Your tax dollars at work

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

US flushes a half billion dollars down the shitter.

"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.

"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.""

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-turns-486-million-afghan-air-fleet-32000/story?id=26083173

[paladin1991]

Elitist bastards could give a shit.

[albrecht]

At least we destroyed the planes lest they also be seized and used by "rebels" initially favored by the current administration in their quest for the new caliphate. If we are going to waste more money at least destroy the stuff and not just leave it behind intact for the radicals to use. Now we are using our money to destroy arms and vehicles that we supplied! Kafka-esque though the defense contractors likely enjoy it. (Note my "right wing" sources)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/iraq-withdrawal-us-bases-equipment_n_975463.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/08/isis-jihadis-using-arms-troop-carriers-supplied-by-us-saudi-arabia
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/08/18/how-much-it-costs-the-u-s-to-blow-up-captured-u-s-military-hardware-in-iraq/

[b_dubb]

shit floats to the top.  that's especially true in government and military.

[Yorkshire pud]

shit floats to the top.  that's especially true in government and military.

OPM. It's frightening how military brains can plan battles but can be profligate with our money.

[Uncle Duke]

Proof once again, amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.

The current issue of "Air Forces Monthly" has a great article, complete with photos of the pristine looking C-27s, on this fiasco.  Will be interesting to see who in the Administration (Department) was the belly button for the decision to destroy/scrap the a/c in place.  DoD obviously was involved, as was State and Commerce certainly.  Also curious about the timing of this coming to light.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

phhhht.  The US government spends that in an hour.  That's only two dollars of taxes per adult or put another way, you could only feed 1.3 million African children for a year.

[Yorkshire pud]

I can't believe they actually purchased a) anything Italian anyway, without; b) finding out first it was fit for purpose in the environment it was expected to operate.

[Uncle Duke]

I can't believe they actually purchased a) anything Italian anyway, without; b) finding out first it was fit for purpose in the environment it was expected to operate.

G.222 is a known quantity, they've been used for probably 40 years by militaries the world over.  Problem was getting spares, not the design. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Problem was getting spares, not the design.

According to the article, the plane did not function well in the dusty environment.  That led to frequent maintenance and an elevated need for spare parts.

[VtaGeezer]

Six cents per pound?  I wonder if the scrap dealer's name is Karzi.  I smell baksheesh.  The decision was probably made by a mid-level bureaucrat with a deadline to get rid of the planes but no budget to make them airworthy.  Tip of the Afghan/Iraq Waste iceberg.

[albrecht]

Six cents per pound?  I wonder if the scrap dealer's name is Karzi.  I smell baksheesh.  The decision was probably made by a mid-level bureaucrat with a deadline to get rid of the planes but no budget to make them airworthy.  Tip of the Afghan/Iraq Waste iceberg.

Remember the pictures of them flying pallets of cash in? And that is nothing compared the money made by defense industry and contractors or the government assistance given to the various governments, "rebels", etc. It is amazing. Talk about redistribution. If we want to spend that much $$ in a failed attempt to stabilize countries why not start in our backyard, like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, etc. Ones that actually effect us and countries which, until Obama/McCain's anti-Assad rebels started their thing over have a higher murder-rate and just as much corruption as the countries over there.

[Uncle Duke]

According to the article, the plane did not function well in the dusty environment.  That led to frequent maintenance and an elevated need for spare parts.

Exactly.  All a/c are affected similarly by such environments, you plan for it during provisioning by identifying what you need to operate in that environment and ordering the extra spares, especially the long-lead items, up front.  In this case then, it either means spares needs were improperly forecast or the Italians were unable to meet the needs for the spares provisioned.  Considering we are talking about an a/c with near 40 years of historical maintenance data from all over the world, I doubt forecasting was the problem.  My money is on the Italians not meeting their parts obligation.

[Yorkshire pud]

Exactly.  All a/c are affected similarly by such environments, you plan for it during provisioning by identifying what you need to operate in that environment and ordering the extra spares, especially the long-lead items, up front.  In this case then, it either means spares needs were improperly forecast or the Italians were unable to meet the needs for the spares provisioned.  Considering we are talking about an a/c with near 40 years of historical maintenance data from all over the world, I doubt forecasting was the problem.  My money is on the Italians not meeting their parts obligation.

[/b]

Or they were screwed down on price? The other option (likely) is the typical Italian approach to cranking up work rate....big fat "You're having a laugh aren't you?".

My younger brother used to programme Tornado flight sims, and Italy is a user of the aircraft. He threatened to leave them to it when he was over there on one occasion due to their attitude. "Fucking totally useless" sort of covered it he told me.

[pate]

And in other news here's what those persnickety vets have to put up with:



I note this letter is not signed with either a pen or a phone text...

[Uncle Duke]

[/b]

Or they were screwed down on price? The other option (likely) is the typical Italian approach to cranking up work rate....big fat "You're having a laugh aren't you?".

My younger brother used to programme Tornado flight sims, and Italy is a user of the aircraft. He threatened to leave them to it when he was over there on one occasion due to their attitude. "Fucking totally useless" sort of covered it he told me.

Could be any number of reasons the Italians didn't keep the Afghans in spare parts, I suppose being "fucking totally useless" would be a possible explanation. It's unclear if the spares were to come from the Italian Air Force in a military-to-military arrangement or via a straight commercial deal with the manufacturer.  I'd guess the latter.

I will say my experience with foreign militaries and defense contrators has shown a limited capability in logistics planning/management and overall support functions.  On the other hand, those functions are things the US military do extremely well.  Note the number of times you've heard news stories about military operations by other nations and/or the UN where it's said the US would not provide combat forces , but would provide logistical and other combat support functions. No military in the world has the ability to move people and "stuff"quickly, then support them anywhere in the world like the US.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

No military in the world has the ability to move people and "stuff"quickly, then support them anywhere in the world like the US.

That might be because the USA military has a larger budget than the next 20 countries on the list COMBINED.

Sure, the country is broke and the economy sucks the big hairy wet one, but at least our military can move shit around quickly!  USA!  USA!!!  U S fuckin A ! ! 1

[VtaGeezer]

Could be any number of reasons the Italians didn't keep the Afghans in spare parts, I suppose being "fucking totally useless" would be a possible explanation. It's unclear if the spares were to come from the Italian Air Force in a military-to-military arrangement or via a straight commercial deal with the manufacturer.  I'd guess the latter.

I will say my experience with foreign militaries and defense contrators has shown a limited capability in logistics planning/management and overall support functions.  On the other hand, those functions are things the US military do extremely well.  Note the number of times you've heard news stories about military operations by other nations and/or the UN where it's said the US would not provide combat forces , but would provide logistical and other combat support functions. No military in the world has the ability to move people and "stuff"quickly, then support them anywhere in the world like the US.

I don't think its very complicated.  I'd guess that once the Americans had washed their hands of the original procurement & support deal, the Italians wouldn't pay the bribes to Afghans needed to secure parts/maintenance support contracts.

[Uncle Duke]

That might be because the USA military has a larger budget than the next 20 countries on the list COMBINED.

Sure, the country is broke and the economy sucks the big hairy wet one, but at least our military can move shit around quickly!  USA!  USA!!!  U S fuckin A ! ! 1

It's that capability that allows the US to provide massive aid anywhere in the world to natural disaster areas almost immediately.  When such disasters occur, who does the world look to?  Should the President have told those hundreds of thousands of Ebola sufferers in Africa we can't/won't help because our economy "sucks the big hairy wet one"?  How about the people of the Phillipines?  Indonesia?  Haiti? 

You want to argue politics, you're barking up the wrong tree with me.  I also don't get into dick waving and personal attacks.  I've found doing so here or anyplace else is a waste of time.  I limit my comments relative to such aspects of those topics I have either personal knowledge of or experience with based on many years with the DoD and as a military history researcher/writer.  You can read my posts or not.  If you do, and want to have a civil discussion based on something I've said, I'm all for it. 

[albrecht]

It's that capability that allows the US to provide massive aid anywhere in the world to natural disaster areas almost immediately.  When such disasters occur, who does the world look to?  Should the President have told those hundreds of thousands of Ebola sufferers in Africa we can't/won't help because our economy "sucks the big hairy wet one"?  How about the people of the Phillipines?  Indonesia?  Haiti? 

You want to argue politics, you're barking up the wrong tree with me.  I also don't get into dick waving and personal attacks.  I've found doing so here or anyplace else is a waste of time.  I limit my comments relative to such aspects of those topics I have either personal knowledge of or experience with based on many years with the DoD and as a military history researcher/writer.  You can read my posts or not.  If you do, and want to have a civil discussion based on something I've said, I'm all for it.

Much, if not most, of the transport is done by charter on non-military vessels. Interestingly, you can pretty much predict an upcoming conflict or operation by watching maritime insurance market and charter activity.

[Uncle Duke]

Much, if not most, of the transport is done by charter on non-military vessels. Interestingly, you can pretty much predict an upcoming conflict or operation by watching maritime insurance market and charter activity.

I have no doubt about that at all, the bulk of the material aid over time comes via other than military means.  In the near term, however, charters and commercial shipping can't compare with the military in getting supplies and equipment to disaster areas.  That's why I said "almost immediately".  Add to that US helos, shipboard medical facilities, the ability of units like Navy SeaBees and Army/USAF civil engineering to work infrastructure issues, and the establishment of field hospitals...you won't see that level of capability from any civil an organization regardless of how they get to the disaster area. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

It's that capability that allows the US to provide massive aid anywhere in the world to natural disaster areas almost immediately. 

Well, now you're talking about something different.  You're defending the idea that the USA really can do all of that stuff, something I never claimed otherwise.  And then, just to make sure that the discussion remains civil, you drizzle on the snark with some strawman challenge to me.  None of that addresses my comments.  Those comments were based on "something [you] said," which was this:

I will say my experience with foreign militaries and defense contrators has shown a limited capability in logistics planning/management and overall support functions.  On the other hand, those functions are things the US military do extremely well.

It seemed from the context that you were asserting that the USA had much better skills than other countries, and it was those skills that produced the desirable results.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you feel that it's like that the Italians are the ones who fucked this up, because they didn't plan ahead adequately to ensure that the USA could be supplied with parts.  Further, that you base this opinion on your personal experience that other nations aren't as good at planning and logistics as the USA.  I can tell you from MY experience in the business world that planning and logistics also involves ensuring that your supply chains will be functioning properly for the lifetime of the program.  If the Italians didn't make provisions for spare parts, that means the USA is ultimately deficient in planning and logistics, because they didn't ensure that the planes could be supplied with spare parts.  That kind of sloppiness -- again, drawing from my personal experience -- often results when you have money to burn.

I thought my point was clear in my previous post, but apparently not, because you didn't address it at all.  So here it is again.  It's possible to do extraordinary things when you have the money.  You can buy a half-billion dollars worth of planes and move them anywhere, even a place where they won't function, because money isn't an issue.  I'll reiterate my opinion above that having a virtually unlimited budget is a disincentive to developing superior logistical and planning skills, because you can make up most any deficiency by getting out the checkbook.  That's not a bad description of what's happened to the USA health care system -- money drives everything, and results suffer as a result.  Despite that, there are some people who -- surprise! -- rhapsodize about how the USA has the best health care in the world, better than anyone else, even though that is demonstrably wrong by any credible measure.

As far as discussion between us is concerned. it can't happen if your response doesn't address my point(s).  If you can't do that, and/or you're truly as thin-skinned as your post seems to indicate, maybe we shouldn't bother trying.

[VtaGeezer]

That might be because the USA military has a larger budget than the next 20 countries on the list COMBINED.

Sure, the country is broke and the economy sucks the big hairy wet one, but at least our military can move shit around quickly!  USA!  USA!!!  U S fuckin A ! ! 1

Not such a bad strategy for a huge country or when the option is to wait 'til the shits hits the East or West Coast.

[Zoo]

Just think the money we spent on the wars we could of feed the worlds hungry children for 30yrs. But screw that lets blow shit up, Cheers America; heres to the end of humanity may it come quickly!!1

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Not such a bad strategy for a huge country or when the option is to wait 'til the shits hits the East or West Coast.

If the military was to be officially repurposed to provide disaster relief, I wouldn't object, provided that the following took place as well:

1) Eliminate FEMA, or have the military take over its assets.  Why should the USA be the only country that can't enjoy the logistical benefits that the US military can provide?

2) Eliminating multi-billion dollar programs that produce weapons the military doesn't need and doesn't want.  In other words, stop the social welfare programs with military contractors.  Use that money to fund disaster relief.

3) Ask the UN for a credit on our dues, or have other nations kick in some cash proportionate to their economies.  Why should the US taxpayer be the sole bearer of the expense?  We're not in that kind of financial shape right now.

[albrecht]

I have no doubt about that at all, the bulk of the material aid over time comes via other than military means.  In the near term, however, charters and commercial shipping can't compare with the military in getting supplies and equipment to disaster areas.  That's why I said "almost immediately".  Add to that US helos, shipboard medical facilities, the ability of units like Navy SeaBees and Army/USAF civil engineering to work infrastructure issues, and the establishment of field hospitals...you won't see that level of capability from any civil an organization regardless of how they get to the disaster area.

Your right nobody can move stuff like us. Logistics wins (or, more properly maybe loses) wars since time immemorial. Much of that stuff for the longer wars comes on privately-owned ships chartered by the Military Sealift Command- most importantly fuel (compare the 25.7 billion gallons of fuel by MSC vs 5.3billion by DLA for the wars since 9/11.) Even many our ships we actually own are staffed by merchant mariners. And merchant mariners are often forgotten when talking about all our wars and the old ones in the past.
http://www.msc.navy.mil/PM1/
http://www.msc.navy.mil/history/
ps: interesting reading about the history of both. Especially the inter-service rivalry in what finally became the DLA. At one point prior to the 60's the Army managed food and clothing; the Navy managed medical supplies, fuel, and industrial parts; and the Air Force managed electronic items. Turf protection etc.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Logistics wins (or, more properly maybe loses) wars since time immemorial.

If that's so, then name three wars in the past 100 years that were won by logistics and not by the side with the most money.

[albrecht]

If that's so, then name three wars in the past 100 years that were won by logistics and not by the side with the most money.

Britain was had more money than Germany and Italy but would've lost the war without logistics (Lend Lease in the beginning and getting troops back from Dunkirk.) Germany was forced to fight in Africa to get fuel and the long supply lines and their interruption is cited as the main reason Rommel lost that campaign.  The USA had far more money than Korea or China yet had to fight to an armistice in the Korean Conflict. Just some quick examples.
Of course you need money (though with conscription or in a royal or police state maybe not as much) to fight but if you can't bring people, fuel, materiel, to the battle you lose.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Britain was had more money than Germany and Italy but would've lost the war without logistics (Lend Lease in the beginning and getting troops back from Dunkirk.)

Britain was quickly running out of money to pay for military supplies, which is what made Lend/Lease necessary in the first place.  An enormous amount of material from a country with tremendous resources saved Britain, and the war.   But not without an almost fantastic amount of materiel and lives lost to German subs due to poor US naval command decisions.  Again, the might of money and not planning or execution.

Dunkirk was no triumph of logistics or planning.  Every seaworthy boat from Britain randomly went over to France and picked up soldiers while the Germans watched and sat inert.  If the Germans had actually fought any of this, they would have won the war.

Germany was forced to fight in Africa to get fuel and the long supply lines and their interruption is cited as the main reason Rommel lost that campaign. 

Germany was "forced" to fight in Africa because Italy was in trouble there.  Italy struck against British-held Egypt, and then went after places like Ethiopia because Mussolini was jealous of Hitler's conquest and territorial acquisitions in Europe, and wanted to show that Italy was wearing big-boy pants too.  Germany did not get any significant amount of fuel from Africa; most of their fuel was refined domestically or in Romania or Norway. 

In any case, you don't show how superior logistics won this battle, much less WWII.  Rommel was by and large kicking the shit out of the British in Africa until the USA joined in.  The British were suffering serious supply problems of their own, until the US entered the war.  The Oil Campaign and the over-extension of Germany made supplying fuel a problem, but that was a supply problem for both the British and Germans, NOT a logistics problem.   

The USA had far more money than Korea or China yet had to fight to an armistice in the Korean Conflict.

Dude, that does not demonstrate that logistics "won the war" as you were supposed to supply examples of.  First, nobody won that war; in fact, it is technically still going on.  Second, logistics didn't "win" the armistice.  It was the unwillingness of the USA to open up a full scale conflict against China, which would have resulted in the USSR joining in, and WWIII.

Just some quick examples.

You said "since time immemorial."  Would it help if I opened up the time frame from 100 years to "time immemorial"?  Because these quick examples you gave are not very convincing.

[Uncle Duke]

Well, now you're talking about something different.  You're defending the idea that the USA really can do all of that stuff, something I never claimed otherwise.  And then, just to make sure that the discussion remains civil, you drizzle on the snark with some strawman challenge to me.  None of that addresses my comments.  Those comments were based on "something [you] said," which was this:

It seemed from the context that you were asserting that the USA had much better skills than other countries, and it was those skills that produced the desirable results.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you feel that it's like that the Italians are the ones who fucked this up, because they didn't plan ahead adequately to ensure that the USA could be supplied with parts.  Further, that you base this opinion on your personal experience that other nations aren't as good at planning and logistics as the USA.  I can tell you from MY experience in the business world that planning and logistics also involves ensuring that your supply chains will be functioning properly for the lifetime of the program.  If the Italians didn't make provisions for spare parts, that means the USA is ultimately deficient in planning and logistics, because they didn't ensure that the planes could be supplied with spare parts.  That kind of sloppiness -- again, drawing from my personal experience -- often results when you have money to burn.

I thought my point was clear in my previous post, but apparently not, because you didn't address it at all.  So here it is again.  It's possible to do extraordinary things when you have the money.  You can buy a half-billion dollars worth of planes and move them anywhere, even a place where they won't function, because money isn't an issue.  I'll reiterate my opinion above that having a virtually unlimited budget is a disincentive to developing superior logistical and planning skills, because you can make up most any deficiency by getting out the checkbook.  That's not a bad description of what's happened to the USA health care system -- money drives everything, and results suffer as a result.  Despite that, there are some people who -- surprise! -- rhapsodize about how the USA has the best health care in the world, better than anyone else, even though that is demonstrably wrong by any credible measure.

As far as discussion between us is concerned. it can't happen if your response doesn't address my point(s).  If you can't do that, and/or you're truly as thin-skinned as your post seems to indicate, maybe we shouldn't bother trying.

No, you did not understand.  Spares are forecast based on legacy maintenance data, then during provisioning the "order" for those parts is placed.  As I said earlier, it's likely the order was placed (by the US or the Afghans?) directly with the manufacturer through a commercial buy.  My point was the Italian a/c manufacturer didn't fulfill the orders in a timely manner because I find it had to believe forecasting was that far off considering nearly forty years of operational maintenance data exists for a system in use throughout the world.  Why did they not supply the parts as arranged?  Could be anything from Pud's assertion the Italians are incompetent to a lack of bribery on the part of the Italians as Geezer suggested.  I don't know, now did I claim to. In the real world, I've know spares to go wanting for head-shaking reasons, including one where a prime's sub of a proprietary long-lead LRU decided they didn't want to make the item anymore.  Bottom lines was, and is, the design of the G.222 was not the problem, it was an inability to get spares.  In all probability, many of those spares come from a proprietary sole source, the manufacturer.  If forecast correctly and ordered according to need, the onus rests with the manufacturer/supplier to deliver those ordered, and probably pre-paid, items.

I did not disagree we have the best military logistics capability in the world because we have spent the money to develop that capability.  The US military has a global mission, so developing that capability should come as no surprise.  Whether the US is moving bombs and bullets to the UAE to combat ISIS, field hospitals to Sierra Leone to help treat suffering Africans, or the PotUS's armored limo to a third world destination, the capability exists to meet obey and fulfill the orders of the National Command Authority. The difference between the US and any other nation is we can meet those mission requirements, and many, many more, simultaneously.

I've been called many things, but never "thin skinned".  I merely pointed out I don't argue partisan politics, nor do I get into personal attacks.  That seems pretty straight forward.  If it's a "challenge" for you to do either, that's on you.