| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| US Military Criticized for Buying Russian Choppers for Afghan AF |
| 2010-06-19 |
| In a turnabout from the Cold War, when the CIA gave Stinger missiles to Afghan rebels to shoot down Soviet helicopters, the Pentagon has spent $648 million to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan National Army Air Corps. The Defense Department is seeking to buy 10 more of the Mi-17s next year, and had planned to buy dozens more over the next decade. The spectacle of using U.S. taxpayer dollars to buy Russian military products is proving a difficult sell in Congress. Some legislators say that the Pentagon never considered alternatives to the Mi-17, an aircraft it purchased for use in Iraq and Pakistan, and that a lack of competition has enabled Russian defense contractors to gouge on prices. "The Mi-17 program either has uncoordinated oversight or simply none at all," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who along with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has pushed the Pentagon to reconsider its purchase plans. "The results have led to massive waste, cost overruns, schedule delays, safety concerns and major delivery problems." U.S. and Afghan military officials who favor the Mi-17, which was designed for use in Afghanistan, acknowledge that it might seem odd for the Pentagon to invest in Russian military products. But they said that changing helicopter models would throw a wrench into the effort to train Afghan pilots, none of whom can fly U.S.-built choppers. Because Afghan airmen had historically trained on Russian choppers, the Pentagon decided to make the Mi-17s the backbone of Afghanistan's fleet. The Soviet Union specifically designed the Mi-17 for use in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say it is well-suited for navigating the altitudes of the Hindu Kush mountains, as well as Afghanistan's desert terrain. Gen. Mohammed Dawran, chief of the Afghan air corps, said most of those pilots are in their 40s and set in their ways. Requiring them to start fresh on U.S. copters would be an uphill battle. "They learned the previous system and different ideas," he said in an interview. Most of the veterans also don't know how to fly at night or in poor visibility, when a pilot must rely on an aircraft's instrument panel to navigate. The Russian choppers are far more basic birds than U.S. models such as the UH-60 Black Hawk or the CH-47 Chinook. The Mi-17 is steered with a stick and rudder and usually lacks such amenities as Global Positioning System navigation. Afghan maintenance crews, accustomed to making do with whatever materials are handy, are skilled in making repairs with used soda cans and other makeshift parts. In addition, the U.S. Special Operations Command would like to buy a few Mi-17s of its own, so that special forces carrying out clandestine missions could cloak the fact that they are American. "We would like to have some to blend in and do things," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the clandestine program. "But the Russians know this. Russia has a small monopoly on Mi-17s. They are now exorbitantly priced." |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #8 Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) = Sikorsky Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.)= Bell Helicopter Textron. Good old fashioned politics. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-06-19 21:26 |
| #7 Steve: Bell is separate from the Boeing Company. You may be thinking to the legacy Boeing Vertol Company, which was formed after the purchase of the Piasecki Helicopter Company many years ago. TPHC invented the tandem rotor configuration that is used in the H-46 and H-47s |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2010-06-19 20:12 |
| #6 The MI-17 is just a better aircraft for the mission over there than anything we make. It can nearly carry the internal load of a CH-47. It can operate at higher altitudes and with greater gross weights than a UH-60M, it can cross Kandahar pass fully loaded. It is 1/4 the cost of a UH-60M, and significantly easier to maintain. With over 15,000 of these aircraft currently in service, MI-17 and the MI-172/172 models, the logistics for the aircraft is already in place. The aircraft is easier to maintain and built to take a beating, it has been around since the early 1950's. Simply put, without the bullshit oversight of the congress our US military went out and bought the best performing aircraft at the lowest price, and are getting the mods done by US companies. And for the GPS comment, they do have them and this is an amature comment directed at the people ignorant of aviation. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2010-06-19 17:44 |
| #5 Or is that asking too much of our gold-plated defense industry? Russian stuff is designed with a different mindset. It needs to be field serviced under rough conditions by mechanics who are...unsophisticated. Same goes for the operators. M-16 vs Kalashnikov is a good example. One needs to be scrupulously cleaned, the other works if you shake the sand out of the mechanism. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-06-19 16:04 |
| #4 Most of the Mi-17s that the US is buying are actually from former Warsaw Pact countries that are now NATO; the choppers are refurbed and shipped to Afghanistan. 2 birds with one stone : support the Afghanis and the new NATO members make money and change out equipment. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-06-19 15:22 |
| #3 Couldn't the Bell division of Boeing whip up a Mi-17 clone? Or is that asking too much of our gold-plated defense industry? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-06-19 15:12 |
| #2 > usually lacks such amenities as Global Positioning System navigation Buy the pilots a smart phone. Problem solved. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2010-06-19 14:59 |
| #1 I suspect there is much more to this 'buy Russian' initiative that is found in this article. As long as I don't have to ride on one, I have no problem with it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-06-19 14:36 |