Buying Russian-made helicopters using U.S. taxpayer dollars is foolish. Besides the issues related to supporting the U.S. economy and aerospace industrial base already mentioned, there are strategic implications. We are setting up Afghanistan to be dependant upon Russia, rather than the U.S., for their support after the U.S. withdrawal.
As for cost, the initial acquisition cost of Russian-made helicopters may be lower than U.S.-made helicopters, but for a number of reasons, the cost gap narrows considerably over the operational life of the aircraft, when you speak of total ownership cost and lifecycle cost, rater than just initial acquisition cost.
Also, those making purchase decisions for these helicopters using U.S. taxpayer money fail to see (or just ignore) the fact that they are causing the cost of helicopters being purchased for the U.S. military to increase by not buying helicopters for our allies from the same manufacturers. Besides the obvious economies of scale mentioned previously, there is the issue of labor rates. Manufacturers have significant fixed overhead costs that do not change with production volume. As a result, the greater the total production (of all models) by one manufacturer, the lower the rates. When total production declines, burdened rates go up; when total production increases, burdened rates go down. Even if the U.S. government were to buy an entirely different model for a foreign customer than that they are buying for the U.S. military (failing to capture the benefits of economies of scale), there would still be a cost reduction for the U.S. military programs, because fixed overhead for that manufacturer is being spread across a greater base, causing burdened labor rates to go down.
U.S. taxes should be used to buy U.S. helicopters for Afghanistan (and Pakistan and...). That would support the U.S. economy/jobs, strengthen the U.S. industrial base in a strategic sector, and reduce the unit acquisition and sustainment costs of helicopters being purchased for the U.S. military. Moreover, it will keep those countries who receive these gifts dependant upon continued good relations with the U.S. to keep their aircraft flying.
As for cost, the initial acquisition cost of Russian-made helicopters may be lower than U.S.-made helicopters, but for a number of reasons, the cost gap narrows considerably over the operational life of the aircraft, when you speak of total ownership cost and lifecycle cost, rater than just initial acquisition cost.
Also, those making purchase decisions for these helicopters using U.S. taxpayer money fail to see (or just ignore) the fact that they are causing the cost of helicopters being purchased for the U.S. military to increase by not buying helicopters for our allies from the same manufacturers. Besides the obvious economies of scale mentioned previously, there is the issue of labor rates. Manufacturers have significant fixed overhead costs that do not change with production volume. As a result, the greater the total production (of all models) by one manufacturer, the lower the rates. When total production declines, burdened rates go up; when total production increases, burdened rates go down. Even if the U.S. government were to buy an entirely different model for a foreign customer than that they are buying for the U.S. military (failing to capture the benefits of economies of scale), there would still be a cost reduction for the U.S. military programs, because fixed overhead for that manufacturer is being spread across a greater base, causing burdened labor rates to go down.
U.S. taxes should be used to buy U.S. helicopters for Afghanistan (and Pakistan and...). That would support the U.S. economy/jobs, strengthen the U.S. industrial base in a strategic sector, and reduce the unit acquisition and sustainment costs of helicopters being purchased for the U.S. military. Moreover, it will keep those countries who receive these gifts dependant upon continued good relations with the U.S. to keep their aircraft flying.