That was the question raised a month ago by a columnist for the U.K. Telegraph after Islamic State militants seized control of a large swath of northern and western Iraq.
Jonathan Foreman, who covered war in Iraq for the New York Post, excoriates the decisions that have failed to provide the Iraqi national government with a useful military air contingent. Why are the Iraqis still waiting for the U.S. to deliver expensive F-16 fighter jets, when they could already be flying effective numbers of lower speed, prop driven ground attack aircraft that would be a better match for the counterinsurgency mission, and more in line with what the Iraqis are already capable of flying and maintaining?
It may seem like a moot point, given the continuing fecklessness of the Nouri al-Maliki-led central Iraqi government. But Mr. Foreman thinks that the same mistake is now playing out in Afghanistan, after the U.S. Senate recently voted to cut in half the number of Brazilian designed and manufactured Embraer SuperTucano ground attack aircraft that military planners wanted to provide for the Afghan National Air Force.
According to Mr. Foreman :
[The Embraer SuperTucano and Beechcraft AT-6 Texan] cost a fraction [per unit] of a modern [supersonic] jet like the F-16. They are cheaper to run, easier to maintain and repair, and require much less training to fly than any helicopter, let alone a jet fighter. They can stay aloft longer and fly faster, further and higher than any helicopter.
Iraq actually requested 36 AT-6s back in 2008, but the deal was never made. It renewed the request this May – too late for the current conflict and the cities of Fallujah and Mosul.
Everyone’s priority was (and is) the glamorous jet fighters. Certainly Washington was keener to supply costly, profitable 36 F-16s rather than a large fleet of effective turboprops.
Given how poor Iraqi maintenance has been of its existing aircraft and aviation infrastructure, the chances of the Iraqi air force being able to use F-16s or any complicated jet effectively in any role for any length of time are minimal.
I have never fully understood the concept of selling our arms to other nations.
IT is a great idea. 1) it generates revenue for your country. 2) it adds R&D capability to your country. 3) (1:1 all F16's are not the same) so you get to control the level of threat of the weapon provided so you ensure your superiority with the arms provided vs your own. 4) you keep the country as an ally generally since they need you for support of the arms systems. --this is why Iran has some essentially new F16 from the mid-70's since they didn't have a support for service/parts.
--this is why Iran has some essentially new F16 from the mid-70's since they didn't have a support for service/parts.
Iran has no F-16 Falcons. Supposedly one was sent over to them a few years ago by our loving and caring ally Uncle Hugo CHavez, but that had never been proven.
They do have 69 F 14 Tomcats, of which maybe 16 are flyable without weapons systems.
They do have F4 Phantoms too, but these are on the ragged edge of being flyable, but they, unlike the F14s have some operational weapons systems. Iran's primary fighters are the Russian SU and MiG variants.
Iran DID order over 170 F16s, but that order was cancelled before the delivery of a single plane.
I say sell both sides anything they want. They will be paying with our cash! Just build in a satellite controlled tamper proof self destruct c-4 charge into everything so that as soon as they turn on us again (and they will) we just hit the switch and the problem self corrects. And if the winner is not who we want ----- press the button
They do have 69 F 14 Tomcats, of which maybe 16 are flyable without weapons systems.
Based on my experiences in the Middle East and the lack of spare parts/cost of maintenance for the F 14s, I have some doubt that 16 are even in flyable condition. What is your source for this data and do you consider it reliable??
Based on my experiences in the Middle East and the lack of spare parts/cost of maintenance for the F 14s, I have some doubt that 16 are even in flyable condition. What is your source for this data and do you consider it reliable??
Nelson
At least 3 of them still work. picture of the "reworked" F14s in Iranian service
As of 2006: (less today, even though they supposedly rebuilt 16 of them....)
Forum Veteran Forum Veteran Posts: 535 Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14 Unread post01 Aug 2006, 04:41
Combat Aircraft Vol 7 No 6 (April, 2006):
1. The total number of F-14A in Iranian AF now: 56
2. The number of flyable F-14A in Iranian AF now: 44
3. The number of operational F-14A in Iranian AF now: 29
4. Iranian new weapons for F-14: a. Fatter WVRAAM. b. Sedjil BVRAAM (Modification from Hawk SAM). c. Yasser air-to-ground missile (Combination of M-117 bomb and Hawk missile). d. Self-restraint AIM-54 BVRAAM (Development had been finished in 2003, and about 30 missiles was built in 2005).
5. Iran bought 270 AIM-54 from USA in 1970s, and about 40% of them was still useful in 1999. Last edited by toan on 01 Aug 2006, 04:49, edited 1 time in total.
and two other sources I cannot disclose. (Military)
A total of 545 F-14A aircraft were delivered to the US Navy and 79 delivered to Iran. The final 102 F-14A's were delivered with improved TF30-P-414A engines. Additionally, an 80th F-14A was manufactured for Iran, but was delivered to the US Navy.
The 80th Tomcat wasn't the only thing that got the Iranians panties in a wad. The US Navy had a class of guided missile (air defense) destroyers during the 80s to late 90s called the Kidd Class destroyer. Only 4 vessels in this class. Their original names were to be. Kouroush Daryush Nader Anoshirvan
quote
he Kidd-class guided missile destroyers (DDGs) were a series of four warships based on the Spruance class destroyers. The Kidds were designed as more advanced multipurpose ships, in contrast to their predecessor's focus on anti-submarine warfare, adding considerably enhanced anti-aircraft capabilities.[1] Originally ordered for the former Imperial Iranian Navy, the contracts were canceled when the 1979 Iranian Revolution began, and the ships were completed for the U.S. Navy. Because they were equipped with heavy-duty air conditioning and other features that made them suitable in hot climates, they tended to be used in the Middle East, specifically the Persian Gulf itself.[2] During their service with the U.S. Navy from the 1980s to the late 1990s, the ships were popularly known as the "Ayatollah" or "dead admiral" class. They were decommissioned and sold to Taiwan, now being known as the Kee Lung-class.
It is pretty cynical that we (the western countries on the supposed moral high ground) not only sell small and large arms to almost anyone (unofficially) and anyone (through third parties). That's worse is that we often pay for them ourselves (directly or through loans that may or may not be paid back).
It is pretty cynical that we (the western countries on the supposed moral high ground) not only sell small and large arms to almost anyone (unofficially) and anyone (through third parties). That's worse is that we often pay for them ourselves (directly or through loans that may or may not be paid back).
Nothing new and not limited to "Western" countries. Both the Egyptians and the Romans armed "enemies of our enemies" and today, Chinese arms are sold to anyone with $$ to spend.
Unless I am mis-understanding US policy, peoples like Nortrup Grumman and shipbuilders cannot sell directly to foreign nations. The federal govt buys the product, then sells it to the country. The entire transaction may all be "just on paper" but it must go thru the fed govt (congress/DoD/POTUS) but yes, it does seem hypocritical at best. "No, you can't have nukes, that's just for us to use on civilians in places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
Still, it's simply an eons old way of life.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-04-2014).]
