Iraqi Army

havent done research, but afair abrams dont have any HE shells- at least murican ones. the euros do tho.

I believe they are the M1028 / M908 rounds

Put that on top of the cancelled BTR4 order... and you see a massive gap in capability in the army.... hell even their fleet of 10,000 uparmoured HUMVEES are breaking down regularly since most are over 15 years old by now (they were supplied free by the US as second hand vehicles) and have done more than 100,000km+ each in a bad environment and constant field use.

I guess the production plants that made T-72s are out of service now.

Personally I would love to see the Burlak T-72 upgrade being applied and put into service.

The Russians decided bustle storage of ammo is too vulnerable to enemy fire, but I think 31 rounds in a turret bustle autoloader all ready to fire, plus 22 more rounds in the underfloor armoured autoloader would be ideal... 53 rounds ready to fire with no ammo exposed in the troop compartment gives the best of both worlds in terms of ready to use ammo and crew protection.

Would be fairly straight forward to manufacture too.

Iraq used to have several armour factories to make T72, BTR60PB and MTLB.
after 2003 the US methodically destroyed these plants, the machinery and laid off all the workers.

Now in early 2014 the former arms factories that were disbanded by the US (or moved under the ministry of industry), have changed ownership and now belong to the Ministry of Defence. They have rehired as many of the workers as they could and started a recruitment drive for new graduates. But essentially they are starting now from scratch and none of the old machinery are available (the US vandalised them and then sold them as "scrap metal" already more than 10 years ago).

a couple of years ago I saw an increase in UAZ 469 and 452s in use by the infantry units (especially the 17th div around baghdad) because the HUMVEES were basically all worn out and they were too wide to drive on the thousands of kilometers of canal-side dirt tracks that criss cross the Iraqi countryside.
see below:



The Iraqis do desperately need to replace their HUMVEES with a vehicle which narrower and more reliable.

Thank you sir. This was a very useful part of intelligence!

the colour schemes.




and
http://www.uaz.ru/eng/about/news/-id=954.htm

Thank you sheytanelkebir, your messages are very interesting. Couple of questions:

- Do you have an estimate on how many T-90 the government has acquired?
- What is going to happen with Ukrainian contract? any candidates to replace BTR-4?

a89 wrote:Thank you sheytanelkebir, your messages are very interesting. Couple of questions:

- Do you have an estimate on how many T-90 the government has acquired?

no idea. But the Army has already decided to stand up 3x Armoured and 5x Mechanised divisions in addition to 5 infantry and 5 light infantry / ISOF.

The armoured divisions need about 300 MBTs each (900MBTs total)
The mechanised divisions need about 120 MBTs each (600 MBTs total)
The "infantry" divisions need about 56 MBTs each (270 MBTs total)

That is a total requirement of about 1800 MBTs. Of which they have about 300 MBTs right now.

So they are looking to buy about 1500 MBTs over the next 5-6 years, and slowly passing down the "older" MBTs from the armour divisions to Mech and then to Infantry as newer tanks enter service.

Iraq has a "dual supply" policy for armaments. So that means not ALL tanks will be brought from one source. Instead each division will be bought in "batches". So as an example the M1A1SA tanks (140+6+175) was bought for the 9th Armoured div. But then they stopped buying before completing the order... so they actually only have 146.

Similarly the 420 BTR4s were bought for the 5th Mechanised Division as its wheeled IFV... but once again the purchase was cancelled due to quality problems.

Thus expect the T90 and BMP3s to be purchased in "unit sized" batches. i.e. either half or a full divisions worth in every order. (150 or 300 at a time).

- What is going to happen with Ukrainian contract? any candidates to replace BTR-4?

It has been cancelled.
So far we don't know what has been chosen to replace the BTR4. Similarly the Army does need a tracked IFV for the armoured divisions, and it seems that the BMP3 has been chosen. A previous "DSCA notification" from last year for 175 Abrams and 200 Bradleys seems to have not been taken up by the Iraqi side as of yet! surprisingly. That can only indicate that quantities from Russia will be increased.


so in addendum the army is in a very difficult position now. they have the following problems:
-The HUMVEES are very tired (they need 10,000 uparmoured jeeps to replace them!)
-They need 1500 tanks and are not happy with the Gas Turbines and other shortcomings on ABRAMS
-They seem to have also not taken up the offers for 250 Bradleys and 50 Strykers.
-They cancelled the BTR4s for the Mechanised Divisions... so another glaring gap there
-They need an "upgrade package" for their 1000 M113s to improve armour and armaments.
-And still they have not increased the number of M198 or M109A5s artillery that they have (only 180 of them are available).

A massive potential market there... especially considering the constant security problems and surrounding threats.

sheytanelkebir wrote:

a89 wrote:Thank you sheytanelkebir, your messages are very interesting. Couple of questions:

- Do you have an estimate on how many T-90 the government has acquired?

no idea. But the Army has already decided to stand up 3x Armoured and 5x Mechanised divisions in addition to 5 infantry and 5 light infantry / ISOF.

The armoured divisions need about 300 MBTs each (900MBTs total)
The mechanised divisions need about 120 MBTs each (600 MBTs total)
The "infantry" divisions need about 56 MBTs each (270 MBTs total)

That is a total requirement of about 1800 MBTs. Of which they have about 300 MBTs right now.

So they are looking to buy about 1500 MBTs over the next 5-6 years, and slowly passing down the "older" MBTs from the armour divisions to Mech and then to Infantry as newer tanks enter service.

Iraq has a "dual supply" policy for armaments. So that means not ALL tanks will be brought from one source. Instead each division will be bought in "batches". So as an example the M1A1SA tanks (140+6+175) was bought for the 9th Armoured div. But then they stopped buying before completing the order... so they actually only have 146.

Similarly the 420 BTR4s were bought for the 5th Mechanised Division as its wheeled IFV... but once again the purchase was cancelled due to quality problems.

Thus expect the T90 and BMP3s to be purchased in "unit sized" batches. i.e. either half or a full divisions worth in every order. (150 or 300 at a time).

- What is going to happen with Ukrainian contract? any candidates to replace BTR-4?

It has been cancelled.
So far we don't know what has been chosen to replace the BTR4. Similarly the Army does need a tracked IFV for the armoured divisions, and it seems that the BMP3 has been chosen. A previous "DSCA notification" from last year for 175 Abrams and 200 Bradleys seems to have not been taken up by the Iraqi side as of yet! surprisingly. That can only indicate that quantities from Russia will be increased.


so in addendum the army is in a very difficult position now. they have the following problems:
-The HUMVEES are very tired (they need 10,000 uparmoured jeeps to replace them!)
-They need 1500 tanks and are not happy with the Gas Turbines and other shortcomings on ABRAMS
-They seem to have also not taken up the offers for 250 Bradleys and 50 Strykers.
-They cancelled the BTR4s for the Mechanised Divisions... so another glaring gap there
-They need an "upgrade package" for their 1000 M113s to improve armour and armaments.
-And still they have not increased the number of M198 or M109A5s artillery that they have (only 180 of them are available).

A massive potential market there... especially considering the constant security problems and surrounding threats.

Thanks for the info.
Does the Iraqi government have enough budget to cover the armed forces requirements? I know Iraq has a lot of oil, but how much is of it is going into the governments coffers? I think a good chunk of the oil is in Kurdish areas. Would be pleased to hear your insight on this.

TheArmenian wrote:

Thanks for the info.
Does the Iraqi government have enough budget to cover the armed forces requirements? I know Iraq has a lot of oil, but how much is of it is going into the governments coffers? I think a good chunk of the oil is in Kurdish areas. Would be pleased to hear your insight on this.

About 85%-90% of the oil "reserves" are in Arab Iraq
About 95% of the "revenue" is generated in Arab Iraq

The kurdish region is "wealthier" because it takes 12% of Arab Iraq's revenue and doesn't share its own revenues with Iraq (no reciprocity). That's why the Kurdish region refuses to leave Iraq despite "talking the talk" all the time.

The MOD budget is a problem though, as its taking on a lot of new staff for the new divisions as well as the payroll for all the military industry that have been attached to the MOD. With payroll being the single biggest item on the MOD's spend. in addition the MOD is building its infrastructure from scratch including new Division HQs, transport command, national and regional depots and tens of thousands of housing units for MOD staff. All that bites into the budget for weapons purchases... To top that off the "service and maintenance" contracts for the US weapons are horrendously overpriced... costing far more than the weapons themselves which is why the Iraqis capped their purchase of F16, C130J, M1A1SA and pretty much everything else... (don't know about the Ah64Es though).

Conversely the MOD has by a stroke of luck inherited a lot of prime land areas in Central Baghdad and other cities that its selling off to increase its income. Those lands are worth $1000-$3000 / m2 and they have millions of m2 which are being "redeveloped" with housing estates increasing revenue for the MOD in addition to their allocated budget and "supplementary budget".

The fact that they are trying to reform those production facilities sounds promising... perhaps local production of Tigr-Ms, or one of the many other light vehicles the Russians are developing could be a solution... produced in Iraq... and perhaps a service centre could be set up and the vehicles could be sold to other countries in the region... which would be good business for Iraq as well.

tigr/wolf/nimr type vehicles are "ok" ... but don't solve the main issues associated with the HUMVEE:

its too wide to be used in the Iraqi countryside / canalside levees. There are more canals than roads in Iraq and navigating in the countryside will inevitably mean using the levees for driving.

The larger vehicles are OK in the open desert areas, but then again, you may as well use proper MRAPs there with better protection.

an inside source from the MOD posted on the iraqimilitary forum that the frontal turret armour of an Iraqi M1A1SA Abrams was pierced by a KORNET missile and led to the total destruction of the inside of the turret.

He didn't mention if this was a "combat" situation or "internal testing" by the Iraqi Army using its own KORNETs.

sheytanelkebir wrote:an inside source from the MOD posted on the iraqimilitary forum that the frontal turret armour of an Iraqi M1A1SA Abrams was pierced by a KORNET missile and led to the total destruction of the inside of the turret.

He didn't mention if this was a "combat" situation or "internal testing" by the Iraqi Army using its own KORNETs.

Can you post a link? Thanks in advance!

Related to this loss?









I suspected the Kornet punched a hole through the front turret armor. You can see on the last image the bin and smoke launchers are intact, so the missile didn't enter through the side. However, it could have hit the section just in front of the launchers, the armor isn't as thick there.

Kornet will penetrate M1 and M1A1SA/HEL just as easily infront, M1 and M1A1 have not more armor at turret front arc than T-72B or T-80.

Do not forget, those M1's Iraq were sent are monkey models compared to US variants, so do not be surprised if performance is lacking. To be fair, I would still rather be in an M1 Iraqi variant than a T-72 Iraqi variant. If it was T-90A's then a different story.

Yes, Iraq can become a very important business partner for Russia (not ally but business partner) as Russia produces a lot of equipment that Iraqi's are familiar with but meeting modern international standards, as well as providing it at much lower costs. I am surprised though at Iraq's purchases in Jets though. MiG-29's are good and all, but they already have F-16's (monkey models as well) and are good short range jets. But what about the long range for its vast borders? Su-30's would have been much smarter buys, something like the Algerian variant of Su-30's would have sufficed. As they are long range, with very advanced capabilities for both Air to Air and Air to Ground, it would be the most versatile weapon for Iraq, and would be good for policing its airforce as well as striking hardened targets far away, while F-16's are good for closer ranges. Having two types of jets in the same category makes very little sense.

sepheronx wrote:Do not forget, those M1's Iraq were sent are monkey models compared to US variants, so do not be surprised if performance is lacking.  To be fair, I would still rather be in an M1 Iraqi variant than a T-72 Iraqi variant.  If it was T-90A's then a different story.

they are monkey models yes but not to the extent of the soviet monkey models- its mostly the armor composition that differs between the export and vanilla abrams.

I think the extent of Iraqi's having "monkey model" Abrams is exaggerated, from my understanding the only difference between U.S. Abrams and the Abrams that Egypt and Iraq have is in the frontal turret armor. U.S. Abrams have depleted uranium slabs in their turret armor while export models don't. While the depleted uranium increases the effective armor of the front of the Abrams it's far from invincible, a Kornet-EM system attached to a Gaz Tigr-M truck would still make mince-meat out of Abrams or any other tank out their even if the tank has an active protection system (Kornet-EM is designed to defeat active protection systems).

sepheronx wrote:Do not forget, those M1's Iraq were sent are monkey models compared to US variants, so do not be surprised if performance is lacking.  To be fair, I would still rather be in an M1 Iraqi variant than a T-72 Iraqi variant.  If it was T-90A's then a different story.

which is why the 9th armoured division is already training and preparing for receiving T90S tanks and a further 2 armoured divisions will be armed with T90s in the future.... whilst Iraq's "follow on" order for 175x ABRAMS and 200x Bradleys was cancelled.

Yes, Iraq can become a very important business partner for Russia (not ally but business partner) as Russia produces a lot of equipment that Iraqi's are familiar with but meeting modern international standards, as well as providing it at much lower costs.

 

within 1-2 years Russia will be Iraq's number 1 weapons supplier, as the US orders from the 2011-2012 period filter through into deliveries, the fact that no further orders from the US are coming and the "ramp up" of deliveries from Russia will begin in earnest in summer/autumn 2014. by 2015 Russia will be No1... and by 2016 when the remaining F16s come through the gap between Russia and the US will be massive as orders from the US will be simply for munitions and support from then on, whilst Russia would probably be continuing to ramp up deliveries.

I am surprised though at Iraq's purchases in Jets though.  MiG-29's are good and all, but they already have F-16's (monkey models as well) and are good short range jets.  But what about the long range for its vast borders? Su-30's would have been much smarter buys, something like the Algerian variant of Su-30's would have sufficed.  As they are long range, with very advanced capabilities for both Air to Air and Air to Ground, it would be the most versatile weapon for Iraq, and would be good for policing its airforce as well as striking hardened targets far away, while F-16's are good for closer ranges.  Having two types of jets in the same category makes very little sense.

Iraq is actually quite a small country (smaller than sweden!) with a number of airfields dotted around, so not really comparable to Algeria (it is 6x bigger than Iraq!) which is a vast country. So far there's no confirmation of what "russian" fighter they're buying, but they are getting 24 FA-50s from Korea (more light fighters) in addition to their 36x F16s (which will end up being for attack mostly and DO have a pretty good range with their CFTs). What Iraqis "want" is modern AAMs, and with that in mind they're talking to CATIC about JF17s as well as with Dassault about Rafale. in both instances the "armaments" is what they're really seeking (and hopefully deliveries of MICA or METEOR or SD10 would "convince" the US to deliver AMRAAM / AiM9X for the F16s.

I do see a "benefit" for Iraq operating a single squadron of "high end" fighters like SU35 to match up to the higher end fighter jets that the neighbours are getting (F35s, Eurofighters etc..). and maybe one "strategic" squadron of long range strike aircraft (SU34) with maybe a dual maritime-strike and land strike role (maybe something like a SU32FN ... but looks like it will never be produced?).

However I think that those types will not come now as the Iraqis want to get the "basics" in order before going for the "luxuries"...

interesting. Andrei_bt says Iraq will resume receiving BTR4s from Ukraine? sounds very strange, didn't hear anything about that from Iraqis!

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/273955.html


and here's a Ukrainian source... http://news.kh.ua/kharkov/38915-irakskiy-k%20ontrakt-na-postavku-btr-budet-vozobnovle%20n-nardep-girshfeld.html


I am a bit mystified really. Iraq and Ukraine signed this deal in 2009 as the first of a "multi-year" deal. The details at the time were as follows:

$550M for the "first" deal. 6x An32B + 420 BTR4s. which were to be delivered by MARCH 2012!

Then "follow on" deals for a further $2Bn that would include thousand more BTR4s + new Ukrainian Corvette + 4x more AN32Bs + Oplot Main Battle Tanks.


Obviously what happened was the Ukrainian side sent Iraqis An32B with second hand engines and cockpits (which were rejected and then reworked)... then the BTR4s were delayed and had lots of problems with cannon, engines and finally the actual armour being cracked on delivery... and all of that whilst being many years late for a relatively "simple" order of wheeled APCs with lots of COTS parts.

A bunch of Iraqi BTR-4s are being shot up in Ukraine right now, somehow I doubt deliveries will resume.

New Ukrainian corvette? Their shipbuilding capability is ass, why would Iraq go to them?

Btw these news are from a Deputat, so it is safe to say he is talking out of his ass.

interesting. Andrei_bt says Iraq will resume receiving BTR4s from Ukraine? sounds very strange, didn't hear anything about that from Iraqis!

sheytanelkebir, you have any information on BTR-94 status? a few years go they were used by nowadays are not seen.

a89 wrote:

interesting. Andrei_bt says Iraq will resume receiving BTR4s from Ukraine? sounds very strange, didn't hear anything about that from Iraqis!

sheytanelkebir, you have any information on BTR-94 status? a few years go they were used by nowadays are not seen.

They are still around, they are used by the Interior Ministry's "National Police" not the army and painted blue and white. They are posted at some of the entrances to Baghdad for example.

here are some revas of the national police with the same colour scheme as the BTR94s. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Iraqi_National_Police_armored_vehicles.jpg