Military Review

Contract for the delivery of another 18 to F-16 Block 52 aircraft to Iraq

25
Contract for the delivery of another 18 to F-16 Block 52 aircraft to Iraq

Iraq ordered a second batch of Lockheed Martin F-16IQ fighters worth 830 million, reports stardefense.blogspot.in. The contract emphasizes Iraq’s desire to create combat-ready air forces in the coming years after the completion of the withdrawal of US troops in December 2011.


The first contract for the supply of X-NUMX F-18 Block 16 fighters to Iraq was concluded in December 52 as part of a package deal worth 2011 billion dollars. The new purchase emphasizes that the United States remains the main supplier of modern weapons to Iraq, despite ongoing negotiations with Russia and the Czech Republic on the sale of weapons worth 5,2 billion.

During a visit to Russia in October 2012 by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (Nouri al-Maliki), it was reported that Iraq could purchase MiG-29М / М2, 30 attack helicopters Mi-28Н and 31 air defense systems Pantyr S- 1.

During a visit to Prague at the same time, Maliki stated that a contract was signed for the purchase of Czech training / light attack aircraft L-28 produced by Aero Vodochody 159.

However, these statements about deals involving Russia and the Czech Republic were made to put pressure on the US to speed up the delivery of the first batch of F-16 fighter jets and other US military equipment.

Under a package deal worth $ 10,9 billion and concluded in August 2008, Iraq received or will receive six Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft (the third aircraft was delivered in December 2012, the remaining three aircraft will be handed over in 2013), 25 reconnaissance / attack Bell 407 helicopters (according to some reports, 2009 Bell 13 helicopters were delivered in 30–407 - approx. VP)), 140 tanks M1A1 manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (the first 11 vehicles were delivered in August 2010, 2011 tanks delivered by 63, the last five tanks received in mid-August 2011 - approx. VP) and 160 Guardian armored vehicles manufactured by Textron Marine and Land Systems (total delivered 225 BBM M1117 Guardian - approx. VP).
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. APASUS
    APASUS 10 May 2013 10: 36 New
    +8
    The cycle of American money in nature!
    First, the Americans defeated the Iraqi army, and then they themselves bought weapons for the new army.
    200% exhaust
    1. avt
      avt 10 May 2013 10: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: APASUS
      The cycle of American money in nature!
      First, the Americans defeated the Iraqi army, and then they themselves bought weapons for the new army.
      200% exhaust

      And Haliburton Cheney named $ 12 per barrel, in general beauty. Yes, even with the Gaidar adviser, simply, according to the same amers, stupidly stolen billions of “help.”
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 10 May 2013 15: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: APASUS
      and then they themselves bought weapons for the new army.

      Moreover, for Iraqi money, this is the main focus.
  2. svp67
    svp67 10 May 2013 10: 36 New
    0
    The article has more information of a political nature, more interesting is another for what tasks such aircraft are suitable

    The first F-16C Block 50 / 52 fighter was delivered to the U.S. Air Force in November 1991. The F-16C Block 50 is equipped with a General Electric engine with increased efficiency F110-GE-129 (with a thrust of 129 kN), and the F-16C Block 52 is equipped with a P&W F100-PW-229 engine (with a thrust of 129.4 kN). Fighter retained Westinghouse AN / APG-68 (V5) radar, Honeywell H-423 Ring Laser Gyro Inertial Navigation System, GPS, HAVE QUICK II (Improved Data Modem) data modem, 4-inch MFD color multifunction displays, new modular calculator combat missions, a digital terrain guidance system, a new color video camera and a color three-deck video recorder for recording the image of the view from the pilot's helmet, as well as an upgraded data bus MIL-STD-1760 and AN / ALE-47 spreader of dipole reflectors / light signals. First deliveries began in June 1993. The weapon system includes the new air-to-surface missile defense system AGM-65G Maverick, guided weapons JDAM, AGM-145A / B JSOW, anti-ship missile AGM-84 Harpoon. The M61A1 Vulcan six-barreled gun received the new PGU-28 / B ammunition.


    F-16C Block 52Plus Glass Falcon is a more advanced modification of the Block 50D / 52D F-16C / D fighter with the introduction of many systems from the Block 60. On the plane, it became possible to use ammunition such as JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition). An order for 50 units was made by the Greek Air Force in April 1999 of the year with the first planned delivery at the end of 2001 of the year. In total, 25 double-seat fighters will be used to form a specialized strike squadron to carry out long-range strike missions. All aircraft will be equipped with additional fuel tanks to increase flight range.

    Changes in aeronautical electronics include the introduction of the following systems: 16 Channel Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS), Integrated Signal System Mounted on a Helmet (JHMCS), Advanced Programmable Display Generator, Set of Color Multi-Function Displays, Modular Computer for Combat Mission, Set of Maximum Loadable Input Devices data. The power plant consists of a P&W F100-PW-229 engine (it is planned to replace them with the F100-PW-229A with a thrust of 15875 kgf).


    From this we conclude that this aircraft is designed more for work "on the ground" than for "gaining air supremacy". The question is who are they going to "crush" - the Kurds, the Iranians?
    1. Yeraz
      Yeraz 10 May 2013 11: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      From this we conclude that this aircraft is designed more for work "on the ground" than for "gaining air supremacy". The question is who are they going to "crush" - the Kurds, the Iranians?

      Iranians are unlikely, now the leadership of the Shiite majority has good relations with Iran.
      There are only Kurds in the north. The only question is what exactly is against the Kurds. Or in order to specifically curb the autonomy of the Kruds or to put them in place in the dispute over Kirkuk, where the Kurds do not make up the majority, there are many Turkmens and Arabs. Rather, I think in Kirkuk's questions. Because, considering what kind of relations Erbil has with America and Israel. Even with Turkey they have an ideal relationship, they sell oil there, all that is in northern Iraq is 80 percent of maid in Turkish. Plus, the entire construction sector is given Turks. Therefore, I have little faith in something to allow Maliki to invade the North, although the policy is such a thing today, brothers, enemies tomorrow)
    2. Gluxar_
      Gluxar_ 10 May 2013 17: 07 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      From this we conclude that this aircraft is designed more for work "on the ground" than for "gaining air supremacy". The question is who are they going to "crush" - the Kurds, the Iranians?

      And on the basis of what do you draw such conclusions? Modern aircraft are equipped with smaller devices, hence the expansion of capabilities. However, the main purpose of the F-16 is still gaining air superiority.
      As for the goals, the first deal was imposed, and on the other, modern Iraq has problems with both the Saudis and Qatar.
  3. Yeraz
    Yeraz 10 May 2013 10: 40 New
    +2
    Hmm, Iraq is not weakly arming. Will Iraq only allow Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq to be subordinated to central authority winked
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 10 May 2013 13: 07 New
      0
      If Iraq does not subjugate the Kurds, then divide in half, now they no longer control the Kurdish territory, which by the way also has a lot of hydrocarbon reserves.
      1. Yeraz
        Yeraz 10 May 2013 14: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: Phantom Revolution
        If Iraq does not subjugate the Kurds, then divide in half, now they no longer control the Kurdish territory, which by the way also has a lot of hydrocarbon reserves.

        So they will not let her subordinate, but they will not officially formalize the independence of the Kurds either. They will be in one state and all. And they will receive income themselves. Unlucky are the Sunnis, in the North there are large oil reserves, in the south where the Shiites are also large reserves, and the Sunnis in the center where there are few reserves.
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 10 May 2013 20: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Yeraz
          So they will not let her subordinate, but they will not officially formalize the independence of the Kurds either. They will be in one state and all. And they will receive income themselves. Unlucky are the Sunnis, in the North there are large oil reserves, in the south where the Shiites are also large reserves, and the Sunnis in the center where there are few reserves.

          The fact is that Iraq itself is not satisfied that the carbon mining companies work with the Kurds and very very dissatisfied that they are not sharing money. There are two options for the development of events, or Iraq turns a blind eye to this and the Kurds get money and thereby can buy more modern types of weapons, and the question arises with force, who is the boss in the house. Or the second option, Iraq is conducting an operation to “enforce peace”, judging by its military contracts and renewal of the army, this is what’s going on.
  4. kris
    kris 10 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    The first contract to supply Iraq with 18 F-16 Block 52 fighters was concluded in December 2011 as part of a package deal worth 4,3 billion dollars.

    и

    During a visit to Russia in October 2012 by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (Nouri al-Maliki), it was reported that Iraq could purchase MiG-29М / М2, 30 attack helicopters Mi-28Н and 31 air defense systems Pantyr S- 1.

    as they say- FEEL THE DIFFERENCE! never flabby (that way) will give a bold piece.
  5. ruslan7608
    ruslan7608 10 May 2013 11: 13 New
    +2
    Once again, it is clear that wherever there used to be Soviet and then Russian arms markets, they are completely replaced by the Americans and their allies under any pretext.
  6. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke 10 May 2013 11: 30 New
    +1
    With these conformal hanging tanks like a pregnant cow, a once beautiful airplane.
    And still you will not dump them in case of highly maneuverable air battle.
    1. sashka
      sashka 10 May 2013 13: 14 New
      0
      Quote: B_KypTke
      With these conformal hanging tanks like a pregnant cow, a once beautiful airplane.
      And still you will not dump them in case of highly maneuverable air battle.
      ,
      This is a really good airplane. It is assumed that you swallow dust with it .. I don’t know. Not sure .. But this cannot be denied. Stupidly "quench" nicknames you can .. But the plane is good ..
  7. sashka
    sashka 10 May 2013 13: 03 New
    +3
    Good aircraft. "Thought out" to the smallest detail. I like it. Well, what he does is not dependent on him ..
    1. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 10 May 2013 14: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: Sasha
      Good aircraft. "Thought out" to the smallest detail. I like it. Well, what he does is not dependent on him ..

      I agree with you entirely ...

      A wallpaper with air art depicting a "hero of the occasion" ...
  8. Beck
    Beck 10 May 2013 15: 03 New
    0
    Hey. Where are you 11Goor11, REVmoves? After all, on the F-22 Raptor page you proved to me that the West destroyed such countries as Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt under the net. In particular, the statement 11Goor11 - US Army destroys sovereign countries for the sake of short-term profit justifying their actions by the fight against terrorism. I argued that it was not countries that were destroyed, but bloodthirsty dictators. As without dictators these countries continue to exist.

    Here is an example. Iraq buys US $ 830 million fighter jets. And before that, Iraq made a deal with Russia for the supply of arms for $ 3 billion.

    Question. Where does Zin come from? Where does 11Goor11 come from? Where are REVmoves from? Where from destroyed country so much money? Where does such money come from if all the oil is taken by the Americans?

    I will repeat as on the F-22 Patrol page. The country of Iraq is not destroyed dictator Hussein destroyed. Iraq lives without a dictator. And he sells his oil himself Hence the money. If the United States took away, would take away oil, Iraq would have nothing to pay for weapons.

    So there is Iraq. There is no Hussein.
    1. Yeraz
      Yeraz 10 May 2013 15: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Beck
      Hey. Where are you 11Goor11, REVmoves? After all, on the F-22 Raptor page you proved to me that the West destroyed such countries as Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt under the net. In particular, the statement 11Goor11 - US Army destroys sovereign countries for the sake of short-term profit justifying their actions by the fight against terrorism. I argued that it was not countries that were destroyed, but bloodthirsty dictators. As without dictators these countries continue to exist.

      Here is an example. Iraq buys US $ 830 million fighter jets. And before that, Iraq made a deal with Russia for the supply of arms for $ 3 billion.

      Question. Where does Zin come from? Where does 11Goor11 come from? Where are REVmoves from? Where from destroyed country so much money? Where does such money come from if all the oil is taken by the Americans?

      I will repeat as on the F-22 Patrol page. The country of Iraq is not destroyed dictator Hussein destroyed. Iraq lives without a dictator. And he sells his oil himself Hence the money. If the United States took away, would take away oil, Iraq would have nothing to pay for weapons.

      So there is Iraq. There is no Hussein.

      drinks drinks drinks
    2. domovoi
      domovoi 10 May 2013 15: 51 New
      +4
      Yes, the purchase of military equipment from the Americans (an honestly won tender, of course) is a sign of a free state. and the fact that every day explosions in cities, dozens, and even moans perished - is this how to explain? or can explain how it is in Libya without a dictator? probably already "jelly banks" appeared?
      1. Beck
        Beck 10 May 2013 16: 37 New
        0
        Quote: domovoi
        Yes, the purchase of military equipment from Americans (honestly won a tender, of course


        How to say that? Then why not talk about 3 billion for Russian weapons? Or is this also not an honest tender? And if not honest, then where are the occupying amers looking. Why didn’t they take these three billion?

        Quote: domovoi
        and the fact that every day explosions in cities, dozens, and even moans perished - is this how to explain?


        And why explain to a person watching the political situation in the region. But I will explain to you. These bombings are not the result of Iraqi resistance to the amers or the new Iraqi leadership. These explosions are the result of interfaith struggle. Sunni Iraqis detonate Shiite Iraqis and vice versa. Just like Protestant Irish kill Catholic Irish and vice versa.
        1. domovoi
          domovoi 10 May 2013 17: 04 New
          +3
          firstly, contact with Russia has not been signed, there is only a preliminary agreement. it is unlikely that amers will allow him to fulfill. secondly, you left the answer to my question about Libya
          1. Beck
            Beck 11 May 2013 09: 13 New
            0
            Quote: domovoi
            You have left the answer to my question about Libya


            What about Libya? He also lives without the dictator Kadaffi and also sells his gas to Europe.
            Quote: 11Goor11
            Beck, how many times do you need to repeat the same facts about the number of people killed during the bombing, the number of deaths from injuries and the lack of medical care, destroyed infrastructure, lack of food, post-war banditry, drone strikes


            There was a war to overthrow the lictatorship. And as after any war there is restoration. After the revolution of 1917 and the civil war, Rotoger did not immediately recover.

            Quote: 11Goor11
            “We will do you good, but first we will kill everyone who is against it. Objections will not be accepted.” So that you, Beck, did such “good”, would you agree?


            They did not overthrow those who were AGAINST. They overthrew those who had previously given orders to blow up planes of third countries, to carry out terrorist attacks in third countries, who carried out military coups, who poisoned their own people with chemical weapons, who unleashed aggression wars against neighbors. And if the police bring justice to a man who crippled my family and destroyed my house, it will be good and justice for me.
        2. 11Goor11
          11Goor11 10 May 2013 23: 18 New
          +3
          Beck
          Hey. Where are you 11Goor11, REVmoves? After all, on the F-22 Raptor page you proved to me that the West destroyed such countries as Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt under the net.

          Beck, how many times do you need to repeat the same facts about the number of people killed during the bombing, the number of deaths from injuries and lack of medical care, destroyed infrastructure, lack of food, post-war banditry, drone strikes (a long-lasting democratization tool) so that you stop talking about that the goals of the United States are noble and include "only the destruction of dictators."
          How much have earned in the war and after the war in Iraq, the corporations involved in ensuring the war, in the oil trade, and most importantly this is the political influence on the entire region, you are modestly silent about this.
          And how much is the heroin exported from Afghanistan, because even if there is no oil in the captured country, the United States will find how to make dirty profits on the blood.
          And you keep repeating about dictators. The worst of the dictators rule the Fed and start wars. But the US Army for some reason does not destroy them, but faithfully obeys their orders.
          Honestly, I get the impression that I’m talking with zombies, because you probably would have agreed that your country would go through such horrors, only for the United States to “destroy the noble knight on a white horse” (if there was one). You will say that in your country there is no such thing and there is nothing to worry about. But this means that in those countries where according to the United States there are so many people must die "so that the United States can fulfill its sacred mission - to kill another dictator!"
          Only enthusiastic fools, or bloodthirsty maniacs, may wish this for other people.
          I recall a joke about a cowboy:
          a cowboy saw a girl of about five and tells her
          - Orphan, to the candy!
          “I'm not an orphan, my dad and mom are out there.”
          The cowboy takes out a colt and takes two shots.
          - Orphan, on a sweetie.

          The essence of the "good" that the United States is trying to do everything.
          "We will do you good, but first we will kill everyone who is against it. Objections are not accepted."
          That is for you personally, such a "good" Beck did, would you agree?
  9. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 10 May 2013 16: 10 New
    +3
    During a visit to Russia in October 2012 by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (Nouri al-Maliki), it was reported that Iraq could purchase MiG-29М / М2, 30 attack helicopters Mi-28Н and 31 air defense systems Pantyr S- 1.


    How can you compare the MiG-29M / M2 with the F-16 multipurpose fighter - one of the most efficient combat aircraft in the world?

    The only advantage of the MiG is its exceptional maneuverability aerial combat. This is a highly specialized vehicle - a light fighter-interceptor, an aircraft of air superiority.

    The MiG still does not know how to work on ground targets - there is no corresponding sighting equipment. The F-16 has a choice of three pendant sighting and navigation systems: LANTIRN (low-altitude breakouts, search for complex point targets at night), SNIPER XR (high-altitude bombing, detection and classification of point targets from high altitude) and LITENING (simplified LANTIRN). A wide range of ammunition: from free-falling bombs of the Mk80 family to GBU laser-guided bombs and high-precision JASM ammunition, etc.

    At the same time, the combat load (mass of outboard elements) of the F-16 is two times higher than the similar performance of the MiG (the payload of the MiG-29 was “devoured” by the second engine)

    + sets of baseless PTBs, conformal fuel tanks - all this, taking into account the single-engine design, provides the Falcon with a solid combat radius - more than twice as large as that of the MiG-29 with PTB

    At the same time, the F-16 remains a formidable fighter - maneuverability, air-to-air missile weapons, including the AIM-120 AMRAAM - shooting at 120 km in the "shot and forget" mode.
    1. OTAKE
      OTAKE 10 May 2013 19: 12 New
      +1
      a plus, the MiG is not a plane at all, Su can still be called such, but they are expensive and more difficult to manufacture, and so the entire line of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22 is very, very successful and has proven itself in battles equipment (except for the Raptor, of course :))
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 10 May 2013 19: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: OTAKE
        and so the entire line of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22 is a very, very successful and proven technique in battle

        here "Reptor" is superfluous
        Unlike the extremely successful F-15,16,18, the F-22 flying “prodigy” does not have a share of the versatility of 4-generation machines. However, what generations are we talking about? All the advantages of the F-22, when carefully examined, are “sucked out of one's finger” - stealth, cruising over-the-air ... who needs such things if 300 is at stake $ million - you can buy 3 F-15 for this money. Raptor's "bells and whistles" are extremely expensive, but they have no real value

        And what could be really useful (absolute invisibility, unmanned aircraft controlled in aerial combat) - all this remains beyond the scope of modern science and technology. No real generational change has occurred.


        In group aerial combat, using electronic warfare, external target designation (AWACS) and special techniques (bait, ambush, cover group) - Raptors do not have special advantages over the "Eagles"
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 10 May 2013 23: 42 New
      0
      I don’t understand why there are missiles for the MiG 29 SM (X-29, X-25, X-31), but there is no sighting system?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 11 May 2013 00: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: fzr1000
        Why are there missiles for the MiG 29 SM (X-29, X-25, X-31), but there is no sighting system?

        Let's take it in order:

        X-29 has never been used with the MiG-29. Technically, the rocket can be hung on the external suspension of the MiG - but, in any case, it will need an external source of illumination. Simply put, there should be a Su-24, etc.

        X-25 is the same.

        X-31 - anti-radar missile. MiG-29 can use this weapon - it fires homing in the direction of pre-identified radars (i.e. targeting is issued by an RT reconnaissance aircraft, etc.)

        As for conventional KAB - the situation is similar to X-29. MiG-29 is not able to independently work on ground targets.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 12 May 2013 11: 49 New
          0
          Got it, sorry.
  10. valokordin
    valokordin 10 May 2013 19: 32 New
    +2
    Quote: OTAKE
    a plus, the MiG is not a plane at all, Su can still be called such, but they are expensive and more difficult to manufacture, and so the entire line of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22 is very, very successful and has proven itself in battles equipment (except for the Raptor, of course :))

    I agree, Migi is not airplanes, Su is not Airplanes, Tu is not airplanes, Ily is not airplanes. Ani is a bit of an airplane, since they are in Ukraine, and all of them are a product of the hated USSR, an evil empire and a destroyer of human rights to euthanasia.
    1. OTAKE
      OTAKE 10 May 2013 19: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: valokordin
      Quote: OTAKE
      a plus, the MiG is not a plane at all, Su can still be called such, but they are expensive and more difficult to manufacture, and so the entire line of F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22 is very, very successful and has proven itself in battles equipment (except for the Raptor, of course :))

      I agree, Migi is not airplanes, Su is not Airplanes, Tu is not airplanes, Ily is not airplanes. Ani is a bit of an airplane, since they are in Ukraine, and all of them are a product of the hated USSR, an evil empire and a destroyer of human rights to euthanasia.

      Lada is not a car,
      MiG is not a plane,
      Silt flies fast
      Soo takes off - here,
      Shkolota frolic in sites such
      Valokordin isn’t fast.
      Well, we guys are simple, troll, hammer them
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 10 May 2013 19: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: valokordin
      I agree, Migi is not airplanes, Su is not Airplanes, Tu is not airplanes, Ily is not airplanes. Ani- a little airplanes

      This technique is called sophistry - to bring the opponent’s opinion to the point of absurdity, and then start arguing with it.

      In this case, we were talking about the greater versatility of the F-16 compared to the MiG-29. This rather well-known fact and MiG employees, to their shame, do not make any efforts to rectify the situation.

      The result was not long in coming - the MiG lost almost all foreign tenders (no one needs a highly specialized interceptor). The Russian Air Force does not favor him either - the only delivery for the last 10 years is the EMNIP 40 of vehicles from the party of Algerian refuseniks.
  11. Army strong
    Army strong 11 May 2013 05: 16 New
    +1
    So, as I understand it, there will be no Third Iraq War in the near future ?? Otherwise, why would amers fuse modern planes with their potential adversary?