tis true that Russia doesn’t have many light and medium sized utility/multirole helicopters, relying on the bigger Mi-8 only.

True, but if they had a requirement for one, they would make it themselves, and not buy a product from abroad, that is at best average, at worst failed.

Especially not one that is itself made up of foreign parts…..

It has no where near 300 confirmed orders. Lets not reduce ourselves to downright lying.

About the Indian Navy

The IN today flies 08 Dhruvs and that too is strictly shore-based flying. Those in the know say the Dhruv of today is a severely de-weaponised bird, used essentially for Search And Rescue (SAR) missions. Contrast that with the Navy’s initial interest in the Dhruv taking over the Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW) role, presumably from the ageing Seakings, and one wonders what went wrong. Not just that, one learns that Dhruv was also considered very seriously for ship-based flying, which is indeed a very complex role and only given to proven platforms. This would have also meant bulk orders for Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) from the Navy. Obviously, none of this happened. Worse, there seems little in the future to hope for things to turn around.

http://thoughtso.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/alh-dhruv-navys-arjun-tank/

Want me to carry on?

and posters here seriously suggested Russia may order many….. :rolleyes:

And still upwards of 250 helicopters have been ordered/operating and more is to come.

Not too shabby I would say for the first helicopter built in India.

Numerous crashes, Edcuador grounding the type, the Indian Navy rejecting it, it being essentially under powered.

“too shabby” is a good choice of words.

It is beyond a joke that people on here will defend something even beyond the point of logical reason, simply out of national pride, knowing full well they are ultimately only fooling themselves…

the foreign light choppers (single engined) meant to replace the chetak and cheetah (license built Alouettes) are in a completely different category to the much larger twin engined dhruv which weighs twice as much. there is no connection whatsoever.

You really want me to start posting the numerous problems the forces find with this chopper?

Previous reports also mentioned a 22 aircraft buy of AH-1Zs as well for a cost of around $1 Billion

Also Tango, your link states that the 30 412s are seperate from the air package and negotiated before it.

I would guess they may well push for

22 AH-1Zs, maybe even more, and perhaps 20 odd CH-47s.

US to announce major military aid package for Pakistan

The US is set to announce a significant package of military and security aid to Pakistan on Friday, the final day of the latest US-Pakistan strategic talks.

The multi-year aid package will be “no-strings-attached”, officials say.

But the Obama administration will make clear it expects Islamabad to do more in the fight against Islamic militants.

Since 2005, Pakistan has received more than $1bn (£636.4m) of military aid a year from the US – and received close to $2bn for the last fiscal year.

US officials said Pakistan needed further, specific assistance for the fight against militants and needed to know it could rely on the US in the long term.

The aid, expected to be close to $2bn, will be contingent on approval by the US Congress and will pay for equipment needed in counter-insurgency and counter-terror operations, among other things.

‘Reducing threats to US’

Vali Nasr, a senior advisor on Pakistan and Afghanistan at the state department, told the BBC that the battle against Pakistani militants had expanded over the last year, but the summer’s monsoon floods had undone a lot of the Pakistani army’s efforts.

“We believe that we have made a great deal of progress and we believe that that progress has reduced the threat to our homeland, while not eliminating it,” Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan, said this week.

But officials in Washington have also been frustrated at the limits of Pakistan’s desire and ability to help.

A White House report sent to congress earlier this month laments the Pakistani army’s inability to hold territory it has seized from insurgents, a failure that means gains are likely to be short-lived.

“The Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda’s forces in North Waziristan,” the report said, referring to the region in north-western Pakistan seen as a Taliban and al-Qaeda haven.

“This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritising its targets.”

The report also says the civilian leadership does not have the trust of the people and faces “broad-based” challenges that have “the potential to impact the stability of the government”.

Cross-border attack

Mr Nasr said the solution was not to withdraw US investment from Pakistan but rather to help the Pakistani government and military strengthen the country’s institutions.

The Pakistani government is in fact crucial to that strategy, and this can make Washington vulnerable, and a crisis in ties between the two countries last month has highlighted the fine line the Obama administration must walk as it cajoles and pressures its ally.

After at least two Pakistani troops were killed in a Nato cross-border attack in September, Islamabad was furious and blocked the main transit route for military supplies to Afghanistan until it received a formal apology.

Dozens of lorries laden with fuel and supplies were subsequently destroyed by militants in Pakistan while en route to the frontier.

The US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, which started last year, is designed to build trust and keep the conversation going between the two countries, not just about security but about a wide range of issues from healthcare to education and water projects.

‘Not enough sticks’

The new five-year security assistance package, expected to be announced on Friday, is meant to complement a $7.5bn package of civilian aid over five years that was approved by the US in 2009.

It is all meant to reduce Islamic militants’ allure and to win Pakistanis’ hearts.

“We want to expand the security relationship that Pakistan and the US had in the past under the Bush period to be much broader,” Mr Nasr said, “to involve things that also matter to Pakistanis and impacts their daily lives.

“A relationship means that we don’t focus only things that are important to us but also things that are important to Pakistanis. Average Pakistanis have to see value in their engagement with the US before they subscribe to that relationship.”

But some question the Obama administration’s approach, saying there are too many carrots and not enough sticks, and not enough conditions attached to the carrots.

In a piece published in the New York Times this week, the former ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, urged Washington to “offer Islamabad a stark choice between positive incentives and negative consequences”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11603041

PAF doing a hell of alot of foreign exercises recently.

Nelson
It depends on the country by country arrangment. Jordan may well have a bilateral logistics agreement with the US, where any fuel or facilities provided to them by US gets written off against fuel and facilities prvided to US aircraft by Jordan.

If not this, may well be a straight cash invoice!

I think there have been a few kills where the other jet has been forced into crashing….