sheytanelkebirI think you misunderstood me.
The only “real deals” happening now are for small items, ammo, support and maintenance. Those will naturally continue.
There will most likely NOT be much more “heavy” US equipment though. Yes, they will still go through the motions of DSCA requests for item types they need, but that is only due to the need to have “competition” internally. Unless the US offers something truly “competitive” at a good price and delivery schedule, which they really aren’t right now, we will see lots more such “requests” in the near future until the US become bored of answering Iraqi “requests for quotes”.
The reason I put up the “list” is to illustrate the fact that in the last year or so DSCA requests have NOT translated into actual orders, opposite to the pre-2012 period when the DSCA request was a “formality” for a “done deal”.
sheytanelkebirDude
Calm down and easy with the happy faces.
I know what a DSCA notification is, and did read it all. However, you say there is no deal on the cards regarding more US equipment. Would Iraq or the DSCA make these requests if there was no Iraqi interest in aqquiring these weapons? We surely assume there must be, and as this is obviously after the Russian arms deals, it proves that your assumption that further deals are not on the cards is simply not true. Should the contracts for the notifications get signed then you will have proven to be wrong and by the looks of things, the above notifications indicate there is still very strong interest in Iraq purchasing more weaponry.
The only items Iraq has actually “contracted” for with the US over the past year or so have been for “smaller” items… hellfire missiles, some ground based radars, lots of service and maintenance contracts…
They never took:
20x “optional” IA-407 scout helos
16x “UH 60 Blackhawks” (went quiet a long time ago)
16x AB-412 SAR helos (went all quiet)
50x NBC Strykers (this was shot down by parliament defence committee)
175x Abrams tanks (already from last year… and lo and behold, 2 weeks ago Iraqi MOD confirmed that the division operating Abrams tanks is training for… T90s!)
200x Bradleys (BMP3Ms are “semi confirmed” now by an officer in the MOD)
3x HAWK XXI battalions (Russian SAMs are confirmed but types beyond the Pantsir/IGLA have not been confirmed)
24x Ah64E Apaches (Iraqis are “holding” this until they can test the Mi28Ne)
6x Ah64D “loan” apaches (no point if the Mi28Ne helos arrive soon, and no contract has been awarded although “just in case” some Iraqi pilots are training on the type).
…. and more.
the only things they took recently were some hellfires, ammo for guns, and billions in support and maintenance contracts…
Nowadays the DSCA notifications for Iraq mean very little. If the Iraqi MOD even want to include a US item in an “internal competition” they have to put a request for DSCA to see if congress is happy to sell the item or not. All it really tells us is what type of weapon the Iraqis are probably buying from Russia. Also, the “anti corruption” rules means they have to include an “alternative” supplier for an item they’re getting in order to please the parliament’s audit committee on transparency and all that nonsense… so you see massive things like last year’s big “air defence” DSCA announcement for $2Bn+… which then goes quiet without any contract award and Russian An-124s coming weekly to Baghdad Airport unloading “stuff”…
From this weeks’ “DSCA shopping list” the only ones I can see them buying for sure are:
the 7 aerostats (although the “scandal” about the operational readiness of the existing aerostats puts that in jeopardy too).
the 200 HUMVEES (since they already have 2 field factories dedicated for their 10,000+ fleet of HUMVEES)… but there has also been talk with Korea and Russia about “local production” of a new 4×4 for the army… so lets wait and see what transpires.
The AT6C must be in a competition with something from Russia… and although it has “synergies” with the existing T6A fleet and the King Air 350I ISR planes as well as armaments (hellfires, LGBs, western GP bombs and rockets)… we shall see what “counter offer” the russians have in place… it may even be in competition against chinese armed UAVs… in which case I’d expect the chinese armed UAV to win.
sheytanelkebirer……
DSCA NOTIFICATION!!!
Just like the ones before! It is simply a “notification of interest” and gives congress 30 days or something to block it. As it says on the links themselves.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
Once you get a DOD contract, then you have the actual CONTRACT and the “real” value 😉
You will be able to find the ACTUAL CONTRACTS here. http://www.defense.gov/contracts/archive.aspx
no 175 Abrams, no 200 Bradleys, no 50 NBC strykers, no 16 AB412s ever got contracted despite their DSCA notifications… so lets see if any of these DSCA notifications ever become actual contracts. I wonder if russia can offer anything in lieu of the AT6C texans? because sadly the IAI/Elbit electronics and systems preclude the purchase of super tucanos. If only a “new” SU25 variant was in production 🙁
sheytanelkebirI would say the real “telling” thing is that Iraq has not signed ANY major arms deal with the US since the deals with Russia.
So although the Iraqis did make “DSCA enquiries” for the purchase of 175 Abrams tanks, 200 Bradleys, 24+6 Ah64E apaches, 50 NBC Strykers, 16x MEDEVAC AB-412s and others… already since last year, not a single actual contract has been signed. The horrendous operational readiness of the Abrams tanks allied with the almost deliberate dumb training to ensure that the Iraqis shell out billions in support contracts, it has finally dawned on the Iraqis how much they’re getting shafted…
sheytanelkebirThe first F16 has flown. Its an F16D, Block 52. Sadly it has the “new” roundel.
But at least they haven’t ordered any more of them! slowly sanity is reaching the Iraqi Ministry of Defence…
sheytanelkebirsome more pics of 1601 Iraq’s first F16… and the first new jet fighter in a quarter of a century.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228082[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228083[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]228084[/ATTACH]
sheytanelkebirdo these have the facility for a fuel tank to be located in the passenger cabin like in the Mi17s? with the underwing fuel tanks that would give it 1000km+ range.
sheytanelkebirTO BE CONTINUED???
I really suggest you spend some time discussing things with Iraqi veterans on the iraqi military forum.
sheytanelkebirIraqi F16s first batch cost about $1.1Bn including airframes, engines, radars, pods, ground equipment. Second batch about $950M all in.
Iraq did however pay another $1Bn+ within the same contract for airbase updates, service, maintenance and overhaul centre in Iraq, and LM services for 5 years.
So the “aircraft” themselves cost Iraq about $2Bn for 36 planes ($55M approx each). The massive final “tag” is because of all the “service contracts” they bought for them. Now you have some other countries that dont buy these “service contracts” like Morocco… so their F16s cost the same as the Iraqi birds (flyaway cost) but their final “contract” cost is maybe less than half of what the Iraqis pay.
You can see the same across the spectrum for the Iraqi Air Force contracts… they have 12x Cessna 172s and 9x C208s, they’re paying $15M a year for a US company to keep them flying! (the planes only cost $15M to buy in the first place!).
They basically saw the way the US military operated with contractors and said “we’ll do the same” forgetting that they don’t possess a printing press for making $ like the americans do.
sheytanelkebirSo Draken will only get one batch then, the chance of a real military contract was clearly too much to resist. Interesting that Aero will have to buy back the airframes, on the other hand it means overhaul work getting them ready for Iraqi service.
I would say the price difference was too much to resist.
12 planes to draken = $10-$15M (including 2 for spares)
same 12 planes to “arabs with too much money” = $200M
that includes $185M for overhaul and preparation and training and commissions? 😀
thing is the defence committee in the iraqi parliament will go through this with a fine comb looking for any dirt to dig up against maliki and seeing as what happened to the first defence purchase team that tried to get a large commission from the russian arms purchase (arrested), they would be more careful about any “outrageous” commission levels.
So if the $200M is true then I think the deal with Aero / Czeck air force probably includes a full lifecycle support and weapons? and maybe some “retired” pilots to conduct some combat operations for the Iraqi Air Force right about now…
still the entire story could be a ruse to extract better terms from CATIC for the JF17s.
sheytanelkebirin an interview the commander of the Iraqi Air Force stated the following:
-The Korean Light Fighters will enter service in early 2016.
That confirms delivery schedule and the fact that the primary role of the aircraft will be combat oriented and not training.
No details released on what equipment, weapons, radar etc… will be on the aircraft.
sheytanelkebirthanks for the update.
So Draken are paying about $800k – $900k per airframe… how come the number went down to 12-14?
sheytanelkebirAFAIK Iraq’s original “LIFT / attacker” contract was won by T50 against multiple other offers… the whole fiasco with the L159BQ was due to Iraqi internal government infighting and accountability. Iraqi MOD purchasing can be diplomatically described as “chaotic” and more accurately described as headless chickens running in a circle.
the current negotiation is for the stored single seater L159s which draken is also negotiating for.
Draken offered a measly $900K for them per unit.
I am sure the Iraqis can better that (and pay cash up front).
And thus the question arises… what is the status of the Draken contract now?
Would an Iraqi purchase of these second hand units open up the possibility for selling more new build units in future?
Last week the head of CATIC sales flew in to Baghdad to meet and make an offer to the Commander of the Iraqi Air Force. So the Czech “negotiations” may simply be a ruse to get CATIC to lower their prices / offer better delivery rate on JF17… though what the Iraqis are after now more than anything is immediate availability… and thus a major Pakistani Air Force commander was also in Baghdad last week to discuss things.
sheytanelkebirinteresting, but Iraq is realy “serious” partner. Second, these L-159As are property of the Czech air force, not of Aero. Third, Draken International want to buy 24 plus 4 stored planes, so I guess Iraqis are out of luck now. Personaly, I will send them to the hell 🙂
Well selling them to Iraq will give them their baptism of fire pretty soon.
Of course they would be better off buying some second hand Su25s for the urgent CO-IN requirement… but who has any spare SU25s nowadays? and the FA50s will take another 2 years to arrive… so they do need some “stop gap” for now.
If they do get some L159s, and there are already dozens of Iraqi pilots who trained on L39s (well at least 10-12 years ago) so getting them converted shouldn’t take too long.
sheytanelkebir[QUOTE=FBW;2124725][QUOTE=sheytanelkebir;2124684]
It’s not just ACIG, the one document is from the Air war College discussing the F-15C underutilization during Desert Storm (and claims 29 kills). Those kills during Desert Storm have been well documented. I’m not buying that 20 years later, former Iraqi airforce personnel are able to tally the their losses accurately.
its not 20 years later.
the Iraqi figures were compiled in late 1991 after a comprehensive inspection of all military assets by the secretariat, its only just that they were publicised after 2003 when the US captured the archive of documents from the presidential secretariat which was top secret.
The document in fact shows that the Iraqis lost MORE aircraft in 1991 than what the US even claimed! Just that they lost them mostly on the ground and in HAS and thus the US only got a full account of the Iraqi losses when this document became known.
And how do the US document their 29 air to air kill “confirmations”? do they have gun camera footage of them all? Iraqi wreckage for all claims? Confirmation from the Iraqi side of the loss? Do tell.
and finally and most importantly… the document of course also confirms that the ACIG / Iranian claims were rather wildly “optimistic”… 😉 I don’t know why you refuse to even entertain the thought of “reassessing” the ACIG “Data” in light of the new information… perhaps by eliminating pure “iranian pilot claims and their mate said its true” and “list of iraqi pilot POWs as claimed by the Iranians”… 😉
I mean you would also find it ridiculous if the Iraqis claimed more kills than Iranians lost aircraft… even more so if the claims are 300% more than the actual losses. So why not treat the Iranian side with the same level of healthy skepticism when it comes to claims? 😉
Sign In
