Iraq Buys F-16s?

sunshin3

New Member
Hi Almaleki,

I have nothing to add to this discussion but i think it may be wise if you could adopt a more 'respectful' tone towards any of the postings or the forum members. We are all here to learn about defence matters from each other so please assist by not implying that any country's weapon system is rubbish. Quite a lot of effort and money has gone into the development of the respective weapons. You may have a different opinion of a weapon system, but it is unacceptable to just call it rubbish.

Just my thoughts.
 

Schumacher

New Member
@Schumacher, please explain why the JF-17 is better or provides better value (because I don't see it)? Further, I have some questions, if you would care to address them:
......
Sinodefenceforum should have the details you ask & much more knowledgeable people than myself about this.
JF-17 likely loses out to F-16 on the multi-role/strike part but I doubt any F-16s Iraq is allowed to get will have much multi-role/strike capability given the geopolitical situation in that part of the world. So we're basically looking at defensive AA. I think JF-17 is in the general same tech level as F-16, especially 2nd hand ones, in this regard. Add in the costs & potential for local work share make it even more attractive. A chance even to build up local knowledge/infrastructure, very critical for defence.
Some fanboys, NOT referring to you, may only want the fanciest stuffs but other less 'sexy' issues are just as if not more important. What kind of tech transfer Iraq can hope to get with F-16s to enable them to operate with any semblance of independence ? Or will the plug be quickly pulled the moment the wind shifts with regard to its attitude towards Israel/Iran ? Leaving the F-16s to gather sand in the desert.
But as I said, politics will play a big part which means little chance for China/others.

...(ii) Pakistan had no choice - it was embargoed - so buying the JF-17 makes sense, as it is the choice between having no new fighters or buying the JF-17.......
F-16s were held up for a while, not anymore. Was there embargo on Pakistan from Europe & Russia ?

Does Iraq currently have the technology base & skill sets for a co-production or licensed production, have such facilities if any been rebuilt (am assuming if any they would have been bombed in the war)
Million dollar question. Hardware maybe gone after 2 wars. Maybe some technical & science people are still around. Saddam did have a large defence infrastructure after all.
 

Almaleki

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
Hi Almaleki,

I have nothing to add to this discussion but i think it may be wise if you could adopt a more 'respectful' tone towards any of the postings or the forum members. We are all here to learn about defence matters from each other so please assist by not implying that any country's weapon system is rubbish. Quite a lot of effort and money has gone into the development of the respective weapons. You may have a different opinion of a weapon system, but it is unacceptable to just call it rubbish.

Just my thoughts.
I am real sorry if you feel offended in any way , I just get so enthusiastic sometimes and forget myself in the middle of excitement.
 

TanaTana

New Member
1. No disrespect, but I strongly disagree. Of the 3 countries cited by you (India, Pakistan & Malaysia), only 1 country did it by choice (and possibly against the recommendation of its own armed forces), in the manner you described.

(i) How well did it work out for Malaysia? :rolleyes:

- Please show me data that it makes any financial or strategic military sense for Malaysia to have 15x Mig 29s (and with no firm plan to upgrade), 8x F-18Ds and 18x Su-30MKMs. :D

- Or better yet, please find for me, informed independent published sources that say that this Malaysian arrangement makes logistical sense, financial sense or that it is a good strategic military choice for Malaysia - to have 3 different types of first line fighters. :)

- In missiles alone, the F-18Ds can't use the R73 & R77 missiles purchased and the Mig-29s and Su-30s cannot use the AIM-120_C5s purchased. Malaysia also has no intention to cross qualify the missiles. Look at Thailand, they went for the Gripen instead of the Su-30.:confused:

- Do you know why Malaysia chose the Su-30MKM and did not want the Su-30MKI? I know you are Malaysian and proud of you country's choices. Can you explain your position to me (as an outside observer) in a reasoned and logical manner? :shudder​

(ii) Pakistan had no choice - it was embargoed - so buying the JF-17 makes sense, as it is the choice between having no new fighters or buying the JF-17.

(iii) India's requirements and situation is not comparable to that of Malaysia. Look at the total number of aircraft being purchased by India (it is a major regional power of world standing with nuclear weapons and a space program). Further, could you not also argue that it would be cheaper for India to stick to an all Eastern fighter fleet? In fact, you can even argue that they are inducting western technology into their mainly eastern fighter fleet (to meet the Pakistani air force F-16 threat).

2. Operating aircraft from both eastern and western countries is a big logistic problem and should not be undertaken in concept unless a country has no other choice. IMHO, the solution is not source diversification (to play off US viz Eastern Source) - the solution is have enough spare parts (spare engines, etc) and also a sufficiently strong local engineering capability to overcome any short term embargo period (of 1 to 5 years).

3. If a country is embargoed for the long term by the international community (like Iran and North Korea), it should reflect badly on that government. If a country intends to have anti-Western policies in the long term, then yes, please buy from countries who sell with no strings attached.

Like I said, somebody will jump about the logistic problem. I agree, (like I said ealier) it is not economical if you buy from east and west.

This is Iraq we are talking about. Not just another country. Maybe, the government now is pro western (US in particular). Are the people in this country pro US too? What will happen when the US pull out of Iraq completely in a few years. Obama said he is gonna get the troops back as soon as possible. Do you think there will not be a revolt? What will happen if another govt took over and they are not pro westeners. Will the west still sell spare parts? And bombs and missiles etc.

This is the best opportunity for Iran to come in, when Iraq is vulnerable, cant defend itself, coz the west boycott the new govt. Iraq is gonna lose out in the long run.

But, if eastern weapons are also inducted in the current govt. Iraq will still have a chance to defend itself against Iran even with the west boycotting the new govt.

Lets not talk about logistic here, it may be a problem to other countries. Iraq has oil.
 

Transient

New Member
Do you think there will not be a revolt? What will happen if another govt took over and they are not pro westeners. Will the west still sell spare parts? And bombs and missiles etc.

This is the best opportunity for Iran to come in, when Iraq is vulnerable, cant defend itself, coz the west boycott the new govt. Iraq is gonna lose out in the long run.
Why do you think there will be a revolt? How do you imagine such a revolt will take place? Are you imagining a revolution that undermines the democratic process already underway? What group has such deep infiltration into the required elements of power to pull off such a coup and yet could keep its existence so secret that US elements currently in Iraq totally have no idea of it? Or are you talking about the voting in of a anti-west or anti-american government? If so then what benefits will a newly elected govt find in jeopardizing the existing goodwill of the US and the massive benefits that brings? What will it have to do to find itself in another embargo by the West or the US? What benefits will it get to do such things that offends the West or the US that much? If the fear was an Iranian invasion, then all the more the Govt will likely choose to be on good terms with the US, after all the US isn't going to allow Iraq to turn into an Iranian state after all the effort it spent turning Iraq into an ally.

When you consider all that, then it is clear that it is not likely that the Iraq-US relations are going to deteriorate so drastically in the short to medium term. So going for US/Western equipment is a safe choice.

With that settled, the F-16s are the most cost-effective choice for Iraq. It is battle tested to an extent that few other aircraft can compare, Iraq itself being full witness to its capabilities. Logistically, F-16 spares are easy to acquire since it is widely adopted, unlike JF-17 which has only 2 users, and whose spares and after sales service is a total unknown. The F-16 comes with a weapons set whose capability is proven, while the JF-17 comes with weapons whose capabilities are uncertain. Capability wise F-16 beats the JF-17 hands down in the later versions. And interoperability with US and other US allies in the area which operates F-16s is a plus. If cost is an issue, MLU and structural upgrades are just as competitvely priced as JF-17s at $5 mil per plane. Iraq can purchase 2nd hand F-16s and do the upgrades to get better capability. Or it can simply purchase 2nd hand MLUs if it can find a willing seller. Market price? Around $7 mil per plane. The JF-17 comes at $15 to $20 mil per plane for lower capability. At these prices why should Iraq even consider JF-17?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Resource : LWJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ah you are Singaporean you are way way Far Distance from Me thought :rolleyes: , But as i know Singapore Dont Have Big Enemies , We have some Who wants Your Land and every INCH in it ?? Thats Why we have Much PPL Concerned with Weaponry stuff , And About comparison Between Iran And Iraq , Well if this Deal Go Thru , Then The Best weapon Do Iran Have is the F-14 Phantom or MiG-31 if there Deal Goes thru the Russian But All of Us know that the MiG-31 isnt Fighter But a Bomber so there best fighter is the F-14 which is Not even Comparable with an F-16 Block 52 and theirs aren't even Working , So I think You Got the Idea .
Yes and no. Yes, the Iranian air force is not particularly impressive. However the MiG-31 is not a bomber. It's a long range interceptor, with BVR capability (however limited). The F-14 is not the Phantom. It's the Tomcat. You're thinking of the F-4.

i dont Know C4I Goes for What do you Mean C4s ?? insanity :nutkick
No. C4I stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence. It's part of the larger C4ISTAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTAR

When I mean a source, I mean where you got that statement. If the minister did indeed make such a statement publicly, then it should be easily locatable online. I seriously doubt a national leader made such a statement, given the tentative diplomatic ties between Iraq and the rest of the world. Especially given the regional context.

If you got it from a journal, please post the journal, the volume or issue number, and the name of the article. I'm not harassing you, I seriously want to check that statement as it's definetly an indicator of procurement policy if it was made.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
@Feanor, Schumacher and Transient, thank you for your thoughtful replies. I enjoyed reading them.

Ah you are Singaporean you are way way Far Distance from Me thought :rolleyes:
Yes, I am Singaporean.

There is a connection between Singapore and Iraq that you may not know about. Singapore's first Chief Minister, the late Mr. David Marshall comes from a family of Iraqi ancestry. The late Mr. Marshall was first and foremost a nationalist and had also served as our past ambassador to France, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.

But as i know Singapore Dont Have Big Enemies , We have some Who wants Your Land and every INCH in it ??
I don't understand what you are saying.

For more information, please read my book review on "Defending the Lion City". Better yet, read the book. I will only suggest that you read more.

well i didnt but when i said Radar I think meant all techs ... SomeWay ,About Training i think that The Iraqis are now in this moments are indeed training in Luke Flight Base , and about Courage will they Have Much of It Thought :unknown

and About tech , I think its Up to our Leaders Minds kkkk , and Number then i think that 252 Jt is in the Name a Nuclear Bomb , And the Pods are also Up to the Leaders Tactics and Minds , i dont Know C4I Goes for What do you Mean C4s ?? insanity :nutkick
Again, I don't understand what you are saying.

Feanor, our friendly moderator had kindly explained the concept of C4I to you. Please read up on C4I systems, as it is very important military topic and concept. If Iraq does not develop effective C4I systems, more of your soldiers will be unnecessarily hurt in any air-land battle (see concept of air-land battle employing aircraft & artillery).

I understand from a 2008 report (see link for more details) from the Wall Street Journal that the Iraqi government is seeking to buy 36 F-16 fighters from the U.S. The effective employment of the 2 squadrons of F-16 will depend on the C4I systems being developed in the context of a developing combined arms doctrine for the Iraqi army.

I also note that there is a Dec 2008 report (see link for more details) that the Iraqi Air Force plans to buy at least 8 COIN aircraft that can serve a dual role as a intermediate to advanced single-engine turboprop trainers.

as You say We Have Courage and Good Teachs , Well about superiority , Its Also Up to our Freakin Leaders ,, kkkkkkkk God Bless Them . well there is Big Things Between Now and 60s and 70s even 80s , well The Last Dont depend on our Leaders Minds but On the Oil and economic System which i indeed hate .
I'm sure the soldiers in the Iraqi army has courage as demonstrated in Operation Charge of the Knights.

I wish you and your country good luck in the road ahead.
 
Last edited:

Schumacher

New Member
@OPSSG

I notice there's another thread that talks about Iraq buying many used T-72 in addition to some M1s. Cost may be a big issue but I don't think Iraq is a poor country, with plenty of the black gold. So it may reflect a bit of their thinking with regard to the issues we've talked about here like maintaining independence & not putting all eggs in one basket.
So I'll be surprised if they bought more than a few dozens F-16s, maybe the 36 you mention with the bulk of their air force eventually being made up of Chinese/Russian stuffs.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
I notice there's another thread that talks about Iraq buying many used T-72 in addition to some M1s. Cost may be a big issue but I don't think Iraq is a poor country, with plenty of the black gold. So it may reflect a bit of their thinking with regard to the issues we've talked about here like maintaining independence & not putting all eggs in one basket.
@Schumacher

1. I want to respectfully disagree with your train of thought. Let me explain:

(i) I prefer to look at arms purchases through the lens of military capability building. I prefer to assume that there is a semblance of rational decision making on the part of Iraqi government and its fledgling military.

(ii) I am not a fan of using political analysis because it is a purely subjective point of view (we will end up saying, we agree to disagree).

(iii) In building military capability, some important factors to consider include leadership, doctrine & tactics, quality of people, motivation and technical competence. The aforesaid factors are far more important than the platform (i.e. the F-16s or M1s/T-72s).​

2. If you are viewing arms purchases through the lens of military capability building, you will not end up with the above post.

3. Ask yourself: How realistic is it for Iraq (to even pretend) to be independent of the need for US/coalition support? If all US/coalition forces left tomorrow, Iraq will descend into anarchy.

4. The arms purchases announced in 2008 is about building Iraqi military capability for the future (in the 2010-2015 time frame and beyond).

So I'll be surprised if they bought more than a few dozens F-16s, maybe the 36 you mention with the bulk of their air force eventually being made up of Chinese/Russian stuffs.
5. It takes time to build capability. And building military capability is about training Iraqi people to stand on their own. Even if the US agreed to sell more F-16s, the Iraqi air force will still need skilled pilots and aircraft technicians. So what is the use of buying more planes from other countries? Will the other countries provide the necessary training and the doctrine & tactics to effectively employ the platforms?

6. These military skill sets do not grow on trees. It takes about 18-30 months to build a squadron of F-16s in a factory, but it takes more than twice the amount of time to train a squadron leader or a crew chief. And that's just basic competence for the air force. Developing a combined arms doctrine in an air-land battle for the Iraqi forces will take even longer (ie. try not to drop bombs on your own forces and to use the correct tools to shoot/bomb the enemy).

7. If you don't mind, I do not want to discuss the M1/T-72 purchase in this thread, as it is off topic. Please view the F-16 purchase as the start of the rebuilding of a fixed wing air combat capability for Iraq.
 
Last edited:

the road runner

Active Member
One point i would like to make is that when the USA pull out of IRAQ,is that if IRAN did attack IRAQ,Im sure there would be a worldwide backlash,similar to what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwaite.The world community will not just sit back and watch Iran invade Iraq.

Almaleki, welcome to the forum and i do wish your country a prosperouse future. Transient,i agree with your whole post,if i were IRAQ i would be staying away from the JF-17,and opting for the F-16 Falcon(a proven battle wining platform)weather you purchase New build F-16 or second hand F-16 and put em thru the falcon upgrade.I think the second option is the most likley option in my opinion.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Like I said, somebody will jump about the logistic problem. I agree, (like I said ealier) it is not economical if you buy from east and west...

Lets not talk about logistic here, it may be a problem to other countries. Iraq has oil.
@TanaTana

I'm sorry but your post has motivated me to tell you what I think and the problem is not just logistics alone. Each platform purchase has a life span (at least 20 to 30 years), so it's not wise to just mix and match, a few here and a few there.

The fanboy in me likes each of the platforms that Malaysia purchased. They all have their individual strengths and weaknesses as individual platforms. In fact, I like Malaysian airshows for their variety. However, I cannot say the same for the decision to go with 3 differential platforms in the numbers that Malaysia purchased, as set out below:

(i) 18x Mig 29s (x3 have crashed?),
(ii) 8x F-18Ds; and
(iii) 18x Su-30MKMs.

IMO, the kindest way to describe the cumulative purchase decision is that they are "interesting" and the first casualty of interesting decisions is safety for your pilots. You acquire an air force to defend your country. An air force is not for air shows or parades alone.

I know that the purchase of the 18x Su-30MKM is driven by the need to stretch your defence dollar (which is good). IMHO, the irrational part of the decision making process was the initial decision to split F-18D & Mig 29 purchase (and I know they were acquired sequentially).

Initially, I had thought that the Mig 29 purchase was driven by the offer of the R-77, BVR missile by the Russians. But this does not seem to be the case (and I would be happy to be corrected on this point). So, please don't cite Malaysia's fighter procurement decisions as an example of a problem free fighter procurement strategy to recommend to Iraq.

If you want to avoid a rational or a logical discussion (about the pros and cons of a military platform choice), fine, we'll stop.

This is Iraq we are talking about. Not just another country. Maybe, the government now is pro western (US in particular). Are the people in this country pro US too? What will happen when the US pull out of Iraq completely in a few years. Obama said he is gonna get the troops back as soon as possible. Do you think there will not be a revolt? What will happen if another govt took over and they are not pro westeners. Will the west still sell spare parts? And bombs and missiles etc.
Please read the earlier posts. Transient, the road runner and I have done our best to explain.

This is the best opportunity for Iran to come in, when Iraq is vulnerable, cant defend itself, coz the west boycott the new govt. Iraq is gonna lose out in the long run.
What you say does not make sense. Transient explained this point in detail in his post.

If the Iraqi government wants Iraq to move further down on the socio-economic development scale, then yes, they can piss-off the US. Otherwise, the Iraqi government better learn to get along with the US/West, if they want to prosper as a country.

But, if eastern weapons are also inducted in the current govt. Iraq will still have a chance to defend itself against Iran even with the west boycotting the new govt.
If you still don't understand all the above posts, I cannot help you.

BTW, I'm not against your point of view (as I feel you are entitled to retain your point of view, no matter how misguided it maybe). In fact, after Australia, Malaysia is my favorite holiday destination and some of my best friends are Malaysians. Further, if you check my other posts, I do support certain Malaysian arms purchases (eg. the PT-91M), so I don't just have bad things to say about purchasing decisions.
 
Last edited:

dragonfire

New Member
India's requirements and situation is not comparable to that of Malaysia. Look at the total number of aircraft being purchased by India (it is a major regional power of world standing with nuclear weapons and a space program). Further, could you not also argue that it would be cheaper for India to stick to an all Eastern fighter fleet? In fact, you can even argue that they are inducting western technology into their mainly eastern fighter fleet (to meet the Pakistani air force F-16 threat).
Look this is probably only beacuse am an Indian and a fan of the SU-30MKI - but isnt the western threat of PAF F-16s being met and countered by the eastern Su-30MKIs (India is getting 230 of them)
 

dragonfire

New Member
Million dollar question. Hardware maybe gone after 2 wars. Maybe some technical & science people are still around. Saddam did have a large defence infrastructure after all.

Well Iraq prior to the wars had good defense expenditure and if they had some expertise then it can be rebuilt if given guidance, time, assistance and training. What i would like to know is that if Iraq prior to the wars had devlopment/ co-development programs for fighters and/or if they ever did any licensed production as such
 

dragonfire

New Member
We have some Who wants Your Land and every INCH in it ?? Thats Why we have Much PPL Concerned with Weaponry stuff
It is common knowledge that Iraq and Iran have a past of rivalary and have fought a war too. However what you need to understand is that after the two wars, Iraq has more or less become (without being offensive) a protectorate of the US without it having any rights on Iraq or the people of Iraq.

Now also consider all the posturing the US has had over Iran in the last two years, have you been able to notice a trail here where the US is trying to prevent a situation where it needs to come back to the gulf full scale (after pullout of current troops) beacsue if Iran in the near future invades Iraq then it will implicitly be the USA's responsibility to counter it and defend a country left defenseless beacuse an attack it did under the logic of liberating the Iraqi people in the first place

Basically if Iran invades Iraq the US will retaliate with a counter attack and ensure destruction of Iran's millitary capability

--

All this is not to say that Iraq does not need weapons - it is a big country whose millitary capabilitites have been destroyed to a large extent - it needs weapons and fast - but maybe one does not need to worry too much


P.S - why do u keep typing kkkk wht does tht mean ????
 

Ryan UK

New Member
i disagree its not a large country but it is surrounded by Potential enemies, all that is needed is a strong defensive force (anti tank capabilities, anti air capabilities) and it should do fine, a few squadrons of fighters are definitely needed though.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Look this is probably only because am an Indian and a fan of the SU-30MKI - but isnt the western threat of PAF F-16s being met and countered by the eastern Su-30MKIs (India is getting 230 of them)
Agreed. I think we are on the same page.:D

BTW, did Malaysia send their Su-30 or Mig29 pilots to India for training?
 

dragonfire

New Member
i disagree its not a large country but it is surrounded by Potential enemies, all that is needed is a strong defensive force (anti tank capabilities, anti air capabilities) and it should do fine, a few squadrons of fighters are definitely needed though.
Well its almost double the size of UK and its more than 3 time the size of England. Point being larger area to defend
 

Schumacher

New Member
......
(iii) In building military capability, some important factors to consider include leadership, doctrine & tactics, quality of people, motivation and technical competence. The aforesaid factors are far more important than the platform (i.e. the F-16s or M1s/T-72s).[/INDENT]

.......7. If you don't mind, I do not want to discuss the M1/T-72 purchase in this thread, as it is off topic. Please view the F-16 purchase as the start of the rebuilding of a fixed wing air combat capability for Iraq.
All are good points with capability building, doctrine etc but would have been more helpful had you indicated how you think these would be compromised by not choosing F-16s if that's indeed your point or are we no longer talking about choosing F-16s/JF-17/others, which your comment about the above factors being 'more important than the platform' seem to indicate, which btw I also happen to agree.

Fine if you prefer not to talk about the tanks decision. I just think since it'll be a while before we'll know the air force decision, the tanks deals are the closest thing we have now to gauge the thinking of the Iraqi decision makers and it seems to indicate they're following a path of at least spreading their eggs onto different baskets.
 

Ryan UK

New Member
Well its almost double the size of UK and its more than 3 time the size of England. Point being larger area to defend
No its not..its only slightly larger than the UK,

second its not as developed as the Uk, a large portion is desert. Iraq needs only defensive arms for the moment not offensive capabilities, theres no point investing in MBTs when they have yet to put down the insurgency, if there attacked the US would defend them with heavy weaponry
 
Top