Showing posts with label air force. Show all posts
Showing posts with label air force. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Russian A-50 is circling the provinces of Latakia and Tartous on Syrian coast

Breaking: Russian A-50 jet circles Syrian coast as US threatens to attack

9 April, 2018

BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:30 A.M.) – A Russian A-50 jet is currently circling the Syrian coast this morning after reports of a U.S. warship left nearby Cyprus for Syria’s territorial waters.

According to local military reports from the Tartous Governorate, the Russian A-50 is circling the provinces of Latakia and Tartous, which are both located along the Syrian coast.

The A-50 is an early warning and control jet that was developed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and still presently used by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The last time the U.S. launched their tomahawk cruise missiles towards the Al-Seen Airbase in Homs, they sent a warship towards these two coast provinces.



Thursday, 10 March 2016

Australia may host US long-range bombers

Asia pivot: Aussies may host US long-range bombers, incl. nuclear-capable B-1


RT,
8 March, 2016


© Reuters
© Reuters

The US is negotiating a plan with Australia to rotate long-range bombers and tankers, including the nuclear-capable B-1 bomber. Last year Australia denied a US official said such plans were in motion.
"We're in the process of talking about rotational forces, bombers and tankers out of Australia and it gives us the opportunity to train with Australia," Commander of US Pacific Air Forces, General Lori Robinson, told journalists in Canberra as cited by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"It gives us the opportunity to strengthen the ties we already have with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and it gives the opportunity to train our pilots to understand the theater and how important it is to strengthen our ties with our great allies, the RAAF," she dded.


The bombers would be hosted on rotational basis at air bases in Tindal and Darwin in northern Australia, according to US officials. In addition to hosting B-1 bombers the US may expand B-52 bomber missions from Australia, which it already flies, said Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a spokesman for the US Air Force in the Pacific.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declined to comment on the discussions.

"I can just assure you that everything we do in this area is very carefully determined to ensure that our respective military forces work together as closely as possible in our mutual national interests," he told reporters on Wednesday.
Australian Minister for Defence Marise Payne confirmed that US Air Force would have a larger presence in the country, but would not go into details.

"The Enhanced Air Cooperation Initiative, which is part of the Force Posture Initiative, is in development and will result in increased rotations of US Air Force elements through northern Australia," she said.

Last May, Australia’s previous leadership denied plans to host B-1 bombers after US Defense Department Assistant Secretary David Shear told a Senate committee that the Pentagon would be "placing additional air force assets in Australia" including "B-1 bombers and surveillance aircraft." Then-Prime Minister Tony Abbot said the American official “misspoke.”

The US seeks stronger military presence in the Pacific amid a growing confrontation with Australia’s biggest trade partner, China, over control for crucial trade routes in the South China Sea. China and several other regional governments contest sovereignty over a group of islands in the sea.

While America has no territorial claims of its own, it insists that the area in question should be considered international space with no nation able to restrict access to it. US warships and planes conduct regular ‘Freedom of Navigation’ missions trough the China-claimed waters and airspace, which Beijing rebukes as provocative.

Robinson called on Australia to follow the US example.

"We would encourage all nations in the region to do just that, just as the United States is doing,” she said.


Wednesday, 7 October 2015

The Russian airstrikes

Five Differences between Russian and Western actions in Syria


Translated by Russian Bear

6 October, 2015


The first week of engagement of the Russian aerospace forces against ISIL in Syria is behind us. And the first thing that catches the eye is the effectiveness of combat application of Russian aviation. It may seem that Russia started fighting abruptly, or as they say in the Navy: "all of the sudden".

But even the first raids of the Russian warplanes on the positions of ISIS have shown that we are not dealing with the unexpected decision of the Kremlin, taken under the pressure of momentary circumstances. The Russian operation in Syria was prepared for a long time, at least since the beginning of this summer, and this is evidenced by the variety of circumstances. First of all, the impact of the Russian strikes.


Shooting "bullseye"

Literally in the first day, from 15:00 on September 30 to 15:00 on 1 October, 28 combat sorties were conducted, eight of them –nocturnal. The result was at least 12 of the planned objectives were completely destroyed. Given that some of the sorties were reconnaissance and support, aimed to cover the strike groups, we see a rare modern aviation efficiency. And what is remarkable, without a single loss or damage on the Russian side.

In the remaining days the strikes on the terrorists were also effective, and again the Russian air group didn’t suffer losses. But the units of ISIL, which today with help and support the U.S. have turned into a regular army, have quite effective anti-aircraft weapons captured from the Iraqi Army.


Shooting "in milk"

As they say: everything is relative. Russia didn’t start the war in Syria, it had quite tangible predecessors, who also conducted the "air operation" against the "Islamic state" (banned in Russia by the decision of the Supreme court). And what is the result?

The US-led anti-terrorist coalition, which also included Bahrain, Jordan, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, attacked the positions of the Islamic state during the whole year. By strange coincidence, the coalition launched an air operation in late September, but in 2014.

During this time, according to a report by U.S. military, coalition aircraft has made more than 2000 sorties, mostly in Iraq. Through incredible efforts, the coalition managed to push the militants away from Baghdad, which was separated from the vanguards of the Islamic state just 200 miles away, and to win about a third captured Iraqi territory from ISIS.

Losses of the ISIS army during this time are estimated up to 20 thousand people and about a hundred tanks, self-propelled guns and armored vehicles. Simply put it, no more than two soldiers and 0.05 of a combat vehicle per one sortie. Each of which, by the way, is no less than 50 thousand dollars. Not a single significant object of terrorists and none of their leaders were destroyed.


A time of contrasts

So, what's the difference? Why the actions of the coalition allies, led by the country with the world's largest army, the main force of which is aviation, were so ineffective? 1. The USA negotiated the creation of the anti-terrorist coalition for quite long with their future allies.

There was a lot of rhetoric, a lot of loud statements, and combat was commenced within one week after signing the relevant documents. However. From the first hours of operation it became clear that coalition forces do not have any detailed plan of operation, poorly coordinated, and most importantly very vaguely know who they are dealing with.

The bet was made rather for psychological effect, an attempt to demoralize the fighters of the "Islamic state" and not to cause them any significant loss. As a result of poor intelligence the lion's share of "coalition" air strikes occurred on a small, insignificant objects, sometimes even "missed". This leads to losses among civilians.

Actually this is the usual handwriting of the USA and its allies. For example, on October 3 "surgical strike" of the NATO forces in Afghanistan has destroyed the hospital of "Doctors without borders" near the town of Kunduz.

A “success” can be called destruction of 2 bulldozers obviously belonging to the troops of the "Islamic state” by an American drone. The Russian army long and carefully prepared the operation, focusing primarily on the military, rather than advocacy-political parts of it.

First of all, it concerns intelligence activities. Russia has expanded military contacts with all its allies, has acquired extensive intelligence network, as evidenced by the precise character of the strikes with a high efficiency. The Russian side in advance, long before the beginning of combat amounted to a list of goals and assessed the degree of importance, priority and possible negative effect for the militants. In the event of their destruction.

2. If you assess the tactics of the American army since the first "operation desert Storm", we will not see many changes. Bet continues to be placed on massive air strikes from high distances, often even without entering the zone of enemy air defenses with the use of expensive precision weapons. Recently popular was the "war of drones". Both leads to low efficiency and frequent mistakes in identifying targets.

The same applies to new equipment and weapons. Bet on "wonder weapons" in the form of a F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II is not justified. Super-expensive in development and operation machines were "raw" and incomplete. In addition, they are intended rather for action against the enemy equivalent, and not groups of terrorists, super-expensive weapons for which there is simply no targets in anti-terrorist operations.

More precisely, there is a target, but they need to look and these targets are not on the battlefield. But to this we shall return. And in fact the anti-terrorist coalition fighting with the weapons and technology of the 70-s. That is, the Americans and their allies failed to adapt to the tactics of terrorists, and they hope to wage war "by other hands".

Entering a second time into Iraq, they, with manic sequence, repeated all the mistakes of the first times, and then repeated them in Afghanistan. And again resorted to the same tactics in Iraq, Libya and Syria. This is colloquially called "the rake walking". The Russian army has shown itself quick to learn, to learn the lessons of past campaigns and make appropriate conclusions.

It is enough to remember the August war of 2008 in South Ossetia. When the Russian air force lost six combat jets: three Su-25, two Su-24 and one Tu-22M3. If the Su-25 is an attack aircraft, has a subsonic speed and is forced to operate with low altitudes, which already puts it in a very vulnerable position, Su-24 and Tu-22 are supersonic bombers, with great potential for overcoming enemy air defenses. For a war that lasted only 5 days, such a loss — a real disaster.

However, now the Russian air force, specifically the Aerospace forces, approached the issue much more seriously and took into account not only their mistakes, but mistakes of "Western partners". There are new machines in service such as striking front-line bomber Su-34, Su-35 and Su-25 were considerably modified. For the latest ammunition developed for them, and the emphasis is not on their expensive high-tech "stuffing", but at optimal efficiency, reasonable cost and adaptability to modern wars "of low intensity".

It is these that are now in the Middle East. In addition, a special attention in the Russian army now paid to communication means of radio electronic warfare and intelligence. The weakness which, incidentally, was detected in South Ossetian conflict in 2008, when military commanders often negotiated with mobile phones. Now the possibility of radio interception of negotiations on the part of ISIS is taken into account already during the planning of sorties.

3. The Western coalition is not particularly sensitive to choice of goals, and generally does not "bother" with this question. In the end, the pilots shoot at everything that moves, trying to quickly get rid of ammunition and to get out of combat zone "away from sin". Pilots don't like to risk, analytics and intelligence - to think, and the generals - to report the loss. And the Pentagon prefers "the path of least resistance": to record facts for the use of firearms, to find a crowd of people, preferably in turbans, and if lucky, screaming "allahu akbar", and strike.

To such tactics, and to losses in general, the terrorists are extremely insensitive, and it does not bring tangible results. That’s what we see in practice. Russian military rightly judged that to chase for single soldiers with guns, as does the coalition aviation, is stupid and pointless. Another tactics was chosen - find a "weak spot" of the army of the "Islamic state". As with any army that has the features of organized regular forces, the main role is played by the infrastructure, on which depends the supply, intelligence, communication and control (they are, incidentally are at a very high level in the army of the "Islamic state").

That's why the first strikes were targeted at the control bunkers, depots of weapons, the spots of contact. In particular, the plant manufacturing explosives in North of Homs was destroyed one of the first , and then a communication node and a command post of the terrorists in the same province, as well as a parking of disguised T-55 tanks. Now this led to panic and increased the number of deserters among the terrorists.

And now government troops are preparing to storm Palmyra controlled by the "Islamic state". Prior to this ISIS positions were unsuccessfully bombed by the aircraft of anti-terrorist coalition for almost a month.

4. Every foreign policy action by the U.S. and its allies is accompanied with powerful, and most importantly - a long promotional "hype". So, by the time when the United States decided to finally start fighting even the Zulus in KwaZulu-Natal know about their intention.

It is a fact. Russia did not make a show of its military operations and they were not accompanied by fanfare about the global terrorist threat. That is why the decision of Russia to carry out air strikes on ISIS positions in Syria has produced a bombshell.

Both literally and figuratively. On the morning of October 1, less than a day after the start of the operation, the world's media literally erupted a stream of indignant screams of Western countries – the demand to Russia to stop it and not to touch "the poor moderate terrorists".

5. Well, finally, and most importantly. The coalition forces simply don't want any decisive action against ISIS, which they actually raised, nor against others. The Middle East crisis is beneficial for Russia. Especially it is beneficial for Russia to return to the Middle East as an influential player. Time and place are chosen very successfully.

This is Russian Bear (the translator) a week or so ago

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

Moscow's proof points finger at Kiev

This story will never see the light of day in a month of Sundays.

It is up to us to get the information out – by word of mouth, by email, Facebook, Twitter, snailmail.

Please share this story as widely as you can!

Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity



21 July, 2014

Ukraine hasn’t said how it immediately knew rebels downed Malaysian plane, notes the Russian Foreign Ministry, as it unveils 10 awkward questions for Ukraine (and perhaps the US 'snap judgment') to answer about the MH17 disaster. 

However, what is perhaps more concerning for the hordes of finger-pointers is that:

RUSSIA HAS IMAGES OF UKRAINE DEPLOYING BUK ROCKETS IN EAST: IFX

RUSSIA: UKRAINE MOVED BUK NEAR REBELS IN DONETSK JULY 17: IFX

RUSSIA DETECTED UKRAINIAN FIGHTER JET PICK UP SPEED TOWARD MH17

Obviously, if there is proof that this is so, aside from CIA-created YouTube clips, these would deal another unpleasant blow to US foreign policy.
The Russian defense ministry during its press conference which concluded minutes ago:


Here is the full clip of the Russian ministry releasing its own forensic analysis of what happened to flight MH17 (with English translation).


Russia wants to know why Ukraine moved its BUK missiles systems the day of the MH17 crash:

RUSSIAN GENERAL STAFF HAS SPACE IMAGES OF SECTORS OF UKRAINIAN FORCES' POSITIONS IN SOUTHEASTERN UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUK MISSILE LUNCH SITES 8 KILOMETERS FROM LUHANSK - RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY – interfax

The day the Malaysian airliner crashed, the Ukrainian forces deployed an air defense group of three or four Buk-M1 missile batteries near Donetsk, Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff's Main Operations Department, told reporters on Monday.

"These surface-to-air systems are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 35 kilometers at an altitude of 22 kilometers. For what purpose and against whom were these missile systems deployed? As is known, the militia has no aviation," he said.

Russia has the flight paths of the Ukrainian fighters and MH17. Furthermore, it is asking the same question we asked last Thurday:

RUSSIA SAYS MH17 DIVERGED 14 KM FROM FLIGHT PATH NEAR DONETSK

And wants to know why. The image (as seen in the presentation above) allegedly shows Ukraine fighter jets near MH17:

Here is a screengrab of a Su-25 fighter jet detected close to MH17 before crash.



A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday.

[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane,” he stated.

The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

The presence of the Ukrainian military jet can be confirmed by video shots made by the Rostov monitoring center, Kartopolov stated.
And asks for US proof of their accusations:

RUSSIA SAYS U.S. SATELLITE FLEW OVER MH17 AT TIME IT WAS DOWNED... which would provide all the proof needed to show who is responsible  - so why hasn't the US explained this or shown it? 

RUSSIA ASKS U.S. FOR EVIDENCE ROCKET FIRED FROM REBEL-HELD AREA

RUSSIA: NO U.S. PROOF THAT MISSILE FIRED FROM REBEL-HELD AREA

DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS RUSSIA DID NOT DELIVER ANY SA-11 BUK MISSILE SYSTEMS TO SEPARATISTS IN EASTERN UKRAINE "OR ANY OTHER WEAPONS"

And went on to rebuke all the Twitter photos created by Maidan to 'prove' the BUKs were moving in Russian hands.

Additionally, as Russia noted using what appears to be legitimate photographic evidence (something the west has so far failed to provide in any capacity) MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air ‘Buk’ missile systems, the Russian general said.

We have space images of certain places where the Ukraine’s air defense was located in the southeast of the country,” Kartapolov noted.

The first three shots that were shown by the general are dated July 14. The images show Buk missile launch systems in about 8km northwest of the city of Lugansk – a TELAR and two TELs, according to the military official.

Another image shows a radar station near Donetsk.

Radar stations of the air defense in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 14, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense MinistryRadar stations of the air defense in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 14, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

While the third picture shows the location of the air defense systems near Donetsk, he explained. In particular, one can clearly see a TELAR launcher and about 60 military and auxiliary vehicles, tents for vehicles and other structures, he elaborated.

Buk missile defense units in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 14, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense MinistryBuk missile defense units in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 14, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

Images from this area were also made on July 17. One should notice that the missile launcher is absent [from the scene]. Image number five shows the Buk missile system in the morning of the same day in the area of settlement Zaroschinskoe – 50km south of Donetsk and 8km south of Shakhtyorsk," the Kartapolov said.

No Buk missile defense units in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 17, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense MinistryNo Buk missile defense units in Donetsk Region, 5km north of Donetsk city, on July 17, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

Buk missile defense units in Zaroschinskoe, 50km south of Donetsk city and 8km south of Shakhtyorsk, on July 17, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense MinistryBuk missile defense units in Zaroschinskoe, 50km south of Donetsk city and 8km south of Shakhtyorsk, on July 17, 2014.Photo courtesy of the Russian Defense Ministry

The question that has to be answered is why the missile system appeared in the area controlled by the local militia forces shortly before the catastrophe, he stated.
* * *
Summing it all up, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has 10 questions for Ukraine (google translated)
The global public expects a speedy and independent investigation into the causes of the disaster Malaysian aircraft in the airspace of Ukraine.
In order to conduct an objective investigation of possible leadership of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has ased ten questions to the Ukrainian side.


1. Ukrainian authorities immediately identified the militia as the perpetrators of the tragedy. What is the basis of such findings?

2. Could official Kiev to report all the details of using [BUKs] in a war zone? Most importantly - why these systems are deployed there, as the militia no planes?

3. What are the causes of inactivity of Ukrainian authorities on the formation of an international commission? When such a committee will work?

4. Are the armed forces of Ukraine international experts to present papers on accounting for missiles, air-to-air and ground-to-air ammo and anti-aircraft missiles?

5. Whether these funds objective control on the movement of the Ukrainian Air Force aircraft on the day of the tragedy brought international commission?

6. Why Ukrainian air traffic controllers allowed deviation of the route of the aircraft to the north side of the "anti-terrorist operation zone"?

7. Why was not completely closed to civilian aircraft airspace over the combat zone, especially because in this area there was no solid field of radar navigation?

8. Could official Kiev to comment on reports in the net, ostensibly on behalf of the Spanish air traffic controllers working in Ukraine, which shot down over the territory of Ukraine "Boeing" was accompanied by two Ukrainian military aircraft?

9. Why Security Service of Ukraine has begun without international representatives work with recordings of talks with Ukrainian crew dispatchers "Boeing" and Ukrainian radar data?

10. How were the lessons from previous similar disasters Russian Tu-154 in 2001 in the Black Sea? Then the leaders of Ukraine until the last minute denied any involvement of the Armed Forces of the country to the tragedy until irrefutable evidence showed no guilt official Kiev.
Unfortunately, there has been no response by the Ukraine side to these questions so far. We expect that there will be some answers.
*  *  *
Needless to say, this places Ukraine and The US (as main protagonist of "finger pointer") in an awkward position as finally someone, somewhere will have to present some actual facts instead of merely continuing the "emotional appeals" propaganda.

We expect many of these questions to be answered once the contents of flight MH17's black box are revealed and/or when Ukraine finally releases an undoctored version of the Air Traffic control recording with the doomed flight.

Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash – Moscow

The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.


Malaysia MH17 crash: 10 questions Russia wants Ukraine to answer


Some Western states and Kiev rushed to find Russian involvement in the MH17 crash having no evidence to back their claims, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister told RT. He invited Ukraine to answer 10 questions to prove their commitment to an impartial probe.

Speaking to RT, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov has criticized Western countries for jumping to conclusions just “24 hours after the crash” while there is no evidence.
They try to show to the whole world that we are responsible for the crash. It is very strange that without any evidence my colleagues from western media would like to find somebody who is responsible for the crash,” Antonov said. It seems to me that this is part of information warfare which has been started against the Russian Federation and armed forces.”


Instead of using the incident as the pretext for groundlessly blaming one of the sides, the catastrophe over Ukrainian sky should be used as a possibility to restart cooperation to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

As for me, I don’t want to use this opportunity to blame anybody. I would just like to raise few questions for my colleagues from the armed forces of Ukraine,” 
Antonov said. I hope they try to answer the questions, it will be a good opportunity for us to realize where we are, whether there is a possibility for us to restart cooperation and to find who is really responsible for the tragedy.”

Answers for these questions could help us find an opportunity to prevent such tragedies in the future,”the Deputy Defense Minister said.

TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES

1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?
5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?
6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?
9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?
10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.


Saturday, 12 July 2014

Putin has outsmarted the US in Iraq

Yahoo News explains to the American audience why US military contractors have fled Iraq and why the US did not deliver to Iraq dozens of much needed aircraft and combat helicopters on order from 2010: Too many physical signatures were needed together with incredibly complex courses "in human rights and humanitarian law," which is simply too much to ask of the Empire:

"The problem is indicative, sources say, of a U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program that is overly bureaucratic, unresponsive and vulnerable to political stonewalling. Requests must be approved by both the secretaries of state and defense, and then sent to the Congressional armed services, foreign affairs and appropriations committees, which carefully review the projects. The relevant U.S. ambassador and U.S. military commander for that region must also personally sign off on any proposed sale. Approved recipients of U.S. military equipment under the FMS program must then complete a training course on human rights and humanitarian law, which includes seminars on respect for human rights and civilian authority, rules against torture and gender violence, and laws pertaining to international armed conflict and internal armed conflict."

---Vladimir Suchan

How Putin outmaneuvered the US in resupplying the Iraqi military


A Russian Sukhoi Su-25 fighter plane arrives at Iraq's al-Muthanna military airbase at Baghdad airport, in Baghdad


9 July, 2014


Little noticed among the disturbing tableau of images coming out of Iraq in recent weeks is a changing of the guard evident at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). As the crisis has deepened, U.S. contractors, U.S. Embassy personnel and most of the U.S. service members from the embassy’s Office of Security Cooperation have abandoned the threatened capital. The exodus has coincided with Russian contractors and support personnel pouring into BIAP to help launch the 25 Russian SU-25 warplanes that Moscow is rushing to Iraq in its hour of need.

Thus in June U.S. contractors employed by Bell Helicopter, Beechcraft and General Dynamics Land Systems have all pulled their support personnel out of Iraq, depriving Iraqis of maintenance and repair for their U.S.-manufactured Bell ARH-407 armed reconnaissance helicopters, Beechcraft T-6 military trainer aircraft and M-1 tanks. Given the deteriorating security situation, a knowledgeable source says that virtually all U.S. contractor personnel have left Iraq.

When the crisis worsened U.S. corporate leadership made a decision to pull all their guys out of Iraq, and the U.S. government took a hands-off approach that left those decisions up to each company,” said the U.S. source in Baghdad. “We’re discovering that U.S. companies in this crisis don’t have a high tolerance for risk. Unfortunately, the Russians are much more tolerant of risk.”

Making matters worse, that Iraqi arsenal notably does not yet include a single one of the 34 F-16 fighters that Iraq has had on order since 2010; nor the 24 Apache helicopter gunships on order that were held up by Congress until last January and still have not flown; nor the 24 Beechcraft AT-6 Texan II armed turboprop planes that the State Department approved for sale to Iraq back in May.

The retreat of U.S. contractor and embassy personnel, and failure to follow through in a timely fashion on U.S. promises of military equipment for Iraq, is feeding a widespread narrative of declining American influence and commitment to the Middle East. The perceived power vacuum as the U.S. military presence wanes has been noted by adversaries and allies alike.

The perception of a U.S. retreat from the region was reinforced by the Obama administration’s failure to follow through on promised military strikes against Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria after it used chemical weapons last year, emboldening Assad’s security forces and badly demoralizing the more moderate Syrian rebel factions. Those secular Syrian rebel groups last week threatened to lay down their weapons altogether if more military equipment and support was not forthcoming.

Against U.S. wishes, Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, declared that he will soon hold a referendum on Kurdish independence, reportedly with a green light from NATO ally Turkey. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly distanced itself from Washington in disagreements over U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, inaction in Syria and opposition to the military coup in Egypt. Critics say a pattern is developing of once staunch allies going their own way out of frustration with U.S. inaction.

Meanwhile, U.S. tentativeness before and during the Iraq crisis is in marked contrast to the approach of Russia and Iran, which rapidly sent military advisers and support personnel to bolster the regime of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The first of the SU-25s began arriving in Baghdad aboard Russian military transports last week. Speaking to the BBC, Al-Maliki complained that if Iraqi Security Forces had the necessary airpower represented by the F-16s, they could have turned back the juggernaut offensive launched by the Islamist militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) and allies among the Sunni tribes.

I’ll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract” for F-16s with the United States, Maliki told the BBC. Russia and Belarus had quickly agreed to sell Baghdad the SU-25s, which the Iraq Air Force flew for decades during Saddam Hussein’s reign, and to deploy the needed support personnel. “God willing, within one week, this [SU-25] force will be effective and will destroy the terrorist dens,” said Maliki.

The problem is indicative, sources say, of a U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program that is overly bureaucratic, unresponsive and vulnerable to political stonewalling. Requests must be approved by both the secretaries of state and defense, and then sent to the Congressional armed services, foreign affairs and appropriations committees, which carefully review the projects. The relevant U.S. ambassador and U.S. military commander for that region must also personally sign off on any proposed sale. Approved recipients of U.S. military equipment under the FMS program must then complete a training course on human rights and humanitarian law, which includes seminars on respect for human rights and civilian authority, rules against torture and gender violence, and laws pertaining to international armed conflict and internal armed conflict.

Even under ideal circumstances that process results in Department of Defense target delivery times of 18 months, and six months when the equipment is needed to meet “surge” requirements in a crisis, according to an April report by the Congressional Research Service. “There have been multiple causes for delays, not all of which can be remedied,” the CRS report concluded. “Delivering defense articles and services to U.S. representatives in multiple partner nations, with national customs and import processes, presents unique challenges.”

The entire system is so fraught with bureaucratic and political obstacles that even when foreign governments like Iraq desperately want to buy American military equipment, which greatly increases U.S. influence with them as partners, they often find the process too slow and complicated.

What’s happening with the crisis in Iraq today is shining a spotlight on what’s wrong more generally with the U.S. FMS program,” said a former senior U.S. defense official. “And with the Russians and Iranians now pouring into Baghdad to come to Iraq’s rescue, we see U.S. contractors and officers attached to the U.S. Embassy’s Office of Security Cooperation evacuating, creating the perception that the United States will not be there when you need us. Given all that we have invested in Iraq in U.S. blood and treasure, I find that really sad and frustrating.”


In recent days, the Obama administration has deployed additional troops to Iraq to defend the U.S. Embassy and the airport, including U.S.-crewed Apache gunships. Administration officials last week have also informed lawmakers that they want to sell an additional 4,000 precision-guided Hellfire missiles to Iraq. Once the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency submits a formal notice of the proposed sale, Congress will have 30 days to approve or block it. Let’s hope the government in Baghdad will still be standing when the decision is finally made