shadowinvestor wrote:http://www.nation.co.ke/news/kenyas-Sh43-billion-US-arms-deal-at-risk/1056-3815984-xrje3hz/index.html
"A US congressman is seeking to halt Kenya's pending $418 million weapons purchase from a US contractor centred on 12 converted agricultural aircraft intended to bolster the Kenya Defence Forces's campaign against Al-Shabaab.
“My office has received credible allegations of faulty contracting practices, fraud and unfair treatment surrounding this sale,” Congressman Ted Budd said on Tuesday."
"In urging his colleagues to block and investigate the deal, the North Carolina Republican said a company in his home state would sell Kenya planes better suited for their envisioned purpose at less than half the quoted price."
"A military monitoring news organisation based in London reported on Thursday that Kenya may have confused the AT-802L made by L-3 in Texas with an AT-802 aircraft manufactured by IOMAX in North Carolina."
You cannot make this stuff up
The article above has two pointers that I have seen:
1. The IOMAX complex is in his state, the purchase would make voters believe in his ability to provide them with jobs.
2. The IOMAX system he is praising is being replaced with NEW systems from L3 communications.
All in all, it's a cheaper platform to operate,and similar to the A10 warthog operated for close air support (CAS) for ground troops. Compared to the jets (F5/15/16/18/22/35, Mig 29/33, Su 27/30/33/35) whose running costs per hour run at no less than $1000/hr depending on type of aircraft,this little birdie can do the same at no more than the $1000 per hour, flying out to a zone on surveillance, loiter 6-9hrs over an area, deploy weapons when needed, land on a poor runway near required area for refuelling and re-arming, then take off. to put this into perspective, consider that the F5s and all other jets you say should be purchased would come from either Laikipia or Lamu or Mombasa to, say Afmadow, drop their gifts, then head back home after an hour tops to refuel.In the meantime, the hyena eaters have re-grouped and relaunched attacks. with this bird, KAF-SF would just para-drop or make a hot landing, secure a good area from where this bird can land if required for re-arming and refuelling, once done they take off or join the battle ongoing, and with good eyes in the sky to guide them.Add onto that the bird's ability to loiter in the air fofr quite long durations, they can be deployed in theatre full time without ever coming back home since field maintenance would be like that of a motorbike.
Costs: For this, I take guys sometime back to the purchase of MV Jasiri. Complaints were made left, right and centre that it's an oceanography vessel converted into a warship. Now, the navy has a blueprint of the level of readiness and equipment that it requires, i.e a blue navy (can go past Exclusive Economic Zone,EEZ). For this to be done, oceanography needs to be conducted to map routes which ship can access. You see this, and immediately you get that submarines would be part of the project. Getting guys from outside to do this would be a natural reaction, but for commanders to oversee the same would make more sense as they can gauge how good some zones would be for attack and defence of a naval base.
Fast forward the F5s from Jordan, those were purchased with the distinct advantage that the pilots wouldnt need training to fly the newer airframes (Most Airforces around the world buy planes and put them in storage, as cover for attrition losses in war, so most of the airframes are rarely used or have flown very few hours). Another advantage was that they could add a weapons and fire control suite from a country like Israel and make the bird an all weather night and day bird, capable of fining smart, guided and dumb bombs, keeping the airforce operational. Another consideration was the threat level from our immediate neighbours. Do we expect to be at war with Uganda anytime soon? How about ethiopia? When Tanzanians overthrew Idi amin, they had mechanised battalions defending the route to Kampala from Tanzania, while the tanzanians went with infantry on foot, meaning they could go round the mechanised units without them knowing.
Sorry for digression, but for the costs, the commanders had to insist on systems that can support weapons including NATO, russian and chinese munitions, since NATO aka American munitions are damn expensive compared to what russians, chinese have to offer. Pilots would also tell you that transition from one plane to the other would require training to get you up to standard on your new ride. type of systems deployed. They may also have asked for auxiliary internal tanks. This argument can be compared exhaustively when we get the specs sheet.
My 1 cts.