Sunday, December 22, 2013

Peru buying 24 Mi-171Sh Terminator Assault helicopters

Thanks for the article Jonathan.



via DefenseNews.
WARSAW — The Peruvian Ministry of Defense has awarded an order for 24 Mi-171Sh helicopters to Russian defense export company Rosoboronexport. The contract is estimated to be worth US $500 million, according to the information obtained from a source close to the deal by local daily Kommersant.
The aircraft are scheduled to be delivered from 2014 to 2015, with the first batch of the helos expected to be supplied by Dec. 9, 2014. The new copters are to be used by the Peruvian armed forces in operations to counter drug trafficking and terrorism, the Russian newspaper reported.
The defense company will supply the helos along with a flight simulator and related equipment. Under the contract, a helicopter maintenance and repair center is also to be opened in Peru in early 2016.
In 2010, the Peruvian defense ministry ordered six Mi-171Sh copters and two Mi-35P helos from Russia. The aircraft were delivered by the end of 2011.
Based in Moscow, Russia, Rosoboronexport is a subsidiary of state owned defense giant Rostec, which comprises some 663 companies. The Mi-171Sh is manufactured by the Ulan-Ude Aviation Plant.
Not too surprising.  The Peruvian govt is a big time buyer of Russian military equipment.  What does surprise me...and to be honest annoys me more than a little is the fact that Sikorsky has the fabulous BattleHawk that the USN is all but putting into service and they're failing to advertise it.

Governments worldwide are wanting multi-role aircraft.  If you can have a transport that can also swing into the role of attack helicopter, or more precisely assault helicopter then you have a winner.  Why Sikorsky is leaving a potential worldwide winner on the bench is beyond me.  Especially when the basic design is viewed by the uniformed as being long in the tooth.



As a sidenote. Why can't they fit that 20mm under the fuselage of the MV-22? If it can fit under a UH-60 then it certainly should be able to be fitted to the MV-22 in the nose area.

15 comments :

  1. I allways thought that the BattleHawk was a winnig concept.
    The V-22 was very disapointing...in the early days we where shown drawings of it carring cannon and rocket pods,Stinger and Hellfire missiles and even Harpoon missiles...now they cant even fit a proper cannon in it....sad

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. want to know something even crazier? the commandant at the time only accepted going forward with the program with the understanding that the airplane would get a cannon. the air side of the Marine Corps lied and said they'd get it done.

      they still haven't.

      Delete
  2. Peru has one of the most complicated geographies in the world. Very high military camps in the mountains, (4000m) humid jungles and corrosive deserts, cold temperatures in the evenings and very hot during the day. In those extreme conditions the cheap, simple and effective Russian helos have demonstrated to be a great asset transporting 36 troops and equipment.
    They have used their Russian Helicopters not only against the Ecuadorians in two recent conflicts in the jungle (they lost some of them) but also against the gerrillas and Drog dealers. For the next potential conflict with Chile instead of buying hundred of tanks as them they are buying
    hundred of Humbvees, Ivecos and now more Russian Helicopters and thousands of Spyke and Kornet missiles to be spread fast all over the south.

    With this recent buy they will have around 80 Helicopters including the Mi35.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BIXU5oyapw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mi-17 is a proven ,capable and easy to maintain platform at a good price , black hawk platform offers nothing but huge price sticker and an ata boy tap on the shoulder from an local US ambassador . This deal is for fully armed Hip and all the support so it costs much more than just a typical transport model. If you upgun Blackhawk to that level i am certain that you would be looking at a huge price sticker.

      Delete
  3. I'm sure the Israelis would like to see the Battlehawk well marketed, since part of the avionics and weapons systems are Israeli (or joint) products. In many markets, Israeli tech is even a selling point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. good kit is good kit no matter where it comes from. i'm trying to get away from nationalistic tendencies when it comes to gear. i personally think the US is a world leader as are the Israelis as are many other countries. the trick now is to match gear with needs to get the biggest bang for the buck.

      Delete
    2. Solomon: a perfectly rational approach. But since Sikorsky has Israeli interests onboard, they should leverage that to help with the marketing push. Let Elbit and Rafael foot part of the bill and effort.

      Also, sadly I'm not yet convinced we can completely forget nationalistic tendencies or related issues. You wouldn't be so sanguine, for instance, if some of those countries were buying Chinese weapons systems. Modern warfare is fought in many arenas on many levels. A country's industries and economy have been part of that for a long time now. Selling weapons in modern times has been part of how a country draws others into its orbit, or sphere of influence. The Russians are out there on their own doing precisely that. They still want to be a world power, and are playing their own game wherever they can, however they can. They don't want to admit the Soviet Union is gone. I don't think that bodes well for American interests. It isn't the same as if those buyers chose British or German products.

      Delete
    3. on the contrary. when Turkey was buying (they've canceled the purchase) Chinese anti-aircraft missiles i didn't see a problem. i assume that we have proper safeguards to protect our tech from sale to enemies and the same applies to our enemies selling gear to friends. the best example that i know of is Malaysia. they fly both F-18's and Sukhois. i haven't heard any anger from State or Defense about that and last i heard Boeing still wanted to sell them more advanced models of the Super Hornet.

      Delete
    4. Solomon, can you please link the article/news source where the Chinese-Turkish AA missile contract was canceled.

      Delete
  4. Those Mi-8 variants cost pennies on the dollar compared to UH-60 variants. 500 million divided by 24 birds gives a cost of 20.8 million per bird. A UH-60M version is not cost competitive against that as "total cost of ownership" is 27 million per bird, or 18 birds for 500 million.

    We saw this same story play out in Thailand a few years back when the Thai government basically told us “We are buying three Mi-17 helicopters for the price of one Black Hawk. The Mi-17 can also carry more than 30 troops, while the Black Hawk could carry only 13 soldiers. These were the key factors behind the decision.” http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Thais-Go-Russian-Buy-Mi-17-Helicopters-05140/

    One of the reasons that the Mi-8 family of birds is getting "long in the tooth" is the same reason we still see UH-1s around. The airframe cost has been spread out over tens of thousands of units, there is a huge industrial base churning out parts, and economy of scale has come into play. To take a piece of that market a competitor needs to offer clear advantages that are worth the cost of owning a more expensive bird. Hell, the Army will be flying "Block 200" versions of the AH-64 long after I retire simply because a substantially better helicopter will fall into the same cost prohibitive death spiral as the F-35.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The newer Mi-17 has the advantage of updated avionics on a time tested airframe. Russia has what these smaller countries need at prices they can afford.

      Delete
    2. It wouldn't surprise me because the Mi-8, MI-17 is cheaper than buying a UH-60. I think for some countries that can't afford the UH-60 or for that matter the NH-90,Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma,Eurocopter EC725,Eurocopter AS532 Cougar or AgustaWestland AW101. They would look to Russia for the Mi-8,Mi-17, Mi-35 or KA-52

      Delete
    3. @AM.
      that's the best statement on how high production drives down costs that i've ever heard....but i wonder how they think that can apply to other programs if they don't have the years of production that some of these legacy aircraft have. quite honestly its also a strong statement in support of aircraft evolution versus revolution.

      Delete
    4. Sol,
      no need to be this modest - just a 20mm under a big MH-60 or MV-22 ??

      This here seems more up to your taste:
      Small Helo with Big Cannon - 30mm cannon on an OH-6 'Little Bird'/Defender 530F
      Picture MARSOC with two RHIBs and two of those helos embarked upon one LCU-F off doing stuff.
      http://www.contractfabrication.net/Videos.aspx

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.