future_tuskegee_airman

Awesome helo! Thank you for this!

Jaw-droppingly amazing!!!!! Thanks to the team for all your hard work and effort! Love it!

I would like to know where you got the CH-53E? (If my eyes aren't playing tricks on me) please and thank you! :-)

That's beautiful!

That's amazing! Thanks for the information!

Wow! The pilot brought the bird home in that condition! That's amazing! RIP to the pilots whom lost their lives!

That's great news! Now to get some PROPER aircraft for the air wing!

And in return the Iranians get SU-30s! Holy cow that is a great trade! So everyone wins!

Beautiful aircraft! Nice work!

Wow that's a BOLD move...I'll definitely be looking into this! Thanks for posting!

@Migbuster, glad you and I see eye to eye on this issue, and I think it's ironic I posed the question and then we get these turn of events that occur in Iraq. As I said before...I don't think that the US should call the Iraqis allies. And I have absolutely nothing against them or Arabs, or Persians, etc., but the place and government is unstable. That's the truth no matter what way people want to spin things. So I hope some politicians in D.C. stop this sale or transfer or backroom deal immediately. The ramifications, if they don't, could be catastrophic.

I think that the recent reports of the ISIS and their offensive against the regular Iraqi Army and police forces sheds new light on this and why giving/selling them F-16s is a dangerous prospect. It's been reported that the ISIS forces captured military equipment (Humvees) as well as arms and a Helicopter and Fixed wing aircraft. If the F-16s had been transferred before, I think we would've seen a few captured.

Oh my goodness! This is great news!

@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).

@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!

@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?

Holy cow that is awesome!

When A-10s work in tandem for close air support I heard that they can put fire on a target every 6 to 10 seconds. Now I believe it! Long live the A-10 Thunderbolt 2 (Warthog)!

@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!

@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. :-)

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.