Remnants of Iraq Air Force Are Found

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Times

Remnants of Iraq Air Force Are Found

By ROD NORDLAND
Published: August 30, 2009
BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials have discovered that they may have an air force, after all. The Defense Ministry revealed Sunday that it recently learned that Iraq owns 19 Russian-designed MIG-21 and MIG-23 jet fighters, which are in storage in Serbia. The ministry said Iraqi officials are negotiating with the Serbs to restore the aircraft.

The Serbian government has tentatively promised to make two of the aircraft available “for immediate use,” according to a press release from the ministry. The rest would be restored on a rush basis, the ministry said. An Iraqi delegation went to Serbia as part of aneffort by the government to locate funds stashed abroad by Saddam Hussein to evade sanctions first imposed during the 1990’s. Serbia had had friendly relations with Mr. Hussein.

During that visit, the Iraqi officials discovered that Mr. Hussein had sent the 19 jet fighters to Serbia for repairs in the 1980’s, during the Iran-Iraq war, but was unable to bring them back after sanctions had been imposed on his country.

Iraq immediately sent a technical delegation, including air force chief Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin. The web site of the Iraqi Supreme Islamic Council, the leading Shia political party, quoted Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari as saying that the aircraft had been sent in 1989 “for maintenance and everything was paid for by Iraq’s money.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html?_r=1&hp

[ixion]

1. heh... so they've been sitting in storage for 20 years

ought to be fun to try and get them running again. Do they still make parts for MIG-21s? :shrug:

[Angleae]

13. I believe China still makes the planes.

Although they call it the J-7 or F-7 (export version).

The Mig-23, however, is a problem.

[Statistical]

16. Yeah but look at the Nations who currently field hte J/F-7.

It should give you an idea of what the world considers of its capabilities.

Basically anyone who can afford better goes with better.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Did they find any WMDs? Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[UpInArms]

3. gee, mothballed 30+ year old planes

that should put Iraq into a position of being a world dominator

:sarcasm:

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Old, but useful for training.

[Lagomorph]

5. We have more than that here in the US on the airshow circuit. - nt

[Statistical]

6. The Mig-21 are essentially worthless but the 23s have limited value.

The Mig-23 has look down, shoot down radar that the 21 lacks. The Mig-21 can't see a terrain hugging high performance aircraft from all the return echos caused by the solid ground. Essentially it is blind to any attack coming from below. A single F-22 hugging the horizon could destroy all of them at leisure and they wouldn't even be able to see what is destroying them.

Assumming they have 10 Mig-23 they would be worth about $60 million in new condition. Given they are likely substantiallly degraded from lack of routine maintenance they may be worth anywhere from $0 to $30 million.

[FarCenter]

7. You really don't want to get into combat with an Air Force

The purpose of an Air Force would be to provide opportunity for a few Generals, a significant number of officers and the employment of a large number of non-coms.

It should also require an extensive air base or two, complete with a very nice officer's mess and a golf course.

While your pilots may enjoy flying the planes around in training missions, you don't want them endangering the craft in actual combat.

[tocqueville]

8. typical : comparison of apples and oranges

you don't need a a F-22 to take down a Mig 21. A Mirage 2000, a Rafale, a Eurofighter, a Gripen would do the same "at leisure". A Rafale takes already down a F16 20-1. And the F-22 has to be repainted every two sorties and wait 48h to dry. Besides the F-22 isn't combat proven and will probably never be either.

Those planes will not dogfight state-of-the art modern western planes, but attack-bomb Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds depending of the situation. Or even Iranians, specially if they are modernized. MiG-21's were modernized under the LanceR designation in Romania. Today, 48 LanceRs are operational for the RoAF. It can use both Western and Eastern armament such as the R-60M, R-73, Magic 2, or Python III missiles. Today 22 nations are using the Mig 21, and 18 are using the Chinese copy the Chengdu J-7. Israeli and Russians companies are specialized in the modernizing.

Remember that the Mig 17, 19 and 21 combined with SAMs beat the shit of the US Air Force (including 2 B-52s) in the Vietnam war. The US lost round 1000 planes in all. But in the beginning they were laughing... ask Mc Cain.

With the Mig 23 it's even worse, it can use BVR missiles. In former skirmishes in Lebanon, Syrian Mig 23 have shot down US F16 and Russian ones Pakistani F16 in the Soviet-Afghan war.

Of course both planes are not of the level of the generation 4+ Western fighters. But in modernized versions, and used as ground attack fighters they can still cause a lot of damage.

It depends how to use the plane. One can send 100 F-22 against 1000 modernized Chengdu (the Chinese are mass producing them, it's their strategy). The F-22s will maybe shoot half of them. But the 100 won't come back unless they give up.

[DUlover2909]

9. If we were really going to fight the Chinese,

I doubt that they could get that many planes off the ground if we were preparing for war...and if... we weren't bogged bogged down in Iraq.

[tocqueville]

10. my example was mostly rhetorics

The US won't fight the Chinese except in a total war that would devastate humanity.

One doesn't fight a conventional war against a nuclear power armed with ICBMs except by proxy. And even this is very unlikely today.

That's why the 187 F-22 of which production has been stopped will probably never see action, except maybe in a limited strike against Iran to take out their best assets, in case they can lift off. Besides the US has a big problem : the F-16 fleet is aging rapidly and half-obsolete against modern fighters. The F-22 is very expensive and has a limited role as interceptor and hasn't been tested in combat. It's useless in Afghanistan for example. The F-35 (or JSF) is still very much a prototype and a lot of countries are backing or have suspended the cooperation, due to outrageous demands from Lockheed/USAF, which makes the plane basically a "lease" plane and not the ownership of of a country.

[DUlover2909]

12. Just for fun, do you think the Chinese ICBM threat is significant

when compared to our own strategic arsenal? I thought their strategic forces were geared toward defending against a Russian threat and was more intermediate in range.

You seem to know a lot about air power, but do we really depend on F-16's so much these days? What about F-18's and other fighter-bombers?

Also, is Iran ever going to return the Iraqi planes that Saddam sent them during the 1990's conflict?

[Statistical]

14. The F-16 is aging as a dogfighter but it is multi-role

It is still quite capable in roles other than air superiority.

If we were using the F-16 against a nation with a credible airforce like say Iran the F-16s would be escorted by F-22s.

The F-22 is unmatched in air superiority. It achieved 10:1 kill ratio against SU-35 in simulations which is far beyond anything anyone is fielding in numbers right now and something no other friendly craft could do. In Blue Team/Red Team combat (US pilots acting as enemy) the F-22 has only been "shot down" once and to do that required a suicide mission.

The F-16 pilot was lucky enough to be one of 2 planes (out of 26) not destroyed over the horizon. The pilot then closed to intercept range, the F-22 fired a missile and the F-16 needed to break and run to avoid being destroyed. The F-16 pilot ignored the missile threat (suicide) flew directly at the F-22 struggled for a few seconds and wa able to get a lock. The F-16 was destroyed shortly after missile launch but the computer determined the fire and forget missile would have still killed the F-22.

So while the F-16 is aging against 4th gen fighters it is still capable of other roles especially when backed up by F-22. Despite the rhetoric an American piloted F-16 has NEVER been downed by enemy aircraft. American F-16 pilots have a total of 101 confirmed air kills. That is a 101:0 record for those keeping score at home.

Regarding China the good news is all of this is theoretical. China ICBM fleet is improperly sized and ranged to be a significant threat to the US. China also lacks a good sub fleet giving our boomers the ability to fire at will. boomers are especially dangerous because they cut the transit times on a nuclear launch. Missile can even be solved to detonated OVER the launching fields to prevent a launch while the US silo based missiles come over the pole and destroy the missiles on the ground.

So the issue is not what can China do today but more what will they be able to do in 30 to 50 years from now and will they still be friendly or will they be belligerent.

The planes flown to Iran have been "lost". Iran will never give them back and I think Iraq is smart enough not to even ask for them.

[tocqueville]

21. see post above about ICBMs

I wouldn't underestimate them. Besides silos can be camouflaged as decoys, and the real missiles somewhere else.

Ballistic missile submarine force

China's first SSBN, the Xia 092 class hull 406, was laid down in 1978, launched in 1981 and commissioned by 1983. The JL-1 missile was not ready until the first successful test launch of the missile from the Xia in 1988. Previous launch attempts from 1985 had failed. Its primary weapon is the JL-1 SLBM, with 12 launch tubes, as well as six 533 mm tubes for self defense. Because of only one hull, the PLAN does not possess the capability of the other superpowers to maintain a constant SSBN patrol. The missile's short range also permits the 092 to launch its missiles against regional targets only. Striking targets far away require the submarine to travel dangerously closer to enemy waters. The Xia has since undergone a major modernisation refit, with a new black-coated paint and possibly other improvements with unofficial reports indicating the Xia is now carrying an improved missile, the JL-1A that is alleged to have longer range.

Type 094

The PLAN currently has plans to acquire a new class of SSBN, with a projected number of between three to six vessels. The 094 is believed to have been heavily influenced by Russian assistance. It features 12 launch tubes for the longer ranged JL-2 missile (contrary to the previously speculated 16), which has an 8000 km range that can carry 3 to 4 MIRVs. The 094 would be permitted to patrol nearer Chinese waters, with the ability to launch its missiles against continental US targets.

The Type 094 submarine is capable of carrying 12 of the more modern JL-2s<4> with a range of approximately 8,000 km, and is capable of targeting much of the Western Hemisphere, some of it from close to the Chinese coast. The Type 094 is believed by some western analysts to incorporate a great deal of Russian technology and will replace the Type 092 submarine (NATO reporting name: Xia class) for the People's Liberation Army Navy.

In its 2008 assessment of China's military, the United States Department of Defense estimated that one Type 094 "may soon enter service", and that "up to five" would be in service by 2010.<4> The United States government has expressed concern over these submarines, saying that the Chinese government has not been transparent enough about the program.<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_094
________________________________________________________________________________________________

F-16s have been downed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon

I'll grant you that none of them has been piloted by a US pilot in a dogfight (but by SAMs yes). On the other hand US F-16 have never encountered matching or superior planes like the new 4+ generation. So it doesn't prove anything.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

the F-22 isn't combat proven under real circumstances :

In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, at a cost of $44,000. The Office of the Secretary of Defense puts that figure at 34 hours of maintenance per single hour of flight at a cost of $49,808 per hour of flight.<125> The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with skin repairs accounting for more than half of the maintenance.<125> Another source of maintenance problems is that many components require custom hand-fitting and are not interchangeable.<125> The canopy visibility has degraded more rapidly than expected, with refurbishments at 331 flight hours, on average, instead of the required 800 hours.<125> Pentagon officials respond that measuring flying costs for aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 flying hours is premature. They say improvements have been made since 2008, and the F-22s are on track to meet key performance parameters by 2010.<125> Air Force Magazine reported that the Washington Post article's 55% capable rate was incorrect and that mission capable rates have been climbing, and by late June stood at 62.9%.<126> And the Air Force Association states that the current mission capable rate is 70%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

[DUlover2909]

28. Wow. that's a whole lot of info, Tom Clancy, LOL.

Thanks for your response. I'm a pseudo wonk on military capabilities and I appreciate the informed posts. I wonder if any such intellectual discussions ever happen over in freeperville. That's why I love DU.

[hunter]

17. The U.S. will collapse in a heap of rot and corruption.

All the Chinese have to do is wait patiently while the fat corporate termites chew at our foundations.

Quite a few of those termites are defense contractors...

[ConcernedCanuk]

29. Your post reminds me of a comment by a Japanese person in one of the "Die Hard" movies

.
.
.

"You got us with the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - we got you with transistor radios" - or something like that.

China is going to ruin the American economy - they will win without bullets and bombs.

BUT remember - China DOES have bullets and bombs, and can blow up them satellites in space . . .

remember that USA . . .

[sudopod]

31. Because China is completely free of fat corporate termites

amirite?

[tocqueville]

19. Chinese ICBM can reach the US

The Dongfeng 5 or DF-5 is a 3 stage Chinese ICBM. It has a length 32.6 m and a diameter of 3.35 m. It weighs in at 183,000 kilograms and it has an estimated range of 12,000 to 15,000 kilometers. The DF-5 had its first flight in 1971 and was in operational service 10 years later. One of the downsides of the missile is that it takes between 30 and 60 minutes to fuel.

The current force of DF-5A missiles is deployed with a single warhead, but in November 1983 China inaugurated a DF-5 modification program to arm these ICBMs with MIRVed warheads. Technical difficulties, however, have stalled the program. The DF-5A was the designated recipient of the MIRVs, although there is no evidence that they have been deployed. Some sources claim that at least four DF-5As have already been MIRVed, though it is generally asserted that while MIRVing may occur within the next few years no DF-5s have yet been fitted with MIRVed warheads



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-5

[DissedByBush]

11. About the F-22

So far in all of our exercises the F-22 has wiped out any superior numbered enemy. And the Raptors didn't miss a sortie due to maintenance problems. The only Raptor loss in an exercise so far was the Raptor pilot mixing up the rules of the exercise and thinking his enemy was considered dead when it wasn't. And this is US pilots vs. US pilots, the best vs. the best. They'd have an easier time against the Chinese.

100 Raptors might not be able to finish off 1,000 Chengdus in one sortie due to ammo, but they'd probably take out at least 800 of them, giving our other fighters a much easier time.

[Statistical]

15. Exactly and...

it isn't like China could field 1000+ 5th gen fighters and nobody would notice.
We cut expanding the Raptor fleet because 187 we have is more than enough for current threats. We cut funding but we didn't burn the blueprints and destroy the molds.

If China builds 1000+ 5th gen fighters it will take a decade and we will have plenty of time to double or even triple the Raptor fleet.

The Raptor can carry 8 Air to Air missiles internally and up to 4 more externally (although that degrades the stealth charecteristics).

Likely on a 1000 vs 100 fight (as crazy as that would be) they would carry all 12 and fire the externals at beyond the horizon. Even without stealth the Raptor's speed makes it formidable. It can supercruise at over Mach 1.5 (supersonic without afterburner). A missiles initial velocity is the aircrafts velocity at launch. So the Raptor missiles are faster, reach the target quicker, and have longer range due to that "free" initial velocity of Mach 1.5.

[tocqueville]

22. exercises, not real combat

and the US pilots might be excellent, but there are other excellent pilots the world over that can match them.

This is so typical. The US laughed at the Viet pilots during the Vietnam war, until they downed plane after plane. At one moment the US pilots were so afraid of them that they jettisoned their bombs and flew away. Not very glorious isn't it ?

Backing up the guns were the fighter aircraft of the North Vietnamese Air Force, which originally consisted of only 53 MiG-15 and MiG-17 Fresco aircraft.<61> Though considered antiquated by the Americans when compared to their supersonic jets, the North Vietnamese turned their aircraft's weaknesses into strengths. They were fast enough for hit and run ambush operations and they were also maneuverable enough to shock the American fighter community by shooting down more advanced F-8 Crusaders and F-105 Thunderchiefs, which had to quickly develop new tactics. The newer missile-armed F-4 Phantom would become the American's primary dogfighting platform.

The simple appearance of MiGs could often accomplish their mission by causing American pilots to jettison their bomb loads as a defensive measure.<64> In 1966, the 15s and 19s were joined by more modern Soviet-built MiG-21 Fishbeds, which could fight on a more equal footing with the U.S. aircraft. By 1967, the North Vietnamese Air Force was maintaining an interceptor force of 100 aircraft, many of which were based on PRC airfields and out of reach of American air attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder


During the Lebanon war the US met unexpected resistance from the Syrian FLAK. Two planes were downed.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml

etc...

it's never THAT simple. You don't win wars with the best equipment ON PAPER. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy fought or fights back with WWII resistance methods and equipment.
So far they have won the first round, at least in Iraq.

so I'd be concerned about the Chinese and the Iranians. Those guys are in another category than Saddam's Army that surrendered to journalists.

[DissedByBush]

25. We had a big problem back then

"The newer missile-armed F-4 Phantom would become the American's primary dogfighting platform."

Well that shows a basic problem with the article. With the F4 we considered the era of the dogfight to be over, which was why the F4 didn't have guns initially. Pilots were mainly trained to drive flying missile platforms and many were lost due to that lack of vision.

For the hardware our previous generations of fighters were incremental over the previous, but the F-22 is a whole new game. It will probably never be topped by a manned fighter, mainly because it can already do far more than a human is capable of withstanding.

[Statistical]

27. Yup it was the failure in dogfighting that led to dogfighting schools in the US

Today US fighter pilots fly more hours per year than any other airforce (only Israel comes close) and we top those thousands of hours of flight time and warfighting with thousands more in state of the art simulators.

We learned (painfully) in Vietnam that equipment alone is not enough to win wars. Suprior weapons + superior training + superior practice is what gives the F-22 a 10:1 kill ratio.

[northzax]

23. 100 Raptors carry 800 missiles

you want to find me a missile with a 100% success rate?

[DissedByBush]

24. They carry more

A Raptor can hold eight missiles internally. It can hold up to 8 more externally on four hardpoints, good for shooting at range before the closer engagement that it could then do with stealth.

Turns out it's also very good at sneaking up to use its cannon.

[Statistical]

26. The raptor can carry 4 more on external pylons.

Of course we have 145 Raptors now and will have 187 by end of next fiscal year.

Any attack for "all the cards" wouldn't only include F-22 but it would include F-16 and F-15 to destroy SAM sites and bomb aircraft on the ground. These multi-role fighters would also carry 2-4 air ro air missiles.

So an attack would be more like 150+ raptors and 100+ F-15/16 for something like 2000+ air to air missiles.

Then again there is nothing to say we can't/won't build more F-22 in the future. If China starts ramping up towards 1000+ Gen 5 planes we likely will build another 100 or so (maybe 300 total) F-22.

[Lagomorph]

30. Israel's problem is...

...it's only a missile shot wide. If the plane is in Israeli airspace, it's within range of a BVR missile. The same is true when they fly into Lebanon.

[Recursion]

18. They can strafe civilians just fine

And do reconnaissance.

[Rex]

20. So, 6 years later THEY find out that 19 jets sit somewhere in a warehouse

in Serbia. SEE they finally found WMDs in another country and not us!