Iraq's F-16s
Sep. 5th, 2008 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynSo, there's word on the street that Iraq is planning on buying 36 F-16 Fighting Falcons from the US, for a price that is rumored to be approximately $3 billion (about $720 million for the bare airframes, plus a bunch for service contracts, parts, technical assistance, etc.). I'm having mixed feelings about this.
The idea is for the Iraqi Air Force to support their own counter-insurgency operations for a bit. That's a worthy goal. After all, the more US aircraft I can get out of the region, the happier I am. But I'm not happy about how much it costs.
Of all the US planes you could buy, the F-16C/D is the logical choice. After all, it's cheap, the cheapest of America's regular arsenal. But it was still designed as a high performance fighter. That means that it has the capacity to exceed Mach 2, an afterburner system, and a suite of semi-advanced electronics. These are the kind of factors that the US insisted on for a battleworthy plane.
But Iraq doesn't need that. Iraq is going to be using these planes against militias who have problems taking on Humvees, and you can't put an IED in the sky. For the work Iraq needs to do, they don't need afterburners and advanced radar warning systems. They don't need standoff launch capability. They just need to drop fairly small explosives on a fairly small target. You could use a Piper Cub.
Perhaps not a Piper Cub, but a smaller aircraft would do fine. Something like Brazil's Super Tucano, which is a propeller driven craft with a reasonable weapon's load, developed for counter-insurgency, that can basically stay in the air forever. It's not fast, it's not sexy, but it does the work, and it has to be easier to maintain then the F-16. And best of all, it costs about $10 million per unit, instead of $100 million. In fact, the US was supposed to be in negotiations to buy eight of them for the Iraqis. I know it's not an AC-130, but you get what you can pay for.
Yes, out of America's relatively limited arsenal, the F-16 is the best choice, but I don't think that out of all the world's aircraft, it's the best pick for an Iraqi government. There are plenty of other things they could be spending that $3.6 billion on, all of which are more critical than high performance ground support aircraft. I'm getting worried that the Iraqis are taking the path of all too many of the third world's "democracies", spending a lot of money for high tech weapon systems that they don't need, can't use, and won't be able to afford to maintain.
The idea is for the Iraqi Air Force to support their own counter-insurgency operations for a bit. That's a worthy goal. After all, the more US aircraft I can get out of the region, the happier I am. But I'm not happy about how much it costs.
Of all the US planes you could buy, the F-16C/D is the logical choice. After all, it's cheap, the cheapest of America's regular arsenal. But it was still designed as a high performance fighter. That means that it has the capacity to exceed Mach 2, an afterburner system, and a suite of semi-advanced electronics. These are the kind of factors that the US insisted on for a battleworthy plane.
But Iraq doesn't need that. Iraq is going to be using these planes against militias who have problems taking on Humvees, and you can't put an IED in the sky. For the work Iraq needs to do, they don't need afterburners and advanced radar warning systems. They don't need standoff launch capability. They just need to drop fairly small explosives on a fairly small target. You could use a Piper Cub.
Perhaps not a Piper Cub, but a smaller aircraft would do fine. Something like Brazil's Super Tucano, which is a propeller driven craft with a reasonable weapon's load, developed for counter-insurgency, that can basically stay in the air forever. It's not fast, it's not sexy, but it does the work, and it has to be easier to maintain then the F-16. And best of all, it costs about $10 million per unit, instead of $100 million. In fact, the US was supposed to be in negotiations to buy eight of them for the Iraqis. I know it's not an AC-130, but you get what you can pay for.
Yes, out of America's relatively limited arsenal, the F-16 is the best choice, but I don't think that out of all the world's aircraft, it's the best pick for an Iraqi government. There are plenty of other things they could be spending that $3.6 billion on, all of which are more critical than high performance ground support aircraft. I'm getting worried that the Iraqis are taking the path of all too many of the third world's "democracies", spending a lot of money for high tech weapon systems that they don't need, can't use, and won't be able to afford to maintain.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-05 10:49 pm (UTC)b) Why should they care about the cost? I suspect most of it is our money, anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-06 02:03 am (UTC)It's not actually clear where the money is coming from. Iraq has certain funds that they get out of selling oil (not counting what we pay them to do our work), so it probably comes from that. So, it's good for the US. But not very good for Iraq. Which bothers me, since we made this same exact mistake in Vietnam.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-06 12:56 am (UTC)What about some of our "retired", but still well-operating, aircraft? I mean, it sounds like something along the lines of the F-5 would do the trick as well.
Unless they have a large supply of fighter pilots just sitting around, it's going to take a while to get them up to snuff. And I doubt the F-16 is the easiest aircraft to learn.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-06 02:06 am (UTC)I also like propeller planes because they're easier to fly. But then American companies can't get whopping big returns off of teaching people how to fly them.