On 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.
Greece has had excellent bilateral ties with post-Hussein Iraq (just like we had with pre-Desert Storm Iraq), in fact we donated them a few hundred refurbished BMP-1s.
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.
For the time being HAF spends time and resources training with IAF. I’m not sure they would be happy with us training sharing with an Arab nation. Moreover, Iraq asking for assistance and advisers in F-16 training has never come to my attention.
Looking at the list in my opinion the Mangusta is counted out due to it being sold to Turkey.
BTW, I hear the turkish development program is not doing so well. Not that it matters, the Iraqis would not buy anything close to the T-129 specifications anyway.
Iraq doesn’t boycott weapons because they’ve been sold to Turkey, though. It’s bought F-16.
Actually it would be the other way round. Turkey would boycott weapons from being sold to Iraq. F-16s sold to Iraq were not built in Turkey, and Turkish Army is way too big a customer for Agusta to ignore.
I don’t expect anyone to blindly believe anything. What I hope (but don’t expect, because I know how biased many people are) is that they weigh evidence, take account of the relative openness of societies, of the amount of cross-checkable evidence available, etc,, & make reasoned decisions. That means comparing what the two sides in any disagreement say, & weighting them according to what you know about how they handle information, & the pressures on them.
Compare, for example, anything said by the North Korean government with anything said by the Swedish government. Which is easier to check? In which country is it more likely that a citizen who knows the government is lying will speak up? How easy is it for such a citizen to find an outlet for what he says?
The answers are all obvious, & tell us which government is, in general, more credible. The Swedes have to be more truthful, because the nature of their society, & the way in which the government is organised, make it harder for them to get away with lies.
The differences between other pairs of countries may not be so glaring, but they exist. Unfortunately, those who have been brought up in more closed societies sometimes find it hard to understand what secrets can, & can not, be kept in more open societies, just as they misunderstand other things.
I recall, for example, a Bulgarian who thought I was incredibly naive to believe that my local member of Parliament would be walking around town without a bodyguard. I, of course, found this immensely frustrating, because I knew – absolutely, totally, certainly KNEW that she had never had a bodyguard & would laugh at the idea that she might need one. But how could I convince my Bulgarian friend of this? All my stories of (for example) drinking in my local pub with the MP, or meeting her socially & professionally in other circumstances where I knew everyone present, just convinced her of my naivety. She assured me that bodyguards were there, or nearby, & I just didn’t recognise them.
She couldn’t understand the difference between our societies – just as you can’t. This leads you to give the wrong weights to what is put forward by different governments. Add to that your open dislike of some countries, & the bias this gives to your assessments, & you’re doomed to get it wrong.
Actually this is hardly surprising, people more or less despise… actually no, they fear what they don’t know or/and don’t understand. Of course this applies for everyone, you included. It’s kind of funny to accuse others over things that you also do.
This is a powerful argument for Argentina to get their hands on long ranged fighters such as Flankers… Why they haven’t done so till today it escapes my understanding! ๐
I think cost is a very credible explanation, bare in mind the state of argentinian economy. And it’s not just buying the birds, you also have to maintain them.
Jet fuel for once will be a very rare commodity over there, ,how large are The Falkland’s air base reserves for fuel and how long would they last once the full complement of Typhoons starts flying heavily?
I don’t know, probably nobody in here does, but one could safely assume that it would be enough. The Falklands are islands, not ships, so space should not be a problem.
After that this initial fuel will have to be replaced by ship from the UK How long would it take to do so?
UK? This is not necessarily the case. When you have assets, land air or sea venturing the world, you don’t get fuel exclusively from your home base. The fuel that Canadian Leopard tanks burn in Afganistan doesn’t come all the way from the Canada etc.
Wouldn’t these fuel tank farms be natural first day of war targets for hypothetical Argentinian Special Forces? Much more than the local fighter planes themselves…
they would, so that’s why they would be better hidden, armored and protected perhaps even than the fighters themselves.
If Argentina started to spend waaay more than she could afford, and started spending RIGHT NOW, coupled with beligerent statements from its government about the Falklands, I think it would be safe to assume the British Government would take steps to ensure that the islands were properly reinforced long befor Argentina reached a stage where they could succesfully invade.
bulls-eye.
Would they retain Venezuelan roundels or would they be immediately rebranded as Argentinian FAA? (Peru did this in 1982)
It’s not very difficult to disguise Mirage IIIs into Mirage IIIs, but it will take some imagination to disguise Su-30s into A-4s or Pucaras. Just changing the roundel will not be enough this time :p Also Peru did not openly support Argentina, while Venezuela would probably even advertise such support. So I think if this impossible scenario would materialise, then they would retain their original markings.

This image is from an article on Sunday Times, provides many interesting details but cites no source.
As far as your quote, not sure what they mean by “The raid would have degraded Iranโs ability to retaliate for a potential Israel or US attack.”
The whole concept was that Iran provides Sudan with the means to build ballistic missiles capable to hit Israel; this way Iran keeps its stockpile of missiles in more than one places, thus making them harder to spot and destroy and additionally providing an extra launch territory from a direction Israel would not expect. Sudan in turn keeps a few of the missiles for its own arsenal. So supposing that after an Israeli/US attack its missiles are taken out, Iran strikes back with its Sudan based missiles, consequently if the missiles in Sudan are destroyed, so is Iran’s ability to retaliate.
Like I pointed out, it’s just a scenario, and one the credibility of which I highly doubt. Good staff for a Clancy-style novel though.
Yeah, but the RDM isn’t what the Mirage 2000 finally got. It’s what the French Mirage 2000 started out with.
Fixed. The RDM was always part of the picture, in not only being downgraded, but also in being highly problematic, especially in A2G modes…
Boeing Quiet Bird:
Image taken from Mos Eisley Cantina… (AKA Secret Projects)
Pic don’t show
Google translate is your friend.
China oil tanker refueling for the Su-25 Zhang Jin Gangshe
Xinhua Photo: Russian Air Force appeared in the main model debut. “Peace Mission 2009” Russia participated in the exercise of 22 aircraft, including five Su-27 fighters, five Su-24 bombers, five Su-25 attack planes and five meters -8 helicopter.
but the aircraft’s welded steel structure proved the only big technical surprise.
Just this? The vacuum tubes were not?
All that exercises are done to rise the confidence of the units involved and it will give rules of engagement driven by safety considerations at first. I have no idea how Stinger-sites were operated in the Greece AD and the size of the network involved. At first a tactical surprise is impossible within a serious exercise even in Greece. No real “fire” to verify the claims from each side.
which allows both sides to come away with their view about that.
The A-7H units are just kept because it has the range to deal with naval forces up to Turkish ones around Cyprus not available in 1974.
The A-7Hs were the first to be mothballed or killed for parts (Jesus, by now they would be 40 years old). The current version for as long as it will remain in service, is the A-7E.
And they are not kept for range; missionised CFT F-16Ds also have sufficient range. They are kept for numbers. Otherwise they were scheduled for retirement by 2009. However no more modern fighter orders were placed, so they are still with us.
What always impressed me with the Jaguar was the manner its self defense missiles were attached, OVER the wing. The same with the A-7, right beneath the canopy, very strange and rare configurations.