Russia sells 21 helicopters to U.S. forces in Afghanistan

Xinhau Net ^ | 2011-05-28 01:51:34 | Editor: Mu Xuequan

[Pan_Yan]

MOSCOW, May 27 (Xinhua) -- Russian arms export corporation Rosoboronexport signed a contract with the U.S. Army Forces Command on supplying 21 Mi-17V5 multipurpose helicopters to Afghanistan, a spokesman for the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation said on Friday.

The United States and Russia have been in talks for more than a year on the deal to provide the much-needed vehicles for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, RIA Novosti reported.

The cost of one helicopter has been agreed earlier at 17.5 million U.S. dollars. The first helicopters will be sent to Afghanistan in October 2011, said the spokesman.

Besides, Russia will also provide the spare parts, ground support equipment and maintenance service.

The Mi-17 is an export version of the Mi-8 Hip helicopter, which can transport up to 37 passengers.

In May 2010, the United States lifted sanctions against Rosoboronexport. The sanctions were imposed in 2006 after the U.S. government accused Rosoboronexport of violating the nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Despite the ban, dozens of Mi-17s have been bought by the United States for Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years via intermediaries to avoid direct contacts with Rosoboronexport.

[Pollster1]

On the up side, the Russians make great helicopters for that environment. On the down side, we know how helos worked out for them in Afghanistan a few decades back. I hope we learned more from that experience than the other side learned.

[Bringbackthedraft]

There was a time when we sold them equipment but on a far larger scale.

[SeeSharp]

So our military is dependent upon Russian maintenance?

Russian maintenance is as good as any when they are getting paid.

[Jack Hydrazine]

After the last Shuttle flight coming up in July we will have to rely solely on the Ruskies to get to space. Now we have to buy helos from them that we could easily design, build and fly. Next thing you know we’ll be buying our fighter jets from them, too!

[Oztrich Boy]

If there's a gap in the market

Someone's going to fill it. Ain't capitalism grand?

[cashless]

One person has stated the obvious about the Ruskie vs. US helio costs. The governmental red tape adds to base costs. The funding fight in Congress adds to the costs. The lobbyists for the manufacturer adds to the costs. You get the idea. They have none of these obstacles. But the number one reason in my mind for the wide cost difference is the out of touch with reality of UNION CONTRACTS eagerly agreed to by the manufacturers to reduce the possibility of strikes (simple extortion) and a Labor Department that has historically protected and promoted unions over non-union shops along with the states with no right to work laws that tilt the playing field in favor of unions. America in this regard, walked up to the mirror, looked itself dead in the eye, and with a steady hand, all in one Ninja like motion, cut off it's nose to despite it's face while slitting it's own throat.

[elpadre]

we need legislation that all government equipment military and civilian, must be American made with a majority of parts made in USA.

Also with corporate headquarters in USA not offshore.

If the Russian aircraft provide special needs, then the American companies should be.

[EternalVigilance]

I pray to God my son never has to step foot in a Russian-built aircraft.

[octex]

Meanwhile... SecDef Gates is cutting funding in most sectors of our military services, including new aircraft procurement. Anyone else miss the F-22 and its superiority? How about reducing the number of surface ships for our Navy? Then there’s Obama’s committment to reducing our nukes.

I’m sure Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky could build an aircraft to accomplish what the Russian aircraft now does. However, as someone else on this thread indicated, the bureacratic red tape that includes stuff like mandatory minority and women owned suppliers, excessive oversight and audits of every stage of development and testing, etc., the US products are extremely costly.

[Iron Munro]

Except for our own troops, almost all the choppers in use in Afghanistan are Russian. They are the sky taxis of the country.

[Poundstone]

All you posters moaning about the “US military buying Russian helicopters” should get a grip. The US is buying these helos FOR THE AFGHAN MILITARY. Why Russian? Because almost everything else in the Afghan aircraft inventory is Russian; the Afghans have long experience operating Russian equipment; the supply source for parts and tech support (Russia) is next door; and the MI-17 flies well at high altitudes. It’s a no-brainer.

Geez...

[Oztrich Boy]

Why were you posting me?

I was pointing out the US makes two sizes of transport helicopter: Too Small and Too Large

[Tainan]

Lol...did that thing ever get certs?

Right about the high altitude Russky helos though. With good maintenance they are good helos.

[moehoward]

Used to see one of these flying around every once in awhile...

[Oztrich Boy]

They built over 50 in the 1960s. Eight are still working

[Zhang Fei]

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17

---

On 28 October 2008 the Royal Thai Army announced a deal to buy 6 Mi-17s to meet its requirement for a medium-lift helicopter. This is the first time the Thai military has acquired Russian aircraft instead of American.[6] Flight International quotes the Thai army’s rationale: “We are buying three Mi-17 helicopters for the price of one Black Hawk. The Mi-17 can also carry more than 30 troops, while the Black Hawk could carry only 13 soldiers. These were the key factors behind the decision.”[7]

---

This is an excellent move. The Afghans don’t need all the razzle dazzle technology in the Black Hawk, and they’re eventually gonna have to pay to maintain this hardware themselves. Much cheaper to deal with Russian junk than gold-plated American hardware. The reality is that they’ll always have limited money to spend on hardware, and one Black Hawk can’t be in three places simultaneously, whereas 3 Mi-17’s can.

[Zhang Fei]

You wrote:
Quote

---

On the up side, the Russians make great helicopters for that environment. On the down side, we know how helos worked out for them in Afghanistan a few decades back. I hope we learned more from that experience than the other side learned.

---

Unquote

Soviet helicopter losses in Afghanistan were minimal - about 3 a month, compared to our losses of over 50 a month in Vietnam. Ultimately, the Soviet pain threshold proved far lower than ours. Bin Laden was a drooling retard for thinking that Americans were a soft touch compared to the Soviets. The weird thing is that at the time, nobody thought the Soviets would withdraw after such nugatory losses.

http://www.ciaonet.org/cbr/cbr00/video/cbr_ctd/cbr_ctd_52.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

[af_vet_rr]

I pray to God my son never has to step foot in a Russian-built aircraft.

My son is in Afghanistan and mentioned taking a ride in a Russian-built helicopter. I don't know the details of what he rode in, but the helicopters mentioned in the first post were designed for mountainous areas, and they are available within 5 months. If we waited on a US company to design a helicopter for those areas, it would cost 5 times as much, carry a third of the cargo/personnel, and wouldn't be available for a good 5-10 years, and probably would ultimately not be able to fly in those areas. The Russians/Soviets are a little better about keeping mission creep out of their designs, and so some of their weapons and systems are quite good as long as you use them for the situations they were designed for.

Russian helicopters do just fine in Afghanistan when they aren't being shot at with American-made missiles...

[freepersup]

Did some skydiving out of one of these (CH54) from a “cargo pod” that was attached to it’s underside. It cost everyone a dollar which was pooled to buy the air and ground crews cold beer.

[freepersup]