MI-17 DEAL:
Objectively and subjectively
So two highly-honored American Senators, Mr. Richard C. Shelby
(R-Ala., ex D.-Ala.) and Mr. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), both members
of Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, had pushed not long ago the Pentagon
to reconsider its plans to purchase Russian
Mi-17 helicopters.
So two highly-honored American Senators, Mr. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.,
ex D.-Ala.) and Mr. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), both members
of Phi Alpha Delta
Law Fraternity, had pushed not long ago the Pentagon to reconsider its
plans to purchase
Russian Mi-17 helicopters.
"The Mi-17 program either has uncoordinated oversight or simply none
at all," said Sen. Richard C. Shelby. The shown point concerns unnecessary
costs, as we see. The same reason one can find in former
Congressman Curt Weldon’s statements made earlier in 2008. But
of course the real matter of these honorable persons disturbance
is quite different.
Mr. Weldon is not in front of scene now because of the FBI
investigation, interested in some details of his connection with
Defense Solutions Group, Inc. Perhaps Mr. Shelby and Mr. Dodd are more truly
enthusiastic about national security? Probably. But the name of Richard
Shelby has been commemorated with one of the Auburn Engineering buildings,
due to $30 million, which American tax-payers, with the Senator
Shelby’s help, had invested in projects of this company. And Auburn
Engineering has a deal with "Apache" helicopters, if you know.
As for Christopher Dodd — granting his election campaign by bank
groups, involved among other activities into the military industrial sector,
has been pointed out only by independent journalists.
"Why we have to pay Russians instead of our guys
or at least somebody more democratically identified?". Such question
has not been articulated by mentioned above Senators in such
a right way but underlies the discussion. The reasons of "sole
sourced contracts" and "extra costs" are, truly speaking, just speculations.
The Federal Reserve System of the USA is a great example
of solo sourced contract and enough to understand that choice
diversification is demand only when it correlates to Mr.
Capitalist profit. As for extra cost: Australia and Canada each paid $500
million for a $220 million C-17 American aircraft because
of specialized services accommodated. Situation with really unique for
some task areas Russian Mi-17 is of an analogical kind.
The new Mi-17’s cost $10.1 million per aircraft. The Mi-17 hold
up to 32 personnel and with this load can fly to 17,000ft.
The American "Blackhawk" costs $16 million holds twelve personnel and
is limited to about 11,000ft. at this load. The better
comparison is the "Ch-47". It will hold about 40 troops, fly
to about 17,000ft with this load. But it cost about $40 million and
it takes a good pilot to keep it going. And
if we consider that Russian helicopters are supposed
to be used by Afghan Governmental Air Force we shall see
the reason that only helicopters which Afghan pilots can fly now are Russian
ones. Brig. Gen. Michael R. Boera, the U. S. Air Force general
in charge of rebuilding the Afghan air corps., posts that
at least two years have to be spent for training Afghanis
with US choppers. "If people come and fly in Afghanistan with
the Mi-17, they will understand why that aircraft is so important
to the future for Afghanistan...We’ve got to get beyond the fact that
it’s Russian... It works well in Afghanistan", — the general
says.
So we can see that Pentagon officials have some rather practical
reasons to stand for Mi-17. The story about "Carlyle group", its
connections with the previous American President’s administration and about
some ways of making profits — doesn’t really matter in this
context. But it probably does matter for those who look
at Afghanistan like at money field. The change of Administration
evidently inspires someone to make efforts for his own interest. And
a good question is now the background of the new top US
military commander in Afghanistan
Gen. David Petraeus.
Ignat Kuskov
|
