This is a discussion on appropiate technology for poorer nations within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Greetings everyone im new here.
My one cent worth of opinion is that S.Africa should have not bought the grippens ...
My one cent worth of opinion is that S.Africa should have not bought the grippens and hawks but rather should have formed a joint venture with Pakistan on acquiring the jf-17 from China. This would have enabled the country to get skill and technology transfers on jet manufuctring, considering that we have fledging aircraft maintenance industry, this would have taken the industry to new hights!
Furthermore Pakistan has formed partnerships with the French in building subs, our country should have sought similar ventures because these help with skills and technology transfers, but the Mbeki cabinet was too pre-occupied with bribes that bae was paying them than getting invloved in deals that would increase defense skill base in the country.
My one cent worth of opinion is that S.Africa should have not bought the grippens and hawks but rather should have formed a joint venture with Pakistan on acquiring the jf-17 from China. This would have enabled the country to get skill and technology transfers on jet manufuctring, considering that we have fledging aircraft maintenance industry, this would have taken the industry to new hights!
Furthermore Pakistan has formed partnerships with the French in building subs, our country should have sought similar ventures because these help with skills and technology transfers, but the Mbeki cabinet was too pre-occupied with bribes that bae was paying them than getting invloved in deals that would increase defense skill base in the country.
Yes you are new here but you must first, read the posting rules and secondly, if you make allegations against the Mbeki cabinet, you must provide some source material that supports that claim.
I might be unpopular (or should I say more unpopular), but here goes. I dont know if that specific company and that administration were involved in undesirable behavior, what I do know is that questions were asked in regard to that specific contract. (link below).
Military sales are prone to corruption because of the huge sums involved, and the complication of the sale. Example you sell a plane to a customer. Do you charge the price just for the plane, or a much, much larger price that involves training, spare parts, maintenance, upgrades, higher end components, offset deals etc etc. The opposite might be say buying a tractor, you can just shop around, look at tractor prices and get an idea of what they cost. With a complicated militray sale it becomes harder to work out what a standard price should be. You can always say well, this tank cost more but it has a longer range, better gun, better optics etc etc. With a truck, a tractor, a shed it is harder to complicate things.
I know that at my last workplace, trying to send a tiny amount of steel to Indonesia, caused real headaches. We ended up sending fake invoices. For $50 of steel, we would add a fake invoice for $100, and just pay the 100 percent import tarriff of $100. Just not worth the aggravation
Anyone recall the Bofors contract to sell 155mm guns to India?
Why are there unconfirmed reports that Vladimir Putins personal wealth is in the tens of billions of dollars.
Whey when russians sell arms they go through a holding company, Rosoboronexport, they mark up the price massively, where does all the money go.
Iran's Qods forces is invloved in many business deals and is sometimes thought of as a state within a state.
Transperancy.org says that 20 billion dollars is lost annually in military sales corruption. I assume most of this is done in third world countries where accountability standards are not as high, and wages for officials are much, much less and thus the temptation so much greater. Also with miltary sales, there is the 'advantage' of not revealing all aspects of the contract due to military secrecy issues.
For what its worth, BAE seems to have made an effort to get things good. My understanding was that it was involved in the huge contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (questions were asked and then dropped when it threatened to jeapordise british interest - assume this means future british arms sales). However now transperancy.org rates it a B on a scale of A to F. Dassualt rates a D. To quote transerancy.org "while 47 companies from countries ranging from China and Russia to Pakistan rate an F". A new study had rated BAE higher that EADS in anti-corruption measures
apparently BAE was fined 400 million for middlemen deals in 2010, quote below and (link below)
In 2010, the US Department of Justice fined BAE $400m for lying about its payments to middlemen but noted that the company had since made progress in putting in place mechanisms to prevent a repeat of its transgressions. (full link below).
I think BAE is working to improve its issues. It may/maynot have had issues in the past. It must be very difficult for smaller time officials in a large company, to know that they can win huge contracts, and all they have to do is pay a few commissions. With so many sales, with such huge money to be made, when dealing with countries that have huge levels of internal corruption, to claim that all companies (or all western companies) conduct every deal in a squeaky clean manner is asking a bit much.
I know this topic is perhaps not one that many are keen to talk about, but just because people dont talk about it, does not mean that questionable things dont happen.
One last little quote before I bow out for a few months and move onto other things (building rowing boats, more rowing, building outrigger canoes, sailing and bushwalking)
The first post in this thread mentioned a Gripen buy for South Africa
It seems SA (south africa) cant afford to buy fuel for these planes, cant afford to train pilots, cant afford to maintain them, here is an extract
No less than Admiral Alan Green, the SANDF's head of strategy, confirmed in Parliament on November 28, 2012 that all four frigates and three submarines aircraft are functionally useless. Similarly, Green confirmed that the Air Force has insufficient funds even to keep the BAE Hawk and BAE/Saab Gripen fighter aircraft in the air
They predicted, rightly as it transpired, that these extremely expensive vessels would consequently be fit only for scrap within five years after delivery.
What I am getting at (my main premise), is this. If an economy is strong, and can afford to maintain high end equipment then sure go for it. I have zero problems with Korea, Australia, Japan etc buying expensive equipment,
But some nations have extreme levels of poverty and just dont have the funds to maintain expensive equipment. They may be better off buying less capable, cheaper and easier to maintain pieces of equipment that can actually be used. There does not seem much logic in SA buying submarines if they sit on the concrete year in year out and dont get wet (well that is my humble logic,,,, but hey what do I know,, I am not employed as a military procrument specialist)
Just maybe they (SA) would have been better off with more BAE Hawks (I think there is an attack verssion of this plane). Maybe they would have been better off buying simple OPVs with a simple SSM and SAM capability, that they could afford to get to sea, as opposed to high end frigates which dont leave dock.
I cant really see Zimbabwe or Botswana being a strategic threat to SA. Zimbabwe might have a few chinese versions of the mig 21 they can get into the air, plus maybe a couple of Hind attack helicopters, but SA's land forces would far exceed Zimbabwe's and the damage they could do would be limited (IMHO). My guess is the main thing that would make a difference on the ground is the Hinds, doubt the F-7 jets would do much damage. I am going to bow out for a few months, get on with the rest of my life,,, do some sailing . Aside,,, sailing outrigger canoes are cool (my personal interest, this last comment is an absolute fact, definately not opinion!!!!)
I am buying out. I think forever, please feel free to end my membership (would prefer to be called a former member as opposed to a banned member, but thats not my call)
Part of the context was that high end equipment that may not be appropiate is at times linked to corruption. Additionally ASSAIL asked for some sources on the assertions about the SA cabinet. Some simple internet search provided a lot of information.
To a person from SA, I can see that spending billions on dollars on planes that dont fly and submarines that do not get wet to be fairly important. In my humble opinion is more relevant information than the armour thickness of tank X vs tank Y
Goodbye forever, please feel free to end my membership please.
I am buying out. I think forever, please feel free to end my membership (would prefer to be called a former member as opposed to a banned member, but thats not my call)
Part of the context was that high end equipment that may not be appropiate is at times linked to corruption. Additionally ASSAIL asked for some sources on the assertions about the SA cabinet. Some simple internet search provided a lot of information.
To a person from SA, I can see that spending billions on dollars on planes that dont fly and submarines that do not get wet to be fairly important. In my humble opinion is more relevant information than the armour thickness of tank X vs tank Y
Goodbye forever, please feel free to end my membership please.
Why do you want your membership ended? I'm not sure I see so much trouble in this thread that it would necessitate something like that.
less time on the internet, more time in the real world
I would appreciate it
time to move on with my life
Well, that's fair enough mate, but I don't see why you'd want your membership gone. It's easier for all parties to leave you as a member here, that way if you ever feel like participating again, you can use the same login. But if you wish to move on, simply not visiting the forums is the way to do it. There's no point in burning bridges though - I'm not going to ban you for feeling that way.
Best of luck with whatever you choose to do, and maybe I'll see you around some time.
Wrt thread title, wouldn't troop/equipment movement be the biggest challenge - all three modes?
1. Plenty of basic 4x4 vehicles for bulk troop/equipment movement.
2. Affordable(non-cutting edge technology type, i.e.: fine if it comes back in one piece, fine if it doesn't type) UAV/UCAV for recconaisance/attack.
3. Fighter pilot embedded in foreign airforce/army, wouldn't that person be a mercenary?
4. In which case, wouldn't it be cheaper(perhaps even more effective), to 'award' assignment contracts to such outfits, with local troops in supporting roles - pretty much like what the French forces are doing in Mali(not necessarily based on this modal of course)?
