Gunship
3rd Apr 2005, 15:07
I always thought things are Micky Mouse but this .... fu :mad: :mad: :mad: it !
Always had the greatest admiration and respect for Genl Steyn - a superclass guy but even he could not stop this rubbish :(
In a new bombshell over South Africa's multibillion-rand arms deal it has emerged that the government paid more than double for its Hawk/Gripen fighter-trainer jets - they cost R10-billion - than the price of Italian jets preferred by defence force experts.
It has also come to light that retired defence secretary Lieutenant General Pierre Steyn expressed his concern over the legitimacy of the deal to investigators as far back as 2001 and claimed that it seemed as if the winning bidders for the supply of the aircraft had been decided beforehand.
This week opposition members of parliament demanded to be allowed to hear Steyn's views for themselves, claiming his criticisms of the acquisition process had been given short shrift in the final report on an investigation into whether there were irregularities in the procurement.
'It seemed the winning bid had been decided on beforehand'
Among the new evidence the Democratic Alliance says it supports the notion that material changes were made to the joint investigating team's draft report, is an interview with Steyn conducted by investigators in 2001.
Full details of the interview have not been disclosed until now, but The Sunday Independent has obtained a full transcript of it and in the course of 56 pages, Steyn repeatedly expresses strong criticism of the process leading to government deciding in favour of the Hawk/Gripen aircraft.
Italy's MB339FB jet originally scored highest when offers from international aeronautics companies were considered by the South African Air Force in 1998. However, in the end, the significantly more expensive Hawk 100, produced by British multinational BAe Systems, won the tender.
Steyn made it clear in the interview that he felt a prior decision on who should supply the aircraft had been taken in advance of a series of meetings to discuss the issue and that these meetings amounted to a "façade of legitimisation".
Steyn told the interviewers that he was instructed by Joe Modise, then minister of defence, to leave out the question of how much the various aircraft cost.
Steyn said it appeared the system of evaluating the different options had been "manipulated".
"It is irregular. How on earth do you convince the general public that you will acquire an expensive system and damn the cost?" Steyn said.
"The decision-makers and those who supported [them] tried various avenues to get to presumably their predetermined choice. Their choice was patently clear right from the start."
Referring to a meeting of the aircraft acquisition committee, Steyn said: "It was a watershed meeting because at that stage it was clear to most of us that the preferred choice of the minister and those who supported him, the cost of that particular solution was almost double that of the [Italian] MB339FB.
"One would expect a consideration that if your cost doubles, the improvement of performance by a mere 15 percent - (it) would not be responsible if such a decision was carried."
Steyn said that Chippy Shaik, then chief of acquisitions, reported directly to the minister on the arms package deal.
"The chief of acquisitions is compelled to report to the defence secretary. However it became apparent in the conduct of this weapons package initiative that the minister wanted him to report to him directly, which he did," Steyn said.
Steyn told the interviewers that as the accounting officer for the defence force, his concern was that the decision to acquire arms was being taken without defence being certain that there would be sufficient money, not only to buy, but to operate equipment in the years ahead.
"Certainly the capital expenditure is important from a one-off point of view, but sustaining the acquisition in future years by dissecting all the possible implications from the operational or personnel point of view is vitally important. This was not done."
He said the way the acquisition was approached deviated from accepted international acquisition practice.
"Right from the start there was considerable deviation from the prescripts of the acquisition process materially and otherwise. My major concern was that these various committees were required to consider what was essentially an acquisition plan without the prescripts of feasibility studies and project studies being thoroughly conducted."
Steyn told the interviewers that when he expressed concern about budgeting for the new equipment, he was told by Modise that this would be dealt with via offset investments in local defence and other industries by companies associated with the winning bidders.
This did not answer his narrower concerns because there was no channel to ensure such money benefited the department of defence, which would be responsible for budgeting for the acquisitions.
During the interview Steyn repeatedly claimed that the process of acquiring the aircraft was rushed and it seemed as if the winning bidders had been decided beforehand.
"If you are tempted to select the solution ahead of stating your requirements, your temptation will continue and you will be writing requirements meeting your specifications or meeting your choice.
"I submit that we started erring in that direction. The whole process was turned arse about face and ... I was irritated no end at going through a façade of legitimising what we were doing," Steyn said.
Referring to an ad hoc meeting that is central to a dispute over whether or not it was agreed to opt for the Hawker/Gripen, Steyn said he disputed that this decision was made, but it was possibly made after he left the meeting.
Attempts to reach Steyn this week to get more details about the 2001 interview were unsuccessful.
Always had the greatest admiration and respect for Genl Steyn - a superclass guy but even he could not stop this rubbish :(
In a new bombshell over South Africa's multibillion-rand arms deal it has emerged that the government paid more than double for its Hawk/Gripen fighter-trainer jets - they cost R10-billion - than the price of Italian jets preferred by defence force experts.
It has also come to light that retired defence secretary Lieutenant General Pierre Steyn expressed his concern over the legitimacy of the deal to investigators as far back as 2001 and claimed that it seemed as if the winning bidders for the supply of the aircraft had been decided beforehand.
This week opposition members of parliament demanded to be allowed to hear Steyn's views for themselves, claiming his criticisms of the acquisition process had been given short shrift in the final report on an investigation into whether there were irregularities in the procurement.
'It seemed the winning bid had been decided on beforehand'
Among the new evidence the Democratic Alliance says it supports the notion that material changes were made to the joint investigating team's draft report, is an interview with Steyn conducted by investigators in 2001.
Full details of the interview have not been disclosed until now, but The Sunday Independent has obtained a full transcript of it and in the course of 56 pages, Steyn repeatedly expresses strong criticism of the process leading to government deciding in favour of the Hawk/Gripen aircraft.
Italy's MB339FB jet originally scored highest when offers from international aeronautics companies were considered by the South African Air Force in 1998. However, in the end, the significantly more expensive Hawk 100, produced by British multinational BAe Systems, won the tender.
Steyn made it clear in the interview that he felt a prior decision on who should supply the aircraft had been taken in advance of a series of meetings to discuss the issue and that these meetings amounted to a "façade of legitimisation".
Steyn told the interviewers that he was instructed by Joe Modise, then minister of defence, to leave out the question of how much the various aircraft cost.
Steyn said it appeared the system of evaluating the different options had been "manipulated".
"It is irregular. How on earth do you convince the general public that you will acquire an expensive system and damn the cost?" Steyn said.
"The decision-makers and those who supported [them] tried various avenues to get to presumably their predetermined choice. Their choice was patently clear right from the start."
Referring to a meeting of the aircraft acquisition committee, Steyn said: "It was a watershed meeting because at that stage it was clear to most of us that the preferred choice of the minister and those who supported him, the cost of that particular solution was almost double that of the [Italian] MB339FB.
"One would expect a consideration that if your cost doubles, the improvement of performance by a mere 15 percent - (it) would not be responsible if such a decision was carried."
Steyn said that Chippy Shaik, then chief of acquisitions, reported directly to the minister on the arms package deal.
"The chief of acquisitions is compelled to report to the defence secretary. However it became apparent in the conduct of this weapons package initiative that the minister wanted him to report to him directly, which he did," Steyn said.
Steyn told the interviewers that as the accounting officer for the defence force, his concern was that the decision to acquire arms was being taken without defence being certain that there would be sufficient money, not only to buy, but to operate equipment in the years ahead.
"Certainly the capital expenditure is important from a one-off point of view, but sustaining the acquisition in future years by dissecting all the possible implications from the operational or personnel point of view is vitally important. This was not done."
He said the way the acquisition was approached deviated from accepted international acquisition practice.
"Right from the start there was considerable deviation from the prescripts of the acquisition process materially and otherwise. My major concern was that these various committees were required to consider what was essentially an acquisition plan without the prescripts of feasibility studies and project studies being thoroughly conducted."
Steyn told the interviewers that when he expressed concern about budgeting for the new equipment, he was told by Modise that this would be dealt with via offset investments in local defence and other industries by companies associated with the winning bidders.
This did not answer his narrower concerns because there was no channel to ensure such money benefited the department of defence, which would be responsible for budgeting for the acquisitions.
During the interview Steyn repeatedly claimed that the process of acquiring the aircraft was rushed and it seemed as if the winning bidders had been decided beforehand.
"If you are tempted to select the solution ahead of stating your requirements, your temptation will continue and you will be writing requirements meeting your specifications or meeting your choice.
"I submit that we started erring in that direction. The whole process was turned arse about face and ... I was irritated no end at going through a façade of legitimising what we were doing," Steyn said.
Referring to an ad hoc meeting that is central to a dispute over whether or not it was agreed to opt for the Hawker/Gripen, Steyn said he disputed that this decision was made, but it was possibly made after he left the meeting.
Attempts to reach Steyn this week to get more details about the 2001 interview were unsuccessful.