F-16s for Iraq? (UPDATED)
Jul 20th, 2011 | 18 responses
UPDATE:
Gen. Ray Odierno, who has been nominated to be the next Army chief told Congress during his confirmation hearings, “I think it’s important that we provide [Iraq] the support they think is necessary.”
Commenting on recent Iranian efforts to arm Shiite extremist groups in Iraq Odierno said, “It is clear that Iran is attempting to influence this decision with the actions they’ve taken, specifically over the last several months, in continuing to support, fund, train, equip surrogates in southern Iraq and central Iraq, specifically going after the remnants of our U.S. presence inside of Iraq.”
Specifically as to the use of F-16s by Iraq and commenting on how the Iraqi military can field an air defense once American forces leave in 2011, a July 28, 2009, DoD press release quotes Odierno as saying that the Iraqis probably will not be able to field advanced air-to-air manned interceptors by the time U.S. forces leave the country at the end of 2011, and that the U.S. will work with Iraqi officials to look for creative solutions to the problem.
The press release added at the time:
… air defense is another matter. Defending its airspace is a huge undertaking for Iraq. The government must procure suitable aircraft that can intercept other jets. The pilots must be trained, infrastructure must be built, and mechanics must be instructed. The logistics trail also must be established. Procuring new aircraft in time for the American withdrawal would not provide the requisite capabilities they would entail.
And an air defense system is more than just planes. Radars, a communications system and command structure also must be built.
“We’re going to bring this team over here to try and get them some creative solutions that might allow them to have some capacity by 2011,” Odierno said, citing use of retired U.S. F-16 fighters or the purchase of aircraft from other countries as possible steps in the process.
===
Original article:
A key factor in the upcoming political and strategic decision of how many U.S. troops will remain in Iraq when the deadline for withdrawal arrives at the end of the year is, of course, whether and how well the Iraqi armed forces will be able to provide for the country’s security.
And a critical component of Iraqi’s national defense capabilities will be how well its air defense systems and fighter aircraft can defend and control its airspace and provide air sovereignty in case of an enemy attack.
As reported here, the Iraqi Air Force (IqAF), once the sixth largest air force in the world — with well over 900 aircraft and with 40,000 men at 24 operating bases — was pretty much destroyed during the “Persian Gulf War” (Operation Desert Storm), both in the air and on the ground.
What was left of a once proud air force was flown to Iran to escape additional destruction.
The IqAF was so decimated that, when U.S. and Coalition Forces aircraft launched the air campaign at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, not a single IqAF aircraft took to the skies to challenge the attacking aircraft — a humiliating no-show.
With only 124 jet fighters left in his inventory, Saddam Hussein realized before the 2003 invasion that taking to the air to defend the homeland would be futile and ordered most of the fighter aircraft disassembled and concealed or buried in the desert sands, hoping to make them useless to and non-retrievable by the “invaders.”
Although many of these aircraft have been found and excavated by U.S. forces in Iraq, none of the “exhumed aircraft” has seen service since the invasion.
Today, eight years after its demise, a new Iraqi Air Force is again rising from its ashes, assisted by the same powers — mainly the U.S. — that helped to destroy it.
A defeated and demoralized air force that started with zero operable aircraft and about 35 people in 2004 today has more than 160 aircraft and helicopters, including several C-130s, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft in addition to light transport aircraft, trainers and a number of helicopters.
Several contracts for additional aircraft are being negotiated or executed. According to some reports, Iraqi officials hope to have an IqAF with around 500 aircraft and about 20,000 airmen by 2020.
However, conspicuously absent from the IqAF’s inventory are jet fighter aircraft — the dream of any air force and critical to the defense of the homeland.
Iraq has been eying the purchase of Lockheed F-16 fighter interceptors to fill this need, but it has been an on-off-on-again affair.
Back in March, 2010, Iraq submitted a request to the U.S. government for the purchase of 18 new F-16 fighter aircraft. Iraq would like to have 36 F-16s by 2020.
Also, at the time, the Government of Iraq signed an agreement with the U.S. for the training of 10 Iraqi Air Force pilots on the F-16.
Then, as recently as January of this year, it was reported that Iraq was “on the verge” of signing a $13 billion deal with the Pentagon for advanced weapons systems, including Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter interceptors.
Enter the “Arab Spring” and the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere and, suddenly, the needs of the Iraqi people became more important than the needs of the Iraqi Air Force.
With Iraqis complaining about rampant government corruption, electricity and water shortages, lack of other services and Iraqis demanding more jobs and improved standards of living, Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said that the planned purchase of 18, Block 52, F-16s was ” postponed this year and the money has been diverted toward improving food rations for the poor.”
Mohammed Khalil, a Kurdish MP and a member of parliament’s finance committee said, “In the new draft budget for 2011 that was presented to us, $900 million was earmarked for the purchase of F-16s, which will be used to finance rations and social benefits.”
However, in early July, the Wall Street Journal reported that Iraq had once again “quietly” started negotiations to buy up to 36 F-16 aircraft — the equivalent of two squadrons — and other air defense systems “worth billions of dollars” and a purchase “Washington hopes will help counter Iranian influences and cement long-term ties with Baghdad after American troops pull out.”
Apparently, the decision comes following an unexpected surge in Iraqi oil revenues that may have added an estimated $10 billion to the Iraq government’s coffers and, yes, as the year-end U.S. troop withdrawal deadline looms.
With respect to the Iraqi economy and its ability to pay for such a large purchase, USA TODAY reports that “Foreign investment is beginning to pour into Iraq this year, fueled by a growing confidence in the country’s stability.”
As to how Iraq’s security needs are coupled with the U.S. troop withdrawal, the U.S. has expressed growing frustration with Baghdad’s foot-dragging and wants Iraq to “Dammit, make a decision.”
Once a decision on continued U.S. troop presence is made, the picture on the extended F-16 package sale should become more clear, increasing U.S. confidence that Iraq will be able to defend itself — especially against Iran — and allaying U.S. concerns over Baghdad’s ability to maintain tight security over the F-16s, their associated weapons systems and sensitive technology. A complete U.S withdrawal (including training, maintenance and logistics personnel), however, could have a negative impact on the IqAF’s abilities to maintain and provide logistics support to such a sophisticated fleet of aircraft.
It is unclear how soon Iraq’s new fighter aircraft would enter service because of long production lag times, required training and the establishment of the necessary operation, maintenance and logistics infrastructure.
But for now, the sale of F-16′s to Iraq may soon be “on” again—with some caveats and question marks.
Meanwhile, Dassault Mirage, Eurofighter Typhoon and other fighter aircraft are waiting in the wings — or whistling in the wind?
Image: Courtesy author’s grandson
Cross posted from the Huffington Post
18 Responses to “F-16s for Iraq? (UPDATED)”
I’ve got a plan.
Why don’t we praise the Iraqi government for diverting the money to social programs where it belongs, and, that is benefiting the people.
Destroy both the Syrian and Iranian Air Forces if either make a move, so that Iraq don’t have to worry about them. (hint-don’t tell them in advance) Then bring home ALL our people.
It’s no time for Iraqi to start buying expensive toys that will soon turn to desert junk and no time for us to start hanging our people’s hind-ends out being under manned in a volatile region. I think this will help us start saving money right away, instead of later.
20,000 jobs in 9 years in a country of 30 million? O-boy that’s job program for ya.
Sorry Allen that’s not a plan that will work. Iraq needs the ability to stand on it’s own and we have already proved time and time again that promises of protection are meaningless when left to the whims of politics. There is also the fact that if we are not in Iraq we wouldn’t have the ability to destroy either Syria or Iran’s air forces. Syrians have over 3 times the number of MiG-29 jet fighters than the amount the Iraqis want to buy, not to mention the extensive amounts of other planes reportedly including Mig-31s. Syria has an air force that has always come off second best to Israel but that gives them experience that no other air force has. They have shot down F-15s and F-16s. Iran is much more secretive and less is known but the idea that if they believe they can get away with an attack that we could or would interfere is closed minded and ignorant of political realities.
EEllis-
This is the thing, I, for one, do not care.
If the truth got the spotlight, I believe that now, especially now, the vast majority of our population agrees with me. We are bankrupting this country and sacrificing our people. Iraq has oil to sell and it’s people need to start moving there backward selves into the 21 century. We can easily guarantee protection from external conventional threat, but internally it’s their ball game. They don’t need a modern Air Force while their people can barely eat. End of story
I love how some people think it is not our place to tell others how to run their country until they don’t think that any more.
PENZA-
You have a point.
Well, Europe devoted money it should have spent on its military on even worse social programs than we have here (and which are more unsustainable, and which will be struck even harder by demographics than we will, and on which there is so much more dependence than Americans depend, amazingly), and rely on the US military to prevent Soviet aggression. And, with no military of any effect, it had to rely on the evil, warmongering USA and its US War Machine, Baby! [tm] to do its work for it. No doubt some in Europe have chosen to change this, just as a few nervous leaders who know the dire future of entitlements in Europe are trying gentle changes to them now.
* * *
As for Iraq, it’s a pitiful attempt to get it to keep Iran in check. But it’s no surprise; after all, Iraq now has tanks thanks to us.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M1-Abrams-Tanks-for-Iraq-05013/
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/07/first-abrams-tanks-to-arrive-in-iraq-by.html
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2010/08/iraqs-abrams-tanks-arrive.html
Etc.
Of course, letting Iraq acquire F-16s could backfire if Iraq prevents any long-range Israeli air strike on Iranian targets if necessary.
Then why respond at all? What do you not care about? That Iraq be able to assure itself a future as a independent nation? What do you think will bring worse suffering? Spending a few billion dollars from their seemingly profitable oil revenues or being invaded and taken over by Iran? Or even worse being used as a battlefield for other nations and totally destroyed by internal violence? If they are free to make decisions then it’s their call.
Truth is these will be export f-16 not at the same level as the US and Israel. There pilots wouldn’t be even close to capable of interfering with anyone for 5 years and without many more units they wouldn’t even think of wasting them in that manor. Non issue for now. Truth is while the hardware is good the best aspect is our pilots. Iraq can buy very good planes from France, Russia, etc. As long as they can and will maintain reasonable security for the next 5-10 years why shouldn’t our manufactures make the money off what will be a good contract for someone.
Far likelier to be invaded by the US than by Iran…
When is the last time Iran invaded another country?
The handful of airplanes that Iraq will buy from the US will not prevent the US from invading. Plastic, C4, IEDs, RPGs, AK47 and cheap rockets distributed amongst the population at large are a far better defense against the US than F16…
BTW when was the last time Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Jordan invaded a neighboring country? (other than Israel)
EEllis, you make some good points. Thank you and all for your comments.
What could possibly be more stupid than giving people with 12th century sensibilities 21st century weapons? This is about money changing hands, not responsible foreign policy.
[...] F-16s for Iraq?The Moderate VoiceA key factor in the upcoming political and strategic decision of how many US troops will remain in Iraq when the deadline for withdrawal arrives at the end of the year is, of course, whether and how well the Iraqi armed forces will be able to provide …Analysis: Legal safeguards for US troops key to an Iraq dealReutersIraqi tribal leaders against extending US forces presencePress TV [...]
EEllis-
Well then, if you are so worried about Iraq’s ability to defend itself. Buy a plane ticket. Make the noble gesture yourself. Who knows, maybe others will follow. The rest of us, well, we are cutting the cord. Not out of spite, but for our own survival. What are you anyway, a sales rep for General Dynamics?
So we do have the moral authority to decide who is able to defend themselves correct? You are against the US selling 30 primarily defensive fighter jets to Iraq but condemn any interference in Iran’s nuclear program. Well at least you are consistent. Oh wait a min, no you are not.
Personally I believe a sovereign nation has a right to make such decisions on its own. No I don’t have all the data necessary to make such a decision but if there isn’t a good reason why we shouldn’t sell then the fighters then it’s stupid not to. If there are good reasons then don’t and France will be happy to.
What is this gibberish? If you want to “cut the cord” then do so and get out of their business. I have already stated my position and honestly I don’t think it’s particularly pro General Dynamics, more like anti Knee jerk. Lets look at it again. There is no logical basis for you to believe we should have any say in how they spend their money. They have a right to protect themselves. We should have a reason to turn down massive amounts of money that will provide jobs for Americans. If there are reasons then fine but so far I have been the only one who has even bothered to mention any logical reasons at all to be concerned.
Turkey invaded Iraq! This happened while we were there! Syria has just recently left Lebanon. Iran has supported actions against PJAK in Iraq. As little as a month ago there was news of Syria massing troops on the Turkish border and Clinton and the EU condemning Syria for escalating a situation that could lead to armed conflict.
DQ I normally ignore you since fact has absolutely no impact on you at all but for others here’s just a tiny bit of reality.
Ellis, your comment following my post betrays your presumption. I suggest you confine your characterization of my views to the actual, not the imagined.
So I imagined you said “What could possibly be more stupid than giving people with 12th century sensibilities 21st century weapons? This is about money changing hands, not responsible foreign policy.”
So first you are saying that the citizens and people of Iraq have “12th century sensibilities” and that there ability to protect themselves should depend on what we decide acceptable. None of that is imagined. That you have previously condemned others for over reach in their desired interference with other sovereign nations WMD programs is also not imagined.
Whine to someone who cares or make an actual factual point for once.