- Why did the Greek authorities bypass the declared specifications concerning the aircraft’s range and engines?
- They have entrusted the maintenance of the three DA62 MPP aircraft to a construction company with no experience in aerial vehicles!
By Paris Karvounopoulos
Several contradictions emerge from procuring three DA62 MPP aerial surveillance aircraft for the Greek Ministry of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection. The first issue concerns their price. The second relates to how the order was placed. The third involves their maintenance. The investigative team at Data Journalists has delved into the matter, uncovering this deal’s “opaque” aspects.
The purchase was announced on July 4 by Diamond Aircraft, with the DA62 MPP chosen as the aerial surveillance model.
The announcement initially slipped under the media’s radar until Data Journalists brought the issue to public attention.
Πυρκαγιές: Πυροσβέστες δεν έχουμε αλλά αγοράζουν πανάκριβα αεροσκάφη για επιτήρηση
What is clear and indisputable is the procurement budget, which amounts to €23,336,000—an amount widely deemed excessive. Why?
A market survey confirms this. These aircraft, wherever sold, have not exceeded €2.2 million. The same aircraft was sold in Austria for $1.2 million (link). The Austrian DA-62 MPP is equipped with two AE33 engines, the same as those that will be fitted in our aircraft.
Even if we accept that the equipment on the Greek DA-62 MPPs is more “upgraded”, the announced features include a Trakka TC-375 EO/IR camera, a mobile phone tracking system, a mission management system, and other technologies.
Even if the price per aircraft climbs to €2.2 million—as they have been sold for in other countries (link)—the total procurement cost barely reaches €7 million. The gap to €23,336,000 is vast and difficult to justify solely with the argument of ‘maintenance packages.’ In fact, maintenance presents a second major concern.
A closer look at the contract reveals that the supplier is a construction company, ATESE. The company has no expertise in aerial systems—it neither manufactures nor maintains them. This raises serious questions about the long-term operational reliability of the aircraft.
Read the investigation on the Fire Cartel here
Aircraft support under a Support Agreement (FOS) is typically provided for 5.5 years. After this period, ATESE is obligated to support the aircraft for an additional 15 years, instead of the manufacturer (Section 1.4 of the draft contract). How can ATESE undertake this responsibility without the manufacturer’s commitment?
Additionally, ATESE is required to provide lifetime support for the aircraft, including updates to all manuals (Section I, Section 10.3 of the announcement). It remains unclear how this can be accomplished without the manufacturer’s involvement.
There is no provision or obligation for the contractor to sign a new Support Agreement (FOS) for the aircraft before the initial agreement expires, nor are the terms specified. Notably, the announcement (Section 2.2.8.1) states that although the manufacturer is responsible for over 90% of the contractual obligations, they are not jointly liable with ATESE for technical and professional competency. In contrast, they are jointly accountable with ATESE for financial and professional competency.
The announcement clearly specifies that the aircraft manufacturer must possess ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications (B5, p. 37 of the announcement). In response to a related inquiry made by a prospective contractor before bid submissions, HRADF modified this requirement, stating that only the contractor (ATESE) needs to hold these certifications, thus exempting the manufacturer. It is evident that the manufacturer likely did not possess these certifications and would therefore have been excluded from the bidding process. Remarkably, this aspect of the announcement was not amended, and the requirement remains intact.
The performance requirements specify a range of at least 900 nautical miles. However, the aircraft specification on the manufacturer’s website indicates a range of 734 nautical miles under specific conditions, and this range is only achievable with an additional fuel tank. Was this included in the sales package, or did the aircraft, without it, fail to meet the requirement and therefore need to be rejected? (Section I, Section 8.2)
Regarding guarantees of operational reliability, it is curious that the Greek side does not specify minimum requirements for hours and time; instead, it simply requests whatever the manufacturer offers (Section I, Section 13.1). Typically, such announcements set a minimum acceptable standard and positively evaluate any additional offerings.
Did the contractor comply with the specifications outlined in the announcement? In the briefing by Minister of Climate Crisis Vasilis Kikilias about the AIGIS program (attached, p. 28), it was stated that the aircraft must be equipped with turboprop engines. However, the DA62 MPP aircraft we have chosen to purchase is fitted with turbocharged piston engines, which, as is well known, are fundamentally different from turboprops in technology. Was the specification changed, and on what grounds?
However, several additional questions arise:
- How many companies participated in the tender? If there was only one, it raises concerns that the specifications may have been tailored.
- Were representatives from the Air Force involved in drafting the specifications, evaluating the bids, and negotiating the contract, considering they will be responsible for operating and supporting the system?
- Why has the contract not been made public? This lack of transparency prevents us from examining the pricing, acceptance checks, and the support package—both initial and the commitments for subsequent support (FOS) of the system.
- The Air Force will be tasked with operating a new system that is not currently in its arsenal, and the initial contract must ensure the conditions for uninterrupted support to prevent the well-documented availability issues that the Armed Forces have historically faced.
Data Journalists approached the office of the Minister for Climate Crisis, Vasilis Kikilias, and raised the following questions:
- What is the value of the signed contract? We only know the budget for the procurement, which amounts to €23,336,000.
- What is the cost of each of the three DA62 MPP aircraft, and what does that include?
- How many companies participated in the tender?
- Why was the offer and the contract ultimately awarded to a Greek technical and commercial company, rather than to the manufacturer of the aircraft system, who will be responsible for both its production and long-term support?
- Did the contractor comply with the specifications outlined in the announcement? In Mr. Kikilias’s briefing on the AIGIS program, it is stated that the aircraft must be equipped with turboprop engines. However, the selected aircraft is equipped with turbocharged piston engines. Was the specification changed, and if so, what was the justification?
The questions were raised on September 4th. As of today, when this article was published, there has been no response.
Φωτογραφία: diamondaircraft.com
