Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

[José M. Rico]

Brazil buys 50 helicopters, five subs from France

RIO DE JANEIRO (AFP) — Brazil on Tuesday signed contracts worth 12 billion dollars to buy 50 military transport helicopters and five submarines from France.

The submarine deal involves the purchase of four conventionally powered Scorpene submarines, and the construction of a nuclear-powered submarine to be built with French cooperation.

The signing ceremony took place in the presence of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Rio de Janeiro.

A French official traveling with Sarkozy said the total value of the contracts was 8.6 billion euros (12 billion dollars) -- 6.7 billion euros for the submarines, and 1.9 billion euros for the helicopters.

The contracts involve significant transfers of technology -- a priority for Brazil, which wants to develop an advanced defense industry of its own.

As a result, the EC-725 transport helicopters are to be assembled in Brazil, in a plant in the southeast Minas Gerais state owned by Helibras, in which EADS subsidiary Eurocopter holds a 45 percent stake.

The first of those aircraft should be delivered in 2010, Helibras said in June.

Brazilian engineers will also be solely responsible for building the nuclear engine of the atomic-powered submarine, although the rest of the vessel will rely on French technology.

The conventional subs will be built in France, with participation from the Spanish company Navantia.

Brazil is to build a submarine base near Rio de Janeiro to house the vessels.

[USS ALASKA]

Washington Post
December 24, 2008
Pg. 8

Brazil, France Sign Defense Pact


Brazil and France signed a defense accord, worth up to $12 billion, that will give Brazil the technology to develop its own arms industry and Latin America's first nuclear submarine. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva presented a new strategic defense plan last week that shifts the focus of Brazil's military to protecting the Amazon and its newly found massive off-shore oil reserves.

[José M. Rico]

Thanks for your follow up!

[Karl Heidenreich]

I really don´t know why any Latin American country wants sophisticated weapons. There is no need for them, and least for French built ones which could be unreliable. In that case Brazil can built their own or ask for Israeli weapon systems.

[minoru genda]

Now that you mention the French the exocets proved very reliable for the Argentines in falklands war.
All countries want sophisticated weapons the problem is how adquire them and at what price. Not many Latin American countries can afford to buy modern weapons and other times the superpowers are not willing to sell their material or simply don't have commercial ties with them. Would Israel sell its weapon systems to Brazil? I don't know.

[Bgile]

I think Israel will sell weapons to almost anyone because it helps their production economy of scale. Their only criteria seems to be the likelyhood of them being used against Israel.

[lwd]

At one point in time Brazil had an arms industry that was almost on par with that of Western countries. French equipment has been pretty variable as for reliability but as far as initial production goes it may be the equal or superior to US stuff. The US has a tendency to get it in the field then fix it. Also they tend not to sell their leading (or is that bleeding) edge equipment. The French often sell thier initial production runs to other countries. Especially if Brazil is looking at upgrading their industry again French equipment may make a lot of sense. Some of this also may be a reaction to Venezuela.

[USS ALASKA]

Thanks for your follow up!

Not a problem sir - will try to post this sort of info when I can.

[José M. Rico]

Great! That will keep this section alive!

[RF]

I really don´t know why any Latin American country wants sophisticated weapons. There is no need for them, and least for French built ones which could be unreliable. In that case Brazil can built their own or ask for Israeli weapon systems.

Marcelo made a similar point some time ago concerning the abandonment of carriers by the Argentine Navy.

The question is - who is the perceived threat here that needs to be protected against?

[RF]

Now that you mention the French the exocets proved very reliable for the Argentines in falklands war.

But they were not decisive. Argentina didn't win. In that context they were a failure.

[lwd]

Now that you mention the French the exocets proved very reliable for the Argentines in falklands war.

But they were not decisive. Argentina didn't win. In that context they were a failure.

Actually were they all that reliable? I seam to recall on about half of the hits the warhead didn't detonate. Same was true of the Stark. The reason the Sheffield was hurt so badly was that the Argentine pilots got well within max range and their was a lot of fuel left on board the missiles which started serious hard to fight fires.

[RF]

Plus I believe there were problems in fighting those fires.

[marcelo_malara]

Hi guys:

Currently there are very few conflic posiblities in the Southern Cone:

-Chile has a long standing dispute on its northern border with Peru and Bolivia. That´s why they acquired F-16 and Leopard II recently
-There is a feeling that the Evo Morales government in Bolivia can lead to internal unsettlement, and the neighbouring countries need to be prepared for that
-Chavez goverment in Venezuela hasn´t good relations with US and this can bring something in the long term

Aside this, there is no major reason for the countries in South America to invest heavily in weapons. Argentina´s long standing rivalry with Brazil and Chile has ended. The Argentine military has been grossly cut by the actual anti-military government, the Fuerza Aerea is limited to around 30 A-4 upgraded in the 90´s and a couple of Mirage III, the Army is now down to 13.000 troops (plus officers and NCO), the only still powerfull force is the Navy with around 10 MEKOs and A-69 ships.

[RF]

Marcelo,

I know that there is a long history between Chile and Peru/Bolivia over the Atacama etc. going back to the 1860's and the later War of the Pacific.

However I was under the impression that Bolivia had accepted its loss of coastline and would find it very difficult logistically to fight a war into the Atacama today. I am aware that the loss of Arica is still a sore point with the Peruvians, but overall is this still a realistic potential flashpoint? After over 120 years of peace? Indeed so far as Bolivia is concerned I had thought the Chaco situation viz Paraguay was of the greater importance?