Article

2010-06-19 Home Front: Politix

US Military Criticized for Buying Russian Choppers for Afghan AF

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-06-19 13:45|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 14:36|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 14:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 15:12|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 15:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 16:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 17:44|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 20:12|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2010-06-19 21:26|| Front Page Top

23:40 phil_b
23:26 Steven
23:21 Steven
22:32 SteveS
22:29 Cornsilk Blondie
22:05 borgboy
21:56 twobyfour
21:52 SteveS
21:42 Pappy
21:26 Pappy
21:21 phil_b
21:12 phil_b
21:09 Mr. Bill
21:02 Mike Hunt
20:54 phil_b
20:48 Goober Crealet3411
20:21 Barbara Skolaut
20:12 USN, Ret.
19:43 mojo
19:27 49 Pan
19:24 Goober Crealet3411
19:07 wt
18:54 badanov
18:35 borgboy