And contractors will be a very important part of that drawdown, much like they were in Iraq. The problem with Afghanistan though is how difficult it will be to actually get this stuff out of the country, just because it is a landlocked nation and the roads out of town are through some rough and dangerous country. At least Iraq had easier roads to navigate on and plenty of port access.
What is interesting with this deal is the decision making process to ship the item or leave it in Afghanistan for whomever– all because of cost. How much stuff they leave in this country is the question, and I imagine it will be quite a bit. -Matt
Equipment drawdown from Afghanistan an ‘enormous’ undertaking
By Hendrick Simoes
March 23, 2013
With the pace of NATO’s drawdown from Afghanistan accelerating, the international coalition is faced with the unprecedented task of removing tens of thousands of tons of equipment and vehicles from a country still very much at war.
For the U.S. military, moving 35,000 vehicles and 95,000 shipping containers full of cargo to various bases in America or overseas is easier said than done.
Maj. Gen. Kurt Stein, commander of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command, said during a visit to Kuwait last month that getting the supplies and equipment out of Afghanistan will be an “enormous” mission.
“It will be historic, it’s nothing like we have ever done in the history of our military.” The 1st TSC has a leading role in the equipment drawdown, or as they refer to it — “retrograde.”
Afghanistan is landlocked, and transit routes to the nearest seaport in Pakistan are long, politically tenuous and vulnerable to attack. The alliance’s northern supply route, snaking overland through Central Asia and Russia to Poland and the Baltics, also is difficult due to the logistics of coordinating truck and rail transport.
Stein, who also oversaw the pull-out of equipment from Iraq, said there could be no comparison between the complexity of the two operations.
Asked which road he feared most, 40-year-old driver Mohammad Qayum said the valley route to the most far-flung U.S. base in the northeast, Forward Operating Base Bostick near the Pakistan border in north Kunar, was the most dangerous. Bostick, in a natural mountain amphitheatre visited by Reuters in June, is a frequent target for Taliban rockets aimed down at the first battalion of the U.S. 12th Infantry Regiment. “Last year, two of my trucks were attacked going to Kunar. My nephew was inside and was burned to death,” said Lalajan, nodding agreement with his friend.
This has always left a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the logistics of this war. These materials being shipped on land are and have always been a prime target of the enemy, and yet you never hear of any concerted effort to actively protect these shipments or to set up fairer contracts that would better protect the rights of these truckers? Why is that?
These truck drivers are risking life and limb to deliver this stuff and at the very least we should be providing some kind of constant over watch with air assets along with some ground units that can help to establish corridors. Anything to protect these guys as they deliver these crucial supplies. (at least on the Afghanistan side)
The other angle that we are missing out on is that if the enemy wants to show themselves in attacks against these supply convoys, then these are perfect opportunities for us to eliminate the exposed enemy using air assets and strategically positioned ground units. We should be striving to make life a living hell for the Taliban out in those mountain passes, and make them pay for attacking convoys.
Also by not protecting these convoys, we are creating Afghans that harbor animosity and anger towards ISAF/NATO. These folks are also in the same position as interpreters or anyone else that has stepped forward to help ISAF/NATO in the war–that they get the label of ‘infidel’ or traitor. I think they deserve better than that. They should get our respect and thanks for their sacrifices and we should do more to meet them half way in their effort to support us.
Hell, if the military doesn’t want to do this, then contract it out. Task a company with protecting over these routes and allow them to operate lethal air assets along with sufficient ground assets. A private company could absolutely create the corridor needed, and the money saved by making this deal with Pakistan to continue ground shipments could be applied to contracting out this type of security effort. And that would include security on the Afghanistan side and Pakistan side of these routes, because the enemy is hitting them on both sides. Either way, something must be done if these supplies are that important? -Matt
Edit: 07/31/2012– Check this quote out. It seems the Taliban are pretty stoked about these shipping routes being opened. They were a prime source of income for their fighters.
“Stopping these supplies caused us real trouble,” a Taliban commander who leads about 60 insurgents in eastern Ghazni province told The Associated Press in an interview. “Earnings dropped down pretty badly. Therefore the rebellion was not as strong as we had planned.” A second Taliban commander who controls several dozen fighters in southern Kandahar province said the money from security companies was a key source of financing for the insurgency, which uses it to pay fighters and buy weapons, ammunition and other supplies. “We are able to make money in bundles,” the commander told the AP by telephone. “Therefore, the NATO supply is very important for us.”
44 NATO oil tankers attacked in Pakistan, December 2011.
Afghan truckers a forgotten front in a war growing deadlier by the day
Sun, Jul 29 2012
By Rob Taylor and Hamid Shalizi
In the cabins of their “jingle” trucks flamboyant with tinsel baubles and painted tiger patterns as they move NATO’s war supplies, Habibullah thinks he and other drivers are becoming a forgotten front in an Afghan war growing more vicious.
From a dusty truck park midway between Kabul and the Pakistan border, and under the constant thump of helicopters from Jalalabad airbase over the road, Habibullah moves food and military materiel across the Taliban’s eastern heartland, from Nuristan to the former al Qaeda cave stronghold of Tora Bora.
“We worry about our fate when NATO leaves, because the Taliban also call us the infidels. For them, we are not just the enemy, but also traitors,” said the soft spoken 23-year-old, who contributes seven trucks to a cooperative with five owners.
It is a thankless and increasingly deadly job, and one so mired in graft that the drivers see a fraction of the cash paid by U.S. military paymasters, with the rest skimmed by middlemen or even going into the hands of insurgents for “protection”.
Only this week, three of Habibullah’s trucks were attacked and burned by Taliban amid the rugged mountains of Nuristan, a virtual no-go zone for NATO soldiers after heavy past losses and now garrisoned by a handful of Afghan troops and police.
This is just cool. Here is a NASA astronaut describing the public-private partnership between SpaceX and NASA with this upcoming logistics mission. Dragon is the name of the supply capsule, mounted on a Falcon 9 rocket, that will be sent to the International Space Station to resupply it. Dragon would be the first commercial spacecraft to perform this mission at the ISS.
Not only that, but government needs SpaceX to get this right. We are talking about delivering the essentials of life–food, etc. and there are people in space who are depending on these deliveries. So all eyes will be on this company and their team of quality control folks, engineers, and everyone in between on getting this thing off the ground and delivering like a champ. (which this will be a really interesting case study for how private industry will do this versus how NASA used to do this–differences, similarities, cost savings, etc.)
What I really enjoyed though was the comparison of today’s public-private partnership, to yesteryear’s use of private industry to support the expansion out west. I have discussed this partnership when it came to scouts and the Army, and Don Pettit’s example of contractors supplying forts is another one.
Not only that, but today’s contractors in the war have been immensely important to the task of supplying military outposts and supporting logistics missions all over. So yes, when I see a government Astronaut talking about contractors and commercial spaceflight, while he is in space, I rate that as pretty awesome. Check it out. -Matt
“These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year.
I don’t think people realize how significant LCLA resupply is to the war effort. Every paracargo bundle dropped, is one less convoy operation that could be exposed to IED’s. It get’s the troops off of the roads and diminishes the effectiveness of IED’s. That’s unless the Taliban can figure out how to mine the sky? lol
But what is key here is the amount of contractor involvement with this crucial logistics method. Below I have posted three separate bits of news that when combined, are pretty significant.
The first is a video showing an old Caribou dropping paracargo in Afghanistan. Wired’s Danger Room did a great little post on this and got some quotes about what was going on with it. No word on what company this is, but I am sure the Caribou clubs know and are cheering them on. I also would not be surprised if the pilots are former smokejumper pilots, because the way they were dropping that stuff is exactly how the jumpers would do this.
The Army deployed to Marzak in January. Anticipating the need to supply it and other remote locations, in October the Army hired a boutique resupply company built around a single, 50-year-old DeHavilland Caribou and 15 civilian pilots, staff and ground crew. The Caribou and its crews, based at Bagram airfield near Kabul, are asked to do things most military airlifters cannot: Fly low and fast to drop small loads of critical supplies with pinpoint accuracy.
The company, whose name we’ve been asked to keep secret, began flying resupply missions in October. Since then, it has delivered more than a million pounds of cargo, according to a source close to the company. The secret to its success is the skill of the flight crews, the mechanics’ meticulous maintenance of the 1960s-vintage Caribou and upgrades to the rugged plane’s engines that give it extra oomph. “It makes for a perfect LCLA airdrop platform,” the source tells Danger Room.
“Low-Cost, Low-Altitude airdrops by civilians in Afghanistan is an extremely vital asset that’s usually overlooked by most,” the source continues. The lack of publicity could be intended to spare the Air Force any embarrassment. After all, until recently the flying branch did possess one small airlifter in the Caribou’s general category that could possibly have equaled the civilian plane’s low, pinpoint drops. The would be the C-27J, built by Alenia.
On a side note, smokejumpers used this aircraft for operations back in the day. We have used all sorts of aircraft, and we still use the DC-3 from WW2! lol I remember watching this really cool 70′s video of some smokejumpers doing some loadmaster work out of a Caribou over some forest fire. The footage was amazing and vintage, and in color! If I find it or someone posts it on youtube, I will put it up one of these days.
The next bit of news is that FlightWorks Inc. just won a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract for LCLA resupply in Afghanistan. They also have to provide short take off and landing aircraft for the contract. That means aircraft that can land on small runways up in the mountains, much like how smokejumpers use their aircraft to supply folks. No word yet on what type of aircraft Flightworks Inc. will use, or if they will be using their own loadmasters or not.
Last I had heard, contract aircraft would fly the stuff, but military loadmasters would kick it. Maybe that has changed and we will see. I would also be curious as to what this company will do for preparing pilot, air crew, and aircraft for combat operations? Because dumping this stuff at low levels will definitely expose them to enemy attacks. Dangerous stuff, and if an aircraft crashes, that air crew must have the tools necessary to survive until rescue. From weapons to first aid supplies to survival items–they must be prepared.
The last story though is the most eye opening. The military just announced multiple contracts totaling $838 million for the manufacture and purchase of pre-packed paracargo chutes. That is a lot of cargo chutes.
But what I was most concerned with is that they are one time use–supposedly. That is surprising to me if true. These chutes should be re-packed and used over and over again. What a waste of parachutes by just using them once and throwing them away? If anything, a company could be contracted to re-pack them in Afghanistan, and re-distribute those chutes to aerial resupply units that need them. Either use a local company that is managed well by professional cargo chute packers (contract civilian Master Riggers?) and re-use these things. That is what makes the concept ‘low cost’. Here is the quote from the author of the post.
These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?
Perhaps the author of the blog post made a mistake here and that there is a paracargo packing system in place to re-use this stuff? That is how we used paracargo chutes in the smokejumpers, and those things can last forever if taken care of properly. One chute can be used for hundreds of paracargo missions, and when I was jumping, we would pack and use everything form the old French Cross military cargo chutes to converted and chopped up older/out of service canopies. Jumpers would repair these cargo chutes to get even more use out of them, and it was a system that worked great. Even our rigging was re-usable.
Either way, this is great to see private industry meet the requirements for these crucial logistics. We are also flying helicopters and cargo aircraft all over Afghanistan, and private aviation is crucial to the logistics there. It also saves lives, because every bundle that can be flown, is one less bundle that has to be transported on IED infested roads. -Matt
FlightWorks, Inc., Kennesaw, Ga., was awarded a $13,182,338 firm-fixed-price contract.
The award will provide for the short take off and landing and low cost low altitude aerial resupply services in Afghanistan.
Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 26, 2012.
One bid was solicited, with one bid received.
The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W560MY-11-C-0005).
Air Force photo / Staff Sgt. Chad Chisholm A flock of Low-Cost, Low-Velocity parachutes gently drop bundles of needed supplies to a remote forward operating base in Afghanistan.
They Better Be 100% Silk
By Mark Thompson
April 18, 2012
Five of the first six contract awards announced Tuesday were for parachutes costing nearly $1 billion. All five contracts were for “low-cost, low velocity parachutes.” Alas, as is becoming increasingly common, the contract announcements don’t specify how many are being bought, so it’s difficult to assess the “low cost” claim. We trust the competition keeps prices down.
These so-called LCLV parachutes are one-time-use ‘chutes designed to deliver fuel, ammo and food to troops at isolated bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They’re packed into a “Low-Cost Container” as part of the Army’s “Low Cost Aerial Delivery Systems” program. Beginning to notice a pattern?
The parachutes aren’t made of silk, but of a polypropylene fabric similar to that often used for sand bags. “These airdrops bring the supplies closer to the troops, and lowers the risk of IED attacks by taking convoys off dangerous roads,” Bobby Robinson, a government civilian logistician, told an Air Force public affairs officer last year. “LCLV parachutes look like a big Hefty bag flying in mid-air.”
They’re dropped at a rate of less than 28 feet a second from cargo planes at altitudes ranging from 500 to 1,250 feet. Each can deliver up to 2,200 pounds.
“We’re surrounded by mountains — the snow sets in. The helicopter passes are impassible by helicopter and the roads could be clogged up,” Poe said in the report. “Utilizing airdrops with the GPS-guided parachutes allows us that avenue to use in case we can’t get resupplied by helicopters or vehicles by the road, which is a typical case come winter here.”
This is very cool. Logistics is so important to the war effort, and it looks like paracargo is really shining in Afghanistan. I like it because it reduces the amount of convoy operations needed, which then equates to less targets for the enemy on the ground. Attacking logistics is definitely a goal of the enemy, and paracargo is a great way to get around that. Especially when we are using precision guided paracargo systems like the JPADS. -Matt
Afghanistan airdrops surpass record levels in 2011
Posted 1/9/2012
by Master Sgt. Scott T. Sturkol
Air Mobility Command Public Affairs
In 2011, mobility Airmen delivering airdrops reached a new annual record with 75,956,235 pounds of cargo delivered. That’s nearly 16 million more pounds delivered than the previous record set in 2010 of 60,400,000.
At more than 75.9 million pounds – that’s the equivalent of standing on a mountain top and watching 553 Army M1 Abrams tanks — or even 11,868 Chevrolet Silverado trucks — floating down from the sky with parachutes to a landing zone.
The record number, as recorded by Air Forces Central’s Combined Air Operations Center at a non-disclosed base in Southwest Asia, is also larger than the total number of pounds delivered in Afghanistan by airdrop from 2006 to 2009 which combined is 60,525,969 pounds.
On average mobility Airmen airdropped 6,329,686 pounds of cargo each month in 2011. Mobility Airmen completing the airdrops flew C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III aircraft from various deployed bases. They also completed the airdrops in various forms – from the the use of the traditional Container Delivery System, or CDS, bundles to the Joint Precision Airdrop System, or JPADS.
At any given time, Spoehr said, there are 55 convoys of 30 to 50 vehicles shipping equipment out of the country - that’s about 1,650 vehicles. He believes the only comparable operation of such size and scope occurred during World War II. Logistical teams keep track of every convoy’s movement in much the same way that air traffic controllers hand off control of planes in the sky.
This is a story that needs to be told. Contractors are currently being called upon for a massive logistics operation to get stuff out of Iraq before this December deadline. They are also being called upon to secure and continue the convoys coming in to Iraq to supply the massive diplomatic mission there. And with ‘zero’ troops to do that supply job, this industry is quickly stepping in to fill that security and logistics vacuum.
So bravo to all of you contractors out there that are assisting in these operations. You are a vital part of this phase of the war and the future of Iraq diplomatic missions, and if no one else will recognize that contribution, then at least I can do that here on the blog.
Also, that is interesting about Olive Group North America. I didn’t know they had this contract. Although I have found nothing on their website to indicate they are looking for folks and maybe they have subcontracted locally or something? Here is the quote:
The firm, Olive Group North America, has had a contract to supply 10 convoy escort teams since July 2011, according to the Army notice. It will now take over security for shipments coming from Kuwait while gradually building up to 45 convoy escort teams. The cost of the contract, as well as the number of armored vehicles and armed security personnel that make up a convoy escort team, has been redacted from the notice. However, an earlier version of the contract indicated that each team should consist of three to five lightly armored vehicles and be accompanied by an 11-person armed security team.
Interesting information and if anyone has anything to add, please do so in the comments. -Matt
In Iraq, U.S. turns to more private contractors
By Walter Pincus
11/08/2011
As American troops head out of Iraq, U.S. officials are being forced to bring in more private security contractors.
The withdrawal of the remaining troops from Iraq — 33,000 at last count — has caused U.S. officials to move quickly to fill a series of security gaps to ensure the continued protection of American diplomatic personnel as well as U.S. goods.
The latest example comes from the Army, which said in a recent notice that it has increased the number of contracted security teams hired to escort convoys of food and fuel coming in from Kuwait.
The U.S. military had previously provided security for truckers hired by the Defense Logistics Agency for such convoys, and the truckers’ contracts require that they have security escorts.
In justifying the expanded contract, the Army said that if it were forced to delay the hiring of more contractors, “the U.S. military would have to stay in theater longer than planned to provide the escorts and postpone their re-deployment operation.”
Getting food and fuel from Iraqi sources was not an option.
Purchasing those items “off the local economy is unacceptable,” the Army said, given that there “isn’t enough time for an assessment team to travel through Iraq and identify approved sources to purchase food.”
As a result, the Army said it was turning to a private security contractor that already had been supplying security for food and fuel convoys in Iraq. The firm, Olive Group North America, has had a contract to supply 10 convoy escort teams since July 2011, according to the Army notice. It will now take over security for shipments coming from Kuwait while gradually building up to 45 convoy escort teams.
The cost of the contract, as well as the number of armored vehicles and armed security personnel that make up a convoy escort team, has been redacted from the notice. However, an earlier version of the contract indicated that each team should consist of three to five lightly armored vehicles and be accompanied by an 11-person armed security team.
The Army’s notice does note one other side effect of the departure of U.S. troops.
Without American military convoys, fuel trucks from the local economy will no longer be permitted onto U.S. sites because of the “catastrophic risk” they could be carrying explosives.
Story here.
—————————————————————- General: ‘Vast Majority’ of US Troops Out of Iraq by Mid-December
Nov 3, 2011
For the first time, a U.S. military official is saying on the record that the “vast majority” of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by mid-December, ahead of the end-of-year withdrawal deadline.
Maj. Gen. Thomas Spoehr told Pentagon reporters today that he could not provide specific timetables about the pace of the drawdown, though he revealed that most U.S. troops would be out by mid-December
