Iraq's Military wants America's Military; F-16s, AH-6s, etc. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#1664948
If there was a ever a more clear sign of Iraq's long term geo-strategic alignment in terms of international relations than this is it.

Iraq is definitely going to be an important US ally for the foreseeable future, regardless of who gets elected President, and regardless of how many troops the US pulls out over the next few years.

With them wanting all these goodies its essentially going to tie their military-industrial complex to the US's military-industrial supply train, especially in terms of logistics.

Spare parts, trained personnel, the works....

With the $80 billion surplus the Iraqi Government is running they'll definitely be able to buy it all too.

Source
Iraq prefers to pattern its Air Force along American lines, and is consulting with Pentagon experts about establishing a frontline, U.S.-trained force based around F-16 fighters, C-130J transports, armed helicopters and other advanced systems.

At a two-day conference in Crystal City, Va., Iraqi security officials spoke publicly of their preference for frontline U.S. equipment, including the F-16, to defend against internal as well as external threats.

"Our procurement of arms will be done through FMS," the Pentagon-run Foreign Military Sales program, said Gen. Babakir Baderkhan Zibari, Iraqi Armed Forces commander.

Samer Abid Alwahaab, director of public relations at Iraq's Ministry of Defense, underlined the preference.

"As we plan our defensive capabilities for the future, we are very much aware of the need to invest in the most modern, most capable and most reliable systems," Samer said. "This is the reason many prefer to work with our American allies and American companies and benefit from the American experience."

Samer said modern air power capabilities are needed not only by the MoD and the Iraqi Armed Forces, but also by the Interior Ministry.

"Iraq faces multiple challenges: We need to control our open borders and defend against external aggression, while our counterparts must maintain internal security and overall law and order," he said.

Lt. Gen. Anwer Hamed Ahmed, inspector general of the Iraqi Army and head of the assessment department within the Iraqi MoD, said that the nation's biggest focus remains national reconciliation and strengthened internal security. But he also noted that Iraq must be able protect itself against neighboring threats and regional adventurism.

Speaking to government and industry representatives at the New-Fields' Iraq Security and Defense Summit, Ahmed said security challenges include terrorism, corruption, sectarian violence, organized crime and "regional and international interference in Iraqi affairs."

"In order to be able to handle all these challenges, we have to have a strong government and a strong capability of protecting Iraq from its neighbors," Ahmed said. "Our insurance policy vis-à-vis Iraqi security is the United States."

U.S. Lt. Col. Almarah Belk, a Pentagon public affairs officer, said the two governments are consulting regularly on ways to stand up Iraq's future air force as well as other military branches. As for specific military procurement plans, Belk said Washington operates a 32-member Security Assistance Office in Iraq and has also created an Iraq FMS task force to expedite Baghdad's equipment needs.

As for the F-16, Belk said the Pentagon received in late August an Iraqi government request for price and availability data on a potential 36-aircraft F-16 force. The so-called P&A request is being reviewed as part of the normal FMS process, and the two countries have not yet reached a point where Baghdad is ready to issue a formal letter of request for the aircraft.

"We look forward to continuing to work with Iraq as a long-term partner as it continues to modernize its forces using its own national funds," Belk said.

In addition to the prospective F-16 order, the Pentagon informed Congress in midsummer of several potential deals to enhance Iraqi airpower capabilities. They include a possible $2.4 billion sale of up to 24 Bell Armed 407 helicopters or 24 Boeing AH-6 helicopters, 120mm mortars, AGM-114M Hellfire missiles, 2.75-inch rockets and machine guns.

Yet another potential air power enhancement includes a potential $1.5 billion sale of six C-130J airlifters, missile warning systems, countermeasures, related training, maintenance and support systems.
User avatar
By Captain Sam
#1664951
F-16s are Cold War tech. The US is replacing them with F-35s, so why not sell them?
User avatar
By Zagadka
#1665039
If there was a ever a more clear sign of Iraq's long term geo-strategic alignment in terms of international relations than this is it.

... because they want to buy arms, they are now stable?

What about their resolution to kick America out next year? Will you honor and celebrate that?
By Piano Red
#1665074

F-16s are Cold War tech. The US is replacing them with F-35s, so why not sell them?


F-16s will be more than adequate for Iraq's defense needs for quite some time. Its still a well proven Generation 4+ fighter aircraft that's adept in multi-role mission capabilities.

Falx
Can we spell Vietnamization?


Can you spell Strawman?

Iraq isn't Vietnam. A far better analogy is Korea to be honest.

Zagadka
... because they want to buy arms, they are now stable?


No, them wanting to buy arms has absolutely nothing to do with their stability. That's a misnomer.

It has everything to do with their longterm geo-strategic alignment however, for a whole host of reasons I already pointed out in the OP.

What about their resolution to kick America out next year? Will you honor and celebrate that?


I don't really care it about it.

Its not going to alter the US' long term geo-political focus on Iraq in any way. There's still going to be a substantial American footprint left in-country even after frontline combat forces are drawn back to the US' main bases (or are withdrawn from the theater completely).

The Iraqi Government already runs most of what were previously Coalition operating areas already.
User avatar
By Kiroff
#1665120
Yeah because the current Iraqi government is totally independent and sovereign of all American interests, they decided to do this and had the option not to... :lol:
By Mike Powell
#1665134
F-16s are Cold War tech. The US is replacing them with F-35s, so why not sell them?


Oh no, F-16 is still deadly with right upgrade and right personnel to operates it.

Cold War tech? Remember this, F-22 is designed for Cold War mission too.
User avatar
By Typhoon
#1665271
If there was a ever a more clear sign of Iraq's long term geo-strategic alignment in terms of international relations than this is it.


As a short term indicator you cannot get much better than watching arms sales to see whos in with who, but as a long term indicator its on more shaky ground especially in such a politically volatile region as the ME, Irans F-14 Tomcats are a good example of this.

Trying to use procurement to lock a nation into a certain direction has also been an area with mixed results, by all accounts NATO should only be buying US tech and India only Russian but we dont see this today. Due to the customization of modern systems, re-training requirments and generational gaps, forced loyalty is only really for the life of the product.

Iraqs choice of the US to go shopping is understandable considering the recent history and current situation, this is a two way subsidized sale. However it is probably the best way for Iraq to rapidly rebuild an airforce and once its matured it can move past the US hand-me-downs to multi-entry competitions.

Personally if I was Iraq I would be on the Eurofighter - MiG-35 bandwagon.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1665332
Irans F-14 Tomcats are a good example of this.


Beat me to it. Piano may be right for the immediate future, but simply buying US defence technology (and all the attendant spare parts and expertise) does not provide an ironclad long term arrangement.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#1665477
Put Donald Rumsfeld in charge; he's got experience in arms shipments to Iraq ;). Both conventional and unconventional.
User avatar
By MVictorP
#1665604
Oh, so Iraq wants to buy from US weapon contractors, and that makes them reasonable now? I guess if they went for Migs they would have been animated with bad intentions but F-16s... We all know that F-16s are incapable of hurting anyone.

Bah! If that's so simple, why worry about Iran going nuclear? Just sell'em some smoother Yankee A-bombs et voila! Iran is now a good guy.

Better world throught US arms sales.
By timel
#1668558
F-16 are still excellent airplanes with higher capabilities than F-18 in dog fight.

F-35 is cheaper than F-22 and certainly not as good that F-22 again in dog Fight. Plus concerning F-35 it has some problem with desert operations (rumors that make sens)


The only problem with F-16 might be the age of this airplanes. Old airplane = loads of maintenance = very expensive to keep.

I amphase this point once again, it's funny to note that US sold F-14 to Iran sometimes ago that they can hardly maintain to fly now due to US-Iran love relation.
User avatar
By Donna
#1669010
I can't really see this as having any effect on Iraq's internal security, which is still extremely problematic (although not as poor as it used to be).
User avatar
By Spintroll
#1669043
This is some good news for the US economy, let's keep Iran and Iraq fighting and supplying Iraq w/ equipment just outdated enough for them to need to keep coming back for refills. :lol:
User avatar
By War Angel
#1671004
Having advanced weapons and systems, especially aircraft, is only a fraction of the prowess needed for a modern military to function with effect. Experience is the most influential factor, combined with conviction. Iraqies can have space-age tools, but they lack both conviction and experience, or the desire to acquire it. They've got no reason to fight, they're fucked either way.

A good pilot in a 20-30 year-old aircraft can take down several unexperienced pilots in far more advanced planes. The difference between the aircraft is simply not substantial enough, for it to be the deciding factor.

Besides, with expensive, advanced planes comes a hefty price - maintenance. Doesn't Iran have F-14s that have been grounded for years, for lack of money\knowledge to maintain them? Saudi Arabia has advanced aircraft, for example, and enough money to maintain them, but I doubt their pilots are any good.

Personally, I'd take Israeli, British and German pilots in F-15s and F-16s over Iraqies in F-22s and F-35, any day. :lol:
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1671055
The difference between the aircraft is simply not substantial enough, for it to be the deciding factor.

The aircraft itself, certainly not.
But the avionics, missile tech and exterior support can be.
By timel
#1671057
Thunderhawk is right.
Avionics is a huge part in nowadays fightings.
Maybe in Dog fight a more experience pilot could take over but on a long distance the one that gets to detect the other one first gets him.

It is important to add that when countrys such as US France or else are selling airplanes there are always talks on which equipement will be put in.
User avatar
By myowndrummer
#1707831
Personally, I'd take Israeli, British and German pilots in F-15s and F-16s over Iraqies in F-22s and F-35, any day. :lol:

Isn't the whole gimmick now about the F22 being able to fire on the F16 & F15 before they even know the F22 is around? Looks like a fatal error on your part.

I am not claiming that there are zero genetic dif[…]

Customs is rarely nice. It's always best to pack l[…]

The more time passes, the more instances of harass[…]

And I don't blame Noam Chomsky for being a falli[…]