In the United States, the Iraqi version of the F-16IQ fighters was called the least combat-ready

Despite a significant defense budget, the aviation The Iraqi Air Force is the weakest in the Middle East region. Currently, the Iraqi Air Force is armed with American F-16IQ fighters and South Korean T-50 fighters, writes Military Watch.

According to the newspaper, the Iraqi Air Force has 34 light F-16IQ Fighting Falcon fighters and 24 light South Korean T-50 trainers, which are used mainly against jihadists, since they do not have strong air defense.

However, the American F-16IQ fighter, delivered by the US to Iraq between 2014 and 2017, is not far from the South Korean aircraft. Of all the variants of this fighter, the Iraqi one is the least efficient, except perhaps the Egyptian and Venezuelan F-16s, which have not received an update for more than 40 years for political reasons.

The reason that forced Baghdad to purchase American fighters, despite their low combat capabilities, was Washington's pressure on the Iraqi government.

The fighter was specially designed for Iraq and is the only modern version of the F-16 not equipped with AIM-120 air-to-air missiles. The aircraft is equipped with obsolete medium-range AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9L / M short-range missiles, which do not pose a threat to modern fighters in service with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In addition, the F-16IQ delivered to Iraq were noted for a high accident rate. The reason for this is cited as poor maintenance, as well as the lack of spare parts, which led to aircraft "cannibalism". All these reasons led to the fact that the F-2017IQ fighters completed in 16 were removed from combat duty in 2020.

At the same time, it is noted that the Russian Su-25 and South Korean T-50 attack aircraft in service show much better indicators of combat effectiveness. It is possible that in the future Iraq plans to completely abandon American aircraft and purchase "non-Western" fighters, including Russian, South Korean or Chinese.

Comments

[bessmertniy]

It was not in American interests to equip Iraq with the latest fighters. It did not work out of this country as an American ally.

[Borik]

And what else could you expect from the champions of democracy. We are waiting for contracts from Iraq for the supply of aircraft to their country.

[A. Privalov]

Quote: Borik

We are waiting for contracts from Iraq for the supply of aircraft to their country.

Long overdue!
Have you heard anything about Operation Penicillin?

[bayard]

Quote: A. Privalov

Have you heard anything about Operation Penicillin?

And what does it have to do with it?
It is unlikely that something exclusive will be delivered to Iraq, most likely MiG-29 \ 35, Su-30, Yak-130. Israel knows all this, they have been exported for a long time and most likely there will be no "oppressed Christians" among the pilots in Iraq.
But first, let them buy air defense systems first.

[yuriy55]

In the United States, the Iraqi version of the F-16IQ fighters was called the least combat-ready

Should they not know what shit they are pushing around the world, including in the attacked and plundered Iraq ...

[Lesorub]

F-2017IQ fighters completed in 16 were removed from combat duty in 2020.

Two options are available:
1) Iraq, in fact, from the last delivery "flew" to F 16 for three years - and removed this aircraft from combat duty - poor logistics of spare parts (which is not clear) - it is profitable to sell striped equipment and then service the equipment - these are living greens (or Iraq just stopped paying).
2) Iraqi technicians were at their "height" - in the service sector of Western technology - and in three years they "landed" the vaunted F16))

[Voltsky]

according to a number of criteria, American equipment is superior to Russian, which also affects the price of equipment; because of "man-hours".
I'm talking about ease of use if that.

[Orange bigg]

Quote: Voletsky

according to a number of criteria, American equipment is superior to Russian, which also affects the price of equipment; because of "man-hours".
I'm talking about ease of use if that.

Well, if you believe the words of the American pilot, then it is so. But this is not the main thing. The Iraqis went according to the simplest, most convenient and most importantly quick option for themselves, since there was a war with ISIS and aviation was urgently needed. But they did not take into account that ISIS is proxy army of the West and in coordination with the Americans, the use of Iraqi F-16s will put obstacles to the Iraqi army in the interests of the West. So the Iraqis moved to the results of the Su-25 and South Korean T-50.

According to F-16,510 squadron pilot Mike McCoy “Their visibility is not so good, their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG-29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with a closed canopy. They were impressed that they could turn, look at the tail, and even see the engine. Apart from the visibility, I expected a better turn, the MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-pointed machine like the F-16. "

https://pikabu.ru/story/mig29_protiv_f16_tochka_oporyi_frontovoy_aviatsiy_protiv_amerikanskogo_boevoy_sokolya_7614273

[Voltsky]

Well, if you believe the words of the American pilot, then it is so.

navigation, glass cockpit, virtual assistants, thermal imagers, night vision devices, etc. etc. This all has a good effect on usability, including less frequent aircraft crashes for beginners.

Quote: OrangeBigg

So the Iraqis moved to the results of the Su-25 and South Korean T-50.

Or maybe because of the F-16 so-so attack aircraft ?! And with cut off performance characteristics and even more so

[Orange bigg]

Or maybe because of the F-16 so-so attack aircraft ?! And with cut off performance characteristics and even more so

Maybe an attack aircraft will be more convenient. But Turkey and Israel for many years using the F-16 as an attack aircraft in their numerous operations do not complain about it. And the Americans do not seek to buy their attack aircraft. The F-16 is quite enough for them. In total, the Americans, receiving information when coordinating the F-16 operations from the Iraqi side, notified ISIS in advance, did not always allow the use of the F-16. As a result, the results were so-so until the Iraqis had the Su-25.

[Voltsky]

Quote: OrangeBigg

But Turkey and Israel for many years using the F-16 as an attack aircraft in their numerous operations do not complain about it.

Believe it or not, I use a bicycle instead of a motorcycle, and it suits me according to all criteria.

Now take a closer look at how the Jews and Seljuks mentioned by you used the F-16 and with what ammunition;) If it is not possible to work on targets on the ground, except in the style of a diving bomber from the Second World War, then it is easier of course to use a light kill T-50 (he really very cool, for its price) and Russian drying

[Orange bigg]

Take then the example of the use of the Russian Aerospace Forces Su-34, Su-24 in Syria, also not attack aircraft, but fighter-bombers. And in the case of the multifunctional Su-34, an analogy arises with the use of the multifunctional F-16. Su-34, by the way, pretty He showed himself well according to the military.

[Voltsky]

Quote: OrangeBigg

Take then the example of the use of the Russian Aerospace Forces Su-34, Su-24 in Syria, also not attack aircraft, but fighter-bombers.

Quote: Voletsky

If there is no way to work on targets on the ground, except in the style of a dive bomber from the Great Patriotic War, then it is easier of course to use a light kill t-50

Do you feel what I'm driving at? :) The Iraqi F-16 did not have the ability to attack on the ground, in the style of the "Close combat air support" attack aircraft it was not intended for this - only to intercept border violators.
su-24/34 are not used as attack aircraft -> Front-line bomber :)
F-16 in full mince is also used exclusively as a bomber and not as an attack aircraft

[Orange bigg]

Nevertheless, everything in aviation is now moving towards multifunctionality. We have not heard of the development of new attack aircraft either by us or by the Americans. So there is no such need.

[Voltsky]

Quote: OrangeBigg

Nevertheless, everything in aviation is now moving towards multifunctionality. We have not heard of the development of new attack aircraft either by us or by the Americans. So there is no such need.

I heard :)

barrage ammunition, drones :)

[Orange bigg]

So why, then, did not Iraq buy loitering ammunition and strike drones from Iran, but purchased the Su-25? Drones are drones, and attack aircraft are attack aircraft. Not to be confused. The Americans, having attack drones in Iraq, recently preferred to use the A-10 and even at times B-52N. The combat load and strike functionality are incomparable in drones and military aircraft. The Turks still use F-16s to strike the Kurds, despite the presence of Bayraktars.

[Voltsky]

cheap and cheerful - the answer to your question :)

drone - unmanned combat aerial vehicle; that is, the key "no pilot", and the functionality can be given any according to the wishes and capabilities of the wallet

[Orange bigg]

There is another option that Israel and Saudi Arabia did not like the presence of the F-16 in Iraq and the supply of spare parts was closed. In addition, as you know, you can use the F-16 only with prior approval of the purpose of their use and obtaining permission from the United States. In Iraq, there was a struggle between pro-American and pro-Iranian forces, which Washington was not happy about. Besides, these F-16s were probably needed by Iraq for the war with ISIS, i.e. in fact, with the terrorist proxy troops of the West, led by the United States. The United States is not profitable and they did not always give the green light to use the F-16 against ISIS. As a result, Iraq had to buy Su-25 from us, for which Washington has no leverage and they can be used against ISIS without prior approval from the United States. The Americans, having cheapened the F-16s for expensive, deliberately decided their many combat capabilities, often prevented them from using them for their intended purpose. In the end, the Iraqis refused such assistance from the Americans in the fight against terrorism (in fact, sabotaging the F-16 by the Americans) and removed them from weapons.

[URAL72]

Americans know exactly how many cars the Iraqis have transported to Iran. Therefore, modern technology will not be put there. But we might be interested in the engine, and some other systems as well.

[Orange bigg]

We would be interested in this engine for a long time from the same Iranians, but would have bought it. There is no particular need to see such a need.

[URAL72]

Which Iranians? There is no F-16, and the alloys used in the engine are very interesting. As you know, American engines still have a much longer resource. For example, on the F-15 that crashed a couple of years ago, the flight time of one engine approached 10 thousand hours, the other exceeded 8 thousand hours. Many materials are used in the manufacture of aircraft engines, not only metals.

[Quadro]

Quote: URAL72

Which Iranians? There is no F-16, and the alloys used in the engine are very interesting. As you know, American engines still have a much longer resource. For example, on the F-15 that crashed a couple of years ago, the flight time of one engine approached 10 thousand hours, the other exceeded 8 thousand hours. Many materials are used in the manufacture of aircraft engines, not only metals.

Venezuela has them and we didn't take them, so what? And according to the resource, the Americans will tell not such tales. With 1 engine, the tub will not be more tenacious than with two. And yes, now I would give an example of f15 with two engines.

[URAL72]

Venezuelan cars are a hundred years old at lunchtime. Iraq has an improved version of Block 52. There were rumors that Caracas sent at least one car to Iran, but there are doubts about this. There is no doubt about the resource, since these engines operate half the world - you can't hide the needle here.

[Voltsky]

Quote: URAL72

We might be interested in the engine and some other systems.

no, the plane with cut off performance characteristics is not interesting; the engines of the Russian Federation are not worse, and you already put electronic filling of a similar sample on your letaki; true with a delay of 20 years, but still.

[Revolver]

Quote: Lesorub

Iraqi technicians were at their "height" - in the service sector of Western technology - and in three years "landed" the vaunted F16))

Sdypy can break the object of male pride.

[yehat2]

it would be interesting to know the "indicators" of the su-25, which were referred to.

[Reserve buildbat]

F-16IQ ... Apparently, they have an IQ of 16, so they are ineffective. In general, this is another proof of the harmfulness of capitalism. Everything for profit. Here's an F-22 for astronomical money, here's a B-2 for the price of an aircraft carrier, here's an F-35, which is more expensive than gold and does not fly. So what is there to be surprised that trash was sold to some natives?

[rocket757]

Tell me what you fly and we will tell you exactly who your "friend" is!

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: rocket757

Tell me what you fly and we will tell you exactly who your "friend" is!

It seems to me that the Americans themselves did not convince themselves of the loyalty of Iraq, so they sniffed such an “effective” and “reliable” version of Falcon - well, just in case, suddenly they themselves have to ...

[rocket757]

It is possible that it is so.
Yankees do not look like altruists at all ... besides, the east is a murky business, it is better to keep an eye out than vice versa.

[Rubi0]

But they loaded their factories with orders.

[Vasyan1971]

The fighter was specially designed for Iraq and is the only modern version of the F-16 not equipped with AIM-120 air-to-air missiles.

See non-brothers! Soon they will specially develop something for you. Prepare some money.

[Orange bigg]

The Americans clearly advised the Brazilian piston attack aircraft EMB-314 Super Tucano, even at one time they tried to push it for the US Army. Seeing good lobbyists were once imposed on them. A lot of green fanatics have been brought in.

[voyaka uh]

F-16s require high-quality maintenance.
It was clear that Iraq would not handle it.

[decimalegio]

Any modern American, European or Russian aircraft in need of good service. The problem is that many countries do not buy what they need and what they can control, but this makes you a great power in the eyes of their neighbors.

[Sancho_SP]

Why does Iraq need fighters at all? Their task is to drive the barmaley, and they do it. And expensive dangerous missiles are superfluous here.