Why no low tech helicopters for Afganistan?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 2,536

We keep hearing about the lack of helicopters for the war in Afganistan. Isn't this due to us developing costly and time consuming choppers like the Merlin.
So shouldn't we develop a low tech chopper, a T34 for the skies if you like. Rugged enougth to do the job but cheap enougth to reproduce in large quantities?

Original post

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

In effect there is just such an option, namely the Mil Mi-17, and it is being used already, especially for resupply operations. Basically, the Mi-17 is big enough to haul a respectable load, can cope with hot and high ops, and is cheap enough to buy in good numbers.

What is really needed is to have a long-term solution for Afghanistan, i.e. a force that can be passed onto the Afghans once we have pulled out (for whatever reason). This means buying a viable fleet for the future, and something like the Mi-17 probably makes the most sense. For fixed wing purposes, you need pretty much the equivalent of the Mi-17, so something like the Embraer ALX or AT-6C would be possibilities, being relatively straightforward to operate. Add in some surveillance aircraft, similar to the King Airs being used under Project Liberty, and you have a reasonably well equipped Afghan Air Force. The major attraction of this type of force is cost - Mi-17s shouldn't be too expensive, nor should a fleet of ALX or AT-6s, and a HISAR equipped King Air should be pretty reasonable too.

Overall, the strategy for Afghanistan needs to be viable in the longer term, so that we can train up the Afghans to take over once we are gone. If we give them something like F-16s, Blackhawks and the like, then as soon as we leave, they would just end up grounded or sold off. Even buying ~100 each of Mi-17s and ALX/AT-6s shouldn't be much over $2bn, a relatively modest price for what it represents.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,652

Even buying ~100 each of Mi-17s and ALX/AT-6s shouldn't be much over $2bn, a relatively modest price for what it represents.

It would be - if the Afghan's bought them directly from Kazan Helicopters or Ulan-Ude Helicopters, but they aren't - they are purchased through US sources - via third parties, arms dealers and shadowy organisations. :eek:

I agree that the Mi-17/171 etc is ideal for the job and is relatively cheap - if you cut out the middle men.

Ken

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 1,327

It would be - if the Afghan's bought them directly from Kazan Helicopters or Ulan-Ude Helicopters, but they aren't - they are purchased through US sources - via third parties, arms dealers and shadowy organisations. :eek:

I agree that the Mi-17/171 etc is ideal for the job and is relatively cheap - if you cut out the middle men.

Ken

I agree wholeheartedly, it makes no sense to buy them from third parties all the time, much better to just suck it up and buy them direct. A simple order given to Kazan for one hundred Mils would be perfectly reasonable, hell, we use Il-76s and An-124s all the time, why can't we just buy some helos direct? :(

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

hampden98 - do you mean for British use or for the ANA to use?

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

US is doing bussiness for years with third parties, aircraft companies in a former east block overhauling and modernizing old russian choppers. Those repair companies are authorized by MIL Moscow helicopter plant thus are type certificate holders and can perform these activities, therefore nothing is fishy there when you/society do not know much about their undertakings. Well, some information is available over the internet as well but perhaps very less in english.
Reasons using those companies are simple. Why bother Kazan or Ulan UDE production plants(under MIL leadership) being constantly busy by filling orders on new machines when the war in Afghanistan need a "workhorse", cheap and reliable helicopter operating under enviromental extremes !! Overhauled Hips by those "third parties" is the best cost-effective solution, even then NATO/US officials admit that Russian Hips are better suited to high temperatures/dust and sand like conditions than NATO helicopters.

I hope now it will make sense for you.;)

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

US is doing bussiness for years with third parties, aircraft companies in a former east block overhauling and modernizing old russian choppers. Those repair companies are authorized by MIL Moscow helicopter plant thus are type certificate holders and can perform these activities, therefore nothing is fishy there when you/society do not know much about their undertakings. Well, some information is available over the internet as well but perhaps very less in english.
Reasons using those companies are simple. Why bother Kazan or Ulan UDE production plants(under MIL leadership) being constantly busy by filling orders on new machines when the war in Afghanistan need a "workhorse", cheap and reliable helicopter operating under enviromental extremes !! Overhauled Hips by those "third parties" is the best cost-effective solution, even then NATO/US officials admit that Russian Hips are better suited to high temperatures/dust and sand like conditions than NATO helicopters.

I hope now it will make sense for you.;)

Mhm. People were talking about the ARINC deal, and that one is definitively dingy!

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 600

If we give them something like F-16s, Blackhawks and the like, then as soon as we leave, they would just end up grounded or sold off.

Or end up in Taliban hands...

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 1,142

Or end up in Taliban hands...

Ha that'd be funny to see, the Taliban capturing an F16, then learning how to fly and maintain it, then putting in place a maintenance and logistics chain to support it, then buying and integrating weapons for it, then sending it to attack coalition troops, then watching it take on the combined power of the NATO air forces present in Afghanistan.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

Mhm. People were talking about the ARINC deal, and that one is definitively dingy!

I agree, selling US helicopters to war-ravaged countries like Iraq or Afghanistans does make sense, otherwise it is a fraud on US tax payers....Bell and Sikorsky lobbyism.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

It hurts my brain thinking that the NATO countries can't simply pull some rugged Hellis up from their hat, that is well suited for the Afganistan climat..

At least the Ruskies did one thing right in their ill fated Afganistan conflict, namly bring the right type of equipment to the table.

Come to think about it, Afganistan should procure more Su-25 too:eek:
The Afganistan airforce do not need complex hellis or fighters(cas) which can go to warp speed or fire phasers, they need units that function well and are easy to maintain.

Thanks

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,615

I came across an article talking about the plans for future Afghanistan AF. The overall inventory of its flying assets is planned to be around 200 machines, of which 70+ would be helis. If you include other assets such as those for transport and other purposes., I guess that won't leave too much room for fighters...may be 2-3 squadrons worth???.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 657

It hurts my brain that the NATO countries can't simply pull some rugged Hellis up from their hat that is well suited for the Afganistan climat..

At least the Ruskies did one thing right in their ill fated Afganistan conflict, namly bring the right type of equipment to the table.

Come to think about it, Afganistan should procure more Su-25 too:eek:
The Afganistan airforce do not need hellis or fighters(Tac) that can go to warp speed or fire phasers, they need units that function well and are easy to maintain.

Thanks

Afghanistan probably will get some of that AT-6II.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 265

We keep hearing about the lack of helicopters for the war in Afganistan. Isn't this due to us developing costly and time consuming choppers like the Merlin.
So shouldn't we develop a low tech chopper, a T34 for the skies if you like. Rugged enougth to do the job but cheap enougth to reproduce in large quantities?

There used to be planes and choppers specialised in one task. This has now shifted towards multi role, very high tech, vehicles which, as a consequence, are very expensive to build and maintain, and difficult to fly and fully master.

This makes that today, attention is shifting again to cheaper solutions like UAV, cheap helicopters, and simple bomb trucks like the bronco's they used in Vietnam.

I guess that it is very difficult to determine what will be needed in the future and strike a correct balance between "simple and many" or "superperformant but expensive".

Starting development of a cheap helicopter for Afghanistan is not an option, it would take years and enter service when war is over (i hope at least). if you want a cheap chopper, buy cheap things which exist or make a simplified version (strip them from anything not needed) of merlins or NH90

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 4,951

Product liability laws in the states have made cheap aircraft untenable. They have to be nearly bulletproof or courts seem to throw huge judgments at them. During wartime the manufacturers are largely exempt from the same tort laws. If you would absolve manufacturers of some basic consequential usages of a war machine during peacetime it would substantially reduce the need for some of the complexity.

btw - One $100K shot that gets the target is equally affordable to 100 shots of $1G ordnance to hit one target. Some complexities are very cost effective. Others are being wasted by the commanders out in the field. Look at the random firing of high cost ordnance in all the liveleak and youtube videos on the web. Much of the ordnance in Afghanistan seems to be wasted on boogieman targets.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

btw - One $100K shot that gets the target is equally affordable to 100 shots of $1G ordnance to hit one target. Some complexities are very cost effective. Others are being wasted by the commanders out in the field. Look at the random firing of high cost ordnance in all the liveleak and youtube videos on the web. Much of the ordnance in Afghanistan seems to be wasted on boogieman targets.

Damn right! When one sees guided missiles designed for killing tanks being used, in effect, as suppressive fire against dispersed, under cover, infantry, one comes near to despair. A thousand rounds of machine gun fire would probably have a better effect, & would be cheaper. The only excuse I can think of for that is using up nearly time-expired rounds.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,025

Damn right! When one sees guided missiles designed for killing tanks being used, in effect, as suppressive fire against dispersed, under cover, infantry, one comes near to despair. A thousand rounds of machine gun fire would probably have a better effect, & would be cheaper. The only excuse I can think of for that is using up nearly time-expired rounds.

You mean like the 1000 or so Javelin rounds that the British Army are sending to Afghanistan to replace the ones that have been fired off. How much does a mortar bomb cost? Or possibly one of the LAW's style rocket launchers?

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 1,142

Damn right! When one sees guided missiles designed for killing tanks being used, in effect, as suppressive fire against dispersed, under cover, infantry, one comes near to despair. A thousand rounds of machine gun fire would probably have a better effect, & would be cheaper. The only excuse I can think of for that is using up nearly time-expired rounds.

You mean like the 1000 or so Javelin rounds that the British Army are sending to Afghanistan to replace the ones that have been fired off. How much does a mortar bomb cost? Or possibly one of the LAW's style rocket launchers?

The difference being that Javelin is a guided weapon that'll do the job in one nice clean shot, making sure the Taliban don't put down their guns (ROE's are a bitch) away to plant IEDs somewhere else. On top of that the range of the Javelin has come in useful apparently. I've certainly heard of instances where the entire plan has hinged on using the Javelins in this way (specific example being one of Michael Yon's reports from Iraq back in 2007).

There simply isn't a proper alternative at the moment, but I agree it is a pricey way of doing things. They really should be working on a cheaper version that doesn't need all of Javelin's capabilities, maybe they can make it cheaper if they cut out the anti-tank stuff and go straight for anti-personnel (without losing the guided ability or the range). What would really be useful at this point would be a smaller anti-personnel missile that can be used in place of the AT missile on the Javelin system.

/pipe dreams.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 1,533

The difference being that Javelin is a guided weapon that'll do the job in one nice clean shot, making sure the Taliban don't put down their guns (ROE's are a bitch) away to plant IEDs somewhere else. On top of that the range of the Javelin has come in useful apparently. I've certainly heard of instances where the entire plan has hinged on using the Javelins in this way (specific example being one of Michael Yon's reports from Iraq back in 2007).

There simply isn't a proper alternative at the moment, but I agree it is a pricey way of doing things. They really should be working on a cheaper version that doesn't need all of Javelin's capabilities, maybe they can make it cheaper if they cut out the anti-tank stuff and go straight for anti-personnel (without losing the guided ability or the range). What would really be useful at this point would be a smaller anti-personnel missile that can be used in place of the AT missile on the Javelin system.

/pipe dreams.

There is a new cheaper and lighter alternative to Javelin being introduced, can't remember what its called, was in Desider a couple of months ago, don't really know when its due to enter service though.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

Frankly, I can't imagine that the expenditure on munitions in Afghanistan has any significant bearing on the overall cost of the war there.

Cost of War in Afghanistan since 2001

To date, $299 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Afghanistan since 2001. This counter is designed so that on September 30, 2010, the end of the federal government's 2010 fiscal year, the counter will reach that total number. To learn more about the cost of war in Afghanistan, see our April 2009 publication, our September 2009 fact sheet and our December 2009 fact sheet.

These counters are brought to you by National Priorities Project.


http://www.costofwar.com/aboutcounter.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700

U.S. spending $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan according to CRS report
By Roxana Tiron - 10/14/09 04:08 PM ET
The U.S. spends about $3.6 billion a month in Afghanistan, according to data provided by the Congressional Research Service recently.

The average cost per month is calculated at an average 51,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but that number likely will go higher with the 68,000 troops the Obama administration already is planning on having in that country, and could double if President Barack Obama backs a reported request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to the country.

The cost of sending one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for one year is $1 million versus an estimated $12,000 for an Afghani soldier, according to Steve Daggett, a specialist with the Congressional Research Service. Those numbers fall within the calculations that the Obama administration has been using. The Obama administration is calculating $1 billion per 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/63121-crs-calculates-cost-of-us-troop-presence-in-afghanistan

It hurts my brain thinking that the NATO countries can't simply pull some rugged Hellis up from their hat, that is well suited for the Afganistan climat..

I should think that the aircraft that NATO are using in Afghanistan are probably the best available for the job, what helicopters in your opinion, are better suited to Afghanistan than the Pumas, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Apaches in service already.

At least the Ruskies did one thing right in their ill fated Afganistan conflict, namly bring the right type of equipment to the table.

Actually the Soviets were not entirely happy with all the equipment they used in the 1980s Afghan war.

Come to think about it, Afganistan should procure more Su-25 too
The Afganistan airforce do not need complex hellis or fighters(cas) which can go to warp speed or fire phasers, they need units that function well and are easy to maintain.

and you have in mind?

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

There used to be planes and choppers specialised in one task. This has now shifted towards multi role, very high tech, vehicles which, as a consequence, are very expensive to build and maintain, and difficult to fly and fully master.

This makes that today, attention is shifting again to cheaper solutions like UAV, cheap helicopters, and simple bomb trucks like the bronco's they used in Vietnam.

I guess that it is very difficult to determine what will be needed in the future and strike a correct balance between "simple and many" or "superperformant but expensive".

Starting development of a cheap helicopter for Afghanistan is not an option, it would take years and enter service when war is over (i hope at least). if you want a cheap chopper, buy cheap things which exist or make a simplified version (strip them from anything not needed) of merlins or NH90

Quite right drabslab.
I remember reading several article about the Afganistan conflict when the US and allies went into Afganistan, claiming that with all the high-tec precision weapons systems, including the rise of the drones that we see to day.
It would surly bring the Al-caida and Taliban to its knees..

Well it looks like they have a much tougher oponent over there, namely the countries side and high mountain area in afganistan who literal are grinding the transporters and other units(ground & air) to peices..

I'm sure their doing the best they can, but this shouldn't come as any surprise.
The low infrastructure, few roads and airfields it pretty much a nightmare to operate over there..
Hense they need equipment that are well suited for such climat.

Thanks