USA selling 36 F-16 (Advanced Tactical Figther/Bomber) to Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rasmasyean, Sep 7, 2008.

  1. rasmasyean macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #1
    Iraq Seeks F-16 Fighters

    Looks like a lot of advanced weaponry worth billions of dollars is already in route to the current Iraqi government. What would you make of these events and a deal like this one if it goes through?

    Discuss... :)
     
  2. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #2
    It's Iran all over again........ Don't sell things like that to countries that are unstable.
     
  3. noodle654 macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #3
    I dont see it as a HUGE deal right now, we are still controlling Iraq and we are training their army, and I guess now the Airforce too..
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    right now it isn't, but what happens if in a few years we pull out and Iraq falls apart again? If that happens the those planes could easily end up in the hands of terrorists and be used on US troops either in Afghanistan or somewhere else.
     
  5. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #5
    I think this is good news. It shows the Iraqi government is getting stronger and more confident. They need the airpower to fill the power vacuum between Israel and Iran.
     
  6. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #6
    Then give them F-4's. Not F-16's.
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #7
    F-14s, actually. Since we just retired them. :(

    This sale won't go through.
     
  8. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #8
    Aaaaaaand *drip*

    a drop in the ocean of our national debt. ;)
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    Not like the F-16 stand a hope of dealing with the F-22 Raptor so it is not like it is a real threat to US planes. If a confict did come up. They would remove the F-16 from service with a even fewer F-16.

    I think in earily war game test 2 F-22 took out like 6+ F-16 before they even pick up the F-22 on radar.

    So it is not like they are a real threat.
     
  10. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #10
    An F-16 is not the same as an F-16 :D

    You have different revisions, avionics, weapon systems, etc. So I doubt these are the latest models that the US or close allies were using, so while they might present a good workhorse for the Iraqi airforce in the region, they will not be a threat to the US.

    For the life of me though, I don't understand why we can't just help them fix up their aging airforce that they already have the training and know how to use and maintain? Unless it is $$ in the pockets of Lockheed Martin and we expect them to need to keep a strong airforce around.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Excellent point about the variants of the F-16. I'd wonder just what the Iraqis have otherwise, however. In 1991, the Iraqi AF was paltry at best and was a mishmash of different fighters from several different countries. The F-16 may simply be easier and more cost efficient to deploy.

    As for future terrorism, frankly terrorists don't often fly fighters because they require such a specific set of equipment and logistics that it doesn't fit with the asymmetric warfare they engage in.
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    Hell no, Tomcats can still be used effectively in combat today. Only reason it was retired was due to maintenance costs. The Phantoms are totally useless in todays world. So selling them Phantoms would not hurt us that much if Iraq becomes another Iran.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #13
    We could sell them F-14As. Those didn't do the Iranians any good. ;) Just make sure to leave out the Phoenix and AMRAAMs, oh and the good radar arrays.

    And, Phantoms, why not just sell them the whole rest of the Vietnam-era inventory, maybe a few F-105s and a Skyraider or two? ;)
     
  14. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #14
    Heh, I still have a dusty phantom model that I made and painted when I was a kid. I put holes and burn marks on it to indicate damage. :p

    How exactly do these F-16 sales work anyway? Do they actually still make them to order or something? I don't imagine they have a warehouse stocked full of them. Or do they like buy back some F-16's from USAF and then "retrofit/refurbish" them for export?

    Unless, it's like in the USSR in Afghanistan where they made so many weapons that they just left everything in Afghanistan when they departed. :D Though I wouldn't expect that to happen with F-16's!
     
  15. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #15
    We don't really have to worry about f-16's in dogfights against our fleet. The f-16 isn't a carrier fighter anyway, but if it were, Iraw doesn't have carriers to get them here to engage our flyers.

    All we have to do, is not attack Iraq preemptively, and we should be golden!

    Wait.......
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    I believe these are new planes from the factory. There's a section in the article that indicates several other deals for the F-16, so I would assume that LM is producing new versions. Once the airframe is built, they can customize the avionics.

    The Soviets left mostly tanks and other armored vehicles, essentially things they didn't feel like packing up and moving out, but fighters and helicopters were flown out. And, remember that the Soviets had to fight their way out even after the 'victory' of Operation Magistral that cleared the roads back to the USSR, so some of the vehicles were abandoned during the march because of fuel and maintenance problems. Leave enough behind however and the Russians gave Afghanistan a small group of armored vehicles.
     
  17. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #17
    Well much of their fleet was destroyed in both versions of the Gulf War and what they have left is old, diverse (mixture of Russian and French built stuff mostly) and probably has not been maintained properly in years. It would probably cost a lot more to make that hodge-podge of stuff into an airforce.
     
  18. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    How exactly do these F-16 sales work anyway? Do they actually still make them to order or something? I don't imagine they have a warehouse stocked full of them. Or do they like buy back some F-16's from USAF and then "retrofit/refurbish" them for export?

    Mainly they are built to order, although both scenarios exist. There are some mothballed assets that are kept in sale-able condition. Theoretically in a war of high attrition they could also be activated quickly for use by US Reserve forces.
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #19
    The stuff at the DM boneyard won't make the same kind of economic impact that producing a brand-new fighter at the LM plant will, thus politically speaking, there's a lot more interest in selling factory airframes rather than stuff that's out here.
     
  20. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #20
    My impression is that whatever the model variant and avionics/weapons systems installed, will be of content not considered a threat to US forces. Rather it's an economic stimulus to bolster the Aerospace/Defense industry for the US, and help reduce the equipment/personnel for air support by allowing the Iraqis to take on this role themselves.

    Stimulate the economy (somewhat), reduce troop deployment, as well as equipment related costs.

    Politics and money. ;) :p
     
  21. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #21
    Hey do you think this may indicate a precursor to future events regarding Iran. Seems like Iran is in the news all the time with some escalating "threat level" for whatever reasons.

    Since Iraq has always had beef with Iran and such, I'm sure some people there want to mess them up and take back some land or whatever. Maybe the US is helping Iraq prepare for Iran-Iraq War II. :D Perhaps through some deals they struck to enable this type of scenario to finish off what Sadam failed to do? Or maybe a future alliance between Iraq and US to "take out uranium plants" or whatever and Iraq capturing back "their" oil fields that the British so unfairly gave to Iran. blah blah... :cool:

    Maybe these US naval captains are like itching for an excuse to sink the rest of Iran's fleet, lol. But then again they did let one of them go...looked like they felt sorry for sinking all those others and not even getting hit by anything? :shrug: :p
     
  22. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #22
    With 36 aircraft I doubt it, but that doesn't mean it isn't being considered. ;) If the US acquires permanent bases in Iraq, or approves additional aircraft/arms shipments in enough numbers, it may well happen.

    I don't put anything past politicians, especially the current morons. To me, it's equivalent to having a bunch of 10 y/o's running the military. :p
    Politically run military campaigns don't work. Look at history. Vietnam alone proves this.
    If US and Iraq's interests coincide, and Iran becomes a military target, I'd say yes. Otherwise, no in the near future.

    Iraq has enough internal issues to sort out first. Given enough time, maybe.
    With current forces split in two theaters, opening a third would be a disaster.
    So the Navy will just have to deal with being bored. :D :p
     
  23. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #23
    Ah...well it has been suspected that Iran has been playing a part in the destabilization of Iraq. Perhaps this is how they are trying to avoid US presence and its subsequent involvement in Gulf War III. hmmm...
     
  24. rasmasyean thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #24
  25. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #25
    Going back to the Iraqi air force, whatever happened to the MiG-29s they didn't want to risk against our F-15s 17 years ago?
     

Share This Page