Congress pissed because Pentagon to spend nearly $1bn on helicopters for ANA
20 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Despite protests from a bipartisan group of lawmakers in late March, the Defense Department is buying Russian military helicopters whether they like it or not.
“The Department of Defense has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” Pentagon spokesman James Gregory told RIA Novosti in emailed comments.
A team of 10 lawmakers sent a letter to new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on March 25, urging him not to purchase additional helicopters from the state-owned Russian arms dealer Rosoboronexport. They argue that the company has continued to transfer weapons to Syria’s government, which is in the midst of a civil war.
The Mi-17s will be used for Afghan National Security Forces. The aircraft are already in use there by joint U.S. Army and Afghan forces.
The roughly $1 billion contract is far from new.
It was awarded by the Department of the Army on June 1, 2011 on a sole-source basis for a minimum of 21 Mi-17 helicopters and spare parts for the Afghan military. The deal with the Russians includes options for additional aircraft, spares, and support. The Army has indicated that the procurement of additional Mi-17 for the Afghan military may be required, with Gregory telling Ria Novosti that it is up to 30.
The Russian aircraft “are superbly suited for harsh environments,” said Gregory, the Pentagon spokesman.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/04/04/sorry-congress-defense-dept-sticking-with-russian-helicopter-deal/[/url]
Not just any helicopters.
Useful, Russian ones that work in mountains and are extremely reliable.
Fuckers, we should have left them like the South Vietnamese. /sarcasm/
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
To have a comparison. I think they would have been able to buy about five American Helicopters for the same price :v:
why aren't they pissed about the f-35's that keep on failing then
1 billion to aid afghanistan isn't acceptable but f35s and other useless military expenditure that inhibits our nations combat capabilities are acceptable
go war profiteering
The Afghanistan helicopters barely get regular maintenance performed on them. This is good for them. It allows them to transport troops fast and safely around Afghanistan, because Afghanistan lacks road and infrastructure. And I wouldn't trust my life to their current post cold war Mi-17's.
It's also the least the US can do after wrecking so much of Afghanistan's infrastructure. I'm not arguing the merits of the War here, I'm saying that it's good form to fix what you break, and I think the opponents of the move in Congress are assholes.
We GAVE the ANA M16s years ago and they complained because they were older models. They'd rather have a rusted up, barely cycling Khyber Pass AK than a more accurate, fully functional, hand-me-down rifle.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40308351]We GAVE the ANA M16s years ago and they complained because they were older models. They'd rather have a rusted up, barely cycling Khyber Pass AK than a more accurate, fully functional, hand-me-down rifle.[/QUOTE]
Well, older M16s were shit, to be fair. The rusted up, barely cycling AK would jam less.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40308378]Well, older M16s were shit, to be fair. The rusted up, barely cycling AK would jam less.[/QUOTE]
They weren't, though. It was the powder in the ammo that was shit.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40308400]They weren't, though. It was the powder in the ammo that was shit.[/QUOTE]
If I'm thinking about the right M16s - I saw pictures once of ANA wielding vietnam-era M16s (The ones with the distinctive prism-shaped foregrips) the guns were the problem.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
And think about it, even if there's better ammo today, there's still a shitload of sand and dust out there, and it gets EVERYWHERE. Better an AK that fires than an M16 that gets clogged.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40308400]They weren't, though. It was the powder in the ammo that was shit.[/QUOTE]
They wanted ISAF to gift them AK's but they were given M-16's because of the risk of desertion and corruption. ANA soldiers have had many issues with the rifle, I'm not going to argue over specifics though.
[editline]16th April 2013[/editline]
[video=youtube;l8J5f4juWFc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8J5f4juWFc[/video]
Its a good panorama episode.
Doesn't Afghanistan have a history of using Soviet era weapons? If so, then it makes perfect sense to buy any new gear or parts from Russia. It'd be far more expensive to transition them over to US weapon systems and US supplied parts. Sure, the defense industry would love that but taxpayers would have to pick up the tab.
This Syria argument is probably paid for by the defense industry, who likely bribed those 10 lawmakers in order to steal the contracts back from Russia.
Maybe this has something to do with that news of Russia going to build maintenance camps in Afghanistan?
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;40308827]Maybe this has something to do with that news of Russia going to build maintenance camps in Afghanistan?[/QUOTE]
It's got everything to do with the fact that domestic arms manufacturing puts a lot of money into lawmaker's pockets
which is why the US is home to so many fucking ridiculous defense projects which fill roles that don't even exist
ANA was and is being given m16a2s and m16a4s.
which are perfectly functional
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;40307258]why aren't they pissed about the f-35's that keep on failing then[/QUOTE]
Because buying Russian doesn't support American defense contractors.
(ana more often than not have no idea what they're doing and maintaining a rifle is most likely no exception)
(this is changing though. the difference in quality of the ana between 2008 and 2013 is huge)
[QUOTE=W0w00t;40309065](ana more often than not have no idea what they're doing and maintaining a rifle is most likely no exception)
(this is changing though. the difference in quality of the ana between 2008 and 2013 is huge)[/QUOTE]
Well, taking care of an AK usually requires much less finesse and care than an M16, so I can sort of understand that.
nbd now, the ana can handle themselves now for the most part
At least we're buying them rugged, repairable Russian helicopters instead of some high tech bullshit that we have to fix for them.
I'm actually okay with this, you cannot fight in Afghanistan without significant helicopter capability. We should at least give the poor bastards a chance before the Taliban wipe them out and retake the country.
