Iraqi F-16D First flight

[MigBuster 2,884]

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4854.html

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Now, that's a sight I'd have never believed a decade ago...

 

And new roundels with that. Anyone has a close-up?

[MAKO69 186]

This is the one that keeps popping up, must be this or something very similar.

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

Am I the only one concerned about this? I won't go political but this seems like our government just spit on the graves and the open wounds of those who served, fought, were wounded, or died over there.
Plus did we forget what happened with our relationship with the Iranians when it went sour? Huge mistake of giving the Iraqis Abrams and F-16s, I hope that this doesn't come around and bite us in the behind in the future. I have no qualms against Iraqis, nor their way of life, or beliefs. I just don't know if they are who I would consider a faithful ally such as the UK.

[JediMaster 451]

It's far less about who Iraq is and more about who Iran is.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Huge mistake of giving the Iraqis Abrams and F-16s...

 

I dunno, selling Block 52 F-16Cs/Ds and AIM-120C-5s to Pakistan was very likely a worse decision, given their duplicity and their close relationship with the US's biggest (arguably) rival. Name a neighbour next to Iraq who also has a very tight relationship with China.

Edited May 9, 2014 by SayWhatt

[macelena 1,070]

Not such a big deal in that regard, F-16s have already been delivered to many nations wich, by a variety of political circumstances, could or did turn hostile to the US, see Jordan, Egypt, Venezuela, Pakistan...even Turkey and recently, Morocco. Arming those with a fighter that is neither obsolete nor an absolute game changer might be wise to empower their governments who are allied out of convenience against those who would overthrow them with a hostile regime. However, if they had to get Su-30s, there wouldn´t be a dependence on US support. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by macelena

[MAKO69 186]

Am I the only one concerned about this? I won't go political but this seems like our government just spit on the graves and the open wounds of those who served, fought, were wounded, or died over there.

Plus did we forget what happened with our relationship with the Iranians when it went sour? Huge mistake of giving the Iraqis Abrams and F-16s, I hope that this doesn't come around and bite us in the behind in the future. I have no qualms against Iraqis, nor their way of life, or beliefs. I just don't know if they are who I would consider a faithful ally such as the UK.

This is a knee jerk reaction. Do some research and see how involved the U.S. still is and will be involved with Iraq, decades my friend we are in the long haul with the Iraqis. I think we have learned our lesson dealing with these fragile societies.

[+Typhoid 231]

one advantage of being their supplier is that we know what we shipped to them, and what might be installed in the various systems................

 

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

@JediMaster, that I agree. But I am saying as a student of history, it seems like the US foreign policy is making our "friends" our "enemies" and making our "enemies" our "friends" as it seems fit for whatever administration.

Examples: Iran once was an ally in the Middle East when we installed the Shah, the Iranians became our "enemies" after the Shah was ousted and remains that way to this day.

@SayWhatt I agree as well another HUGE mistake made by the administration giving those F-16s to Pakistan, and don't forget to mention selling F-16As to Venezuela a long time ago, who have in the recent past become close in ties to China. (Another case of a "friend" becoming an "enemy" might I add.

 

@Macalena you spoke on the lines that I was suggesting, I didn't want to go too deep into the political or historical aspects, I'm just wondering aloud if this is going to bite us in the butt in the future.

@MAKO69, it wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction, look how in about 20+ years how our relationship with Iraq itself has fluctuated. Us giving chemical weapons to Iraq (that he used on Kurds, which became a premise of the invasion to secure those "Weapons of Mass Destruction") and Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, to us overthrowing his regime (I'm not trying to go political and staying neutral). So I did do the research and I am as I said above wondering if this sale will create future problems. I doubt that the administration cares about history as much and is more focused on the dollar signs in a business sense.

@Typhoid, now that I hadn't thought of. But then again, look at our sale of F-14s to the Iranians. we "knew" what was installed in those aircraft, during the Iran-Iraq war, stated with full authority, that those aircraft we were certain weren't flying, and the Iranians had no ways of supporting them, and now look in 2014, the Iranians have not only improved, to uncertain specifications, but are also still maintaining, upgrading, and flying them today.

Not being argumentative, just wanted to express my thoughts and wondering what the future holds. Thanks for all your input and comments, I am going to go read more and watch this unfold. I'm not into doom or gloom, just curious. :-)

[+Typhoid 231]

 

@Typhoid, now that I hadn't thought of. But then again, look at our sale of F-14s to the Iranians. we "knew" what was installed in those aircraft, during the Iran-Iraq war, stated with full authority, that those aircraft we were certain weren't flying, and the Iranians had no ways of supporting them, and now look in 2014, the Iranians have not only improved, to uncertain specifications, but are also still maintaining, upgrading, and flying them today.

 

Not being argumentative, just wanted to express my thoughts and wondering what the future holds. Thanks for all your input and comments, I am going to go read more and watch this unfold. I'm not into doom or gloom, just curious. :-)

 

the Iranians certainly performed some minor miracles to keep a small fraction of those aircraft still flying.  Reportedly, they had a fair amount of success with the AIM-54A's, depending on which reporting one chooses to believe.

 

the point, though, is that we'd have a very good idea of what countermeasures/tactics to use should we ever have to go up against them.  That particular advantage has been expoited by various militaries of various countries against former friends on a number of occasions over the years.

[MAKO69 186]

 

 

@MAKO69, it wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction, look how in about 20+ years how our relationship with Iraq itself has fluctuated. Us giving chemical weapons to Iraq (that he used on Kurds, which became a premise of the invasion to secure those "Weapons of Mass Destruction") and Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, to us overthrowing his regime (I'm not trying to go political and staying neutral). So I did do the research and I am as I said above wondering if this sale will create future problems. I doubt that the administration cares about history as much and is more focused on the dollar signs in a business sense.

 

 

What I'm saying is the United States will be more involved with Iraq now than in the past and making sure Iraq will stay as it is and not revert to a dictatorship or a radical Islamic state. After all we do have forces in Iraq that are going to be there for a long time. Think back to US and allied forces in Europe. Judging by everyone's response to your thought, I think you are the only one concerned with their new F-16s.

 

[+Typhoid 231]

No, we don't have forces in Iraq.

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

@Typhoid, I agree we would know how to properly counter or disable the F-16s provided to Iraq if terms or conditions would turn to the worse. I hope we have those same ideas in reserve if ever needed against, Pakistan, or Venezuela, or whomever else we have given military equipment to.

@MAKO69, I agree we are involved more now, but in the foreseeable future, according to whatever administration replaces the current one, that may change (think back to Iran...we were buddy buddy with them, they were once our strongest ally in the middle east, before the Shah's overthrow, and now Saudi Arabia is our strongest "ally" followed by Jordan, etc.) And look at Europe, the feelings we have towards them go through warming and cooling periods (France, Germany, etc.) none has turned hostile yet, (I hope that never happens.)

Okay well I will take credit for that. I may be the only person concerned on this site with deliveries of F-16s to Iraq. Thanks for the dialog!   

[MAKO69 186]

No there is no combat forces meaning troops on the strreet, but plenty of military advisers both civilian contract and military

[Viggen 644]

one advantage of being their supplier is that we know what we shipped to them, and what might be installed in the various systems................

 

 

Which is why these Vipers won't have AMRAAMs, JDAMs, or SDBs.

[thodouras95 25]

@JediMaster, that I agree. But I am saying as a student of history, it seems like the US foreign policy is making our "friends" our "enemies" and making our "enemies" our "friends" as it seems fit for whatever administration.

 

Examples: Iran once was an ally in the Middle East when we installed the Shah, the Iranians became our "enemies" after the Shah was ousted and remains that way to this day.

 

@SayWhatt I agree as well another HUGE mistake made by the administration giving those F-16s to Pakistan, and don't forget to mention selling F-16As to Venezuela a long time ago, who have in the recent past become close in ties to China. (Another case of a "friend" becoming an "enemy" might I add.

 

@Macalena you spoke on the lines that I was suggesting, I didn't want to go too deep into the political or historical aspects, I'm just wondering aloud if this is going to bite us in the butt in the future.

 

@MAKO69, it wasn't a "knee-jerk" reaction, look how in about 20+ years how our relationship with Iraq itself has fluctuated. Us giving chemical weapons to Iraq (that he used on Kurds, which became a premise of the invasion to secure those "Weapons of Mass Destruction") and Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, to us overthrowing his regime (I'm not trying to go political and staying neutral). So I did do the research and I am as I said above wondering if this sale will create future problems. I doubt that the administration cares about history as much and is more focused on the dollar signs in a business sense.

 

@Typhoid, now that I hadn't thought of. But then again, look at our sale of F-14s to the Iranians. we "knew" what was installed in those aircraft, during the Iran-Iraq war, stated with full authority, that those aircraft we were certain weren't flying, and the Iranians had no ways of supporting them, and now look in 2014, the Iranians have not only improved, to uncertain specifications, but are also still maintaining, upgrading, and flying them today.

 

Not being argumentative, just wanted to express my thoughts and wondering what the future holds. Thanks for all your input and comments, I am going to go read more and watch this unfold. I'm not into doom or gloom, just curious. :-)

 

Interesting question you raised there. To be honest with you, I see what you're saying and I do believe that none can guarantee us that they won't turn around someday again. However, there are some things we need to consider:

 

For one, today the world is much more globalized, with the media and the internet. While this could mean a revolution could take place far more intensely and rapidly, it could also mean that the internet could help spread new ideas that would probably prevent violent, anti-American revolution. Of course, take these with a grain of salt, as I cannot exactly claim expertise on the matter, so I could very well be talking out of my ass. But that's just something that popped up in my head.

 

And for another, as it was said in a previous post, the F-16 is no game changer. The States know what they sell, its strengths, weaknesses, and most importantly, how to exploit them. The danger of one flying off to Russia or China probably remains, but these things have happened in the past, even if they go public and no diplomatic solution is found, military tech is already ahead of the F-16. I surely do understand that the Blk50/52 aircraft are still the backbone of the USAF, and are good planes themselves, but well, it doesn't look like a problem that cannot be solved (either by new aircraft or upgrades to the existing fleet, etc etc).

 

For these two reasons, I hold the belief that chances of revolutions similar to those from the past are unlikely to happen anytime soon. But that was a very nice question.

 

Also, a small side note for the Iranian F-14s: Things are kind of weird here, actually. Some say the USA did not know that they were flying, but tbh, I'm sure they would have noticed something even early into the 8 year-long war. On the other hand, however, I can't think of a good enough reason why Grumman officials would lie, however I can tell you one thing for sure: The greatest upgrade IRIAF F-14s have undergone is cockpit cleaning. Oh yeah, and a new paint scheme :D At least that's all I can derive from existing pictures. As far as internal systems are concerned, I have serious doubts that they did anything (significant) new.

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

@Viggen, thank you for your response...I didn't know if an armament package was part of the deal. Are LGBs, or their associated LTPs included in the sale? And in regards to avionics, are they pretty much on par like the rest of the block 50s or 52s that our forces fly? I'm surprised that they won't even be able to mount AMRAAMs, what would they fly with for long range defense...French missiles of the same class or 'Winders?

 

[Viggen 644]

This is the delivery list I saw:

 

18 F-16IQ aircraft,
—24 F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines,
—36 LAU-129/A Common Rail Launchers,
—24 APG-68(V)9 radar sets,
—19 M61 20mm Vulcan Cannons,
—200 AIM-9L/M-8/9 Sidewinder Missiles,
—150 AIM-7M-F1/H SPARROW Missiles,
—50 AGM-65D/G/H/K MAVERICK Air-to-Ground Missiles,
—200 GBU-12 PAVEWAY II Laser Guided Bomb Units (500 pound),
—50 GBU-10 PAVEWAY II Laser Guided Bomb Units (2000 pound),
—50 GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bomb Units (2000 pound),
—22 Advanced Countermeasures Electronic Systems (ACES) (ACES includes the ALQ-187 Electronic Warfare System and AN/ALR-93 Radar Warning Receiver),
—20 AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems (without Mode IV),
—20 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), (Standard Positioning Service (SPS) commercial code only),
—20 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER or AN/AAQ-28 LITENING Targeting Pods,
—4 F-9120 Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance Systems (AARS) or DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods (RECCE),
—22 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS);
—20 Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs).

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

@thodouras95: Thank you! That was the gist of my question. For another example, we have seen what recently happened with Egypt and their revolution. When the current administration did not like the outcome they suspended deliveries of F-16s to Egypt, which the Egyptians promptly protested. They could've gone the way of Iran, since the former Egyptian President was pro-western, if a more radical group unfriendly to America had taken power. And then once again we would've seen the same incident occur (I presume).

Another issue is how is it that Romania gets older F-16s when the Iraqis get the latest models, IIRC? 

I honestly hope that this is a smart move by the Pentagon/Congress and not just another rotten deal to preserve/create "jobs in their districts" and make a quick buck.

 

I think the fact the Iranians did still fly and fight using the F-4s/F-5s/F-14s is a true testament to their prowess and I have a healthy respect for them. I've read religiously the Osprey Publishing Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units as well as Iranian F-4 Phantom Units in combat and believe that's a pretty legitimate report on their actions. 

@Viggen:

Thank you for that quick response. So they don't have advanced AMRAAMs but older Sparrows, (Didn't know they produced those) and the loadout does look more for air to mud than anything. Again, thanks for the info!

Edited May 16, 2014 by future_tuskegee_airman

[MigBuster 2,884]

Another issue is how is it that Romania gets older F-16s when the Iraqis get the latest models, IIRC? 

 

Despite whats its been through - Iraq likely has far more economic potential due to its oil industry.

[future_tuskegee_airman 13]

@MigBuster: So then its safe to assume that the main motivation for this sale is economic and not forging an ally in the middle east, or protecting their borders. As the conclusion that I arrived at after seeing the list of items that are along with the sale of the F-16s (all seemed offensive in nature).

[MigBuster 2,884]

Could be a bit of everything - they wont tell us the real motivation 

 

As part of defense you still need to degrade the other sides means to throw bombs at you, you cant take out oncoming ground forces with A-A missiles.

[+Typhoid 231]

No there is no combat forces meaning troops on the strreet, but plenty of military advisers both civilian contract and military

In view of the failure to have a Status of Forces Agreement, my understanding is that we withdrew ALL forces except for those directly connected with the Embassy. So no training mission, no support, no contractors (unless directly contracted by Irag) etc.

 

I may have missed some details somewhere but I thought we were outa there. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nyet.

[MAKO69 186]

In view of the failure to have a Status of Forces Agreement, my understanding is that we withdrew ALL forces except for those directly connected with the Embassy. So no training mission, no support, no contractors (unless directly contracted by Irag) etc.

 

I may have missed some details somewhere but I thought we were outa there. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nyet.

Like I said we don't have combat soldiers on the streets, but just last January C-17s were dropping off military supplies in Baghdad. There are a small amount of advisers both military and civilian contractors. You are right all combat forces have left the country. There are only a small number of troops to be used for defensive purposes only under the direction of the embassy.