Problems with Ukrainian order
مرسل: السبت يناير 08, 2011 11:38 pm
The military display for the 90th anniversary of the establishment of the iraqi armed forces was an interesting revelation more for what was not displayed than for what appeared.
The absence of the BTR-4 and An-32b brought to the fore the problems that iraq is experiencing with the $2.5bn contract for arms purchases with Ukraine. The first segment of this contract was a $550M contract for 420 missile armed BTR-4s as well as 6 new build An-32b transport aircraft with 4 options.
Morozov, the prime contractor for the BTR-4 has faced problems with engine deliveries and has failed to keep to its stipulated delivery deadlines (for which Iraq paid a premium). Iraqi crews sent to Ukraine were trained on the prototype BTR-4s and found on their return to Iraq that no production vehicles have been delivered for them to crew!
Likewise, Antonov had completed one airframe for iraq by august 2010, but upon inspection by the Iraqi airforce inspectorate bureau sent to Ukraine, it was found to contain second hand engines and avionics (in contravention of the contractual agreement which stipulated new engines and glass cockpit). Iraq refused to take delivery and now the procurement officers in charge of the contract are under investigation by the Iraqi MoD inspectors general as well as the national "hey'et al nazaha" (the anti-corruption directorate).
This news brings back a feeling of dejavu for long time observers of Iraq's military development and the similarities to the ill fated deal with bumar of Poland in 2004 come to mind.
So who is the main beneficiary of this particular fiasco?
It's not Russia, since whilst Russia is delivering their latest Mi-17s to Iraq, shipments have been delayed and prices raised to the $11-$13M mark (which makes it no longer price competitive vs its western counterparts, but with much worse service and support).
It's not the US either, since whilst the US military contractors are doing their best to provide quality service and support, the US congress has been delaying and blocking Iraqi requests for the equipment they really need (notably super hornets, apaches and AMRAAMs), leaving Iraqis reluctant to engage in the FMS game of cat and mouse requests for even the simplest things at the whims of the US congress (and largely for internal political consumption as opposed to the ideal of nurturing the long term development of a nascent US ally in a critical region).
The winners can thus be named: France, Italy, China and Serbia. Each of these has done very well in delivering equipment to Iraq on time, with good backup support and no attempts at "cheating" by including substandard equipment, second hand parts, delayed shipments and price increases mid-way through contracts. They also do not come with the baggage of political acceptance, public/political howling about "arming the enemy" and long winded FMS process that seems to accompany the simplest of requests from the US.
What will this mean for the future?
The absence of the BTR-4 and An-32b brought to the fore the problems that iraq is experiencing with the $2.5bn contract for arms purchases with Ukraine. The first segment of this contract was a $550M contract for 420 missile armed BTR-4s as well as 6 new build An-32b transport aircraft with 4 options.
Morozov, the prime contractor for the BTR-4 has faced problems with engine deliveries and has failed to keep to its stipulated delivery deadlines (for which Iraq paid a premium). Iraqi crews sent to Ukraine were trained on the prototype BTR-4s and found on their return to Iraq that no production vehicles have been delivered for them to crew!
Likewise, Antonov had completed one airframe for iraq by august 2010, but upon inspection by the Iraqi airforce inspectorate bureau sent to Ukraine, it was found to contain second hand engines and avionics (in contravention of the contractual agreement which stipulated new engines and glass cockpit). Iraq refused to take delivery and now the procurement officers in charge of the contract are under investigation by the Iraqi MoD inspectors general as well as the national "hey'et al nazaha" (the anti-corruption directorate).
This news brings back a feeling of dejavu for long time observers of Iraq's military development and the similarities to the ill fated deal with bumar of Poland in 2004 come to mind.
So who is the main beneficiary of this particular fiasco?
It's not Russia, since whilst Russia is delivering their latest Mi-17s to Iraq, shipments have been delayed and prices raised to the $11-$13M mark (which makes it no longer price competitive vs its western counterparts, but with much worse service and support).
It's not the US either, since whilst the US military contractors are doing their best to provide quality service and support, the US congress has been delaying and blocking Iraqi requests for the equipment they really need (notably super hornets, apaches and AMRAAMs), leaving Iraqis reluctant to engage in the FMS game of cat and mouse requests for even the simplest things at the whims of the US congress (and largely for internal political consumption as opposed to the ideal of nurturing the long term development of a nascent US ally in a critical region).
The winners can thus be named: France, Italy, China and Serbia. Each of these has done very well in delivering equipment to Iraq on time, with good backup support and no attempts at "cheating" by including substandard equipment, second hand parts, delayed shipments and price increases mid-way through contracts. They also do not come with the baggage of political acceptance, public/political howling about "arming the enemy" and long winded FMS process that seems to accompany the simplest of requests from the US.
What will this mean for the future?