RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,184027,00.html.The article says the aircraft flew approx 200 hours in 6 months of deployment?Thats a pathetic record of achievment in a war zone.As usual with our NATO brothers,with exception of UK,Cn,Poles and Dutch others are just in the way of combat ops.I know,spent 15 months in country flying operational missions.What does ISAF really mean?I suck at fighting.Flint 242

Take the venerable C-123 Provider and give it an airframe
update and add more powerful engines with five blade props and the Italians have this STOL cargo aircraft.
ANY help is better than NO help with the logistics of AFGN.
Instead of bashing nations involved in the AFGN Campaign,
we should be encouraging them to CONTINUE to run the missions. Not bad mouthing them because they haven't done
MORE.

quote:

Originally posted by Flint242:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,184027,00.html.The article says the aircraft flew approx 200 hours in 6 months of deployment?Thats a pathetic record of achievment in a war zone.As usual with our NATO brothers,with exception of UK,Cn,Poles and Dutch others are just in the way of combat ops.I know,spent 15 months in country flying operational missions.What does ISAF really mean?I suck at fighting.Flint 242

Why is this pathetic? From reading the article, it seems they were available and answered the call when tasked. If they had been tasked more, they would have flown more. The theater or local commanders send out tasking orders based on requirements. I would be interested in seeing if they had to decline any taskings for whatever reason. If that is a small or nonexistant number, then they did what they were told to.