Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 501

Thread: Which attack helicopter for Iraq?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    I mentioned somewhere in the masses of blurb that in the mess that is iraqi acquisition the air force commander revealed that they are in advanced negotiations for a european fighter... in addition to all the other stuff they're planning on getting...

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    I mentioned somewhere in the masses of blurb that in the mess that is iraqi acquisition the air force commander revealed that they are in advanced negotiations for a european fighter... in addition to all the other stuff they're planning on getting...
    european, american, and russian?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
    Sorry to jump in here, I am a bit puzzled, isn't the Su-30MKI production line still open, and isn't there still another 100 odd aircraft left to be delivered to India, meaning that there is plenty of scope for ordering Su-30 for Iraq as it's very much an active production line? Plus as of date there appears to be far more Su-30MKI alone in service than Mig-29M's, so surely from the point of view of lower upgrade costs it would be better to buy a modern Su-30 variant without Israeli systems than the Mig-29M which has only been built in small numbers as then there will be a bigger user base to support the cost of future upgrades? Plus according to Wikipedia (less than 100% accurate I know) India is replacing the Su-30MKI’s PESA radar with an AESA radar, so presumably Iraq could procure a Su-30 based fighter with AESA radar without too much trouble?

    While JSR may well be correct that the Mig-29M's kinematic performance is better, I cannot see any good reasons why Iraq wouldn't buy the SU-30, so what am I missing !?!

    PS what is a weight point?
    Su-30MKI is different than Su-33. which is built at separate factory. and that fighter is not multirole and have lower TWR than MIG-29K. MIG-29K superior TWR makes it better fighter for small carriers.
    MIG-29M is lighter version of MIG-29K. Its way ahead interm of AESA certification (which itself increases reliability and lower maintaince). Engine and airframe life is comparable to Su-35. It can also be upgraded with 3D TVC. i mean 5 heavy weight points. this capability is similar to Su-30. MIG-29M also share engine with Chinese FC-1. so much more fighters wit same engine can be inducted in much larger number quickly.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by J-31 Burrito View Post
    european, american, and russian?
    yes...

    anyway none of that will happen until they resolve this...
    http://english.alarabiya.net/article...26/268515.html

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    I mentioned somewhere in the masses of blurb that in the mess that is iraqi acquisition the air force commander revealed that they are in advanced negotiations for a european fighter... in addition to all the other stuff they're planning on getting...
    Referring to L-159 perhaps?

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    Referring to L-159 perhaps?
    no its not. they mentioned the "czech trainers" in the same interview separately. But with all political/budgetary war that's been going on with the outstanding contracts... I wouldn't hold my breath about seeing an iraqi contract for eurofighter/rafale anytime soon...

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Aircraft with spine usually have more fuel and electronics space. see Su-34 compared to F-15E. or MIG-29K vs Rafale.
    JSR, diameter of M88 is 700 mm, RD33 is afaik 1m...
    see why you dont need a spine?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    951
    How about signing up for 50 Gripen E/F with an agreement of 30 Gripen A/B on loan plus maintenance/training package as soon as the deal is signed the first aircrew can go to Sweden for training and fly the A/B’s back


  9. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    sweden would not sell to Iraq AFAIK. The french and British don't have such moral qualms the swedes threw a wobbly when they found out the americans gave some AT4s to the Iraqis... so can't imagine them selling any gripens directly especially as the large kurdish refugee minority in sweden would be burning themselves alive outside the parliament etc... and lots of other ugly / bad / negative media repercussions...
    Last edited by sheytanelkebir; 27th February 2013 at 20:19.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    yes...

    anyway none of that will happen until they resolve this...
    http://english.alarabiya.net/article...26/268515.html
    they trying to buy every thing to appease all sides? what an expensive way to do it.

    I know countries like Malaysia and Peru are willing to spend more money on logistics to decrease reliance on a major supplier for major combat aircraft but they usually just select two (US and Russia) and (US and France) respectively.
    But three types.. that's like IAF crazy.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    sweden would not sell to Iraq AFAIK. The french and British don't have such moral qualms the swedes threw a wobbly when they found out the americans gave some AT4s to the Iraqis... so can't imagine them selling any gripens directly especially as the large kurdish refugee minority in sweden would be burning themselves alive outside the parliament etc... and lots of other ugly / bad / negative media repercussions...
    As SAAB is largely owned by BAE, dont worry, they'll sell to anyone with a proper bribing :diablo:
    kidding of course

  12. #132
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    Su-30MKI is different than Su-33. which is built at separate factory. and that fighter is not multirole and have lower TWR than MIG-29K. MIG-29K superior TWR makes it better fighter for small carriers.
    MIG-29M is lighter version of MIG-29K. Its way ahead interm of AESA certification (which itself increases reliability and lower maintaince). Engine and airframe life is comparable to Su-35. It can also be upgraded with 3D TVC. i mean 5 heavy weight points. this capability is similar to Su-30. MIG-29M also share engine with Chinese FC-1. so much more fighters wit same engine can be inducted in much larger number quickly.
    Sorry I am still confused, why would Iraq consider the Su-33, it doesn't need a carrier based fighter? I admit that this thread has drifted a lot, but I thought the point you were making was the Mig-29M is better choice than SU-30MK, and personally, if I was in charge of the Iraqi Air Force I would prefer something similar to SU-30MKA or SU-30MKM than the Mig-29M, but then I have an aesthetic preference for the SU-30!
    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by J-31 Burrito View Post
    they trying to buy every thing to appease all sides? what an expensive way to do it.

    I know countries like Malaysia and Peru are willing to spend more money on logistics to decrease reliance on a major supplier for major combat aircraft but they usually just select two (US and Russia) and (US and France) respectively.
    But three types.. that's like IAF crazy.
    lets just say that not many small/medium countries on planet earth have experienced the price of "disagreeing" with major world powers quite the same way that Iraqis did... and now they are terrified of getting up the wrong end of ANYONE lest the same nightmare repeats... you can even see it from the contracting for the oil fields (EVERY major country has a stake in Iraqi oil, Russia, China, UK, US, France... the permanent 5 on the UNSC!) and even down to contracting for building mundane things like hospitals, roads, railways etc... they are spreading the contracts around to all potential international / regional powers to give them a "stake" in not bombing Iraq to smithereens again.
    Last edited by sheytanelkebir; 27th February 2013 at 21:39.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    If i was ironic i'd say that some small countries experienced the price of disagreeing with Irak millenars ago.
    But i'm fairly dubious about buying Russian fighters (or did they become stanag compliants for weapons?) aside to F16

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,114
    Honestly, whatever you do, get some nukes. That why it is doubtful anyone will touch you again (as long as you don't do something really stupid, of course). While i'm obviously against WMDs, as long as they are already introduced ( and allowed!) in ME from about 40 years ago, go for it. How i see it : right now be friends and humble with all the big boys, while building up your military as much as you can (air defence and air force, and any long range strike capability you can get, primarily), get that oil $$$ flowing ( build big monetary reserves too). Have half a dozen civilian nuclear power plants built by the russians or canadians or whatever, and when the time comes, boom, take them over and quickly assemble a few "dirty " bombs" as a deterence , then go from there with weaponization.

    Of course, if somehow in the future things in the ME will actually come to a realistic conclusion ( wishful thinking , i know) , the threats of conflict all but evaporated and a general disarming ( especially WMDs) takes place , then of course, you'll have to eliminate them too.

    Anyway, i should really take it easy with this alternate reality thing, but you know , the mind flies...

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by J-31 Burrito View Post
    But three types.. that's like IAF crazy.
    Even worse: I think it's verging on Thai craziness! Buy two of everything on the market and then ground one of them...

    The next year, buy two of the rival product.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    the air force plans on having several squadrons of fighters / attack planes.

    2 will be F16
    1-2 will be L159BQ (dual role trainer /CO-IN)

    perhaps the others are:
    2 squadrons MiG29M
    1 squadron SU30MK2
    1 Squadron eurofighter/rafale
    1 squadron chinese/korean type (for they have been discussing this, and south korea is the biggest investor in iraqi infrastructure / industry now so the koreans expect reciprocation...)T50/A-50 has been on the drawing board for a while).

    Nothing ever mentioned about chinese weapons, except for the commander of the air defence command... but chinese are huge in the Iraqi oil industry and also expect some Iraqi back scratching in the future perhaps?


  18. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,147
    This is really crazy. I could understand if Iraq goes for a F-16/Su-30 mix.
    A light/medium + a heavy fighter. Add in some L-159 and Europe, Russia and the US are covered.
    Koreans build some really impressive ground kit these days. So why not show some "gratitute" by getting some of their combat vehicles ? Some Chinese ground kit, too.

    I'm not really sold on these appeasement politics. But at least one could go for some useful stuff.

    2 sqds F-16 (already on order)
    2 sqds L-159 (already on order)
    3 more sqds second hand F-16 from Europe.
    2 sqds Su-30MK

    Indicate some interest in Korean KFX as F-16 replacement. Or better yet, get involved in the programme.

    Add in some A-330 MRTT, Chinese and Russian Choppers, et voila, everybody happy and the airforce actually looks like a fighting force and not some aircraft collection.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    it has nothing to do with "fighting"... all to do with buying friends. Iraqis have paid for 36 F16s but sent only a dozen pilots to the US to train... they couldn't care less about "fighting" prowess. its about appeasing the big boys and having political leverage in the region to not be bullied by the neighbours, and have a "nominal" capability to defend themselves. nothing more really.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
    Sorry I am still confused, why would Iraq consider the Su-33, it doesn't need a carrier based fighter? I admit that this thread has drifted a lot, but I thought the point you were making was the Mig-29M is better choice than SU-30MK, and personally, if I was in charge of the Iraqi Air Force I would prefer something similar to SU-30MKA or SU-30MKM than the Mig-29M, but then I have an aesthetic preference for the SU-30!
    MIG-29K choice over SU-33 because its light weight despite having 5 wet stations and longer airframe life. If Su-33 has to gain similar capability its weight will raise further and performance will degrade.
    MIG-29M has superior TWR to Su-30. so it makes a better fighter for airdefence. Su-30/F-15E are good strike fighter but not so efficient in airdefence like EF or MIG-29M. There is also further improvement in RD-33MK engine.
    http://klimov.ru/media/news/100001056/
    Last edited by JSR; 28th February 2013 at 05:19.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    it has nothing to do with "fighting"... all to do with buying friends. Iraqis have paid for 36 F16s but sent only a dozen pilots to the US to train... they couldn't care less about "fighting" prowess. its about appeasing the big boys and having political leverage in the region to not be bullied by the neighbours, and have a "nominal" capability to defend themselves. nothing more really.
    Irak is only paying installaments for 18 F-16 at this point. Your overestimating Iraq budget for procurement. It simply does not have money for expensive fighters like EF/Rafale/Su-30MK etc. Its bare minimum procurement at this point. see trying to procure old Czech trainer

  22. #142
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    MIG-29K choice over SU-33 because its light weight despite having 5 wet stations and longer airframe life. If Su-33 has to gain similar capability its weight will raise further and performance will degrade.
    MIG-29M has superior TWR to Su-30. so it makes a better fighter for airdefence. Su-30/F-15E are good strike fighter but not so efficient in airdefence like EF or MIG-29M. There is also further improvement in RD-33MK engine.
    It might be that I not especially knowledgable about Russian aircraft (though I do have some good books on the subject), but I am still not sure I am getting why we are discussing Mig-29M versus the SU-33. Can you confirm that when you are comparing the Mig-29M you are comparing it to say the Su-30MKM (which presumably is close to the standard that Iraq would order)?
    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    490
    Found some figures for Iraqi defence expenditure.

    2012 allocation was $17.1 billion out of an overall approved national budget of $100 billion.

    The majority of the 70% increase compared to 2011 was earmarked for procurement and I don't think it is an ongoing increase.

    Also from what I can tell the defence budget has to cover Ministry of Interior expenditure as well, at about $6 billion per year.

    So say $5 billion remaining for the forces puts Iraq on par with post-austerity Greece, Indonesia and Mexico. About twice that of Kuwait and one-seventh of Saudi.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    951
    If I was tasked with rebuilding the airforce form the ground up with no silly restrictions first order push for 20 Mirage F1-MF2000 for $1 billion as a stop gap and a type known and operated in the past with an OSD of 2025/30 second order 40 Mi-171Sh helicopters third order 4 C-130J and a stop gap order of 5 146-300QC transports forth order 60 tracked surface to air missile systems

    Long term set up competition between Mig-29 and SU-30 with the winner taking a120 airframe order with the first 40 delivered and 80 built from kits in country next order 40 F-16’s with an option to perches 40 F-35 post 2035 order20 C-295 small tactical transports 4 295 MPA and 4 295 AEW at the same time order 60 lynx wildcats of which 20 will be naval next set up research into UAV’s for boarder policing order 30 TA-50 trainers set up a team to undertake threat reduction tasks each mouth and to look into set up and run the surface to air defence system

    Post 2025 look into Russian / Chinese 5th gen fighter to come on line 2030/40
    Last edited by Tempest414; 28th February 2013 at 15:15.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
    It might be that I not especially knowledgable about Russian aircraft (though I do have some good books on the subject), but I am still not sure I am getting why we are discussing Mig-29M versus the SU-33. Can you confirm that when you are comparing the Mig-29M you are comparing it to say the Su-30MKM (which presumably is close to the standard that Iraq would order)?
    MIG-29K won against Su-33 despite MIG-29K being multi role and longer airframe/engine life. when you impart those capabilities into Su-33. its weight will increase further and performance will degrade.
    Now MIG-29M is lighter version of MIG-29K. It will have same advantages over Su-30. it is more suitable for airdefence. and AESA is extensively tested. and it does not need two pilots. Iraq is already dont have that much pilots. Although fuel costs dont matter that much but lighter fighter is going to save alot over long term.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    that was last years budget...

    2013 budget total is $117Bn, of which "security" is about $19Bn EXCLUDING $5Bn budget for the "acquisition" for the armed forces ($24Bn total).

    Spread over a 5 year acquisition cycle (with 20% year on year increases, not guaranteed of course...) Iraq has ROUGHLY the following budget available for CAPITAL EXPENDITURE on imported defence articles:
    -2013 - $5Bn
    -2014 - $6Bn
    -2015 - $7Bn
    -2016 - $8.5Bn
    -2017 - $10Bn

    = $36.5Bn over 5 years.


    Iraq has paid the second installment for F16s (second batch) of $1.5Bn already last year and production orders have been run through as a result from LOCKMART to subcontractors (see FMS orders). So all 36 aircraft are paid for now and confirmed.

    The L159BQ for Iraq are new built and upgraded L159Bs... not second hand aircraft (except the 4 L159T which are donated)... anyway this has not even been "signed" yet!

    for the army the Iraqis are planning on getting mostly "EDA" stuff from the US, artillery, APCs, tanks... freeing up most of their capital budget for the air force and air defence command. if the MOD get the budget they've requested (a big IF of course!) then they can certainly build a complete airshow of planes... they are "selling" the idea to the government as a means of appeasing the big powers.

    however if the government collapses in the next few weeks all bets are off
    Last edited by sheytanelkebir; 28th February 2013 at 21:14.

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    MIG-29K won against Su-33 despite MIG-29K being multi role and longer airframe/engine life. when you impart those capabilities into Su-33. its weight will increase further and performance will degrade.
    Now MIG-29M is lighter version of MIG-29K. It will have same advantages over Su-30. it is more suitable for airdefence. and AESA is extensively tested. and it does not need two pilots. Iraq is already dont have that much pilots. Although fuel costs dont matter that much but lighter fighter is going to save alot over long term.
    but AFAIK only MiG35 comes with AESA... AND the Zhuk-ME + OLS of MiG29M is inferior to the APG68v9 + Sniper of the F16IQ AFAIK. If only the russians could fit R77s or the europeans fit METEOR to Iraq's F16IQ...
    Last edited by sheytanelkebir; 28th February 2013 at 21:02.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    but AFAIK only MiG35 comes with AESA... AND the Zhuk-ME + OLS of MiG29M is inferior to the APG68v9 + Sniper of the F16IQ AFAIK. If only the russians could fit R77s or the europeans fit METEOR to Iraq's F16IQ...
    Zhuk-ME is now alot refined due to MIG-29K and MIG-29upg. with more powerful engines of MIG-29M it will retain advantage over APG-68.
    MIG-29M TWR is comparable with EF. Irak need OLS more than pods.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,152
    Quote Originally Posted by sheytanelkebir View Post
    but AFAIK only MiG35 comes with AESA... AND the Zhuk-ME + OLS of MiG29M is inferior to the APG68v9 + Sniper of the F16IQ AFAIK. If only the russians could fit R77s or the europeans fit METEOR to Iraq's F16IQ...
    I think Zhuk-M2E is pretty equivalent to APG68v9, I would not be surprised if it surpasses the tiny F-16 dish in range.
    MiG-29 has a superior fitted IRST system (would the Iraqi F-16s even have IRST?) , and the external Sniper could always be integrated (even older Su-27s have been seen with foreign designator pods, let alone new open architecture MIG-29M family).
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    78
    j10 would be very good option for iraq. it has refuelling probe, modern radar, can carry many bombs, and is cheaper than all those option.

    j10b is the best option because they can get aesa radar too but if iraq need something right away there are many j10a that can be given.

    also if iraq buys the su30, then it use the same engine as j10 series so good for logistic. that way iraq can make two country happy! Russia and China.
    but really they should wait for ws10 engine if they want performance.

    also j10 can lead to the j31 which if iraq buy, will be the best fighter in the middle east


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