Adviser accuses Patria of questionable selling tactics

Claims that defects of artillery pieces sold to Egypt were kept secret and bribes were used

print this

Retired Lt. Col. Erkki Heinilä is annoyed with the way the Finnish state-held defence equipment manufacturer, Patria Group, behaved towards a significant client in conjunction with an artillery pieces deal with Egypt.
      Heinilä, who has retired from the Defence Forces, is an artillery officer who spent his entire career operating with field artillery weapons. In the Egypt project he acted as Patria’s military adviser for the duration of the project and took part in concealing the problems of the artillery piece in question from the buyer.
      Heinilä is not familiar with the details of the armoured modular vehicle deals made with Poland, but the stir that has risen does not surprise him. In Heinilä’s view, Patria’s trading practices should be looked into more widely.
     
In the last decade, Patria tried actively sell its field artillery piece, manufactured in the town of Vammala, to the land forces of various nations. There were connections even with Pakistan, but obtaining export permits there proved a futile effort.
      A buyer was found in Egypt. In accordance with a contract signed in 1999, Patria sold the Egyptian armed forces six 155-millimetre type 155GH52 field artillery pieces and one artillery piece mounted on a T-55 tank platform.
      The guns in question are heavy artillery hardware capable of firing rounds a distance of tens of kilometres. While the deal was being made, newer versions of the same guns were already being manufactured for the Finnish Defence Forces.
      The deal with Egypt was fairly small, partly because it was based on the idea of technology exportation. The aim was to set up production of the guns under licence in Egypt.
     
The problems started even before the deal was signed. During the 1999 firing demonstration for the Egyptians, the weapon was under a firing ban, and a special permit was needed for the demonstration. The client, however, was kept in the dark about these arrangements.
      The ban had to do with problems with the weapon’s loading system. Other issues also emerged. The Egyptians wanted a NATO-compatible piece and Patria promised to provide them with one. Closely examined, however, the 155GH52 does not fulfil the NATO requirements, for example with regard to testing of the weapon.
     
In Heinilä’s view, also the barrel of the piece does not match the general requirements set for modern weapons.
      With the pieces sold to Egypt, there were other problems as well. In one test the weapon sank into sand so deep that the firing had to be discontinued.
      The lifting axle of the barrel has also snapped once both in Finland and in Egypt. Patria tried to conceal the Finnish incident from the Egyptians, but Heinilä did not accept this and informed the buyer of the matter. In Heinilä’s view the 155GH52 is an ultra-sophisticated weapon and too sensitive for Egyptian conditions.
     
Patria also failed to inform the Egyptians that it was using a local agent in the deal. According to Heinilä, the agent got a 10% commission, some of which was then transferred to the directors of the licensee manufacturer.
      Heinilä says he has taken part in a meeting in Finland, at which Patria CEO Jorma Wiitakorpi had justified the use of bribes by saying that a deal would not come about without them.
      The weapons sold to Egypt have stood unused for almost two years now. The manufacturing under licence never got off the ground. The consultation contract of Heinilä, who visited Egypt over 30 times during the project, was terminated by Patria last spring.
      ”I was told to be quiet about all the defects of the guns. This was Patria’s modus operandi in Egypt. I feel very sorry for my Egyptian friends”, Heinilä concludes.
     
The Patria CEO Jorma Wiitakorpi regrets Heinilä's comments and describes them as wrong in all fundamental respects.
      He also points out that the artillery piece in question cannot have been as deficient as claimed, since the Egyptian clients - and also the Finnish Defence Forces - have been very satisfied with the product.
      Wiitakorpi completely rejects the claims of the use of shady local agents or backhanders. The use of a local agent is effectively compulsory in all Arab countries and often elsewhere, too, and the fee paid to the agent in this case was perfectly standard. He vehemently denied any allegations of bribery, pointing to the fact that the principal owner of the company - the Finnish state - demands total transparency in all its dealings.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Finland demands that Poland revise claims concerning Finnish armoured vehicles (28.2.2007)

Helsingin Sanomat