Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 501

Thread: Which attack helicopter for Iraq?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Rooivalk has to work hard to maintain its lack of sales!

    Indeed Iraq could get more Mi-17 and Mi-24 but it appears to be a political issue in Iraq about getting a new generation attack helicopter.
    Super Hind Mk 4 and Mi-17 upgrade ? Puts South Africa back in the middle of the game. Capitalized on earlier experience with the type(s).
    https://sites.google.com/site/stingr...-mk-4-and-mk-5




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,929
    WZ-19?


    Kazan Ansat-2RC?
    PZL W-3PL?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Now the Mi-28 is not being purchased by Iraq what alternative makes sense.
    Both RIA Novosti and Aljazeera
    are quoting Iraqi Defense Minister saying otherwise.

    Mi-35 continues being the common sense option for Iraq.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    Ah the ATE Super Hind! I remember thinking that was cool in the Film Blood Diamond

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...zkC1Lygas&NR=1
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Owlcat View Post
    Both RIA Novosti and Aljazeera
    are quoting Iraqi Defense Minister saying otherwise.

    Mi-35 continues being the common sense option for Iraq.
    As I said earlier this smells of internal fighting within the Iraqi government over turf! Personally I think some form of deal will be reinstated with Russia to save face but I doubt it will be the $4.2 billion dollar wonder deal that was announced in October. As I posted in another thread I think the Pantysr ADS makes sense and I have nothing against the Mi-28N except an observation that it lacks maturity vs the Apache but that is a detail issue.

    Another issue in respect of turf wars is the autonomous Kurdish region has started selling oil without consulting Baghdad and purchasing defence articles.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    As I said earlier this smells of internal fighting within the Iraqi government over turf! Personally I think some form of deal will be reinstated with Russia to save face but I doubt it will be the $4.2 billion dollar wonder deal that was announced in October. As I posted in another thread I think the Pantysr ADS makes sense and I have nothing against the Mi-28N except an observation that it lacks maturity vs the Apache but that is a detail issue.

    Another issue in respect of turf wars is the autonomous Kurdish region has started selling oil without consulting Baghdad and purchasing defence articles.
    The threat of Sunni Spring, that can spill over from Syria in any moment, is enough to guarantee generous Russian arms sales to Iraq.

    Apache may be a mature platform but it's expensive in comparison with the platform it would replace for Iraqi counterinsurgency needs.

    Kurds can play all the political games they want but they are going nowhere since Turkey is a far more valuable for US than any independentist movement that openly threatens the territorial integrity of a NATO member.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    Well the latest article from Reuters very much paints the picture of a political turf war!

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/1...8A90GH20121110

    What is bemusing about the Russian deal is the lack of proper tender (then again a fair amount of recent Iraqi procurement has been without a proper tender so nothing new there) and its announcement by the Russians rather then Iraqis when Al-Maliki visited Moscow. The acting defence minister who negotiated the deal denies anyproblems! Question is who has more clout the acting defence minister or the Prime minister and who is pulling what string behind the scenes.

    Rather murky in all respects!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Attempted defence sales to UAE have no relevance in a thread about alternatives to the Mi-28N for Iraq.
    You made baseless speculation that there would be sleepless night in Moscow based on some Iraki deal. I give you example that those kind of stituation simply not true in Russia case. It is more for BAE (waiting Pensioners dividends) or Dassualt a. That are trying for past 5 years to sell there jets to Sauid or UAE or even India with all its complexities of offsets, technology transfer, assembly lines, endless trials, issue over pricing for upgrades etc. This straight forward deal where Russia is doing favor with Iraq by sparing Mi-28. and those Mi-28 could be used against Kurds and those Kurds have long relationships with Soviets and are usefull in Syria situation. There is no such thing as tender as one side is doing a favor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa...e_Soviet_Union
    Barzani and his followers arrived in the Armenian SSR and were put in a camp near Nakhchevan.[11] After appealing to the Soviet Union to help them, Barzani and his followers were transferred to the Azerbaijan SSR, kept in camps near and around Baku. Barzani met with Azerbaijan Communist Party officials, who under orders from Moscow were told to help the Kurds.



    Oh so we have moved from talking about helicopter engines where the dividing line between civil and military engines is non existent to talking about how quickly Lockheed Martin can service an F-16 contract. Talk about moving the goal posts! Lockheed Martin can move surprisingly quickly if needed servicing an F-16 order and the engines are competatively tendered between the F100 from PW and the F110 from GE! There is slack in F100 and F110 manufacture meaning there is plenty of scope to ramp up production quickly! So what are you basing your grand statement that Russia is super fast over anybody else at this...oh hang on yet again you bring up an issue of no relevance to the thread! Just for example GE was able to service a large follow on order of GE F-110 for the Saudi airforce within a few months of contract signing. I feel like I am beating my head against a wall!

    Lockheed cannot move surprisgly quickly. the first down graded F-16 will arrive some 4.5 year after contract signing and with too few pilots. once Irakis find out that these are practically useless . They will desperately want Mig-35.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    Well on that last post JSR you are clearly a troll spinning me on, I tried to give the benefit of the doubt but you are wasting my time and everyone else's...you now join the illustrious members of my ignore list and hopefully my blood pressure will be reduced!
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Well the latest article from Reuters very much paints the picture of a political turf war!

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/1...8A90GH20121110

    What is bemusing about the Russian deal is the lack of proper tender (then again a fair amount of recent Iraqi procurement has been without a proper tender so nothing new there) and its announcement by the Russians rather then Iraqis when Al-Maliki visited Moscow. The acting defence minister who negotiated the deal denies anyproblems! Question is who has more clout the acting defence minister or the Prime minister and who is pulling what string behind the scenes.

    Rather murky in all respects!
    Iraqi schizophrenic government is in dire need of recovering its military capabilities to keep the country together and a tender is the slowest and tortuous path, and US is not helping much. If someone feels that weapons are needed, and looking at Iraqi armed forces they are, there's a high probability of resorting to former suppliers, even if its not politically halal, and in some places customs come in hand with corruption that may be or not be the case depending of who was first.

    Russians pulling the rabbit beforehand is not surprising at all since it serves the purpose of publicly restoring arms trade wih Iraq. Relations between Iraq and Iran are gaining momentum with western sanctions and Syrian struggle, the idea of an all Sunni neighborhood is not exactly pleasant.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    924

    Non-Attack Helos?

    I would go with the Viper out of personal preferences. If I were shopping around for an attack helo, the AH-1Z would be on the top of my list. But, perhaps, Iraq should spend the money on rebuilding the country? Transport helos seem like a good idea over attack helos. Their biggest enemy already attacked them in 2004. Doubtful, the U.S. will do so again, in the near future. Even so, would the Iraqi armed forces put up any resistance against any U.S. attack?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post

    JSR
    Rooivalk has Euro parts (engines turbomeca) so it is non starter.

    Why would Euro engine parts be a problem?
    Out of those original 4 listed in the first post, the Rooivalk is the only one produced externally of the big power blocks Europe and the USA.

    The Rooivalk has consistently scored high in technical evaluations in all the competitions it entered, but politics then enters the fray.

    The US refused to have the Hellfire integrated onto the Rooivalk for the British competition.

    Recently, and in light of the comments above, in the Turkish competition, Eurocopter made it very plain that it's Turbomeca partner, who supply the Makila for the Rooivalk, would rather not support that helicopter (Rooivalk) over the Eurocopter Tiger.

    Such is politics and money.
    Last edited by wilhelm; 11th November 2012 at 19:31.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    And that I suppose sums up the sad nature of the Rooivalk program Wilhem. Whilst the South Africans did offer an acceptable weapons package for the helicopter customers of Western attack helicopters tend to want Hellfire. The engines are another interesting issue, the sensible solution would of been to move to another engine partner and source a different power plant. The Canadians probably produced a more then suitable engine but the program is too small to support the speculative development and there is little hope of an export order to fund it.

    The only country that appeared to show any half serious interest is China but they only wanted a small number to help with technology insertion into their own programs.

    In the end with the weapons package being a problem and it only being built in small numbers its hardly surprising people stuck with the Apache and Cobra.

    I remember when the Rooivalk or Red Kestral as it was market here was allowed onto the bid program for the British Army. BBC news made a big thing about how it had a good chance but the British Army had already made its mind up on Apache and I get a sneaky suspicion that it was done more as a PR stunt to show how the UK was welcoming post Apartheid South Africa back into the global fold as a potentially trading partner. I would be curious to know where the types were ordered in preference for the British Army but my guess is:

    1) WAK-64D Longbow Apache
    2) Eurocopter Tiger
    3) AH-1 Super Cobra
    4) A129 Mangusta
    5) Rooivalk/Red Kestral

    Curiously the Wiki states the Comanche was bid as well but I don't remember that being the case at the time and I would of thought it wouldn't meet either the time requirement, ToT or offset.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    443


    AW159 with Thales LMM

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    I live in Belgium
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    Agree! Only that I'd suggest the Battle Hawk version of the Sikorsky S-70.
    Agree, waht on earth are they going to do with advanced killer choppers if their main need is to tansport goods

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285
    iraq needs to take a good look at good alternatives unstead of relying on corrupted russian vendors or european computer graphics helicopters.




    or



  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    I live in Belgium
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Owlcat View Post
    Iraqi schizophrenic government is in dire need of recovering its military capabilities to keep the country together .
    putting food in peoples stomach may be a better approach than wasting money on fighting machines

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    If you do that, then there will not be new jobs in US or Russia defence industry, which will be outrageous
    You better get the most important priorities straighten up...
    Thanks

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    If you do that, then there will not be new jobs in US or Russia defence industry, which will be outrageous
    You better get the most important priorities straighten up...
    Not to mention payment in oil?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ContEU/RU/UAE
    Posts
    4,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    iraq needs to take a good look at good alternatives unstead of relying on corrupted russian vendors or european computer graphics helicopters.

    ...
    You are aware that China is not terribly popular in Iraq?
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    You are aware that China is not terribly popular in Iraq?
    Popular enough for China to get good oil deals with Iraqis. Btw, Russians and Iraqis have just started new negotiations when it comes to this "cancelled" arms deal.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    You are aware that China is not terribly popular in Iraq?
    why is China not popular with Iraq? I would imagine they would be indifferent.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18,756
    With the Russian deal to supply Iraq helicopter attack Mi -28N - the deal I think didn't suspend- and negotiations with the United States to get the Boeing AH-64D Longbow Apache despite America offers to Iraq Bell AH-1Z Viper I think this is a good option for Iraq because it blend use among the best two gunship assault helicopter in the world ?.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    18,756
    Originally Posted by Italy
    Why is China not popular with Iraq?
    According to the experience of the Iraqi army in the Iran-Iraq war with Chinese weapons for poor quality particular tanks type 59 and 69 and J-7 fighters copy of Mig-21, what Iraqis thinking, the Chinese weapons weren't popular.
    Last edited by Tango III; 13th November 2012 at 20:12.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    iraq needs to take a good look at good alternatives unstead of relying on corrupted russian vendors or european computer graphics helicopters.
    so if china sells some systems to saudia arabia, then all of a sudden there will be no corruption in saudia arabia? ok.
    (hint: if this is the case, then no corrupt country would ever want to deal with china)
    the situation is the iraqi PM believes that the defense minister engaged in some corruption with this deal.
    it's not an issue with the supplier, but with iraq's purchasing system.
    so the PM wants to re-do it with more over-sight, either to remove the corruption, or make sure that he gets the cut he's due.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,149
    China is a monument to non-corruption.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Well the proof is the fact that the Iraqi president cut the deal and said it wasn't done with full consultation of the rest of the government or the military. I agree there is probably an American bias in some quarters but doesn't change the rather strange process of procurement.
    Al presidentene is in hospital.

    So you have no problem with procurement processes made without any clear tender or set of requirements. If they intended a single source selection a requirement is usually published to allow oversight and ensure the deal is free from corruption.
    Tender process is suitable when there is plenty of time to waste around in meaningless offests and negotiations over pricing.
    I agree that Western and Arab defence deals are rich in corrupt practices but the fact is in recent years this has been clamped down on. For the former Iraqi defence minister to go to Russia and negotiate a $4.5 billion dollar deal with little to no oversight and the excuse is given that they have "Shared long term interests" stinks to high heaven.
    Your assuming that actinng defence minister is acting alone in signing contact in haste. I think you should be concerned more about BAE slow implementation of Saudi Eurofighter contract rather than Iraki contracts. I dont know why you always jump on this topic but never mention BAE Eurofighter saga which is now in worse state than Gorshkov contract.
    Look I think Iraq would be well served buying from Russia in areas like helicopters, Radar, GBAD, patrol boats and IFV. I do rather scratch my head at buying the Mig-29 when they are already procuring F-16 and L159. The Iraqi air force will have its hands full for a number of years inducting those regardless of looking beyond at further types. The argument that they have prior experience with the type doesn't hold water considering the significant time gap since that was the case and the fact they are training new pilots and ground handlers on a predominantly Western (USAF) model. Iraq already has the first pilots in Tucson with the 162nd fighter wing training on type and they have an aggressive delivery schedule starting next year for the aircraft themselves.
    so some downgraded F-16s in limited quanities with questionable delivery dates and no clear idea about its use restrictions and the kind of strike weopons. ur assuming F-16 is best deal for Iraq. I dont think Iraki government is blinded to fact of next door Syrian airforce conditions. There will always be restrictions and spare part control with US made weopons in various situations relatively more than Russian.
    Latest MIG-29s will come with newest simulators, with full glass cockpit and with engines that requires far less maintaince with self diagnostic. Above all with all long range strike weopons. Iraq will need 300 to 400 combat size airforce to restore soverignity over its entire airspace. Russia is helping with Oil production in south of Irak to pay for this equipment. and possibly prevent Oil production in North (its landlocked place not much market beside Turkey) to deny Turkey alternative to Russian expensive energy.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    You know you are right JSR the Iraqi F-16IQ are downgraded vs base model Block50/52. But only in detail areas for example some strike modes deactivated and old block AIM-9M and Sparrow rather then AIM-9X and AMRAAM.

    This is not unusual when it comes to purchases off the US and what they are being given is more then adequate to defend against the Syrian (who are rather busy at the moment) and the Iranian air forces.

    As for a purchase in limited numbers, Iraq is already pushing forward with another batch, that is the nice thing about the F-16 Lockheed Martin can service contracts very quickly!

    As for an airforce numbering 300-400 types, interesting number what drew you to that conclusion? Why do they need it?

    Tender process is suitable when there is plenty of time to waste around in meaningless offests and negotiations over pricing.
    I realise that as you must still be at school you probably don't understand how these things work but that is a corrupt way of doing things. Sadly that is how things have been done in the East and West for many years. The Iraqi president and government should be commended for stopping this highly dubious process. I truly hope it can be worked out so we can see some Russian equipment inducted into the Iraqi armed forces. Again unlike you I have no problem with the concept.

    You make lots of nice statements about the wonders of the Mig-29, modern avionics, modern simulators and low maintenance. Maybe that would happen...who knows. What we do know is the Iraqi Airforce is deep into the induction process for the F-16 a type they have been keen to procure. A type known to be reliable, cheap to operate and widely supported. They have six pilots in the US converting to type and have just ordered two new simulators from L3. You are right buying US comes with restrictions BUT what they are getting is proven and more then adequate for their regional defence needs. You make many sweeping statements about US parts restrictions but rather ignore the dire reputation Russia has for providing spares in a commercial sense for their fighters in recent years.

    Your assuming that actinng defence minister is acting alone in signing contact in haste. I think you should be concerned more about BAE slow implementation of Saudi Eurofighter contract rather than Iraki contracts. I dont know why you always jump on this topic but never mention BAE Eurofighter saga which is now in worse state than Gorshkov contract.
    Oh dear oh dear! Events have rather proven the acting defence minister over stretched himself your bluster doesn't change that. As I KEEP ON SAYING I have no problem with Iraq buying Russian, I think it makes good sense! I just question this particular $4.2 billion deal and the logic of buying a single fighter type the Mig-29. If they do buy the Mig-29 it is no skin off my nose, it will make future editions of AFM more interesting!

    So when you are shown to be coming up with silly ill conceived bluster you switch to the childish attack and bring up the Saudi Typhoon deal... kel surprise! OK lets talk about the Saudi Typhoon deal and BAE Systems vs the Goshkov saga. Errrrr let me see has the Goshkov finished acceptance trials and been inducted into the Indian navy? Is it not running years and billions over time and schedule? Now lets see about Saudi Typhoons. 24 delivered and in service, 48 on order. Negotiations on further batches being negotiated. The major delay so far is the switch of production back to the UK because Saudi Arabia doesn't have the local skills base to assemble fast jets. Lack of skilled workers in Saudi Arabia is hardly BAE Systems fault and their ability to switch production back so quickly is to be commended. So hardly in a worse state then Gorshkov saga.

    I jump on this topic JSR because interests me, I am genuinally interested in Iraq buying all sorts of stuff from all over the world. It makes for more interesting things to read about. Correcting your childish, ill thought out nationalistic posts is part of the fun.

    That you act hyper hurt when anybody dares criticise the mighty Russia makes me chuckle.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Schimatari, Greece
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Looking at the list in my opinion the Mangusta is counted out due to it being sold to Turkey.
    BTW, I hear the turkish development program is not doing so well. Not that it matters, the Iraqis would not buy anything close to the T-129 specifications anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    Iraq doesn't boycott weapons because they've been sold to Turkey, though. It's bought F-16.
    Actually it would be the other way round. Turkey would boycott weapons from being sold to Iraq. F-16s sold to Iraq were not built in Turkey, and Turkish Army is way too big a customer for Agusta to ignore.
    Last edited by HAWX ace; 23rd February 2013 at 23:10.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,232
    On a serious note it makes me wonder of Greece might be interested in increasing defence relations with Iraq if it puts Turkey's nose out of joint.

    I would think the Iraqi airforce would have plenty to learn from Greece in respect of F-16 Block 50/52 operations. Greece also operates a mixed Western/Eastern equipment portfolio.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES