1 posted on
05/27/2011 6:17:25 PM PDT by
Pan_Yan
To: Pan_Yan
2 posted on
05/27/2011 6:18:12 PM PDT by
Pan_Yan
To: Pan_Yan
3 posted on
05/27/2011 6:18:40 PM PDT by
WayneH
(STCM USN Retired - Winning the Future - WTF)
To: Pan_Yan
So...we need to buy our helicopters from the Russians now? Pretty soon we’ll be buying our a/c from the Chinese.
4 posted on
05/27/2011 6:19:21 PM PDT by
rbg81
To: Pan_Yan
Before I get an ulcer, burst a blood vessel in the brain over this P_Y what is the credibility of this source?
7 posted on
05/27/2011 6:23:35 PM PDT by
rockinqsranch
(Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
To: Pan_Yan
The Ruskies probably made us pay in cash gold.
16 posted on
05/27/2011 6:35:33 PM PDT by
Navy Patriot
(Sarah and the Conservatives will rock your world.)
To: Pan_Yan
Besides, Russia will also provide the spare parts, ground support equipment and maintenance service.
So our military is dependent upon Russian maintenance?
To: Pan_Yan
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.
21 posted on
05/27/2011 6:44:27 PM PDT by
Pollster1
(Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
To: Pan_Yan
There was a time when we sold them equipment but on a far larger scale.
22 posted on
05/27/2011 6:48:10 PM PDT by
Bringbackthedraft
(The storm clouds of war are on the horizon, 1939 is again approaching us.)
To: Pan_Yan
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.
26 posted on
05/27/2011 7:12:04 PM PDT by
cashless
(Unlike Obama and his supporters, I'd rather be a TEA BAGGER than a TEA BAGGEE.)
To: Pan_Yan
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.
27 posted on
05/27/2011 7:14:11 PM PDT by
elpadre
(AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
To: Pan_Yan
I pray to God my son never has to step foot in a Russian-built aircraft.
28 posted on
05/27/2011 7:17:06 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
('We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you')
To: Pan_Yan
Except for our own troops, almost all the choppers in use in Afghanistan are Russian. They are the sky taxis of the country.
30 posted on
05/27/2011 7:28:50 PM PDT by
Iron Munro
(The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. -- John Steinbeck)
To: Pan_Yan
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 armys 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.
36 posted on
05/27/2011 8:31:38 PM PDT by
Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
To: Pan_Yan
Russian attack helicopters appear to be better than ours at this point.
44 posted on
05/28/2011 7:06:20 AM PDT by
wendy1946
(Bork Obunga; Before he borks you...)
To: Pan_Yan
“Russia sells 21 helicopters to U.S. forces in Afghanistan”
They are ordered for Afghan forces, In my opinion It's a very good decision. Afghan army used to operate similar equipment, they are also easier to maintain, which is particularly important in a country, where anyone able to write and read is regarded as educated, also It is a good PR move making them look independent... Additionally, there's a risk that sooner or later some of this equipment will be taken over by the enemy. Iraqi and Afghan armies should generally be equipped with AK-47s, T-72s, Mi-17s etc. (although a lot of that doesn't have to be bought in Russia) . I rather find sales of Abrams tanks to Irag to be more controversial.
To: Pan_Yan
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/chode6/chode2.gif)
cost/repair costs, man-hrs to flight-hrs, the HIP-8 is hard to beat...
53 posted on
05/28/2011 2:40:38 PM PDT by
Chode
(American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson