U.S./Russian Mi-17 Helicopter Deal in Afghanistan - Just Helicopters Not the Black Kind

Afghan Mi-17s in 2007

There's a dust up in the works over the recent decision by the U.S. military to spend a billion dollars on "dozens", according to the Associated Press, Russian made Mi-17 troop transport helicopters.  Just to be clear, this is one of those reports that pops up with no back story or context.  I will supply that here.

Just as we've helped arm the Afghan military with Russian made AK-47 rifles, there's a pretty major reason why we're using Russian suppliers.  The word is logistics.  Afghanistan shares borders with three former Soviet republics: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.  All three are Islamic and have ties with the Afghans.  The Mi-17 is manufactured at two plants in Kazan and Ulan-Ude.  The plant in Kazan is 1700 miles from Kabul by air.

Republicans in congress, specifically Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, would like to see the Afghans buying the U.S. made Boeing CH-47 "Chinook".  The Chinook and the Mi-17, known as the "Hip" in NATO parlance, are basically birds of a feather.  They are designed to carry troops and cargo and both are used by militaries around the world.  One major difference is the price tag on them.  The price of a Chinook, based on 2008 figures is around $35 million a unit.  The price of a Hip based on recent sales in India is around $18 million.  Further, the plant where Chinooks are made, in suburban Philadelphia, is almost 7000 miles from Kabul.

Boeing CH-47 "Chinook"

The Afghan military has been using Soviet surplus and Russian made equipment for years.  In fact the Hip has been in use as a transport and training helicopter since it replaced the Mi-8s that were previously in use.  The photo above is of Afghan Mi-17s being used in training in 2007.  This is not a new thing.  Afghan pilots already have extensive training on the Mi-17 and similar choppers.

The Chinook is larger than the Hip, uses more fuel, would require additional training, would be a problem to deliver and repair compared to the Hip.  So is there really a question as to what serves the Afghans better?  According to the Associated Press a "secret study" has been used by advocates and critics of the deal alike.  Supposedly the study makes the point that the Chinook would be a suitable and better choice for the Afghans.  Given the evidence I've seen and presented here it would be hard to see how that could be possible.  The first line of the AP piece is "The deal looked sketchy from the start."  I'm not sure how.

The AP piece cites none of the information I've easily collected from Wikipedia about both helicopters and the history of the Mi-17 and other craft produced by Mil, the company that makes both the Hip and the Hind.  You'll forgive my own conspiracy theory here.  I think if I had the ability to research it I would find that political contributions from Boeing are probably the primary driver on this story.  Why the AP isn't including basic context, however, is not so obvious or understandable.  The basics on the story aren't part of a secret report.  Rather they are easily and readily researchable on the "internet machine".

Paying for Your Politics

What the report does say is that the Chinooks in question would be retired and refurbished machines from the U.S. army and even then would cost 40% more than a brand new Hip.  Boeing countered that the cost would actually be in the $12-14 million range on the refurbs but gave no specifics on cost of delivery.  And then we're talking about old Chinooks.  No pilots in Afghanistan currently trained on them, no current parts inventory like they already have for the Hip.

The AP story just doesn't pass the smell test.  On the surface it plays to the chatter on the right that Obama is a traitor.  You know?  He'd rather buy Russian than American because of Muslim?  Kenyan?  Socialist?  But it's not just the right raising questions.

Boeing Employee Rosa DeLauro

The following quote is from the AP story:  "The lack of straightforward information from the Pentagon on the ability of American-made helicopters to meet the mission in Afghanistan is but another factor severely undermining their credibility and justification for pursuing this sorely misguided procurement," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a high-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

Rosa DeLauro is from Connecticut.  One guess as to what American company has a major presence in that state.

DeLauro received $10,000 from Boeing in 2012.  In total Boeing spent $2,766,070 on federal elections in 2012.  The Mil company from Russia spent $0.  John Cornyn is also a major benefactor of Boeing's political largesse.  He is one of seven senators to receive more than $150,000 from the company between 2001 and 2011.  Their contributions are far and away the most among defense contractors.  Almost $30 mil in that ten year period.  There's no telling how much was given by various Boeing execs.  I don't have the means to do that leg work.

Of course that's the real story here.  How much political clout can you buy.  How much does having a presence in congressional districts earn you in political capital.  Boeing is obviously more concerned with money than what they do to the credibility of a president already under assault.  Making the American public question the allegiance of a man who has already had to handle a barrage from the right questioning him and his loyalty and patriotism.  The right of course is having a field day with this one.  It would be nice if the Associated Press could skip the sensationalist reporting and get into the real story here.