http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-turns-...d=26083173

Quote:Quote:

The U.S. has destroyed 16 cargo planes it purchased for almost half a billion dollars for the Afghan Air Force and sold the scrap metal for $32,000.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) is asking the Air Force why the fleet of G222 aircraft were turned into scrap metal this past August. They had sat idle for years on the tarmac at Kabul International Airport.

The remaining four G-222 aircraft are now in storage at the U.S. Air Force base in Ramstein, Germany. No final decision has been made on their future.

In 2008, NATO purchased 20 of the Italian-made aircraft for $486 million in hopes that they could serve cargo and transit needs for Afghanistan’s new air force. But it quickly became apparent that the aircraft were not suited for the dusty conditions found in Afghanistan and required constant maintenance and spare parts.

According to a letter sent by SIGAR to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the G222 program was terminated in March 2013 “after sustained, serious performance, maintenance, and spare parts problems and the planes were grounded.”

John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, wrote to Hagel that his office had been reviewing the purchase of the planes, but said he had recently been made aware that the aircraft “were turned over to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and have since been scrapped.”

In a separate letter to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Sopko wrote that the aircraft had been recently “towed to the far side of the airport and scrapped by the Defense Logistics Agency.”

“I was also informed that an Afghan construction company paid approximately 6 cents a pound for the scraped planes, which came to a total of $32,000, ”said Sopko.

Sopko said he was concerned that the American defense officials involved in the scrapping of the aircraft “may not have considered other possible alternatives in order to salvage taxpayer dollars."

According to Sopko’s office the aircraft never met expectations and only flew 234 of the 4,500 flight hours required from January to September 2012 because of constant maintenance issues and a lack of spare parts.

A defense spokesman said the planes were purchased “as an interim solution to meet the medium airlift needs of Afghanistan.”

Major Bradlee Avots confirmed that the aircraft at the airport in Kabul had been destroyed “to minimize impact on drawdown of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.” The American military force is currently drawing down from its current levels of 26,000 to a force of 9,800 that for the next two years will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces.

Avots said that the DOD and the Air Force are still determining what to do with the remaining four aircraft including “screening for outside interest.” He noted that working in a wartime environment presents challenges “and we continually seek to improve our processes.”

Sopko is requesting that the Air Force provide all documents related to the decision to scrap the aircraft in Kabul.

"Hey, we can always print more money!"

The American DoD is probably the most wasteful institution on the planet, possibly of all time. Take a look at this fiasco that happened a few years ago. DoD loses 12 billion in cash.

They could have just sold them at a %50 percent discount to someone - but noooo.

$32,000 of scrap metal is enough.

G

Quote: (10-10-2014 09:48 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

They could have just sold them at a %50 percent discount to someone - but noooo.

The problem is they were Italian planes. For some reason Italian engineers have a problem with usable hours between breakdowns. The planes kept breaking down, needed more than average maintenance, ran out of spare parts, and just sat on a tarmac uselessly waiting for someone to repair them. So like having a junker car in your garage for years, eventually someone else needed the space and they were scraped for spare airplane parts themselves.

Why did the US buy Italian cargo planes for Afghan instead of American cargo planes? Because these smaller Italian cargo planes could handle smaller runways at higher altitudes better. The Afghan runways were designed for Russian An-32 cargo planes. But it was considered politically more acceptable to buy 2nd hand Italian cargo planes than to buy Russian cargo planes.

The Italian planes ultimately were not designed to handle the hot, dusty Afghan environment. "The G.222/C-27A was not known as an easy aircraft to maintain, but it does feature outstanding short runway performance, and offers proven performance in hot weather and high altitudes. That seemed to make it well-suited for work in Afghanistan.

"The key was keeping them in the air. The USAF tried to address the spares and maintenance issue through the program via extensive training through the US military, an initial spare parts inventory, ground support equipment, technical publications in English and Dari, and 3 years worth of contractor logistics support. By 2012, it was clear that this wasn’t working, and the Afghan fleet of 15 was effectively grounded. By the end of 2013, the program was canceled, and the USAF moved to scrap both the contract and the planes."

Quote: (10-10-2014 10:39 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2014 09:48 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

They could have just sold them at a %50 percent discount to someone - but noooo.

The problem is they were Italian planes. For some reason Italian engineers have a problem with usable hours between breakdowns. The planes kept breaking down, needed more than average maintenance, ran out of spare parts, and just sat on a tarmac uselessly waiting for someone to repair them. So like having a junker car in your garage for years, eventually someone else needed the space and they were scraped for spare airplane parts themselves.

Why did the US buy Italian cargo planes for Afghan instead of American cargo planes? Because these smaller Italian cargo planes could handle smaller runways at higher altitudes better.

"The problem is they were Italian planes."

Quote: (10-10-2014 10:41 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2014 10:39 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Quote: (10-10-2014 09:48 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

They could have just sold them at a %50 percent discount to someone - but noooo.

The problem is they were Italian planes. For some reason Italian engineers have a problem with usable hours between breakdowns. The planes kept breaking down, needed more than average maintenance, ran out of spare parts, and just sat on a tarmac uselessly waiting for someone to repair them. So like having a junker car in your garage for years, eventually someone else needed the space and they were scraped for spare airplane parts themselves.

Why did the US buy Italian cargo planes for Afghan instead of American cargo planes? Because these smaller Italian cargo planes could handle smaller runways at higher altitudes better.

"The problem is they were Italian planes."

Hey, don't rag on Italian planes. In World War 2 they flew higher and faster than anybody else's planes.

Tax dollars well spent...........


Whoever made that deal needs to be demoted......the US is falling apart with infrastructure and broken cities (Detroit) etc. Instead of spending 486 million on this, why not spend it on your own people. Of course those who approve these expenditures do not live in areas in disarray.

I reckon it cost a lot more.

Does that price tag include the training of personnel, hiring outside contractors for maintenance, fuel spent, buildings to house them and transportation of equipment, spare parts and the planes themselves?

As long as it is not their personal fortune they will spend it like water.

More from Strategypage:

"The unofficial reason is the unwillingness of the Italians to pay as much in bribes as the Afghan commanders were demanding. Over half a billion dollars was being spent on buying and operating these aircraft and all the money was coming from the United States. Afghan government and air force officials were determined to grab as much of that cash as possible. That meant there was not enough money for the spare parts and tools needed to keep the C-27As flying. The Afghans can be self-destructive in so many ways, and letting these transports get away because not enough could be stolen from the contracts was another example of this.

"Western donor nations are getting fed up with the increasingly aggressive Afghan corruption. Last year, as the Afghans asked for more military aid, the donor nations instead cut contributions… from $11 billion a year to $4.1 billion a year between 2012 and 2017. That would only change if, by some miracle, the Afghans managed to get their thieving ways under control. Currently, the Afghans will go to great lengths to get around donor auditors and anti-corruption measures. The C-27A was a case of everyone just giving up. Expect to see more cases like this.”

And expect the US government to continue to make this large amount of money spent into international news in an attempt to punish the Afghan government for grounding an entire airforce so it can take bribes instead. Every time the Afghans see that "half billion dollars" in the news they now have to lick their lips at having pushed their bribe taking too far.

Quote: (10-11-2014 08:05 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

More from Strategypage:

"The unofficial reason is the unwillingness of the Italians to pay as much in bribes as the Afghan commanders were demanding. Over half a billion dollars was being spent on buying and operating these aircraft and all the money was coming from the United States. Afghan government and air force officials were determined to grab as much of that cash as possible. That meant there was not enough money for the spare parts and tools needed to keep the C-27As flying. The Afghans can be self-destructive in so many ways, and letting these transports get away because not enough could be stolen from the contracts was another example of this.

"Western donor nations are getting fed up with the increasingly aggressive Afghan corruption. Last year, as the Afghans asked for more military aid, the donor nations instead cut contributions… from $11 billion a year to $4.1 billion a year between 2012 and 2017. That would only change if, by some miracle, the Afghans managed to get their thieving ways under control. Currently, the Afghans will go to great lengths to get around donor auditors and anti-corruption measures. The C-27A was a case of everyone just giving up. Expect to see more cases like this.”

And expect the US government to continue to make this large amount of money spent into international news in an attempt to punish the Afghan government for grounding an entire airforce so it can take bribes instead. Every time the Afghans see that "half billion dollars" in the news they now have to lick their lips at having pushed their bribe taking too far.

Yep, I'm familiar with the "bribe me and kiss my ass so you can build schools / roads / hospitals in my town" ethic.

Sorta off topic,,,,,, cut your losses and don't allow anybody from any country with affiliations with Afghanistan in your country. Seal off your borders and let them live. The country was a shithole when the Taliban took over,,,,, pouring money into a backward thinking country ain't gonna succeed in the long run. They will need to (afghans) succeed on their own as a country.

It doesn't matter anyway. Within 6-8 months of us leaving en-masse that country will revert back to being a basket case and we will more than likely have to bomb those planes so they're not sold as weapons.

Quote: (10-10-2014 08:58 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

"Hey, we can always print more money!"

Dude... fucking genius!



You know what else would be great?

Get ready...

You're gonna love this...

We can actually PAY people to do nothing but dig ditches and fill them up again. That will solve unemployment!

Keep it real, comrade.

Cut the defense budget, a lot.

Can't be an empire w/o a military.

Boondoggles like this are unavoidable.

WIA

Wow, what the fuck did anyone think we would actually accomplish going into these countries?

REally, Iraq and Afghanistan have just made some friends of the elite very rich and bankrupt America in the process.

Quote: (10-10-2014 08:40 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

In 2008, NATO purchased 20 of the Italian-made aircraft for $486 million in hopes that they could serve cargo and transit needs for Afghanistan’s new air force. But it quickly became apparent that the aircraft were not suited for the dusty conditions found in Afghanistan and required constant maintenance and spare parts.

Dumb move

Quote: (10-11-2014 02:05 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

Can't be an empire w/o a military.

Boondoggles like this are unavoidable.

WIA

If we accept that "boondoggle = unavoidable" theory, it turns out that the problem is not the amount, it's the recipient.If you're going to have rampant waste, corruption and bribe taking in the military, at least let it go to your own officials.

For example, I don't see China invading Congo and entrusting Congolese officials with billions that are just begging to be stolen. But in the USA, it's standard practice.

500m is a drop in the bucket for what the US military industrial complex steals from taxpayers. Go look at the B-2 Stealth Bomber or the F-35 at over 100m per plane (over a trillion dollars total when it's all said and done). Meanwhile, previously third world nations like China have infrastructure that far exceeds ANYTHING in the US. They are actually investing in their own damn country and people instead of giving it away to the military.

Your tax dollars hard at work.