorry.
It should have said.
[Come on guys
If [ @13 ]
Thinks F18 s can fly of the Brazilian carrier, then F18s CAN fly of the Brazilian carrier.
And we happen to agree with him whole heartedly ,??
Remember, we said they could fly of the carriers,
We did not say, when they get to the end of the carrier runway, they would fly into the air,
They would in fact, just fly straight into the sea,
Are we correct .lololol.
38//39
.
@28
Dec 11th, 2012 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't need a military. Just air-defence and some chemical weapons as a last resort. Look how Assad is threatening use as he is about to fall.
The other antis have no clue. Argentina should not use the missiles to attack Brazil, Chile, or the Falklands. That is a war of aggression which I dispise. The would only be used to target attacking aircraft in an invasion. Spend money on developing air-wake/temperature guidance to track stealth, and just improve the targeting range on the other missiles for conventional bombers/attackers... and then build so many that any attack of Argentina is a phyrric victory or actually detered. We don't need 2000km missiles, just enough to bring down NATO subjugation craft.
The Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force operate the F-18 quite effectively and neither of them have carriers. Brasil may adopt the naval version with the option of acquiring a carrier in the future.
Dec 11th, 2012 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any way an older aircraft with modern weapons is still a force to be reckoned with.
NB. For our Argentinian friends, note the prefix “Royal” .
The Canadians changed this back from CAF IN 2011 to reflect their history and association with the RAF.
The Australian's also seem happy with this epithet.
#30
In that case we will just drop the biggies on you from a great height.
Who in God's name thinks that NATO is likely to attack Argentina !
Some of your hated Europeans (Spain and Italy) would take no part.
Please explain the scenario in which this would happen. As far as I can see, the only chance of a conflict against Argentina is if they attack the Falklands in which case, the UK would go it alone. Any destruction would be limited to targets against the military infrastructure and I am sure that no aircraft would need to overfly Argentinian territory.
Minimum force would be the watchword.
You have an extremely high opinion of Argentinian missile research and technology.
You are requiring them to do what the USA, Russia and China have not yet developed.
I think you would find that the cost of this research and production of said missiles would put your country vastly into the red.
As to Chile and Brasil, I think that you would find that they were uneasy about this. What your current “pacifist ” regime thinks now, may not be reflected in a government ten years or more down the line.
@30
Dec 11th, 2012 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh you are a funny won Mr TTT. Do you have any idea of the costs involved in building an entirely defensive military? To protect against a NATO invasion Argentina would require thousands of SAM batteries, not to mention an inventory of missiles that is so vast that there is no delay in construction and firing. Then of course the systems will have to be upgraded to defend from air attack and to adapt to the various upgrades in military tech. And thats just dealing with air incursion. Just stick with the present run down military, it doesn't cost much and is relatively low maintenance....well sort of.
When he says NATO read UK, sounds better to say NATO, cos there's more of them!
Dec 11th, 2012 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who would want to waste time invading Argentina anyway?
Dec 11th, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He is a fool sometimes,
We think certain parts of south America would if any,
Be worried about invasion from another south American country.
34 briton (#) “Who would want to waste time invading Argentina anyway?”
Dec 12th, 2012 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British sure wasted their time more than once. Like 1806, 1807, 1833, 1845, and 1982.
I can't remember invading Rgeneweener in 1982, I DO remember kicking their arses off the Falklands though, and don't thing rgenweener even existed on any of the other dates, Pro Arg you are a bit dippy really aren't you?
Dec 12th, 2012 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@35 ProRG_whatever,
Dec 12th, 2012 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0You could say that 1833 & 1982 were a Counter-lnvasions, where trespassing would-be squatters were evicted from (then)British territory.
1806 & 1807 were failed expeditions against a Spanish colony.
(you can't win them all).
So that just leaves 1845. Oh well, fake yank, l out of 5 isn't too bad l suppose.
But we still have the Falklands & South Georgia etc, etc & you DO NOT.
35 ProRG_American
Dec 12th, 2012 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well if you are going to bring up the past,
should not then britain beef up our defences incase
the romans or French or Spanish come back,
as stated, no one wants to invade argentina, its more trouble than its worth.
@35 1806, 1807. Raids against a SPANISH POSSESSION;
Dec 12th, 2012 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 01833 Recovery of a BRITISH possession from a bunch of useless, cowardly wankers;
1845 Assistance to an ally (temporary) in defence of trade that had nothing to do with said useless, cowardly wankers;
1982 Recovery of a BRITISH possession from a demonstrably useless, cowardly wankers. 11,313 prisoners SURRENDERED, threw down their arms AND admitted DEFEAT. By 5,000 BRITISH troops. Scummy little cowards. Why didn't they fight to the end AND DIE? But argies still have some debts. 255 British servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders. I see a reasonable reparation as being 2,580,000 argie deaths. In public. Preferably by garotte. Not complete until the heads actually fall off and fall into a pre-prepared acid bath. And the slop poured into the Casa Rosada!
Alternatively, said argies could lie down, head on one side, so that a steel spike could be hammered through 2,580,000 argie skulls from one ear to the other. But, without the acid bath, dismemberment. Use the bits as bait. Except for the bones. Pound 'em up. Bone meal.
@38 Of course Britain should do that. A full squadron of Typhoons. That should be enough to destroy the entire argie “air force”. Then, a warship and a couple of subs. Enough to destroy the argie “navy”. 1st Armoured Division (UK). End of the argie “army”. Then, removal of the “gangsters”.....sorry, “government. Restructure the ”country“ using Roman example. Remove ”argies“ as slav.......sorry, low-level servants. Anything dangerous or disgusting. Sewer cleaning and clearance. Internal cleaning of nuclear reactors. Replacements for tractors. ”Green” transport. Harness them up to canal barges for bulk cargo. Taxis replaced by human (?) pulled rickshaws. And human (?) pulled omnibuses. Allow the world to see argies pay for innumerable crimes. Genocide. Murder. Rape. Corruption. Theft.
@39
Dec 12th, 2012 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you,
Some of these Argies never listen, they just live in cuckoo land..
.
Stop it, Conqueror,
Dec 12th, 2012 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My kids won't sleep, they're laughing so much.
Bloodthirsty little grubs!
@39 Conq
Dec 12th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ho ho ho !!
Merry Christmas.
@35
Dec 14th, 2012 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 034 briton (#) “Who would want to waste time invading Argentina anyway?”
The British sure wasted their time more than once. Like 1806, 1807, 1833, 1845, and 1982.
Argentina did not exist until 1853, so that's 1806, 1807,1833, and 1845 dismissed.
And just to remind you the brits did not touch the South American mainland in 1833, we evicted a bunch of murderers and rapists who were not assisted by the crew of the Sarandi because guess why? Yes, you got it, 80% were BRITISH mercenaries.
The UK did not touch Argentina in 1982 though we had a few of our boys lurking there though the Brazilians had a visit from one of our Vulcans.
Talking of Vulcan bombers, Pro RG Am, what have Dr Spock and the Argentine pirate/squatters in 1982 got in common?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!