The Real Reason Lawmakers Don’t Want to Buy Russian Helicopters

Senators cite problems with Russia. But home-state interests are ever-present.

Caption:A Pakistani Air Force Mi-17 helicopter flies over the Presidential Palace during a parade marking the country's National Day in Islamabad on March 23, 2014. Pakistan National Day commemorates the passing of the Lahore Resolution, when a separate nation for the Muslims of The British Indian Empire was demanded on March 23, 1940.
National Journal
Billy House
May 20, 2014, 4:22 p.m.

Pentagon com­mit­ments to pur­chase MI-17 trans­port heli­copters from a Rus­si­an com­pany for the Afghan mil­it­ary would be scrapped un­der le­gis­la­tion that is gain­ing at­ten­tion this week, cham­pioned by law­makers par­tial to their home-state heli­copter man­u­fac­tur­ers.

The law­makers’ ob­ject­ives may be rooted in pa­ro­chi­al con­cerns over tough times fa­cing the U.S. heli­copter in­dustry, says Loren Thompson, a de­fense ana­lyst with the Lex­ing­ton In­sti­tute. But Rus­sia’s in­va­sion of Ukraine and an­nex­a­tion of Crimea is en­abling the ef­fort “to at­tach it­self to a broad­er agenda — with bi­par­tis­an sup­port,” he says.

“I think the is­sue has united home-state in­terests with what’s viewed as a “˜high­er pur­pose,’ “ Thompson said.

Fu­ture pur­chases of the heli­copters made by Rus­si­an state arms deal­er Rosobor­on­ex­port already have been barred as a res­ult of law­maker con­cerns last year that the com­pany was sup­ply­ing arms to Syr­ia, even though U.S. mil­it­ary of­fi­cials have said the Rus­si­an-made craft is pre­ferred in this in­stance over Amer­ic­an mod­els, in part be­cause the Afghan forces have ex­per­i­ence op­er­at­ing it.

But this week, pres­sure is mount­ing in both cham­bers — and in both parties — to also halt the pro­cure­ment of at least 18 un­delivered heli­copters that are already part of Pentagon com­mit­ments total­ing about $1 bil­lion. If the or­ders were com­pleted, it would mean that a total of 63 heli­copters have been sup­plied to the Afghan Air Force.

In the Sen­ate, a bi­par­tis­an group of law­makers have in­tro­duced the Rus­si­an Weapons Em­bargo Act of 2014, which would for­bid “the dir­ect or in­dir­ect use of Amer­ic­an tax dol­lars to enter con­tracts or agree­ments with Rosobor­on­ex­port and im­me­di­ately ter­min­ate ex­ist­ing con­tracts and agree­ments with the agency.”

The le­gis­la­tion, which spon­sors want to be con­sidered in a markup of the Na­tion­al De­fense Au­thor­iz­a­tion Act this week by the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, also would pro­hib­it con­tracts with any do­mest­ic or for­eign com­pany that co­oper­ates with Rosobor­on­ex­port to design, man­u­fac­ture, or sell mil­it­ary equip­ment.

“The hos­tile situ­ation in Ukraine is yet an­oth­er re­cent ex­ample of why the United States should stop do­ing busi­ness with Rus­sia and its arms deal­er,” said Sen. Richard Blu­menth­al, D-Conn., who in­tro­duced the meas­ure along with Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Dan Coats, R-Ind.

Blu­menth­al’s state is home to Sikor­sky Air­craft, which could be a be­ne­fi­ciary should the agree­ments with the Rus­si­an arms deal­er be can­celed. In com­ments on the Sen­ate floor in late Oc­to­ber, Blu­menth­al said, “I may be par­tial to heli­copters made in Con­necti­c­ut. The best heli­copters in the world are made in Con­necti­c­ut by the Sikor­sky em­ploy­ees….”

But Blu­menth­al, a mem­ber of the Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, then went on to al­lege that “the con­tract to award these heli­copters was man­aged in a way to pre­vent Amer­ic­an heli­copter com­pan­ies from bid­ding on the work.” Blu­menth­al said a 2010 De­fense De­part­ment ana­lys­is con­cluded that the Boe­ing-made CH-47D Chinook heli­copter is the most cost-ef­fect­ive Amer­ic­an op­tion for the Afghan Air Force over a 20-year life cycle.

Al­though that is not a Sikor­sky craft, Blu­menth­al said, “at the end of the day, “˜Made in the USA’ ought to be the rul­ing prin­ciple. Made in the USA — Amer­ic­an heli­copters for the Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary and Amer­ic­an al­lies.”

Cornyn, whose state is home to Bell Heli­copter, said, “Con­sid­er­ing Rosobor­on­ex­port’s close con­nec­tion with Vladi­mir Putin and his cronies, and its ties to bru­tal dic­tat­ors who’ve com­mit­ted mass at­ro­cit­ies, there is no reas­on for our mil­it­ary to con­tin­ue to rely on equip­ment from thugs mas­quer­ad­ing as a le­git­im­ate busi­ness.”

Mean­while, In­di­ana­pol­is is home to the Ray­theon Ana­lys­is & Test Labor­at­ory, a former U.S. Navy avion­ics test lab with ex­pert­ise in de­vel­op­ing flight com­puters and war­fare sys­tems for at­tack heli­copters. “Giv­en Rus­sia’s hos­tile ac­tions in Ukraine, busi­ness as usu­al is un­ac­cept­able,” Coats said.

In the House, Demo­crat­ic Rep. Rosa De­Lauro, whose dis­trict in­cludes Sikor­sky and who has fought the Rosobor­on­ex­port heli­copter pur­chases for sev­er­al years, also re­in­vig­or­ated her ef­forts. House Rules Com­mit­tee aides say they ex­pect at least one of two amend­ments to the de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill that she has pro­posed to be cleared for floor ac­tion later this week.

Ac­cord­ing to sum­mar­ies provided by De­Lauro’s of­fice, one amend­ment would “pro­hib­it con­tracts or sub­con­tracts” with Rosobor­on­ex­port and “re­quires the ter­min­a­tion of any cur­rent con­tract with the firm.” The amend­ment would also bar the Pentagon from en­ter­ing con­tracts “with any for­eign com­pany that co­oper­ates with Rosobor­on­ex­port to design, man­u­fac­ture, or sell mil­it­ary equip­ment.”

The oth­er amend­ment would block the Pentagon from en­ter­ing in­to a con­tract with Rosobor­on­ex­port un­less the sec­ret­ary of De­fense, in con­sulta­tion with the sec­ret­ary of State and dir­ect­or of na­tion­al in­tel­li­gence, cer­ti­fies that the firm has ceased trans­fer­ring weapons to Syr­ia, Rus­sia has pulled out of Crimea, Rus­si­an forces have with­drawn from the east­ern bor­der of Ukraine, and Rus­sia is not oth­er­wise act­ively destabil­iz­ing Ukraine.

Thompson, the de­fense ana­lyst, says the fact that ef­forts to sanc­tion Rus­sia are linked to home-state in­terests does not mean these law­makers are ad­voc­at­ing for a less­er product. The best product, he said, is one that also falls in line with the na­tion’s policy goals and needs.

“The So­vi­ets may have had the best rifle in World War II,” he said. “But that did not mean it was in the best na­tion­al in­terest for us to buy those rifles.”

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×