US Defense Department under Obama bought Russian helicopters for Afghan military with US TAX PAYER DOLLARS!
WHO IS Rosoboronexport.. http://roe.ru/eng/ they are the dealers who arranged the Obama Deal. They refuse anyone to look at their books in 2011. Follow the money people.
I FOUND THIS FROM 2013. Follow the money! Every Deal that Obama and his gang of thugs made had a "Kick Back" Component. 30% going to his Coffers. That is why the Cabal is determined to get Trump and his investigators out before all this is exposed!
I Remember when Obama said this ... ?
The Pentagon bypassed US helicopter makers, choosing to spend more
than $1 billion on dozens of Russian Mi-17 helicopters. A study shows
the Chinook built by Boeing is a better fit.
From December 7, 2013
From December 7, 2013
- By Richard Lardner Associated Press
The
deal looked sketchy from the start.
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.
An
American-made helicopter, 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.
Lawmakers
who closely had followed the copter deal were stunned.
Sen.
John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's No. 2 GOP leader and one of the most vocal
critics of the contract, said the Department of Defense "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 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 its combat troops depart.
"So
why are we buying Russian helicopters when there are American manufacturers
that can meet that very same requirement?" Cornyn asked. "Makes no
sense whatsoever and the Department of Defense has steadfastly refused to
cooperate with reasonable inquiries into why in the world they continue to
persist along this pathway."
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 this
past week.
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 memo "that the Mi-17 stands apart" when compared with
other helicopters.
The
"Pentagon" denies it misled Congress.
Who in the Pentagon.. find the people and check their tax returns and you will find payments.
Who in the Pentagon.. find the people and check their tax returns and you will find payments.
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.
The
war in Afghanistan, now in its 13th year, has been full of paradoxes.
What
was once President Barack Obama's "war of necessity" has become a
race for the exits. Hopes of eradicating the Taliban and transforming
Afghanistan into a viable state have been dialed down. U.S. combat forces are
scheduled to depart by the end of next year, leaving the Afghans responsible
for ensuring the country doesn't collapse into the pre-Sept. 11 chaos that made
it a terrorist haven.
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?
After
all, Russia has sold advanced weapons to repressive government in Syria
and Iran,
sheltered NSA 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,
heightening concerns that crooked government officials and contractors are
lining their pockets with American money.
"We're
not dealing with a corrupt system. Corruption is the system," said Stephen
Blank, a Russia expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, a Washington
think tank. "This is not a world we're familiar with."
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 Syrian President Bashar Assad's
forces used Russian weapons to "murder Syrian civilians."
Rep.
Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a high-ranking Democrat on the House
Appropriations Committee, said the arrangement has put American taxpayers in
the intolerable position of subsidizing a company complicit in the atrocities
occurring in Syria.
"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," DeLauro said.
No
Pentagon official was made available to speak on the record for this story.
The
AP also requested in late October that the department release unclassified
portions of the 2010 study and other records supporting the decision to buy
Mi-17s instead of Chinooks or other helicopters. The department provided only a
one-page summary of a report that provided no new information.
Afghanistan's
mountainous terrain demands a helicopter capable of operating in the most
rugged conditions at altitudes well in excess of 15,000 feet. The Mi-17 met all
these requirements, Carter and other U.S. military officials told lawmakers in
correspondence and in testimony.
But
so could the heavyweight Chinook. The Boeing helicopter is larger than its
Russian counterpart, carries up to a 26,000 pound payload, which is twice as
much as the Mi-17, and can operate at nearly the same high altitude.
The
armed Mi-17s being purchased for Afghanistan from Rosoboronexport will replace
older and less capable Mi-17s that the U.S. and other countries had purchased
from brokers and contractors through the open market and then donated or loaned
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 official 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
U.S. 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 Mi-17s 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.
The
2010 study advised proceeding cautiously. Shifting too quickly away from the
Mi-17s already in use could undermine progress made in training the Afghan air
force, the excerpts said. But it recommended a plan for converting the Afghan
forces from a "pure" Mi-17 fleet to one that uses US helicopters.
The
Chinook option never materialized.
An
extensive analysis of both helicopters concluded that a refurbished Chinook
would cost about 40 percent more overall to buy and maintain than the Mi-17,
said the senior defense official.
That's
hard to fathom.
Boeing
executives informed congressional staff 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 currently paying for Mi-17s, according to figures compiled by the
Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell, the Pentagon office that fills urgent requests
for equipment from battlefield commanders.
Boeing
spokesman Andrew Lee referred questions about Chinook costs to the Defense
Department
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," and in
line with what other countries have paid.
But
an internal Defense Contract Audit Agency document shows that the department
could not conduct a comprehensive cost comparison because Rosoboronexport
wouldn't allow U.S. auditors to look at its books.
Army
negotiators omitted a provision standard in government contracts that permits
pricing reviews. In examining the contract, the audit agency noted that
Rosoboronexport "is arguably an agent or instrumentality of a foreign
government, and is therefore exempt from most cost accounting standards."
Rosoboronexport's
director general, Anatoly Isaykin, said in statement late last month that his
agency was "completely transparent" in negotiating Mi-17 prices with
the U.S. He provided no details on costs or any examples of transparency.
"In
our opinion this contract is most acceptable to the U.S. Department of Defense in
terms of quality/price ratio," Isaykin said.
The
roots of Rosoboronexport's involvement reach back to 2010 when the U.S. and
Russia were engaged in high-stakes diplomacy aimed at fulfilling Obama's goal
to reset relations between the two former Cold War foes.
Dmitry
Medvedev was Russia's president, not Vladimir Putin, and the talks resulted in
agreements to expand cooperation on global security issues and strengthen
economic ties.
Among
the breakthroughs: The U.S. terminated penalties against Rosoboronexport that
the Bush White House had imposed in 2006 after the State Department determined
the export agency had provided Iran and Syria sensitive military technology.
The sanctions had barred the U.S. government from entering into any contracts
with Rosoboronexport. Russia agreed to support a U.N. resolution to punish Iran
over its nuclear program.
Headquartered
in Moscow, Rosoboronexport is the only Russian agency authorized to export and
import military hardware. The agency is controlled in turn by Russian
Technologies, a state holding company that includes the country's top arms
manufacturers. The chief executive of Russian Technologies is Sergei Chemezov,
a longtime confidant of Putin, who returned to the Russian presidency last
year.
U.S.
officials long have known corruption in Russia's defense industry is
widespread.
William
Burns, then the U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote in a 2007 classified cable
later published by the Wikileaks website that "it is an open secret that
the Russian defense industry is an important trough at which senior officials
feed, and weapons sales continue to enrich many."
Nothing
has changed, but figuring out who is personally profiting is nearly impossible,
said Russia expert Clifford Gaddy.
Only
a small circle of investigators close to the Kremlin know who is involved in
various schemes.
"Since
the information they have is one of the most powerful instruments Putin has to
control the individuals who run Russia on a day-to-day basis, they protect that
information," said Gaddy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
co-author of "Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin."
With
the penalties lifted against Rosoboronexport, Russia's ministry of foreign
affairs wasted little time informing U.S. officials that new Mi-17s could be
purchased only through the arms export agency because the helicopters were
military gear intended for another country's armed forces.
After
lengthy deliberations, the U.S. agreed. Pentagon officials no longer would
permit third parties to acquire Mi-17s. They would deal with Rosoboronexport
directly.
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. Isaykin,
Rosoboronexport's director general, said the decision won't hurt the export
agency's bottom line.
"Rosoboronexport's
order book is sufficient to ensure the steady utilization of Russian defense
industrial complex's production capacities, especially in the helicopter
sector, for the next three-four years," he said.
