Pentagon finds Afghanistan’s ‘new’ Black Hawk helicopters inferior to Russian Mi-17s. US plans to replace Afghan Mi-17s with Black Hawks have met new “challenges,” as the Russian military choppers are superior, according to a Pentagon report.
On the bright side, “private contractors” will be busy maintaining them. The revelation has been made by the Lead Inspector General in a quarterly report on Operation Freedom's Sentinel – the current code name for the16-year-plus deployment of US troops in Afghanistan. The decision to supply Kabul with some 160 refurbished UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters was expected to significantly boost the capabilities of the Afghan Air Force and would contribute to breaking or fully break the “stalemate” in the country.
The Black Hawks are set to replace the Afghan fleet of Russian Mi-17 transport-assault helicopters. The Pentagon, however, has warned about a lack of “necessary technical skills” among Afghani trainee pilots, as well as other obstacles, such as lack of proper “English language training.”
The new report, by the top military watchdog, has uncovered even more flaws in the plan to supply Afghanistan with UH-60As. “The transition presents several challenges that have yet to be fully addressed. Black Hawks do not have the lift capacity of Mi-17s. They are unable to accommodate some of the larger cargo items the Mi-17s can carry, and in general, it takes almost two Black Hawks to carry the load of a single Mi-17,” the report reads.
it about the different attitude towards maintenance the US believes in skilled operator-level maintenance, intermittent trips get depot-level maintenance with only rare trips right back to the factory the Russians believe in relatively simple operator-level maintenance, and relatively frequent trips back to the factory to get rebuilt and upgraded this drama over the Afghanistan air force choppers is only because some politicians got butthurt that we were buying Russian even though it was much cheaper to train up Afghans the only real advantage I saw Mi-17s have was that they were roomier and you could fit kicker pallets in them blackhawks have more ass and lift more, but it has to be slung as it's relatively cramped inside I see that we didn't give them newer blackhawks, but shit refurb A models...yeah no wonder they aren't doing well in Afghanistan
Colton Gutierrez
WHAT DOES THIS PHOTO MEAN?!!1
Ian Davis
>WHAT DOES THIS PHOTO MEAN?!!1 Maybe relates to this photo...? LOL
Moreover, the Black Hawks “cannot fly at high elevations and, as such, cannot operate in remote regions of Afghanistan where Mi-17s operate.” Russian-made helicopters will therefore continue to “play a ‘crucial role’ in the near term fighting season.” “In the future, as Mi-17s phase out of service, the aforementioned challenges will become more pronounced,” the report warned.
It remains unclear how exactly these “challenges” emerged unexpectedly, since both the Mi-17 and UH-60A helicopters date back to the 1970s and their capabilities should have been well known to the US military. Indeed, military analysts had repeatedly warned against the UH-60A program, citing all the aforementioned concerns. Such “surprise” concerns might actually originate from political –and commercial– motivations, the report hints.
Russian choppers are a better buy for Afghanistan. US pay for Russian choppers and give them to Afghans. OK, end of discussion.
Henry Gomez
>OK, end of discussion. NO,NO,NO Discussion just starting. If RUSSIAN choppers are better for Afghanistan they are also better for others. That means that Americans produce not only very shitty cars but also shitty military equipment. Even American burgers taste like shit,they taste like cardboard unless you add to them tons of salt and other taste improving artificial shit chemicals.
Sorry I need to go and puke now, after typing all this....about Amwericans.
Logan Turner
If russian choppers are so good then why are they constantly shot down in sandnigger land?
>If russian choppers are so good >The revelation has been made by the Lead Inspector General in a quarterly report on Operation Freedom's Sentinel – >the current code name for the16-year-plus deployment of US troops in Afghanistan. >The Pentagon, however, has warned about a lack of “necessary technical skills” among Afghani trainee pilots, as well as other obstacles, such as lack of proper “English language training.” >The new report, by the top military watchdog, has uncovered even more flaws in the plan to supply Afghanistan with UH-60As. >“The transition presents several challenges that have yet to be fully addressed. Black Hawks do not have the lift capacity of Mi-17s. >They are unable to accommodate some of the larger cargo items the Mi-17s can carry, and in general, it takes almost two Black Hawks to carry the load of a single Mi-17,” the report reads.
No, im saying it's a tool designed for a different purpose. The black hawk is close air support/air cavalry.
Jeremiah Bell
>blackhawks have more ass and lift more, but it has to be slung as it's relatively cramped inside
the article says they do not lift more.
Samuel Jenkins
USSR has always had better army and army aviation than the US.
The West's superiority is in naval and fixed-wing air.
This makes sense when you think about it, because the USSR was focusing on a massive land war on Continental Europe whereas the US was focusing on being world police amongst shitholes. I think the US strategy proved to be the correct one.
But the USSR had the technological edge in land and army aviation up to the mid-to-late 1980s, and Russia still reaps the benefits of that in some areas.
Pentagon is so retarded. They should make the military engineer it's own hardware, and make the private sector compete against it. That way if the private sector underwhelms with a shitty product the military already has its own shit.
Fucking NASA could engineer all of the military's hardware needs
Logan Clark
>pentagons says new helicopters are inferior to an enemy we have no plans on going to war with especially a war that relies on helicopters >but we need mo money for dem skunkwerks Why do you niggers come here every time the army says they need more money because we are "falling behind"?
Juan Thomas
Too bad German engineers are dead, both sides
Nicholas Johnson
It's the stupid politicians that award these contracts to the private sector because surprise they went to school with someone that works in so and so corporation, knowing full well the shit is engineered to be a money pit for profit. Politicians should have no say in military, space agency needs.
Aaron Wright
I don't take a word of your shit-talking seriously when you are too fucking ashamed of your own country to even show your own flag. Do you not see the irony here?
I'm far from a ZOG patriotard but you're so shamed of your own country, you have t hide it yet feel tht your shit-talking about another country deserves serious treatment. and you don't see any issue there?
Julian Hughes
TRY THIS SNOWFLAKE PUSSY, LOL you have such limited brain capacity, feel so sorry for you.
>USSR has always had better army and army aviation than the US. Not true, or not meant to be be true as ZOG's entire strategy for a Soviet invasion of Europe involved using helicopters as tank killers. Having said that, the Us military has become one huge, cluster fuck, diversity disaster. The only reason the special forces eeven run sei-well anymore is since there are no niggers or women.
BOTH captains who crashed the two naval ships were spics last year. They just literally "lose" trillions of dollars, and POG female clerks think they are entitled to VA care for the rest of their fucking lives. My father did 2 tours in Vietnam and was wounded, and it would never have entered his head to think he was fucking "entitled" to free treatment for having been in the marines.
Notice, there are NO anti-war protests of any sort anymore? This is bc the current war is against enemies of the Jews and not communist Viet Cong/NVA.
Samuel Baker
Only person who should have any say in the fucking military or NASA is the fucking president
Dominic Perry
I'm not read anything else you read, filtered. You don't get to talk shit about anywhere else if you are too fucking ashamed to admit where you live. Period, the end, go fuck yourself, filtered.
Basic diference between american and russian military vehicles. Americans desing vehicles to be be expensive to fight sand people. Russian design vehicles to work and be cheap to fight american vehicles.
Daniel Ward
>RT >memeflag Weak b8. SAGE goes in all fields.
Easton Murphy
Spinny things make herricopta go sky way >this is what you sound like right now
Was reading a book on ZOG's iraq invasion the other day called "Relentless Strike." Anyway, as it turns out ZOG was shocked by how many of their fucking helicopters took small arms damage. The number was something like 90% were hit. They were shocked.
I have a feeling that other than missile programs, ZOG's military is a paper tiger and the carriers could be sunk a LOT easier than they are letting on. to top it off, the Jews have sold all our tech to the chinks anyway.
Gabriel Gonzalez
As usual the Jews try to make maximum schekels by selling 30 year old versions to someone.
If they would sell the UH-60L/S-70A the performance difference would minor.
Jack Moore
Can we just sage these retarded threads, nobody cares about some crappy monkey-model helicopter the US are trying to export to third-world countries for a quick buck.
Sebastian Gomez
Looks like an emu cock.
Brayden Evans
LMAO, TRIGGERED weak American homo ashamed of the state of his shitty choppers and that even Pentagon officials admitting that RUSSIAN choppers are far superior. Are you on a suicidal watch you pussy ??? Bwahahahahaha
you can minimize the thread if it's too much of an eye sore you fucking plebbit faggot
Adam Allen
IF YOU CONTINUE TO BURN UP THE HERB
Jason Perez
>constantly shot down pleb, that has nothing to do with WHY a chopper got shot down, it's how the pilot is flying and what is being shot at them. FYI Russian choppers are more heavily armored than US.
Ian Lee
Then why are more russian choppers shot down?
Zachary Carter
WE GONNA BURN DOWN THE CANE FIELDS
Andrew Hughes
Soviet/Russian heli tech has been superior from 70s and there has not been change there.
Aaron Anderson
>merchants face when you realize the US bought the very same Mi-17 in 2014, they are now replacing with inferior models.
>they're specifically designed for low and slow. and that worked so well in Somalia lol
didn't they make a movie about that
Samuel Cox
kek, get out
Christian Anderson
Soviet helis were still better than US ones. Also soviet AA would have raped your heli fleet in massive war at continent.
Juan Wood
Also americans dont even produce any helis with real heavy lift capabilities. You are paying russians to come lift your shitty broken chinooks (extreamly shitty design compared to equal soviet/russian stuff).
Anthony Powell
The Apache still looks more badass than that.
Easton Gonzalez
They like the Russian ones more because in the American ones half the technology is missing
Nolan Sullivan
nice proxy there jew
>The Pentagon says that there is no better, cheaper helicopter than the Mi-17 to operate in Afghanistan’s desert expanses and high altitudes, and that it is the aircraft the Afghans know best.
>helicopters can be shot down, thus they should never be used for close air support.
Well we've thought of that, and we have a good solution,(pic related) but the ability to get to the ground is still important.
Black Hawk down wasn't a failure on the aircraft's part. at least not all 8, there was a certain amount of stubbornness on part of the military, which while wrong for that particular mission was right overall. The idea being, if we lose a soldier during a mission(in the MIA and not necessarily dead sense) we WILL try to get you back even if the situation's not ideal.
It's not the bird's fault we use it to fulfill the sitting duck role in the military.
the Hind was a great gunship and judging it's looks boils down to personal preference i ain't downplaying the Apache, just stating my opinion on aesthetics
>looks gay like you >Looks like an emu cock. >faggot shit >The Apache still looks more badass than that. >fuck off with that gay shit nigga >That's the twink of the helicopter world. You must admit you are fucking gays
but I guess regarding the environment, the Pentagon has admitted which technology is superior. Probably has to do with the fact that American technology in warfare never really had to prepare for tough and mountainous ranges,
Robert Richardson
>Spinny things make herricopta go sky way I see you are also expert like me.
Gavin Taylor
That is enemy gunship. A single burst from its machine gun could cut man in half.
Cameron Ross
It doesn't help that it takes literal acts of congress to make the military consider cost performance a priority and even then only for short periods of time.
Joshua Wilson
Quit huffing the petrol mate
Lincoln Reyes
A Hind D? Colonel, what's a Russian gunship doing here?
Aiden Richardson
Watch out boss
Mason Turner
Its the Russian Times. You really think they are unbiased They are very different machines The black-hawk has higher top speeds and gets has more than double the range RUS Range: 800 km US range: 2,220 km
The russian machine can carry about 3k more kg Max. takeoff weight: 13,000 kg RUS (10,660 kg)US
The Black-hawk has a smaller but more efficient engine with more torque. It can go further and reach slightly higher top-speed. IN addition it is meant to continually operate at a higher speed.
RUS Maximum speed: 280 km/h Cruise speed: 260 km/h
US Maximum speed: (183 mph; 294 km/h) Cruise speed: (170 mph; 280 km/h)
It can't carry nearly as much internally though though they can both carry 5k KG with a sling on top of this. RUS internal 4,000 kg US internal 1,200 kg
There is a very different design mentality between these two Heli's. The russian is meant to be adequate for most roles. However its engine and weight seriously damages the planes range. The us plane is not meant for logistics only combat and minor resupply. We would use a Chinook or something for logistics.
Calling the US heli inferior is wrong. It definitely can't lift as much, but it wasn't designed to. In a combat situation the Blackhawk can stay operable much longer without the need for refuel. In addition to undertaking longer missions.
I'd say in this situation the Afghans should still use the Russian heli though. Its better for untrained forces and they don't have the secondary arsenal that was supposed to compliment the blackhawk.
Matthew Hughes
The USSR could have roflstomped their way to the Channel in under a week any day of the week from 1945 to 1985.
Matthew Wood
WHY AMERICANS NEVER ADOPT COMMUNISM AND MURDER MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF OWN PEOPLE U STUPID FAT AMERICAN SHIT FUCKING????????? RUSSIA DO IT FOR OVER 50 YEAR!!!! AMERICAN HAVE ZERO YEAR DOING IT!!!!!!!!
O WOWWWW AMERICA SO #1, "USA! USA!" OH WOWWWW SO WHAT I THINK YOURE SUCK
Carter Sanders
SHUT UP FUCKING AMERICA
Brayden Walker
stop fake russian propaganda threads. 18 billion could do so much more.
Charles Sullivan
MY COUNTRY HAVE BETTER THAN AMERICA WHAT U GOT???????? AMERICA??? BLACK NIGGER GHETTO ONLY, STUPID CROCODILE SHOE WITH CHEESE HOLE IN THEM!!!!
Logan Hall
Chinook is shit for even logistics, Russian have much more better models than that.
Elijah Thompson
Fuck off. The blackhawk is good at whats its designed for
If you wanna talk shit about US heli's talk about the Osprey. It's got some crazy lift but... Thing is called a widow-maker for a reason
Its for money really. Back in the day it was unthinkable to give other countries your military gear, especially if they were potential enemies like muslims. However there is a little thought experiment going on in which neo conservative/neo liberal/civic nationalism is being challenged. "They can be like us too" is no longer something people can believe in because whites are highly successful with their military hardware, yet arabs can't use the same hardware. The US thought for the longest time that Russian hardware was inferior but in fact that was FALSE. The issue was the fact that the Russians gave their hardware to 3rd worlders like arabs and negroes. Example, the US M1 Abrams tank is considered one of the best in the world with an impressive KD ratio, however once given to arabs the M1 is getting soundly defeated by insurgents. This puzzled the US and the answer was soon found. Even with Russian and US gear, certain groups still CANNOT win. This also proves that these groups cannot adapt other ideas as well like republics and democracy.
>obvious bait >38 posters ugh, what is wrong with this board?
Jose Murphy
We pulled funding away from the complete legitimate but goofy looking laser plane for piece of flying garbage that's purpose isnt entirely clear. Russia tested its first atomic bomb and only just rebuilt its air force in 1949.
I can argue a shit ton more than that, but right off the bat, you're starting at a weird year.
It's a question of training and quality of the officers and NCO.
The arabs have for the most part ridiculously shitty training and their commanders do nothing for all day. There was some emiratis or qataris soldiers and officers that trained in a french base a few years ago, they were obese, rude, and the only things they did during those training was eating on the floor, getting fat and sleeping under the sun
The arab military is heavily corrupted and nepotic, that's why they can't fight for shit, just look at the military campaign against the houthis in Yemen, the coalition made by all those lazy armies is getting seriously beaten while the now veterans houthis are getting more and more efficient.
Adam Brooks
Lol like what the Mil Mi-26? The Payload is the same as the chinook Our comparable plane the Sikorsky CH-53 can carry 10k more.
The Mil V-12? Thing is pretty much a 747 that they put helicopter roters on to win prizes.
Mil Mi-17 OP was talking about is literally a mostly a logistics units. Its heavy but has internal space and can lift. While the blackhawk is mostly a gunship. Its fast long range and cramped inside.
They managed to get a former US Navy war vessel destroyed. That is a pretty big fuck up by anybody's standard. Our defense contractors realized the money making potential from this situation and just build gear to have it destroyed so that more gear can be built.
Sebastian Roberts
Very interesting. So why didn't americans used another chonook or even ch-53 to recover those fallen chinooks from afghan if they are so cool? >the first was determined to be repairable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) with fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed. That weight exceeded the maximum payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,100 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) of the U.S. military's Sikorsky CH-53E.[6]
>chinook >24,000 lb (10,886 kg) >ch-53 > internal: 30,000 lb or 13,600 kg (external: 36,000 lb or 14,500 kg) >mi-26 >20 tons (44,000 lb)
Asher Hill
Are you retarded, or this is some special amerimutt math? loaded weight - empty weight = payload
If problems arise I guess we’ll just have to supply some more goat fucking, illiterate child rapists with a few shoulder mounted rockets to humiliate Russia... again
Going to need a real source, Ivan. Not everybody believes the snownigger tribune, chucklecuck.
Hudson Mitchell
We used to have something like that, it was the US Army's Skycrane. Thing is due to its design you can't really defend it. I believe it was discontinued and the Russian alternative was found to be cheaper.
