How Not to Buy a Russian Helicopter

In its effort to equip Afghanistan's new air force, the Pentagon is getting an education in the shady post-Soviet arms trade.

BY SHARON WEINBERGER | NOVEMBER 12, 2010

Russian companies are also not the kind of suppliers the Pentagon is used to. The Army project office, for example, is trying to wrangle two U.S. Army-owned Mi-17s helicopters out of the Saint-Petersburg Aircraft Repair Company, or SPARC, which is alleged to have illegally exported them from Lithuania to Russia with the help of a badly forged end-user certificate allegedly signed by a Pentagon deputy assistant secretary (or deputy "assistance" secretary, as the forged certificate reads). The helicopters, which the U.S. Army paid to have overhauled in Lithuania, now remain stuck in St. Petersburg amid a contractual dispute. Suffice it to say that dealing with Russian entities often comes with a unique set of business problems.

Despite the obstacles associated with buying from the Russian defense industry, the trade in Russian helicopters and other Russian equipment has only grown since 9/11 as the United States has sought to provide cheap and simple counterinsurgency tools to militaries in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Since 9/11, the Pentagon has paid more than $1 billion to buy Russian military helicopters for its allies. Over 50 helicopters have been bought for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to date. (Less talked about, though widely acknowledged and traceable through court documents and Federal Aviation Administration records, is that the CIA also has a fleet of Mi-17s registered to front companies. It has used the helicopters extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, including during the 2001 Jawbreaker mission, when the CIA sent a team into Afghanistan to help cement support among tribal leaders for the U.S. invasion.)

Many people question why the United States is purchasing Russian helicopters with taxpayer dollars, but for those training the Afghans, the answer is simple: It's the perfect helicopter for the country. Rugged and reliable, it was essentially built by the Soviet Union to fly missions in Afghanistan, and it's what Afghan pilots have trained on for years, according to Air Force Col. Creig Rice, vice commander of the 438th Air Expeditionary Wing and the NATO Air Training Command. "Is it the only helicopter for Afghanistan? No," he said, when I interviewed him in Kabul last month. "But is it the best helicopter for Afghanistan right now? Yes."

The question for the Pentagon is not why Russian helicopters, but how to buy them. Many purchases in the past were ad hoc and with no central coordination, a point underscored when the United States imposed sanctions on Rosoboronexport in 2006. It was an act of supreme intergovernmental incompetence: It slapped the Russian arms industry in the face just at the time when the United States desperately needed help to equip local forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sanctions created additional problems because of the incestuous ownership structure of Russian industry, in which Rosoboronexport owned a stake in Russian helicopter factories, raising the question of whether even buying commercial helicopters from Russia was legal. Unsure of how to proceed, the Pentagon sought and was granted a waiver to the sanctions, asking the U.S. government permission to ignore hundreds of millions of dollars in helicopter purchases.

The U.S. government's history of buying Russian helicopters has a checkered history. In the 1990s, stories abounded of shoddy parts, questionable deals, and mom-and-pop operations that would appear and disappear with frightening speed, taking contract dollars with them. Among the many questionable practices were U.S. companies presenting the Pentagon with what were called "exclusive supplier agreement" letters from Russian companies and agencies, essentially empty promises assuring would-be buyers that the designated U.S. firm was the only approved supplier. Those letters, I'm told, cost as little as a few hundred dollars. There was never a standard process for buying Russian equipment, much less determining who was, or wasn't, a legitimate supplier.

Recognizing the supreme mess the Defense Department had created over the years, the Pentagon's acquisition czar, Ashton Carter, finally stepped in this year and ordered the establishment of a single office to manage the procurement of Russian aircraft and assigned it to the Army. (Not everyone in the Army was thrilled with this move -- shortly after the decision, Brig. Gen. William Crosby, the program executive officer for aviation, which became responsible for "nonstandard aviation," reportedly referred to himself at a meeting as a "Mi-17 popsicle" because the job of procuring Russian helicopters had effectively been shoved up his backside.)

MASSOUD HOSSAINI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: MILITARY, RUSSIA
 

Sharon Weinberger is a national security writer focusing on science and technology issues. She is co-author with Nathan Hodge of A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry.

FRANKFURMAN

10:47 AM ET

November 14, 2010

ANAAF not necessary

What is never stated in this article is that an Air Force for the Afghan military is not necessary and represents a huge waste of American money. The amount of money that we spend on aviation throughout our four branches represents more money than is spent on any other functional area. It is wildly expensive to maintain these forces. We need it, they do not. In the next twenty years, GIRoA has no prayer of maintaining the support system that is necessary to run aviation forces. Fuel, parts, maintenance, and training for pilots, crewmen, and maintenance personnel cost more than the supposed benefit for their forces. Not to mention the fact that they'll have assault-support helicopters that now need troops able to do something from that platform. GIRoA will have an almost impossible task of trying to man, equip, and support their ground forces that will do the real work and are far less expensive. This is a lark, a joke, a PR statement at best.

 

CHRISWRIGHT

11:24 AM ET

November 15, 2010

Agreed. That money could be

Agreed. That money could be used to more effect elsewhere. Look at the equipment they could buy for the ground forces which would prove more effective and cost efficient in the long term.

 

SMARTER

1:34 AM ET

November 29, 2010

Try Unca Sam's Used Heli-Mart

This entire program is absurd. We have literally acres of usable aircraft (fixed-wing and rotor) sitting at AMARC in the desert next to Tucson. A look at their inventory page on the web shows pages of Bell H-1 'Hueys' in stock -- one of the most versatile and serviceable airframes ever, still in widespread military and commercial use with spares and upgrades readily available.

 

SEGISMUNDO

11:25 AM ET

November 14, 2010

Poor editing

From the ungrammatical ("Now, battling their own insurgency, Afghanistan is in the market for these very helicopters") through the merely sloppy ("Mi-17s helicopters") to the nearly tautological ("the U.S. government history of buying Russian helicopters has a checkered history"), this article was so badly written and edited I couldn't make it past the second page.

 

KMC2K9

2:39 PM ET

November 14, 2010

One thing I can't understand

One thing I can't understand is why the US cannot buy American aircraft for the Afghan air force would it not be easier to get a better price and keep Russia out of it? Obama may as well go and a barclays jobs and his local bank because there ain't much his doing and the recent defeat by the Reds just showed it.

Iraq was the same equip them with Russian equippment that was bought with American money...

 

MUKELI

4:42 PM ET

November 14, 2010

US Rotorcraft

As a result of the ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, US defense companies are facing production constraints. Boeing, which produces the Chinook (a heavy-lift tandem rotorcraft), has already maxed out monthly production for the aircraft. The only way the US government could sell Chinooks to Iraq or Afghanistan is to prioritize their orders ahead of US Chinooks currently in production. I imagine that the other US defense manufacturers face similar constraints. Considering that it would take at least 2 years to increase production capacity, buying Russian helicopters makes a lot of sense considering the demand is immediate and the Iraqi and Afghan military guys already know how to fly and repair the aircraft.

 

FDGRFE

2:30 AM ET

November 15, 2010

www.b2bjordans.com

P90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$
sorry to disturb u. just take u a little time.
If you are in need,
welcome to : (http://www.b2bjordans.com )
puma gucci$35,nike jordans six ring,yeezy$%5!!
new era caps$13 gucci handbags jeans,t-shirts sunglass,caps
true religion jeans$35,ca,ed hardy jeans$35
LV,CHANAL,HANDBAGS$35
NIKE SHOX+AIR MAX+TL3+OZ+NZ ONLY $35
DIOR SUNGLASS,DG SUNGLASS$15
new brand watches only $$$$$$$60
our website: (http://www.b2bjordans.com)

 

DFHYDFHDJ

11:46 AM ET

November 15, 2010

www.kohlscn.com

=========== http://www.kohlscn.com ===========
have some cheaper and more good things,cuch as nike shoes ,fashion clothes ,brand handbags,wallet,jewerlly...

U G G($48)

Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25
=========== http://www.kohlscn.com ===========

---------------------2-------------------------------------------------

 

RKERG

11:23 PM ET

November 15, 2010

Reverse engineer the Mi-17's and make them in America

That way you give the forces in Afpakistan the choppers that they know, you avoid the Russian corrupt regime and you create jobs in America. Its a trifecta my freedom loving friends.

 

CHMIKE

2:09 AM ET

November 18, 2010

Bring in the professional

Simple solution - Give Victor Bout a suspended sentence and make it a stipulation of his probation that he provide brokerage services for this and any other Russian arms deals we need to make...