U.S. copters advised for Afghans in study

Russian deal still draws lawmakers’ ire

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (right) arrives Saturday in Kabul on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. The visit will not include a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Hagel insisted.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (right) arrives Saturday in Kabul on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan. The visit will not include a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Hagel insisted.

WASHINGTON - To outfit Afghanistan’s security forces with new helicopters, the Pentagon bypassed U.S. companies and turned instead to Moscow for dozens of Russian Mi-17 rotorcraft at a cost of more than $1 billion.

Senior Pentagon officials assured skeptical members of Congress that the Defense Department had made the right call. They repeatedly cited a top-secret 2010 study they said named the Mi-17 as the superior choice.

Turns out the study told a very different story, according to unclassified excerpts obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.S. Army’s workhorse Chinook, built by Boeing in Pennsylvania, was found to be “the most cost-effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a twenty year” period, according to the excerpts.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s No. 2 GOP leader and one of the most vocal critics of the contract, said the Defense Department “repeatedly and disingenuously” used the study to prove the necessity of buying Mi-17s.

More than two years since the Mi-17 contract was signed, a veil of secrecy still obscures the pact despite its high-dollar value, the potential for fraud and waste and accusations that the Pentagon muffled important information.

The unprecedented arms deal also serves as a reminder to a war-weary American public that Afghanistan will remain heavily dependent on U.S. financial support even after U.S. combat troops depart.

“So why are we buying Russian helicopters when there are American manufacturers that can meet that very same requirement?” Cornyn asked.

As recently as September, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter cited the study in a letter to House members defending the decision. Carter left his job Wednesday.

Last year, Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, and policy chief James Miller pointed to the study in a written response to questions posed by Cornyn.

Just a few weeks after the secret study was completed, Army Secretary John McHugh wrote in a 2011 memorandum “that the Mi-17 stands apart” when compared with other helicopters.

The Pentagon denies it misled Congress.

A senior department official said the study was focused on long-term requirements and not the immediate needs of the Afghan military, which were best met by the Mi-17. Also, U.S. commanders in Afghanistan wanted the Mi-17 because it is durable, easy to operate and the Afghan forces had experience flying it, according to the official, who was not authorized to be identified as the source of the information.

There’s no dispute that heavy-duty helicopters capable of quickly moving Afghan troops and supplies are essential to accomplishing that mission. But the decision to acquire them from Russia has achieved the rare feat in a deeply divided Congress of finding common ground among Republicans and Democrats.

Why, lawmakers from both political parties have demanded, is the U.S. purchasing military gear from Russia?

Russia has sold advanced weapons to repressive government in Syria and Iran, sheltered National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden and been criticized by the State Department for adopting laws that restrict human rights.

On top of all that, corruption is rampant in Russia’s defense industry, they say, heightening concerns that crooked government officials and contractors are lining their pockets with American money.

“The lack of straightforward information from the Pentagon on the ability of American-made helicopters to meet the mission in Afghanistan is but another factor severely undermining their credibility and justification for pursuing this sorely misguided procurement,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a high-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

Overall, 63 Mi-17s are being acquired through the 2011 contract. It was awarded without competition to Russia’s arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, even though the Pentagon condemned the agency after its weapons were used by Syria to “murder Syrian civilians.”

No Pentagon official was made available to speak on the record for this story. The department declined The Associated Press’ request that it release unclassified portions of the 2010 study and other records supporting the decision to buy Mi-17s instead of Chinooks or other helicopters.

The armed Mi-17s being purchased for Afghanistan from Rosoboronexport will replace older and less capable Mi-17s the U.S. and other countries had purchased from brokers and contractors through the open market and then donated or lent to the Afghans.

The fact that the Afghan forces had years of experience flying the Mi-17 figured prominently in the Pentagon’s decision.

Carter and other U.S. defense officials contended that adding the Boeing helicopter to the mix would unnecessarily burden the Afghans with having to learn how to operate and maintain an unfamiliar helicopter.

The 2010 study “specifically analyzed the opportunity for DOD to provide a US alternative to the Mi-17 for Afghanistan,” according to the excerpts.

It outlined a transitional approach in which Chinooks being retired from the U.S. military’s fleet would be available in late 2013 to be refurbished and then replace older Russian helicopters in the Afghan fleet,according to the excerpts. A combination of Mi-17s and renovated Chinooks, known in the Army’s nomenclature as the CH-47D, could work as well.

Proceed with caution, the study advised. Shifting too quickly away from the Mi-17s already in use could undermine progress in training the Afghan air force, the excerpts said. But the study recommended a plan for converting the Afghan forces from a “pure” Mi-17 fleet to one that uses U.S. helicopters.

The Chinook option never materialized.

An extensive analysis of both helicopters concluded a refurbished Chinook would cost about 40 percent more overall to buy and maintain than the Russian helicopter, the senior defense official said.

That is hard to fathom.

Boeing executives informed congressional aides during a meeting held in late September that the cost of a refurbished CH-47D would be in the $12 million to $14 million range, according to a person knowledgeable about the discussion but not authorized to be identified as the source of the information.

That would make an overhauled Chinook $4 million to $6 million less than what the department is paying for Mi-17s, according to a Pentagon document listing the prices it is paying for the Russian aircraft.

The figures also show the average cost of each new Mi-17 has increased with each successive order, from $16.4 million to $18.2 million. The Pentagon has assured Congress that the prices were “fair and reasonable.”

But an internal Defense Contract Audit Agency document shows the department could not conduct a comprehensive cost comparison because Rosoboronexport wouldn’t allow U.S. auditors to look at its books.

Rosoboronexport’s Director General Anatoly Isaykin said in statement late last month that his agency was “completely transparent” in negotiating acceptable Mi-17 prices with the U.S., but provided no details on costs or any examples of transparency.

Last month, the Pentagon changed its mind. After re-evaluating, officials decided to cut 15 copters out of the 78 they had planned to buy from Moscow.

HAGEL BYPASSES KARZAI

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made an unannounced visit Saturday to Afghanistan and said he has no intention of meeting with President Hamid Karzai, who has resisted signing a security agreement to extend the U.S.’ military presence past 2014.

As U.S. frustration with Karzai grows as his demands shift for completing a security deal, Hagel said he saw no benefit in a session with the Afghan president.

“I don’t think pressure coming from the United States, or more pressure, is going to be helpful in persuading President Karzai to sign” the draft security agreement backed by Afghan tribal elders, Hagel said. “That’s not my role, to pressure presidents.”

The decision to bypass Karzai came after National Security Adviser Susan Rice visited the Afghan president late last month to urge him to back the accord.

“There is not much I can add in a meeting with President Karzai to what’s already been said,” Hagel said after arriving at the U.S. coalition’s headquarters in Kabul.

Hagel said he didn’t request a meeting with Karzai and received no invitation for one.The Pentagon chief did meet with Afghan Defense Minister Bismullah Khan Mohammadi and commander of the Afghan National Army General Sher Mohammad Karimi, and discussed the need for the security pact. The accord would allow for U.S. forces to train and assist Afghanistan’s army after 2014, when most U.S. troops will return home from a war now in its 13th year.

In the efforts to reach the agreement, Karzai has raised objections about military operations that he says put Afghan civilians at risk. He also has suggested he may not be ready to sign the accord until after Afghanistan’s election to choose his successor in April.

U.S. officials have warned repeatedly in recent weeks that the lack of a security deal risks undermining confidence in the Afghan government while unsettling allies.

General Joseph Dunford said he will have to start planning for alternatives, including the possibility of a complete withdrawal next year, if the agreement isn’t signed by the end of this month.

Information for this article was contributed by Richard Lardner and Vladimir Isachenkov of The Associated Press and by David Lerman and Eltaf Najafizada of Bloomberg News.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/08/2013

Upcoming Events