It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the future of the iraqi airforce

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
i still remember how we use to knock down those iraqi fighter pilots, iraqis are bad pilots and lack in intelligence when fighting in the air. I still cant forget our F-5E taking down their MiG-25
and our F-14 taking down 3 of their mig.23's at one time.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by NR]




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
i still remember how we use to knock down those iraqi fighter pilots, iraqis are bad pilots and lack in intelligence when fighting in the air. I still cant forget our F-5E taking down their MiG-25
and our F-14 taking down 3 of their mig.23's at one time.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by NR]


With enough training I am sure iraqi fighter pilots will own you....

plus... how many F-14's do you have?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Answering ShadowXIX's question on Iraqi aircraft in Iran:

www.globalsecurity.org...


Iran retained the 15 Il-76, 40 Su-20/22, 24 Mirage F1, 7-12 MiG-23, seven MiG-25 and four MiG-29 combat aircraft that fled Iraq to escape the Coalition air campaign in 1991. As of early 2000 Iraq claimed it flew more than 100 military planes and 33 civilian airliners to Iran, though the Iranians said the numbers are lower.

They left the seven Su-25 out of that quote.

www.globalsecurity.org...


At least 115 combat aircraft flew to Iran, out of the total of 137-149 aircraft flown to Iran or crashed enroute [including 15 Il-76s and some number of civilian airliners]. According to an official Iraqi statement, the aircraft included 115 combat aircraft, among them 24 Mirage F1s, 4 Su-20 Fitters, 40 Su-22 Fitters, 24 Su-24 Fencers, seven Su-25 Frogfoots, nine MiG-23 Floggers, and four MiG-29 Fulcrums. Reports that Saddam Hussein ordered 20 Tu-22 bombers to Iran appear unfounded. In 1993 it was reported that Russia was to provide Iran with spare parts, armaments, and operating manuals for the Iraqi jets that flew to Iran during the Gulf War. In 1993 it was reported that China had bought an unknown number of these MiG-29s from Iran, in exchange for Chinese missile technology and a nuclear power station. The two countries had reportedly reached agreement on the exchange in late 1992, with Iran having delivered some of the MiG-29s by the end of 1992. In 1998 Iraq and Iran had high-level meetings to discuss ending their state of war and other matters, including Iraq's request to have its airplanes back. Iran denied it had used any of the Iraqi fighter planes. If Iran had kept the Iraqi planes grounded for the entire time, they are probably nonfunctional -- the Iranians may not be able to start the engines or operate the hydraulics. Other reports suggest that some Su-24s have been added to Iran's existing inventory, some Su-20/22s were in Revolutionary Guard service. The Iraqi Su-25s, MiG-23s and Mirage F1s were thought by some to be not in service, due to age, low capability (MiG-23s) or too few numbers (Su-25). Other reports suggest that Iran had overhauled Iraq's fleet of 24 Mirage F-1B fighters and placed them into service.


I've read that Iran bought additional Su-25s to make a functional squadron.

Iran says it will give back the aircraft if the UN says they should. I don't think that will ever happen.

I've read recently that the current Iraqi air force is operating already. They fly helicopters and three C-130s around Iraq.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
I've read that Iran bought additional Su-25s to make a functional squadron.

Iran says it will give back the aircraft if the UN says they should. I don't think that will ever happen.

I've read recently that the current Iraqi air force is operating already. They fly helicopters and three C-130s around Iraq.


The new Iraq must be issued NATO aircraft and products becouse arent they supposed to be on our side now? what choppers do they fly and what is the use of the C-130s?, They could use C-141s for thier Heaviest transport plane, for Paratroops C-123 Providers would come useful to them, Basically they are just mini C-130s , slightly cheaper to run and they can still land and take off from rough terrain airsrips.

Anyway, Is the new Iraq part of NATO now?.





[edit on 11/13/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i think we should give them the same training and support we give to israel. anything less would prove to the muslim community that we do, indeed, play favorites.


How exactly would you be playing favourites? It is only with that training and support that Israel is able to survive and flourish as the ony ture democracy in the middle east.

Also the muslim community doesnt exactly have much to worry about:



Its not as if they are on equal footing!!



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensy

Its not as if they are on equal footing!!


then why exactly hasnt israel been pushed into the sea?

your map is quite pretty, but it isnt exactly accurate when taken into context with your argument. how many of those arab countries are actively attempting to de-stabilize the country of israel? two, maybe three?

i stick with my original statement. we have to give iraqis the same support that we give israel. especially considering that we are the ones that destroyed their infrastructure.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by jensy

Its not as if they are on equal footing!!


then why exactly hasnt israel been pushed into the sea?



Because of Nuclear weapons and the "Samson Option" Israel has more then enough to light up the major cities in that whole area. Israel is outnumbered if even a few of those countries teamed up but if push came to shove and they were about to lose they would bring it all down with them.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Because of Nuclear weapons and the "Samson Option" Israel has more then enough to light up the major cities in that whole area. Israel is outnumbered if even a few of those countries teamed up but if push came to shove and they were about to lose they would bring it all down with them.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]


which just proves my point: they are on an equal footing with the rest of the area...or maybe even a step above.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Here's the catch 22. Iraq has traditionally been a great counterweight against Egypt and Iran over the last 50 years, except during most of the 60s when the pro-Nasser Arif brothers were in charge. From that point of view you want a strong Iraq.

The problem is that they've also been fairly cozy with Jordan and that has meant participation in every Arab-Israeli war from '48 to '73.

Egypt isn't the problem it used to be though now that the USSR is gone, and if Iran gets the bomb, Iraq won't be any deterrent, and there will be a real danger of Iraqi Shi'ites going radically pro-Iran. It's often been suggested that the first Arab nation to get the bomb will become a defacto regional hegemon, commanding the loyalty of the entire Arab street, if not all Arab governments.

So odds are that you really don't want a strong Iraq, especially not standing beween Israel and Iran, even though there would be advantages to it if they stayed on our side.

I think you have to build the Iraqi airforce on helicopters- mostly transports that can be used for peace-time logistical operations, disaster relief etc, and a few gunships for handing the odd rebellion. You give them strong air defenses in limited quantity- enough to guard key assetts, but not enough to prevent Israel from violating their airspace if Iran ever needs killing.

The more important thing is the Iraqi Navy in my opinion. I think we need to build a close partnership between Iraq and Kuwait, especially as far as mutual defense of the gulf is concerned. You give Kuwait more modern aircraft, and you have them host an Iraqi Naval base. If it goes down with Iran, you'll want Iraqi subs, destroyers, and fast attack craft on the scene to protect UAE property in the Strait of Hormuz.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
i agree with most of what your saying vagabond....i have two comments though:

jordan's present regime is decidedly moderate and, IMHO, no threat to israel.

iran is not an arab state.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i agree with most of what your saying vagabond....i have two comments though:

jordan's present regime is decidedly moderate and, IMHO, no threat to israel.


Very true, but I think there is inherent instability in being a Muslim nation right next door to Israel. That's not to say there are going to be problems, it's just to say that America might not be entirely comfortable with having a powerful Iraq between Israel and Iran if that goes down, considering that Jordan has hosted or attempted to host foreign armies for every Arab-Israeli war.


iran is not an arab state.


Again very true- technically many of them are Persian. That being said, the lines between Muslims and Arabs becomes slightly blurred where Israel is concerned.
I could be wrong, but I try to put myself in their shoes. Let's pretend that America was not one country, and was fairly weak- for all our common identity we do vary quite a bit from state to state.
Suppose that Mexico was a major regional power that the American states didn't get along so well with, and that all of a sudden, California got the bomb.
A Texan is by no means a Californian, but does it stand to reason that Texans would warm up to California and downplay the distinction in some respects to ride the coat-tails of this new-found equality with Mexico?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by jensy

Its not as if they are on equal footing!!


then why exactly hasnt israel been pushed into the sea?


Skill, strategy and luck. The enemies who they faced were far greater.




Originally posted by snafu7700

i stick with my original statement. we have to give iraqis the same support that we give israel. especially considering that we are the ones that destroyed their infrastructure.


I can understand that, what makes it confusing is that much of that infrastrucure which was so immpresively destroyed by US tax $ was infact installed int he first place with guess what..... US tax $. But I wouldnt want to get into an arguement over the ethics cold war anti-communist policies.




Originally posted by snafu7700
your map is quite pretty?


Thank you, I think so too.





Originally posted by snafu7700
how many of those arab countries are actively attempting to de-stabilize the country of israel?


The question is how many of those countries actually acknowledge Israel as a state, and its right to exist? It is that which encourages members of their population to launch terrorist atacks upon Israel.



Originally posted by snafu7700
jordan's present regime is decidedly moderate and, IMHO, no threat to israel.


I would agree with that, only recently they have agreed with Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to work together to encourage tourism to the area. Sadly Jordan's reigme does not nessicarily reflect all of their population.


Jensy



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensy
Skill, strategy and luck. The enemies who they faced were far greater.


I have to agree. The Arabs were not always so far behind the times. Their Soviet hardware was still competitive back in '67 and '73. The Arabs just plain got out-fought in several crucial battles, in no small part thanks to the outstanding work of Israeli intelligence (a little look at what Amerian sats can show you never hurts either). Then from time to time the Arabs did something you wouldn't normally expect- they chickened out. I'm not so sure that Israel would have taken the Golan Heights before the war was over if Syria had tried to make a stand; the Israelis expected heavy casualties.



The question is how many of those countries actually acknowledge Israel as a state, and its right to exist? It is that which encourages members of their population to launch terrorist atacks upon Israel.


In all fairness, I don't think diplomatic recognition would change the way the Arab street feels about Israel, although it might change a lot about how the Arab people feel about their governments. I think that when Israel comes to any sort of tacit understanding with an Arab neighbor that there can be peace, the best thing for the two nations to do is just be very very quiet towards one another and lock down access to one another at their borders: each side can tell their people they're being wary of the other guy, when in reality they're acting to keep their citizens from crossing the border to commit terrorism.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join