Iranian Cancelled Acquisitions of the 1970s

Hood said:
Is there any mention of Canada?
Click to expand...
The search function is..... frustrating but I was able to find that Canada was one of seven nations exempted from the President's "new arms sales policy" re the F-18L:
https://archive.org/details/StateDeptcable1977-138287/mode/1up?q=exempted
So while the F-18L wasn't quite as doomed as I first thought, it is telling that in the absence of a US order, none of that seven elected to be launch customer. The LWF competition really did determine the shape of the deal of the century.
Even Canada considered possibly accepting the F-16's inadequacies in exchange for it's financial savings:
https://archive.org/details/State-Dept-cable-1975-164478/mode/1up
 
Hood said:
Presumably these FMS constraints would have applied to West Germany who seemed very keen on the F-18L around the same time? I don't recall seeing this raised in the British files I've seen on the TCA programme of this era though, so was this selective pedantism (F-18A vs F-18L) to deny the Shah the F-18?
Click to expand...
PD-13 had a specific exception for NATO countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Israel to receive 'unique advanced weapons systems developed or significantly modified solely for export', but still prohibited from coproduction agreements. All seven of the nations mentioned as receiving technical data fall into this group. Under PD-13, if I'm reading it correctly, the Fokker F-16 production line wouldn't have been permitted, though the aircraft could have been exported from the United States.

There's some irony in the fact that if Iran had deferred its' defence buildup in favour of reinvesting windfall profits from oil, the revolution might have been averted; a richer Iran a few years later would have seen significant relaxation of export controls under (presumably) Reagan. That's veering into the alternative history section though.
TomS said:
Not necessarily. Somewhere I've seen the suggestion that this could be another case of duplicate reporting, with Iran considering sourcing Standard frigates from the Netherlands (Kortenear) or from Germany (Bremen/Type 122), or possibly even splitting the order. These were very similar ships, aside from the propulsion plant, and I'm sure German yards could have built them using British turbines as in the Dutch ships, or vice versa (it would have made more sense to use the German Type 122 plant, since at least the turbines would be common to the destroyers.)
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible. The Iranian KORTENAER class were to be significantly modified ships anyway; given that the Dutch and German ships were intended to be closely related, splitting the order some way would be feasible. Whether that's eight ships in a 4/4 split, or twelve in an 8/4 would require more evidence. Perhaps the simplest explanation - and one consistent with all the evidence - was that they'd originally planned to do a 4/4 split, but German shipyard availability meant that all eight went to the Netherlands.

The CIA reporting the total of twelve is at least a credible contemporary source for the total of twelve. The State Department's report stating that the US had been approached about eight FFG-7s puts weight on that side. I do wonder whether it's a similar situation to the SPRUANCEs: original plans were for twelve, but orders were only actually placed for eight.
 
Grey Havoc said:
The C-5 order was part of the Shah's efforts to revitalise SEATO. Also, pre-revolution, Iran was pretty heavily involved in supporting UN peacekeeping operations.
Click to expand...
According to this story May 8, 1974 NY Times story they were looking to buy at least 6, but that was dependent on enough sales to the U.S. and other buyers to pay back the $160 million it would take to reopen the line.

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/08/...on-merger-lockheed-weighs-textron-merger.html

Oh, and a possible Lockheed-Textron merger because of Lockheed's financial issues.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Hopefully this is the right forum for this. A bit of browsing on the Flight International archive yields this gem from 1974:
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1974/1974 - 1113.PDF

Then, five years later,
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1979/1979 - 0470.PDF

The second quote indicates that the A-10 probably won the competition. But I can't find anything else other than these two tidbits. Can anyone shed any light on the matter - expected roles, numbers of aircraft envisaged, other competitors?
Click to expand...
Hello, these sites are not opening. Do you still have these PDF files?
 
By the looks of it, around 1974, the Maritime Patrol version of the Boeing 707 was also evaluated or studied for Iran.

1974 BOEING 707-MP LONG RANGE MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT FOR IRAN
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1974-boeing-707-mp-long-range-2016267429
Could someone perhaps shed some light on the following proposal or provide further information? Alternatively, is there any way to contact Boeing to see whether they have an electronic or scanned copy of this brochure?
 
Last edited:
riggerrob said:
Bell developed a couple of Huey helicopters specifically for the Imperial Iranian Air Force: 214A, 214C and 214ST. They all had larger engines and wider main rotor blades to improve hot-and-high performance in Iranian mountains.
The 214A Huey Plus got a single Lycoming LTC4B-8 engine. 296 x 214As and 39 x 214Cs were delivered before the Shah was ousted.

Bell also offered to sell the longer Huey 214 Super Transporter version to Iran. 214 had an extra row of seats (for a total of 20 passengers versus 15 in UH-1H). 214 also got the wider rotor blades plus a pair of the same CT7 engines now installed in H-60 Blackhawk. Civilian 214STs ferried oil workers out to offshore oil platforms.
Click to expand...
With regards as to the Bell 214A Isfahan, also known as the BH 214 (BH 214A was the IIAA troop carrier with the BH 214C being the SAR version for the IIAF), and the stretched twin-engine Bell 214ST:
https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/29-april-1975-2/
According to the link though, at least one of the BH 214A's had an IAAF serial number. Whether that was because it was a test bird or else because the IIAF was also procuring some of that variant for transport and utility purposes I don't know.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom