ALAN

22nd December 2013 - 10:52 PM

Peshmerga needs lots of Javlin and AT-4/5s

FulcrumKAF

22nd December 2013 - 11:56 PM

Agree with Alan. We need lots of ATGM and MANPADS (both are easy to get our hands on, smuggle and keep operational).

We also need to replace the AKM and AK-47 used by Peshmerga. A handful of battalions have changed their rifles to Zastava M92, which i find cheap, good and reliable (but should NOT become the standard rifle of Peshmerga). The AK is very reliable and has a good penetration ability, but its accuracy is not something i can talk good about. The M4 is the exact opposite. Therefore these rifles should both be replaced.

When Peshmerga size is cut, and our defense budget have the purchasing power to actually make significant changes to Peshmerga, i think we should replace the AKM/AK-47 and M4/M16;

For cheap alternatives, i say the AK-74M or G3A3. They are both reliable, pack a punch and the cost is not too high. The accuracy of both rifles are not to be underestimated. And the AK-74M do a lot of internal damage when hitting a enemy personnel. For the AK-74M we should have good relations with Russia tho (because of logistics).

Another rifle that would be easy for us to get is the Zastava M-21. It has more or less the same pros as the rifles mentioned above. Something to note tho is that it uses the same 5.56×45mm as the M4/M16.

The HK416 is a good alternative to a modern rifle for Peshmerga. It is way more reliable than the M4 and M16 which Iraq uses. We have all seen the reliability of the M4 and M16 in rough environments like that of Iraq and Kurdistan. If the budget allows it, i say the HK416 is a good rifle. However, it is more expensive than the alternatives above.

The CZ-805 with 6.8 chamber would great for our SOFs. It is a great rifle; good reliability, good accuracy (unlike AK), good penetration (unlike the peashooters M-4/M-16) and easy to maintain and clean for the average soldier! The only problem with the 6.8 bullet is that it is not easily available because of the conservative generals in most countries who do not want to change the caliber of their standard rifle. Because of this the logistics and cost of keeping this rifle in large numbers operational will be high. Thats why i did not recommend it for the whole army; it would simply be too expensive as things stand now.


There are some other, less known rifles (than the HK416,G3A3 and AK-74M) that i would highly recommend. However, due to political reasons and maintenance/logistical difficulties, i chose these weapons as one of the best alternatives.


Edit: New posts while i was writing this.
Yes, the weapon systems you suggest are great weapons, Gundî Uçar, but the problem is that they are both Swedish weapon systems. Sweden do not sell weapons to non-reliable and safe regions. KRG is officially part of Iraq and is still part of middle east. Thats why Sweden wont sell us weapons. The AT-4s we have is from US.
However, the RBS 70 NG is indeed a good MANPAD. When we declare independence, we should work to win the trust of Sweden.

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 12:32 AM

FulcrumKAF

22nd December 2013 - 11:56 PM

Agree with Alan. We need lots of ATGM and MANPADS (both are easy to get our hands on, smuggle and keep operational).

We also need to replace the AKM and AK-47 used by Peshmerga. A handful of battalions have changed their rifles to Zastava M92, which i find cheap, good and reliable (but should NOT become the standard rifle of Peshmerga). The AK is very reliable and has a good penetration ability, but its accuracy is not something i can talk good about. The M4 is the exact opposite. Therefore these rifles should both be replaced.

When Peshmerga size is cut, and our defense budget have the purchasing power to actually make significant changes to Peshmerga, i think we should replace the AKM/AK-47 and M4/M16;

For cheap alternatives, i say the AK-74M or G3A3. They are both reliable, pack a punch and the cost is not too high. The accuracy of both rifles are not to be underestimated. And the AK-74M do a lot of internal damage when hitting a enemy personnel. For the AK-74M we should have good relations with Russia tho (because of logistics).

Another rifle that would be easy for us to get is the Zastava M-21. It has more or less the same pros as the rifles mentioned above. Something to note tho is that it uses the same 5.56×45mm as the M4/M16.

The HK416 is a good alternative to a modern rifle for Peshmerga. It is way more reliable than the M4 and M16 which Iraq uses. We have all seen the reliability of the M4 and M16 in rough environments like that of Iraq and Kurdistan. If the budget allows it, i say the HK416 is a good rifle. However, it is more expensive than the alternatives above.

The CZ-805 with 6.8 chamber would great for our SOFs. It is a great rifle; good reliability, good accuracy (unlike AK), good penetration (unlike the peashooters M-4/M-16) and easy to maintain and clean for the average soldier! The only problem with the 6.8 bullet is that it is not easily available because of the conservative generals in most countries who do not want to change the caliber of their standard rifle. Because of this the logistics and cost of keeping this rifle in large numbers operational will be high. Thats why i did not recommend it for the whole army; it would simply be too expensive as things stand now.


There are some other, less known rifles (than the HK416,G3A3 and AK-74M) that i would highly recommend. However, due to political reasons and maintenance/logistical difficulties, i chose these weapons as one of the best alternatives.


Edit: New posts while i was writing this.
Yes, the weapon systems you suggest are great weapons, Gundî Uçar, but the problem is that they are both Swedish weapon systems. Sweden do not sell weapons to non-reliable and safe regions. KRG is officially part of Iraq and is still part of middle east. Thats why Sweden wont sell us weapons. The AT-4s we have is from US.
However, the RBS 70 NG is indeed a good MANPAD. When we declare independence, we should work to win the trust of Sweden.

doesn't pesmerge have aircrafts? Like the F-16? What kind of aircrafts do you recommend?

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 01:24 AM

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 12:32 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

No, Peshmerga do not have jets. I would, to be honest, not recommend the F-16. US is very picky on the details of the Aircraft. The Iraqi F-16s are reduced to such a level that they will only be effective as ground-attack aircraft. Same with Egypt. Unless you are a very close ally of US, you wont get the latest weapon systems with the Aircraft. Even Egypt wont get the best weapon systems, even tho Egypt is on paper one of the MNNA! So put US aircraft out of the list; They are simply too expensive for too bad of a aircraft.

The French Rafale is a good aircraft, but overpriced. Keeping it operational will be a pain in the ass for a region like Kurdistan at the moment. in 2025 it might be possible, but for now it is simply not realistic (maintenance, expertise, logistics, facilities etc will simply be too expensive for now).

Mirage 2000 is a cheaper, french alternative. Its a 4th gen fighter who outperformed the "godly" F-16 in Greek service. It is a possible jet for the future Kurdish air force.

The Mirage was however beat in most categories in India by MiG-29 (test dogfights). The K/D ratio was 1:7 in favor of the MiG-29. They did not report how many of them were BVR and how many WVR.

Another great alternative is a combo of MiG-29M(2) and SU-27M2. The cost of having 2 aircraft is immense, but if KRG can afford it its worth it. Russia would sell us the missiles we would request (unlike the US with the F-16 and F-15 combo). The maneuverability of the two aircraft is great, good weapon systems,the SU-27M2 don't have that annoying FBW system (the MiG-29M has it tho), good radar systems and ECM, good range, great RoC etc.

The negative side of the MiG-29 is its engine. It gives away some smoke when flying, and its engine is more easily overhauled (than the M53) and wont be available 24/7, unlike the mirage. The RD.33 engines are not the best on the market.

I have to keep this post short. Im unfortunately busy at the moment. Can make a better post later on if you want to


Edit: The F-35 is a overpriced Turkey. A failure. Would not recommend it at all. Can go into detail on that in another post too.

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 01:30 AM

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 01:24 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

I would appreciate if you made a longer post later on, seems interesting!

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 03:55 AM

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 01:30 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

What do you want me to cover in detail?

By the way, i forgot to mention that the JAS 39 is a great fighter for Kurdistan. Then again, the same problem pops up as with the RBS 70; It is Swedish, and therefore we must prove to Sweden that we are a safe and stable region.

Also to note; Fighter aircraft are made for different missions/jobs. Therefore it is hard to compare all kind of jets with each other. There are jets for intercepting, air superiority, EW versions, Strike-bomber/Ground attack and of course the multirole fighters.

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 04:07 AM

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 03:55 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

I think we need air superiority and Strike-bomber/Ground attack! Our pesmerge (acording to me) should have heavY ANTI-aircraft systems whether it's Anti-aircraft- guns or missiles! and heavy anti-tank systems. Ireally think our defense is important! What do you think they should develop and use? What differnet kinds of helicopters would fit for these tasks? Maybe there is one that cover them all, what do I know! Also, which kinds of ATM would you recommend? What kind of AAM and guns would you recommend? Also why is F-35 a failure? Everone seems to be praising it? (if you take out of consideration that Turkey was involved in the project) And if you think through it deeply which aircraft would fit for these tasks, for our pesmerge?

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 06:06 AM

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 04:07 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

Ill try to keep it short;
First of all, the total price of the F-35 is way to large to match its capabilities. Norway will buy 52 of the Aircraft for a price of 63 billion kroner (~5.5 Norwegian kroner is 1 dollar). HOWEVER, this does not take into account the cost for maintenance and modifications to existing bases and other necessary adjustments to replace the F-16 with F-35. The total cost is expected (according to a Norwegian general) to range from 250 billion to 300 billion kroner, which puts the price of each aircraft at 900 million US dollars to 1 billion US dollars.
And this is even after Norway's supposed cheaper offer and support from US for the adjustments. The price to have a fleet of F-35 is way to large.

Its capabilities is impossible to comment on for now with 100% accuracy. Its stealth capability was not as good as they had hoped (or rather;paid) for tho, it falls short of pretty much all fields when compared to F-22, its ECMs were not as good as expected (they are good, but way to expensive for what they offer).

The F-35 in itself is not a bad fighter, it is the price that destroys the whole aircraft. It is way to expensive for what it can put on the field.

It is also not a good dogfighter. According to reports, the maneuverability of many 4th (+) gen Aircraft is better than that of F-35. Therefore it relies solely on its radars and missiles. If the enemy is able to jam its radars and other important avionics, its a done deal. Its a slow aircraft too, so it will be easily hunted down in such a scenario.

Its primary role will probably be Ground attack, like F-16 in the war on terror.

Norway did a huge mistake with buying the F-35. The JAS 39 would have been much better and cheaper for Norway (the purchase have stirred up tensions between many parties). Rødt was especially against it.

For anti aircraft systems, i say we should replace all our AAA. The ZU-23-2 (and co) and the S60 is next to useless in modern warfare as anti aircraft weapons. The ZU-23-2 should be fitted on our MT-LBs and be used as ground support vehicles. It packs enough punch to penetrate common IFVs like BMP-1 and other light armored vehicles.

If it was possible, id say get the S-300PMU-2/VM are great air defense systems. It fits better for a region like Kurdistan (both in terms of terrain and geographic location) than the patriot missile. It can be moved and be made ready in just a few minutes. I made a detailed post on it in Pesh thread
The MIM-23 and SA-6 are more realistic for us to get in the short term tho.

According to reports, we are getting the Phalanx, which would be good against short range missiles, artillery and mortar rounds. It is not something i would put my complete trust in, and is originally made for Navy use. In detail post on this can also be found in Pesh thread.
The Iron dome of Israel is a battle proven defense system. It would be great to defend against cross-border attacks (like the Syrian missile that hit Kurdistan in the early months of the civil war).

However, for now only MANPADS are realistic for us to get (as long as we are part of Iraq), and the one that i am 100% sure will be avaliable for us in the black market is the SA-18 and possibly the SA-24. The Grom is also a very effective MANPAD that we could get. Mistral 2 and RBS 70 are also good, but hard to get our hands on.

For ATGM i say our capability is good. TOW-2 and FGM-148 (if in large enough numbers) should be enough to defend Kurdistan. Kornet missiles could also be nice to have on our APC/IFVs.

Which guns we should have i posted on my first post here.

Which helicopters we need depends on what kind of job we want them to do. For attack helicopters i say the MI-28 and KA-52 would go hand in hand with each other, and use the MI-17 as a transport heli (if we go the Russian way). The more expensive way would be to go with AH-1W (combine them with our own MD-530Fs) for hunter-attack combo, and then use UH-1 and UH-60 for transport (would give us pretty much same array as Turkey).
Other helicopters of interest are AS532,SA 330, AW 101 and EC725 for transport. We could use our already good relationship with EC to get them.


Tried to keep it short. In reality, i would have to go into EI systems, Radars, Engines and a lot more for a detailed report. If i wrote why i recommend each weapon, it would have made this post way to long.

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 06:14 AM

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 06:06 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

Thanks you very much! I think this is detailed enough!

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 06:18 AM

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 06:14 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

You're welcome, heval

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 06:34 AM

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 06:18 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deep

Pesmerge should hire you as the ''guy'' who decides what kinds of weapon they should buy and decide how many pesmerges to be in service! Also to have you in power of the entire Defense budget! I'm serious!

Worldwar2boy

23rd December 2013 - 06:42 AM

Peshmerga should focus on buying anti-aircraft weaponry and long range missiles and artillery.
We must be able to bomb the capitals and/or large cities of our enemies, and every village with a population of 50 or more should have at least 1 anti aircraft weapon (in some kind of a depot), mortars, mines, explosives and anti-tank guns to counter the enemy.

The enemy must not be able to fly past the small towns, planes will be intercept by every town.
A plane that illegally enters Kurdistan's airspace, will have 100+ missiles on its tail within seconds.

That must be our strategy.
The enemy will lose their entire fleet within a matter of hours :).

And then we can attack them with missiles and artillery, maybe some planes as well (to disable roads and bridges).

Instead of spending $10 billion buying aircraft, spend $10 billion buying anti-aircraft.

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 06:46 AM

Worldwar2boy

23rd December 2013 - 06:42 AM

Peshmerga should focus on buying anti-aircraft weaponry and long range missiles and artillery.
We must be able to bomb the capitals and/or large cities of our enemies, and every village with a population of 50 or more should have at least 1 anti aircraft weapon (in some kind of a depot), mortars, mines, explosives and anti-tank guns to counter the enemy.

The enemy must not be able to fly past the small towns, planes will be intercept by every town.
A plane that illegally enters Kurdistan's airspace, will have 100+ missiles on its tail within seconds.

That must be our strategy.
The enemy will lose their entire fleet within a matter of hours :).

And then we can attack them with missiles and artillery, maybe some planes as well (to disable roads and bridges).

Instead of spending $10 billion buying aircraft, spend $10 billion buying anti-aircraft.

Well I agree with you to some extend. However, we will need aircraft in future.. I'm sure fulcrum will say the same. As he said, if you want a good defense you need quality. From who are we going to buy state of the art defense systems for $10 billion?

EDIT: Fulkrum, wouldn't it be possible to make weapon deals with China and Russia through Iran and maybe even Syria when it's stabil?

FulcrumKAF

23rd December 2013 - 07:02 AM

Gundî Uçar

23rd December 2013 - 06:46 AM

Quoting limited to 2 levels deepEDIT: Fulkrum, wouldn't it be possible to make weapon deals with China and Russia through Iran and maybe even Syria when it's stabil?

True, we will need large amounts of aircraft to keep Kurdistan safe. Remember, it is more or less the IAF that have kept Israel alive for so long.


To your question; Do you mean while we are part of Iraq or when we are independent?