US scraps the entire fleet of Afghan C-27A's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
US scraps the entire fleet of Afghan C-27A's
These are the early ones apparently and does not effect the Spartan orders which were cancelled
.
See
US scraps entire fleet of Afghan cargo planes - News - Stripes
.
See
US scraps entire fleet of Afghan cargo planes - News - Stripes
As a former pilot in this unit, I can provide FACTS:
1. This is not the newly-purchased and recently-cancelled C-27J. These aircraft are 1980-vintage, Italian surplus G.222 aircraft, very similar to the C-27As the USAF operated out of Howard AB, Panama during the 90s. They were purchased by DoD (not the Army or the USAF) with the express intent of "donating" them to the Afghan AF. For various legal reasons--and because the Afghans didn't want these unreliable, un-maintainable airplanes--they were never transferred to AAF control.
2. The performance of the G.222 is totally inadequate in high altitude, hot conditions. This makes the airplane unsuited to perform its mission a significant portion of the year in Afghanistan. DoD acquisitions folks should have known this before they inked the deal.
3. The G.222 has always required a lot of maintenance, something that the DoD acquisitions folks should have known before they inked the deal. Even fresh out of the refurbishment, they were often unable to make the flight from Italy to Afghanistan without breaking down along the way. The fleet in Kabul was plagued with fuel leaks, flap problems, landing gear problems, and several engine failures. That's why they were grounded from Dec 11 thru May 12.
3. Since the plane has been out of production for decades, most of its spare parts are no longer available. DoD acquisition folks should have known this before they inked the deal. I don't know whether Alenia misled them, or they just didn't ask the right questions. Consequently, most of the 16 planes on the ramp in Kabul were unflyable because they were cannibalized for parts to keep 4-5 airplanes flying.
Overall, the program was a fiasco, and its termination is long overdue. The USAF's inability to manage this program made us look incredibly stupid, so we lost a lot of credibility with the Afghan leadership and pilots we were trying to mentor.
1. This is not the newly-purchased and recently-cancelled C-27J. These aircraft are 1980-vintage, Italian surplus G.222 aircraft, very similar to the C-27As the USAF operated out of Howard AB, Panama during the 90s. They were purchased by DoD (not the Army or the USAF) with the express intent of "donating" them to the Afghan AF. For various legal reasons--and because the Afghans didn't want these unreliable, un-maintainable airplanes--they were never transferred to AAF control.
2. The performance of the G.222 is totally inadequate in high altitude, hot conditions. This makes the airplane unsuited to perform its mission a significant portion of the year in Afghanistan. DoD acquisitions folks should have known this before they inked the deal.
3. The G.222 has always required a lot of maintenance, something that the DoD acquisitions folks should have known before they inked the deal. Even fresh out of the refurbishment, they were often unable to make the flight from Italy to Afghanistan without breaking down along the way. The fleet in Kabul was plagued with fuel leaks, flap problems, landing gear problems, and several engine failures. That's why they were grounded from Dec 11 thru May 12.
3. Since the plane has been out of production for decades, most of its spare parts are no longer available. DoD acquisition folks should have known this before they inked the deal. I don't know whether Alenia misled them, or they just didn't ask the right questions. Consequently, most of the 16 planes on the ramp in Kabul were unflyable because they were cannibalized for parts to keep 4-5 airplanes flying.
Overall, the program was a fiasco, and its termination is long overdue. The USAF's inability to manage this program made us look incredibly stupid, so we lost a lot of credibility with the Afghan leadership and pilots we were trying to mentor.
Last edited by NutLoose; 29th Dec 2012 at 21:12.
If you go to the link and read the comments, I have to agree with the comment of using Turbo-Dak's, or my preference Turbo Bou's. 20 aircraft, 6 million each and say 10 million in spares would carry roughly the same amount get into shorter strips, and would be easier/cheaper to maintain. the remaining 450M would fly a lot of missions
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's brilliant idea was it to waste money on these pieces of crap anyway? No wonder we are drowning in debt!
Don't supply the Aghans with nothing. Tell them to flap their arms if they want to fly. I'm sick of it all.
Don't supply the Aghans with nothing. Tell them to flap their arms if they want to fly. I'm sick of it all.
Last edited by Temp Spike; 30th Dec 2012 at 04:58.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. The G.222 has always required a lot of maintenance, something that the DoD acquisitions folks should have known before they inked the deal. Even fresh out of the refurbishment, they were often unable to make the flight from Italy to Afghanistan without breaking down along the way. The fleet in Kabul was plagued with fuel leaks, flap problems, landing gear problems, and several engine failures.
Simply change G222 for Tornado, DoD for the MoD, Italy for the UK and Kabul for KAF !
Simply change G222 for Tornado, DoD for the MoD, Italy for the UK and Kabul for KAF !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Wouldn't something like the old Shorts Sherpa have been more useful as its a far simpler aircraft, shame its not built anymore
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to the Sherpas that the USAF used in Europe for their parts distribution network?
Were they scrapped or are they still lying around a boneyard somewhere? They ought to be excellent candidates for a rebirth if they still exist.
Were they scrapped or are they still lying around a boneyard somewhere? They ought to be excellent candidates for a rebirth if they still exist.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NornIron
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google is your friend....
Last edited by carlrsymington; 30th Dec 2012 at 20:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Sherpas were still in use in 2011
Sherpa serves as agile cargo transport over Iraq | Article | The United States Army
Though they were not used in Afghanistan as they can't cope with higher Altitudes..... Apparently the saying was "you'll only go Low and Slow with a load in your Shorts"....
Sherpa serves as agile cargo transport over Iraq | Article | The United States Army
Though they were not used in Afghanistan as they can't cope with higher Altitudes..... Apparently the saying was "you'll only go Low and Slow with a load in your Shorts"....
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Dec 2012 at 21:33.
