ANA - Afghan National Army

[kunar1990]

[kunar1990]

A three-man team from 3rd Company, Commando Kandak (Battalion), provides 360 degree security while a fourth soldier plays the role of a wounded civilian during a rescue operation scenario at Pol-e-Charkhi in Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 19. The commandos trained in a variety of scenarios and drills with both the M4 rifle and various heavy weapons, all of which used live ammunition. (Photo by Afghan National Army Sgt. Rahmudeen Nangarhari, 201st Corps Public Affairs)

[kunar1990]

[kunar1990]

[Sarbaz Khan]

دا ټول د امریکي غلامان دي، سره د پاکستان مرتد فوځ. الله دي ورته د نيکي هدایت وکي

[Master Khan]

They are more repectful then the Pak Army

[SWATIAN]

They are more repectful then the Pak Army

yes I agree with u Master khan.

[Nokia_Apridy]

A three-man team from 3rd Company, Commando Kandak (Battalion), provides 360 degree security while a fourth soldier plays the role of a wounded civilian during a rescue operation scenario at Pol-e-Charkhi in Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 19. The commandos trained in a variety of scenarios and drills with both the M4 rifle and various heavy weapons, all of which used live ammunition. (Photo by Afghan National Army Sgt. Rahmudeen Nangarhari, 201st Corps Public Affairs)

pa daga taky (word,s) poya nashwam >?

[Max]

we gotta get some new jets yara, these albatross fighters that you see are actually trainer aircraft..every other country in the world uses them to train and Afghanistan has to use them as its frontline fighters..and we only got three !

Why doesnt US give em F16s, they are giving those to Iraq why not Afghans

[Admin Khan]

we gotta get some new jets yara, these albatross fighters that you see are actually trainer aircraft..every other country in the world uses them to train and Afghanistan has to use them as its frontline fighters..and we only got three !

Why doesnt US give em F16s, they are giving those to Iraq why not Afghans

Hi Max,

(Reuters) - The United States has pledged $16 billion to spend on training and equipping Afghanistan's army and air force, but the country needs more to build a force that can guarantee stability, an Afghan army official said on Wednesday.
Barack Obama
Defense Ministry spokesman Zaher Azimy said Kabul hoped a donor conference in London next month would provide cash and supplies needed for ambitious plans to expand the army to 240,000 soldiers, from over 100,000 at present.
"For the expansion process of the army, the United States has pledged $16 billion," Azimi said, adding that the cash would be spread out over the period needed to scale up the army, currently estimated at around four years.
"This is not enough by any means and we are hopeful to receive more assistance in London conference (from other NATO allies)."
He was speaking at a joint news conference with a spokesman for NATO-led forces, who did not dispute the $16 billion figure.
With violence at the highest level in years, U.S. President Barack Obama is sending in 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to try to turn the tide. Other NATO countries are sending some 7,000 more.
But Washington's plan also calls for U.S. troop levels to be scaled down from July 2011 as they gradually hand over security to the Afghans and the White House has said the United States will not be in Afghanistan in eight or nine years time.
Part of the U.S. cash is likely to cover planned spending on over 150 aircraft -- including helicopters, and reconnaissance, combat and transport planes -- that are vital for traversing Afghanistan, a rugged country with weak infrastructure.
Other assistance will target extra training and construction of bases as well as providing NATO-standard weapons, Azimy said.
A LONG WAY TO GO
The army is seen as a relative success story both for the Afghan government and its Western allies, but a report prepared for U.S. military commanders was critical of both Afghan soldiers and Afghan officers.
U.S. television network NBC said the 25-page, preliminary report cautioned that "corruption, nepotism and untrained/unmotivated personnel make success all but impossible" in Afghanistan. It warned that Afghan army commanders are "not at war," and "are often absent and place personal gain above national survival."
"It was a report that was requested by the (NATO) commander to do an independent look at the Afghan security forces," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, without confirming the details of the report.
"It's not completed as best I understand it and quite frankly does it surprise anybody here that the Afghan security forces ... have a ways to go and they aren't quite ready and they've got a few challenges and problems to work through."
Washington has poured $17 billion into building up the forces since the ouster of the Taliban in late 2001, Azimy said.
The army has also faced some problems with desertions in the past and several attacks by Afghans on the foreign troops they serve beside have highlighted sometimes testy relations between the two, prompting public debate in the West about the war.
Last month, an Afghan policeman killed five British soldiers at a military compound in southern Helmand province. The Taliban said he was one of their fighters who had infiltrated the force.
In the latest attack, an Afghan soldier on Tuesday shot dead an American soldier and wounded two Italian troops in a joint Afghan and foreign base in northwestern Badghis province.
Azimy said the assault was a result of a "verbal argument" between Afghan and foreign soldiers, not a Taliban attack.
A spokesman for the NATO-led force said the incident would not dent trust between Afghan and foreign troops.
"Every time the insurgents will try to use one type of incident against us, try to break that partnership, we won't let that happen," Wayne Shanks said. "Our forces gain strength by operating beside their Afghan partners and will continue to do that."
(Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Washington; Editing by Emma Graham-Harrison)

Source:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BT1J420091230

[Max]

Ive read it before admin khana

but they dont intend on providing any fighters, atleast not in the near future...they will provide helos and fixed-wing aircraft

in order for us to get fighter we need tons of stuff, the logistics behind acquiring fighter platforms will alone be a nightmare for a country that doesnt have any trained pilots on board..Even when soviets came all of the Afghan fighters were flown by soviets, so you see these rookies will be starting from scratch

For a fully developed advanced airforce it takes atleast five years to induct a system and then there is the matter of having training all the logictics people..Albatross is a good trainer fighter, if we had more of these we would have had atleast some experienced pilots

EDIT: And here is the kicker, most of this junk will be VIP transports for karzai and co.

[Marwat]

^Does Afghanistan have any institutions where you can learn to fly?

[Max]

No when US came they bombed the hell out of everything..not that there was anything left

Afghanistan is the first country that destroyed its own airforce

[Max]

it actually got a lot of fighters during the soviet invasion..but none of the Afghan pilots knew how to fly, and those who did didnt want to cuz the fighters were bombing pashtuns

PAF shot down eight Afghan sukhois without losing a single fighter..one of the PAF F16s got hit with a sidwinder fired from another F16, it was due to a mal lock. the pilot ejected and got out safe

[Marwat]

it actually got a lot of fighters during the soviet invasion..but none of the Afghan pilots knew how to fly, and those who did didnt want to cuz the fighters were bombing pashtuns

PAF shot down eight Afghan sukhois without losing a single fighter..one of the PAF F16s got hit with a sidwinder fired from another F16, it was due to a mal lock. the pilot ejected and got out safe

thanks for sharing with us.