Is the Mi-17KF being revisited for the S-61A replacement contract? (370 words)

Published: 12/15/2000

The long running public tussle between Ulan Ude and Kazan over which of them has the right to sell variants of the Mi-8, to the Malaysian Air Force, as the replacement for their ageing fleet of S-61A Nuris seems to be continuing. This is despite the appearance of resolution in the spring of 2000, with the award of the initial contract for ten helicopters to Ulan Ude. The contract worth $200m was expected to grow to 40 aircraft, subject to certain performance assessments by the Malaysian authorities. According to sources, however, the Malaysian Air Force has reservations about Ulan Ude's Mi-8AMT/Mi-171, with particular regard to the aircraft's avionics and build quality. Such is its concern, that other submissions - with respect to the performance of the Mi-17KF, which is fitted with Honeywell avionics, GPS and night vision capability - have been received from: rival producer, Kazan; the systems integrator; Kenowna Flightcraft; and the export agency, Aviaexport. It is, as yet, unclear what the conclusion of the Malaysian Government's review will be. Both Kazan and Ulan Ude have been reluctant to comment on the situation developing in Malaysia. A spokesman for Kazan however, did say that they traditionally had supplied helicopters to the market and that two Mi-17-1V adapted to fire fighting duties by Airod had recently been delivered. When asked to confirm the talks relating to the S-61A replacement he commented, “we can not say until a contract is signed” suggesting that the reports may have some basis in fact. When asked Aviaexport said they were unaware of any discussions. The original contract was the subject of considerable debate during the Malaysian appraisal of both aircraft, mainly because of the dispute between the two producers Ulan Ude and Kazan, (historically the prime domestic and export producers, respectively) each arguing about which company should handle sales to the Malaysians. The ensuing competition, between the two sets of Russian agencies and producers, was viewed by the authorities as being destructive to Russia's overall aerospace export performance and image. It was this that led, in part, to the recent decision to merge the two lead export agencies, in an attempt to avoid what seemed like unnecessary competition between conflicting producer/agency groupings.

Article ID: 2248