Interesting article that the Taliban are upset that US had disabled Aircraft and Helicopters and hadn't left them for the Taliban to use.

I am guessing the disabled aircraft are those that the US would have returned to the USA, had they not been in such a rush and we more than likely at various stages of routine maintenance.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-ne ... SqUpXj7Loo

This really is not that surprising. The Taliban are unlikely to be able to support any aircraft for the long term without foreign assistance. It will be interesting to see in what way neighbouring countries, as well as China and Russia may provide vehicles or aircraft, and maintenance support.

One thing I found puzzling was that in one of the photos of Kabul airport published in the New York Times, there was a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter visible. I thought those had all been retired several years ago.

Newark727 wrote:

One thing I found puzzling was that in one of the photos of Kabul airport published in the New York Times, there was a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter visible. I thought those had all been retired several years ago.

The State Department took a number into service when they were retired from the USMC.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... fghanistan

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

One thing I found puzzling was that in one of the photos of Kabul airport published in the New York Times, there was a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter visible. I thought those had all been retired several years ago.

The State Department took a number into service when they were retired from the USMC.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... fghanistan

Ah, mystery solved! Thanks.

Does anyone have a list of the 73 aircraft. The linked article has a H-60 flying, so some must be operational. In other footage, I saw CH-47's etc. Quite an expensive speedy withdraw.

Dutchy wrote:

Does anyone have a list of the 73 aircraft. The linked article has a H-60 flying, so some must be operational. In other footage, I saw CH-47's etc. Quite an expensive speedy withdraw.

So was the US supposed to take back the military items given to the Afghan government when they withdrew?
Daily we are seeing where the media is setting the discourse, all we are reading about is the Taliban using military equipment abandoned by the USA, nothing about the equipment that was being used by the Afghan military and police forces that they dropped when they ran away from the fight and allowed the Taliban to walk in unopposed. I guess once we stick to that line it will make the corruption charges much easier since nothing was ever given over to the locals even though billions spent purchasing equipment for said locals.
The things that make you go hmmm.....

Tactically, aircrafts are no use to the Taliban as they do not have pilots (until the Qataries can train them ). They should have access to small drones for their reconnaissance. What they really coveted are those armored vehicles. If the opposition does not have anti tank missiles, then the armored vehicles can tip the ballance on the battle field, at least in the valley.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Tactically, aircrafts are no use to the Taliban as they do not have pilots (until the Qataries can train them ). They should have access to small drones for their reconnaissance. What they really coveted are those armored vehicles. If the opposition does not have anti tank missiles, then the armored vehicles can tip the ballance on the battle field, at least in the valley.

bt

None of those armored vehicles are very heavy, and everybody and their brother in-country has access to an RPG-7 which can deal with them handily.

I'm most curious as to where the AH-64s used to secure Kabul's airfield ended up.

Here's a list based on photos on what's left behind and is supposedly disabled.

Currently 70 aircraft accounted for

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/l ... pters.html

I don't think it's really the Taliban that are Upset here.

The Seaknights were used to move people between the Airport and US embassy, 2 miles further..

Civil registered "Phrogs", flown by contractors with machine guns, helping out the locals.

Dutchy wrote:

Does anyone have a list of the 73 aircraft. The linked article has a H-60 flying, so some must be operational. In other footage, I saw CH-47's etc. Quite an expensive speedy withdraw.

No CH-47s, only Vietnam era CH-46's that were being used by the State Department. Not worth shipping back, the Marine's retired their last CH-46 in 2015. All their CH-46's were replaced by MV-22 Osprey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Department_Air_Wing

Spacepope wrote:

Here's a list based on photos on what's left behind and is supposedly disabled.

Currently 70 aircraft accounted for

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/l ... pters.html

Interestingly, most of these aircraft seem to belong to the (effectively defunct) Afghan Air Force.

The US would likely not have flown these back to the US or anywhere else in any case... They didn't belong to them.
I suppose the Afghan Air Force either lacked the crews to fly them out like the rest or they were simply not airworthy at the time.

Francoflier wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Here's a list based on photos on what's left behind and is supposedly disabled.

Currently 70 aircraft accounted for

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/l ... pters.html

Interestingly, most of these aircraft seem to belong to the (effectively defunct) Afghan Air Force.

The US would likely not have flown these back to the US or anywhere else in any case... They didn't belong to them.
I suppose the Afghan Air Force either lacked the crews to fly them out like the rest or they were simply not airworthy at the time.

Indeed, seems the only US owned and operated equipment left behind were those 5 State Department Phrogs.

Francoflier wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Here's a list based on photos on what's left behind and is supposedly disabled.

Currently 70 aircraft accounted for

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/l ... pters.html

Interestingly, most of these aircraft seem to belong to the (effectively defunct) Afghan Air Force.

The US would likely not have flown these back to the US or anywhere else in any case... They didn't belong to them.
I suppose the Afghan Air Force either lacked the crews to fly them out like the rest or they were simply not airworthy at the time.

The Afghan Air Force in general lacked the air crews and maintainers to operate a large portion of their fleet for years.

ThePointblank wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Here's a list based on photos on what's left behind and is supposedly disabled.

Currently 70 aircraft accounted for

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2021/09/l ... pters.html

Interestingly, most of these aircraft seem to belong to the (effectively defunct) Afghan Air Force.

The US would likely not have flown these back to the US or anywhere else in any case... They didn't belong to them.
I suppose the Afghan Air Force either lacked the crews to fly them out like the rest or they were simply not airworthy at the time.

The Afghan Air Force in general lacked the air crews and maintainers to operate a large portion of their fleet for years.

Isn't it the latter, rather than the former? Meaning -- they had pilots, but contractors maintained the fleet?
The only fleet Afghans figured a way to maintain themselves were Mi helicopters. Might see a comeback, eventually...

Phosphorus wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Interestingly, most of these aircraft seem to belong to the (effectively defunct) Afghan Air Force.

The US would likely not have flown these back to the US or anywhere else in any case... They didn't belong to them.
I suppose the Afghan Air Force either lacked the crews to fly them out like the rest or they were simply not airworthy at the time.

The Afghan Air Force in general lacked the air crews and maintainers to operate a large portion of their fleet for years.

Isn't it the latter, rather than the former? Meaning -- they had pilots, but contractors maintained the fleet?
The only fleet Afghans figured a way to maintain themselves were Mi helicopters. Might see a comeback, eventually...

No, they had a pilot shortage as well. This was reported in the Inspector General's report:

https://t.co/VIDSJ4ckDT

How were the aircraft disabled? Short of blowing them up, I wouldn't be surprised to see some fly again. Iran is still flying some F-14s from the 1970s with zero US support.

Spacepope wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Tactically, aircrafts are no use to the Taliban as they do not have pilots (until the Qataries can train them ). They should have access to small drones for their reconnaissance. What they really coveted are those armored vehicles. If the opposition does not have anti tank missiles, then the armored vehicles can tip the ballance on the battle field, at least in the valley.

bt

None of those armored vehicles are very heavy, and everybody and their brother in-country has access to an RPG-7 which can deal with them handily.

I'm most curious as to where the AH-64s used to secure Kabul's airfield ended up.

Most likely most of the Combat Aviation Brigade assets were airlifted out.

To your argument that the RPG > MRAP...yeah, yes and no.

There are plenty of reasons to hate the MRAP (as a concept and in particular) but there plenty of reasons to have one, even in a place where RPGs are ubiquitous, like Somalia or Afghanistan.

Armored protection and mobility is valuable on the modern battlefield and why you don't see the Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese or US armies just reverting to mammoth foot-borne infantry formations.

ryu2 wrote:

How were the aircraft disabled? Short of blowing them up, I wouldn't be surprised to see some fly again. Iran is still flying some F-14s from the 1970s with zero US support.

Avionics and anything remotely sensitive were smashed, structural elements had holes cut into them, landing gear were deliberately broken, and engines wrecked. Basically, they are husks of their former selves.

aschachter wrote:

Interesting article that the Taliban are upset that US had disabled Aircraft and Helicopters and hadn't left them for the Taliban to use.

I am guessing the disabled aircraft are those that the US would have returned to the USA, had they not been in such a rush and we more than likely at various stages of routine maintenance.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-ne ... SqUpXj7Loo

Many of the aircraft were owned by the now defunct Republic of Afghanistan government outright, most usually as gifted from other nations (not solely the United States). There would have been some legal and other logistical issues if the US could simply abscond with them back to the US, but considering priorities and difficulty in getting even all of their equipment back in it was always going to be a moot, academic point.

Disabling the aircraft in the first place is pointless anyway as the Taliban wasted no time in attempting to establish relations with the People's Republic of China.

And there should be no doubt that the PRC is capable of repairing all the aircraft in question. Hell, they already legally and fairly make parts for most of these aircraft including the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame lock, stock and barrel.

Not that the Taliban is a real strategic threat to the US with or without this equipment, or ever was in the first place. Al Qaeda just happened to have personnel and infrastructure in Afghanistan, not actually be Afghanistan. You can argue whether or not the Taliban was complicit in tolerating or turning a blind eye to Al Qaeda, if they were actively supporting Al Qaeda or if a military response was even the right call (I would highly suggest that 1. the very consequences we're discussing highly suggest "no" and 2. the real lesson to learn here is that the political and military leadership of the United States is physically incapable of learning any lesson whatsoever). Even fearing that the Taliban would give this equipment to terrorists is an unfounded right-wing fever-fueled fear as the Taliban are at least at odds with ISIL.

BestIntellect wrote:

And there should be no doubt that the PRC is capable of repairing all the aircraft in question. Hell, they already legally and fairly make parts for most of these aircraft including the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame lock, stock and barrel.

As far as I can read there is no indication at all in the link that China makes "the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame". They have apparently reverse engineered them and now make a model on their own that near identical in appearance but there are differences that are obvious even then. So I am certain that there are real differences and alterations to the frame design for they version of it.

Nor do they "legally and fairly" make parts for them. They make them to support what they have/had but in violation of whatever sales contract there was (no that that matters or they care). Sikorsky I am sure was the only one "allowed legally" to supply parts. And they stopped. So China had to copy any needed parts.

Also China won't be all that quick to support any Taliban helicopters as that hobbles their ability to operate in more contested areas along the Afghan/China border region. If anyone is going to have quick deployment resources... well it's not going to be the Taliban with assistance from China.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

As far as I can read there is no indication at all in the link that China makes "the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame".

Thank you for proving that you haven't even bothered to click the link and completely missed the point, in extremely typical Airliners.net fashion.

Afghanistan is bankrupt and begging for money to buy food, how would they afford Chinese support/aircraft ? And to do what ?

Aesma wrote:

Afghanistan is bankrupt and begging for money to buy food, how would they afford Chinese support/aircraft ? And to do what ?

The Chinese will give them things in exchange for being able to take whatever resources they want.

BestIntellect wrote:

Tugger wrote:

As far as I can read there is no indication at all in the link that China makes "the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame".

Thank you for proving that you haven't even bothered to click the link and completely missed the point, in extremely typical Airliners.net fashion.

Excuse me? I did read the link. In it's entirety. If anything, it appears that you, in "typical Airliners.net fashion" only look at one thing, one article, then stop. And it doesn't appear you read and understood your own link. But perhaps I am wrong, I am open to that.

I have been following the Z-20 for a few years. It is is most certainly a "copy" of the UH-60 but not an exact one. They had to remake it as their capabilities allowed and of course looking at "lessons learned", as well as wanting to make improvements and changes where they saw a need.
https://www.china-arms.com/2020/04/z20- ... lack-hawk/
https://www.army-technology.com/project ... elicopter/
https://eurasiantimes.com/black-hawk-do ... -choppers/

Key differences between Z-20 and Black Hawk include [...] and more angular tail-to-fuselage joint frame,

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/25639 ... v4u7C2ZNE4

So no, you are wrong and have not properly read up on the Harbin Z-20.and the Chinese do not make "the entirety of the S-70 Black Hawk frame lock, stock and barrel"
I reiterate, they make a helicopter that is a copy, based on it, reverse engineered from it but that is in fact different in many ways including the frames design and form.

Tugg