Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by Bot, May 29, 2011.
Russia, U.S. seal Afghan helicopter deal | Defense | RIA Novosti
300 billion,may be just 300 millions
Thank you friend thats a typing error i presume , as its 300 million int he title of the post.
An interesting excerpt from this article:
I.e., when there is will, there is a way!
Just shows when the US needs they can manipulate it to their wills and provide any vague reason for it
A.V, Just watch this video and see what all US can do what it requires, and the way they do it.
Damn... those Russian helos are as expensive as Eurocopter.
armand2rep you can be a perfect salesman.... now tell me which company are you joining
Reproduced from a different thread:
US needed access to Astan through Russia, they buy Afghan and Iraqi Mi-17s in exchange. If they want to move weapons through Russia to replace Pak, they will have to do more.
Not quite. These Russian helos are indeed very rugged and versatile. They have seen use in Afghanistan since the USSR army got deployed in Afghanistan to help the DRA government fight against the Mujahideen. The Americans have always wanted to buy Russian helos because they have always produced the best helos in the world, but for the hawks in the US government who won't have anything Russian or Soviet because they are the 'evil commies', even if their products are significantly better.
Same story about why the US chose M16 over the Kalashnikov or FN-FAL.
Not quite, the first purchase of Mi-17 helicopters coincided with the agreement for the ISAF supply corridor through Russia. The fact they were blacklisted doesn't have anything to do with third-party transfers as obvious by the results.
Unless there is enough proof, it is mere speculation.
MIL helicopters are also being used by many NATO countries and they have not discontinued them. If these helicopters were not good enough, they would have sold them to the Afghans and purchased other helicopters from US or Europe. Instead, they chose to retain many of these helicopters and the US has to seek helicopters directly from Russia.
The US does not seek helicopters for NATO allies, they seek their own helicopters. Poland bought 5 used 18 yr old Mi-17V because they were dirt cheap, Slovakia still uses them from the Cold War but soon to phase out, Turkey is pretty pissed at their used Mi-17s as they don't work and Russia says they won't honour a maintenance contract because they bought them from an illegal entity = total waste of money, Latvia had some transferred from the Czechs but phasing out, Czechs repair their own from the Cold War, Croatia got some virtually free from a Yugoslav debt they owed them. Turkey has since received 30 Cougars from France to replace her inoperable Mils and it is only a matter of time before cash-strapped Iron Curtain nations have no choice but to replace them. No one is buying new helicopters from Russia in NATO unless they are freebies (Croatia).
No one said they do not work... except the Turks.
The point is at a $17.5 million price tag, they are not viable alternatives and the US Congress has been shut-up by the administration to deal with it. Pretty clear why...
I still do not see how that implies Mi-17s are being purchased by US because Russia is offering transit through their territory. Why aren't they purchasing other Russian weapons systems as well? Why are they not placing orders for Kalashnikovs from Izhmash, instead producing Kalashnikov clones in the US itself? Many Americans own Kalashnikovs but not the US army? Why?*
Obviously there is a bias against purchasing from Russia, even if they are capable systems, simply because they are Russian.
* - AK47 Varieties made in the United States
The US government will never purchase Russian weapons for themselves. I have no idea why you list private AK-47 knock-offs providing sales to enthusiasts. Why doesn't Russia place orders to Izhmash for AK-47s since US gun owners like them? Because they are OBSOLETE.
Obviously Russian equipment is OBSOLETE which is why the US military doesn't buy it for itself. Eastern Europe doesn't get it unless it is practically free. The US transfers it to their puppet states because they need Russia as a supply line, it is the only thing Russia gets out of the deal. To my original point, if they are going to replace Pakistan as a supply route, they are going to have to give more.
Many of these enthusiasts are actually ex-servicemen and do understand guns pretty well. I personally know many such people, if you want to believe me. They are free citizens and are not bound by Congressional regulations, unlike the army, that is forced to use Stoner design, just like they had to use John Browning design earlier when a better design, the Lee-Enfield was already available. It has a lot to do with preserving domestic employment. It is not about quality.
If you say AK-47 is obsolete, I might agree. But if you generalise, then you simply don't know what you are talking about.
For example, AK-74 is a rather effective weapon even now although it was introduced during the Soviet-Mujahideen War. Look for 'the poison bullet' here: Kalashnikov AK-74. Pretty damn effective and does its job well, much better than its European or American contemporaries. I could slide on the FN-FAL.
Separate names with a comma.