Mi-8/17 in U.S. Service?

[Bearfoot]

Just learned that this family of helicopter is in US service. Does anyone have any information/links to details/history of this (public/non-classified only, of course!)? Where are they being used and by whom and in what capacity? And, most of all .... why?? What do they do that cannot be done by the UH-60's, CH-47's, CH-53's etc.?

 

[uPDATE] Found these articles:

 

• http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14502/as-first-uh-60s-arrive-us-plan-to-dump-afghan-mi-17s-is-still-problematic
  
• https://www.stripes.com/news/critics-say-scrapping-mi-17-fleet-could-undermine-afghan-air-force-1.460228#.WeWdMxNSyV4
  

 

Which state that: (a) the US acquisition and operation of Mi-17's was aimed at training and provisioning Afghan forces; and (b) this is all going to be terminated in favor of UH-60's. Does that about cover it?

Edited October 17, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Weta43]

It does, apart from the

most of all .... why??

bit.

 

They were bought by the US for the Afghan army operational / counter insurgency work because they're a better helicopter for the purposes the Afghans want them for.

 

Mi-17 carries up 24 passengers / 12 stretchers and a medic, 8,800lb internal or up to 11,000 lb external cargo. Service ceiling 6,000m (in a country that's high and hot in the summer)

 

UH-60 carries 11 troops or 6 stretchers, 2,600 lb internal or up to 9,000 lb externally cargo. Service ceiling 5,790m

 

UH-60 costs $21.3m each, US paid $19m each for the aircraft they purchased for Afghanistan, but that included Spares, test equipment and engineering support.

 

The US isn't replacing the Hips because the Blackhawks are a 'better aircraft', they're replacing them because Congress insisted that they purchase from a U.S. supplier and stopped supporting the Russian aerospace industry.

[Bearfoot]

It does, apart from the bit.

 

They were bought by the US for the Afghan army operational / counter insurgency work because they're a better helicopter for the purposes the Afghans want them for.

 

Mi-17 carries up 24 passengers / 12 stretchers and a medic, 8,800lb internal or up to 11,000 lb external cargo. Service ceiling 6,000m (in a country that's high and hot in the summer)

 

UH-60 carries 11 troops or 6 stretchers, 2,600 lb internal or up to 9,000 lb externally cargo. Service ceiling 5,790m

 

UH-60 costs $21.3m each, US paid $19m each for the aircraft they purchased for Afghanistan, but that included Spares, test equipment and engineering support.

 

The US isn't replacing the Hips because the Blackhawks are a 'better aircraft', they're replacing them because Congress insisted that they purchase from a U.S. supplier and stopped supporting the Russian aerospace industry.

 

Ah, such is the way of the world.

 

From follow-ups I've read, it seems that the Russian suppliers are now refusing to sell spare parts to support the existing Afghan complement which means things are going to probably start falling apart before sufficient Black Hawks come online.

 

Most articles I've read are highly critical of this transition to Black Hawks, saying that, apart from being better suited for the tasking, the Hips are also better suited for Afghan usage/maintenance/service, being simpler. Is this just a matter of training, though? I.e., with enough training and support and spar parts is maintaining a Black Hawk fleet that much more challenging than the Hip?

 

Also, is it a broad consensus that the move to Black Hawks is not only purely political, but also Just a Bad Idea, or are there other opinions/voices who think it is actually a good thing?

Edited October 17, 2017 by Bearfoot

[QuiGon]

Just for reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=164695

[Paganus]

The CIA often use Russian-built helicopters, such as MI-8/MI-17s, for covert operations. As these ubiquitous helicopters are usually commonplace in theater they create less attention than a tricked-out Black Hawk or MH-53 Pavelow and cannot be readily linked to US forces. These helos are cheap to run and easier to find spare parts for when operating outside the US military logisitical chain. They are also one of the few military helicopters capable of operating over the mountains of Afghanistan.

 

CIA hips spotted in Iraq were equipped with various extra antennae (e.g. Bat-wing SATCOM) and countermeasures such as flare launchers and AN/ALQ-144 infrared jammers.

 

[King Cobra]

Anyone opsec much? ;) They are used for a lot of different uses, and as trainers for opfor like the hinds that are opperated at ft. Polk tend to have the most experienced mi24 pilots in the world..

[GunfighterSIX]

It does, apart from the bit.

 

They were bought by the US for the Afghan army operational / counter insurgency work because they're a better helicopter for the purposes the Afghans want them for.

 

Mi-17 carries up 24 passengers / 12 stretchers and a medic, 8,800lb internal or up to 11,000 lb external cargo. Service ceiling 6,000m (in a country that's high and hot in the summer)

 

UH-60 carries 11 troops or 6 stretchers, 2,600 lb internal or up to 9,000 lb externally cargo. Service ceiling 5,790m

 

UH-60 costs $21.3m each, US paid $19m each for the aircraft they purchased for Afghanistan, but that included Spares, test equipment and engineering support.

 

The US isn't replacing the Hips because the Blackhawks are a 'better aircraft', they're replacing them because Congress insisted that they purchase from a U.S. supplier and stopped supporting the Russian aerospace industry.

 

 

Bad information on the UH60.

Edited October 24, 2017 by GunfighterSIX

[Weta43]

The performance figures or the "The US isn't replacing the Hips because the Blackhawks are a 'better aircraft', they're replacing them because Congress insisted that they purchase from a U.S. supplier and stopped supporting the Russian aerospace industry" part?

 

The performance figures are from Wiki, which you personally can change it if you know better & have an actual source:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk

 

(that's the community part of it.)

 

The comment about why the aircraft are being swapped ?

public records...

Edited October 24, 2017 by Weta43

[King Cobra]

The performance figures or the "The US isn't replacing the Hips because the Blackhawks are a 'better aircraft', they're replacing them because Congress insisted that they purchase from a U.S. supplier and stopped supporting the Russian aerospace industry" part?

 

The performance figures are from Wiki, which you personally can change it if you know better & have an actual source:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk

 

(that's the community part of it.)

 

The comment about why the aircraft are being swapped ?

public records...

 

It has to do with parts availability... simple and streight foreward, Russia has aligned with the Taliban and America obviously with the newly established trashbagistan gov... The proxy wars and all the typical bs that acompanies them are making a reemergence. As far as the afghans most are not formally euducated so any platform the has a shallow learning curve will be better to train them on then something a lot more complex...

[Weta43]

I'm not convinced. Every statement at the time points to it being a political decision, not about the actual availability of spare parts.

 

From publically available statements by the US Govt., they bought the Mi-17's because they were a better solution, and replaced them with UH-60 because Congress didn't want to support the Russian aerospace industry, and were pushing a 'buy American' agenda:

 

Under pressure from Congress in 2013, the Pentagon scrapped a plan to spend more than $1 billion on new Mi-17s, and in 2014 President Barack Obama issued formal restrictions on doing business with Russian arms manufacturers.

 

& the statements from Congressmen at the time:

 

“I’ll never understand why the U.S. government sent taxpayer money to Russia for helicopters in Afghanistan while Russia was supporting the Assad regime in Syria and invading eastern Ukraine," said U.S. Senator Chris Murphy in announcing the decision on November 18.

 

"When the Pentagon buys helicopters, they should be made in America,” he said.

 

The Department of Defense, after buying Russian helicopters for Afghan forces, said it will transition to buying Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters that are made in Connecticut, Murphy's home state.

 

(...)

 

“In the face of Russia’s attempts to undermine our foreign policy goals in the Middle East and its continuing aggression in Ukraine, it is time that the United States end its reliance on Russian-made helicopters for operations in Afghanistan," said Representative Rosa DeLauro.

 

"We must prioritize American manufacturers and our hardworking men and women at home,” said DeLauro.

 

The bit where the ellipsis is was: "sanctions imposed on Russia by the West for its aggression in Ukraine have hampered the delivery of Russian helicopters and parts to Afghanistan in the last two years."

 

Which I assume is where your idea that they were dropped because parts weren't available comes from, but this was a political not a physical issue - they couldn't get parts because for political reasons (See above) in that they refused to buy parts from the manufacturers of the parts...

[King Cobra]

The global political climate did create some of it but you can't blame us congress on all, everything these days that are on a global scale has politics involved and as such will be effected by it.

[jnr4817]

Not that it matters. I work at an airfield next to Fort Campbell. From time to time, we will get some interesting rotorwing aircraft shooting approaches in the Outlaw field and stopping for fuel. The Mi-8/17 being one of them.

 

Reed

[Weta43]

The global political climate did create some of it but you can't blame us congress on all, everything these days that are on a global scale has politics involved and as such will be effected by it.

 

That's true - everything is politics...

 

I just wanted to point out to the OP that the Hip's are good helicopters, and that the Pentagon saying "we have to replace the Hip's because we can't get parts." is a bit like telling your kid that their best friend isn't coming to their birthday party because their friends parents said no - but forgetting to mention that the reason they said no is that you rang them and told them their kid wasn't welcome in your house...