Military Review

US would like to purchase another 12 Russian Mi-17B5 helicopters for Afghanistan

30
US would like to purchase another 12 Russian Mi-17B5 helicopters for Afghanistan

The United States "would like to purchase more 12 Russian Mi-17B5 helicopters for the national security forces of Afghanistan." This was announced in an interview with ITAR-TASS by the special envoy of the Russian president for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, who is completing his visit to Japan today.

“We have already delivered the 21 Mi-17B5 helicopter to Afghanistan on the order of Washington,” the Russian diplomat said. “Our American colleagues expressed a desire to purchase more.” "This is about additional 12 units of the Mi-17B5," Kabulov explained. "However, until this initiative was suspended by the Republican wing of the US Congress."

“This is not our headache, but the headache of the current US administration,” the special representative of the Russian president for Afghanistan believes. “Their task is to explain to intractable congressmen that very much depends on the availability of high-quality helicopters.” Kabulov explained that the United States "has many good helicopters of its own, but all of them are not adapted to the Afghan relief, the republic does not have the appropriate technical base, and the Afghans themselves are used to flying Russian Mi-17."

“For the Afghan relief, the Mi-17 is perfectly optimal,” said Kabulov. “Americans need to convince themselves that buying these helicopters is solely in their own interests.” “In the end, more young American soldiers will return home,” the Russian diplomat concluded.
Originator:
http://www.arms-tass.su
30 comments
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. edge
    edge 9 July 2012 14: 14
    +7
    reality shows what it costs ......
    1. Civil
      Civil 9 July 2012 22: 08
      0
      they are afraid to transfer their helicopters to the Afghans ... they will immediately resell to China ... as they once did with the Mi-24
  2. Trailer
    Trailer 9 July 2012 14: 14
    -3
    1. "The USA would like to purchase 12 more Russian Mi-17V5 helicopters for Afghanistan ..."
    2. "USA" would like to purchase 12 more Russian Mi-17V5 helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces "..."
    3. "We have already delivered 21 Mi-17V5 helicopters to Afghanistan by order of Washington ..."

    Doesn’t it bother anyone? I also understand Brave Georgia - 51 state of America, but Afghanistan ...
    1. Sokol57
      Sokol57 9 July 2012 14: 19
      +4
      there is nothing....
      1. Trailer
        Trailer 9 July 2012 14: 33
        +1
        Why don't Afghans themselves dictate their will?
        1. Cadet787
          Cadet787 10 July 2012 11: 00
          0
          Caravan

          To have your own will you need to have your own money. And the Afghans do not have them.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 9 July 2012 14: 25
      +4
      Afghan pilots do not perceive other helicopters.
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 9 July 2012 14: 26
      +1
      Yesterday there was news that Afghanistan has become a strategic partner of the United States, such as Japan. And immediately another news from 70 countries allocated 16 billion dollars to Afghanistan.
      1. CC-20a
        CC-20a 9 July 2012 14: 43
        +4
        And the unknown news ...
        All 16bn will be spent on buying from the United States a variety of pieces unnecessary to Avgan, while Afghanistan’s debt will be 16bn.
        1. 755962
          755962 9 July 2012 15: 54
          +2
          Afghanistan for Americans is turning into an old suitcase - it’s hard to carry, but it is a pity to throw it away. Control over Afghanistan promises US huge geostrategic and economic benefitsFirstly, it is a very convenient platform, virtually unlimited by any agreements or treaties, for deploying all types of weapons, including tactical nuclear ones. Now the Americans are deploying and forcefully modernizing airfields in Afghanistan in order to get from here to the Chinese nuclear centers and excite Pakistan from these positions, creating a situation of instability. And through Pakistan, you can influence both China and India. Here they are also located in the rear of post-Soviet Central Asia, and in the rear of Iran, there are exits to the Caspian. They are already represented in this region by NATO military bases, for example, in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and even Tajikistan. For the United States, this region is an important springboard for influencing the situation. From here one can attack and carry out special operations, or even simply exert military pressure with his presence alone. And I really do not want to lose such a territory.

          On the other hand, Afghanistan is one of the surviving global resource treasures of the planet. In the Afghan subsoil hides the entire periodic table, especially the rare for today reserves of natural uranium, as well as gas, oil and everything else. On top of that, Afghanistan is a key communication hub in the region. The combination of these undoubted benefits and forcing America to maneuver and seek funds.Leonid Ivashov
          1. Teploteh - nick
            Teploteh - nick 9 July 2012 16: 51
            +4
            Quote: 755962
            On the other hand, Afghanistan is one of the world's surviving resource treasures of the planet. In the bowels of Afghanistan lies the entire periodic table, especially rare today’s reserves of natural uranium, as well as gas, oil and everything else

            In general - OBJECTIVE - FAITHFUL ANY means am and *** when they themselves leave from there. They can only be survived from Afghanistan by exterminating them - like mad dogs.
            And we also sell them helicopters! am
            Quote: more young American soldiers will return home - I already twitched! ********!
            With the advent of Amer in Afghanistan - drug trafficking in Russia - grew 3 times !!! In the end - no one thinks about this? What is our future, our youth - perishes before our eyes!
            Quote: 755962
            including tactical nuclear. Now the Americans are deploying and forcefully modernizing airfields in Afghanistan in order to get from here to the Chinese nuclear centers and excite Pakistan from these positions, creating a situation of instability. And through Pakistan, you can influence both China and India. Here they are also located in the rear of post-Soviet Central Asia, and in the rear of Iran, there are exits to the Caspian. They are already represented in this region by NATO military bases, for example, in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and even Tajikistan.

            Taxed - Russia and China - from all sides - ******** !!! am
            And start a war with the Amers - for whom we will hit with missiles - in America, in which there isn’t really any military, or bases, i.e. across all the countries around us - where is the majority of their army of mercenaries and murderers? am
            This question is interesting. what If the Amer Army - has spread all over the world - how to fight it, in case of war? Rockets - such as Poplar, Clubs - are clearly not suitable for this. sad
            HOWEVER - there is another Argument in Russia: Tu-160M. And Tu-95MS. Here with the help of them - just as it will be possible - at once all Amer and NATO bases to slam, which, like mushrooms, are growing around Russia. am
            And I remember some - they still argued that Russia did not need them in FIG. REVERSE - VERY NECESSARY. And I'm afraid - in the coming years, 5-8 will be very useful! belay sad
            1. S_mirnov
              S_mirnov 9 July 2012 22: 37
              +2
              Eat, Heating Technician! Where are we going to bury them all then? NATO is somehow too dofig!
              1. Teploteh - nick
                Teploteh - nick 10 July 2012 17: 06
                +1
                Quote: S_mirnov
                Where we then bury them all then we will

                Cho bury? After YaUdarov - even a handful of ashes will not remain of them.
                People just evaporate before they even feel the pain. In a split second.
                If you give granite - it melts. What can I say about meat with bones?
                So this is not a problem!
                Now the main thing - all Tu-160 - to upgrade in the Tu-160M. Well, + new.
                New missiles to take - X-102 - flies at 5.000km, do even further and more powerful.
                BTW - who knows the power in CTN - the nuclear version of the missiles in the Tu-160 - X-102.
                There is also a non-nuclear - X-101.
          2. 77bor1973
            77bor1973 9 July 2012 22: 16
            0
            Do not forget that the amers with Pakistan, now, have rather cool relations, from here the role of Afghanistan fades somewhat!
          3. in reserve
            in reserve 10 July 2012 00: 29
            0
            The region is strategic and there are no reliable friends around, but to America it’s far away for you to not base in Europe where civilized people, Around some wild tribes with modern weapons. Yes, and a lot of money is needed around the mountain, complexity with the delivery of goods. So they will throw this old suitcase without regret.
    4. APASUS
      APASUS 9 July 2012 20: 49
      0
      Quote: Karavan
      Doesn’t it bother anyone? I also understand Brave Georgia - 51 state of America, but Afghanistan ...

      Afghans have this proverb:
      "It is not possible to conquer us, but we can be bought"
  3. dark_sp
    dark_sp 9 July 2012 14: 26
    +3
    They generally need to be driven out of there by a filthy broom !! That's why they are there http://svpressa.ru/politic/article/54220/
  4. Sokol57
    Sokol57 9 July 2012 14: 27
    +5
    "... Negotiations on the organization of these supplies have been going on for several years. They have a very interesting background. The countries of the so-called peacekeeping coalition, at their own expense, arm the army that began to be created in Afghanistan after the American troops entered there, and then the armed the forces of their allies The main burden of financial expenditures lies with the United States, and they also make the final decision on the purchase of certain types of weapons for Afghanistan.

    The Americans, of course, would be more profitable to give Kabul their cars. However, high in the mountains, in thin air, with sharp temperature changes, neither the CH-47 Chinook, nor even the CH-53, called the "Superstallion", did not show their best side. They proved to be unreliable, expensive to operate and maintain. The happiness of the alliance is that the Taliban, unlike the dushmans who fought with the Soviet army, do not have good air defense systems. Otherwise, the entire Afghan would have long been strewn with debris of all kinds of flying "stallions". Nevertheless, not even particularly fearing fire from the ground, the Americans and their allies from among civilian specialists working in Afghanistan under various contracts prefer to fly on Russian and even Soviet Mi-8s ... "

    So, this has all been discussed for a long time .... Good advertising to our verts ...
  5. lotus04
    lotus04 9 July 2012 14: 29
    +2
    "We have already delivered 21 Mi-17V5 helicopters to Afghanistan by order of Washington,

    And you wouldn’t want to deliver a nuclear bomb to Afghanistan, by order of Washington?
    ABOUT! A familiar symbol on board a helicopter. Something he reminds me painfully.
  6. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 9 July 2012 14: 42
    0
    More profitable than one American helicopter ...
  7. AIR ZNAK
    AIR ZNAK 9 July 2012 14: 54
    +1
    Heavier forms of servicing will be done in our country, and our spare parts will be. Do not forget the ammunition consumable set. He will be ours too. And the workers of the Ulan-Ude helicopter plant will receive bonuses.
    1. MI-AS-72
      MI-AS-72 9 July 2012 21: 30
      -1
      Mi-17V5 Kazan car.
  8. Svistoplyaskov
    Svistoplyaskov 9 July 2012 15: 13
    +3
    That’s good, let them buy, but more! And then Russia will also supply spare parts for them!
  9. antiaircrafter
    antiaircrafter 9 July 2012 15: 21
    +3
    Our American colleagues expressed a desire to purchase more

    Now, if you still expressed a desire to pay in gold ....
  10. Krilion
    Krilion 9 July 2012 15: 26
    +8
    it is necessary to deliver in a complex ... for every helicopter sold to the Americans, the Taliban need to supply a couple of MANPADS sets ... then the flow of orders will be constant ...
    1. DEfindER
      DEfindER 9 July 2012 16: 36
      +2
      Right! As amers, in the Second World War they delivered everything to Germans and ours, and they took it only in gold. And now it’s necessary to check the equipment in battle for one thing, constantly improving both Vertika and MANPADS, who as they say, there will be a war of our design bureaus who will suppress someone with intelligence :)
  11. Odinplys
    Odinplys 9 July 2012 15: 43
    +2
    Quote: Krilion
    it is necessary to deliver in a complex ... for every helicopter sold to the Americans, the Taliban need to supply a couple of MANPADS sets ... then the flow of orders will be constant ...


    A sensible proposal both politically and commercially ...
    Let them fight for their health ...
  12. USNik
    USNik 9 July 2012 16: 30
    +1
    Mi8 \ mi17 work horses, and all sorts of Black Hawks are expensive toys. I read that the rotor on the Hawk, in urgent mode, spins up within 25 minutes! And after takeoff, you have to hammer on the buttons \ toggle switches \ switches for another 15 minutes! mi8ams-5min for promotion, 5 minutes for buttons and that's it!
  13. suharev-52
    suharev-52 9 July 2012 16: 32
    +2
    So . So Afghanistan is not suitable for American helicopters. We must make sure that they are not adapted for them: Syria, Iran, the republics of Central Asia and many other places. Sincerely.
  14. marshes
    marshes 9 July 2012 18: 42
    0
    So I think why the Yankees buy helicopters for Afghanistan? Probably they do not want to leave their helicopters, then they can get to China, in whole or in a "disassembled" state, which means transfer of military technology. How much they worried when Pakistan handed over the destroyed helicopter.
    Pilot training will probably be in Russia, why the Americans will still have to train them. smile
    Price.
    Iranians can also copy.
    1. marshes
      marshes 9 July 2012 19: 14
      0
      I will add all the eights flying in Afghanistan are served by citizens of the CIS who are not being repaired on the territory of the CIS countries.
  15. wolk71
    wolk71 9 July 2012 19: 10
    +2
    Let them buy, good equipment has long gained confidence in Afghanistan, as well as weapons. Amer’s technique doesn’t stand there.
    1. under
      under 9 July 2012 20: 52
      0
      Consider as one more spit in the direction of Pakistan? (Transit of contingent supplies in Afghanistan through Russia) Is it good?
  16. MI-AS-72
    MI-AS-72 9 July 2012 21: 47
    -1
    No need to invent anything, the USA has very good helicopters, why ours are taken for Afghanistan, there are several reasons:
    1. The efficiency-price criterion, while behind our machines;
    2. REO is put by the way American.
    3. A center for training pilots and personnel in the USA is already being prepared.
    4. And most importantly, not the Afghans will fly these helicopters, but they themselves are safer.
    Afghans buy szkznd-hand.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 9 July 2012 22: 27
      0
      Yes, let them want it and put it, if the center is being prepared, it’s for the future, so it’s not limited to twelve, and besides, in Afghanistan all the available helicopter pilots are quite old people, they studied under the USSR, so draw conclusions !!!!
  17. mpanichkin
    mpanichkin 10 July 2012 02: 56
    +1
    Well, helicopters are reliable and cheap! And most importantly, why should the US spend a lot of money on Afghanistan, when in 10 years there will be no one to fight there, and the presence of the USA itself will be minimal!
  18. Dog
    Dog 10 July 2012 09: 44
    -2
    Well, helicopters