View Full Version : U.S. to scap Billions of dollars worth of military equipment in AFG
RogerinTPA
06-20-13, 21:41
Mraps, vehicles, etc...after US withdrawal. We cannot afford to ship out of AFG or to hand over to Afghan government.
http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-us-withdrawal-war-003/
As the US military prepares to complete its withdrawal from Afghanistan next year, it is deliberately destroying billions of dollars worth of sophisticated equipment, according to The Washington Post.
The US military is confronted with the logistical problem of what to do with millions of pounds worth of vehicles and other military equipment presently parked in Afghanistan, where the United States is winding down a nearly 12-year military operation.
Instead of donating the equipment to the fledgling Afghan security forces, who are expected to keep the peace following the US pullout, or perhaps selling the equipment to some third-party nation, the US will engage in a “massive disposal effort, which US military officials call unprecedented,” the Washington Post reported.
This is not the first time something like this has happened and it won't be the last time.
They destroyed a bunch of stuff the last 60-90 days in Iraq. Millions and millions of dollars because of the last minute FUBAR exit plan.
RogerinTPA
06-20-13, 22:26
I've seen pictures of the gigantic parking lots filled with both civilian and military vehicles left to the Iraqis with the keys in them, left for the same reason.
brushy bill
06-20-13, 22:39
This is not the first time something like this has happened and it won't be the last time.
This. At least we aren't leaving MWDs behind like in Vietnam.
China has no problem shipping mass amounts of shit to the U.S. Are they better at math?
I worked with the MG responsible for planning the draw down a year ago. We have definitely learned from Iraq and have been steadily drawing down for a while now. It's a logistical nightmare for sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that it simply costs more to ship many things home than it would to just buy new ones. And they are shipped, not flown, which saves even more money.
Unprecedented? Hardly. Billions of 1945 Dollars worth of equipment was destroyed in Europe and the Pacific at the end of the war. Ships sunk, aircraft pushed into the sea or burned, etc.
The thing I don't get is that we have the MSC. Why don't they get them to ship the stuff? I find it hard to believe that loading cargo ships with U.S weapons and vehicles and other equipment can't be done. I'm not saying that they should take the barn door with them, but it doesn't make sense to me.
They shit that was destroyed in Iraq was INCREDIBLE (flat screen TV's, tools, vehicles, ammo and weapons, etc...).
I worked with the MG responsible for planning the draw down a year ago. We have definitely learned from Iraq and have been steadily drawing down for a while now. It's a logistical nightmare for sure, but that doesn't negate the fact that it simply costs more to ship many things home than it would to just buy new ones. And they are shipped, not flown, which saves even more money.
The thing I don't get is that we have the MSC. Why don't they get them to ship the stuff? I find it hard to believe that loading cargo ships with U.S weapons and vehicles and other equipment can't be done. I'm not saying that they should take the barn door with them, but it doesn't make sense to me.
They shit that was destroyed in Iraq was INCREDIBLE (flat screen TV's, tools, vehicles, ammo and weapons, etc...).
I can't talk to Iraq, but we're getting better about things like tvs and computers. Afg is land locked by quite a bit and requires truck convoys to drive through other counties, like Pakistan. It's still cheaper than flying, but pretty expensive to ship back smaller items. We're still going to keep a few bases in Afghanistan and they've been identified and will continue to receive all the smaller items that won't be shipped back from the FOBs and COPs that are slated for closure.
Moose-Knuckle
06-21-13, 02:05
Waste not want not . . .
The Army has roughly $25 billion worth of equipment in Afghanistan, according to National Defense magazine. Lt. Gen. Raymond Mason, Army deputy chief of staff for logistics, said that since the estimated cost of shipping home and repairing the gear tops out at $14 billion, it makes sense to bring it back. "For an investment of $12 to $14 billion, we get $25 billion worth of stuff," Mason told National Defense.
http://news.yahoo.com/military-literally-throwing-away-7-billion-afghanistan-113000058.html
open it up to private business and they could do it :)
leave it to the gov and they will screw it up !
Back in 2004, a govt. ship I was deployed on sailed to Kuwait City to pick up a load of military vehicles. Most of them had to be towed, pushed, dragged on board. They were a mess. Leaking fluids, tires cracked/flat, transmissions and engines shot, etc. They had been in service for about a year and a half over there. We were under the impression that we would be bringing them back to the States for overhaul. No such deal. We took them to Rotterdam and off loaded them to be sold for scrap. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes when it comes time for withdrawal. :confused:
Waste not want not . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/military-literally-throwing-away-7-billion-afghanistan-113000058.html
25 billion is nothing when we're printing 85 billion a month and buying our own debt. Once the current projection if quantitate easing is over we will have printed 4 trillion dollars. Before it began there was only 2.8 trillion in circulation according the Feds website.
Unprecedented? Hardly. Billions of 1945 Dollars worth of equipment was destroyed in Europe and the Pacific at the end of the war. Ships sunk, aircraft pushed into the sea or burned, etc.
True.. I got a book, with some excellent color pics in it taken by this fellow who was a mechanic in a P51 squadron..in the back, are pics he took 3 weeks after V-E day...German civilians hired to burn fairly new P-51's for scrap... My father (WWII navy vet, Pacific.) told me how they knocked holes in the bottoms of new landing craft, lowered them over the side, and sunk them..
Crow Hunter
06-21-13, 07:11
What really aggravates me about this is that we will now go and spend several billion dollars in "aid" to Israel, Egypt, Iraq, etc, so they can turn around and buy new stuff.:mad:
Why not just give them non sensitive this stuff?
Oh wait, that's right, there are Senators/Reps/Etc who have "blind" financial interests in the companies that build this equipment and/or have these companies in their home states who will need to build the replacements and/or new equipment to send overseas with our tax dollars.
How convenient...
Traveshamockery
06-21-13, 08:06
open it up to private business and they could do it :)
leave it to the gov and they will screw it up !
Can't risk those assault trucks and assault TVs falling into the hands of law-abiding US citizens.
My Dad served in the Navy in the '50s and I remember him telling me how it was perfectly normal to dump provisions over the side a couple days before coming in to port so they could meet the minimum percentages requirement for taking on new stores.
Dumping hundreds and hundreds of pounds of food & supplies overboard because policy dictated you couldn't just "top off" stores unless below a certain amount.
I have no idea if this still goes on, but I can't fathom any Govt. funded entity engaging in anything less than maximum wastefulness.
HackerF15E
06-21-13, 08:34
The thing I don't get is that we have the MSC. Why don't they get them to ship the stuff? I find it hard to believe that loading cargo ships with U.S weapons and vehicles and other equipment can't be done. I'm not saying that they should take the barn door with them, but it doesn't make sense to me.
1. Afghanistan does not have a seaport.
2. There is no railway that goes from anywhere in Afghanistan to any seaport that the US could use to sealift anything out.
3. The closest seaport in Pakistan is 600 miles by road away from Kandahar. It is more than 850 miles from Khowst and Gardez, and 900 miles from Bagram.
US forces are flying things out as fast as they can (reference that National Air Cargo 747 that crashed trying to haul MRAPs), but the volume of equipment that it has taken 10 years to fly in takes a lot more than 2 years to fly out.
RogerinTPA
06-21-13, 08:55
I don't see why they don't put excess vehicles on ships and park them off the coast or on land in any favorable country in the area, India, Sri Lanka, even UAE. It shouldn't be that hard to add them to pomcus stocks somewhere. It's not like we won't be revisiting the region within the next 5-10 years.
scoutfsu99
06-21-13, 09:31
1. Afghanistan does not have a seaport.
2. There is no railway that goes from anywhere in Afghanistan to any seaport that the US could use to sealift anything out.
3. The closest seaport in Pakistan is 600 miles by road away from Kandahar. It is more than 850 miles from Khowst and Gardez, and 900 miles from Bagram.
US forces are flying things out as fast as they can (reference that National Air Cargo 747 that crashed trying to haul MRAPs), but the volume of equipment that it has taken 10 years to fly in takes a lot more than 2 years to fly out.
Agreed. I don't like the waste either...but a lot of you are forgetting that we have to fight to get these things TO the border and even then its difficult to get it through PAK and to the ports. Remember, shit was being stolen left and right coming IN to country. It isn't as simple as throwing it on a ship and sending it...
Maintenance, storage and/or placing equipment back in the supply system are all issues. At times it may be more cost effective in the long run to destroy the equipment in place when leaving an area of operation.
I am well aware of the geography having been there 3 different times. I still think there are smarter ways to go about this.
1. Afghanistan does not have a seaport.
2. There is no railway that goes from anywhere in Afghanistan to any seaport that the US could use to sealift anything out.
3. The closest seaport in Pakistan is 600 miles by road away from Kandahar. It is more than 850 miles from Khowst and Gardez, and 900 miles from Bagram.
US forces are flying things out as fast as they can (reference that National Air Cargo 747 that crashed trying to haul MRAPs), but the volume of equipment that it has taken 10 years to fly in takes a lot more than 2 years to fly out.
HackerF15E
06-21-13, 12:57
I am well aware of the geography having been there 3 different times. I still think there are smarter ways to go about this.
For example?
Having been to Afghanistan and observed the topography doesn't imply some knowledge about the transportation infrastructure of the area. You said sealift was the answer, and I was merely saying that there are serious logistical barriers to your stated plan.
So how would you propose all that that stuff gets moved from Afghanistan to a deep-water seaport in the amount of time that remains and given the constraints of the manpower and equipment it would take to move it while simultaneously accomplishing all of the other requirements for personnel and equipment in country?
Ill pose a question, what would we do with thousands MRAPS if we bring them all back to the US?
Ill pose a question, what would we do with thousands MRAPS if we bring them all back to the US?
oh you know what we would do with them... we would give them to dhs. fuel 'em up and park one on every street corner in every pudunk town to watch every member of every gun forum on the internetz. duh.
Moose-Knuckle
06-21-13, 16:05
oh you know what we would do with them... we would give them to dhs. fuel 'em up and park one on every street corner in every pudunk town to watch every member of every gun forum on the internetz. duh.
Troll much or are you just a National Democratic Socialist apologist?
If you’re going to continue to troll here is it too much to ask that you use proper punctuation?
davidjinks
06-21-13, 17:31
Just had a friend of mine (EOD) come home from deployment not too long ago.
His main mission was to destroy all ordnance (Large and small) that was not being turned over to Iraqis or not being shipped home.
He said the most depressing shot he had to do consisted of 100k of MK262, 30k of match 300, 50k of match 7.62.
State side, I have a very good friend who works for a test entity for the Army. Talked to him a few days ago and they were conducting drop tests of pallets fully loaded with MK262 and M118. ~50k total of ammo. After the tests are conducted all ammunition has to be destroyed. Most times, there is nothing wrong with the ammunition.
We've been doing this crap since WWI. I see it everyday in my current job. We find pits of ordnance that was buried because...That's how they did it back then. Same thing in war zones...don't need it, don't want it, costs too much to bring it back...scuttle that shit and make it disappear.
Just had a friend of mine (EOD) come home from deployment not too long ago.
His main mission was to destroy all ordnance (Large and small) that was not being turned over to Iraqis or not being shipped home.
He said the most depressing shot he had to do consisted of 100k of MK262, 30k of match 300, 50k of match 7.62.
State side, I have a very good friend who works for a test entity for the Army. Talked to him a few days ago and they were conducting drop tests of pallets fully loaded with MK262 and M118. ~50k total of ammo. After the tests are conducted all ammunition has to be destroyed. Most times, there is nothing wrong with the ammunition.
We've been doing this crap since WWI. I see it everyday in my current job. We find pits of ordnance that was buried because...That's how they did it back then. Same thing in war zones...don't need it, don't want it, costs too much to bring it back...scuttle that shit and make it disappear.
If only a third party company could have purchased all that ammunition from the US military, then paid to ship it back and re-sell it on the commercial market.
Yes, never going to happen. It should be illegal to spend so wastefully.
Just had a friend of mine (EOD) come home from deployment not too long ago.
His main mission was to destroy all ordnance (Large and small) that was not being turned over to Iraqis or not being shipped home.
He said the most depressing shot he had to do consisted of 100k of MK262, 30k of match 300, 50k of match 7.62.
That's not a lot of ammunition.
Ill pose a question, what would we do with thousands MRAPS if we bring them all back to the US?
Park them all in Calif. and maybe it will break off and fall in the ocean?
So how would you propose all that that stuff gets moved from Afghanistan to a deep-water seaport in the amount of time that remains and given the constraints of the manpower and equipment it would take to move it while simultaneously accomplishing all of the other requirements for personnel and equipment in country?
Drill a hole from Afghanistan to the US and ship our stuff directly through the planet's core.
That was my best CoA.
High Tower
06-21-13, 20:20
Ill pose a question, what would we do with thousands MRAPS if we bring them all back to the US?
Get rid of the garbage vehicles we use stateside and use the new vehicles for training. I didn't touch an MRAP until I got to Iraq and that is what we used for 80% of our missions. Training wise, that is the wrong answer.
I can't touch on the logistics of moving our stuff back as that is not my lane. But the argument that buying new ones is cheaper than shipping them is crazy because they will not buy new vehicles. The next time we wind up for war, we will be stuck with the same crappy humvee fleet we had in 2001.
I guess the good part of this story is that there are a lot of Maxx-pro mraps here which should be destroyed.
Moose-Knuckle
06-21-13, 20:26
Drill a hole from Afghanistan to the US and ship our stuff directly through the planet's core.
That was my best CoA.
Nice, have you seen the Total Recall "re-make"? :D
davidjinks
06-21-13, 21:05
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Thanks for pointing that out. I gave that as an example.
That's not a lot of ammunition.
It's par for the course in the race to the bottom.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
That's not a lot of ammunition.
it's alot of ammunition when training allocations are cut for Units due to sequestration. Even the SOF community is feeling the pinch when it comes to training ammo
Maybe the military's accounting system is not set up to re-enter ammo and related items after being issued..
After we dumped billions of dollars in the ocean after WW2, we entered the Korean war in 1950 with a severe equipment shortage.
Downsizing our forces may already be a factor--not enough people to do it right. Instant demobilization after the war ended in 1945 was one reason so much stuff was destroyed. Nobody to process it.
Not having to fight during a hasty retreat--leave now while we can--may be the best reason.
For example?
Having been to Afghanistan and observed the topography doesn't imply some knowledge about the transportation infrastructure of the area. You said sealift was the answer, and I was merely saying that there are serious logistical barriers to your stated plan.
So how would you propose all that that stuff gets moved from Afghanistan to a deep-water seaport in the amount of time that remains and given the constraints of the manpower and equipment it would take to move it while simultaneously accomplishing all of the other requirements for personnel and equipment in country?
You nailed it with time. All the stuff there has moved in over 12 years. The infrastructure to get it all out quickly just isn't there.
The Northern Distribution Network is in the works right now, but I can't say for sure if it is operational as of yet. This supply route will ship equipment to seaports in the Baltic and Caspian seas to forego all the problems with movement through Pakistan.
TRANSCOM is working the issue, but no matter how good their solution is the choice will not be theirs.
it's alot of ammunition when training allocations are cut for Units due to sequestration. Even the SOF community is feeling the pinch when it comes to training ammo
When you look at how much it would cost to transport the ammunition back to CONUS, it might be more cost effective to destroy it in place. If you were talking about moving a few milion rounds, it would be a different story.
I also hear what you are saying about feeling the pinch. We felt it in the late 1970's to early 1980's.
CarlosDJackal
06-23-13, 09:25
I wonder if I could acquire some of that equipment for the cost of shipping? :D
I have no idea what the most efficient way to relocate or dispose of these vehicles is.
I do know that I wouldn't mind being the first kid on the block to have an MRAP in his driveway.
I wonder if I could acquire some of that equipment for the cost of shipping? :D
Get a shipping estimate from Fed-Ex. :lol:
Voodoochild
06-23-13, 15:09
So were not able to cargo flight the equipment to say Dubai and load it onto ships and sail it back home? When I worked on KAF it wasn't a long (commercial) flight to Dubai.
I don't make nor do I have tons of money and the amount they take out for taxes is not pretty to me.
Seeing how it will essence be wasted (if not like this, then by other means) is pretty goddamn depressing.
There should be something in the pre-amble about the government's role being that of wasting money.
RogerinTPA
06-23-13, 16:01
So were not able to cargo flight the equipment to say Dubai and load it onto ships and sail it back home? When I worked on KAF it wasn't a long (commercial) flight to Dubai.
Agreed. 3-6 hours, depending on aircraft. That would probably cut the cost of transport in half, if not more.
theblackknight
06-24-13, 01:29
There's a lot of complaining here from people who seem to want to evil gubbament to spend more money to save money?
I know that some countries friendly with U.S. were approached some time ago with proposition to get military equipment (APC for example) for free. They only need to pick it up from Afg and sign parts and maintenance contracts with U.S. Do not know how it played around, but topic was discussed on some military/defense fairs last year.
The_War_Wagon
06-24-13, 07:02
Yuri Orlov would KNOW what to do with it... :cool:
The same thing happened after Vietnam there are videos of helicopters being jettisoned into the sea. The taxpayers money is looked on as free money I would guess... War waged without profit is just plain foolish .
Hmmm maybe some of the billions we pissed away in foreign aid could be spent to ship some of that stuff back.
In the end uncle Sugar won't give a shit. Bought with other people's money, shipped with other people's money, destroyed with other people's money and then re purchased with other people's money. It's all free ain't it??
HackerF15E
06-24-13, 19:40
So were not able to cargo flight the equipment to say Dubai and load it onto ships and sail it back home? When I worked on KAF it wasn't a long (commercial) flight to Dubai.
There are freighters that are flying MRAPs and the like out of Bagram nonstop -- they are getting stuff out as fast as they can.
The volume of equipment is simply too much for the airlift that is available/budgeted for this task.
You have to look at the costs of getting it home versus destroying in place and choose what suits the budget best. Since a 747 only hauls 4 or 5 MRAPs at a time -- and that constitutes the ENTIRE cargo for that flight -- you have to look at if it is worthwhile to have a "reverse Berlin Airlift" to pay to haul all that stuff out.
Troll much or are you just a National Democratic Socialist apologist?
If you’re going to continue to troll here is it too much to ask that you use proper punctuation?
oh, take it easy.
Like it or not, at times it is more cost effective and time efficient to destroy vehicles, equipment and supplies in place instead of shipping them to staging areas where they would have to be stored and maintained. Fuel consumption, wear and tear on transport vehicles, time and long term costs are all considerations.
My Dad served in the Navy in the '50s and I remember him telling me how it was perfectly normal to dump provisions over the side a couple days before coming in to port so they could meet the minimum percentages requirement for taking on new stores.
Dumping hundreds and hundreds of pounds of food & supplies overboard because policy dictated you couldn't just "top off" stores unless below a certain amount.
I have no idea if this still goes on, but I can't fathom any Govt. funded entity engaging in anything less than maximum wastefulness.
My father was in the navy during Nam and has spoken of the same things, often times dumping items as they went into port because they needed to have a certain number and somehow ended up with an extra and that was against regs. Shit is crazy.
theblackknight
06-25-13, 16:04
Like it or not, at times it is more cost effective and time efficient to destroy vehicles, equipment and supplies in place instead of shipping them to staging areas where they would have to be stored and maintained. Fuel comsumption, wear and tear on transport vehicles, time and long term costs are all considerations.
Quit with that thinking stuff, I need a reason to complain about the Gubba'ment and O'bummer!
http://cdn-android.apptap.com/img/237/gappz.took/1621829306.png
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.