User Panel
Posted: 12/13/2013 4:01:18 AM EDT
|
|
They are the AK's of helicopters. Comparatively cheap, rugged and they have a history with them.
Plus, as it is an FMS "Foriegn Military Sales" deal, I'm sure it was a direct specification of the foreign government (which is a legally sufficient basis to forego full and open competition). I supported FMS for Department of the Army from Aug 07 to Dec 08. Bought tons of non-standard weapons and equipment. Nothing to see here. |
|
Quoted:
The Pentagon bypassed American companies and turned instead to Moscow for dozens of Russian Mi-17 rotorcraft at a cost of more than $1 billion. A study shows Boeing's Chinook is a better fit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1207/Why-is-US-buying-Russian-helicopters-for-Afghan-military
View Quote A Boeing study? Maybe the big contracts Rosoboronexport has been scoring from the US will convince some enterprising US company to come up with a simple, rugged, and inexpensive helicopter design. Or maybe not. |
|
Putin probably sold the deal by convincing Obama that the
Mi-17 was responsible for the great Russian victory over Afghanistan. |
|
Do we even make any monkey model helicopters that they could fly and maintain?
|
|
Quoted:
They are the AK's of helicopters. Comparatively cheap, rugged and they have a history with them. Plus, as it is an FMS "Foriegn Military Sales" deal, I'm sure it was a direct specification of the foreign government (which is a legally sufficient basis to forego full and open competition). I supported FMS for Department of the Army from Aug 07 to Dec 08. Bought tons of non-standard weapons and equipment. Nothing to see here. View Quote This. Russian gear is a better fit for this buy. |
|
|
Quoted:
They are the AK's of helicopters. Comparatively cheap, rugged and they have a history with them. Plus, as it is an FMS "Foriegn Military Sales" deal, I'm sure it was a direct specification of the foreign government (which is a legally sufficient basis to forego full and open competition). I supported FMS for Department of the Army from Aug 07 to Dec 08. Bought tons of non-standard weapons and equipment. Nothing to see here. View Quote It would be FMF to Afghanistan - we're paying for it. The real reasons for the decision probably have a lot more to do with the NDN, Manas, and the end game, than anything else. |
|
Quoted:
A Boeing study? Maybe the big contracts Rosoboronexport has been scoring from the US will convince some enterprising US company to come up with a simple, rugged, and inexpensive helicopter design. Or maybe not. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The Pentagon bypassed American companies and turned instead to Moscow for dozens of Russian Mi-17 rotorcraft at a cost of more than $1 billion. A study shows Boeing's Chinook is a better fit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1207/Why-is-US-buying-Russian-helicopters-for-Afghan-military
A Boeing study? Maybe the big contracts Rosoboronexport has been scoring from the US will convince some enterprising US company to come up with a simple, rugged, and inexpensive helicopter design. Or maybe not. Ask the Mexicans how much they've been enjoying their latest batch of Mi-17s. |
|
Quoted:
Or, it fits with their existing inventory and training. View Quote This. The USAF has already demonstrated that the Afghans are, at least at present, incapable of maintaining complex equipment...a US$500M experiment. On the other hand, the Afghans were able to keep a fleet of a dozen and a half or so already old Mi-8s, 17s and 35s flying for 10+ years after the Russians left...and that's with no training, no tools, no spare parts, no records, etc. Just like we shouldn't give them M4s over AKs. |
|
|
Quoted:
This. The USAF has already demonstrated that the Afghans are, at least at present, incapable of maintaining complex equipment...a US$500M experiment. On the other hand, the Afghans were able to keep a fleet of a dozen and a half or so already old Mi-8s, 17s and 35s flying for 10+ years after the Russians left...and that's with no training, no tools, no spare parts, no records, etc. Just like we shouldn't give them M4s over AKs. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Or, it fits with their existing inventory and training. This. The USAF has already demonstrated that the Afghans are, at least at present, incapable of maintaining complex equipment...a US$500M experiment. On the other hand, the Afghans were able to keep a fleet of a dozen and a half or so already old Mi-8s, 17s and 35s flying for 10+ years after the Russians left...and that's with no training, no tools, no spare parts, no records, etc. Just like we shouldn't give them M4s over AKs. Why bust your ass now when ISAF will pay/do it? As much as I hate to say it, Russian gear is a much better fit for them. They could bulge receivers and blow feed tray covers off M2s like it was their job. All the legacy DShK whatevers were still working. |
|
This other thread says that got canceled.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1556919_Pentagon_cancels_plans_to_buy_Russian_helicopters.html&light=helicopters |
|
Quoted: Why bust your ass now when ISAF will pay/do it? As much as I hate to say it, Russian gear is a much better fit for them. They could bulge receivers and blow feed tray covers off M2s like it was their job. All the legacy DShK whatevers were still working. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: This. The USAF has already demonstrated that the Afghans are, at least at present, incapable of maintaining complex equipment...a US$500M experiment. On the other hand, the Afghans were able to keep a fleet of a dozen and a half or so already old Mi-8s, 17s and 35s flying for 10+ years after the Russians left...and that's with no training, no tools, no spare parts, no records, etc. Just like we shouldn't give them M4s over AKs. Why bust your ass now when ISAF will pay/do it? As much as I hate to say it, Russian gear is a much better fit for them. They could bulge receivers and blow feed tray covers off M2s like it was their job. All the legacy DShK whatevers were still working. |
|
I hope it was canceled. We're broke and Zero spends like Nero. He'll burn this place down too.
|
|
They already have several of them. I see Afghan flagged Mi-17's all the time at our LZ.
|
|
Chinook vs Mi-8?
That's cross shopping a Hyundai SUV and F250. |
|
Quoted: This other thread says that got canceled. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1556919_Pentagon_cancels_plans_to_buy_Russian_helicopters.html&light=helicopters View Quote That was a month ago. Evidently they decided to spend the $1B anyway. This could also be a cover for the CIA to buy some of these. A Chinook flying thru places like Libya, or the jungles of South America, would be probably recognized as American. But a Russian chopper? Maybe not. |
|
As already mentioned, they're a better fit. Their mechanics can maintain them and their pilots can fly them. The pilots are used to Russian avionics which DO NOT match American and western avionics. I believe some actually read exactly opposite the way ours do.
|
|
Quoted:
They already have several of them. I see Afghan flagged Mi-17's all the time at our LZ. View Quote All (I believe) of their old ones were rebuilt by the factory and the Czech Republic donated a couple dozen or so. I don't know how many, if any, we (the U.S.) purchased directly, but the USAF sunk a bunch of $ in the program, either way. |
|
Probably more tolerant of inshallah maintenance than any of our rotary wing aircraft...
|
|
|
Quoted: Probably more tolerant of inshallah maintenance than any of our rotary wing aircraft... View Quote I flew in them a lot over there on charters, had a buddy get killified in one at KAF on a flight to Wolverine I was going to go on that flight but took the same bird on an earlier flight to Tarin Kowt instead. Dodged that one. |
|
|
"The U.S. military spent nearly a half-billion dollars on providing refurbished aircraft to the Afghan Air Force, only to abandon the contract and leave the planes collecting dust on airfields in Kabul and Germany."
already spending millions on grounded aircrafts |
|
|
Quoted:
"The U.S. military spent nearly a half-billion dollars on providing refurbished aircraft to the Afghan Air Force, only to abandon the contract and leave the planes collecting dust on airfields in Kabul and Germany." already spending millions on grounded aircrafts View Quote That was "just" for their cancelled C-27 program. In their infinite wisdom, they've decided to supply the Afghans with C-130s which will somehow be easier for them to maintain. |
|
Quoted:
That was "just" for their cancelled C-27 program. In their infinite wisdom, they've decided to supply the Afghans with C-130s which will somehow be easier for them to maintain. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"The U.S. military spent nearly a half-billion dollars on providing refurbished aircraft to the Afghan Air Force, only to abandon the contract and leave the planes collecting dust on airfields in Kabul and Germany." already spending millions on grounded aircrafts That was "just" for their cancelled C-27 program. In their infinite wisdom, they've decided to supply the Afghans with C-130s which will somehow be easier for them to maintain. I'm sure if we ask Russia nicely, they will sell us some Cocks, which we could provide to Afghanistan. I know they love the Cocks, and being Russian, the Cocks are certainly rugged and robust enough to withstand the manhandling they would receive at the hands of the Afghans. Even though it shows signs of intense use, thats a nice Cock! |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure if we ask Russia nicely, they will sell us some Cocks, which we could provide to Afghanistan. I know they love the Cocks, and being Russian, the Cocks are certainly rugged and robust enough to withstand the manhandling they would receive at the hands of the Afghans. http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121218033617/aircraft/images/0/0f/Antonov_An-22.jpg Even though it shows signs of intense use, thats a nice Cock! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"The U.S. military spent nearly a half-billion dollars on providing refurbished aircraft to the Afghan Air Force, only to abandon the contract and leave the planes collecting dust on airfields in Kabul and Germany." already spending millions on grounded aircrafts That was "just" for their cancelled C-27 program. In their infinite wisdom, they've decided to supply the Afghans with C-130s which will somehow be easier for them to maintain. I'm sure if we ask Russia nicely, they will sell us some Cocks, which we could provide to Afghanistan. I know they love the Cocks, and being Russian, the Cocks are certainly rugged and robust enough to withstand the manhandling they would receive at the hands of the Afghans. http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121218033617/aircraft/images/0/0f/Antonov_An-22.jpg Even though it shows signs of intense use, thats a nice Cock! Make it jet powered, and then according to NATO naming rules, it could be a Cockfag. |
|
|
Why are we giving Astan anything? Karzai is a total schmuck and hates us and acts like a complete twit. Quit helping them. If it appears issues are developing in Astan, hit it hard from above and quit jacking around.
So instead of $23 billion in cuts over 10 years, it is now $22 billion? WooHoo, we are on our way to fiscal rationality. |
|
Quoted:
Did they just never headspace them or something? I was under the impression the DShK had a much more bloodthirsty spring arrangement for the foolish operator. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This. The USAF has already demonstrated that the Afghans are, at least at present, incapable of maintaining complex equipment...a US$500M experiment. On the other hand, the Afghans were able to keep a fleet of a dozen and a half or so already old Mi-8s, 17s and 35s flying for 10+ years after the Russians left...and that's with no training, no tools, no spare parts, no records, etc. Just like we shouldn't give them M4s over AKs. Why bust your ass now when ISAF will pay/do it? As much as I hate to say it, Russian gear is a much better fit for them. They could bulge receivers and blow feed tray covers off M2s like it was their job. All the legacy DShK whatevers were still working. The concept or headspace and timing just wouldn't take when they knew we would just send them off for them to be repaired or dxed. Part of it also I think was deliberate neglect of nato pattern weapons because they did not like them. Can't get barrel off your m240? Break the latch off with a rock and inshallah you will get a PKM next time. |
|
God knows those things have incredible reliability.....*Sarcasm*
|
|
Quoted:
Do we even make any monkey model helicopters that they could fly and maintain? View Quote Nope. When I was putting together the fleet requirements for the Iraqis we couldn't buy and maintain a fraction of the numbers needed if we tried filling with Blackhawks and Eurocopters. Gift Hueys couldn't meet troop airlift number requirements, and heat/ density altitude would kick their ass. The Air Force Transition Team made it a requirement that all indigenous crew and maintainers had to learn and know English. |
|
I guess Boeing uses too much non-union labor on the Chinook.
|
|
Quoted:
God knows those things have incredible reliability.....*Sarcasm* View Quote FIFY. Based on the way they were designed and meant to be operated, the Russian equipment is much more reliable than western equipment. Russian equipment, whether it's tanks, trucks or helos, is designed to be built at a factory and maintained by trained (factory) personnel. It goes to the field, operates for a specified interval (thousands of hours in the case of aircraft) and goes back to the factory (or the factory personnel come to it) for maintenance. Our equipment requires constant (often daily) maintenance by trained personnel. Like I said earlier: the Afghans managed to keep a couple dozen or so Mi-17s/35s and Antonovs flying for over a decade with no tools, no manuals, no spare parts, nothing other than basic maintenance. Our equipment just isn't designed to do that. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.