# Afghan Air Force Needs Planes, Parts



## GAP (9 Oct 2007)

Afghan Air Force Needs Planes, Parts
By JASON STRAZIUSO 
Article Link

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The faded green Soviet-era Mi-17 helicopter hovered 30 feet off the ground while veteran pilot Amin Jan tested the controls. Then he zoomed upward and banked left, filling the side window with a view of Kabul's mud-brick homes below.

The 15-minute flight was a smooth, uneventful success. But Afghanistan's decimated air force is struggling to get back off the ground, weighed down by a tiny fleet of aging aircraft, a lack of spare parts, and until only six months ago, no international power to show it the way.

The U.S.-NATO-Afghan campaign against a strengthening Taliban insurgency relies heavily on Western airpower to transport troops to remote battlefields and to target militants in bombing runs.

Afghanistan's rebuilt army is shouldering an increasing share of the ground combat. But its air force will take years to develop, dimming the prospect that the country will be able to look after its own security any time soon.

The U.S. military began training the Afghan Air Corps last spring, and Air Force Brig. Gen. Jay H. Lindell said he was excited by the Afghans' "desire, willingness and eagerness to learn."

"I guess what I'm not happy with is the state of where we are, the existing equipment that we do have, the state of the supply system to furnish spare parts for the equipment," Lindell said. "We're going to work to improve that to try to maintain what they do have as long as we can until they can get the new, more modernized equipment."

Afghanistan's air force consists of seven Soviet-era Mi-17 transport helicopters and six Mi-35 gunships, all approaching 20 years old. Of its five transport planes, three are out of service. The average age of its pilots is 43, Lindell said, an experienced group but one with few up-and-coming students.

Though the Air Corps this summer completed its first mission — moving troops into a battlefield landing zone — it is nowhere big enough to be a reliable complement to the Afghan army.
More on link


----------



## geo (9 Oct 2007)

http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/attack/15165.html


> Thursday, August 23, 2007
> 
> Czech helicopters could be making their way to the Afghanistan military by the September-October time frame, according to the Prague Daily Monitor. Six Russian-built transport Mi-17s and six combat Mi-24s are now being repaired in the Czech Republic. Russia has consented to the aircraft’s export in negotiations with the Czech Republic. The Mi-17s are to become a part of the Afghan air force, according to a Czech official. Russia must give its consent before the aircraft may be transported to a third country. Russia has not yet consented although Czech officials expect support for the deal. For related news



giving the Afghans high tech aircraft of any sort is a disaster waiting for a place to happen.
Let them cut their teeth on these relatively old and lowtech aircraft.


----------



## medicineman (9 Oct 2007)

I hear that there are some spare F-14 parts for sale... >

MM


----------



## midget-boyd91 (9 Oct 2007)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I hear that there are some spare F-14 parts for sale... >
> 
> MM


 :rofl:
Hmmmm... I seem to have wet myself, laughing.


----------



## geo (9 Oct 2007)

F14 parts...

Nope, darned neighbours have 1st dibbs on them ... or else!


----------



## MikeM (10 Oct 2007)

Have to be able to walk before you can run, once they get their army sorted out and self sufficient, then one day they can maybe get some AC.


----------



## medaid (10 Oct 2007)

Hold on, they don't even have AFVs yet, and they already want to FLY?

We need infuse some logic and sense into these people ASAP. I will not doubt that they are capable warriors on land. They are willing to learn, but they are not getting that quickly. To think that all of sudden they are ready for flight is more then just a little doubtful. A few questions to consider:

1) Where are they going to get the equipment?
2) Where are they going to receive the training?
3) Who will initially staff their Sqns and Wings?
4) Who will come up with SOPs for them?

Interesting eh?


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2007)

Glad all you army folks chimed in

Just like building their army takes time, so does building an air force. If they start taking small steps NOW, they will be ready in the future. Start training the people who will lead the Afghan AF now, the rest will follow in good time. It will take years to train pilots, technicians and every other trade an AF needs, nows the time to start....start small but start nonetheless


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> 1) Where are they going to get the equipment?



Well, let me see...the new Iraqi AF got UH-1s and C-130s donated to them from the US and some Russian equipment donated by other countries to get them started. No reason why the same cannot be done for the Ghan.



> 2) Where are they going to receive the training?



Here in canada at NFTC could be one possibility or in the US like alot of Asian countries do.......



> 3) Who will initially staff their Sqns and Wings?



Western countries can do that until such time as Afghans themselves have been trained to do the Job, hence why we have to starts NOW



> 4) Who will come up with SOPs for them?



Gee wiz, where do you think we came up with alot of our stuf.......


----------



## medaid (10 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Glad all you army folks chimed in
> 
> Just like building their army takes time, so does building an air force. If they start taking small steps NOW, they will be ready in the future. Start training the people who will lead the Afghan AF now, the rest will follow in good time. It will take years to train pilots, technicians and every other trade an AF needs, nows the time to start....start small but start nonetheless



I'm Navy now mate   Rum, Sodomy, etc etc etc

Okay, maybe I WAS too quick to judge, but my questions still stand. We are hard press to turn out pilots of our OWN now, do you think we can lend a hand to the training program for Afghan pilots? Maybe the US will, but we are stepping into another boundary of security sensitive equipment. If we can't ensure who's on our side and whose not on the ground right now, how do we ensure that Pilot Officer Ahmed isn't going to turn his newly acquired attack chopper on those who he was supposed to support, because the baddies have got his family or paid him off? 

Just a question, you know?


----------



## medaid (10 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, let me see...the new Iraqi AF got UH-1s and C-130s donated to them from the US and some Russian equipment donated by other countries to get them started. No reason why the same cannot be done for the Ghan.
> 
> Here in canada at NFTC could be one possibility or in the US like alot of Asian countries do.......
> 
> ...



1) The Iraqi AF already existed prior to the US taking it over. Flying isn't something new to them. It is new to the Afghanis.

2) Granted.

3) Granted.

4) True, but we haven't just started with flight either. It comes from experience and such. Okay, granted they can learn that too with a helping hand. 


Like I said, i was too quick to judge, but I'm just expressing my concerns that's all.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I'm Navy now mate   Rum, Sodomy, etc etc etc



Army or navy its always good to see that the other services know how to run an AF.......If i was to tell people how the army should do things i would be run off this site in short order but thats another rant for another time....



> We are hard press to turn out pilots of our OWN now, do you think we can lend a hand to the training program for Afghan pilots?



I didnt say Canada had to do it alone but we can certainly help out.  We train foreign aircrews as it is now ( Pilots and Navs) i'm sure we can train a few Afghans that will form the cadre on which to build the Afghan AF.



> Maybe the US will, but we are stepping into another boundary of security sensitive equipment.



The USAF already trains quite a few pilots from many foreing nations at its facilities, go visit Nellis AFB in Nevada and you will see what i mean. Its not like we have to train them with our equipment after all so security, although important can be worked witin to rpduce resullts that are in our own best interest.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> 1) The Iraqi AF already existed prior to the US taking it over. Flying isn't something new to them. It is new to the Afghanis.



The Afghan AF also existed in the Soviet days.......Its not new to them either.



> 4) True, but we haven't just started with flight either. It comes from experience and such. Okay, granted they can learn that too with a helping hand.



And it takes alot of years to build that experience. If we start 10 years from now, we have lost 10 years and that means that western air forces have to stay 10 more years.


----------



## HItorMiss (10 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Army or navy its always good to see that the other services know how to run an AF.......If i was to tell people how the army should do things i would be run off this site in short order but thats another rant for another time....



Pretty sure your time with the CER's counts for more then just your CD  


Regarding the Afghan AF why not? Do we (NATO) not already train their Army, supply their Army etc etc why should we not be startin to train and supply the next important element of their Military security. They are a totaly landlocked nation so no need for a Navy but they will in the very near future need to have at least a rudementary AF that can grow on it's own right in time.


----------



## medaid (10 Oct 2007)

Well cheerios for answering all of my questions at least  

I would never dream of running an AF or tell them how to run it. I was just curious/concerned. But if an apology is required, then consider it proffered. Humbly so.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Pretty sure your time with the CER's counts for more then just your CD



That was before the war in the desert that seems to have changed so much.  The stuff i learned would have been useful in the Fulda gap but now when i read Afghanistan stuff i feel lost so i tend to stay out of it.


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2007)

"The average age of its pilots is 43, Lindell said, an experienced group but one with few up-and-coming students."

Apparently, some of them can already fly, and they have some helicopters.

There is a basis already.

It doesn't take long for people to learn to fly half decently. What is required are experienced leaders to supervise them. We just don't know how many of these experienced guys they have, or how good they are.

In any case, we are looking at small numbers, which makes the training programme somewhat easier than training large numbers of Infantry, including leaders from scratch.

The US Army already has a viable training programme for international student helicopter pilots at Fort Rucker. They are used to training students from around the planet, and I'd be highly surprised if training a select few Afghans would be any problem whatsoever.

I would presume that they have similar programmes for training techs and other support staff.

A modest Afghan National Army Aviation component is not an outlandish concept.

I'd start out with utility crews and helicopters, as that task is simpler, and work up to the more complex attack and reconnaissance missions later, starting with the escort role. They could either support their own ground units or integrate with ISAF aviation units, or both.

My concern would be greater on the tech side.

An Aviation OMLT might be an interesting job.

A possible ANA Aviation unit could have an Afghan CO (preferably a pilot), with Afghans serving in other key leadership roles. Officers from Aviation organizations in ISAF countries would serve as deputies. Aircraft captains would also xome from ISAF countries, with Afghans flying as first officers. The maintenance organization would be staffed with senior techs  from ISAF countries and apprentice-level Afghan techs. Over time, the number of ISAF deputies/advisers/tech staff could be reduced, or the more experienced Afghans could be moved to a new Afghan-heavy unit and the process repeated.

While Hips might do initially, I think that donating Chinooks to this organization would be the best course, and Black Hawks as a minimum. We could always use more Chinooks in theatre, and decent machines would make it far easier to attract volunteers to the Aviation OMLT.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

Considering the risk of IEDs and ambush, it makes a lot of sense to develop and maintain a rudimentary airforce or army aviation corp.  Low tech troop transports and gunships will serve this mountainous country well.... IMHO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2007)

Part of the problem is getting recruits with the necessary skills in order to teach how to fly and how interoperate with the other nations there. 20 year old helo’s are almost new compared to most of the Helo’s used by NATO forces. I suspect that the Helo’s are actually older than that though. 

I would say keep the air Force small for now, focus on 2 engine transports, small turbo prop 2 seat trainers with weapon pods to build a ground attack squadron and build up a Russian equipped Helo force around the Hips and Hinds. I suspect Russia could sell them rebuilt helo’s and trade in the current ones. 

For transports, there are lots of western designs that would work.

Building up a reliable and consistent ground support & repair facility will be tough, you can always hire pilots, but building the culture to properly maintain and supply an Air Force will be the most challenging task facing them.


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2007)

I don't see them with a need for fixed-wing aircraft for a while. Helicopters would be far more useful immediately.

Avoid Russian stuff. Provide them with the same machines that NATO contingents are operating. It will simplify training and support in the long run. The specific benefit will come from integrating junior Afghan techs and aircrew with experienced personnel from NATO countries. Training a bunch of pilots and techs and letting them loose would be a disaster, and I wouldn't want to force personnel from NATO countries to work with crap machinery. I wouldn't want NATO troops to have to fly in these either.

If we keep giving these guys garbage, there will be an increasing rift between Afghans and us.

There are enough smart, motivated, and literate Afghans to do this, and, obviously, some already are.

Give them something useful, that can be integrated into the overall operation, and we all benefit.

On the fixed-wing side, similar aircrew and groundcrew training and integration should begin as soon as possible. Provision of aircraft could probably wait a little longer.


----------



## Mortar guy (10 Oct 2007)

All great ideas but just to throw some recent info into the mix:

The Afghan National Army Air Corps (as it's called) is already being mentored by CSTC-A: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46410

Also, they have L39s and An-26/An-32s so they are developing a fixed wing capability to include fast air. Of note is this quote from the article: "Last years’ $3.5 million budget is projected to expand to $450 million to begin purchasing aircraft. By 2011, the air corps will have more than 200 aircraft of different types in their inventory and will have the capability to operate anywhere in the country."

MG


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2007)

I wonder what they have on order...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't see them with a need for fixed-wing aircraft for a while. Helicopters would be far more useful immediately.
> 
> Avoid Russian stuff. Provide them with the same machines that NATO contingents are operating. It will simplify training and support in the long run. The specific benefit will come from integrating junior Afghan techs and aircrew with experienced personnel from NATO countries. Training a bunch of pilots and techs and letting them loose would be a disaster, and I wouldn't want to force personnel from NATO countries to work with crap machinery. I wouldn't want NATO troops to have to fly in these either.
> 
> ...



Actually there is nothing wrong with Russian Helo’s. In fact the largest helo working in Canada is the Mi-26, plus they are happily using Kamov’s here for heli-logging. They are big, powerful and fairly simple to repair. Unlike the Blackhawk which is fly by wire. 
It is also unclear what is NATO future in Afghanistan, the western kit is likely become orphaned once we leave. However Russia is nearby and would likely be more than happy to have a stable government in Afghanistan they can sell to. Also there current crop of pilots and ground crew have grown up with Russian equipment and are used to it. The biggest issue with Russian aircraft are their engines and it is likely that they will improve them as continue to compete internationally. According to the link below, there are 12,000 Mi-8’s out there, so spare parts won’t be drying up any time soon.  

 http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mi8t/


----------



## Scoobs (10 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't see them with a need for fixed-wing aircraft for a while. Helicopters would be far more useful immediately.
> 
> Avoid Russian stuff. Provide them with the same machines that NATO contingents are operating. It will simplify training and support in the long run. The specific benefit will come from integrating junior Afghan techs and aircrew with experienced personnel from NATO countries. Training a bunch of pilots and techs and letting them loose would be a disaster, and I wouldn't want to force personnel from NATO countries to work with crap machinery. I wouldn't want NATO troops to have to fly in these either.
> 
> ...



Loachman,

I'm hurt!!  Not!!!  I'm used to dealing with pilots, but you forgot the Maintenance Officers.  After all, someone has to keep you old pilots in line when you want 12 Griffons to do a mission the night before Frigid Lion!!!!


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually there is nothing wrong with Russian Helo’s.



Well, you fly them then. It may be simple prejudice, but I would not want to fly any Russian helicopter more than the once that it takes to be able to say that I'd done it and had something different to put in my logbook. Those that I have seen (Hip) did not inspire me with any notion to the contrary.

Older Black Hawks have conventional controls. UH-60M is fly-by-wire. As the US Army has opted not to upgrade existing machines in favour of purchasing new ones, there will be about 1500 on the block over the next few years. Some other Muslim countries are already operating UH-60 as well.

I would not want to leave the Russians with any influence at all in Afghanistan or anywhere else. If the Afghans are going to be dependent upon anybody else, I'd rather that it was us.

Should the Taliban or any similar successor seize the country, I'd rather see orphaned Western fleets marooned there than Russian ones as the supply of parts could more easily be shut off.


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2007)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I'm used to dealing with pilots, but you forgot the Maintenance Officers.



No, I didn't. I made the split between pilots and techs, aircrew and ground crew. I had no intention of getting into a detailed orbat, nor did I differentiate between ranks. Some of the techs could be commissioned, and most of the pilots could be NCOs.



			
				Scoobs said:
			
		

> After all, someone has to keep you old pilots in line when you want 12 Griffons to do a mission the night before Frigid Lion!!!!



I have never wanted 12 Griffons the night before Frigid Lion...


----------



## GAP (10 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Should the Taliban or any similar successor seize the country, I'd rather see orphaned Western fleets marooned there than Russian ones as the supply of parts could more easily be shut off.



Think "Iran" "Tomcat F-14?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Well, you fly them then. It may be simple prejudice, but I would not want to fly any Russian helicopter more than the once that it takes to be able to say that I'd done it and had something different to put in my logbook. Those that I have seen (Hip) did not inspire me with any notion to the contrary.
> 
> Older Black Hawks have conventional controls. UH-60M is fly-by-wire. As the US Army has opted not to upgrade existing machines in favour of purchasing new ones, there will be about 1500 on the block over the next few years. Some other Muslim countries are already operating UH-60 as well.
> 
> ...



I remember flying in a 214 in Venezuela and asking the pilot: “so do any of your instruments work…?” 

Regardless of nationality, a poorly maintained helo is bad news.

The Russian have more reason to fear a Taliban government in Kabul than us, so I expect they will offer more deals to them. 

Thanks for the information on the UH-60, I was under the impression that they were all fly by wire, if I recall correctly they lost quite a few before they sorted that system out.


----------



## geo (10 Oct 2007)

Russians are really upset with it's former Soviet block allies - they have been selling AKs while the Russian plants sit idle.

Sad - Isn't it!

I am certain they would be more than happy to sell slightly used & reconditioned Soviet gear


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Oct 2007)

Give 'em Spads, ha!

These people have problems pulling a rifle thru!

Flying training? Then maintenance of the aircraft? It would be a bloody nightmare!

See what I mean? Spads!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Oct 2007)

Well this video shows clearly the Russian have reduced the downtime by reducing the number of moving parts....

http://rutube.ru/tracks/216947.html?...14beb038730d55


----------



## Scoobs (11 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No, I didn't. I made the split between pilots and techs, aircrew and ground crew. I had no intention of getting into a detailed orbat, nor did I differentiate between ranks. Some of the techs could be commissioned, and most of the pilots could be NCOs.
> 
> I have never wanted 12 Griffons the night before Frigid Lion...



Loachman,

I was only playing with you.  However, some pilots have wanted that number of a/c before an exercise, so yes, Maint O's would be good for the Afghans to have.  But in general, my comment was just light hearted at nature.


----------



## GAP (31 Oct 2007)

Pilots, Equipment to Jump-Start Afghan Air Corps  
By David Mays Special to American Forces Press Service 
Article Link

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2007 - Highly experienced Afghan pilots soon will take to the skies in newly acquired aircraft as part of a concerted effort to accelerate progress of Afghanistan's nascent air corps, a coalition commander said today. 

"When you look at the country of Afghanistan, with the limited road structure -- there is no rail capacity -- just the ability to move logistics by air will be a tremendous enabler capability to the army," Air Force Brig. Gen. Jay Lindell told online journalists and "bloggers" during a conference call from the Afghan capital of Kabul. 

Lindell commands the Combined Air Power Transition Force, which is the aviation component of Combined Security Transition Command Afghanistan overseen by U.S. Central Command. He and 130 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are helping build capability in the Afghan National Army Air Corps. 

"Most of what the Afghan air corps needs are resources: aircraft, spare parts and maintenance support equipment," Lindell said. "The Afghan air corps has ability and desire; they need resources to give them capability. And that's what we are doing; we are boosting their capability rapidly." 

For instance, the coalition transition force has arranged to add 16 MI-17 transport helicopters, six MI-35 attack choppers and four Antonov 32 transport turboprop planes to the Afghan flightline over the next six months, the general explained. Additional Western medium-lift aircraft are expected to arrive in 2009, he said. 

"As we give them these aircraft, they'll be able to train themselves with their own instructors and quickly generate capability," Lindell said. 
More on link


----------



## geo (31 Oct 2007)

Why do I get the impression we'll be seeing Afghans flying "crop duster" missions in the near future


----------



## TN2IC (31 Oct 2007)

What about an Afghan Navy?  ;D

Regards,
Sgt Schultz


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2007)

Nah... A coast guard - To run boats on that lake formed by the Dam in Helmand province.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Nov 2007)

Considering how rugged this country is, the Afghan Air Force will play an important role in the future, even if they just have helicopters and transports. It will help the central government project their authority.


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2008)

An old thread, the subject is the same.....

C-27As for the Afghan Air Force
02-Oct-2008 16:00 EDT
Article Link

The Afghanistan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) is just getting to its feet, with about 6 flyable AN-32s and a pair of AN-26 light transport aircraft, about 38 Mi-17 assault transports and Mi-35 attack helicopters combined, and a small fleet of L-39 trainer/ light attack aircraft. Many of its pilots are older men, and ANAAC has not graduated a new pilot since 1992. 

An 8-year plan has been drawn up to begin training a new crop of pilots, and expand the air force. The ultimate goal is a force that can support the Afghan Army against al-Qaeda/ Taliban elements that launch raids within the country, or from across the border with Pakistan. Given Afghanistan’s rugged terrain and sparse infrastructure, however, a decision has been made to make tactical transportation of troops and supplies ANACC’s top priority. This explains US NAVAIR’s efforts to secure the Ukrainian AN-32s, which offered familiar technology even though the spares situation is less than ideal.

Now a 3-way deal has been made involving Italy, which will send some of its Alenia G.222 (C-27A) light transports to Afghanistan after a refurbishment program conducted by Alenia North America…

Contracts and Key Events

Sept 29/08: Alenia North America, Inc. of Washington, DC receives a not-to-exceed $287 million firm-fixed-price contract. The program currently includes 18 aircraft in a standardized operational configuration as well as the modules to convert 2 aircraft to a VIP Transport configuration if required. 

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. The spares and maintenance issue is being addressed through the program via an initial spare parts inventory, ground support equipment, technical publications in English and Dari, and 3 years worth of contractor logistics support.
More on link


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> An old thread, the subject is the same.....
> 
> C-27As for the Afghan Air Force
> 02-Oct-2008 16:00 EDT
> ...



Why am I picturing the equivalent of flying LSVW's ? >


----------

