Buy American? Not the Pentagon who is buying 21 Russian-made choppers

[sawgunner74]

what parts fell off?what model did you fly?when?under what flag was it being flown and maintained.ive rode in a mi-24 e and and a older hip model(opfor ft. hood)in the early 90s the few piolts that flew them loved the power and speed.but regardless here are some stats straight outa janes.mil -24c hind perf. 199 mph,weight 16,534 lbs, has current world speed(without modification)228.9mph,full wepons load 183.9mph climb rate 2953ft min.,ceiling 12453ft .nickname flying tank,due to the titanium bathtub surrounding crew and extensive armour,"no other helicopter in the world combines wepons, sensors ,armour, and performance of this family of helicopter."i not gonna list the armaments its so extensive.oh and they carry 8 soliders.Ah-64 apache perf. 182mph,weight 11,015lbs ,climb 2500ft min ,ceiling 10,200ft. armaments are just as extensive.the soviet helos also hold world records for ceiling,climb ,largest built ,heaviest payloads longest radius.the most expensive goes to the u.s there landing gear is twice what is required.even civillian companys (world wide)use mi choppers for there heavy lift.im retired from the u.s army and love are equipment,but just because we dont make it does not mean its not good.and also if the army was replacing all of our choppers(not just a few for mission specific)i would also be mad,but there not,so hopefully these choppers can save some lives.

 

[jeremy]

what parts fell off?
what model did you fly?
when?
under what flag was it being flown and maintained.

even civillian companys (world wide)use mi choppers for there heavy lift.im retired from the u.s army and love are equipment,but just because we dont make it does not mean its not good.and also if the army was replacing all of our choppers(not just a few for mission specific)i would also be mad,but there not,so hopefully these choppers can save some lives.

First, I am not a grammar/spelling Nazi. But dang man that was an uncomfortable read...

I have personally had Landing gear fall of the frame of the birds I was in. I have had the doors and a window fall off of a new Mi-17 I was in. I have seen numerous birds of these makes not leave the pads after a short halt during missions over my years.
I have flown on most of the transport series of the Mi family of helos.
I have flown on these off and on for the last 21 years. In some of the worlds greatest vacation spots. Amassing possibly more hours on these than most grunts in our own family of helos.
Flags flown, to many to list and calling any of them a third world country would be over-estimating those Countries.

Trust me I fully understand the fact of even through we did not make it, does not mean it is a bad product. These will not be maintained by Qualified Mechanics. These will not be maintained by any kind of hours logged. They will be ran until the break and then cobbled together from parts scavenged from birds that are to bad to be put back together. Not maintained by a Civilian Company. I would almost be willing to bet money, that if you came over and asked to see these birds in 2 years from delivery you would be shocked...

These birds are not being bought for Our needs in Afghan, but for the Afghan Army to have air capabilities. Once again I ask why are we buying birds for the Afghan Military. Afghan has a budget and Monetary Worth on the World Stage let them buy their own toys.
US Military Soldiers are not allowed to use these birds in this AO...

 

[Don]

Sikorsky is just jealous another russian is getting his .gov $$.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I don't have a problem with buying the Russian helicopters. What I do have a problem is that it was a sole-source contract. Let Sikorsky, Boeing and Augusta have a crack at it too. There's nothing that paticular Helo can do that others can't.

Except blend in.

 

[Joe Williams]

Definitely.

These Helos are not going to US Forces at all. It has been decreed at least here in RC East US Servicemembers are not PERMITTED to use these Helos. Due to there history, ie parts falling off in flight...
So by all means buy the Afghans crap. If, we must buy them crap.

My problem is why are WE buying them anything?!

They still using B-52s? Seen parts fall off them all the time, yet they kept on using them. In fact, they were the only heavy bomber available during Desert Storm. The newer, more advanced B-1 was grounded

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't have a problem with buying the Russian helicopters. What I do have a problem is that it was a sole-source contract. Let Sikorsky, Boeing and Augusta have a crack at it too. There's nothing that paticular Helo can do that others can't.

There's a time for competition and a time to insist upon buying what you want. For example, look at the current mess involving the purchases of a new AF tanker and the fights over who will build (or if it will be built) a second engine for the F-35 fighter. The political infighting alone adds years to the purchase process as each congresscritter with an affected district tries to drag the cash his way.

If the strategy was to complement the MI-17s already available to the Afghans, sole-sourcing to the Russians was the way to get it done quickly, without all the delays and behind-the-scenes wrangling that competitive bids engender.

One may argue, as Jeremy does, that the aircraft doesn't hold up and isn't very reliable. Nonetheless, it is adequate to the Afghan's needs and an individual MI-17 won't cost anything like what a S-61 would cost.

An additional consideration: we don't know if the timeline laid out by ODL (Our Dear Leader) will allow us success in Afghanistan. Since we're going to be pulling out in a couple years at the most, why buy them expensive, quality equipment that may fall into into the hands of unfriendlies? (unfriendliers?). You have noticed, have you not, that we're not supplying the Iraqis or the Afghans with M-16s or M-4s?

 

[sawgunner74]

they were also maintained at third world standards.what factory defect do russian helicopters suffer from?if you took a ch-47 and let third world mechanics maintain it see what it will look like in 2 years.soviet helos are well liked(for good reason)around the world.compare others with those the russians make,russian typically are more capable.

 

[RomanDad]

I don't have a problem with buying the Russian helicopters. What I do have a problem is that it was a sole-source contract. Let Sikorsky, Boeing and Augusta have a crack at it too. There's nothing that paticular Helo can do that others can't.

Except look like a russian MI17... They have been used by Americans who want to keep a low profile in parts of the world where anything other than an MI17 would attract unwanted attention.

 

[ATOMonkey]

American components Russian components...ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!!!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

American components Russian components...ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!!!

Most Blackhawk components are made in the US. That's why military aircraft are so expensive...

 

[dross]

There's a time for competition and a time to insist upon buying what you want. For example, look at the current mess involving the purchases of a new AF tanker and the fights over who will build (or if it will be built) a second engine for the F-35 fighter. The political infighting alone adds years to the purchase process as each congresscritter with an affected district tries to drag the cash his way.

If the strategy was to complement the MI-17s already available to the Afghans, sole-sourcing to the Russians was the way to get it done quickly, without all the delays and behind-the-scenes wrangling that competitive bids engender.

One may argue, as Jeremy does, that the aircraft doesn't hold up and isn't very reliable. Nonetheless, it is adequate to the Afghan's needs and an individual MI-17 won't cost anything like what a S-61 would cost.

An additional consideration: we don't know if the timeline laid out by ODL (Our Dear Leader) will allow us success in Afghanistan. Since we're going to be pulling out in a couple years at the most, why buy them expensive, quality equipment that may fall into into the hands of unfriendlies? (unfriendliers?). You have noticed, have you not, that we're not supplying the Iraqis or the Afghans with M-16s or M-4s?

My first MOS was in communications. Early in the eighties I went to a defense expo where communications equipment was displayed for sale.

At the time we still had the old field telephones that ran off a switchboard. (I don't know what they use now.) Each phone required a separate wire run from it to a switchboard which had to be manned 24 hours a day during field operations. The phones at that time cost almost $400 each.

At this expo, I saw a phone made by the British that attached to a hot loop (one wire snaked around to all the phones rather than a spiderweb attached to a switchboard) by two pins in the bottom of the phone. Each phone had a number so you could dial any number on the loop without ringing the other phones. Less wire, less manpower to set up and maintain, and to top it off, the phones were about the same cost as our archaic field phones.

I tried to find out how we could get them. I was told that it was too difficult to buy non U.S. products, and if we tried to get a U.S. company to contract a phone that hadn't been built before, the government would have to provide R&D funds, and the process would take years and never get approved anyway.

I have little sympathy for the "made in the USA" slogan when it comes to our combat troops.

Later (after I was out) I was told by one of my former soldiers who went on to Special Forces that under Bush/Rumsfeld it became much easier for units to purchase useful items retail regardless of where they were made.

I'm all for helping the economy. Not at the price of less than the best we can provide our soldiers.

 

[jeremy]

I have little sympathy for the "made in the USA" slogan when it comes to our combat troops.

Later (after I was out) I was told by one of my former soldiers who went on to Special Forces that under Bush/Rumsfeld it became much easier for units to purchase useful items retail regardless of where they were made.

I'm all for helping the economy. Not at the price of less than the best we can provide our soldiers.

After a couple of trips into Indian Country you learn pretty quickly money saved does not do me a lot of good if I don't get back to civilization...
I don't care who makes it if it is the best, then buy it.

And yeah I remember the Clinton times...
I still shudder at the memory too...

 

[ATOMonkey]

It's hard enough to get the equipment we have req'd out to guys in the field, much less buy new stuff.

My brother sent me a pps about the evolution of the DOD procurement procedure. It's mind boggling.

 

[jeremy]

The sad thing ATO is that compared to what it was 15 years ago this is streamlined...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The sad thing ATO is that compared to what it was 15 years ago this is streamlined...

Oh Absolutely! Badmouth Don Rumsfeld if you wish, but when it became evident that the equipment our troops had wasn't cutting it, he instituted the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) which got all kinds of useful items to the troops in the Combat Zone much more quickly than had been in the past.

Troops started seeing FR gloves, better body armor, eye protection, better boots; a whole raft of things that would have previously taken years to field under previous rules. Having the USGOV buying off-the-shelf items not only improved the equipment available to the troops in the Combat Zone, it also spurred innovation on the part of many vendors who have continuously improved various areas of battlegear. In my 38 years of military service, I saw 2 changes in battle gear (flak vests and IBAV) in the first 30 years. In the last 8, I saw 4 changes in body armor (2 aviation and two groundpounder) alone.

 

[jeremy]

In my 38 years of military service, I saw 2 changes in battle gear (flak vests and IBAV) in the first 30 years. In the last 8, I saw 4 changes in body armor (2 aviation and two groundpounder) alone.

Heck just in my 20 years we went from the Green Nam Flak Jacket to the Improved Flak Jacket. Then Next was RBA. Then finally the IBA. We moved next to IOTV. And now we are drifting away from Full Armor to Plate Carriers...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Heck just in my 20 years we went from the Green Nam Flak Jacket to the Improved Flak Jacket. Then Next was RBA. Then finally the IBA. We moved next to IOTV. And now we are drifting away from Full Armor to Plate Carriers...

There you go. I only got issued body armor twice while I was in. Didn't have any for Korea (74-74) which was my only other overseas deployment. Got the AIRSAVE aviation body armor for a deployment, and the IBA for my short deployment to Iraq. When I came back, the aviation units were just starting to get the AIR WARRIOR. I've seen pictures of aviation aircrew wearing what looks like plate carriers instead of AIR WARRIOR stuff.