View Full Version : Mi-17 Better than UH-60
Says the Pentagon......
Alert 5 » Pentagon Inspector General says Afghanistan?s UH-60s are not as capable as the Mi17 - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2018/06/15/pentagon-inspector-general-says-afghanistans-uh-60s-are-not-as-capable-as-the-mi17/)
Pentagon Inspector General says Afghanistan’s UH-60s are not as capable as the Mi17
The Pentagon’s inspector general said in a new report that the UH-60 that Afghanistan imported to replace the Mi-17 is not as capable as the Russian rotocraft.
Glenn Fine wrote in his latest quarterly assessment of U.S. expenditures in Afghanistan that the Black Hawk lacked the lift capability of the Mi-17 and “in general it takes almost two Black Hawks to carry the load of a single Mi-17.” The American-made helicopter also lack the capacity to “accommodate some of the larger cargo items the Mi-17 can carry.”
Army Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner, a Pentagon spokesman, defended the program to buy Black Hawks, saying that “n many cases the UH-60 is as, or more, capable than the Mi-17”. He added that the UH-60’s maintenance costs are “significantly lower” than the Mi-17.
Evalu8ter
15th Jun 2018, 08:26
Mi-17 is a bigger airframe and cabin to the -60. IIRC it was developed with ‘lessons learnt’ from the Soviet Afghan ‘adventure’ incorporated - not surprising then that it does well there. The Afghan’s have also been using -8s and -17s for years so they have significantly more corporate knowledge on how to operate it. However, the Achilles heel of these aircraft is a combination of often poor (by Western standards) avionics and the lack of certainty over the provision of spares and other technical support. UH-60 is a far better bet with regard to the latter two issues......if not in terms of space/performance.
Davef68
15th Jun 2018, 10:15
Bigger helicopter can carry more things and bigger things - I hope they didn't pay him too much to write that report
sandiego89
15th Jun 2018, 12:21
Bigger helicopter can carry more things and bigger things - I hope they didn't pay him too much to write that report
Indeed. And capability does not equal "better" across the board. Sure some things are "better" at certain things. A pickup truck is "better" than a Mercedes sedan for hauling a load of manure from the barn, but is not therefore a "better" vehicle.
melmothtw
15th Jun 2018, 13:10
Not 'better', but arguably better suited to the needs and capabilities of the Afghan Air Force.
Edited to Add: Which is pretty much what sandiego said
Not 'better', but arguably better suited to the needs and capabilities of the Afghan Air Force.Imagine that, if you need a bigger helo, you should get a bigger helo. I'm sure a Chinook or Super Stallion would "out perform" or be "better" than a Mi-17 if all you're looking for is lift capability and cabin capacity.
And incidentally, since US funds were used to buy and maintain the helos, it makes perfect sense to buy a US helo vs a Russian one, independent of "capability."
melmothtw
15th Jun 2018, 18:47
Don't think that's incidental at all, KenV. I'd suggest that was likely the main reason why the change was made.
Fareastdriver
15th Jun 2018, 18:51
The third world is littered with Russian aircraft that have no spares.
A_Van
16th Jun 2018, 06:25
The third world is littered with Russian aircraft that have no spares.
True, but the key word here is "third".
First, most of the "third world" countries do not bother too much to foresee long-term service contracts. And if they do not buy spares, they don't get them.
Second, number of Mi-8 produced (sold abroad as Mi-17) is some 12K, 3-4 times more than UH-60. Mi-17s were bought by 55 country (I assume most of them are in 3rd world) vs 21 country buying UH-60 (I assume less percentage of buyers are from 3rd world).
Thus, no surprise to see tons of rusty Russian metal there. But we all see (tens of) millions of rusty Toyotas in poor countries all around the world. And it does not mean that e.g. Land Cruiser is way worse than Mercedes GL or LR RR....
Stitchbitch
16th Jun 2018, 08:14
The West has operated both types in the near past, perhaps someone who has flow both might feel able to comment on their relative performance capabilities? Also, I might be wrong here, but I remember reading that the US supplied ‘Eastern’ helis to countries as part of an aid package?
One presumes it’s better for the location, the task, and the customer - as recognised nearly 10 years ago.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-36143724/russian-rather-than-us-helicopters-for-iraq-and-afghanistan-raising-eyebrows/
Fonsini
16th Jun 2018, 16:10
If I was richer and smarter I would trawl the third world countries of this world buying up broken down Mi-8s and Mi-17s and make a small fortune selling the spares to regimes supported by the US$ and to a lesser extent the Euro.
Spoiler alert - that was always the type of career I wanted, oh well.
Fareastdriver
16th Jun 2018, 16:16
If I was richer and smarter I would trawl the third world countries of this world buying up broken down Mi-8s and Mi-17s and make a small fortune selling the spares
They have all been Xmas treed already.
Just trawl around Russia and China's air force bases and you will find areas littered with examples of main line aircraft abandoned after being stripped.
fltlt
16th Jun 2018, 16:28
To appreciate the 17 vs 60 or 60 vs 17 situation one has to look at the Huntsville mafia.
One day, long in the future, the truth will out.
Fonsini
16th Jun 2018, 18:59
They have all been Xmas treed already.
Just trawl around Russia and China's air force bases and you will find areas littered with examples of main line aircraft abandoned after being stripped.
Pity - I always wondered what China did with their huge fleet of old J-6s, they must have had around 3,000 of them at one time. The 1990s must have been heady days for the re-sellers. Apologies for the thread drift.