SPOTLIGHT

Sandagiri bitterly referred to the morale of his men being dented as a result of political machinations as well as adverse media reports. He insisted that the navy's evaluation and recommendation to purchase the Swiss manufactured Oerlikon KCB 30mm gun is based on the pricing and compatibility to existing naval mounts on the navy's Fast Attack Crafts (FACs). He reiterated that if it can be proved that he as Navy Commander has at any time worked against the constitution of this country or in any way been dishonest - "I am prepared to go." Navy Commander Daya Sandagiri, his Chief of Staff Rear Admiral Mohan Wijeywickrema who chaired a technical evaluation committee to purchase these guns, and Defence Minister Tilak Marapone are insisting the Oerlikon KCB 30mm gun is the best deal for the navy.

Lakshman Kadirgamar

Wijeywickrema was assisted in his efforts by Director, General Operations, Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera and Senior Staff Officer, Operations, Commander V.J. Berugoda.

According to Wijeywickrema, the determining factor in recommending the Oerlikon KCB 30 mm guns was that it was cheaper by two million dollars when compared to the Bushmaster offered by the Israelis. He said the Oerlikon is also more compatible for the existing mounts on the navy's FACs.

The Israeli offer for 15 units of MK 44 Bushmaster guns was priced at US$ 12.3 million while for 15 numbers of the KCB Oerlikon 30mm gun the price is US$ 10.8 million. Both offers include upgrading kits as well as an offer for integrated logistics support and integration, installation and tests.

When asked how much the Israelis have priced the Bushmaster or the Oerlikon cannon at, separate from the upgrading kit, Wijeywickrema said he did not know. Neither did Sandagiri or any other member of the technical evaluation committee. They maintain the Israeli offer was made as a package deal which included the upgrading kit and so the question of comparing prices on a cannon by cannon basis did not arise.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe at the cabinet meeting week before last on a request made by Consumer Affairs Minister Ravi Karunanayake had agreed that a new technical evaluation committee consisting of members independent to the navy should be appointed to evaluate the offers placed before the navy.

Excerpts from the interview with the Navy Chief:

'I feel betrayed by Kadirgamar'

Q: Given the many factors to consider in making this purchase, are you certain you are getting the best possible gun for your men when you insist on buying the Oerlikon KCB 30mm gun?

A: There are many factors to consider. Undoubtedly there are better guns, better systems and mounts than the KCB Oerlikon. But unfortunately we have to consider the platforms on our boats as some of these guns are too heavy for our decks. So we cannot use any of these guns. For instance the Bushmaster Mark 46 used by the US Navy we found would be too heavy for our platforms. Therefore, we asked both the American and the Israeli governments to make us an offer of 30mm guns that could be installed onto our existing mounts, which would have to be upgraded to hold the bigger gun.

The existing mounts on the FACs are manufactured by the Israelis. So, the Israelis made us an offer proposing three guns. That is the Bushmaster Mark 44, the Oerlikon KCB gun and the Russian made 2A42. In order to evaluate the proposal I appointed an evaluation committee to study and recommend the best. The evaluation committee found that cost-wise and adaptability for the system, the Oerlikon KCB was the best.

I still maintain the Bushmaster is a good weapon. On the international market it is among the best. However, when it comes to installation and integration on our gunboats we had to fall in line with the Israeli government. The cannon alone is of no use to us. We need to install the new cannons onto the existing systems which have to be upgraded and this has to be done with the approval of the Israeli's.

Q: So this means that when the evaluation committee appointed by you studied the three offers from Israel, what they took into overall consideration was the price, the installation and integration. Is that correct?

A: Absolutely. Yes.

Q: What about the technical capability of the gun? Did not the evaluation committee evaluate and study the technical capability of the guns on offer?

A: I would say that both the Oerlikon and the Bushmaster are equally good. The problems we have been having with the present 30mm gun systems on our Fast Gun Boats (FGBs) is not with the cannon. The problems have been with the gun mount. It has a special unit, which fails in its shooting range the manufacturers say due to climatic conditions. Otherwise the Oerlikon cannon is equally good as the Bushmaster.

Anyway, the navy evaluation committee also found that the lowest recoil pressure when the gun is fired is from the Oerlikon 30mm gun. The Bushmaster has a much stronger recoil pressure while the Russian gun is higher than even the Bushmaster. This detail also figured when the guns were evaluated.

Q: But when the firing range is compared, doesn't the Bushmaster have a longer range than the Oerlikon?

A: At present we have the 30mm guns on our FGBs without the fire control system. We have got an effective range of 2000 meters. Beyond 2000 meters a gunner cannot prove physically it is reaching the target or not, unless we have a fire control system to monitor it. This would apply to the Bushmaster weapon as well. Without the fire control system I don't think a man could physically see how accurately the bullet has hit. Any 30mm gun if you just fire around has the range of more than 4000 meters. If it is to be accurate, a fire control system is required.

Q: But have you attempted to compare the Bushmaster to the Oerlikon when taking this vital component into consideration?

A: What we have at the moment on the FACs is the Russian made 23mm gun which has proved its capability in the percentages we asked.

Q: Which is to be able to get a target at 2000 meters?

A: Yes. At a percentage of approximately 20% to 25%. With this purchase too, the Israelis must prove technically that the 30mm guns can have a hit probability of 3000 meters.

Q: So did the technical evaluation committee look into this aspect before recommending the Oerlikon gun?

A: Well, once the Oerlikon offer is accepted in principle the Israelis will install the system on our machines and test it.

Q: But what if it then fails to achieve the requirement of a hit probability of 3000 meters?

A: Then we don't go for it - we will reject it.

Q: So won't this affect the morale of your men once more? After all, if you have to return the guns it will only be another delay won't it?

A: Tell me what other option do I have?

Q: The question is, are you not yet certain that the recommended Oerlikon guns you are insisting on buying will achieve this required target range?

A: Well, the Israelis are confident that it will. Technical evaluations done by them state that the gun will perform according to expectations.

Q: But when tested if it doesn't you will send it back?

A: Yes.

Q: You have had another offer on the table from the manufacturers of the Bushmaster weapon. Why have you not considered this offer?

A: The offer from ATK is only for the gun. Only the gun is of no use to me. I need an offer for an upgrading kit as well.

Q: But ATK could not have made you an offer for the upgrading kit until they are shown the Israeli manufactured mounts to which the guns have to be integrated. Isn't it only thereafter they would be in a position to give you an estimated cost for upgrading?

A: You cannot accept that position, because when they offer the gun they know what the Sri Lanka Navy requires. The businessman works much faster than any of us. They cannot, just for the sake of writing or sending a proposal, submit a price for only the gun.

Q: If we are to compare the Israeli offer for the Bushmaster Mark 44 and compare it to the offer made by the manufacturer's of this same model gun - what was the Israeli's price for only the cannon?

A: There was no breakdown of the price for the cannon only. The Israeli offer for all three options included the cannon with the upgrading kit.

Q: But when you had an offer from the manufacturers of the same gun the Israelis were offering for three times the price, why didn't your evaluation committee or you attempt to consider the two offers on a cannon by cannon basis? Wouldn't this save million of dollars for the government?

A: If you read the evaluation report properly and also the minister's cabinet memorandum, we have asked to renegotiate prices with the Israelis. We are still looking to negotiate these prices.

Q: But would it not be in the best interest of the country and the navy to have compared the ATK offer which was given at a factory price to the offer made by the Israelis?

A: The question does not arise. As I said before, the ATK offer did not include upgrading which to me is the vital component.

Q: But if the American offer proved to be that much cheaper could not the navy purchase the guns from ATK and request the Israelis to install and integrate it onto the existing mounts?

A: I don't know if the Israelis would agree to such an arrangement.

Q: Did you try to find out?

A: I think the technical evaluation committee already asked the Israelis.

Q: When I asked Rear Admiral Mohan Wijeywickrema this same question, he said that this aspect has not been discussed with the Israelis.

A: But another point I must tell you is that so far the American government has not released a single weapon to Sri Lanka. So, that is another fact to consider whether the American government is prepared to release any weapons to Sri Lanka.

Q: But when the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) scheme was negotiated, wasn't that agreed?

A: No. The FMS scheme is on a government to government basis. No unsolicited offers can be accommodated on the FMS scheme. In fact when we first called for a tender to upgrade the 23 mm guns on our FACs to 30mm guns, the American government was very annoyed and they protested, insisting we do not even open the tender offers.

Q: So the American government pressurised the Sri Lanka Navy to not even open offers you had received in response to a tender called for bigger guns?

A: Yes, that's correct. Not only did they insist we do not open the offer they also demanded we return the offers unopened and so we were forced to cancel the tender.

Q: Is the UNF government pressurising the navy to accommodate weapons procurement from the American government?

A: Well the problem is, there is a political and diplomatic requirement. When we are dealing with procurement on a government to government basis, I am sure the US government would not like other private parties to be entertained. The American government was vehemently opposed so we were forced to cancel this tender. We consulted the Prime Minister and called it off.

Q: But aren't you annoyed that the government is prevailing upon you to bow to the dictates of the American government?

A: Well that is the government's decision. What can I do?

Q: But if this is not in the best interest of your men isn't this also serving to demoralise your men?

A: Yes, to an extent it is so. But the fact is there are many issues diplomatically and politically where we cannot cross the line.

Q: Your position is that the American government does not want to upset the negotiated FMS scheme which is why according to you any other unsolicited offers even from an American company cannot be accepted?

A: I must tell you that we are still open to buying 15 naval gun systems from America.

Q: But why? If the Israelis are giving you such a good and viable offer, why not buy all 30 systems via Israel?

A: We cannot do so. To purchase from America is a political and diplomatic requirement, which we have to fulfill.

Q: So even if an American offer may not be viable or compatible for the navy, you are saying that you are however forced to purchase weapons from the US government for diplomatic and political reasons?

A: Yes. This was also discussed at Temple Trees.

Q: When it comes to weapons procurement for the navy, are you a victim of commission agents?

A: I frankly don't care from where the gun comes from or who makes the deal. If the evaluation committee has accepted the proposal and it is suitable for us to install on our gunboats, that is all I'm interested in. Commission agents are not my concern. As long as the gun is being offered at a reasonable price to the government and is suitable for the navy, that is all my interest.

Q: Did you think it was proper to brief an opposition MP on the eastern situation at President's House recently?

A: Myself, the Army Commander, Karannagoda and Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar were there. Karannagoda had prepared the report and he gave the presentation.

Q: But did you not think it was improper to brief an opposition MP on the country's security situation in the absence of the President?

A: Well, H.E. wanted us to give the presentation to these people. Can I refuse? When the commander and chief of the armed forces, in this instance the President, orders for something to be made available to whoever she chooses I am in no position to refuse. Even if H.E. had ordered me to make available this report to soldiers or sailors I am in no position to refuse.

Q: Did you feel betrayed thereafter when Kadirgamar released this confidential security report to the media?

A: Yes. I think there is something to be seriously concerned about.

Q: Did Mr. Kadirgamar at any point tell you he was planning to release this report to the media?

A: No.

Q: So isn't what he did then a serious threat to the security situation?

A: Well, yes. My feeling is that Mr. Kadirgamar should not have released that report to the media.

Q: So what is your position as Navy Commander in a situation where you say the government on one hand is pressurising you to purchase weapons from America while on the other hand you have opposition MPs releasing confidential security documents to the media. How do you maintain a balancing act?

A: Well this is a big question. I think this is the first time that the service commanders have been faced with this situation where the president is from one party and the government from the other. And we are sandwiched in between the two.

We have been constantly telling the people concerned we have to be united and function as a team. As far as I am concerned, I feel I am doing an honest job. There is a constitution in this country and I have to abide by that constitution. I cannot work against the constitution. But sometimes by trying to do this I get pressurised from both sides. But there is nothing I can do - these are occupational hazards.

Q: You have been accused of trying to disrupt the peace process in collaboration with the President. What is your response?

A: I was the first person who advocated that this problem should be sorted out politically. A final solution has to be political. There are ways and means how the political objective should be achieved. If my actions so far in any way can prove the navy is trying to disrupt the peace process I am prepared to step down.

My primary objective and that of all my officers and men is to perform the navy's role and task as designated by the constitution of this country. What I am trying to protect is the sovereignty and integrity of this country. I am in no way attempting to disrupt the peace process.

Q: Would you say the LTTE is on par with the navy when compared with fire power?

A: I think they have got two or three 23mm guns and 25mm guns. As far as 25mm guns are concerned they have got a better gun than us. I believe it is of Russian make. This is in comparison to the FACs. But they would fail in a combat war. So this is why we are looking to upgrade the existing systems.

Q: Why did you seek an extension of your term from the President? Aren't you blocking the promotion of other officers in the navy as a result?

A: The usual term of the office for commander of the navy is four years. Previously some navy commanders have been granted extensions beyond four years. When I completed my one year in office I only sought an extension to complete my entire term. I don't think there is anything wrong in asking for and completing my normal period of office.

Q: But by doing so aren't you preventing your Chief of Staff, Mohan Wijeywickrema from taking over as commander?

A: Why don't you ask that question from the army commanders? If I remember right, at least four previous army commanders became commander of the army at the age of 55.

Q: So how old are you?

A: I am 56.

Q: You are saying you have the right to complete your four year term. But by being granted this extension aren't you preventing your chief of staff from taking over as commander of the navy?

A: Well that depends on whether he too is granted an extension at the end of his term by the President. If not, then he will have to go. Like what happened to Rear Admiral D.K. Dassanayake. The then Navy Commander, Vice Admiral Tissera, also did not step down in order that Dassanayake could be made commander. I would say it all depends on opportunity and personal luck. 

More Stories