It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. buys Russian choppers for Afghan military

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

U.S. buys Russian choppers for Afghan military


www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government is snapping up Russian-made helicopters to form the core of Afghanistan's fledgling air force, a strategy that is drawing flak from members of Congress who want to force the Afghans to fly American choppers instead.

In a turnabout from the Cold War, when the CIA gave Stinger missiles to Afghan rebels to shoot down Soviet helicopters, the Pentagon has spent $648 million to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan National Army Air Corps. The Defense Department is seeking to buy 10 more of the Mi-17s next year, and had planned to
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Now here is a turn of events, the U.S. Buys Russian made aircraft and supplies the Afghan Army with them, OK?

What will be next on the list?
Does this even make sense? I thought we supplied the weapons, not bought them from once rivals.

Ahh who am I am do decide. I'd like to here the thoughts of the forum.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
1. Refurbished Russian military equipment is cheap and abundant, and American equipment would generally have to be purpose-built new for export.

2. America probably doesn't trust Afghanistan with our equipment, after seeing what some of it ended up being used on the last time we supplied them.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



America probably doesn't trust Afghanistan with our equipment, after seeing what some of it ended up being used on the last time we supplied them.


What did happen last time?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I realize there is a lot of politics involved with this decision, but I'm sure the military planners are trying to achieve an end with the least amount of resistance, meaning fewer steps in the process. Just by reading the article, the Afghan pilots had previously trained on Russian helos in the past, so I would say the learning curve would be less for them than if they had to learn the American helos. Further, I do know the Mi-17 functions well at higher altitudes, and Pakistan uses them extensively with a lot of success Source. Thailand's army chose the Mi-17 since it's performance met it's goals as well as it was cheaper than the Blackhawk Source and Source.

The US Government tends to pick and choose when it will be picky on where they send our tax dollars. They seem to have no problem on handing out monies left and right to their favorite causes. IMO someone on the hill owes a defense contractor or two a favor and they are going to throw a tantrum until they get their way.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
seems to me , this is a sign that USA is falling apart .

USA can't supply afghans with helos and that's pathetic despit its budget being nearly trillion dollars



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Anyone stop to think that this actually makes sense?

First, it may be low cost but no one ever said the Russians didn't no how to make choppers - I'm doubting the Georgians doubled over in laughter at the sight of low-quality Mi-24 Hinds. Second, it's proximity - they don't need a shipment of Blackhawks or Pave Lows in 10 months - they need them now... and unless the map has changed, Russia is right next door.

Lastly, we're talking about equipment that would be easier to retrofit for the deserts and rough mountain terrain of Afghanistan - why? Because for 10 years the Russians became experts at retrofitting their own equipment for the very same deserts and mountain terrain.

I don't see the problem. For once it seems to me as though the Pentagon is thinking with its head instead of its sub-contractors.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 



I don't see the problem. For once it seems to me as though the Pentagon is thinking with its head instead of its sub-contractors.


Surprising isn't it?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by mattifikation
 



America probably doesn't trust Afghanistan with our equipment, after seeing what some of it ended up being used on the last time we supplied them.


What did happen last time?


They stopped being nice.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


I see, and they had been nice before?




posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
surely this is common sense? , who in there right mind would equip a force with equipment equal to its own?This was common russian practice as well , trial 3 items , keep the best for yourself and export sale the rest,



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
as nice as it would be to sell them our choppers keep in mind 2 things we're paying the bill for them and the Russians are more then likely cheaper and 2 their choppers are tough ass pieces of equipment for that environment



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sadchild01
seems to me , this is a sign that USA is falling apart .

USA can't supply afghans with helos and that's pathetic despit its budget being nearly trillion dollars


This statement is so full of ignorance..

Look, we aren't about to provide a country that for the most part, has a very negative view on the west with state-of-the-art technology.

Not gonna do it. Peroid.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by crisko
 


no need to defend , it shows how crappy US military is , can't even provide Afghans with helicopters


You spend a trillion dollars , yet you cant provide afghans with helos is a sign of the coming collapse of USA



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join