• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. military criticized for purchase of Russian copters for Afghan air corps

Deuce said:
How does buying used American choppers create jobs in America? They're already built. There's no chopper dealership that will make a few bucks selling them. The spare parts are already stacked in warehouses, already built. Anything they need over there they'll be going from stock or building themselves.

This thread is a great way to find the true partisans.

edit: Unless you want the Afghanis flying brand new state of the art America hardware... at many times the price. So much for too much spending!
Click to expand...

It wouldn't create new jobs, at least not directly, but it would have reinvested the money back into the U.S. economy rather than into the economy of Russia. Just a stupid move.
 
Im sorry american hardware for the afghan army? Can anyone spell almost impossible to sustain or even build? American hardware doesn't make logistical sense. First of all afghans cant fuel or repair or pilot american hardware, supplying the fueling infrastructure and spare parts ordering and shipping would be insurmountable. Like virtually impossible given the money available. Russian hardware makes sense.
 
Agent Ferris said:
It wouldn't create new jobs, at least not directly, but it would have reinvested the money back into the U.S. economy rather than into the economy of Russia. Just a stupid move.
Click to expand...

The only way this could be stupid is politically. The Mi17 variants are larger, have a little more lifting capacity, more cargo capacity, a bit higher ceiling. The Iroquois is a military variant - but let's just look at this pragmatically. These are going to Afghanistan which borders on --- wait for it -- RUSSIA!! Just the loading, logistics, shipping, and delivery from the U.S. to Afghanistan would be difficult and probably very expensive. It's easier and I would assume, less expensive for Mi17's to be shipped and delivered to Afghanistan from Russia.

I would have loved to see U.S. manufacture helo's go to Afghanistan, but I totally understand why they went with Mi17's instead, and it's almost a no brainer.
 
Ockham said:
The only way this could be stupid is politically. The Mi17 variants are larger, have a little more lifting capacity, more cargo capacity, a bit higher ceiling. The Iroquois is a military variant - but let's just look at this pragmatically. These are going to Afghanistan which borders on --- wait for it -- RUSSIA!! Just the loading, logistics, shipping, and delivery from the U.S. to Afghanistan would be difficult and probably very expensive. It's easier and I would assume, less expensive for Mi17's to be shipped and delivered to Afghanistan from Russia.

I would have loved to see U.S. manufacture helo's go to Afghanistan, but I totally understand why they went with Mi17's instead, and it's almost a no brainer.
Click to expand...
It's really weird because these people would usually never question any sort of military spending.
 
rathi said:
Russian helicopters are simply a better value. Unless you need fancy electronics, blackhawks are just overpriced 70's tech.
Click to expand...
And you make this assertion based on your vast knowledge and experience with Black Hawk helicopters? Most likely the primary reason is that the available maintenance expertise leans toward Russion helicopters. Training maintenance techs is expensive and time consuming.
 
And you make this assertion based on your vast knowledge and experience with Black Hawk helicopters? Most likely the primary reason is that the available maintenance expertise leans toward Russion helicopters. Training maintenance techs is expensive and time consuming.
Click to expand...

Other countries have reached the same conclusion. Thailand is buying mi-17 over blackhawks because of they cost at least 1/2 as much with about double the troop capacity. While the blackhawk has options for advanced electronics and can match the mi-17 on load capacity, its overpriced and under performing for the role in which most smaller nations need helicopters. Helicopters are mostly used in less developed militaries to haul around people with the occasional unguided rocket attack. The UH-60 was built for American requirements, and it isn't optimized for the role in which the Afghani's want to use them.
 
rathi said:
Other countries have reached the same conclusion. Thailand is buying mi-17 over blackhawks because of they cost at least 1/2 as much with about double the troop capacity. While the blackhawk has options for advanced electronics and can match the mi-17 on load capacity, its overpriced and under performing for the role in which most smaller nations need helicopters. Helicopters are mostly used in less developed militaries to haul around people with the occasional unguided rocket attack. The UH-60 was built for American requirements, and it isn't optimized for the role in which the Afghani's want to use them.
Click to expand...

That's right, American requirements. BTW, it's a Black Hawk, not a blackhawk. At least learn that. It's also a true military helicopter, with a lot of technology incorporated in the fundamental design that your won't find in the Mi-17.
 
Agent Ferris said:
As opposed to how many UH-1 Iroquois Huey's?
Click to expand...

Do we still make that?

If you can fly a helicopter you can fly a huey.
Click to expand...

LOL> So apparently all helicopters operate the same way, with the same controls and same procedures?

How much of a pain is it to put some boxes on a cargo plane?
Click to expand...

Do you know why it costs the government something like $20 to ship a gallon of gasoline to Afghanistan? Why it costs outrageous amounts to get powdered eggs over there?

One of the largest costs of Afghanistan is just getting stuff there. If we can get it shipped by the Russians from Russia through relatively safer areas like the various -istans rather then pakistan, we should do it. This is a no-brainer.

EDIT: Correction, it costs the government $400 to ship a single gallon of gas into afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

That ALONE justifies buying Russian.
 
Last edited:
American said:
That's right, American requirements. BTW, it's a Black Hawk, not a blackhawk. At least learn that. It's also a true military helicopter, with a lot of technology incorporated in the fundamental design that your won't find in the Mi-17.
Click to expand...

Which is overpriced to the majority of buyers. Did you not understand what he was talking about?

Why would you spend a huge sum of cash on a single high powered, tech-ed up helicopter that you won't even use to 50% of its capabilities when you can get THREE, count em THREE Russian helicopters that 1) your pilots already know how to use 2) are easier to maintain 3) have less things that can go wrong and 4) actually meet the requirements you need?

Why get a Blackhawk when you don't need its capabilities?

Do you get a Lotus when you're looking for a Civic? No. Because the Lotus is overpriced to your needs. Seriously, this isn't hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom