FedaykinInteresting sheytanelkebir, considering the budget is not set then everything listed has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
The Mi-28N is an interesting one really, an all weather day and night capable attack helicopter is quite a jump. Considering the Mi-28N is still in development vs the mature AH-64D presumably cost is a major deciding point. As I said I take it with a pinch of salt…
As for the missile complexes I presume S300 and BUK-M2E? Placing those on the northern border would certainly cut down on Turkish incursions if they can get the radar net sorted out.
FedaykinOn a serious note it makes me wonder of Greece might be interested in increasing defence relations with Iraq if it puts Turkey’s nose out of joint.
I would think the Iraqi airforce would have plenty to learn from Greece in respect of F-16 Block 50/52 operations. Greece also operates a mixed Western/Eastern equipment portfolio.
FedaykinIt is an interesting debate, WVR at medium to low altitude and the Sea Harrier wins the day. BVR at high altitude and I would switch outcomes, for that matter WVR as well.
The thing which is not mentioned about the Sea Harriers success in 1982 is that it was operating to its advantages. Argentine Mirage derivatives had to fly subsonic and come down to the fleet to attack with no spare fuel to mess around. Sea Harriers had plenty of fuel comparatively and medium to low altitude subsonic intercepts is almost perfect for the type. Apparently the types high altitude turn ability with such a small wing is nothing to write home about and it was G limited.
Interesting to note that Australian Mirage III a year after the Falklands had a superior kill ratio over the Sea Harrier in DACT when they stayed high and fast.
A new build Bucc would of been amazing but the line was closed and there was the attraction of a pan European project. We are where we are but back to the original point a Sea Tornado gives me shivers it is such a bad idea! Anyhow no market for it thankfully!
FedaykinYou know you are right JSR the Iraqi F-16IQ are downgraded vs base model Block50/52. But only in detail areas for example some strike modes deactivated and old block AIM-9M and Sparrow rather then AIM-9X and AMRAAM.
This is not unusual when it comes to purchases off the US and what they are being given is more then adequate to defend against the Syrian (who are rather busy at the moment) and the Iranian air forces.
As for a purchase in limited numbers, Iraq is already pushing forward with another batch, that is the nice thing about the F-16 Lockheed Martin can service contracts very quickly!
As for an airforce numbering 300-400 types, interesting number what drew you to that conclusion? Why do they need it?
Tender process is suitable when there is plenty of time to waste around in meaningless offests and negotiations over pricing.
I realise that as you must still be at school you probably don’t understand how these things work but that is a corrupt way of doing things. Sadly that is how things have been done in the East and West for many years. The Iraqi president and government should be commended for stopping this highly dubious process. I truly hope it can be worked out so we can see some Russian equipment inducted into the Iraqi armed forces. Again unlike you I have no problem with the concept.
You make lots of nice statements about the wonders of the Mig-29, modern avionics, modern simulators and low maintenance. Maybe that would happen…who knows. What we do know is the Iraqi Airforce is deep into the induction process for the F-16 a type they have been keen to procure. A type known to be reliable, cheap to operate and widely supported. They have six pilots in the US converting to type and have just ordered two new simulators from L3. You are right buying US comes with restrictions BUT what they are getting is proven and more then adequate for their regional defence needs. You make many sweeping statements about US parts restrictions but rather ignore the dire reputation Russia has for providing spares in a commercial sense for their fighters in recent years.
Your assuming that actinng defence minister is acting alone in signing contact in haste. I think you should be concerned more about BAE slow implementation of Saudi Eurofighter contract rather than Iraki contracts. I dont know why you always jump on this topic but never mention BAE Eurofighter saga which is now in worse state than Gorshkov contract.
Oh dear oh dear! Events have rather proven the acting defence minister over stretched himself your bluster doesn’t change that. As I KEEP ON SAYING I have no problem with Iraq buying Russian, I think it makes good sense! I just question this particular $4.2 billion deal and the logic of buying a single fighter type the Mig-29. If they do buy the Mig-29 it is no skin off my nose, it will make future editions of AFM more interesting!
So when you are shown to be coming up with silly ill conceived bluster you switch to the childish attack and bring up the Saudi Typhoon deal… kel surprise! OK lets talk about the Saudi Typhoon deal and BAE Systems vs the Goshkov saga. Errrrr let me see has the Goshkov finished acceptance trials and been inducted into the Indian navy? Is it not running years and billions over time and schedule? Now lets see about Saudi Typhoons. 24 delivered and in service, 48 on order. Negotiations on further batches being negotiated. The major delay so far is the switch of production back to the UK because Saudi Arabia doesn’t have the local skills base to assemble fast jets. Lack of skilled workers in Saudi Arabia is hardly BAE Systems fault and their ability to switch production back so quickly is to be commended. So hardly in a worse state then Gorshkov saga.
I jump on this topic JSR because interests me, I am genuinally interested in Iraq buying all sorts of stuff from all over the world. It makes for more interesting things to read about. Correcting your childish, ill thought out nationalistic posts is part of the fun.
That you act hyper hurt when anybody dares criticise the mighty Russia makes me chuckle.
FedaykinYeah I saw your reply in that thread, it was entirely wrong and posted by someone who hasn’t got a clue what they are talking about beyond:
“RUSSIA GREAT! RAHHH!”
I think Iraq is well served buying Russian, I would be surprised if they purchase the Mig-29.
FedaykinAgree Obi that a naval Tornado would of been a bad idea disagree with your slating of the type.;)
I think we need to seperate the GR1 from the GR4 and the early F2/F3 from the late F3….they are all rather different beasts and plenty was done to make them effective! I’m afraid my Google-Fu can’t find any evidence of no defeat for the F3 over the Sea Harrier so I bow to your statement except to say I have a hunch it isn’t as clear cut as that. My guess in respect of early engagements vs FRS1 the FAA played to their advantages against a fairly unsorted aircraft and in respect of the FA2 the same thing noting that the F3 didn’t get some of the capabilities the late model Harrier had until her last few years. What we do know in respect of the F3 was in its later years it was surprisingly successful in DACT against other airforces especially the US teen series fighters. This is a quote from an RAF F3 pilot in respect of the F3 in later years:
On a RED FLAG in the mid 90s I was Red Air with the Aggressors in the F3 – they made us fly Soviet tactics simulating AA-10a Alamos and AA-8c; “tethered goat” would be an understatement! However, on the last day the Aggressors told us we could use JTIDS and our normal tactics. I fired out all missiles and bagged 2x F16, 1x F15 and a F4G Wild Weasel (2 shot kills using ACMI missile simulations). The debrief was pretty bloody and the USAF 1-star asked the US to ‘stay behind’ and the Brits are ‘cleared off’ – there were some pretty miserable Eagle drivers on the Las Vegas strip that night! Also, I got a real kill on that day that landed us in some deep poo-poo and a diplomatic tangle – but that’s not for revelation on this forum!
Fast forward to COPE THUNDER in Alaska in the late 90s – Red Air but able to fly our own tactics. Kill ratio average about 6:1 in F3 favour against F14, F15, F16, F18 and F111. All ‘machine kills’ with tapes to verify them.
The F3 was actually pretty rapid according to the pilots and well suited to its assigned task over the North Atlantic.
As for the GR4, in its current guise with all the upgrades I think we are getting pretty good bang for our buck. I understand the comments from ex Bucc guys wanting to keep that type with new avionics but fact is it was out of production and pretty well flogged when it came to FI. There was also plenty of stuff they liked about the Tornado vs the Bucc so it all spins in roundabouts. I can fully understand the arguments between Bucc and GR1 but now we have GR4 it is kind of a different scenario.
To a degree I think it is fashionable to bash Tornado but all things considered it has done us well…so worst fighter since Blenheim? Can’t agree with that 😀
FedaykinWell the proof is the fact that the Iraqi president cut the deal and said it wasn’t done with full consultation of the rest of the government or the military. I agree there is probably an American bias in some quarters but doesn’t change the rather strange process of procurement.
JSR
You dont need tenders when you have shared long term interests. It is understandable certain political factions like Kurds will oppose it. but Kurds are landlocked and dont have that much easy oil relative to Southern Irak.
So you have no problem with procurement processes made without any clear tender or set of requirements. If they intended a single source selection a requirement is usually published to allow oversight and ensure the deal is free from corruption.
I agree that Western and Arab defence deals are rich in corrupt practices but the fact is in recent years this has been clamped down on. For the former Iraqi defence minister to go to Russia and negotiate a $4.5 billion dollar deal with little to no oversight and the excuse is given that they have “Shared long term interests” stinks to high heaven.
Look I think Iraq would be well served buying from Russia in areas like helicopters, Radar, GBAD, patrol boats and IFV. I do rather scratch my head at buying the Mig-29 when they are already procuring F-16 and L159. The Iraqi air force will have its hands full for a number of years inducting those regardless of looking beyond at further types. The argument that they have prior experience with the type doesn’t hold water considering the significant time gap since that was the case and the fact they are training new pilots and ground handlers on a predominantly Western (USAF) model. Iraq already has the first pilots in Tucson with the 162nd fighter wing training on type and they have an aggressive delivery schedule starting next year for the aircraft themselves.
FedaykinJust a few things 😉
Very interesting interview with former Iraqi Defense Minister (2006-2010).
Former defence minister…so not connected with the decision making process…
-Iraq compared Apache, Mi-28 and Tiger, and selected the Mi-28.
So when was the comparative contest?
-Iraq contacted Russia for rushed fighter delivery- the two sides agreed to fast delivery of 8 planes by June 2013. These might be MiG-29Ms from the Syrian contract
Was the Iraqi airforce consulted in this?
-During the negotiations, the Iraqis pointed out 7 specific systems they are interested in: Pantsir-S1 and Tor-M2E, BMP-3, Su-30MK2 and MiG-29M, Mi-17V-5 and Mi-28NE. The first part of the contract was valued at 4.5 billion dollars.
More realistic but still rather odd…
-Because of the noise started by politicians over the deal with Russia, future large scale arms programs will not be publicized by the military.
How is that a normal open process that can be seen as free from corruption?
Lets face it the then acting Iraqi defence minister went to Russia negotiated a huge defence deal with out any kind of tendering or oversight from the rest of the government of military. I have no problem with Iraq buying Russian, makes plenty of sense to me but this deal was waaaaaay to dodgy to be allowed through!
FedaykinFedaykinDepends really, the Hawk T.2 is a rather different beast from the T.1.
It has significant structure differences, different wings, modern avionics and a FADEC controlled engine. Single engine means less maintenance by its very nature.
FedaykinNo it wouldn’t Slowman! How many times does this have to be explained to you!
The USAF uses the F-16D as a bridge to the F-22 because the T-38 does not satisfactorily prepare new pilots to an aircraft with sophisticated avionics! The T-38 has also used up a significant amount of fatigue life meaning it can’t perform the more aggressive aspects of the syllabus.
Hawk T.2 has sophisticated enough avionics to act as a lead in fighter trainer for aircraft like the F-22 and F-35, it will also be new allowing significant fatigue index life to allow for an aggressive syllabus.
The USN and Marine Corp already plan to use the Hawk derived T-45C to act as the LIFT type for the F-35. The RAF, RAAF and RCAF plan to use the Hawk as the LIFT type for the F-35. This is only an issue in your head….
FedaykinI must admit it will be interesting to see what solution is presented for a Hawk boom receptacle.
I was wondering if it might be better installed on the nose rather then the aft fuselage.
FedaykinIndeed good news for BAE Systems and their partner Northrop Grumman, Hawk should be the cheapest solution.
FedaykinThing is given a choice between buying a small number of C-27J or another one or two C17 and the RAF is clearly going to spend money on the latter!
The only reason the extra BAE-146 are being purchased is because the C130K are nearly gone and they need a type to act as an in-theatre transport through to the full draw down from Afghanistan. It is more then likely post pull out that we are not going to be intervening in anything for a long time that requires a tactical in theatre transport. The BAE-146 fills a gap and by the time we get to 2020 the RAF will operate a rather strategic rather then tactical weighted transport fleet. Whilst the A400M is bigger then a C130 it is being designed with tactical in-theatre operations in mind so it will have to be pressed into service in that role on the adhoc times we need it and if we god forbid get dragged into another Afghanistan style deployment we can look at better solutions then!
Considering the vast size of the country and huge distances between bases it makes perfect sense for the Australian air force to operate a tactical transport like the C-27J just to support day to day operations in peace time for time critical requirements. The UK other hand is a small country and personnel and equipment can drive between bases in a matter of hours! If we need to move something urgently it can be on a truck and up the M1 within hours. The equivalent situation in Australia might take days by road!
FedaykinWell in the case of Largs Bay it was turn around time. Australia was getting a nearly new ship in a very short time frame.
Sign In
