| Spectacle | 31 Aug 2009 6:36 p.m. PST |
"The Defense Ministry revealed Sunday that it had recently learned that Iraq owns 19 MIG-21 and MIG-23 jet fighters, which are in storage in Serbia. Ministry officials are negotiating with the Serbs to restore and return the aircraft." link Assuming they can find some pilots who have experience with jet fighters, it seems Iraq will soon have a proper Air Force again. I guess ground attack will be their main mission in the foreseeable future. Can these old MiG's be armed with precision bombs? |
| drummer | 31 Aug 2009 6:42 p.m. PST |
Unfortunately for the IAF, they were canibalized for parts (or at least, so say the Serbs, who apparently want a cash deal). link |
 John the OFM  | 31 Aug 2009 6:48 p.m. PST |
"What fighters? Oh, THOSE fighters!" |
| Top Gun Ace | 31 Aug 2009 6:57 p.m. PST |
Well, maybe if they have connections inside Russia, they might be able to work a deal. Rumor has it some Mig-31's were sold for a song recently, in some backroom deals. |
| CorpCommander | 31 Aug 2009 8:12 p.m. PST |
They should go F-18 all the way. They can get trained for cheap by the Canadians who showed up their American counterparts in mock battle using them. It will still beat the snot out of anything their pesky neighbors will put into the air. |
| drummer | 01 Sep 2009 2:16 a.m. PST |
On a purely technological level, I would agree with you. However, politically they are trying to show independence. Wouldn't that mean buying Russian, which they are familiar with, or perhaps (gasp) French? |
| David Manley | 01 Sep 2009 2:56 a.m. PST |
Ftrom a familiarity and maintainability aspect they'd probably be better going for FSU kit. Also possibly for commonality with their Saudi neighbours, if the Saudis go "Russian" for future air purchases as they seem to be going for ground based kit at the moment :) |
| 14th Brooklyn | 01 Sep 2009 3:18 a.m. PST |
Does it really matter? They have signed a contract for 18 F-16īs earlier this year and will buy another 78 till 2020. Always made me wonder why (except for the political implications)! Except for it being an easy to fly aircraft that is not too complicated to fly nothing really speaks for it. And most users will start phasing them out soon. Hardly seems like the first choice if you do not want to modernise your airforce again in anohter 15 years! Cheers, Burkhard |
| Militia Pete | 01 Sep 2009 4:52 a.m. PST |
Man, I was waiting to bid on those on Ebay. Nothing like a MIG to protect my goats from coyotes… |
| Arrigo | 01 Sep 2009 9:11 a.m. PST |
Burkhard, users are phasing out the A/B model not C or D. A and B are pretty old and worn out, the C/D is pretty much a new plane; new engine, new electronics new radar. Considering the current market and capabilities the F16C will stay in service for a lot of time. Also at the moment the F-16 replacement the F-35 is still pretty much a prototype and its maintenance is far from the capabilities of a lot of countries. The Viper C is still capable to outmatch almost everything that flies, it is cheaper, it has room for improvements, has BVR capabilities (and not being stealth as a decen payload), it is isngle engined and spare parts are availables in large quantities. And is sturdy, much sturdier than FSU engine craps (aka mig 29). Also look at what is offered: Su-27 (latest versions, who are biig), EFA (no multirole), Rafale and Gripen no one of those is really a light fighter (except the Gripen, but how many user it has?) and even worse, how much training and tech you need for on of these? F-16C/D makes a lot of sense. In 15 ytears one can take again stock of the situation, if the new beauties have not flopped or have not been killed like the F-22… |
| Top Gun Ace | 01 Sep 2009 11:06 a.m. PST |
F-16's make sense to me, if not purchasing Migs for much less. It is certainly more maneuverable and capable than most other options, for less money. The only downside is the single engine, but if that fails at altitude, it should be able to find a base, or road to land on. Typhoon or Gripen would be my choice for more modern tech, but are quite expensive, and probably a pain to service and maintain, especially in a desert environment. |
| David Manley | 01 Sep 2009 11:18 a.m. PST |
"EFA (no multirole)" If you mean Typhoon, then thats not correct. IIRC it was initially, but not any more picture |
| Arrigo | 01 Sep 2009 12:00 p.m. PST |
Our ones (italy) are still single role, duel role is still a planned capability (considering that not every plane has the full avionic suit, some are still with intermediate capability stuff). And again this is still a developing program. The plus is that the Saudi have them so you can get some senak peek at their operation (presuming Maliki didn't fall and his replaced by a Theran sponsored block). But still the saudis have dollars coming out from their pockets and the Iraqi not yet. F-16 made much more sense now. And the single engine can be a plus for cost and maintenance. |
| Lord Flashheart | 01 Sep 2009 11:41 p.m. PST |
The Iraqi Air force was back in business in 06. Mind you it was only flying observation aircraft out of Basra Air Station. |
examines another pre-painted building for WWII.