The stated P3 billion (~$62M) budget for 8 combat utility helicopters falls right into the price range of more Bell 412s (more of the same: 6-8 troops + 2 door gunners in an obstructed cabin). Expect considerable pressure, especially in a negotiated sale, to Buy American but the government, this or the next, should have the guts to get what’s simply the “best buy”.

This is surely not a new idea but that P3 billion budget presents an opportunity for the PAF to instead acquire about 6 Mi-17 (based on cost of units sold this year to other US allies like Colombia and Thailand). The Russian helo can carry up to 24 troops or 12 stretchers -- although with neither center seats nor stretcher supports installed to allow easy loading of cargo, probably more like 20 troops or 4 stretchers.

The Mi-17’s spacious cabin, at 17.5x7.5x6 ft LWH, actually compares favorably with bigger, much more expensive helicopters like the AW101/Merlin’s 21.5x6.5x6 ft cabin or S-92’s 20x6x6 ft. The Mi-17 can also sling-load up to a 3-ton load. Whether in combat or humanitarian operations, its ability to transport bigger loads would be a huge plus.

The notably bigger Mi-17 would be a good complement to the smaller Hueys. It would require a new logistics chain but, say following an initial batch of 6, it’s a helicopter the PAF could realistically also acquire more of further in the future to eventually become its mainstay combat UH.

I read somewhere that even some of the PAF pilots are not amenable to the Mi17 because it is more expensive to operate and maintain than US-made helicopters.

is this true sir tirad or their mindset is focused on American equipment only?

Considering na major factor ang salinity for Russian-made equipment ay hindi nga practical for us to get Russian machines at this point not unless we get major tech transfer. Ang alam ko rin mas malakas sa fuel ang Russian makes although they have some pioneering ideas.

Sa ngayon, may reason why our men go for US equipment dahil its what they get to use when they cross-train with them. That way mas gamay nila.

However, sana magawaan ng paraan muli to create our own machines like what we did with the Hummingbird without the mistakes.

The Mi-17 has more powerful 2x2200shp engines compared to the 1800shp TwinPac engine of the Bell 412 so yes, it would be more expensive to operate. But you get what you pay for…The issue is what small number of utility helicopters for P3 billion can make the most impact? For the same funds, we could buy either 8 Bell 412 or 6 Mi-17. However, to approximate the capacity of those 6 Mi-17, we’ll need to buy/operate 18 Bell 412. And there are certain loads that just won’t fit in the restricted cabin space of the 412 that you can in the Mi-17; same goes with sling-loads.

Countries with comparable or slightly worse economic standing to the Philippines like Vietnam and Bangladesh, among others, operate the Mi-17. If anything, the Russkie helos are rugged and designed to be operated by less economically/technologically advanced countries.

That comment on Russian metallurgy and salinity made by one person as you linked in another thread is I think one big generalization. To be fair to the Russians, they’ve long operated both fixed-wing aircraft off their small carriers and, of course, helicopters from their ships. All aircraft designed to operate for some time over the sea needs to be navalized/marinized and need special maintenance – true not only for Russian but also US, Euro, any other aircraft.

If we prioritize getting equipment that works well in training with the Americans instead of buying what suits our own needs and budget, we’ve got our priorities wrong.

Nope. As we train more with the Americans ay mas attuned then tayo in how they react to situations and us then to them. Some of their high-tech goodies get donated to us then - although wish lang na sana pati combat aircraft, etc ay kasama na rin - kaya we cannot yet imbalance this factor.

But the real reason why we cannot afford to get alternative aircraft - yes, may mga Russian equipment na pwede as India itself stated that with proper maintenance ay kaya naman to prevent such things from happening - ay our government doesn't see it as a priority. Just note that when the first fake president moved the modernization fund for something as useless as the centennial celebration. Ditto for the succeeding officials - how I wish Erap grabbed that offer then to equip our air force with barely used F16s then when our currency has good value still and negotiated a fair licensing deal instead of scrapping the Hummingbird project. Until that changes ay we and our men in the field can only wish for such things to happen. Kaya hindi priorities ang mali - in fact, officials sa AFP handling this kind of stuff think the same way rin as us posters here, well in general terms ha hindi like those na sobra naman unrealistic suggestions. Its the allocation of funds and red tape and kung anong kickback makukuha ng mga bwisit na officials in power.

Another issue with Russian makes is that they have lousy after sales service. To solve that problem, we need to include in any deal with them that there should be an exchange of technology and license build. Or better yet, invite them to invest making such things here so that not only can they have another source for their parts but be able to market it better.

I for one would love to have Russian machines in our inventory but with some serious mods done. Sabi ng mga kakilala ko noon mahirap intindihin ang Russian planes as iba ang system nila pati standard kaya you have to learn a bit more about it before you can even start opening anything to do repairs.

Which high-tech goodies they’re giving us are you referring to? Getting the Mi-17 because it’s a better buy does not mean that the PAF will suddenly un-learn to use the C-130 or Bronco or Huey.

Actually, you look at US forces themselves, they train/operate with countries like Iraq, Afghanistan as well as ex-Warsaw Pact NATO allies (Poland, Czech Rep, etc) who all continue to operate the Mi-17 alongside some Western equipment they’ve been getting. On the other hand, you also have countries who have historically been US-equipped also mix it up with Russ ones. Even Colombia, which got billions of dollars worth of Black Hawks and Huey IIs from Plan Colombia, just bought a new batch of Mi-17s. Now there’s Thailand. The list goes on and with this opportunity to buy a limited number of UHs for P3B, it's something that seriously needs to be considered.

It’s a matter of political will. Heck, to be very blunt, it’s not even about the kickbacks, as the Russians as much as the Americans and Europeans have also proven amenable to arranging for kickbacks in arms deals.

Admittedly, I’m not too hopeful as the Arroyo government and the DND under Sec Teodoro’s leadership have botched these helicopter procurement programs despite funds having been allocated.

How can we think of Mi-17 tech transfer at this point when we don't have the industrial infrastructure to exploit it? And to be realistic, why would the Russians talk tech transfer when, if ever, we'll be getting just about 6 units (same goes with the US, Euros). First things first, buy an initial batch of helicopters and learn to operate and maintain it before even thinking of building it.

I'm not privy to what they all get nor would I compromise security. Ang alam ko they get equipment which is on our wishlist but our so-called honorable officials are blocking for some selfish reasons.

You are mixing things with what I said. Yes, they will not unlearn how to operate western aircraft but it will entail serious issues on compatibility. If you've seen a Russian equipment you'll note that they don't follow western standards. Pati guages nila is a bit different from what we use. Dahil rin ang Russian equipment tends to rely on a mix of proven and new ones ay hindi mo masasabing compatible to our allies. Remember, hindi lang tayo dapat ang marunong mag-operate ng gamit nila but vice-versa.

With regards to acquisition of such things ay yun sinabi rin lang naman sa akin ng mga officers ng AFP ang sinasabi ko dito. Kaya wala tayong bagong gamit na makuha agad dahil sa tindi ng mga selfish motives nila. In fact, dapat matagal na naumpisahan ang modernization ng forces natin were it not for such things. We could've been seeing modern MRFs, naval vessels and armored assets now kung hindi dahil sa ganun.

Kaya hindi lang political will ang kulang kundi yun mga tao mismo who are approving the budget for such.

I won't comment on Gloria and Teodoro dahil sketchy ang info ko on their involvement in such. The last I heard is okay naman si Teodoro sa mga boys natin but the subject was changed dahil time was short during my visit.

Pagdating sa usapang tech transfer kaya ng industry natin yun. Its just that we are being blocked left and right to making it a reality. Who said we have to create the whole helicopter here? I didn't mention that. Sabi ko tech transfer. It could be as simple as making frames for it or even some small parts lang. Very much like what they are doing for the F35.

Kapag puro bili lang tayo ay walang patutunguhan yan lalo na kapag Russian equipment. Ilang countries ba have given up their Russian equipment and changed it with Western ones? Those that are opting to remain using it required a tech transfer - which the Russians gladly do anyway although with some limits. This is because they know they, the Russians, can't supply the required replacement parts and accessories when the customer asks for it. Dahil wrecked ang Russian economy.

Have you noted yun Russian transports that were used here? Naging junk lang sila in the end. The same happened with Chinese buses then. Not unless we have a source for parts and accessories for it ay hindi natin dapat kunin kahit cheap. Sakit lang ng ulo sa huli.

We can’t talk about the entire line of Russian equipment just as we can’t talk about the entire line of Western equipment – there’ll always be hits and misses here and there. Let’s stick to discussing the Mi-17.

The fact remains that this particular aircraft is used by dozens of countries. The Mi-17 has proven to be capable and rugged and it’s relatively cheap. If spare parts are so impossible to get, why are all these Mi-17s still flying and why do other countries, including US-allied ones, continue to get them?

Several ex-Warsaw Pact countries now in NATO have actually stuck with their Mi-17s instead of getting Black Hawks (the Black Hawk is truly capable and robust but the Mi-17 is not only cheaper but offers better bang for the buck). Some US-allied countries like Colombia, Thailand and Pakistan with active internal conflicts have also turned to the Mi-17 as a bigger helicopter to complement their US-made Hueys/412s or even Black Hawks. And the Mi-17's size would be a plus in disaster relief ops.

.for me,i think their is a really low chance for the PAF to buy russian made aircraft especially helicopters,naalala nio pa ba ung news tungkol dun sa russian helicopter dun sa afghanistan (afghanistan b un?) na nagcrash that killed more than 5 pinoys. Even though na hndi mi-17 un syempre mangangamba na ung gobyerno na bka hndi mganda ung gawa ng mga russians.no offense dun sa mga may dugong russians ah.peace!.The best combat UH for us is the UH-60 Blackhawk or the Agusta helicopter pra sakin yn ah.

Ako rin, Augusta A109 at Black Hawk ang mas gusto ko.

If you cite that Afghanistan crash as possible cause of bias against Russian equipment, then surely you can also remember that recent tragic incident in the country involving no less than a Malacanang helicopter, a Bell 412? If you're correct, we'd never buy American again. Which, of course, isn't the case.

.that bell 412 crashed because of engine trouble probably because of low maintenance pero ung russian heli ngcrash dahil rn cguro sa engine trouble but i really doubt that its caused by poor maintence kasi NATO ung may ari nun dba i'm pretty sure na marami silang pera in maintaning their aircrafts.

Talaga? By your reasoning then, the Black Hawk and Chinook crashes of well-funded NATO/Americans are because of what?

Anyway, helicopters like the Black Hawk are great but just too expensive at present. The point still is you can't generalize that one crash involving Pinoys as a justifiable reason for gov't to be biased against the Russian bird when since the Palace itself recently lost in a crash a US-made helicopter that they could be looking to buy more of.

.well the blackhawk is too expensive :'(.Hmmm what are the helicopters that is affordable for us? Possibly chinese made heli a lot of people here will probably disagree if the government planned to acquire chinese helis,you can't blame them,based on the other forums i have seen about chinese aircraft they say it has weak parts in it.

The Mi-17 is actually very robust as discovered by Western aviation experts who examined and tested the helicopter after the Cold War.

It’s more mechanical than fly-by-wire, more analog than digital but is very durable and can operate in almost any kind of harsh condition. Not a lot of fancy electronics that malfunction in extremely cold or hot conditions. Operated successfully in very cold Siberia, in very hot Sahara desert and high altitude mountains of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, & Tibet.

The cargo capacity more than compensates for its fuel consumption rate and can even be more economical in the long run than UH or 412. Not very beautiful, sleek or shiny but it does the job very well and with minimum fuss.

Many of the older production units are still in service, both commercial and military.

The myth perpetrated by Western competitors that the Mi-17 is poorly made and has a high maintenance factor is just that, a myth. This helicopter outperforms several European and American helicopters which cost twice or thrice as much.

I understand a few Tagalog, married to a Filipina...the helicopter that crashed recently in Afghanistan with 10 Filipinos among casualties was a Mi-8, not a Mi-17 but still accidents can happen to both the oldest and newest helicopter be it made in Russia, Europe, USA, China or Japan.

By the way, it's good to have you here, Korzuv.

Your knowledge on Russian machines will be helpful.

Were you associated with the military before?

Yes, I was former captain in the old Soviet forces and served in Afghanistan, I now work in a multinational based here in the Philippines, I met my second wife, a Filipina nurse in London who is from Batangas and now we live here in the Philippines although I travel a lot throughout Asia because of m work.

I only have knowledge of Soviet/Russian military machines and weapons at the time of my service. The newer weapons that are now exported from Russia I have not much knowledge and experience with but definitely they are much improved over what we had before in Afghanistan.

I agree with sir Korzuv and sir Tirad, Its about time we try non-US equipment and the Mi-17 should be the first platform to acquire.

Even the current Afghan National Army is acquiring 4 Mi-17 as reported in this article dated Jul 31 2009 for $43.5 million (P2 billion)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/4-Russ...for-435M-05661/

The Afghan National Army Air Corps is procuring 4 Mi-17 variant helicopters and related tool kits from Defense Technology Inc. (DTI) in Huntsville, AL for $43.5 million. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD, manages the firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0089).

DTI provides military hardware from the former Soviet Union to the U.S. Department of Defense and the defense ministries of other NATO Governments. The company will perform the work in Kabul, Afghanistan, and expects to complete it by September 2009. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with 4 offers received. “Medium Mainstay: Mi-17s for Iraq” examines a controversy over sole-source orders of Mi-17 helicopters from ARINC; this procurement appears to have been run differently.

The Mi-17 is an upgraded version of the Russian Mi-8 helicopter…

The Mi-17 helicopter, developed at the Mil Design Bureau, is a medium weight, single rotor helicopter. The aircraft construction primarily incorporates the airframe of a Mi-8 with the power train of the Mi-24, which provides an increase in performance and gross weight over the basic Mi-8. The aircraft is configured with a five bladed main rotor system (70 feet diameter), and a wheeled landing gear, notes Globalsecurity.org.

The Mi-17 is a multirole helicopter that can be armed with rockets, missiles and guns. It is often used by air assault infantry forces to attack the point of penetration, reinforce units in contact or disrupt counterattacks. Additional missions include attack, direct air support, electronic warfare, airborne early warning, medevac, search and rescue, and minelaying.

The basic version of the Mi-17 is used for military, police and civilian purposes. The cockpit accommodates a crew of three. The cargo hold is 5.34 meters long, 2.32 meters wide and 1.8 meters high. There is a large sliding door forward on the portside, and a clamshell freight-loading door in the rear. The landing gear is a non-retractable tricycle type with twin-wheel nose unit. On each side of the fuselage there is a pylon for an external fuel tank.

Interesting, a US company facilitated the sale of these four Mi-17s from Russia to Afghanistan.

Do you think it would be easier and cheaper to utilize the same conduit if in case the DND decides to acquire Mi-17 than dealing directly with Russia, the US and RP being allies in the GWOT?

The US has issues buying direct from Russia (even if it’s on behalf of another country, ie Afghanistan) but we shouldn’t. A middleman, an American company in that case, would just add costs and besides, we should act like a sovereign country.

But will the US government not to oppose it?

Interest groups can persuade Obama topressure the Philippine government not to deal with Russian companies and buy only US products. They can blackmail or threaten to withdraw American military assistance.

Yes, the US will definitely want us to Buy American; there will be pressure. BUT, I think we’ve been scaring ourselves that if we don’t do so, they’ll withdraw aid. After all, the Americans also know that if the AFP’s equipment situation worsens, it would only make it more difficult to deal with insurgents and bandits. With all the money they’ve been pouring to help train and equip the AFP as well as development aid in restive parts of the Philippines, it will be neither in our or the US' interest to see all that go down the drain.

It has also been cited above that the US actually bought Mi-17s for the Afghans.

Also look at Colombia, another US ally and recipient of billions of dollars of aid -- including dozens of Black Hawks and Huey IIs from the Americans (tayo nga orig Hueys lang). And yet the Colombians have also bought Mi-17s from the Russians.

It can be done.

All i can say is, The Russian helos were good choppers, But, the only problems we facing in getting them is: maintaining them, We used US & Western type helicopters that we know it crashed; But, we still able to keep others flying without a hincth, As for the Russian, it the attitude that counts; if we have problems with their choppers; we had to call them, to looked onto it & we had to pay it dearly before they repair it if not, this is their attitude: " If that chopper has a problem, kick it aside & get another one" & that's not good.

Better stick to US & western types, we can asure we maintianed it better :salute:

In fairness, both sides have made their points. The Mi-17, and Russian equipment in general, offer a legitimate alternative to Western products. Still the biggest stumbling block is maintenance.

(Ka-32 has the Mi-17's engines) BUT considering the Mi-17 can do the job of two Hueys, the operating costs sort of even out. And who says Russian helos suffer in a maritime environment?

For sale: Mi-17

RE: Russian helo maintenance, on the other hand ...

A friendly country, with established relations with the Philippine military. Goes a long way toward silencing those doubts.

Yup. Its nice to note that the Russians are improving on the maintenance issue but there's also another reason as to why they are doing that - to keep an eye on the Chicoms. The same way the ChiComs and Americans and other nationalities use banks here to spy on their neighbors. Since the Russians have a weaker economy than Communist China they can then use their products as a way to spy on their so-called "friendly" neighbor.

I for one would go for using these Russian machines PROVIDED they include technology transfer and trade concessions. Would be nice to see Russian-designed machines sporting Western systems assembled here in the Philippines.

As for questions with regards to Russian machines being able to survive in maritime environments this would be more in regard to their monkey models designed for wartime production. There are good models and there are the monkey models. Those of you who have held Russian AKs and other Russian equipment can note such things do exist - which is why I'm more for assembling these here than buying it complete if we do opt to get such.

Always been curious why 3 ang crew on such major machines. Uso pa ba ang zampolit even in the new Russia?

From the link at the bottom of the post:

The minimum crew: Pilot (Captain) and Copilot. Another crewmember (a flight engineer or a loadmaster) may be added to the crew.

The Mi-17 can just as easily fly with a two-man crew. For a large aircraft intended for frontline deployment, bringing along a mechanic makes perfect sense. Ditto a loadmaster, for a helicopter with the cargo capacity of the Mi-17.

Agree totally with tirad that technology transfer and trade concessions are an unnecessary distraction, in the context of the purchase of urgently-needed equipment. Rather than complex aircraft (which the Philippines is unlikely to procure in economically viable quantities for joint manufacture), a more productive area for cooperation could involve mass-produced items such as body armor, trucks, and, of course, small arms and ammunition.

The wisdom of establishing an economic relationship with the intention of spying on a potential adversary--while selling them weaponry better than those available to your own armed forces--escapes my grasp. Perhaps it's the other way around?

I have no idea what a "monkey" model is.

Monkey model is the simplified version which can be produced under wartime conditions. Examples are those found by the US-led forces when they took Iraq. The same with what the Israelis got when the fought the Arabs. This is why the Soviets then were not worried that such models fell into the enemy's hands. The same cannot be said with the Western equipment which caused serious worries when a F14 was spotted in Soviet hands then. Not sure though of the issue with the MiG-25 that defected to Japan back then as it was quite simple - maybe due to its simplicity yet effectivity which made quite a stir and worry to the Soviets?

Spying on your neighbor is an effective means of knowing what potential it has developed to counter yours. Besides, I doubt the Russians are selling top-of-the-line equipment to the ChiComs. Just note how they insisted that the engines be bought complete from Russia for the Sukhois the ChiCom bought. Ditto can be said for the problem the Communist Chinese have in completing the aircraft carrier. That applies to all weapons makers. They always sell you so-called modern weapons yet they already have the means to defeat such. I'd be surprised if the Russians sell to the ChiComs the Berkut right now.

Still having trouble grasping why the Russians need to worry about Iraqi and Arab fakes reflecting on the quality of original Russian equipment.

Spying on your neighbor to serve your purposes is a given. Selling to your enemy, stuff he ends up making himself, and does a better job maintaining (including the engines, presumably non-monkey models), I'm missing how that helps exactly. The Russian AF may not have the Su-30--which China owns a hundred of--but I'm sure they 'already' have 200 Berkuts to defeat everything they've sold the Chinese ... right?

The Soviets DO NOT HAVE worries about the quality of their monkey model equipments that were captured from their Arab clients. The reason why there is a monkey model is that this is a simplified version that can be mass-produced even during wartime conditions. These simple models have none of the special features of the real Russian-issue machines. The key note to these is that they do work under combat conditions and they are studying how best to counter Western advances in combat design WITHOUT showing their cards. Just note what kind of equipment they assign to their borders and even what they use to patrol their borders - old but useful stuff. Its their war doctrine since World War 2 and the application of Sun Tzu's teachings. Those machines that they show off on weapons shows are just what is allowed by their ministry. The ChiComs knows this and are applying it as well. Just note the news that the Japanese newsmen were arrested for trying to take pix at their hotel room of the weapons parade. For it may give a different perspective to study from if those paraded weapons can indeed perform as advertised.

You sell stuff to your so-called friendly neighbor to see how well he uses and adapts to it. From that you can gauge how well he develops further from that kind of technology thus you can come up with solutions to counter those moves.

Ha, the reason why the Russians don't have Su-30s is because they don't need it yet. Why spend your precious dinero on something that will be of no immediate need of. Better spend that for your economy and other black projects. Besides, they do it the same way the Americans do when they sell military hardware - they hold back on the best goodies. Just take note of the F35 deal. The Su-27 variety is already old news and its just like the F15 being kitted up with upgrades to keep it "modern." The Berkut may or may not be the next fighter the Russians will have but it'll be a good study for their next combat aircraft the same way the X-29 was studied by the Americans back then.

I see ... so who cares about a threat that has credible military analysts quaking in their boots? Obviously that money's better spent on things that will bring immediate benefit like black projects. And of course Soviet-era practices remain relevant to the question of buying brand-new Russian equipment twenty years later. And of course the best way to learn about a potential adversary's capabilities is to sell him stuff he can use against you, so what if he never would've gotten his hands on it if you hadn't sold it in the first place? Let's be realistic here.

I'll shut up now, this veering between the obvious and the delusional is making my head hurt. :btt:

No one dismisses a threat that a potential enemy CAN do no matter how far-fetched it may be. Money spent on supporting or disproving such thoughts is money spent well. That is the reason why units have intelligence funds. Heck, even our Congress has such an allocation. The Speaker of the House has a 1B peso intelligence fund as revealed by a fellow congressman.

Check out too the facts. The ChiComs have the best and biggest spy network in the world. Yes. Theirs rivals that of the Russians and are way better than the Americans. They can select, train and employ the best among their people. The same way they do with their athletes and other professionals. With such as a neighbor what would you do if you're in the Russians shoes?

Its not important what you or I think about such things for those that really benefit this discussions are our officials who are keeping tabs on this forum.