Why did the DLA junk US-funded Afghan Air Force planes for 6 cents per pound?

RallyPoint Team — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:02:30 -0400

The United States military is getting rid of a fleet of cargo planes that the U.S. supplied to the Afghan Air Force. The Defense Department spent $486 million for 20 G222 planes, and 16 of them were sold as scrap to an Afghan construction company for about $32,000. That’s six cents a pound!

The cargo planes were bought for the Afghan Air Force to compensate for its shortage of air-lifters to haul troops and equipment. In 2009, the Afghans began receiving the aircraft, but the program ended in March 2013 after the Afghans could not maintain the aircraft or find spare parts. The U.S. Air Force said it had spent a total of $596 million on the G222 program. Since the program cancellation, the 16 planes delivered to the Afghans had been parked on a tarmac at the Kabul International Airport and now they’ve been scrapped.

“It has come to my attention that the sixteen G222s at Kabul were recently towed to the far side of the airport and scrapped by the [U.S.] Defense Logistics Agency,” said Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko in letters to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Air Force Secretary Deborah James dated Oct. 3. He wrote: “I am concerned that the officials responsible for planning and executing the scrapping of the planes may not have considered other possible alternatives in order to salvage taxpayer dollars.”

Sopko brings up solid points on whether or not the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and other involved officials thoroughly explored all possibilities for handling the aircraft. Why weren’t the planes sold instead? Were there any efforts to go back to the manufacturer to return the aircraft for a refund?

There are still four planes left and being stored at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany. No plans for the remaining aircraft have been set, but the Pentagon may be considering looking for outside customers. Shouldn’t this have been seriously considered for the other planes, too?

The program was meant to help the Afghan military to keep the Taliban at bay when the U.S. pulls its troops out at the end of this year. Unfortunately, this can be looked at as an example of the U.S. and NATO’s efforts failing to set up a proper Afghan military.

You can read more details in the Military Times: http://rly.pt/dla-junks-planes and The Washington Post: http://rly.pt/cargo-planes-junked.

What do you think of multimillion-dollar planes being scrapped for a mere $32,000?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 11:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:05:08 -0400

Great question. I assume this would be the best option for getting rid of the material, as far as construction is concerned... or should we have just given them to local law enforcement like we've done with MRAPs? lol

You really have to look at what money you'd expect to get from military material... who's going to pay for it? And just because a group (or country) has the money to buy them at near-full price... should we just give them away?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 11:14 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:14:03 -0400

Honestly there is no respect for the concept of accountability. It is nauseating to think how much capital was wasted in Afghanistan and it seems there have been no repercussions for the parties involved. I recall another story about bags of money that were left at the Afghanistan capital building by government agencies, in exchange for continued "cooperation" from the Afghans. At the very least the scrapping of these planes should be pursued under FWA.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 11:22 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:22:42 -0400

There has been significant fraud, waste, and abuse throughout our efforts in Afghanistan. I remember when I was over there, we had local nationals doing most of the maintenance on our base. They always traveled in a group of five, and one was always working while the others stood around and chatted. When I tried to bring this issue up to my chain, I was told the goal of hiring LNs to do this work wasn't to get the work done efficiently, it was to help stimulate the Afghan economy. That may be the case, but I think the message we were sending (with this and other cases) was "Americans are suckers, and feel free to leech off of us for as much as you want".

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Oct 10 at 2014 11:53 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:53:51 -0400

Because they could not get 7 cents a pound?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 2:52 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:52:09 -0400

Although they're our ally per say we as a superpower won't actually build their military to where it needs to be. Besides this decision to do this was probably made when Karzai was still in office when he was pissing everyone off demanding more assurances (money & power) for his connects to stay in power.

It's too bad the planes are being scrapped but let's face it, for all of us who've been over there, if the Afghans had gotten this fleet, how many years would it take for all those planes to breakdown due to maintenance and operator error & failure

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Oct 12 at 2014 1:15 PM

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:15:22 -0400

Looking at this in the context of the whole C-27 fiasco, this seems like yet another reminder of DoD antipathy to the need for intra-theater cargo aircraft.

I'd say more, but I'm not sure I could keep my comments about recto-cranial inversion levels and the like printable.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 13 at 2014 8:00 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:00:35 -0400

I don't think that Iraq and Afghanistan foster the same sense of civil/military service and country loyalty that the US does. Once again, we are pushing our values and ethics on to people who are unfamiliar with them. If the military fails to stand up and/or crumbles at the first site of combat, its not because we didn't try, its because the countries didn't adapt to the program. In essence, IMHO, we are trying to set up the armed forces as mercenaries to keep the bad guys at bay for OUR purposes, not necessarily as a country grown defense force for that country's purpose.

In this case, why didn't we take the aircraft back and repurpose them here?

Response by SGT Steve Oakes made Oct 13 at 2014 8:31 AM

SGT Steve Oakes — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 08:31:08 -0400

What bonehead gave them transport planes to begin with? What the hell do they need them for? I guess that would be nothing since they scraped them. Someone HERE in THIS country made a lot of money on that deal.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 13 at 2014 11:58 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:58:30 -0400

With my time in Afghanistan I found that if we gave the Afghans anything to fight with, you would be fighting AGAINST it a week later.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 12:37 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:37:20 -0400

They can't maintain and take care of them and they are just rotting so make good use of it.

It is same with the MRAPS (so many variants, different parts, too expensive to ship back, no place in unified ground combat).

Recoup some of the investment..

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made Oct 13 at 2014 2:03 PM

SrA Marc Haynes — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:03:54 -0400

Do not forget that we are dealing with a military industrial complex that spent $700 on hammers and over $1000 on toilet seat once upon a time.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Response by SMSgt Richard Gomez made Oct 14 at 2014 11:33 AM

SMSgt Richard Gomez — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 11:33:59 -0400

Hard to tell what condition the aircraft were in. Also hard to believe that the OEM could not supply spare parts, no?

Response by SPC Donald Edgecomb made Oct 22 at 2014 9:25 PM

SPC Donald Edgecomb — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:25:13 -0400

The main problem is that it wasn't their money that they were spending or losing. With loose or no accountability, comes fraud and bad decison making that gets swept under the rug. This seems like small peanuts compared to some of the stories that have begun to surface from our recent wars in Iraq and Afghan. Blackwater comes to mind and some of the military service contracts. Over the years there have been plenty of stories that have come out of the congressional commitees about millions of dollars that have just disappeared down a black hole. Same thing happened with the bank bailout. Senate wrote a blank check and forgot to balance the check book until it was all said and done.

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Nov 20 at 2014 10:04 PM

SPC(P) Jay Heenan — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:04:00 -0500

Well at least we are being downsized (because SM's are so expensive) for a reason...

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2014 9:54 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:54:52 -0500

Wow, this is your typical military wasting tax dollars...these could of been given to a third world country for mining rights, or tax deductions for import/export, or could of been training models for our SF units to do training in...I suspect we will never know. I guess it is a good thing we didn't donate the planes to them, and in return have them use them as bombs against us later down the road. I would of purchased one for $32,001, but no one asked me. I'd like to have a name of the Politician that signed on this document. Waste, fraud and abuse, isn't there a phone number for this?

Response by SFC Peter Cyprian made Dec 8 at 2014 11:41 PM

SFC Peter Cyprian — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:41:27 -0500

Maybe the planes were not worth the money that we paid and if they had been sold off to anyone else, this would have been discovered- along with anyone that had their hands in the pot.

Response by SCPO Carl Wayne Boss made Dec 22 at 2015 2:14 AM

SCPO Carl Wayne Boss — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 02:14:13 -0500

I think it's a travesty... like so many other in-excusable and wasteful boondoggles that have occurred under this administration.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Dec 22 at 2015 6:33 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:33:44 -0500

Some thoughts-
- I was unable to read the WSJ article as I am not a subscriber, I apologize in advance if my thoughts are counter to the article.
- Afghans rarely embrace anything we would recognize as maintenance, even by old Soviet standards.
- the aircraft were purchased with a sustainment package; Cancelled in 2013. it was deemed that they were not working out, so the USAF bagged the sustainment contract. Under powered and not suitable to the environment.
- we likely trained, advised and assisted until we were blue in the face. At some point, tough love kicks in and they were left to their own devices.
- shame on us for picking something too complex for them to maintain.you need the air equivalent to the red Massey Ferguson tractor or the AK47 they all have.
- once an airframe is neglected to a certain point, neither it nor it's parts are deemed airworthy. So some where between 500M and 32K was the cost of airworthiness restoration. The ones that were scrap, were likely cannabilized beyond recognition. Beyond hangar Queen. You also have to factor in the cost to repair them to be retro graded (self redeploy) out of theater (preferred but pricey option); transport costs to break them down and moved by air or ground against their depreciated value (Possible but expensive) or left for the Afghans to sort out (quicker to wreck them ourselves and be done with it).
- The Afghans need some sort of intra-theater lift, heck it took 2-3 U.S. C130s to move Karzai around, which cut into our sustainment on no notice.
- they need that lift to move people and stuff around a country with a Bronze Age road "network".
- if we ever hope to leave, with our money, they need a security structure they can sustain (read smaller and cheaper), they need to move around people and stuff to problems: intra theater lift.
- the MoD wanted jet fighters! We got out of this cheap with lift birds.
- we operated this same plane 1990-99. Some say it was cancelled due to requirement changes, others say inter service turf wars over the uninteresting, non-zoomie, mud on the windshield intra theater lift mission.
- I can't find a source for where these aircraft came from. I get the vibe these were fixed up refurbished planes we flew in the 90s from looking at Wikipedia .

Response by Maj John Bell made May 14 at 2016 10:50 PM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 14 May 2016 22:50:17 -0400

Anyone who has fiduciary responsibility over tax dollars should be nervous as hell, if they are doing everything right. In this case someone should have their head on a pike. How hard would it have been to fix the planes and fly them to a viable market? It is too hard for people that shouldn't have the related jobs.

Response by SCPO Carl Wayne Boss made May 15 at 2016 4:19 PM

SCPO Carl Wayne Boss — Sun, 15 May 2016 16:19:05 -0400

The people that carry out this kind of waste, know they're unlikely to ever be held to account for it. Look at how long and how many fiascos Mrs. Clinton has been some how connected with during all these years and has she ever been held accountable, even once? NO and likely never will, especially if the DNC has anything to say about it.

The Government, regardless of branch or department is going to do as it sees fit, because they know "We the People" can't do a thing about it.

That's why paying taxes to the extent we do galls so may of us, because we know, that an inordinate amount of the money they're confiscating from us, is simply being wasted or used to line the pockets of various government protected crooks, whether within the government or without.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2016 7:50 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 May 2016 19:50:53 -0400

When I left RC-N in 2013 there were over 55,000 rolling stock in country with no viable plan to get it home by Obama's DEC 2014 mandate. They had AC 1st cutting almost new tactical vehicles (MRAPs, MaxPros, etc) into scrap and selling it to the Afghans. This is equipment that the Force is dying for now that budgets are being slashed. Mismanagement, poor planning, and fraud/waste/abuse at it's finest.

Response by SSG John Bacon made May 26 at 2016 12:19 PM

SSG John Bacon — Thu, 26 May 2016 12:19:00 -0400

It's Called Fraud Waste and Abuse, and everyone involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and Fined to pay back the US Taxpayers.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made May 26 at 2016 5:10 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Thu, 26 May 2016 17:10:07 -0400

Well that's a bargain, lol....