Military Review

The Pentagon refused to procure Mi-17 for the security forces of Afghanistan

91
The initiative group of senators announced that the US Department of Defense officially refused to purchase MI-17 helicopters in the Russian Federation, and in the future it will supply Sikorsky helicopters to Afghanistan, reports RIA News.


The Pentagon refused to procure Mi-17 for the security forces of Afghanistan


According to the senators, the Pentagon has notified them that it will remove the army and upgrade the 53 UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter. Instead, the US armed forces will receive new UH-60Ms.

“After the efforts of Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator Chris Murphy and Deputy of the House of Representatives Rosa Delauro, the Ministry of Defense intends to end its dependence on the helicopters made in Russia used for the Afghan national defense and security forces. The Defense Ministry intends to switch to Black Hawk helicopters made in Connecticut, ”the parliamentary statement said.

Senator Blumenthal noted that this step was “long overdue” and called the purchase of Russian helicopters “absurd, which will now be stopped.”

The agency recalls that the Pentagon had previously bought helicopters for the Afghan security forces in Russia, since they are more suitable for carrying out combat missions in the mountains. The last such purchase was made in 2013.
Photos used:
AFP 2016 / Aamir Qureshi
91 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. hirurg
    hirurg 19 November 2016 10: 34
    +8
    The lobby is doing its job.
    1. Teberii
      Teberii 19 November 2016 10: 39
      +2
      Savings should be economical. We turn to self-sufficiency, and it’s not forbidden to make money.
      1. bouncyhunter
        bouncyhunter 19 November 2016 10: 47
        +13
        The US Department of Defense has repeatedly said that the Mi-17 is very well suited for the Afghan Air Force, so it’s too early to refuse.

        Well, where is the logic for mattresses? request
        Maybe the whole point is that the Mi-17 is Russian (read - enemy), and the Black Hawk Down is a mattress one?
        1. dorz
          dorz 19 November 2016 11: 38
          +27
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          The lobby is doing its job.

          It is necessary to refuse to purchase Boeing and Airbuses and invest in our own production.
          1. Pirogov
            Pirogov 19 November 2016 12: 23
            +7
            Quote: dorz
            It is necessary to refuse to purchase Boeing and Airbuses and invest in our own production.

            It's high time to feed these scum as much as possible.
            1. Temples
              Temples 19 November 2016 15: 15
              +8
              It is necessary to refuse to purchase Boeing and Airbus

              This can only be done by creating a new Aeroflot. Or legally break off Boeing and Airbuses. The government is obliged to protect the interests of its own producers, not forgetting about consumers. Those. we must fly on the best airplanes, which should be from Russia and assembled in Russia.
              But the Chubais-Ulyulukaevs are against.
              1. samoletil18
                samoletil18 19 November 2016 16: 09
                +4
                After the arrest of Ulyukov, my first thought came to me that hopes for oil and gas ended up above. On the other hand, Nabiulina also needs to be moved. Yes, inflation. But banks are not the most important thing in the economy, even if they spin like everyone else or close in FIG.
                1. jjj
                  jjj 19 November 2016 16: 55
                  +3
                  Quote: samoletil18
                  let them spin too

                  At first I read it as a kind of banking term like "targeting". Then he ate. But it turned out all the same gracefully
                2. Saratoga833
                  Saratoga833 19 November 2016 18: 01
                  +2
                  Quote: samoletil18
                  banks are not the most important thing in the economy

                  I do not agree. Banks as a circulatory system in the body and if it is faulty, then the body (our economy) will not be able to function normally.
              2. 78bor1973
                78bor1973 19 November 2016 20: 24
                +2
                This can be done by creating the minaviaprom and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (the latter is more realistic), Aeroflot was stolen after the abolition of the last Ministry!
              3. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 20 November 2016 09: 56
                +1
                To do this, you must first put into the MC-21 series (at least with Western engines), this is an analog of the A-320 and 321 and B-737 and an extended Superjet for 130 passengers - an analog of the A-319. That's when these aircraft will be mass-produced, the need for Aeroflot, just right for the start ...
            2. Vz.58
              Vz.58 19 November 2016 17: 00
              +3
              But do not you think that Boeing-airbuses are better, more reliable, more economical, cheaper with warranty and post-warranty service and their engines are better? Don't you think? So you are a patriot.
              Need to create your own? Who is arguing? Why not create? Normally competitive aircraft and engines for GA. You don’t have to do everything on Chubais and, now new ones, bring down the ulukaevs. You just don’t feel like it. And so there is something instead of beer and a TV. Why think and be nervous? All the same, your ideas are not interesting to your superiors. They have their own interests.
              1. Grenader
                Grenader 19 November 2016 19: 21
                +5
                Quote: Vz.58
                But do not you think that Boeing-airbuses are better, more reliable, more economical, cheaper with warranty and post-warranty service and their engines are better? Don't you think?

                But do you think that the Mi-17 is better, more reliable, more economical and cheaper than the UH-60A Black Hawk? Smart leadership develops and protects its manufacturer. With America, everything is clear - they want to sell their helicopters, not because ours are worse, but because they need to earn money themselves. Why we buy Boeing and Airbus is a big question for the country's leadership.
                1. ydjin
                  ydjin 20 November 2016 09: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Grenader
                  Quote: Vz.58
                  But do not you think that Boeing-airbuses are better, more reliable, more economical, cheaper with warranty and post-warranty service and their engines are better? Don't you think?

                  But do you think that the Mi-17 is better, more reliable, more economical and cheaper than the UH-60A Black Hawk? Smart leadership develops and protects its manufacturer. With America, everything is clear - they want to sell their helicopters, not because ours are worse, but because they need to earn money themselves. Why we buy Boeing and Airbus is a big question for the country's leadership.

                  And they want to supply their outdated helicopters to Afghanistan !!! Instead, buy new ones for yourself! About how, two birds with one stone, will get rid of trash at once, and with this money they will get new things! laughing
                2. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 20 November 2016 10: 00
                  +2
                  Hawk and more economical and higher in performance than the Mi-8/17 because he is newer. I don’t really understand why the United States bought the Mi-17 for its money ... Compare the weight of the Hawk and Mi-17 and the range / carrying capacity. Another thing is exploitation ... the presence of hangar storage, etc.
                  1. Grenader
                    Grenader 20 November 2016 16: 14
                    0
                    Quote: Zaurbek
                    Hawk and more economical and higher in performance than the Mi-8/17 because he is newer. I don’t really understand why the United States bought the Mi-17 for its money ... Compare the weight of the Hawk and Mi-17 and the range / carrying capacity. Another thing is exploitation ... the presence of hangar storage, etc.

                    Compare that ... The hawk only has a higher speed, the range is the same, the ceiling is higher for the Mi-17, which means it works better in high altitude conditions, it carries 11 Mi-17 fighters - 27, well, and payload, respectively. So learn the materiel.
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 00
                      0
                      I’m just reading the mat part ...
                      Hawk:
                      Normal takeoff weight: 7907 kg
                      Maximum takeoff weight: 11113 kg
                      Payload mass: 1197 kg (internal) on suspension: 4082
                      Service ceiling: 5835 m
                      Mi-17:
                      Empty:
                      7 160 kg
                      Norm takeoff:
                      11 100 kg
                      Max. take-off
                      13 000 kg
                      Service ceiling:
                      5 000 m
                      This is despite the fact that the Hawk is a class lower than the Mi-8/17
              2. ultra
                ultra 20 November 2016 01: 13
                +1
                Quote: Vz.58
                So you are a patriot.
                Need to create your own? Who is arguing? Why not create?

                Have you come to "open our eyes"? laughing
              3. parkello
                parkello 20 November 2016 01: 27
                +2
                create. the same MS-21, SS-100 has been flying for a long time. and in terms of reliability and economy, it is in no way inferior to foreign aircraft. all create both engines and gliders. but if Russia shows it ... it’s one very interesting place. yes, by the very elbow, to all the airbags and other things that depend on Russian titanium parts, it will be funny))
        2. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 20 November 2016 09: 14
          0
          Quote: bouncyhunter
          The US Department of Defense has repeatedly said that the Mi-17 is very well suited for the Afghan Air Force, so it’s too early to refuse.

          Well, where is the logic for mattresses? request
          Maybe the whole point is that the Mi-17 is Russian (read - enemy), and the Black Hawk Down is a mattress one?

          Of course. Only now, the Afghans will beat the "hawks" on their mountains, beat them, and we will laugh ... wink
      2. hydrox
        hydrox 19 November 2016 10: 49
        +6
        It was the Pentagon’s hawks who decided to trample Trump in the end when they were being trampled from an abundant feeder when changing leadership, in order to hamper his negotiations with Putin.
        1. Rustam
          Rustam 19 November 2016 11: 14
          +17
          Quote: hydrox
          It was the Pentagon’s hawks who decided to trample Trump in the end when they were being trampled from an abundant feeder when changing leadership, in order to hamper his negotiations with Putin.


          And what about Trump, would our MI-17s also be bought giving work to our enterprises and leaving enterprises in the USA without money and earnings? Trump's main slogan is to return American production to the United States, and to give work to US citizens, creating new jobs

          everything is logical
          1. Pereira
            Pereira 19 November 2016 11: 43
            +8
            Really. This decision is just in the spirit of Trump and he will not cancel it.
            1. samoletil18
              samoletil18 19 November 2016 17: 15
              +1
              It seems to be true. But there are nuances.
              Budget (military) Trump does not want to increase. Those. you need to think something.
              Pilots also on these machines from the United States? Or train Afghans again at the expense of the budget? Mercenaries? Expenses with insurance are also not help in saving.
              Tasks Mi-8 hawk will be able to perform everything? Hardly.
              Loss to recover what? And they will be. I would have declared the Taliban moderate opposition and trained them to deal with our MANPADS (ISIS captured the MiG-21 in Syria) while Obama has time in power.
              I think they’ll bring a couple of hawks, and without a pump they will order another Mi-8 (17). Or vice versa, with fanfare: look at the Russians we are cool, buy our Boeing, but do not buy airbuses.
              1. Pereira
                Pereira 19 November 2016 17: 28
                +1
                I agree, there is something to think about. But there is no point in thinking for Trump. He has his own logic and his own advisers.
                1. samoletil18
                  samoletil18 19 November 2016 17: 46
                  +1
                  Right! Better, let him think for me. President, FIG will manage with him. But a billionaire, I agree, perhaps. wassat
              2. Rustam
                Rustam 19 November 2016 17: 58
                +1
                Quote: samoletil18
                It seems to be true. But there are nuances.
                .


                - on the contrary, Tram said that the army should receive new weapons, with the budget they have everything in order, he is huge

                - And now 80% of Afghan pilots are not trained at the expense of the US budget? I don’t see the logic, and those who once flew under Najibul also undergo a retraining course for the new MI-17V5, everyone does it even in our VKS

                - for this, there is the MI-17V5 fleet that will perform specific tasks that the UH-60 cannot do

                - these are your fantasies, no one will declare the Talibs moderate + they have no MANPADS in Afghanistan, all channels are skillfully closed

                -all can be
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 20 November 2016 10: 01
                  0
                  The main channel is Pakistan and it is under control.
              3. 78bor1973
                78bor1973 19 November 2016 20: 30
                +1
                I remembered the anecdote about -NEWS (A young Jew asks the Rebbe what is the nuance? Put your nose in my ass, and so you have your nose in my ass and my nose in my ass, but there is a NEW NEWS this is your nose in my ass)!
      3. OLD FART
        OLD FART 19 November 2016 10: 49
        +4
        Maybe for the better, we ourselves need such ones ... Russian helicopters were always in price, proven and reliable machines!
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 19 November 2016 11: 08
          +6
          Traitor Obama bought turntables from Russians, but new times are coming laughing
        2. Rustam
          Rustam 19 November 2016 11: 54
          +4
          Quote: STARPER
          Maybe for the better, we ourselves need such ones ... Russian helicopters were always in price, proven and reliable machines!


          No wrong! The VKS have already practically been re-equipped with the new MI-8AMTSH and MI-8MTV5-1 and the factories (2 plants) are now waiting for new orders (staff is being reduced and idle capacity is underway) since large orders from India-the Russian Aerospace Forces-Pentagon-Peru have been implemented, and they are waiting miracles from Rosoboronexport
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 20 November 2016 10: 02
            0
            Well, export to the Pentagon is not the most constant market for Rosvertol ...
            1. Rustam
              Rustam 20 November 2016 10: 41
              0
              Do you read the comments carefully? For your overall development, Rostvertol does not produce MI-8 helicopters (17)
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 02
                0
                And who wrote about Rostvertol? Rostov manufactures - Mi-35/28/26 ...
      4. Tusv
        Tusv 19 November 2016 11: 21
        +2
        Quote: Teberii
        Savings should be economical. We turn to self-sufficiency, and it’s not forbidden to make money.

        So on Mi-8 and Mi -17, the Yankees did not make bad money on pre-sale training. All units purchased were modernized. All Russian avionics down, in favor of the American. On paper, then all, but in reality ...
        1. hrych
          hrych 19 November 2016 11: 49
          +2
          Quote: Tusv
          All Russian avionics down

          Why's that. Here it is in the retraining of pilots (in addition to decent costs, you still need time) and the price / capabilities of the product. The Americans took Mi-17, in addition to 31 pieces for Afghanistan, another 14 for Pakistan and 8 for Iraq.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 19 November 2016 12: 11
            +5
            Quote: hrych
            Why's that. Here it is in the retraining of pilots (in addition to decent costs, you still need time) and the price / capabilities of the product.

            That's right. So said the American general, they say easy to drive like a tractor. But on paper they replaced all avionics, more than once proudly trumpeted this. And what was replaced there, the Pentagon is reasonably silent. I dare to suggest that it is much smaller than on a bamazhka
        2. Rustam
          Rustam 19 November 2016 12: 04
          +5
          Quote: Tusv
          Quote: Teberii
          Savings should be economical. We turn to self-sufficiency, and it’s not forbidden to make money.

          So on Mi-8 and Mi -17, the Yankees did not make bad money on pre-sale training. All units purchased were modernized. All Russian avionics down, in favor of the American. On paper, then all, but in reality ...


          It wasn’t a bit wrong; they converted 171E helicopters not at the factory (at their joint ventures) for Iraq, installing defense systems, communication systems and flir; for the Afghan B5, they delivered systems to the KVZ and then the minimum, the cabin (photo is not bad but it can be seen) is the most simple and ordinary, no glass



    2. Juborg
      Juborg 19 November 2016 11: 13
      +6
      There is no longer a lobby, but politics. Sikorsky and others do not pull in the mountains, and servicing cars, especially engines, is too expensive for the conditions of Afghanistan. From 2 to 4 hours are allocated for the launch of their engines, subject to hangar storage. The yakasy did not solve the dust problems, covers, nozzles, etc. rubbish do not save from pollution. and you have to blow everything to change those fluids, etc. Our bears stupidly stand in the fresh air under an ordinary breather, took it off, swept it with a broom, started it, flew, for all 30-40 minutes max. Besides. our Mi’s price is incomparably lower than 3-4 times and to save on the Sikorsky in the face of a budget cut, the Pentagon will not work.
      1. jjj
        jjj 19 November 2016 16: 57
        +3
        All this already happened, then I had to buy from Russia again, but with an extra charge
        1. Mavrikiy
          Mavrikiy 19 November 2016 21: 10
          +1
          Quote: jjj
          All this already happened, then I had to buy from Russia again, but with an extra charge

          And I will not sell.
          And from today I do not eat American products. And now let them sausage.
  2. V.ic
    V.ic 19 November 2016 10: 38
    +3
    Technique in the hands of savages - a piece of metal. Old army proverb.
  3. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 19 November 2016 10: 38
    +5
    Quote: hirurg
    The lobby is doing its job.

    Well, how else? They are primarily interested in their voters creating these helicopters to be happy with their work. And then you can not be re-elected. Russia and Afghanistan are in the background here.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 19 November 2016 10: 39
    +6
    refused to purchase MI-17 helicopters in Russia

    This is of course your right. But next time when your next "car" is shot down do not ask for help to evacuate it. Or immediately estimate the price, at least 2 times more.
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 November 2016 10: 43
    +2
    "Buy American" - that was the motto in Yuexi, I don't remember what years. "Trumpism" in action. Interestingly, will they also refuse rocket engines and titanium parts for Boeing?
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 19 November 2016 17: 50
      +2
      Hihiks!
      Do not sprinkle salt on your tail!
  6. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 19 November 2016 10: 44
    +3
    I would be VERY surprised if the Americans acted in a diametrically opposite way ...
  7. Barakuda
    Barakuda 19 November 2016 10: 45
    +3
    This is a miracle, they are raising Mikoyanovtsy with a full load.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 19 November 2016 11: 16
      +5
      And this inscription, too, the Mikoyanites on board drew with white paint? wassat
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 19 November 2016 11: 46
        +3
        Looks like an insect, the stick is called. laughing
  8. Polite Moose
    Polite Moose 19 November 2016 10: 49
    +2
    Money for helicopters, of course, would not be superfluous to us. Especially nice to be American. But I am sure that our helicopters will not remain without a host. And the karma in the future for MI-17 will be cleaner. Less overshadowed by casualty statistics in Afghanistan.
  9. Barakuda
    Barakuda 19 November 2016 10: 52
    +6
    For a change. Not at all photoshop, but a fact. Mi-26 steers.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 03
      0
      He raises himself ...
  10. Altona
    Altona 19 November 2016 10: 58
    +2
    Ay maladtsa, everything is correct "buy your own", patriotism and trumpism in action. Now, only "sharpen" the arms and legs of Afghan helicopter pilots for your equipment, because at first they will fall from the sky due to lack of skills. Our helicopters were purchased because of the ability of local personnel to fly them.
  11. Stauffenberg
    Stauffenberg 19 November 2016 11: 07
    +2
    According to the characteristics of the Mi can carry goods and soldiers almost twice as much as the American. Afghans with Sikorsky are getting involved ...
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 19 November 2016 11: 41
      +2
      So these are their problems, and first of all their curators, who are heading. The Americans probably suddenly remembered the sanctions and decided that they would not give their greens to Russia, but at the same time they again sent their astronaut on our ship.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 04
      0
      Do not whistle, read the specifications ...
  12. glasha3032
    glasha3032 19 November 2016 11: 43
    +2
    The factor of buying Russian helicopters for AFAfganistan is not cheapness or any special performance characteristics, but the presence of a significant number of Afghan pilots trained to fly the Mi-17. When the Sikorskys are delivered, the problem will immediately arise - who will fly them?
    1. 1536
      1536 19 November 2016 12: 05
      +2
      Probably mercenaries. Calculation of mercenaries from Eastern Europe: Poles, Ukrainians, who are trained intensively by NATO standards. And the Germans can board the helm. These just rip out of their pants to fight again.
  13. 1536
    1536 19 November 2016 11: 58
    +3
    Tomorrow they will give up rocket engines. Looks like the "Trumpets" crept up unnoticed? The question is rhetorical.
    But this, in my opinion, is good, because it will make our design bureaus and factories think about new products, and not produce old or obsolete samples, despite the demand.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 19 November 2016 18: 02
      0
      They said nonsense.
      We do not produce these RDShki because we cannot do better) we have not been using them for 15 years already), but because the Americans place orders for them and will do another 3-5 years at least. And we get very good money for them: each engine costs US $ 30 million, and we must deliver them only under the old agreement about 10 pieces, and it is not yet clear how much they will order for us for 2018-20
  14. sgazeev
    sgazeev 19 November 2016 12: 00
    +2
    On August 16, 2012, the UH-60 Black Hawk crashed in Shah Wali-Kot County, Kandahar Province. Killed 7 American, 3 Afghan military and 1 civilian. The Taliban stated that the helicopter was shot down by them [40]. The leadership of the coalition forces could not comment on the involvement of the militants in the incident [41].
    November 10, 2012 S-70 crashed in Turkey, killing 14 members of the national army and 3 crew members.
    March 11, 2013 - UH-60L Black Hawk (ser. Number 90-26270, company B, 4th battalion, 3rd air regiment, 3rd Army Aviation Brigade, 3rd US Army Infantry Division) - Afghanistan [ 42]: crashed in the Daman area near Kandahar, during a night departure, at 22:00 local time, The reason is severe weather conditions. All 5 US troops on board died.
    December 17, 2013 UH-60 Black Hawk - - crashed in Afghanistan, killed six US soldiers, one was injured.
    Something always disturbs a bad dancer.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 04
      0
      Divide it into Mi-8 disasters ...
  15. masiya
    masiya 19 November 2016 12: 10
    +2
    Refused so refused, this was to be expected, after all sanctions, etc. etc.
  16. forcecom
    forcecom 19 November 2016 12: 11
    +5
    According to the senators, the Pentagon has notified them that it will remove the army and upgrade the 53 UH-60A Black Hawk helicopter. Instead, the US armed forces will receive new UH-60Ms.


    As I understand it, the delivery will not be new, but discontinued, saving on disposal (after all, it is not known what kind of modernization there will be - maybe the removal of the most sensible equipment and that's it) is obvious.
  17. Damask
    Damask 19 November 2016 12: 31
    +2
    So every time the same thing, but still the need will make you buy
  18. Pete mitchell
    Pete mitchell 19 November 2016 12: 45
    +10
    And let's wait a bit and at the same time think about why the whole of the former Union of America gathered eights, repaired / modernized in Kaunas, trained their pilots in Kirovograd, then they began to buy directly in Russia. Maybe because black hawk does not pull in harsh conditions, and significantly more expensive. I agree that, among other things, they decided to plant Trump pig - the costs will increase
  19. dima-fesko
    dima-fesko 19 November 2016 13: 12
    +2
    the move was "long overdue" and called the purchase of Russian helicopters "an absurdity that will now be stopped."


    Shit, did the "mujahideen" have some money? There is an opportunity to "raise" the American industrialist?
  20. vobels
    vobels 19 November 2016 13: 16
    +2
    Quote: Pete Mitchell
    I agree that, among other things, they decided to plant Trump pig - the costs will increase

    Very nice version! Let's wait.
  21. andrewkor
    andrewkor 19 November 2016 14: 57
    +2
    The Mi-17e USA bought in Russia at the categorical demand of the Afghans under the program for assistance to the Afghan armed forces!
  22. behemot
    behemot 19 November 2016 15: 34
    +2
    the rats are crap, okay. Time will tell. You look Trump generally Amerian troops from Afghanistan will withdraw.
  23. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 19 November 2016 17: 06
    +2
    The agency recalls that the Pentagon had previously bought helicopters for the Afghan security forces in Russia, since they are more suitable for carrying out combat missions in the mountains. The last such purchase was made in 2013.

    Well, the Afghan helicopter pilots did not want to "fight" on amerskie officers, so they financed the purchase of Russian cars. Will they also finance their purchase? Or Trump will prefer to save money on this, not giving a damn about the lobby pushing this decision. The lobbyists are in a hurry to promote the proposals of the "breadwinners", otherwise the "crush" will be cut off at any hour! lol
  24. samoletil18
    samoletil18 19 November 2016 17: 25
    +2
    So, if we didn't have a failure in engine building, on the resulting vacuum of orders, they would build "kids" instead of the Robinsons. The vastness is huge, but the roads to the pipelines? To rescuers, sanitary aviation, traffic jams in cities, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, ecology, air clubs, etc. You look, something and hectares of export would go.
  25. afrikanez
    afrikanez 19 November 2016 18: 51
    0
    The Pentagon refused to procure Mi-17 for the security forces of Afghanistan
    I wonder what the Afghans answered about this? Or "they don't look a gift horse in the mouth" ???
  26. sogdianec
    sogdianec 19 November 2016 23: 45
    +1
    Quote: Saratoga833
    Quote: samoletil18
    banks are not the most important thing in the economy

    I do not agree. Banks as a circulatory system in the body and if it is faulty, then the body (our economy) will not be able to function normally.

    Well, banks, stock exchanges, we can say that in the banking sector we are ahead of the rest, and industry, as it was in the field, is still living there.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 20 November 2016 12: 53
      0
      Well, so many banks in FIG? Loaning loans to everyone in a row, except for the business, which should do awesome work for this, and be refused refusal to make an expert type with the education of an economist from a college or university, in which the latter appeared while studying for a session and with a payment from the bank about payment. And writing a hand will get tired if all the benefits of Russian banks are listed.
      About five years ago I asked about the opening of RS in Sberbank. The first question was: what turnovers will be, are not even planned, but WILL immediately. And business goes to banks, which are then "sanitized".
      Something and besides Ulyukayev there are enough "liberals". It's not about liberalism. Too many laws have not been adopted, so, all of them are being implemented at once. And so in all areas.
  27. Orionvit
    Orionvit 20 November 2016 16: 01
    0
    Quote: Rustam
    and what about the Mi-26t?

    Indeed, where does the MI-26? Probably nothing to do with fool Love American technology, love it further. You are definitely very far from aviation technology and were brought up on the Rambo films. There, yes, American helicopters are not "high". In any case, arguing with you seems like a waste of time to me.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 21 November 2016 00: 11
      0
      Is this the whole answer? ))) long on the site then?


      More knowledge than you. The drain is counted.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 November 2016 21: 08
      0
      At the height, trained crews on good equipment ... Mi-8 is becoming obsolete, Hawk is a generation younger. That's all, .. Accordingly, the modernity of the Mi-8/17, like its export, will stop earlier than at the hawk and you need to switch to a new helicopter. For comparison, in Poland opened a plant for the production of Hawks .....