WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Posted by: Dr_V November 12, 2003 09:51 pm

It's obvious that the obsolete MIG 21 is at the end of its career in our air forces. In the recent years it killed more pilots than any other kind of plane used during peace time in Romania.

Regarding that Romania lacks the resources to aquire the latest and the best fighters on the market, a solution must be found to get a type of fighter that meets the 3 most important needs:
- to be effective against the other fighters in use today by other countryes
- to be cheap enough for Romania to buy it in the required numbers
- to be reliable and relatively easy and cheap to mantain and repair here.

I've made some sugestions in the poll, but I'll apreciate any other you myght have and also some comments on the qualityes of these planes.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul November 12, 2003 09:59 pm

I voted for the MIG 29, since Romania will not be able in the next years to build another "autochtonus" fighter... The modernised MIG 29s are very good fighters, maybe better than the F 16s.

Getu'

Posted by: cuski November 12, 2003 10:28 pm

Why not the Su-27?

Posted by: Dr_V November 12, 2003 10:41 pm

QUOTE

Why not the Su-27?

It's a good plane, but I've heared it is expansive. But yes, it is an option, I should have included it in the poll.

Posted by: cuski November 12, 2003 11:23 pm

I doubt it's more expensive than the F-16. If you're looking in the same price range, you could probably add Saab's Drakken and Mirage's Rafale to the poll.

Posted by: Dénes November 13, 2003 01:21 am

QUOTE

I doubt it's more expensive than the F-16. If you're looking in the same price range, you could probably add Saab's Drakken and Mirage's Rafale to the poll.

The SAAB Draken is an obsolete model.
I think it's rather the SAAB Gripen that should be considered.

Posted by: inahurry November 13, 2003 02:44 pm

Voted for IAR although it is an utopian wishful thinking in current situation. Mig 29? I don't think it can cover all military needs. Maybe a combination of latest Mig and latest Su. Also, if French are not going to get bankrupt and lose significance technologically I'd favor a strategic partnership with them, buying and then cooperating to build Rafale or newer models.

Posted by: Der Maresal November 13, 2003 03:10 pm

QUOTE

Why not the Su-27?

It's a good plane, but I've heared it is expansive. But yes, it is an option, I should have included it in the poll.

Good topic,

Edit your poll to Include the Saab Grippen, Mirage 2000, Su-27, Rafale (why not?)-My favorite as I said earlier is the Mig29M -a ground attack version of the Mig29A we have now ... it's so full of avionics - an entirely new plane! Maybe you can include that one too.

Then i-ll vote... :wink:

PS: I'll tell you why I don't agree with the Su-27 / It's a huge aircraft (the largest Fighter in the World) - Secondly - I cannot carry that much air to ground munitions- It is strictly Air-Superiority-Fighter/Interceptor.
I prefer a fighter bomber. Mig29 is more of an air-air/air ground then the Su-27 is. Also the Su-27 is loaded with fuel - it has an incredible range, - we don't need that. For Russia it's more appropriate (where the distances are so big) .Romania has no need for a long-range Fighter (we're not going to attack anyone

)
The last two points are of course the price $$, the Su-27 and 37 are very expensive. And lastly - a good argument would be - we have alot more experience with the Mig 29 - We never flew the Suchoi. So all factors point towards the Mig, if we are to pick a Russian Jet.
:roll:

Posted by: Victor November 13, 2003 08:06 pm

QUOTE

It's obvious that the obsolete MIG 21 is at the end of its career in our air forces. In the recent years it killed more pilots than any other kind of plane used during peace time in Romania.

Really? Do you have any numbers to back up this claim? Or are you just picking up from the articles written by "journalists" who do not even know what wingspan is?

The MIG-21 Lancer is probably one of the best fighter plane in the region at the moment (the Poles have not yet received their F-16s). Well, at least it has the best radar and it had already proven its superior capabilities to French Mirage F1s in exercises. It is capable of firing both Eastern and Western intelligent munitions. Do not take it so lightly.

IMO, the best option for us from 2010 onwards is the JAS-39. But of course this will be a political decision and since we already bought two frigates from the British, I doubt that we will also buy the airplanes. It will be a competition between the F-16 and the Eurofighter.

PS: A good indication that it will not be the MiG-29 is the fact that the remaining MiG-29s were not reconditioned and modernized. They are just "conserved"

Posted by: Dénes November 13, 2003 08:19 pm

QUOTE

IMO, the best option for us from 2010 onwards is the JAS-39. But of course this will be a political decision

Another benefit of buying/leasing the Gripen would be that a neutral state (Sweden, that is) would/could not use political blackmail later on to supply spare parts and know-how upgrades.
I personally would opt for the Gripen, particularly if other Central and East European states would also switch to the same type.

Posted by: Victor November 13, 2003 08:21 pm

Gripen is not so "neutral" anymore, since BAe got involved. :wink:

Posted by: Dr_V November 13, 2003 08:50 pm

QUOTE

Really? Do you have any numbers to back up this claim? Or are you just picking up from the articles written by \"journalists\" who do not even know what wingspan is?

Guilty! I've read it in a newspaper, but I believe to be a serious one (Adevarul). Isn't it true?

QUOTE

The MIG-21 Lancer is probably one of the best fighter plane in the region at the moment (the Poles have not yet received their F-16s). Well, at least it has the best radar and it had already proven its superior capabilities to French Mirage F1s in exercises. It is capable of firing both Eastern and Western intelligent munitions. Do not take it so lightly.

I don't argue that the MIG 21 registers some impressive performances in test flights. But why then is it so unreliable? In the conditions of a war situation I believe it matters a lot how many of them will relly be effective and how many will fall down withowt any enemy intervention.

I believe those test results are used too often as political propaganda to convice the public that the money spent to modernise 30 years old planes were a worthy investment. It is a big problem to rise money today to buy new planes, after spending so much to modernise the old ones.

MIG 21 certainly was one of the most effective fighters in the world, but it will never be new again. Even with modernisations, it will still get older every year and presumebly less reliable in use. I believe Romania is too poor to invest money twice for the same thing, as in a few years even this improoved version will become so old that it will be useless.

One more thing. If we can't afford to buy new planes for the entire Air Force, why not aquire as many as it is possible today and form a few elite units, using the remaining MIGs untill there are enough money to replace them all? And why the hell are those MIG 29 "peserved" and not used?

Posted by: inahurry November 13, 2003 09:22 pm

If the military sources are to be trusted (Adevarul is hardly a reliable source, you can always tell when they smell an opportunity and then they direct their attacks to get some crumbs from the big money) the Lancers flew in much shorter time a lot more than the Mig-21 (non-modernized) fleet did for years. But they are old, I believe the “youngest” lot delivered to us has more than 20 years of age. In this case they simply have to be retired because materials life is limited too.

Posted by: Victor November 13, 2003 09:26 pm

QUOTE

Guilty! I've read it in a newspaper, but I believe to be a serious one (Adevarul). Isn't it true?

It is easier to bash, than to do some research.

QUOTE

These are not tests, but simulated dogfights. It is the real thing, just that they do not fire after they get a lock on.
Btw, has anyone bothered to research how many accidents are there in other airforces, what is the loss rate of other types of aircraft? The F-16 for example?

QUOTE

I believe those test results are used too often as political propaganda to convice the public that the money spent to modernise 30 years old planes were a worthy investment. It is a big problem to rise money today to buy new planes, after spending so much to modernise the old ones.

If you call spending 300 million USD for 100+ aircraft "a lot of money", have you even considered the alternative? Roughly one squadron of F-16s for the same money.
What people do not seem to understand is that just because new avionics were installed on them, the aircraft will still fall down if the maintenance is not appropriate. And good maintenance means money, which the army and Romania ingeneral does not have in large quantity.

QUOTE

I believe Romania is too poor to invest money twice for the same thing, as in a few years even this improoved version will become so old that it will be useless.

Their resource expires in 2010. When the resource expires, they are useless, just like the MiG-29s are right now.

QUOTE

And why the hell are those MIG 29 \"peserved\" and not used?

Their resource expired. Roughly 50 million USD are necessary for their overhauling. It was decided that there is no need to invest these money, because new aircraft will eventually be bought.

Posted by: Dr_V November 13, 2003 09:44 pm

Thanks Victor for the info on the 29s. Seams that we really are in a deep s*** with our air forces. If our echonomy will "evolve" as it did untill now, it's possible that in 2010 the air forces will be reduced to a symbolic role and will use whatever fighter can still fly, praying it doesn't crash.
Or maybe by entering NATO we'll receive some planes in order to be able to effectively serve western interests, but I doubt it. Or we'll receive some western 30 y. o. wrecks, I don't see the Americans investing in our military.

Let's hope that in the next 20 or 30 years we won't need fighter planes, 'cause it's doubtfull that we're gonna have a real air fleet!

Posted by: cuski November 13, 2003 10:06 pm

QUOTE

The SAAB Draken is an obsolete model.
I think it's rather the SAAB Gripen that should be considered.

Gah! My mistake, I was thinking of the Gripen but I wrote Draken instead :?

I do agree with Victor, I see Romania being oriented towards the west in the coming years (from a military perspective), and mainly because the whole NATO issue. That is why, I don't see russian airplanes being favourites in this race (regardless of whether they are competitive or not). Even Germany chose not to upgrade their small fleet of Mig-29s, which will most likely soon be replaced by the Eurofighter.

Posted by: inahurry November 16, 2003 07:10 pm

hmmmmm....

What about this one (Chinese J-10) ?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

Posted by: dead-cat November 17, 2003 03:40 pm

QUOTE

Even Germany chose not to upgrade their small fleet of Mig-29s, which will most likely soon be replaced by the Eurofighter.

it wasn't so much a performance or usability issue, more a problem of operating 3 diffrent aircraft types (phantom, tornado and mig29)
the idea behind eurofighter is to have a single airplane type (to service).

jane's sells a pretty informative book about the mig29, quoting diffrent pilot perspectives. the conclusion was the mig29 suffers from high fuel consumption and antiquated, albeit upgradable electronics, as well as a missing HOTAS system. the mig29 pilot is penalized in the area of situation awareness and depends largely on AWACS and ground-based support. since the plane wasn't really thought to be an all-rounder, it isn't suited for airforces looking for a multi-role fighter plane, despite being a phantastic dogfighter. however, this quality is upset by the very existence of long range AA missiles.

Posted by: Der Maresal November 17, 2003 05:11 pm

QUOTE

hmmmmm....

What about this one (Chinese J-10) ?
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

This is China's most modern military plane - It is similar to the Israeli 'Lavi', which in turn was a copy of the F-16 (with foreplanes).

I find it interesting that america's best Friend Israel is cooperating with China (and sold the design plus alot more this this 'potential ennemy of the United States) :shock: :? ..(loyalty and friendship is not so important in this world where profit is everything.)

*If I remeber correctly the first Prototype J-10 crashed and killed the pilot.
The problem linked to the flight controll system. This has been corrected, and the plane is making progress.
There are a few reason why the plane has not attracted international attention - I think it's because China is not regarded as a country with Airforce tradition (and also the oppinion that everything Made in China is not so good), plus the fact the plane was kept secret for a long time.
It is a very good aircraft however - It can carry plenty of Armanent - It is better then the F-16, being more maneuvrable because of it's canard wings.
Romania however cannot buy this aircraft (nor will it ever) since doing so will anger the United States with which it is trying to improve relations.
If relation with the States continue to improve probably the F-16 will become the next plane for the Airforce (which I hope It wont!)
I don't mind buying C-130's , transport planes from America but Fighter aircraft - no! It's very much a political decision as to which plane we will have in the future.
My oppinion is that the bulk of the Airforce should have second hand, 2nd or 3rd Generation planes (Mig 21, Mig 29, IAR) ...and only a few "Crack" pilots - the Elite should be flying a small number of 4th Generation very Modern aircraft. (Eurofighter, Grippen, Mirage2000-5) - We should use the rest of the budget to build up our air defence System.
Instead of buying Fighters worth millions of dollars - we could buy a great number of air defence units and missiles. These things are very lethal today. 8)

Posted by: Victor November 17, 2003 08:19 pm

The possibility of buying J-10s is null, simply because the CHinese won't sell them. They probably need every single one of them that will comeout of the assembly lines.

I also think that we do not need more than 3-4 squadrons of modern fighters (the JAS-39 let's hope). We could also use the IAR-99 Soim in ground attack roles.

PS: the recent Lockheed radars that we bought strengthened the air defense.

Posted by: Indrid November 17, 2003 10:10 pm

how about buying some ww2 stukas instead? i bet they would be better than those MIG's.

A romanian plane sounds pretty good too, but we all know when that's gonna happen :shock:

Posted by: inahurry November 17, 2003 10:22 pm

Maresal, in the article it’s said the Lavi story was probably a cover-up while the Chinese really came out with a very different plane. There’s also no hint the Israelis are in any way involved. Since Israel lately supports India I think Chinese-Israeli military cooperation, especially within a project like this which could be interpreted as a threat by the Indians, is a delicate matter. I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility although it would be puzzling. Strategic plans usually have different layers and some may not be intelligible from outside. The so-called Shanghai pact, which could be view as a large framework for a possible Russian-Chinese alliance and the agreement Russia will provide know-how while China brings the money could have more to do than the Israelis but it’s just my speculation. The J-10 may very well be an entirely Chinese project.

I’m not sure why the link doesn’t work directly but if you paste the address in browser it should work.

Victor, in the same article it is suggested the J-10 might be the new Mig-21 or F-16 in terms of sales to foreign airforces. I’m sure China has the financial potential to make enough of those planes to sell abroad, if they prove good. I’m not sure how large could be its foreign market when political limitations are taken into account but I can think of a few countries. Surely, it would put a lot of pressure on other competitors.

Posted by: 88mm November 19, 2003 11:00 am

Although a MIG 29 is good choise, I voted for SU 27. Why? Because to my best knowledge at this time only India is still manufacturing the plane, and in sale are only the A and B models. The russians are not selling the latest models with improved (wery improved) avionics. The same thing applies to SU 27, you can only buy the first models. You will say then why budher to buy an more expensive fighter like the SU 27. My argument is that the SU 27 can be equiped vith long range AA missiles. This way you'll have a strategic fighter good for close combat, long range combat and for air ground strikes. About a new romanian IAR model, low chances. The IAR 99 , which was such a succes, is copy from a british model. So untill now we haven't been able to create our own design at todays standards. Plus a new fighter project extends on a wery long period of time.

Posted by: Victor November 19, 2003 04:22 pm

QUOTE

The IAR 99 , which was such a succes, is copy from a british model. So untill now we haven't been able to create our own design at todays standards

Where did you get that idea?

The engine is indeed a British design (Rolls Royce Viper), but an antique one (the 60s), for which we bought the license in the 70s, to equip the IAR 93.

Posted by: Der Maresal November 19, 2003 06:08 pm

QUOTE

......The russians are not selling the latest models with improved (wery improved) avionics.

Who sais they are not selling it? The improved Mig was created during the late 1980's. There are two main versions. Mig 29K for the Navy (made to serve on russian Kiev Carrier) - and my vaforite - the Mig-29M ground attack version. It is intended for the export market - so I read that they are selling it. (Maybe they don't want to sell it to us - that something else), but It's no secret anymore and Ivan is in need of money.

user posted image

I put the Mig29M ahead of Grippen or Eurofighter, - it is cheaper and just as usefull - It has that menacing look that is typical of the Mig29 familly.
You can buy many of these much cheaper then you would if you purchesed SAAB Grippen or Euro... These are museum pieces - they are not worth it.

Why is the Mirage not on the list? Who sais it's a bad plane? Our current relations with France may be sour, but the plane itself isn't! :idea:

user posted image

Posted by: dead-cat November 20, 2003 09:10 am

QUOTE

put the Mig29M ahead of Grippen or Eurofighter, - it is cheaper and just as usefull - It has that menacing look that is typical of the Mig29 familly.

i'm afraid that's not quite true unless you're looking for a pure interceptor and can live with the small range.

it's no secret that MiG has financial problems and maybe will disspear from the warplane market. sukhoi got the much better part of gov. contracts after 1990 (they don't build necessarily the better airplanes) through lobbying and whatnot.

Posted by: 88mm November 21, 2003 09:28 am

http://www.farnborough-live.co.uk/airshow/sbacairshowhistory/red_arrow.html
This is the British model I was talking about Victor.

Posted by: Victor November 21, 2003 02:05 pm

Going by the same logic we could say that the MiG-AT was also a copy of the BAe Hawk or even of the IAR 99.

Posted by: mabadesc November 22, 2003 06:33 pm

I know this is a thread about fighter jets, but the "modern romanian army" thread is kind of dead..

Anyway, does someone have more info about the following romanian artillery system? What kind of reviews did it receive? Good, I hope. The quote is from Jane's Land Forces Weekly Report:

"Romanian artillery system revealed
The ATROM 155mm/52-cal self-propelled artillery system was shown for the first time during the Expomil 2003 international defence exhibition in Bucharest earlier this month.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 14 November 2003]"

Posted by: Victor November 22, 2003 08:50 pm

http://www.export-control.ro/stiri/curentul_8_9_11_03.htm

Posted by: PanzerKing November 22, 2003 08:58 pm

I say instead of buying planes you should buy good modern engines and build your own planes at IAR. You can get a lot more engines for the money than you can with jets themselves. Or you could get a license for building them! Why is this not a viable option? It would be good for industry and make the best use of the money alloted.

Posted by: Victor November 22, 2003 09:18 pm

Most likely parts of the new fighters will be built in Romania. The option of developping a new fighter is out of the question, as this requires a lot of money (although I would also like to see the IAR 95 fly).

Posted by: el Greco November 23, 2003 02:13 am

QUOTE

The ATROM 155mm/52-cal self-propelled artillery system was shown for the first time during the Expomil 2003 international defence exhibition in Bucharest earlier this month.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 14 November 2003]\"

:shock: - could you post some images if you find ..of this Artillery System? ..i could not find any on the web. never knew this system exsited.

Posted by: mabadesc November 23, 2003 04:36 am

I'll definitely try, el Greco.

I'm sure full subscribers to Jane's have access to photos, but the full subscription costs hundreds/thousands of dollars a month.

The free subscription only gets you the headlines.

Posted by: MuddyBoots December 02, 2003 11:00 am

All fighter planes are very heavy on maintenance. The newer the plane, the more maintenance it needs. I believe that for civilian aircrafts the ratio of maintenance / flight time is 4 or 3 to 1. And that means somebody must actually work on the plane, not look at it. Engines must be checked every couple of flights (that means you must actually take the engine apart, check for wear, replace the parts and put it back together). And you also need lots of spare parts. Maintenance instructions must be followed to the letter. There is little margin for error. Sloppy maintenance means more Migs ploughing the fields.

Remember - and the more complex the plane, the more maintenance it needs.

Posted by: Dr_V December 02, 2003 09:11 pm

QUOTE

MuddyBoots:

Engines must be checked every couple of flights (that means you must actually take the engine apart, check for wear, replace the parts and put it back together). And you also need lots of spare parts. Maintenance instructions must be followed to the letter. There is little margin for error. Sloppy maintenance means more Migs ploughing the fields.

The real problem are the spare parts, as we have good mechanicks and engineers working for the air forces. And their work is payed at Romanian standards, this meaning low costs comparing with what the western engineers receive for the same work.
I don't think that the numerous MIG21 crashes were caused by maintenance flaws. Oficially this is a frequent explanation, but the real cause of most accidents is the general fatigue (wear) of the plane, as the planes themselves are very old, even if the avionics are new.

QUOTE

PanzerKing:

I say instead of buying planes you should buy good modern engines and build your own planes at IAR. You can get a lot more engines for the money than you can with jets themselves. Or you could get a license for building them! Why is this not a viable option? It would be good for industry and make the best use of the money alloted.

This is maybe the best idea for us. But it seams that somebody doesn't want to choose the better option. I don't intend to argue any conspiracy theory here, but I think that the western powers are not charmed by this perspective. This would mean that we'll be able to maintain our aeronautic industry running and that we'll regain our capacity to build our own weapons. In such case the foreign companys won't be able to sell us all kinds of junk planes at huge prices.

Or maybe there is a simpler explination. Maybe our stupid and corrupt political leaders simply don't have the brains to elaborate a good defence strategy. You see, in Romania the military strategy is dictated and controlled by the politicians, the military high command has little influence in such decisions. Plus that in a deeply corrupt state the leading generals and other officers are selected according to some personal or financial interests, not according to their competence and skills. Sad but true, this is our beloved Romania today.

Posted by: Victor December 03, 2003 01:40 pm

QUOTE

I don't think that the numerous MIG21 crashes were caused by maintenance flaws. Oficially this is a frequent explanation, but the real cause of most accidents is the general fatigue (wear) of the plane, as the planes themselves are very old, even if the avionics are new.

Do you have any data to back up the "real" cause or are you just speculating?

Also why are you under the impression that there were "numerous" crashes? Less 5% of the modernized MiGs were lost.

QUOTE

Romania is not capable of building such a complex aircraft on her own, but parts of it could be built here. This is why practically all the offers for new aircraft made to Poland, Czech Republic etc also included the manufacturing of parts of the aircraft in the respective countries. There is no conspiracy as much as some would like to believe.

Posted by: Dénes December 03, 2003 01:47 pm

PRAGUE, Dec 1 (Reuters) - The Czech government should pick Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes to replace the NATO member's retiring fleet
of Soviet MiG-21s, a commission evaluating bids for the combat jets has recommended.

A Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Monday that the commission had picked the Swedish offer to loan the Czech air force 14 fighter jets.

The Gripen offer was one of five bids which also included F-16s from the U.S., Belgium or the Netherlands and F-18s from Canada.

The government wants to make a final decision on the deal by the end of December to have the planes in 2005.

Gripens are made by a consortium of Sweden's Saab and Britain's BAE Systems.

[Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service]

Posted by: Dr_V December 04, 2003 10:12 pm

QUOTE

Victor:

Do you have any data to back up the \"real\" cause or are you just speculating?
Also why are you under the impression that there were \"numerous\" crashes? Less 5% of the modernized MiGs were lost.

:evil:
I'm not JUST speculating, thaugh you know I can't present you any official report 'cause there was none made as a statistic over all incidents. My opinion is based on unofficial informations that I have from 2 different people. One is a hunting friend of mine who's a helicopter pilot and the other is a collegue whos father is an aircraft maintenance engineer (he works on those famos MIGs). Maybe there aren't the best sources, but I haven't formed my oppinion only from what the newspapers tell, as you seamn to think.

:?: Less than 5%...is it much? Depends on many things, maybe too many to be covered in this discussion. Means that about one out of 20 planes is useless. If Romania would have a thousand fighters, it would mean nothing, but as we don't have that many, at the present rate our forces will be reduced to a symbolic role before 2010 when you say the MIGs will be put where they belong, in the junk yard. I don't say we should have so many planes, I say that 100-150 good fighters would be the answer.

2 more things I'll say, things that could make you think that maybe there is something wrong with our air fleet:

1) 5% lost planes means also quite a few good pilots who lost their lifes. Not only that this is tragic for they had no fault, but I guess you know how dificult is to train good fighter pilots and that flight experience counts a lot, regardless of the training a pilot receives. We don't only loose junk planes, we loose golden pilots and that's a real concern.

2) What do you thing it would happen if USAF would loose 5% of its fighters in accidents every year? You think the American government would say "OK, statisticly they are few, so we're not worried about the quality of our planes..."???

Posted by: Victor December 05, 2003 01:21 pm

QUOTE

Less than 5%...is it much? Depends on many things, maybe too many to be covered in this discussion. Means that about one out of 20 planes is useless. If Romania would have a thousand fighters, it would mean nothing, but as we don't have that many, at the present rate our forces will be reduced to a symbolic role before 2010 when you say the MIGs will be put where they belong, in the junk yard.

I recalculated: it is actually 6.36%. Loosing 7 out of 110 in almost 10 years is not so catastrophic. Accidents will happen and I do not see why you have this Apocaliptical vision of Lancers crashing here and there until 2007-2010 when they are going to be retired.

QUOTE

I don't say we should have so many planes, I say that 100-150 good fighters would be the answer.

Sure, we can easily spend 3-4.5 billion USD. Not to mention the maintenance.

QUOTE

1) 5% lost planes means also quite a few good pilots who lost their lifes. Not only that this is tragic for they had no fault, but I guess you know how dificult is to train good fighter pilots and that flight experience counts a lot, regardless of the training a pilot receives. We don't only loose junk planes, we loose golden pilots and that's a real concern.

Fortunately, only two have died in the 7 crashes (of which some were Lancer Bs). Again I do not think it is a catastrophy.

QUOTE

2) What do you thing it would happen if USAF would loose 5% of its fighters in accidents every year? You think the American government would say \"OK, statisticly they are few, so we're not worried about the quality of our planes...\"???

Who said it was 5% a year? Why are you twisting my words?

I think that in order to express your opinion on something one should base it first on some research on the subject, not just hearsay. Try to discover things also on your own.
Your claim that the MiGs belong in a junkyard is pretty much unfounded. Do you know that the Lancers are among the very few aircraft in this region that can fire intelligent ordinance, that have a HOTAS and HUD system, not to mention the DASH helmet which give its pilot a huge advantage in a dogfight with aircraft with older avionics? You would say: "What good are all the electronics if it still crashes?". Well, aircraft do crash. It happens. Have you tried comparing the number of the Lancer's sorties/crashes with the number of sorties/crashes of other aircraft?
(The Dutch had lost 21 out of their 210 F-16s during 11 years of use).

Posted by: Der Maresal December 05, 2003 03:28 pm

QUOTE

(The Dutch had lost 21 out of their 210 F-16s during 11 years of use).

I would also add that the Greeks who purchased the latest Planes from France, Mirage 2000-5 had alot of accidents.
Some Mirages crashed into the sea at night after the Pilots mistakenly identified the Lights of some Fishing Boats for the Runway lights!

It's not funny actually - it should not be happening with such an advanced Airplane.

-Taiwan who also purchased some Mirage 2000-5 had accidents as well, in which the planes simply crashed for no reason at all. It was not just one or two - much more. These serious accidents even put some strain on France-Taiwanese relations - the Dassault team was called to investigate.
In most cases both in Greece and Taiwan, the Pilots were killed.
Also the Mirages cost alot more then what Romania paid of the Migs.

Mig-21 LanceR
user posted image

vs.
Mirage 2000-5
user posted image

More on this will follow- :idea:

Posted by: Carol I December 05, 2003 03:48 pm

Here is an image of the proposed IAR-95 fighter.

user posted image

I found it on the http://www.jed.simonides.org/radar/misc/ion-001/ion-001.html.

Carol I

Posted by: Der Maresal December 05, 2003 05:21 pm

QUOTE

Here is an image of the proposed IAR-95 fighter.

It looks like an F-16, with the Front section/Cockpit of a Mirage or Tornado. Interesting concept.

Does IAR have more 'futuristic' designs?

Posted by: Carol I December 05, 2003 05:24 pm

I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988.

Posted by: PanzerKing December 05, 2003 07:24 pm

Here's some info on the Mig 21 Lancer: http://www.arrow-aviation.nl/rom_lancer.html

Just be glad the Romanian AF isn't as bad off as Albania's!
http://www.arrow-aviation.nl/airforces.html

Posted by: Dr_V December 05, 2003 11:10 pm

QUOTE

Victor:

Who said it was 5% a year? Why are you twisting my words?

Sorry, I got carried away. :oops:

QUOTE

Victor:

think that in order to express your opinion on something one should base it first on some research on the subject, not just hearsay. Try to discover things also on your own.

And what exactly do you think I should do, fly one? Don't all of us talk from things we've read on the Net or in newspapers or seen on TV? Any such "research" is in fact made from published matherials. And every man interprets such matherials from his point of view.

Hei, I don't try to annoy you, but I guess even you don't take for granted anything you read.

I've gave this site address to my friends in an attempt to attract in this forum a MIG pilot, so we might have a proffesional oppinion. I hope that will work.

QUOTE

Victor:

Your claim that the MiGs belong in a junkyard is pretty much unfounded.

Well, any man is entitled to his opinion and maybe mine is wrong, but it's mine and untill now I haven't seen anything that might change it.

It's clear to me that on this particular matter our opinions are opposite. That's it and we both tried to convince each other, something that I believe none will succeed. I'm preatty strongheaded and I'll stick to my point even if you did posted some pretty valid arguments.

I don't want to annoy anyone, so I'll put an end to this dispute here. Time will tell us who was right.

Posted by: Victor December 06, 2003 08:23 am

QUOTE

Also the Mirages cost alot more then what Romania paid of the Migs.

And the Mirage 2000 is the cheapest aircraft in the list!

QUOTE

It looks like an F-16, with the Front section/Cockpit of a Mirage or Tornado. Interesting concept.
Does IAR have more 'futuristic' designs?.

Actually there were two projects: a single engine and a twin engine. I think the photo depicts a mock-up of the single engine.
IAR had nothing to do with this project. It is just a traditional name. None of the IAR-93s or 99s were built at Brasov, IIRC. Today IAR produces mainly helicopters or gliders.

QUOTE

I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988

The project was canceled because we could not get our hands on a supersonic engine. TodayI think it would be possible to do it, but we do not have the money. Maybe cooperation? Possibly IAI?

Posted by: Carol I December 06, 2003 09:48 am

QUOTE

I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988

The project was canceled because we could not get our hands on a supersonic engine. Today I think it would be possible to do it, but we do not have the money. Maybe cooperation? Possibly IAI?

Thanks Victor. I was merely quoting the statement on the page where I have found the image of the plane.

Probably it would be a very good idea to revive now this project as the plane still looks sleek and menacing. The only question is how it would perfom in comparison to other modern planes?

Posted by: Victor December 06, 2003 08:52 pm

More on modern fighter losses, for Dr_V:

Five Luke-based F-16s have crashed in the past six months and the latest incident prompted the USAF to ground about 400 aircraft while inspections were carried out. At least two of the events are thought to be due to a weld failure in the augmentor duct. "Ongoing inspections have found cracks in augmentor ducts," says Pratt & Whitney, which has sent teams to help train USAF personnel to perform close inspections.

Source:http://www.aeronautics.ru/f16problems01.htm

The F-16 is 273 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a commercial aircraft (4.5 F-16 accidents per 100,000 flight hours vs 0.017 commercial accidents).
Over the operating history of all F-16s, there has been one crash approximately every 28 days (13 crashes per year).

Source:http://www.melbourneairportf16.com/documents/letter2.html

Air Force statistics show that Fighting Falcons have crashed an average of 13 times a year since 1982, when the plane was first flown heavily, costing an average $260 million annually in destroyed aircraft.

The statistics also show the Air Force's F-16s are more prone to crash than its other aircraft.

While there are more F-16s in service than other planes — nearly 1,400 — meaning there are more opportunities for them to crash, they also crash at greater rates. Over the past 19 fiscal years, from 1982 to 2000, the Air Force averaged about 4.5 Class-A mishaps for every 100,000 flight hours per year for its F-16s.

That's significantly higher than those of its other aircraft, including the other front-line fighter, the F-15, which is made by Boeing.

The F-15 has a lifetime Class-A mishap rate of 2.53, and has had only two such mishaps this year and three in 2000. The only other aircraft to have a Class-A this year was the A-10. It had one.

The Navy says its most widely flown, multi-role aircraft, the twin-engine carrier-based F/A-18 C/Ds, have a lifetime Class-A rate of 3.45.

The F-16's average rate, though, was higher during the first 10 years of that period, 5.6, than during the most recent nine, when it was 3.3, showing improving safety.

With July's crashes and two months to go before the end of the fiscal year, the Fighting Falcons's rate of Class-A mishaps in 2001 is 4.5.

Source:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/airforcef16safety_010807.html

Peter Dye mentioned in his article on "Soviet Aircraft Maintenance" in Jane's Intelligence Review (April 1990, pg. 160-165) that the Russian Air Force, in general, was having one accident every 5,000 flight hours, which translates to 20 accidents per 100,000 hours, and still well above our speculated 12 per 100,000. Therefore, we assume that the Russians could have realistically lost anywhere between 100 to 200 MiG-29's in accidents since 1985.
Source:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-1.htm

Posted by: Victor December 07, 2003 06:39 pm

QUOTE

With some good engines and avionics, I think it can do just fine against not super high-tech over 30-40 million USD fighters. It would probably not be as expensive. Just look at how cheap the IAR-99 is compared to other jets of its class.

Posted by: Der Maresal December 08, 2003 03:41 pm

Why do you think Israel was chosen as a partner to modernize the Mig-21s? Is it because they have the technology and offered the best deals or was it more 'political?'..[to improve the relations between the two countries and so on]..

QUOTE

Just look at how cheap the IAR-99 is compared to other jets of its class.

How much is it? :shock:

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu December 08, 2003 06:56 pm

When I got to this forum , I voted for the Su 27. I saw flying quite all the fighters on the list. For Romania i think that an appropiate airplane is the russians one (price, maintenance) Of course Grippen is an excelent plane, the Mirage ... only words (French style to talk about them).

What about the Mig 29 Sniper? No one is speaking about it. I saw some images and i was thinking that the Romanians had some Snipers but... no.

BM

Posted by: Victor December 08, 2003 08:01 pm

QUOTE

Elbit Systems was chosen because it offered probably the best deal. Romanian Lancer pilots use DASH helmets, something many NATO pilots do not have yet.

Posted by: Carol I December 08, 2003 09:17 pm

A few years ago I was told that the SAAB Grippen had some stability problems. The Swedes even had a joke about it, but I cannot tell it to you as it can only be shown. I guess they solved the problems meanwhile, but that old feeling is still there.

Anyhow, for enthusiasts visit the http://www.gripen.com/index_2.asp.

Posted by: Der Maresal December 08, 2003 11:22 pm

QUOTE

The Swedes even had a joke about it, but I cannot tell it to you as it can only be shown.

What's the Joke? :?:
Tell us -or - "SHOW" us ..

Posted by: mabadesc December 10, 2003 02:06 pm

Victor,

What do you know about the "crash" percentage of the F/A 18? I recently saw a documentary in which mechanics were saying it's much more reliable than the F16 and requires much less maintenance per flight hour (I think they quoted something like 15 minutes of maintenance per flight hour - I wasn't paying close attention).

Of course, neither the F-16 nor the F/A 18 are "last-generation" fighters anymore, since they'll be slowly replaced with the JSF and the F-22 Raptor in the near future.

Posted by: mabadesc December 10, 2003 02:32 pm

I know the F/22 and the JSF aren't part of the poll, but I'd like to hear some opinions on their capabilities, since they're already being delivered to the US Air Force.

user posted image

QUOTE

The F/A-22 is a new breed of super-fighter for the 21st century and is the first aircraft with the ability to fly at supersonic speeds without afterburners. [...]The F/A-22 is an air-superiority fighter with improved capability over current Air Force aircraft. From the inception of the battle, the F/A-22's primary objective will be to establish air superiority through the conduct of counter air operations. The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability. A combination of improved sensor capability, improved situational awareness, and improved weapons provides first-kill opportunity against the threat.

Posted by: mabadesc December 10, 2003 02:40 pm

The JSF is a single-jet fighter which doesn't have the power of the F-22 Raptor, but it can be customized for different branches - Marines, Airforce, Navy, including a VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) version for US Marine vessels and for UK carriers (the UK doesn't have full-size carriers, which is why they've been using the Harrier for their vertical takeoff/landing capabilities).
It's also relatively cheap ("relative" is the key word)

Opinions, comments appreciated...

user posted image

Posted by: Dr_V December 10, 2003 10:52 pm

Victor, if you're not still upset on me for my posts about the MIG 21 Lancer, I'd like your oppinion about that:

If Romania will renew it's fighters only in 2010, there are many second-hand more modern aircraft available, many of them listed in the poll. The final decission will probably consider the costs.

In this line of thinking, why not aquering new aircraft? I'm pretty sure we won't have the money for F22 or Mirage even in 2020, but I'm thinking at another aircraft that seams to be a good acheivement. And considering the producer, it might be cheap enough for us to afford it.

I'm talking about the Indian LCA:

user posted image

It's in the final stages of development and India will use it from 2010 as their main interceptor. It's also described as a versatile aircraft and they also prepare a vertical takeoff version. It's equipped with modern avionics and weapons systems that are also upgradable (designed to be so). It's described as a usefull deffensive plane.

And the most attractive feature is the price: 15 to 20 milion $ apiece. For a new fighter I say it's remarcably cheap.

What's your oppinion about this plane?

P.S.: I've found this comment on the site that presents the Indian LCA:

"The IAF heavily relies on the 1950's design MiG-21 to maintain its numbers, if not its effective force. The LCA was essentially envisioned as a replacement for it. Delays in LCA's development have caused a lot of problems - The MiGs are old, and unforgiving - pilots are losing their lives each year. Such is its reputation, that it is now called 'the flying coffin' in the pilot's mess."
http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html

Peace!

Posted by: Florin December 11, 2003 05:24 am

Hello guys,

The Russians developed a better MiG meanwhile, which is not in the poll. But I doubt the Russians would sell some to Romania, so the poll is OK.

I am talking about MiG-31.
I'll send the photo to the site administrators, so maybe you'll see the plane here.

Florin

Posted by: dragos December 11, 2003 10:36 am

I have heard at a news bulletin several days ago that Romanian Army is planing to buy fighters in the future, but only F-16, Eurofighter and Grippen were mentioned as options...

Posted by: Victor December 11, 2003 02:41 pm

MiG-31

Posted by: Der Maresal December 11, 2003 10:11 pm

QUOTE

I'm talking about the Indian LCA:
user posted image

The plane looks good and is similar to Mirage in shape. - The question is how good it is?
Would you want something built in India?

2nd) The Mig31 is not a good plane for us - No way - It was build during the late cold war - to replace the Mig 25. It is an interceptor - not a Dogfighter. It's maneuvrability is poor very poor - It is fast, and carries long range weapons- but that's about it.
The Mig 29 is also very fast, carries a heavy armament and is one of the most Meneuvrable planes in the World. I believe it's also cheaper than the Mig 31.
The Indian plane is a better choice than Mig 31. But the Fulcrum is better than both - + it has 2 Englines, thus is is more survivable than an F-16, Mig-21, Grippen and the Indian LCA. It is also Combat Proven unlike the Grippen.
There are 4 main versions of the Mig 29 Single Seater (with a 5th 2 Seat Trainer)

-The Mig 29A is what Romania has now in Service. It is the typical Mig29 and the most widespread in all airforces of the world.
-The Mig29C is a big improvement over the other. It carries more Fuel internally, better on-board equipment, small aerodinamic refinements and alot more - But the Russians don't sell it yet prefering to sell the older Mig29A. [Just like Americans prefer to sell the F-16A instead of the better the F-16C]
-The Mig 29K is a great step towards the design of an entirely new Aircraft, it is a navy Version capable to fly from Aircraft Carriers. It carries Naval Weapons as well as A-G weapons and is FULL of AVIONICS. It is very advanced.
-Last and my favorite is the Mig29M, - a true Fighter Bomber, very advanced and compleatly different (inside) than the old Mig29A.
Avionics [updated]
It is fully Fly-by-Wire, it has HOTAS, Laser,Infrared,Electronic Counter Measures, Search Radar, Fire Controll Radar,Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) (an infrared system that allows you to lock-on the enemy without using your Radar !!- when you fire a missile or the Guns - he never knows what hit him) ! and [Like the Mirage 2000-5] Terrain Following Radar (allowing the auto-pilot to fly the plane a few feet off the ground)!
It is a killer - but not for sale. :cry:
Lastly there is the 2-seat Mig29UB but we have some and don't need more of these trainers (since we have others like IAR 99)
That's it for the Mig - :wink:
user posted image

:idea:

PS:how much will it cost to purchase a Licence for the Mig and build it in Romania? Any Ideas? :shock:

Posted by: StuG40 December 12, 2003 02:32 am

Der Maresal, I read somewhere (forgot where lol) Romania sold all of her Mig-29's recently :?

Posted by: Florin December 12, 2003 05:48 am

Hi,

First of all, my thanks for Victor for showing the photo here.

"Der Mareshall' wrote his point of view about MiG-31. I do not comment, because it seems he knows more than me about certain things.

I wonder if he knows that Pratt and Whitney, a US corporation, bought a lot of shares from the manufacturer of the MiG's. Maybe more than 50 percent, but don't believe me without checking. Pratt and Whitney tried to block the manufacturing of the MiG-31. When the Russians asked what will defend them if the air in this situation, the American representatives answered... the United States Air Force! Of course the Russians were deeply annoyed, and I can understand them.

The above text is from a first hand source: the chief designer/engineer of MiG, in this moment. Of course I don't know him, but he wrote an article for Pravda - Internet.
Best regards,
Florin

Posted by: Victor December 12, 2003 03:18 pm

Escaping the horror of MEE (dragos knows

) I am able to respond some of the questions addressed to me. So sorry for the late reply.

QUOTE

How much is it?

The IAR-99 is 3 times cheaper than the BAe Hawk, 2.5 times cheaper than the MiG-AT and 2 times cheaper than the Alpha-Jet, so something over 3 million USD.

QUOTE

It is not quite in the final stages of development. Only two demonstrators have been built so far, which I am not so sure they even tested weapons on them yet. Five prototypes are to be built and testing will continue. There is still more work to do. As I understand HAL estimates that it will be able to start series production in three years from now. That is if everything goes smoothly, which is rarely the case. Anyway, by then the contract for the new Romanian fighter will probably be signed.

QUOTE

The Mig 29A is what Romania has now in Service.

Correction. What Romania has now in storage.

QUOTE

PS:how much will it cost to purchase a Licence for the Mig and build it in Romania? Any Ideas?.

The fact that the resource of MiG-29s has not been extended and there are plans to sell them is a clear indication that the next fighter is not going to be a MiG-29.

IMO is a competition between BAe/Saab and Lockheed Martin. Both companies offered Polish firms very interesting offset programs, up to 8 billion USD. Sincerely I prefer the JAS-39 as is a newer concept and cheaper to operate, but eventually it will be a political decision mostly. It remains to see if the US has a stronger influence than the EU in Romania... But we must also take into consideration that we bought two frigates from the British, so the airplanes will probably be bought from the US.

Posted by: Der Maresal December 12, 2003 03:26 pm

QUOTE

The Mig 29A is what Romania has now in Service.

Correction. What Romania has now in storage.

- You could say that -

Let's stick to the upgraded Mig21 for now - i prefer that over any future Yankee Import -

Posted by: Florin December 12, 2003 04:17 pm

QUOTE

.............
Let's stick to the upgraded Mig21 for now - i prefer that over any future Yankee Import - :P
..........

Der Maresal,

You have a good intuition.

My vote was to develop an airplane in Romania, maybe because I am engineer and I also trust the technical abilities of the Romanians, who can make wonders if they are helped with money, the right supplies and general available know-how.
Now, returning to MiG-21...

My following text is from an article published in The New York Times in the honor of Michael Pelehach, at his death. Michael Pelehach was a brilliant engineer, who at the peak of his career, in 1980, became president of Grumman International, the company's overseas sales unit.

And now a part of the text written in the honor of this engineer:

"At the Paris Air Show in the late 1960's, Grumman Corp. executive Michael Pelehach spotted a Russian Mig-21 fighter jet, then the envy of air forces around the world because of its speed, maneuverability and firepower.
The United States needed a fighter to defeat the MiG.
Pelehach politely asked the Russians if he could inspect the MiG, and then walked off its measurements. When he returned to Grumman's Bethpage headquarters, Pelehach designed a model of the MiG-21 that was tested in a wind tunnel.
That early work was used later to develop what became Grumman's most successful aircraft - the F-14 Tomcat, still the Navy's premier interceptor and an answer to the MiG.
......................................................................................................"

To help you to get the grasp of "... still the Navy's premier interceptor":
the article was published at the end of 2002.

Florin

Posted by: mabadesc December 12, 2003 05:00 pm

Florin said,

QUOTE

...Pratt and Whitney, a US corporation, bought a lot of shares from the manufacturer of the MiG's. Maybe more than 50 percent...

Well, that's capitalism....

Pratt & Whitney designed and built the engines for the F-15, F-16, F/A 22 Raptor, F-35 JSF, C-17 Globemaster transport plane, the Boeing 767 military refueling plane version, KC-135 Tanker, and AWACS planes.

Posted by: Der Maresal December 13, 2003 12:07 am

To the Grippen now.

SAAB JAS 39 Grippen (Griffon)
The Grippen is Sweden's most advanced Jet. It is a 4th Generation Fighter,
designed for the 21th century and beyond. The F-16 for example dates back to around 1974, but the Grippen is a much newer plane.

JAS stands for "Jakt, Attack, Spaning" meaning Fighter Attack and Reconnaisance.

It can carry Sidewinder or Skyflash Air to Air missiles, Maverick ASM's, anti-ship missiles, bombs, cluster bombs, rocket launcher pods, reconnaissance pods, drop tanks and ECM pods on 6 external hardpoints.
It also carries an internal Mauser 27mm BK27 (Bord Kanone) german canon. (The same as on the Tornados, but only one)

On the outer pair - Mavericks, on the inner Anti-Ship Missiles of Swedish Design (RB 15F)
user posted image

In terms of Avionics it has Electronic Counter Measures (to prevent enemy radar lock) Search Radar, Fire Controll Radar, and Look-down-shoot down system. Laser, Terrain Following Radar and FLIR can also be integrated.

QUOTE

The First prototype JAS 39 Grippen was subsequently destroyed in a spectacular landing accident. The blame was appointed to the flight control system software.

Fully armed -

QUOTE

The Grippen is an excellent Lightweight fighter and attack aircraft, whose capabilities far exceed those of many larger fighters.
The Aircraft deserves export success.

If I may add that Sweden is a Neutral country. Buying planes from them would 'draw us closer' to it then buying planes such as the F-16 (which would draw us close to NATO which is American Lead) [and not so neutral, being an alliance] I wish Romania could be a neutral country and not part of any alliance, but at the moment probably this is not a possibility.

And this is what the cockpit looks like - I wonder if the instruments and HDD's (Head down Displays) will be translated in Romanian.

High Resolution Nav-Map (Romania? :?:

)

The Canard Forplanes (little wings) you see bent down provide the Grippen with superb agility.

One of the few reasons we should not buy Grippen-
Look at the markings of these grippens and tell me which country that is
Yes,

- you guessed it - they also bought Grippens. :?
http://else.dnip.net:8181/ac_link/EL-109/HUNGARY3.jpg
PS: picture takes a long time to load, and has 3307x2126 pixels and 1,782,241kb (one of the largest images you will find on the net)

Posted by: Florin December 13, 2003 01:00 am

QUOTE

Florin said,

QUOTE

...Pratt and Whitney, a US corporation, bought a lot of shares from the manufacturer of the MiG's. Maybe more than 50 percent...

Well, that's capitalism....

There is nothing wrong in trying to buy shares from your competitors, especially when you can and it is worth to do that.

But to suggest to a country with more pride and much more power than Romania to give up one of her military developments and research, and to answer that you, her former foe and most important military competitor, will take care of her defence, deserve a 4 or 5 in a 1 to 10 scale for tact and diplomacy.

Florin

Posted by: mabadesc December 13, 2003 01:10 am

Wow, I have to admit the Saab Grippen looks *gorgeous*.

If it's as good as it looks, then it will have a great future.

Florin said:

QUOTE

But to suggest to a country with more pride and much more power than Romania to give up one of her military developments and research, and to answer that you, her former foe and most important military competitor, will take care of her defence, deserve a 4 or 5 in a 1 to 10 scale for tact and diplomacy

I completely agree with you. Very tactless. But who said this? It doesn't represent the official position of the US government, does it?

Posted by: Victor December 13, 2003 08:04 am

QUOTE

One of the few reasons we should not buy Grippen-
Look at the markings of these grippens and tell me which country that is
Yes, :) - you guessed it - they also bought Grippens. :?

So what? :?
If it is a good deal why not take it?
Btw, BAe also got involved in the marketing of the Grippen, so it is not that neutral anymore.

Posted by: Dénes December 13, 2003 03:01 pm

QUOTE

One of the few reasons we should not buy Grippen-
Look at the markings of these grippens and tell me which country that is
Yes, :) - you guessed it - they also bought Grippens. :?
http://else.dnip.net:8181/ac_link/EL-109/HUNGARY3.jpg

First, it's GRIPEN (Griffin), not Grippen.
Second, I see no conflict in Rumania avoiding to buy the Gripen only because Hungary will buy it, too (the Czechs might also buy the same bird).
For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109G was used in W.W. 2 by both Hungary and Rumania to great effect...

Posted by: PanzerKing December 13, 2003 05:06 pm

Yeah it'd be pretty lame to not buy good military equipment just because your former enemy will also purchase it.

Posted by: 88mm December 16, 2003 12:00 pm

[Der Maresal wrotte:][/quote]Let's stick to the upgraded Mig21 for now - i prefer that over any future Yankee Import - [/quote]
There is an article in The Hindu where a russian official is quoted about the modernization package that India want's to implement on it's MiG 27. They to wanted to sign the contract with an Israeli company. The russian pointed the fact that an incorect implementation of modern avionics on one of their planes could leed to catastrofic events such as the lost of 14 upgraded MiG 21 from FAR!

Posted by: Victor December 16, 2003 02:56 pm

Only 7 were lost, not 14.
It is normal for the Russians to want to do the upgrading themselves and get the money. What else did you expect them to say?

Posted by: Dénes December 18, 2003 01:42 pm

"The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
their MIG-21 fleet.
The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.

http://www.gripen.com
http://www.saab.se

Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

What definitively gave Sweden the order was the fact it was brand new
high-tech jets with very low operational cost, plus offsets that
totally cover the lease period. The manufacturer will not be making
money from this special deal, this is the Swedish State offering 14
jets from the 204 pre-ordered for the Swedish Airforce. After the
5-10 year loan period, the Czech will again decide which jets to
equip their airforce with. Continue with the Gripen + add more of them,
or find something else."

Posted by: Dan Po February 23, 2004 11:54 am

QUOTE

hmmmmm....

What about this one (Chinese J-10) ?
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news095.htm

Herr mareshal :cheers: im agree with you again. But you know, the pilots are the proud of air forces not a few "rabbits" with a deadly aa missile. A kind of cooperation with France (we have tradition with them) to build some Mirage 2000 or (better) Rafale will be by far the best choice for our aa defence.

Posted by: Victor February 23, 2004 02:32 pm

Spending that kind of money for the sake of emotional ties with France is not "the best choice" IMO. Need I mention all the other "good" aviation deals with French equipment during the inter-war era?

So far the Rafale has failed to find other customers than the Armee de l'Air, while the Mirage 2000 has much larger operating costs than the JAS-39.

The best choice is the JAS-39 Gripen. But it will be a political decision eventually.

Posted by: Dan Po February 26, 2004 12:42 am

QUOTE

The best choice is the JAS-39 Gripen. But it will be a political decision eventually.

I don t know why i forgot to think at JAS 39 :oops: . It s true - by far - that Gripen is the best choice. But ... the money for this are not in FAR hands .. i bet that our politicians will buy an amercan plane (F-16?) or Eurofighter. I read in a magazine that a romanian official said about Gripen is not in conformity with romanian air deffence doctrine :guns:

A russian one is out of discussion. Americans or europeans will be very angry if we will not buy something from them ... I think that the chose will be first a political one ... :cry:

Posted by: Radu May 21, 2004 05:06 am

At the end of ?60s, in the same time with the re-creation of the Romanian aviation industry, three major milestones were established in the field of design of military jets ? the design and production of a subsonic close-air support aircraft, which became IAR-93 -the first postwar combat aircraft built in Romania, a combat ? capable jet trainer - the IAR-99, and finally a supersonic fighter.

Capabilities for advanced research were created during the '70s within the former INCREST (now inherited by INCAS), and these included a Mach 3 capable wind tunnel.

In late '70s, the initial studies for the IAR-95 supersonic fighter were started, under the leadership of Dipl.Eng. Dumitru Badea. IAR-95 was a lightweight aircraft, with a single-engine configuration. The design required an engine thrust of 54 kN dry and 91 kN with afterburner, respectively.

The aircraft was a high wing monoplane with side air intakes. One of the proposed designs featured two fins.

Although the structural design of IAR-95 was in a quite advanced stage, the lack of availability of a suitable powerplant led to the cancellation of the initial IAR-95 project in 1981.

user posted image

IAR-95 technical data:

Length overall: 14.75 m

Height overall: 4.95 m

Wing Span: 8.7 m

Wing area, gross: 26 m²

Wing sweep at quarter chord: 35 deg.

Empty weight: 6800 kg

Maximum take-off weight: 10000 kg

The supersonic fighter program was restarted in early '80s under the leadership of CoI.Eng. Constantin Rosca. The first layout of the new design was named IAR-101 and had the general layout similar to the early iAR-95, but had a thicker fuselage, four hardpoints under the wings.

The next step was IAR-S, several models were built and tested in the wind tunnel. Those were either with a single engine or with single fin, two engines and two fins, single and two-seater. The single engine two-seater was presented as a multirole aircraft. The model of this last IAR-S layout is still kept today in the entry hall of INCAS.

The programme was very ambitious and posed a real challenge for the Romanian aviation industry. In order to test the capabilities to produce such an aircraft, the decision was taken to build first the IAR-95ME technology demonstrator

The demonstrator had to be built in I.Av. Bucharest in Bãneasa (today Romaero S.A.), and a special branch of INCREST was moved to new facilities created in the neighbourhood of the factory. This time the aircraft reached the detailed design stage, but in 1988, due to financial reasons the whole programme was definitively cancelled.

IAR-95 ME technical data

Length: 16.0 m

Wing span: 9.3 m

Height: 5.45 m

Wing area: 27.9 m²

Empty weight: 7,880 kg

Max T-O weight: 15,200 kg

Weapons max. load: 3,200 kg

Powerplant: One Tumansky R-29-300 turbojet rated at 122kN with afterburner

For more informations:
E-mail: incas@aero.incas.ro

http://www.incas.ro/romanian/departamente/programe_aviatie/Romanian%20Supersonic%20Projects.htm

This seems to have quite a promising project. It is a shame that they didn't follow through. Since the project was in such a late stage of development I wonder if it wouldn't have been much better to build this one instead of spending the 300 million dollars on upgrading those ancient MiG-21's. Funds for the development if not sufficient could have been atracted from other countries most notably from the Middle East, Africa or even South America. Too bad for all the hard work and resources spent and for the lack of vision, it seems to be endemic in Romania.

Posted by: Dan Po May 21, 2004 06:57 am

Severals days ago I saw a TV reportage about the Romanian Air Forces ... they talk about the necesity of a new aircraft after 2010 and they still said something about F-16 :mad: :guns: :smg: .....

I don t want to say that F-16 is a not good one but after 2010 ..... must be a new aircraft not american 2nd hands

Posted by: Radu May 22, 2004 06:40 pm

I found pictures for the two fins model and as you can see it looks great.

user posted image

You're right. By 2010 the F-16 wont be a top notch airplane. However the first thing we should ask ourselves when buying any weapon is who do we expect to use it against. I mean are those few F-16's going to give us air supremacy over any of our neighbours? Will these airplanes be able to be serviced in Romania? Will we have the right/technology to manufacture some of the components we need to service the aircraft?

The great thing about this IAR-95 is not only that it would have been made in great part in Romania with all the inherent advantages but also if done right, it could have saved the Romanian defence industry. It could have marked the vital transition from mass low tech production to smaller, high tech projects.

Furthermore the export market for fairly cheap and dependable jets, not necesarily super high tech has huge. For example Russian arms sales for this year are expected to top 8 billion dollars, out of which 50% is aircraft sales. Even if we were to take only 10% of Russia's market the profit would have been 10 times larger than the profit made by the entire Romanian defence industry last year.

Anyway that's just my two cents.

Posted by: Victor May 22, 2004 10:08 pm

You need a powerplant for the airplane. The Romanian industry cannot offer one.

Posted by: mabadesc May 23, 2004 12:55 am

QUOTE

By 2010 the F-16 wont be a top notch airplane

In my opinion, the F-16 is no longer a top notch airplane even now, in the present.

With the production rollout of the F-22 Raptor and the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) fighter jets, the F-16 has clearly fallen to a second-tier jet.

Also, personally I believe the F/A-18 jet surpasses the F-16 in terms of overall versatility and maneuverability.

Actually, I'm a little surprised the F/A-18 wasn't included in the poll.

In terms of Romania's fleet, my vote goes for Saab because of its price and new technology. The Mirage and Rafale haven't proven themselves and don't show any impressive capabilities.

Posted by: Radu May 23, 2004 01:46 am

QUOTE

Powerplant: One Tumansky R-29-300 turbojet rated at 122kN with afterburner

and I'm guessing two for the twin engine version. If the project would not have been canceled the first planes could have come out of the production line by 1993, just in time to save our defence industry. If the project would have been revived say, 3-4 years ago, when the need for a solution to the aging/obsolete fleet became apparent because of NATO intergration the IAR-95 could have been available by the time the MiGs retire. We already spent 300 million dollars on those MiGs and maybe someone here knows how much more Romania is planning to spend on importing new planes in the next 5 years. Whatever the total a lack of financial resources cannot be an excuse. To bad the fat comissions from imports are just too good to pass for influential people. :mad:

QUOTE

With the production rollout of the F-22 Raptor and the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) fighter jets, the F-16 has clearly fallen to a second-tier jet.

Also, personally I believe the F/A-18 jet surpasses the F-16 in terms of overall versatility and maneuverability.

What I was saying in my previous post and maybe I didn't make myself clear was that the tech. level of whatever plane we're getting should only be just one thing to consider. More importantly we should really think about who do we expect to use the planes against and make a decision on the capability of potential adversaries while making the best use of our finite resources.

Another factor that we should consider and that has been ignored in the discussion so far, is how much do we can/need to invest in pilot training and what's the learning curve for the aircraft?

For example I read in Adevarul last year that Romania has 13 pilots trained to NATO standards so it's pretty stupid for us to have upgraded 100 MiGs. At the same time as advanced as a F-22 Raptor or a JSF is, would 13 of them be enough to defeat the hundreds of MiG 29's that Ukraine has?

Posted by: mabadesc May 23, 2004 02:45 am

I wasn't disagreeing with your post, Radu. I simply pointed out that in my opinion, the F-16 is already 2nd-tier, not that it will only be 2nd tier by 2010, as you mentioned.

And regarding my comments about the F/A-18, F-22, and JSF, they were not directed at you. I was just making a general statement because these planes haven't been mentioned at all (to my knowledge) in this thread. But I'm certainly not suggesting Romania can afford to buy a large-enough fleet of F-22's. It's not realistic.
In this case, both quality and quantity play an equally important role.

Posted by: Victor May 23, 2004 08:41 am

The initial project of the IAR-95 was for the Rolls-Royce Spey engine. After they came to the conclusion that they won't be able to get it, they turned to the Soviet powerplant (with which was equipped the MiG-21). However, the Soviets did not want to sell the license and neither did the Chinese. So, lacking an engine, the project was eventually abandoned.

The cost of designing a new super-sonic warplane these days is very high and only the rich powers can afford it. The decision to restart the IAR-95 program in case a proper engine is a political one, though. It would give an important boost to the Romanian economy. We certainly have the possibility to manufacture the structure of the airplane at IAv Craiova or at Aerostar Bacau, the engines could be made at Turbomecanica in Bucharest, onboard systems can be imported and even partially built here (like in the case of the avionics for the MiG-21 Lancer and the IAR-99 Soim) etc, etc. Being under the NATO umbrella, we could afford to lengthen the service of the MiG-21s until the IAR-95 could replace it. But, like I said, there are 2 main problems:
1. the engine
2. political will

In case of the latter it should be noted that only recently the first four IAR-99 Soim out of 24 ordered several years ago were delivered to the RoAF. This was because of the delays in the payments, IAv Craiova badly needing the funds to buy the necessary materials and parts. But for useless public festivities (the circus on 9 May this year for example, when 400000 USD were spent) it seems that there are.

Posted by: Dan Po May 23, 2004 03:26 pm

In my oppinion the "to be or not to be" matter of IAR 95 is in political hands ... and I m almost sure that the romanian politicians don t have enough "balls" :oops: :oops: :oops: to develop a national jetfighter when the americans and others want to sell us something ...

Was a story with Bell Textron Inc. to produce the AH 1 W Super Cobra at Brasov ... I never heared about any AH 1 produced at Brasov ...

Our deffence industry is just a shadow of what it was just 15 years ago ... and nobody have any interes to resuscitate ... for this we need money and modern technologies ... Who want to sell us a jet engine when they can sell us an entire aircraft ?

As a conclussion ... its very very expensive to produce a modern jetfighter ... can we do more than France with Rafale ? Im just wondering ... :question: about this ...

Posted by: 88mm May 24, 2004 12:42 pm

QUOTE

Was a story with Bell Textron Inc. to produce the AH 1 W Super Cobra at Brasov ... I never heared about any AH 1 produced at Brasov ...

The contract with Bell Textron Inc. it's already history. If I remember well, there was a clause in the contract that stipulated that the Romanian Army has to buy the first 94 helicopters produced.

Posted by: Radu May 24, 2004 05:21 pm

"In a highly controversial decision taken in July 1998, the government authorised the production under licence of 96 US attack helicopters to equip the Romanian army. Under the deal, whose cost has been estimated at $1.5 billion, IAR Brasov and Bell Helicopters would co-produce AH-1RO Dracula helicopters derived from the Bell AH-1W Super Cobra. The heli-
copter procurement has yet to be implemented and its future prospects remain highly uncertain after the IMF urged the Romanian Government to abandon the programme due to concerns that Romania cannot afford such large-scale procurement. According to Jane?s Defence Weekly: ?external political pressure and lack of funds saw the procurement die a slow death in late 1998?.
http://www.saferworld.org.uk/Romania.pdf[/quote]

Posted by: Alexandru H. May 24, 2004 05:43 pm

We should build a successful atomic bomb industry then throw all its products on the world market.... now that would be chaos!

Posted by: Iamandi August 26, 2004 09:20 am

[quote="Victor"]
The cost of designing a new super-sonic warplane these days is very high and only the rich powers can afford it. The decision to restart the IAR-95 program in case a proper engine is a political one, though. It would give an important boost to the Romanian economy. We certainly have the possibility to manufacture the structure of the airplane at IAv Craiova or at Aerostar Bacau, the engines could be made at Turbomecanica in Bucharest, onboard systems can be imported and even partially built here (like in the case of the avionics for the MiG-21 Lancer and the IAR-99 Soim) etc, etc. Being under the NATO umbrella, we could afford to lengthen the service of the MiG-21s until the IAR-95 could replace it. But, like I said, there are 2 main problems:
1. the engine
2. political will

And in present days, if a restart is starting

what type of engine may be used? Not an Spey... A superior one - > and this may result in a aircraft more superior to what his performance was aproximated?
So... i vote a romanian plane. For some reasons. :ro:

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi August 26, 2004 09:21 am

And in present days, if a restart is starting

what type of engine may be used? Not an Spey... A superior one - what engine was equal or apropriate in dimensions with Spey -> for a quick adaptation. ??????

Iama

Posted by: C-2 September 28, 2004 08:21 pm

Today I couldn't belive my ears and eyes,when I heard that the Rom airforce want's to by second hand Jaguar Sepecat from Eangland!!!!!
I built a model more then 20 years ago

The defence minister(who knows nothing about places-he said) took a free ride in one and now he want's to buy those pieces of old planes

Posted by: Victor September 28, 2004 09:13 pm

It was just a joke I think, which some reporter who probably can't even make the difference between a MiG-21 and a Jaguar repeated as the real thing. The decision on what aircraft will be bought will be taken next year, according the budget and the new defense minister.

Posted by: C-2 September 28, 2004 09:23 pm

Let's hope so

I herd the "news" about the Jaguar 20 times today

Posted by: C-2 September 28, 2004 09:24 pm

By the way,whos "our" minister of dfence?
What is his profesion?

Posted by: Victor September 29, 2004 04:57 am

Date of birth:
- 17.02.1949, Satu Mare, Satu Mare County, Romania.

Marital Status:
- Married, three daughters.

Education:
- M.B.A. in Economics, The Academy of Economics, Bucharest,1971;
- Ph.D. in Political Sciences, The Institute of Political Sciences, Bucharest, 1980.

Activity:
01.09.1972 - Junior later Senior Research Fellow, International Relations Dept., The Institute of Political Sciences, Bucharest (research mainly on international security matters);
01.05.1986 - Lecturer, International Relations Chair, The Academy for Social and Political Studies, Bucharest (teaching a general course on international relations);
31.12.1989 - Expert, The Commission for Foreign Policy of the Council of the National Salvation Front (the new postrevolutionary authority in Romania) - coordinating Romanian post-revolution foreign policy;
09.02.1990 - Member of the Provisional Council for National Unity (the new postrevolutionary Parliament) - legislator;
01.07.1990 - Presidential Adviser, Head of the Foreign Policy Direction, The Political Analysis Dept. of the Romanian Presidency (advising the President on foreign policy matters; equivalent to US National Security Advisor);
01.10.1992 - Professor, Dean of the International Relations Section, The National School for Political and Administrative Studies, Bucharest (teaching a general course on international relations and a course on international security);
22.03.1993 - State Secretary, Ministry of National Defense;
22.11.1996 - MP for Maramureş in the Lower House, Chairman, Defense and Home Affairs Ctee, The Chamber of Deputies; Head of the Romanian Delegation to the NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY;
17.01.1997 - Vicepresident, SDPR (main opposition party), spokesman;
-- 04.1993 - Member, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London;
-- 02.1998 - Member, Editorial Board, "International Politics", US;
15.12.2000 - MP for Satu Mare;
28.12.2000 - Minister of National Defense.

From his CV on http://www.mapn.ro

Posted by: Dénes September 29, 2004 01:02 pm

And his name is?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor September 29, 2004 06:18 pm

He is the minister of defense Ioan Mircea Pascu

Posted by: C-2 September 29, 2004 07:44 pm

So he's an economist...
That's why he want's to by Jaguars(maybee he thinks it's a car...)

Posted by: Dénes September 29, 2004 10:04 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Sep 30 2004, 01:44 AM)

So he's an economist...
That's why he want's to by Jaguars(maybee he thinks it's a car...)

In Western-style democracies, all Ministers of Defence are civilians, exactly to avoid conflict of interest.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Iamandi September 30, 2004 10:15 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ Sep 29 2004, 10:04 PM)

QUOTE (C-2 @ Sep 30 2004, 01:44 AM)

So he's an economist...
That's why he want's to by Jaguars(maybee he thinks it's a car...)

In Western-style democracies, all Ministers of Defence are civilians, exactly to avoid conflict of interest.

Gen. Dénes

What type on conflict of interest? A wish (for a military one MOD) to have what is really good to his troops and his country? A really-realistical knowing of Army thinking and needs? Army is not a corporation, in reallity! Yes, a good manager is a better MOD, but in entire Army we not find a good military commander and a good manager (in the same person)?

If he enjoyed (really???) a flight with LanceR and Jaguar, this thing gives a good knowing in aircraft capabilitys? Or, he knows about tanks a lot of neccesary things? Or, he knows to make difference about a Perry and a Type 22? He knows, and he have the possibillity to obtain some good Lupo/Artilegrie class frigates?

Lets buy all second and third hand Hercules!

Thanks God, he is not a gineco medic, or electric engineer, like another agronomy ministers!

Iama - ofticat!

Posted by: Victor September 30, 2004 01:12 pm

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Sep 30 2004, 12:15 PM)

If he enjoyed (really???) a flight with LanceR and Jaguar, this thing gives a good knowing in aircraft capabilitys? Or, he knows about tanks a lot of neccesary things? Or, he knows to make difference about a Perry and a Type 22? He knows, and he have the possibillity to obtain some good Lupo/Artilegrie class frigates?

In the inter-war era there were plenty dubious armament deals made by high ranking officers, so it does not necessarily take a civilian to be incompetent or corrupt. The Chief of the General Staff should be the leader of the army and take care of the military matters, while the minister of defense and the parliamentary defense comitee should keep an eye on the spendings and supervise the military.

Posted by: Dénes September 30, 2004 02:25 pm

Victor is right.
BTW, it's not the MOD who single-handedly decides what type of arms to purchase. He only received suggestions from the military experts and decides mainly on political and financial grounds, namely if the proposal of the military (who always ask more than the budget permits) is viable or not.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dead-cat September 30, 2004 04:48 pm

QUOTE

What type on conflict of interest? A wish (for a military one MOD) to have what is really good to his troops and his country?

the military tend to be one of the worst money wasters one can imagine. a non-military veto-sayer provides the chance to limit the spending spree.

the military has never been an example for efficiency and cost-awareness, probably since most of the decision makers are military career people, never having worked in a *real* productive enviroment where efficiency and competitiveness is paramount for success.

a mechanism where a person, not infected by a militarylike moneywasting way of thinking, might just provide the cost control element a (democratic but not only)society needs to prevent the army from spending 50% of the GDP on various trinkets.

Posted by: Stephen October 08, 2004 08:12 pm

Romania needs to purchase a first rate fighter such as the Eurofighter, the SAAB J-39 Gripen or the Dassault Rafale. Maybe we could even get license production rights which would create jobs and perhaps lower the price of the fighters. We should only consider getting F-16's if they extemly cheap or free, and even then only so we can maintain a larger Air Force.

Posted by: Stephen October 13, 2004 07:28 am

I think that the SAAB JAS-39 Gripen would be the best choice for the Romanian Air Force. It is modern, reasonablely priced, first rate fighter and a reasonsble number; say 48 would give Romania the most powerful fighter in its region.

It could be license built in Romania and not only could Romania produce more when its ecomony recovers, but maybe; and I know I might reaching, IAR may be able to export them. That could ensure that Romania maintains its aviation industry, which is vital to its defense.

Posted by: Victor October 13, 2004 02:56 pm

IAR Brasov never produced jets. The only airplanes they are building presently are IAR-46s (which if I am not mistaking are motor gliders). In rest they had concentrated on helicopters. You probably mean Aerostar Baccau or IAv Craiova.

Posted by: Stephen October 14, 2004 06:48 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Oct 13 2004, 02:56 PM)

Victor, you are right. They would not be assembled or built at IAR Basov, this would most likey be done by IAv Craiva, though I guess Aerostar is also possible.

I think given Aerostar's relationship with Lockheed Martin, Aerostar one day aqiure the license to the T-50/A-50 Golden Dragon. The T-50/A-50 are basically scaled down F-16's, a number of these cheap and effective lead-in/light fighters would be great boast to the Romania Air Force. In adition it would get export orders and bring in much needed currency.

Posted by: Victor October 14, 2004 01:07 pm

As I said, IMO, the ideal fighter for Romania would be a continuation of the IAR-95 program even in cooperation with other interested countries. But since the chances for the reactivation of the program are almost zero, I would go with the JAS-39 as the best suited for the RoAF needs. However the decision will probably be a political one and it will depend on the next government, which will be formed in December 2004. It is hard to say now which fighter will be selected, but logic tells us that it will be a competition between the F-16 and the JAS-39.

Posted by: Stephen October 15, 2004 06:00 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Oct 14 2004, 01:07 PM)

The best for choice the Romanian Air Force would be the SAAB JAS-39 Gripen. I agree with Victor that it likey come down the F-16 and JAS-39 Gripen, I hope that Romania selects the JAS-39 Gripen. Given the downsizing that the Romanian Air Force has suffered since 1989, it needs the best Fighter that it can get its hands on. Finally Romania can get license production rights for the JAS-39; and needs to do so.

Posted by: Iamandi October 20, 2004 11:12 am

It is off topic (sorry!), but check this links:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/10/19/041.html

http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/10/18/brazilplane.shtml

Su-35, waw! Russia don't want some BAC 1-11 ?

Iama

Posted by: Dénes November 10, 2004 02:03 pm

Breaking news: the Rumanian military will purchase three IAR-99s and will pay for the upgrade of further five similar aircraft. The deal was awardec to Avioane Craiova and Elbit Systems and worths 43 million dollars (Mediafax).
http://www.mediafax.ro/top10/topint3.shtml

Lt. Col. Dénes

Posted by: Iamandi November 10, 2004 02:15 pm

So, we have ... (?) SOIM and .... (?) modernised?

Is there a plan to put new engines in SOIM?

Iama

Posted by: Radu November 24, 2004 03:46 am

I came across some an interesting comparison chart on the Eurofigher website. It is a comparison of the main western planes vs. "an upgraded Su-27 Flanker (comparable to an Su-35 Super Flanker and its equivalents)" 50% equals parity. Should be a strong argument agaist the F-16 and maybe even the Rafale.

Link. http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html

F-16 vs Grippen

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029.html

F-16 vs Grippen vs Eurofighter <-- in German

http://www.airpower.at/news02/nfg_vergleich/avionic.htm

Posted by: udar November 24, 2004 10:32 am

If will be an interesting comparition not only in BVR fight,but in same named dog-fight to(close combat),when count very much the maneuvreability.Must modern aircraft of great powers use the mobile efuzors to engine,to change more quick traction direction and encrease maneuvreability(F 22,F 35,SU-30,SU-35,MIG-MFI prototype,or a modernised variant of MIG-29).I hope if ever,our leaders decided to build our fight plaine(GOD help),a IAR 95 project continuation,to be on wave,and use most modern technics.I believe,for future,will be much better and less expensive than buy second or third hand F-16(who become more overpass with time),or foreign planes(JAS-39.etc.)for we dont have the technology and posibility to replaced quick if we have the need(in war situation,for example,but i hope will not be an option).

Posted by: Iamandi November 25, 2004 08:11 am

QUOTE (udar @ Nov 24 2004, 10:32 AM)

I hope if ever,our leaders decided to build our fight plaine(GOD help),a IAR 95 project continuation,to be on wave,and use most modern technics.

Like India's light fighter plane? We can use some technological help from our advanced big brothers ... NATO members. Maybe we have more and much cheap access to technology then India.

Iama

Posted by: Stephen November 25, 2004 04:47 pm

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Nov 25 2004, 08:11 AM)

QUOTE (udar @ Nov 24 2004, 10:32 AM)

I hope if ever,our leaders decided to build our fight plaine(GOD help),a IAR 95 project continuation,to be on wave,and use most modern technics.

Like India's light fighter plane? We can use some technological help from our advanced big brothers ... NATO members. Maybe we have more and much cheap access to technology then India.

Iama

Iamandi,
What about Romania getting help from SAAB/BAE with JAS-39 Gripen, which has has already been mentioned as one the two most likey canidates to the Romania Air Forces next fighter.

The other being the ageing F-16

, instead of the F-16 if Romania does not pick the JAS-39, it should chose IAI Lavi, a more advanced development of the F-16. I'am sure Isreal will be willing to sell Romania the design and at a competive price

Thank You

Posted by: Iamandi November 26, 2004 11:09 am

Waw! Nice thing Lavi! But any chances? Is just a "wish", or it was an offer?

Iama

Posted by: udar November 26, 2004 11:51 am

Yes ,IAI Lavi i think is a good airplain(is posible to be a source of inspiration for chinese J-10),but whay israelians dont used?I read she buy an improved version of F-16(block 60),and try to put israelians technology and electronics on him,but americans dont agree to change the radar,for example,with the israelian one.And she wants to be part of F-35 project too.I believe the our choise must include the development of our own air industry.If we buy JAS 39 Grippen,for example,we must buy some licences too,and produce couple things in our country.And,for the future,it will be much better if we build our own plains,or in cooperation(but in equal parts)with others,and not just buy stuff from others.Yesterday was 32 years from our great scientist,Henri Coanda,death.Probably she is turn arround in shes grave,along with Vuia,Vlaicu and others great mens of our aviation,when she see we ar in situation the buy plains from others,even not the best ones,despite the fact we ar the pioneers of aviation.

Posted by: Cantacuzino November 26, 2004 12:55 pm

The fighter planes on the list are vulnerables in an ipotetic war because they need concrete airfield that could be destroyed on the first attacks ( with long range missiles) so in my opinion a good plane for Romania should be the Hawker Harrier ( the last improved series). Because all the wars were win on the ground and not in the air, a tactical plane for ground support ( not necessary supersonic) I think it's better.

Posted by: Iamandi November 26, 2004 03:23 pm

QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ Nov 26 2004, 12:55 PM)

Because all the wars were win on the ground and not in the air, a tactical plane for ground support ( not necessary supersonic) I think it's better.

It your opinion. But, for what i quoted from your post, do not forget a thing - how much importance had air superiority and air dominance above the battleground.
For our country, 100 Harriers, or 100 Rafale not results in obtaining air supremacy against an powerful enemy like Ukraine. Maybe against rest of the neighbours - who are all friendly (example: this days events from Odorheiu Secuiesc and Sfantu Gheorghe...).
And tactics of counter-attacks with small nombers of planes from hiden places may be maked with Grippen with more succes in air-to-air combat then Harrier. He don't have enemys with A4 Skyhawk. Our neighbors had MiG-29, Su's, even MiG23 MLD (better than A4 Skyhawk).

Iama

PS - Maybe with IAK's 141 Freestyle may be more percents to make a good job, then with Harriers.

Posted by: Stephen November 26, 2004 07:26 pm

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Nov 26 2004, 03:23 PM)

QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ Nov 26 2004, 12:55 PM)

Because all the wars were win on the ground and not in the air, a tactical plane for ground support ( not necessary supersonic) I think it's better.

Iamandi,
I agree with you that in order to win on modern battlefield you need air superiority. Romania needs a first rate Fighter such as the Eurofighter or JAS-39 Gripen to achieve this goal. It needs to purchase this new Fighter in reasonable numbers at least 48.
The problem is that is not enough aircraft to able to both maintain air superiority and give proper ground support. So less capable aircraft must be purchased to round out the numbers,such as ex-RAF Jaguars, ex-french Mirage 2000 and retired Belguim or Ducth F-16A MLU's all of which may be purchased at reasonable price. Also sense we now have such a small AF we need AWACS aircaft so we can maximize are limited resources. I thinking maybe uesd E-2C Hawkeyes could be purchased at a reasonable price from the US or if Romania plays it cards right maybe the US would give them to Romania under the FMS funds.

Thank you

Posted by: Cantacuzino November 30, 2004 09:06 am

QUOTE

I agree with you Iama. All i wanted is to be realistic for Romania air force needs.
We can not afford aircraft carriers in The Black Sea and a long range strategic fighters planes ( in great numbers) to fight in equal terms. As i said the romanian airfields are vulnerable ( everybody know their location). So fighter planes wich can be used from rough ( grass )airfields or national road ( Autostrada) had better chance to fight. ( In WWII we didn't have air supremacy over US air force but at least we have a chance for our obsolete fighters to shoot down enemy bombers).

Posted by: Iamandi November 30, 2004 09:12 am

And you have your right.

Nomber vechicled is 48. But is not too little? 12 for each base? And maybe another Escadrila with MiG-21 LanceR... Thats all? This is the nomber of planes to be used in defence of our airspace? Bleah...
Any new info about Romanian plane acuisition??

Iama

Posted by: Dénes December 03, 2004 10:10 pm

The first Czech Gripen has been unveiled recently (source SAAB).
user posted image

Col. Dénes

Posted by: Victor December 04, 2004 09:14 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Nov 30 2004, 11:12 AM)

48 Grippens coupled with a good radar and SAM network are perfect for our air defence. Why do we need more?

Posted by: udar December 04, 2004 11:29 am

Disarmation acord signed in beginning of 90`years,betwen NATO countries and ex Warsaw Pact countries sed Romania must have 120 fighters planes,a number considered enough to defend our air space.Ofcourse,was voices who sed this is not enough,and need more,and this number is refere to cantity,not quality.I think if we want to have a respected air force,we need this 120 fighters,and we need a competitive ones.My first choice is to build our own fighter airplain(verry little posible in today conditions in our country,when the first problem for govern and politicians is how to stay another 4 years on power,or how to win in elections,and posible some allies dont agree with this fighter,and dont suport us).Other choices is to buy JAS 39,but become involved in some production stuff from this,or buy the latest MIG 29 generation(MIG 29SMT,MIG 33),who i believe is better then shes western counterparts to same generation(F 16,F 18,Mirage 2000)and close to newest(JAS 39,Eurofighter,Rafale),and costs were much low.About this,i read a while ago into a "Top Gun" magazine than couple swedish pilots(who fly first with JAS 39) sed she want to have a MIG 29.About Eurofighter i read too than a british comision sed have low capacities in close combat fights(dog-fights).Ofcourse the last choice is verry little posible too,because we ar in NATO,and our "big brothers"will "insist"to buy shes plains.

Posted by: Victor December 04, 2004 01:43 pm

I believe that in this case quality is more important than quantity. Whay's the us of having 120 fighters, if only 12 pilots get to fly them as much as it should? I think it's better to have 48 fighters and 96 pilots with the full number of flight hours in their logbooks. Remember that Romania doesn't have the military budget of France.

Posted by: Iamandi December 06, 2004 09:52 am

A Mirage 2000 new variant - 9 for ex. combined with Mica and Scalp systems may be enough for us? I think is cheaper than JAS 39, and more capable & modern than F-16 & 18 and in some aspects better than MiG-29. Certainly we dont have money for 48 JAS, but for 48 Mirage 2000-9?

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi December 08, 2004 01:32 pm

Too bad we dont have money for buyn some Rafale. "Breaking news" from French MInistry of Defence:

"PARIS --- Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie announced on December 6, 2004, during the Senate debate on the 2005 defence budget, the formal award of an order for 59 Rafale combat aircraft.

This order, awarded by the defence procurement agency, DGA, to Dassault Aviation, covers 47 aircraft for the air force (11 two-seaters and 36 single-seaters) and 12 single-seat aircraft for the navy. All of these aircraft will be delivered to the F3 multi-mission standard, whose development contract was awarded in February 2004. They will be delivered between 2008 and 2012.

The 118 engines needed for the aircraft, as well as the related spare parts, have also been ordered, in two batches, from Snecma Moteurs.

Additional orders are currently being processes for the radars, the countermeasures suites and other equipment intended for these aircraft. The contracts also cover the updating of obsolete electronic components.

In addition to Dassault Aviation ad Snecma, the principal manufacturers concerned by the Rafale combat aircraft program are Thales, Sagem and MBDA.

These latest contracts bring to 120 the number of production-standard Rafale combat aircraft ordered for the French armed forces, including 82 for the air force and 38 for the navy.

The first Rafale-equipped “flotille” (naval aviation squadron) is already in service. The first air force Rafale squadron is scheduled to become operational in 2006.

The latest F3 version of Rafale, which will be capable of operating the ASMP-A improved air-launched nuclear stand-off missile, is to enter operational service in 2008. "

Iama, sad

Posted by: Mareşal Boboescu December 08, 2004 08:48 pm

I should incline to the Russian ones but the problem is that it's much cheapper for us to produce our own aircraft. That's why I voted for an indigenous aircraft maybe built in licence from some other manufacturer.

HONOR ET PATRIA

Ml. B.

Posted by: Iamandi December 16, 2004 02:58 pm

About russian planes... I found something impressive:
"Thales has a long-standing relationship with Sukhoi in the military field, as integrator of retrofit equipment on SU-30 fighters for various customers. Thales was recently awarded a new contract by the Malaysian Air Force to equip a new fleet of Sukhoi SU-3 MKM with the full Cockpit Display System and the last generation Head-Up Display. This contract is being carried out in partnership between Sukhoi and Thales."

Source - Thales

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 December 20, 2004 11:25 am

Ok here is my first reply on this forums.
What is our country actual possition. We are a NATO country. Which means that most of the military technology will comme from US.
i don't consider Grippen good of anything except the defense of Sweden , a neutral country.
Anyway buying a plane is not like buing a car. When you buy a plane you buy:
-maintenace technology
-maintenance knowhow and training
-weapons systems and weapons training
-starategies to planes.
-spare parts

So would you like to buy all this from a country that was never in a conflict, or from a country that have conflict experience?
Weapon integration. Asuming that US (which is still the big ruller in NATO) develop a new weapons that will became a standard in NATO. How it will be that integrated into a weapon system that is not US made. What are the costs to do that.
Imagine a situation when we will allow to use weapons that Sweden is not allow to (due to neutrality) ? what will happend then?

The F16 will soldier for more years that you think. Block 60 are complectly new planes. Lots of capabilities.

Why we need to compare with Ukraine's so called hundreds of Mig29? Hundreds of Mig 29 grounded due to bad supply chaing from Russia, with acute lack of money for Training and fuel. Not to mention that those Mig29 are plain old planes. No upgrades where ever made to them.

The curently best plane that we have is Lancer C. Not Lancer A. Lancer A EL 2001 radar is just a dumb rangefinding. The Elta 2032 is a different story.

I would go for F18E if we are allowed to buy that ...

Posted by: Iamandi December 20, 2004 11:42 am

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Dec 20 2004, 11:25 AM)

The curently best plane that we have is Lancer C. Not Lancer A. Lancer A EL 2001 radar is just a dumb rangefinding. The Elta 2032 is a different story.

Please give some details about that. If you know much about Lancer's radar share with us... "dumb"? I have a bad english.. But, from what i know, is not an apreciative word. Why "dumb"?

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 December 20, 2004 11:50 am

Well Elta2001 is just a simple rangefinder ... there is no GMT,TWS,DBS etc. Nothing except the Range.
It will just give you the range to the first target aquired.
Just look for the EL/M 2001 on google.

http://www.lamilitary.com/Equipment_IAI_ELM2001B.html

Posted by: 88mm December 21, 2004 10:35 am

QUOTE

What is our country actual possition. We are a NATO country. Which means that most of the military technology will comme from US.

Well good point. But my problem is that the U.S. air doctrine can not acomodate us. What can we do with a tehnology which is mainly suited for a long range kill.

Posted by: tomcat1974 December 21, 2004 12:25 pm

Who said that? US are all around developed.
Give me one example of technology for long range kill.

Posted by: Iamandi December 21, 2004 12:28 pm

From what i know we do not poses bvr missile, yet, for a long range kill.

Iama

PS- Aaaaa, yes, we can use log range detection to see the enemy plane who lanced the rocket who came to us from long range.

Posted by: Iamandi December 22, 2004 08:43 am

I found the right plane to serve in Romanian Air Force. With that, nobody can bet us... We can obtain air dominance for our Alliance.
Maybe some of you dont see it yet - it is a picture published on web by a spy who escaped from Romania...

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi December 24, 2004 07:50 am

A Raptor crashed. But, with my bad english... maybe is better for you to read the article (Source: US Air Force Dec. 22 2004):

"
WASHINGTON --- Commanders of units flying the F/A-22 Raptor called for a safety stand down of the fleet following a crash Dec. 20 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The pilot ejected safely and suffered no serious injuries.

The aircraft, assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis, crashed on takeoff and exploded. Officials said an interim safety board will investigate the accident, but it may take months before an official determination can be made as to the cause.

Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Goldfein, commander of the Air Warfare Center at Nellis, stood down the remaining seven F/A-22s at the base immediately following the crash pending a complete inspection. That inspection could take hours or days to complete, depending upon findings.

“The purpose (of the inspections) is to prevent anything like this from happening again,” the general said.

Commanders at Tyndall AFB, Fla., and Edwards AFB, Calif., have also suspended F/A-22s from flying during a precautionary safety stand down.

“It’s doubtful (the Raptors) will be grounded for the entire length of the investigation,” said Air Force spokesman Doug Karas. “The Air Force will investigate the accident and apply what it learns to improve flight safety of the F/A-22,” Mr. Karas said. “There should not be a long-term impact to the F/A-22 program.”

The Raptor is a priority transformational program and has logged more than 7,000 flight hours. Air Force officials said they plan to purchase about 277 of the aircraft from Lockheed Martin Corp.

“I have full confidence in the investigation process and await the results of the accident and safety investigations,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper. “Both investigations are important to determine the cause and prevent future mishaps.”

Iama

Posted by: Victor December 24, 2004 08:11 am

F-22s are waaaaaaaay out of our league, but , for those who think that only MiG-21s crash, this just goes to show that accidents happen even in the best airforce in the world.

Posted by: Iamandi December 27, 2004 08:29 am

And, like we esxpected, Raptors are grounded:

"Crash Leads to Investigation, Raptor Safety Stand Down

WASHINGTON --- Commanders of units flying the F/A-22 Raptor called for a safety stand down of the fleet following a crash Dec. 20 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The pilot ejected safely and suffered no serious injuries.

The aircraft, assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis, crashed on takeoff and exploded. Officials said an interim safety board will investigate the accident, but it may take months before an official determination can be made as to the cause.

Maj. Gen. Stephen M. Goldfein, commander of the Air Warfare Center at Nellis, stood down the remaining seven F/A-22s at the base immediately following the crash pending a complete inspection. That inspection could take hours or days to complete, depending upon findings.

“The purpose (of the inspections) is to prevent anything like this from happening again,” the general said.

Commanders at Tyndall AFB, Fla., and Edwards AFB, Calif., have also suspended F/A-22s from flying during a precautionary safety stand down.

“It’s doubtful (the Raptors) will be grounded for the entire length of the investigation,” said Air Force spokesman Doug Karas. “The Air Force will investigate the accident and apply what it learns to improve flight safety of the F/A-22,” Mr. Karas said. “There should not be a long-term impact to the F/A-22 program.”

The Raptor is a priority transformational program and has logged more than 7,000 flight hours. Air Force officials said they plan to purchase about 277 of the aircraft from Lockheed Martin Corp.

“I have full confidence in the investigation process and await the results of the accident and safety investigations,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper. “Both investigations are important to determine the cause and prevent future mishaps.” "

US Air Force

Iama

P.S. - The other modern occidental fighters did crash? Typhoon, Rafale, Grippen...

Posted by: Iamandi December 30, 2004 07:00 am

I hope nobody is

for my posts with F-22 subject... Anyway, after up writed events, what may come? A contract! Sure, this crash don't "crash" the F-22 program.

"Pentagon Contract Announcement

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $608,300,000 contract modification.

This modification increases the funding/termination liability values for the month of January 2005 through May 2005 for Lot 5 Production Long Lead Activities and Training System Support as a Capability. This effort supports F/A-22 Aircraft.

The location of performance is Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga. At this time, $173,100,000 of the funds has been obligated. This work will be complete by December 2007. Solicitation began July 2004 and negotiations were completed May 2005.

The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8611-04-C-2851). "

Source: US Department of Defense, Dec. 28, 2004

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu January 05, 2005 09:30 am

Even if Romania could afford the F-22 Raptor, I still would not want it, I think F-22 is the most over-rated, over-complex and over-priced fighter ever built. There are far better aircraft out there for much cheeper prices such as the SAAB JAS-39 Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Su-35&37 Flankers and IAI Lavi. In my opinion Romania's best choice would the JAS-39 Gripen

Posted by: tomcat1974 January 05, 2005 12:43 pm

QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Jan 5 2005, 09:30 AM)

In that list ... 2 entries are not even in production , and one is dead and buried.
Su35/37 was a serie of prototypes that noone wanted to have. Lavi is dead as it could be.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu January 06, 2005 05:23 am

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Jan 5 2005, 12:43 PM)

QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Jan 5 2005, 09:30 AM)

In that list ... 2 entries are not even in production , and one is dead and buried.
Su35/37 was a serie of prototypes that noone wanted to have. Lavi is dead as it could be.

Tomcat1974
I respectfully disagree with you, the Su-35 Flanker has been ordered by Brazil and Russia itself. To date Brazil has order at least 12, with at least 12 more to follow; and Russia has ordered 18, which will be followed by a second batch of 18 Su-35's. I'am sure that other nations such as India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Syria which have expressed strong interest in buying the Su-35 and already have the Su-27&30 Flanker in service, will eventually purchase their own Su-35 fleets. The Su-35 has been delayed by lack of funds not a lack of interest or potential customers.When the Su-35 enters service with the Brazilian Air Force, "Brazil" will have the single most potent fighter type in the Americas.
The Su-37A Burkut is still being developed, but once it has been fully developed it will attract customers. Then the Su-37A will be perhaps the best fighter in the world!!!...Far superior to F-22 Raptor.
As for the IAI Lavi, perhaps you have not heard of the Chinese Chengdu J-10. It was developed form the Lavi and will enter with Chinese AF soon. Given Romania's relationship with IAI I'am sure Isreal would be happy sell Romania the Lavi as well.

Thank you

Posted by: Iamandi January 06, 2005 06:42 am

You have a source (link) for Brasilian's SU?

Thanks,

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu January 06, 2005 07:03 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Oct 20 2004, 11:12 AM)

Iama

Iamandi,
These are the links that I found on the Brazilian Su-35 Flanker purchase, posted by you. So thank you, because if you had not posted then I would not know about the purchase.

Posted by: tomcat1974 January 06, 2005 08:32 am

Lavi

Check the F16 roots in it.

You are confusing Su 37 with S-37 (now called by Suhoi Su-47).
Su 37 was a Su 35 prototype with Thrust vectoring. Su 35 was a improvement of the Su27(it was called before Su27M). RuAF had only 6 prototipes for testing variopus types of avionics.

About Brazilian tender ... that would had been russian ideea , to try to sneak the Su35 in to a exchange deal. the Brazilian Fighter Contest it was postponed. No winner in that.
RuAf opted for a Su35. Well the opted for the Su27SM , which will strangelly be named by Suhoi Su35BM (they just like to mix the names

) wich will be more like our Lancer program ,updating older Su27 airframes with new avionics and maybe engines. Hell there is a clear gap between russian Suchoi's and Chinesse ones..

The chinnes do have the better planes with modern avionics and modern weapons .

Some info's about russian Su35BM

QUOTE

Su-35BM

In December 2003, after the Su-27SM modernization program had been deemed a success, Russia announced that it would proceed with the so-called "big modernization" program. The modernized aircraft is called the Su-35BM (also T-10BM) by Sukhoi, but it is not yet known what name will be adopted by the Russian Air Force. The Su-35BM program is to be a deep modernization of existing airframes, not newly produced aircraft.

The main new feature of the aircraft is to be a new radar. It has not yet been decided whether it will be the Phazotron-NIIR N031 Sokol or the Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis. The first is actually the well-known Zhuk radar with a passively scanned phased array, while the Irbis is a version of the N011M Bars-M, also with a passively scanned phased array. In 2003 a new phased-array antenna was tested for Indian Su-30MKI aircraft, but it achieved only +/-45 degrees of horizontal field of view, instead of the planned +/-70 degrees. The remaining angle of 25 degrees was achieved mechanically via a hydraulic servo, which was an unsatisfactory solution. The Irbis is to differ from the Bars-M by having quick servos that are tightly synchronized with the radar electronics to achieve the 70 degrees of scan on either side of the fighter's axis. Sources says that NIIP's solution is preferred by the Russian Air Force, since NIIP radar sets were all proven in service. The radar is to have similar capabilities to the N011M Bars-M. The detection range of a fighter airplane (170 km) and a destroyer-sized naval target (300 km) more or less matches the N011M's performance.

The Su-35BM is also to receive a small radar in a tail "stinger" to monitor the rear hemisphere. It is to be a NIIR N012 Kopyo-DL with a passively scanned phased-array antenna with a range of about 50-70 km. The unique arrangement indicates that Russia does not plan to rely as heavily on data exchange networks to maintain situational awareness, although the Aist data-exchange system for the Air Force is under development.

The weapons set for the Su-35BM is to be the same as the Su-27SM. Among the new weapons in development is a long-range air-to-air missile with required range of 300 km. Since the range is beyond radar range, external information is required to prepare the missile for launch. Two or four such missiles are to be carried. The missile is to be developed from either the Novator KS-172 technology demonstrator or the Vympel R-37M missile, also proposed for the MiG-31. Sukhoi prefers the first solution, and one can say that it is part of Sukhoi's long-standing strategy to prompt the Air Force to "kill" the MiG-31s and replace them with the Su-27 family of aircraft.

The Su-35BM is also to receive a totally new self-protection system. It was developed by KNIRTI (Zhukov near Kaluga, Russia) and is designated the L-175M Khibiny-M. It has an integrated electronic-support-measures system of high accuracy, a separate display in the cockpit, a digital processor, and an integrated active radio-frequency jammer with pods on the wingtips. Probably in the future, the aircraft will also receive a missile-approach-warning system and a towed decoy (for example, the Lobushka). The aircraft will have RAM coatings and some internal changes to increase stealth features, such as a new windshield and canopy of slightly different shape covered with radar-absorbent material.

The modernized Su-27SM, together with the modernized Su-25SM and Su-24M, will form the core of the Russian Air Force for the next two decades, and this could lead to the complete withdrawal of MiG-29 aircraft, which are not going to be modernized. While the MiG-29SMT represents the ultimate modernization variant for this undervalued aircraft, without dividing the upgrade into phases, it could not be presently afforded by Russia. The Sukhoi approach, with "small" and "big" modernizations, was much more realistic and ultimately triumphant.

So as you see the aquisition of new figheter is a hard to digest thing. Production of one is even harder one

Sources: http://aircraftstories.free.fr
http://www.acig.org
Picturs are from ACIG contributor page.http://www.overscan.co.uk/acig/J-10/Page.html

Posted by: Victor January 06, 2005 08:40 am

tomcat1974, please in the future mention the sites you take photos and info from.

Posted by: Iamandi January 06, 2005 09:07 am

QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Jan 6 2005, 07:03 AM)

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Oct 20 2004, 11:12 AM)

Iama

Iamandi,
These are the links that I found on the Brazilian Su-35 Flanker purchase, posted by you. So thank you, because if you had not posted then I would not know about the purchase.

Bad sectors detedted... Memory formated at 31 Dec. 2004 / 01. Ian. 2005...

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu January 07, 2005 08:30 am

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Jan 6 2005, 08:32 AM)

Ok lets start with Lavi.
Lavi was a development of the F16. That is why US killed it. The Chinese Chengdu J-10 except canards is not a copy of the Lavi.Some parts might reseble with parts of Lavi , but there is no direct copy. If there is a plane that looks like it , then is the Eurofighter
J-10

You are confusing Su 37 with S-37 (now called by Suhoi Su-47).
Su 37 was a Su 35 prototype with Thrust vectoring. Su 35 was a improvement of the Su27(it was called before Su27M). RuAF had only 6 prototipes for testing variopus types of avionics.

About Brazilian tender ... that would had been russian ideea , to try to sneak the Su35 in to a exchange deal. the Brazilian Fighter Contest it was postponed. No winner in that.
RuAf opted for a Su35. Well the opted for the Su27SM , which will strangelly be named by Suhoi Su35BM (they just like to mix the names

) wich will be more like our Lancer program ,updating older Su27 airframes with new avionics and maybe engines. Hell there is a clear gap between russian Suchoi's and Chinesse ones..

The chinnes do have the better planes with modern avionics and modern weapons .

Tomcat1974,

It is true that the Lavi was developed from the F-16, however the US did not kill the Lavi as you claim it did. What happened was US lifted an arms embargo, which it had placed on Isreal because of their bombing of Iraq's Nuclear reactor in 1981. That made hundreds cheap F-16's availiable to Isreal, so Isreal cancelled the Lavi in August 1987.
Also every single source that I have ever read regarding the J-10, clearly stated that the J-10 was developed form the Lavi. Do really think Isreal would pass up a chance to sell a fighter design that, Isreal is not even using?
The Brazilian and Russian orders are for "new" and not rebuilt aircraft. Also their is a Rumor in Air International that cliams that Vietnam has a requirement for between 18 and 36 "new" Su-35 in addition to the 12 Su-27SK which they already have and the 24 SU-30MKI's they have on order. I'am sure that other export customers will follow in due time.

Thank

Posted by: Iamandi January 09, 2005 10:26 am

Raptors Cleared to Fly Again

" LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. --- Air Force officials cleared the F/A-22 Raptor to resume flight operations Jan. 6 following a comprehensive review of procedural and engineering data.

One of the aircraft crashed Dec. 20 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., which caused a temporary halt to flying the most technologically advanced fighter in the world, officials said.

The investigation of the accident continues. However, enough information is available for Air Force officials to be highly confident in the design, testing and development of the F/A-22s. With about 7,000 flight hours already logged in the Raptor and an overwhelmingly positive safety record when compared to previous aircraft development programs, officials said they determined that flight operations can be safely resumed.

No one was injured in the Dec. 20 accident that destroyed the aircraft."

B-1s Return to Flight

"LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. --- The B-1B Lancer fleet returned to flight status Jan. 5 following a six-day grounding.

Air Combat Command leaders halted flight operations for B-1Bs on Dec. 30 because of a possible nose landing gear problem.

Concerns leading to the flight suspension have been addressed, command officials said. "

Both extracted from US Airf Force releases

Iama

Posted by: Victor January 09, 2005 10:43 am

Iamandi please stick to the topic.

Posted by: Iamandi January 24, 2005 02:24 pm

Any official or half official news about this subject? Because... , for example others are not sleeping:

Gripen Training Starts

Source: FMV Swedish Defence Procurement Agency

"The first Hungarian pilots have arrived in Sweden to start their Gripen conversion training

The first five Hungarian pilots, who will undergo conversion training to Gripen has arrived in Sweden today. For the next year, they will be based at the Swedish Air Force F 7 Wing at Satenas, the Swedish training center for Gripen.

The Commander of the Skaraborg Wing, Colonel Fredrik Hedén said, “I am delighted to welcome our Hungarian Air Force friends to F 7 Satenas. I very much look forward to working closely with these pilots during their stay here and also building a strong and lasting relationship for future Swedish Air Force and Hungarian Air Force co-operation”.

During their period of training, these pilots will be trained to an instructor level and undertake theoretical training, simulator training and flight training. After their year in Sweden they will return to Hungary and work as Gripen instructor pilots in the Hungarian Air Force.

The next group of Hungarian pilots will arrive in Sweden in the summer of 2006. They will start their training in Sweden and finish it in Hungary where they will be trained by their Hungarian instructor colleges. "

Iama

Posted by: Matt_S January 26, 2005 08:39 pm

It's hard for me to come up with a well-thought out answer at this time, but I hope you guys (Romania) does what's best for you, without any political BS or outside pressure.

Matt

Posted by: Iamandi January 27, 2005 06:48 am

And...

First Hungarian Gripen Ready

Source: FMV Swedish Defence Procurement Agency

"STOCKHOLM, Sweden --- At a ceremony today, Saab presented the first Hungarian Gripen to roll off the production line at its factory in Linköping, Sweden. The ceremony took place in the presence of the Hungarian Defence Minister Mr Ference Juhász and the Swedish Defence Minister Mrs Leni Bjorklund as well as representatives from the Hungarian MOD, the Hungarian Air Force, the Hungarian Ambassador to Sweden. From Sweden, FMV’s acting Director General, Saab’s Deputy CEO and the MD for Gripen International were also in attendance.

“The roll-out of the first Hungarian Gripen is a significant milestone in the Gripen for Hungary program. I am delighted that the Swedish government and Swedish industry have demonstrated their technical and program management excellence in the delivery of Gripen aircraft to the Hungarian government” says FMV Program Director Mats Hansson.

During 2005 there will be another 5 Hungarian Gripen aircraft in production. They will be completed during 2006 with the first aircraft being delivered in March 2006.

After the final assembly stage, the aircraft goes in to a period of ground test and flight testing conducted by Swedish Gripen pilots from Saab and FMV. "

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 12, 2005 04:05 am

Why is Romania wasteing so much time? Romania needs a better fighter then the ageing Mig-21. The SAAB JAS-39 Gripen should be exactly what the Romanian Air Force needs to maintain Air Superiority. A purchase of about 48 Gripen's will be a good start, perhaps later on, a follow order 48 or more may be possible. The Gripen will help the Romanian AF become a first rate air arm.

Thank You

Posted by: mabadesc February 12, 2005 07:40 am

It has recently been released that last September (2004), Israeli F-16 jets shot down 2 Syrian Mig-29's in a dogfight over the Mediterranean Sea.

One Mig was shot down by a Python-4 missile, while the other was destroyed with an AIM-9M Sidewinder.

In response, the Syrian President has intensified efforts to acquire an advanced anti-aircraft system.

I guess those crappy old F-16's can still kick some ass.

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453413.05625.html

Posted by: alexkdl February 12, 2005 11:56 am

Lavi was not killed by the US but by lack of fundings and mainly by IAF who didn't want to the type as being way too expensive design !!

Alex

Posted by: alexkdl February 12, 2005 11:58 am

Can you tell me where did you hear about the 2 MIG's shot down by IAF ? This starnge newpaper tells about an incident in 2001 and NOT 2004..if at all...on both cases I havent heard any details......finally your " old crappy" F-16's are Block 40,50 and even Block 60's F-16I .

Even the older Block-30 F-16's which some of them are on storage now and rest used for operational and advanced pilot course ..are still better equipped than the rest of the F-16's you know....but since you guys are guessing a lot on here ..I am not guided by guessing neither by stuff that flies left and right on the air but things I know for sure

Alex

Posted by: Iamandi February 14, 2005 08:28 am

Python-4 missile? Reverse thing: you think an F-16 can avoid that missile?
Maybe, a good MiG-29 pilot can have more chances to do that - i don't think sirian pilots are so well trained / skilled...

Anyway, Python-4 is a good weapon!

What if a sirian pilot launched a russian short range missile, more capable than Sidewinder?

Iama

Posted by: Fratello February 14, 2005 04:37 pm

I don't know if Romania has enough money to buy one of these fighter, but I vote for Su-27 or F-16

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 15, 2005 03:51 am

The pair of Isreali F-16's shoot down the two Syrian Mig-29's for one reason; the Isreali pilots are much better trained then their Syrian opponents. The Mig-29 Fulcrum is at least an even match the F-16 in a Dogfight. And Russian AA missile's are extreme capable, such as the excellent AA-11 Archer. Which is one the most lethal AAM's in service. It does not matter how good your equipment is, if your Airmen are not trained; well enough to fully exploit it's capability.

Thank you

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 15, 2005 03:59 am

QUOTE (Fratello @ Feb 14 2005, 04:37 PM)

I don't know if Romania has enough money to buy one of these fighter, but I vote for Su-27 or F-16

Fratello,

The Romanian Air Force is not considering the Su-27 Flanker; although I agree with you, in that the Su-27 is a potent fighter. The choice will most likey be between the SAAB/BAE JAS-39 Gripen and F-16 Falcon. With BAE lobbying hard to get the JAS-39 Gripen selected.

Thank You

Posted by: Victor February 15, 2005 01:27 pm

Offtopic post by Iamandi has been deleted.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 16, 2005 03:30 pm

According to reports coming out of Washington DC the; The reported shoot down down of two Syrian Mig-29 Fulcrums by Isreali F-16 in September. Are 100% false.

Isreal has publicaly stated that no such incident ever took place!!!......
Apprently the rumor was started in Washington DC, by a Syrian exile group, that has the backing of the US Government. I smell scandel!!!.....

Thank You

Posted by: Iamandi February 21, 2005 02:15 pm

First Hungarian Gripen in the Air

Source: Swedish Materiel Agency, FMV

"The first NATO-interoperable Hungarian Gripen fighter has made its maiden flight today in Sweden.

The maiden flight of the first Gripen aircraft – destined for Hungary - took place today 16 February 2005 at Saab’s facility in Linköping, Sweden. The aircraft, which was flown by a test pilot from Saab, was painted in grey with Hungary’s national insignia on the tail before its first flight.

“This flight is a very important milestone for the Hungarian program and shows that the production of Gripen aircraft for Hungary is on schedule” says Mats Hansson, FMV Program Director Gripen for the Hungary program.

Following this maiden flight, the aircraft now enters a period of ground and flight-testing to verify that all systems are operating in accordance with the Hungarian Gripen configuration plan.

This is the first of the 14 Gripen aircraft (12 single seat and 2 dual seat) that Hungary will lease for a period of 10 years (2006-2016).

Following this lease period, Hungary will own the aircraft in accordance with the lease and purchase agreement signed between the Swedish and Hungarian authorities in February 2003. Production of the first five (5) Hungarian Gripen aircraft, which will be delivered in March 2006, is continuing at Saab’s facility in Linköping.

The first group of Hungarian pilots has begun training at the Swedish Air Force wing F7, at Såtenäs in Sweden.

In April 2005, the first group of Hungarian technicians will start their training at the Swedish Armed Forces Aerotechnical Services School outside the town of Halmstad "

We can count... one, two, tree... how much steps ahead of us had Hungary in advance? If we can sign an agreement / contract with SAAB or EADS, in what time we can have Grippen on our skye? ... i can't stop to think about another variant - a cooperation between Romania and China for a trade - new engines for our Lancers! It will be a strong point for us, because, for sure, LanceR's will remain for more than 5 - 7 years in "front line". And, the engine is the problem of our fighters.

Iama

Posted by: Zayets February 24, 2005 08:51 am

There's no doubt that for us f16 is the choice for maaaany reasons I won't gave them here.So,my vote goes to the VIper

Posted by: udar February 24, 2005 04:38 pm

I still believe a local project will be the best for us.Or a plaine build in cooperation(JAS 39 for example).From foreign plaines,i will take MIG 29,new models.Improuved range,better maneuvreabillity,good for our not too well equiped bases.Is over F 16 or JAS 39.I read about swedish pilots who,after fly a JAS 39,say that prefer a MIG 29.Unfortunately,we dont continue MIG 29 SNIPER program,and,much worse,eliminate MIG 29 from our AF,and give their base,Mihail Kogalniceanu(best of us)to americans.Its verry posible,soon,to buy couple third hand out dated F 16,in exchange for this

Posted by: Zayets February 24, 2005 07:20 pm

QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Feb 12 2005, 04:05 AM)

If you relay on military technique bought FROM ONE COUNTRY ALONE then you are doomed . F16 is the mainstay aircraft in tens of countries,it will always be one spare. Besides, crappy F16 are doing the Afganistan war, I talk here about the KoLM , the Dutch airforces. What is Gripen doing except promising things? F16 is a tested,proven aircraft.In combat! In real missions!And guess what? Is still on duty.Why? Because is so versatile , so damn good.Some of the models are cheap , an upgrade is a good thing for many but A LOT of them already passed MLU,so we are watching to ANOTHER 25-30 YEARS in service. You see , we talk about real aircrafts here. I don't have nothing against the Gripen , but try to put yourself in the shoes of MApN and decide what you'd get. For the price of one single Gripen you can get 2 "crappy" F16 that you can use as spare parts. And to all thinking Hungary or Czech Rep is ahead of Romania here's one thing. Hungary and Czech Rep did not buy Gripen , they lease them. On long term. I don't know the whole details of the lease contract but these Gripens are not bought. On the other hand , both countries DO NOT need to bother too much for defence since the border of NATO is Romania's border, Poland and The Baltics. So for them , is a very good thing not to buy , but to lease.We , well , I sure hope we get a top class fighter , but if you ask me , this is not the Gripen. Does not suit us at all.I gave some reasons, there are many more.Just think about Israeli-Romanian coop in Lancer programe , same thing could be expanded to the Viper , and there are more things. You will see , there won't be any Gripen carying the tri-colors cocards. It will be the Viper or another US plane, or maybe ... nothing at all.
Oh and udar, one thing more , why would Romania need to mantain air superiority.More precisely where? And since when JAS39 is an ASF appareil? And why 48? That's barely 2 squadrons.

Posted by: alexkdl March 03, 2005 04:59 pm

Zayets

Just a comment, the previous posts on here that F-16 is crappy aircraft is something synonymous to people who played computer games and are just aviation freeks with little knowledge about modern fighter aircraft characteristics , people who dream about planes and being pilots ,though in reality they have little or no knowledge at all about performances and operational assests of the F-16 and the Grippen but in general of any plane whatsoever. ..all they do is copy/ paste reports from media ....things they dont understand a dumn about .

I may compare this if you will to an other comment on here of someone two months ago saying that Antonescu was a Rumanian hero...and was unfairly trialed and put on front of a firing squad....the post was also cynical enough to mention that streets in Tel Aviv and US should name streets after him ...or some other derrogatory comments on here adressed at the US,NATO...relligions and nationalities....and on numerous occassions the administrator had to repeatedly intervine and put an end to the actual crap .

Most of the computer forum people live on advanced phantasies and what struck me most on here is that there are people who still using this forum for wrong purposes and for lashing out their poissonous frustration at the others....I started my carrier by flying real airplanes and not airplanes through PC's and I therefore asses your comment as professional and pertinent on how the F-16 should be looked at .

Let me end by saying that the Israeli AF has proven to the rest of the world including the country of those who bitch about F-16 what are the operational assests of the F-16's , including " the know how " which been even implemented on their own MIG-29's and MIG-21's by ELBIT Israel and is one of the single non peace time AF's in the world with proven combat track record and expertise, every modern AF keep scanning and learning from Israel ....irronically even United Arab Emirates followed IAF and ordered Block 60 while rejecting more Mirage 2000's,Hawk-2000's and Grippens ...

The fact that Hungaria has leased the Grippens from the Sweeds had nothing at all to do with the operational performances of this jet and the real HUAF next generation jet and its operational needs . The the long series of engineering misshaps at SAAB Linkoeping on SAB-37 and 39 and 3 test flight crashes one of them over Stockholm will be felt later on by the Husars and the Husars tax payers in a way they won't forget it and may turn down the current Government ......I betcha !

Bellow an F-16 view from CODE ONE

Al

Posted by: mabadesc March 03, 2005 06:53 pm

QUOTE

Besides, crappy F16 are doing the Afganistan war, I talk here about the KoLM , the Dutch airforces. What is Gripen doing except promising things? F16 is a tested,proven aircraft.In combat! In real missions!And guess what? Is still on duty.Why? Because is so versatile , so damn good.

Amen! Finally, another F-16 fan...

You're right. I don't have anything against the Gripen either, but some people just jumped on it and think it was built by God himself! To my knowledge it hasn't been tested in battle, whereas the F-16 has graduated all battle tests with flying colors.

Personally, I think most of the people who dismiss the F-16 do so because it is a symbol of the US, rather than based on its capabilities. They just hate to see an American plane (or anything) succeed.

Posted by: alexkdl March 03, 2005 06:57 pm

Madabesc ,,absolutely ,is exactly as you stated. Thank you !

Al

Posted by: Iamandi March 03, 2005 08:14 pm

F-16 with AIM 120 AMRAAM it is a deadlyest tool!

Iama

Posted by: valachus March 03, 2005 09:32 pm

How about UCAVs? There's a niche that could actually be pioneered and exploited by Romanians, 100 years after Vuia, Vlaicu and Coanda!
On second thoughts, perhaps I shouldnt have drunk so much cofee today.

Posted by: Victor March 04, 2005 01:26 pm

Some off-topic posts have been deleted. Imperialist, if you have something to communicate to another member and it is not related to the topic, please do it by PM.

Alexkdl, you undoubtedly have vastly more experience with aircraft than the average member here, but it would be better if you would share your experience with us in order to educate the simulators users. You must also understand, that unlike Lockheed (IIRC that is the company producing the F-16), Saab and BAe advertise the Gripen very aggressively in Romania and that could be a reason why many are fascinated by it.

Presently there is a Romanian small UAV project called the IAR T if I am not mistaking, but it isn't thought as a combat aircraft. But from here to UCAV it is a long way and a lot of resources are necessary for this, resources that somebody has to invest. But in my layman (and subjective) opinion the human element is very difficult to replace with high-tech. Battlefield surveillance is one thing, combat is another.

Posted by: Iamandi March 04, 2005 02:11 pm

Victor, for the last part of your post, try to look here:

Northrop Grumman Demonstrates Weapons Drop from New Medium-Altitude UAV Prototype

Source: Northrop Grumman

"SAN DIEGO --- Northrop Grumman Corporation successfully demonstrated the ability to release a weapon from a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) demonstrator during flight-testing conducted Feb. 24 over Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

The drop of the 500-pound inert weapon from Proteus, the manned UAV surrogate developed by Scaled Composites, Mojave, Calif., is the latest in a series of company-funded activities focused on addressing the U.S. Department of Defense's expanding medium-altitude endurance UAV requirements. It also supports an on-going, Northrop Grumman-funded effort to develop a new multi-mission MALE UAV dubbed Model 395. Based on Proteus, Model 395 will be able to perform a variety of missions ranging from traditional intelligence gathering to weapons delivery.

“Today's test was flawless,” said Steve True, Northrop Grumman's Model 395 test director. “It was the culmination of a rapid prototyping process that allowed us to define and conduct risk reduction, proof-of-concept testing for a new weapons delivery concept in just over 30 days. Exceptional support from the Air Force's UAV Battlelab at Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nev., the 98th Range Wing at Nellis, and EDO Corporation, developer of the weapon release system, also proved instrumental in allowing us to meet a very ambitious schedule.

“The weapons drop is the first of several demonstrations the company has planned to exercise and highlight Model 395's ability to fulfill a variety of special customer mission requirements,'' True added. The next flight demonstration is planned for later this year.

“The jet-powered Model 395 is a cost-effective, multi-role, multi-mission UAV with the right altitude, speed, endurance and payload capacity to perform tasks that span our customers' air operations,'' said Chris Hernandez, vice president and general manager of the company's Unmanned Systems unit. ``In the hunter-killer role, it can carry multi-spectral sensors to detect and track targets and myriad munitions to destroy those targets.”

According to Hernandez, the Model 395 system will also extend the reach of air commanders by providing tailored support to ground forces in near-real time in almost any combat situation. A family of modular payloads will allow it to be optimized quickly for a variety of missions including signals intelligence, psychological operations, communications relay and area surveillance.

In addition to its 900-pound internal payload capacity, Model 395 will be able to carry external payloads of up to 6,500 pounds. It also has more than 100 cubic feet of unused internal volume.

Model 395 is the latest addition to Northrop Grumman's portfolio of UAVs. It rounds out a capability spectrum that includes the high-altitude, long-endurance RQ-4 Global Hawk aerial reconnaissance system; the medium altitude endurance Hunter II; its shorter-range, lower-altitude RQ-5 Hunter tactical UAV; and the RQ-8 Fire Scout vertical take-off and landing tactical UAV.

Model 395 builds upon investments by both the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumman for development systems that include the joint DARPA, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS), the U.S. Army's Fire Scout Class IV UAV for the Future Combat System, the advanced vehicle management system and future UAV ground control elements.

Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems is a premier aerospace and defense systems integration organization. Headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., it designs, develops, produces and supports network-enabled integrated systems and subsystems optimized for use in networks. For its government and civil customers worldwide, Integrated Systems delivers best-value solutions, products and services that support military and homeland defense missions in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; space access; battle management command and control; and integrated strike warfare. "

QUOTE

Battlefield surveillance is one thing, combat is another.

I think humans are in the right way to almost reduce the presence of pilots in planes over the battlefields.
Too bad, romanians don't had enough money, experience, and technology to enter in this elite.

I have doubts about a good result for a fighter UAV, good enough to do dog-fight against a manned fighter. Maybe just a supersonic platform with capabilityes to launch long range and medium range missiles - an useless toy when enemy is too close.
We can hope, related to UAV just to have an 100 % projected and manufactured one for our Aviation. Just for surveillance.

Iama, a real copy+paste aviation freek

Posted by: Imperialist March 04, 2005 03:17 pm

QUOTE

I have doubts about a good result for a fighter UAV, good enough to do dog-fight against a manned fighter. Maybe just a supersonic platform with capabilityes to launch long range and medium range missiles - an useless toy when enemy is too close.
We can hope, related to UAV just to have an 100 % projected and manufactured one for our Aviation. Just for surveillance.

Hi Iama... what about a lighter UAV designed for Close Air Support/ground attack? (not carrying 6,500 pounds! wow!)
I think they are worth researching for the Romanian Army. A light UAV capable to accomodate a good targeting system and one or two hellfire missile for example could be deadly. And cheaper than an attack heli.
Call me a fellow copy+paste/gamer dude, but I think this kind of UAVs would be extremely dangerous in the hands of guerilla units trained for the job.
Frontline troops and bases are generally equipped with AA equipment capable of engaging UAVs from the distance.
However, I dont see that happening with all convoys and units. The UAVs could hit the soft spots and do lots of damage.

take care

Posted by: alexkdl March 04, 2005 03:41 pm

Buna Victor

Yes , I absolutely agree and thank you .

I want to rectify that there are people on here such as you , Dragos, Denes, Dan , C-2 ,CIP,Barbosu , and various other members who not necessarily have to be pilots in order to understand military aviation trends and equipment ....what I wanted to express is that there are people on here who aren't pilots and yet I love talking to them about things only aircrews understand and contribute with my knowledge for their topics....what I was trying to say is that.....people got used on here to use derrogatory terms such as niggers, word starting with F...., fascist and hidden neonazzist propaganda , anti US and NATO comments which only AL QUIDA, HIZZBOLAH , AL AKZA Brigades would use ....and produce continous incitement against US ......and fully deflecting from the purpose of this forum by saying comments such as F-16 is a crap airplane,Antonescu was a national hero, Rumanian Army was a usefull partner of the SS in WWII ....or the other using tasteless and sarcastic terminlogy such as Shalom Bin Landen ......

Victor, most of the people in Rumania after Ceausecu fall understood that America and Western Countries are the saviour of the new Rumanian state.....which was never the case and it will never be and is a missconception.

US and Western have no whatsoever sentiments and compassion towards new Rumania neither other former Eastern European countries unless you guys posses same nuke Arsenals like Ukraine and Russia...what counts is what Rumania has to offer to the Americans, French ,Sweeds and Germans in order to get aid and commercial outlets into the EU from them ...because in the West ,Money Talks Bullshit Walks and the entire society is nothing but materialistically oriented.... I understand the frustration at your end though we in Europe dont live in honey and milk , neither Rumania has to forget that your society was always even during the WWII inclinded towards the West and not the murder gang of nazzies from Berlin and Rome.....I am upbeat that people in Rumania understanding that despite the help they gave the Whermacht in WWII , they have no friends and priviliges in Berlin of than and now whatsoever!

I agree about SAAB Grippen ads campaign in Rumania , therefore the excitement at your end is obvious ......my personal feelings tells me that Grippen last export customer was Hungaria as RSAF bailed out of it , Emirates stampped it as too expensive to operate, Oman didnt even wants to talk to the selfrightious Sweeds and even FMV in Stocholm may reduce the ordered numbered, while Austria froze the decision because they were happy to lease 20 ex Swiss AF F-5's.

Now when the EFA is almost mature for series production in UK and Germany and cost less to operate than JAS...F-16D Block 60 who twice superior in performance and lower in operational cost and the enhanced Rafale....I franklly think that the JAS 39 exports days are numbered. The Hungarian probably got exports outlets into Sweeden and I don't rule out major bribes involving this lease .

In conclussion, I don't expect anyone to be a pilot on here ...all I expect and I hope is that people stop stereotype and get personal , cease using derrogatory comments, incitement and fascist propaganda on here and if they really can't ,than they should do it at their own space and time and not on here.

My thanks to all who can share my opinions with me and contribute the the benefit of the forum. I am moving on now...Victor whats the story about this plane project depicted on the fron cover ...Allien 5 ?

Al

Mr Imperialist I always use my own medications...do you ?? ( let me know if you dont understand the statament)

Posted by: Imperialist March 04, 2005 04:41 pm

QUOTE

In conclussion, I don't expect anyone to be a pilot on here ...all I expect and I hope is that people stop stereotype and get presonal , cease using derrogatory comments, incitement and fascist propaganda on here and if they really can't ,than they should do it at their own space and time and not on here.

Yes, Mr. Alex, I totally agree, and I hope you'll apply these rules too.

take care

Posted by: Iamandi March 07, 2005 08:55 am

Mr. Alex

It is our pleasure. To read and comment what we read about what we like - computer games, computer things, military technology, history, pretty girls and some politics. It is an open forum, not one restricted to professionists, experienced members, people with a high value of expertize.
What you expect from us? To be quiet, an to resume just to read what only 10 - 15 of the forumist write in the topics? Or, our posts to be somethink like: "Thank you X or Y", "a lot of thanks x or y", "thanks again X or Y for your prof. posts...", "thanks..". Or to do a mass un-subscribe and to let prof. to be alone here and to talk in a closed doors style? (Useless hopes!

)

Question: you realisewhat you do? You split this forum in 2 parts. Let's check: "Dragos, Denes, Dan , C-2, CIP, Barbosu" "and various other members who not necessarily have to be pilots in order to understand military aviation trends and equipment" (we know well who they are) and ... the rest. None of the persons named by you, or other non named by you, none of them, do that thing. And be sure some of them had more knowledge than you!

Maybe is hard to believe by you - but i really apreciate your posts. Keep posting, keep posting good posts (

- when you post from "Google" source [pictures and info's about russian acesc, for ex.], you are a copy + paste, to; and when you scan, or make quotes from books, again you are a copy paste just like us, you know?) .. i like when i see pictures with your collection, miniatures, pictures from your collections, info's gained by you in years and years of your passion for Tidal Wave, etc.

Please, take more care when you post again about others opinions, or prefferences - some may be upset for that. Victor, Dragos and Denes show to us from time to time yellow cards (warnings) when we make mistakes, and upset others. You catch the point?

So, let's make pace, and let's continue to be good forumists, all of us.

On topic:

Mr. Aleks, please share with us some words about F-16i and if is possible, make a prof. comparation between "i" and other variants of this plane. Because - if we (RoAF) may use F - 16, for sure, it will be an up graded variant LanceR style after an Israely - Romanian industry colaboration.

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi March 07, 2005 09:23 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Mar 4 2005, 03:17 PM)

QUOTE

Well, i remember about a "Tehnica si Tehnologie Militara" issue, one of the few nombers edited by Modelsim. At the end of this magazine i read about a DASA project (i hope i don't have a bad sector in my memory). Two variants - one with pilot, and one unmaned. A multi-barelled gun and some air to ground weapons.

What you say is like in future, urban querillas trow out RPG-7 from his arsenal and bagin to use hi-tech birds with more powerfull projectiles than RPG-7! Waw! Don't say any more! Maybe an Al Qaeda member is logged in this forum and catch the ideea...

But, a CAS UAV for romanians - a local developed one, to not be dependents from other countrys materials, spar parts, etc. it is a beutifull dream. Maybe, a team of romanian engineers will start such a program with a traditional minimal sum of moneys....
Tell me, in your vision how could it be this UAV?

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist March 07, 2005 10:39 am

QUOTE

Tell me, in your vision how could it be this UAV?

I dont know if I should tell you on a forum. I did some research on the subject (as an 'amateur' ofcourse) and went pretty far with my idea. Its not a totally original idea, because the UAV technology is strongly researched in the US. My only contribution was to adapt the UAV theory and technology to a guerilla war. So its rather an operational innovation rather than a technological one.
Because the technology is there, I know it would work, because I'm not increasing the UAVs/UCAVs complexity (try to make it carry 7,000 punds instead of 6,500 or from 10,000 to 15,000 ft, or spend 6 hours airborne instead of 4 etc. for example) but rather make it simpler and adapted to guerilla strategy.

QUOTE

What you say is like in future, urban querillas trow out RPG-7 from his arsenal and bagin to use hi-tech birds with more powerfull projectiles than RPG-7! Waw!

Well, I dont think they'll drop their RPGs, they'll just use the UAV to increase their firepower and cause heavier losses with smaller risks.

Still, these things have to prepared early on.

take care

Posted by: Imperialist March 07, 2005 10:45 am

Alexkdl said:

QUOTE

Mr Imperialist I always use my own medications...do you ?? ( let me know if you dont understand the statament)

Well, no I dont. I generally take a smoke from other people's medication too. We pass it around, you know?

Now lets smoke some peace pipe and chill out.

take care

Posted by: Iamandi March 07, 2005 10:47 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Mar 7 2005, 10:45 AM)

Alexkdl said:

QUOTE

Mr Imperialist I always use my own medications...do you ?? ( let me know if you dont understand the statament)

Well, no I dont. I generally take a smoke from other people's medication too. We pass it around, you know?

Now lets smoke some peace pipe and chill out.

take care

Good ideea!

QUOTE

Now lets smoke some peace pipe and chill out.

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi March 08, 2005 02:09 pm

QUOTE

Presently there is a Romanian small UAV project called the IAR T if I am not mistaking, but it isn't thought as a combat aircraft.

IAR T is'nt a combat aircraft, but he can give a lot of help in combat theatre. Look at Dragon Eye, another mini UAV, and let's think what help can give for, let's say romanian Blue Helmets.

Look at this picture. It had apropriate dimenssions like IAR T - i read about him in Top Gun romanian magazine.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20052111.asp

here is the link for the rest of the gallery, and some words. Look what images can provide!

Iama

PS - Imperialist, think about what help can give such a mini UAV to guerilla teams in urban fighting. Imagine a reverse picture - Faloujah and Dragon Eye used by iraqi troops / guerilla, for real time surveillance against US troops.

Some time ago i read about ASAT weapons. Rockets launched from an F-15 to destroy russian spy sattelites. I try to imagine a new concept: mini UAV with fighter role, for interception of enemy's mini UAVs! Science Fiction close to reality. Like in computer games!

Posted by: Imperialist March 08, 2005 04:56 pm

QUOTE

PS - Imperialist, think about what help can give such a mini UAV to guerilla teams in urban fighting. Imagine a reverse picture - Faloujah and Dragon Eye used by iraqi troops / guerilla, for real time surveillance against US troops.

Real time surveillance will use a goddamn lot of bandwidth to be guerilla-compatible!!! Plus it will increase exposure time. (Although the smaller the UAVs get, the more exposure becomes irrelevant, so I dont count that out)
The guerillas have lots of men on the ground for surveillance, they dont need eyes in the sky. They need only weapon platforms in the sky. The simpler yet high-tech, the better. Shoot and scoot platforms...

As I said though, iraki guerillas have no chance to develop this, this would take some time and research and finances. This can only be prepared early on.

take care

Posted by: Dénes March 08, 2005 05:12 pm

IIRC, late last year Hezbollah sent an small UAV over Israel for reconaissance. And it was not the first time this has happened.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Iamandi March 15, 2005 04:00 pm

If this post is too OT, please delete him.

US Program F-22 Raptor is under a critichal eye. On of the key people in military US aviation, "Riccioni, who pioneered supersonic cruise technology and the F-16 Lightweight Fighter Program, says the decades-old F/A-22 Raptor program is broken and too expensive to fix. ", "Col. Everest Riccioni (USAF ret.), a pioneer in combat fighter design"...

I find this article after i read romanian articles about MiG 21 LanceR program, and about what dirt receive this program from press. US Airforce had problem too.. with their Raptor program:

"Legendary Fighter Pilot and Designer Says the F-22 Raptor is the Wrong Weapon at the Wrong Time

Source: Project On Government Oversight (POGO)

In concert with the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Col. Everest Riccioni (USAF ret.), a pioneer in combat fighter design, has published his critical analysis of the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet program.

Riccioni, who pioneered supersonic cruise technology and the F-16 Lightweight Fighter Program, says the decades-old F/A-22 Raptor program is broken and too expensive to fix. From his unique vantage point, Riccioni traces the history of the escalating cost projections and ever-changing justifications for the Raptor program. It is obvious that the official data have little basis in reality, and vary greatly with time. Unabashedly, the previous official cost quotes are immediately forgotten, according to Riccioni.

The F/A-22 program currently costs $72 billion. The unit cost per plane has rocketed from $35 million to $257 million. With that, the number of planes the Air Force can afford to buy has dropped significantly. If the President's proposed FY2006 Defense budget is approved, the program would be cut back to approximately $61 billion, but the Air Force would only be able to acquire 180 aircraft. This would bring the cost to over $330 million per aircraft. Moreover, such a small fleet of fighter jets would have little to no impact in a real combat situation.

Riccioni also argues:

--The F/A-22 has no role that can't be filled by today's fleet of U.S. fighter aircraft. Al Qaeda doesn't train, enlist, or use fighter pilots, Riccioni writes. Terrorists do not employ fighter forces. There is no need for new air superiority fighters.

--The F-22 was designed and conceived during the Cold War to penetrate deep into Russia, achieving air superiority, to break up the expected large formations of Warsaw Pact bombers that were to enter and attack Europe. Now those threats no longer exist.

--The reduced numbers of F/A-22 aircraft will adversely affect the Air Force mission. Most important, 175-250 fighters do not allow for multiple, simultaneous missions like the thousands in our F-15, F-16, and F-18 fleets can perform.The solution: Upgrade the current F-16 and F-15 fleet with modern avionics systems like radar technology and situational awareness systems. By cutting the Raptor program, the Department of Defense would free up approximately $5 billion annually, money that could be spent on other, truly critical defense needs like supplying combat forces in Iraq and America's continuing Special Operations missions against terrorist networks throughout the world.

Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director, praised Riccioni's work. "The ever-eloquent Riccioni raises important questions in this report that the Air Force should not be allowed to ignore."

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. "

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 March 15, 2005 05:12 pm

Just as a note... Supersonic Cruising is an old thing. Many fighter had it. BAe Lightining, Mig25, etc. F-22 just push it to a diferent level

Posted by: Zayets March 16, 2005 09:40 am

Also,the news is pretty old now. However, I read somewhere (don't remember the publication) that USAAF will still manufacture a certain amount of Raptors. I don't even know if this are good or bad news. I,personally,found better continuing Comanche program instead going up with F22 programme since things were quite clear against who USA will fight. Well,apparently they seen that too late. At least the industry got so needed cash.

Posted by: Iamandi March 16, 2005 09:59 am

Also, Zayets, look here:

"Source: Project On Government Oversight (POGO); issued March 11, 2005"

Of course is old - some days.

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi March 16, 2005 11:58 am

And a link to the 23 pages entire document in a .pdf file, from POGO site:

http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

Well, at first page it say: "March 8 2005".

Posted by: Zayets March 16, 2005 08:00 pm

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=83619&highlight=F%2FA-22 discussion was almost 2 months ago.

Posted by: Iamandi April 14, 2005 06:14 am

An overview including Romania. How old are this Block 15? The same age with our MiG's? I think their are older than Bis variant of MiG-21, who, however, we don't have..

Future Fighter Aircraft Requirements in Emerging Economies

Source: Frost & Sullivan

issued March 30

"LONDON --- The next ten years will see continued growth in purchases of new fighter aircraft. Outside North America and Western Europe, this will especially be the case in Asia where up to US$ 7 billion may be spent on new fighter programs. In Eastern Europe and Latin America, several countries will be making important strategic decisions about the future of their air defence capability in the near future. It is therefore essential that the companies involved are aware of these opportunities in order to offer the best possible conditions to potential buyers.

India expects to experience sustained economic growth in the next decade and wants to ensure that no threats to the subcontinents security will endanger this growth. In line with that, there will be large-scale purchases in order to boost capability and replace old equipment.

Approximately US$ 3 billion have already been spent on 140 new Su-30s that will be delivered between 2007 and 2017. "Up to 130 medium sized fighter aircraft are also needed, and a notable shift was made when it was announced that F-16 is considered as a strong contender. Also, more new training, special mission aircraft and helicopters are needed for all three services. All these purchases will be followed by additional related contracts for MRO and Training and Simulation worth hundreds of millions of dollars," reports Marko Lukovic, Research Analyst at Frost & Sullivan.

China is much more of a mystery, as the nation's defence procurement system is still completely opaque. It is known that they have been heavily modernising their Armed Forces over the past decade, but it is not certain what kind of a mix of modernised domestically produced and imported equipment the Chinese have managed to acquire. It is known that the purchases of Su-27s have stopped after about 120 were built. "However, it is unclear whether this had happened because they wanted to build them with better avionics after the EU sanctions are lifted as expected, or because the indigenous J-10 fighter is considered to be a better value product," Mr Lukovic adds.

Chinese Defence industry is eagerly awaiting the final decision regarding the lifting of EU sanctions and will continue the procurement drive only after the necessary adjustments have been made to include new technologies they expect to buy, should the sanctions be lifted.

In Eastern Europe, the countries currently in focus are Bulgaria and Romania. Both of these countries have been looking to buy western aircraft for over ten years in anticipation of joining NATO, but there were other more pressing priorities. Now that both countries are full NATO members, it seems fighter aircraft procurement is finally due. Judging by their spending to date, Romania is likely to purchase up to 50 second hand F-16s Block 15 or similar, which will then incrementally modernised as funds are made available, probably with Israeli assistance. The Bulgarian procurement decision is still very much open to speculation, but it is hoped that their plans will be announced soon.

In Latin America, most countries have cash-strapped Air Forces that need replacement of a large portion of their inventory but cannot afford it. There are, however, a few notable exceptions such as Chile and Colombia. Chile has placed an order for 10 Block 52 F-16 and will be negotiating a second batch later this year, while the Colombian government has just announced that it has set aside US$ 540 million for a purchase of 22 new combat aircraft to be used against the guerrillas and drug producers.

Although it is the most powerful country in the region and the largest economy, Brazil has cancelled the troubled F-X fighter project. As most of Brazilian Air Force inventory has passed or is very near the end of service life, it is to be expected that 20-30 combat aircraft will be ordered in the next 5 years. Otherwise, the current airworthy fleet will find it increasingly difficult to control airspace over the Amazon and prevent narcotics transports.

"From the few example listed above, it is clear that the procurement of fighter aircraft will continue steadily in the next decade in countries outside North America and Western Europe," Mr Lukovic states. There is a clear market shift towards the emerging regional and global powers such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa that want to go beyond pure self-defence and project that power.

Mr Lukovic further observers a notable shift in procurement methodology, especially in India and Brazil, where the emphasis on quality and value for money has gained in prominence, and procurement decisions are no longer based purely on political reasoning.

"It should also be noted that procurement of fighter aircraft in countries mentioned above is relatively undeterred by the emergence of Unmanned Combat Airborne Vehicles (UCAVs), although some of them have long-running UAV programmes." Despite the fact that the global defence requirements have changed beyond recognition in the past 20 years, the multirole capability has ensured that there will be a requirement for manned combat aircraft for at least another two decades.

Frost & Sullivan, a global growth consulting company, has been partnering with clients to support the development of innovative strategies for more than 40 years. The company's industry expertise integrates growth consulting, growth partnership services and corporate management training to identify and develop opportunities. "

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2005 07:09 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 14 2005, 06:14 AM)

Judging by their spending to date, Romania is likely to purchase up to 50 second hand F-16s Block 15 or similar, which will then incrementally modernised as funds are made available, probably with Israeli assistance.

Thats stupid!
Why buy 50 block 15 (thats decades old!) and then spend more money and time modernising them, when we should buy 10 or 20 block 52?

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 14, 2005 07:39 am

Well don't forget that Israel already modernised its Block 15 so it won't be a big thing.
After all 50 planes is not 20

Decades old is one thing, the number of flight hours of the aiframe is different one.

COPYRIGHT F-16.net
Block 15
In November 1981, the Block 15 introduced MSIP Stage I changes to the F-16A/B starting with subblock 15Y and continuing through subblock 15AZ. More than a year earlier, in February 1980, these modifications were already effective on the F-16C/D production. The changes expanded the F-16s growth potential by allowing improved capabilities in the air-to-ground and BVR missions.

One major modification was the addition of two hardpoints to (and structural strengthening of) the chin of the inlet, designated hardpoints 5L and 5R. To offset the shift in center of gravity caused by the weight of these two additional hardpoints (and eventual stores attached to them), the extended horizontal stabilator (the so-called "big tail", 30% increase in area), was fitted. The new tail also provided better stability and more authority for out-of-control situations. It changed lift-off rotation speeds and allowed stable flight at higher angles of attack.

The AN/APG-66 radar on the Block 15 Fighting Falcons was provided with an early version of a track-while-scan mode for greater air defense capability. The F-16s were also equipped with Have Quick I secure UHF radios, and internal provisions for the AIM-7 were made. Additional structural strengthening was performed to allow an extra 1000 pounds of ordnance to be carried on the underwing points. Last but not least, pilot comfort was enhanced by improving the cockpit air conditioning.

The production run of the Block 15, saw 983 aircraft produced over a 14 year time-span, and took place on 3 production lines. The first Block 15 F-16 ( #80-0541, the 330th F-16 built) rolled out in 1982. In 1996, the last block 15 was delivered to Thailand, the 11th Block 15 customer. Early USAF Block 15 aircraft were later (1987-1993) retrofitted to Block 15OCU specifications.

Block 15OCU
214 aircraft from Block 15Y onwards received upgraded systems starting late-1987. Designated Block 15OCU (Operational Capability Upgrade), these aircraft are powered by the more reliable F100-PW-220 turbofan. These aircraft also have structural strengthening and are provided with the enlarged HUD that was first introduced on the F-16C/D. Also incorporated are the capability to fire the Norwegian Penguin Mk.3 anti-shipping missile (built by Kongsberg, US designation AGM-119) and the AGM-65, provisions for the AIM-120 Amraam, radar altimeter, expanded computer capacity, data transfer unit, wide-angle HUD, AN/APX-101 IFF, Tracor AN/ALE-40 chaff/flare dispenser and provisions for the AN/ALQ-131 ECM pod. These modifications increased the max. TO weight to 37,500lbs (17,010kg). The first Block 15OCU was delivered in January 1988, and from 1988 onwards, all Block 15's were built to OCU specifications.

Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2005 08:08 am

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Apr 14 2005, 07:39 AM)

Well don't forget that Israel already modernised its Block 15 so it won't be a big thing.
After all 50 planes is not 20

Decades old is one thing, the number of flight hours of the aiframe is different one.

Yeah, but I mean, its one thing to do a MidLifeUpgrade on them if you already have them, and they were actually state of the art when you bought them, and another thing to buy them only to upgrade them, especially when other blocks are on the market.
If upgrading a Block 15 would make as good as a block 50/52, I guess everybody would buy the airframe of block 15 and hire an Israeli firm to do the necessary upgrades.
Suddenly all F16s would become amazingly cheap.

At least thats how I see it. I think 20 block 50/52s are better to buy than 50 block 15. We should go for quality not quantity.

take care

Posted by: Iamandi April 14, 2005 08:53 am

QUOTE

At least thats how I see it. I think 20 block 50/52s are better to buy than 50 block 15. We should go for quality not quantity.

You are right, but unfortunatelly is not 100 % a happy thing to have 20 F-16 and "a lot" of LanceRs than 50 ex Block 15 - at a momment up graded to more capable level. I don't want to be understand in a bad mode. We are in a dilema, one who will be resolved only by politcians. In a bad mode, il bet!
Returning to begining of my post, i will underline an example - after first years from 1990, Romania had a squadron of MiG-29 operational. In that time was a scarry weapon for Occident, i think all fighter pilots from west dreamed to be victorious against that type of plane, and they was trained against Fulcrum (and SU-27). 29 was a two engine plane... and with that in mind i cannot stop to dream to a fantesy, something like "Another Time Line" Romanian Air Force.. with more than 50 Fulcrums, maybe in Sniper up grade variant... Well.. what i want to say?
Aaaaah! Yes, i remember: at that time we had a squadron of capable Fulcrums and a lot of Fishbeds - obsolete from electronics point of view - and some 40 (*?) Floggers, not so much different in capabilitys (let's ignore Hongs and IARs).
So what is the difference between then and the future? Smaller nomber of total planes, not so operational LanceRs, reduced nomber of Air Bases, and ... a new squadron of US Made fighters, single engine (old) second hand arrow head of our Air Force? Or, another variant: a squadron of Block 52 - but comparing 1990 and after, Fulcrum was feared... It is Block 52 feared now like was Fulcrum at that time?
In that case, when is better? Then, or in future?
Ok, is a variant with 50 or so F-16 Block 15 modernised with israelian firms.
It is much difference between our experience with LanceR programme?

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2005 09:59 am

Iama, from public data, we would be the only ones to BUY Bloc 15 F16s only to pay for their upgrade immediately after!!!
Something is wrong with that picture. Its like buying a gap then applying a stop-gap program to it!!!
It looks more like a cool deal for the US and Israeli upgrade firm, rather than for Romania.

Recent orders:

QUOTE

Greece (60 Block 52, first delivered April 2003)
Egypt (24 Block 40)
United Arab Emirates (80 Block 60, first delivery 2004)
South Korea (20 Block 52, all delivered)
Chile (10 Block 50, first delivery 2006)
Poland (48 Block 52, first delivery 2006)

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/

As you can see, there are countries far wealthier than ours (I mean SK) that buy small numbers of Block 52s for starters.

p.s. can a bloc 15 be upgraded to block 52?!

Posted by: Iamandi April 14, 2005 10:48 am

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1653&view=findpost&p=30968

In topic "Military tradings" - the most apropriate topic for this subject, i posted a message entitled "World Fighter Market Impacted by Major F/A-22 Program Cuts", were are described some problems in other programms.

About F-16, unfortunately, someone will be "impaled" (*? tras {in} teapa), and i think we will be chosen to buy Block 15, for the progress of another country...

www.airforce-technology.com this guys added some up dates to their site, no? I used some other from a while..

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2005 01:00 pm

QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Jan 5 2005, 09:30 AM)

Its not about affordability in the case of F22. It being the newest US fighter, the US will keep it for itself and sell it when they are already one step over the F22, or they develop an export variant. Until then its F16s all over the place, as we can see in the news...

Posted by: Imperialist April 14, 2005 03:50 pm

Also worth noting is the Pakistani decision to buy at least 50 F16s Block 52.

Now if we are to compare the two countries, Pakistan has a GDP of 68 bn.$, while Romania has a population 7 times smaller but a GDP of 60 bn.$..

So why would Pakistan afford those F16s block 52, and Romania can only afford block 15?

The thing is we can afford a block 52, but the incentive to buy that is not there.

After joining NATO our politicians want to relax. Part of the strongest military alliance around, Romania no longer feels threatened or compelled to invest money in important defense projects.
I fear the Block 15 - Israeli upgrade program is just another way of dragging our feet with minimum cost while enjoying the benefit of strong allied protection.
How long will this upgrading project last? 5-10 years?
Maybe when questioned about our defense efforts, we'll be covered for that period -- "hey, we're involved in upgrading with our friends the israelis, give us some slack"...

p.s. Anyways, I hope the block 15 thing is just a typo, or just wrong info, and our Air Force will make the right decision!

take care

Posted by: Iamandi April 15, 2005 05:48 am

Is hard to accept (who cares what my person want..), but if we buy F-16, why to not buy some from uprgade Block 60? A little more effort, but it worths.

"BLOCK 60 UPGRADE
The Block 60 F-16E/F, which is being developed for the United Arab Emirates, features extra payload and range, in part due to the new F110-132 engine being developed by General Electric, which produces 145kN of thrust. New avionics for the Block 60 includes a higher-speed mission computer, a new display processor, 3 large colour LCD displays, advanced data transfer unit with a fibre-optic data transfer network Precision targeting is achieved by the Northrop Grumman integrated navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR system using mid-wave infrared arrays and Northrop Grumman’s APG-80 agile beam active electronically scanned (AESA) radar. Northrop Grumman is providing the Integrated Electronic Warfare Suite. First flight of the Block 60 aircraft took place in December and the 80 Block 60 aircraft for the UAE are scheduled to be delivered between 2005 and 2007."

From link gave by Imperialist, some messages up.
If we buy F-16, let's buy last version!

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 15, 2005 07:23 am

Block 15 Upgrade is cheaper

.. I would buy it then upgrade it and buy a huge amount of ammo for them.
Block 15 is the most produce F16.

. Dutch , Norge ,Portugal and Dannish F16 are Block 15.. I do suspect that Info was not correct. There where rummors about Romania to buy F16 MLU's ..meaning F16 Block 15 upgraded.

Posted by: Iamandi April 15, 2005 07:43 am

MLU programme included structural - don't know the proper words.. Anyway, MLU had something to structure of the plane?
Ammo for gun in large quantitys, or PRNDs, because AMRAAM is 800000 - 1 mil. Maybe Sparrow, at 200 k? (Bleah!) Or israely made? I have doubts about russian rockets to be used - maybe what we have yet in stock.

Anyway, we need to have BVR capabilitys.

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 15, 2005 09:12 am

QUOTE

The Block 50's have the capability to fire the AIM-120 Amraam, the new AGM-65G Maverick missile and the PGU-28/B 20mm cannon round. The Block 50/52 is capable of carrying the new JDAM munition, the AGM-145A/B JSOW and is the first F-16 version to integrate the AGM-84 Harpoon antishipping missile. The AGM-137 TSSAM stand-off attack missile was also foreseen in its weaponry, but subsequently cancelled. The aircraft can launch the Harpoon in line-of-sight, bearing-only, and range/bearing modes. The addition of the Harpoon gives the F-16 a significant standoff range anti-shipping capability, especially when combined with optional 600-gallon fuel tanks.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

That sounds good, considering our naval requirements too.

Posted by: Iamandi April 15, 2005 09:26 am

What plane, before 90, had the role of anti-shiping missions in Romania, and what plane is now used for this type of actions? They were from Mihail Kogalniceanu and/or Borcea (Baraganu) air bases? What offensive armament used/use (not free falling bombs, or PRND's)? I think Hong's and Il-28 had just free falling bombs.

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5267635&action=article

Here is an article who surprise me: Dassault Aviation wins 6 bln eur Rafale order from Saudi Arabia - report. Was Rafale in views of Saudi Arabia? When? In faces of what other planes he win? Surprising news.. This article cited "Les Echo"..

You know more?

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 15, 2005 10:10 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 15 2005, 09:26 AM)

What plane, before 90, had the role of anti-shiping missions in Romania, and what plane is now used for this type of actions? They were from Mihail Kogalniceanu and/or Borcea (Baraganu) air bases?

I dont think our Navy had an air wing independent from the Air Force.
Its more likely that the Air Force was used to defend the air space over our waters, and it had interceptors on the bases you mentioned.
The Mig21s could have been employed in anti-shipping actions, given their ground-attack capabilities, but I dont know if we had squadrons specifically for this function only. So their ground-attack weapons were the ones used in anti-shipping too.

Again, I have no exact details about this.

take care

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 15, 2005 03:59 pm

We never had anything like Naval Air force. Event the helicopters onboard our ships belonged to Airforce.
From what I know the only guided AG weapon we had was the Kh23(?27) Kerry. A beam ridder . Not very good weapon. Basicaly we had Rockets and Bombs.

We had obsolete weapons.
Btw the AMRAAM cost was around $386,000 initially. It went down because of larger quantities produced. That is why US fighters can afford to launch a bunch of them.

Considering that we order (after some sources -actually a very doubtfull info) 60 Python 3.

I don't suspect that we will aquire more. Most of the countries that aquired AIM120 aquired more or less 10-12 per firing plane.

Posted by: Iamandi April 16, 2005 02:43 pm

I don't rememebr where i see 800-1 mil / AMRAAM. But, if one of this missiles of this type costs what you say.. it is a good point. Well, i read in another forum about Python, but nothing about nomber.
Israel says about Python like about a better than AIM 9L US made missile, and is battle tested against syrian planes. China had his licensed copy PL8 from aproximately 1990, and an excellent point in favour of this type of missiles is her HMS compatybylity. Good for our LanceR. At base, is superior to AA2 Atoll..

That squadron of helos - i forgot the name of the base, near Constanta (now closed, befor MK to be .. ) was a squadron of Air Force, or an independent unit with role in litoral missions?

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu April 18, 2005 06:29 am

If Romania is going to purchase block 15/MLU F-16's that is fine, however because they are second-hand and much cheaper then new block-50 F-16's which costs more 40 million a piece. Then the Romanian Air Force should replace the Lancer on a one to one basis. Meaning that 100 F-16 A/B block-15 MLU need to be purchased, so that our Air Force does not contract any more! Are combat assets are already less then a third of what they once were. At a unit price of around 5-10 a plane, that means between 500 mil. to 1 billion $ for an Air Force, made up entirely F-16's. FMS funds and finacial offsets should help pay for such a purchase.

Thank You

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 18, 2005 06:34 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 16 2005, 02:43 PM)

From what I've read the Python3 was more like a improvement of the 9L with better capabilities than 9M.
In any case we had also R-60s produced here.

Posted by: Iamandi April 18, 2005 11:55 am

R-60 manufactured here is 100 % Aphid, or some domestic improvement?

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 18, 2005 12:24 pm

Well it was produced by http://www.elmec.ro/r_about.html Electromecanica Ploiesti
It was called RAV-RS. I think it was the first version of the missile or the 60M.
Who knows maybe it was improved. All missiles what we produced where somehow Improved, but not by much. Perhaps some part where replaced by components made here.

http://www.elmec.ro/eng_services.html here a link where R60 apear.

Posted by: Iamandi April 20, 2005 07:35 am

What are we going to do with the LanceR's after they have been replaced?
Would they still be useful for anything? Or, they will share the fate of MiG23 and IAR93? Or will be used for advanced training / agressor type of missions?

I ask myself why MiG23 was not used for this role?

How many two seat Floggers had Romania?

Iama

Posted by: Imperialist April 20, 2005 03:15 pm

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 20 2005, 07:35 AM)

What are we going to do with the LanceR's after they have been replaced?
Would they still be useful for anything?

Iama

We will make our Agriculture the most advanced in the world, by employing jet crop-dusters.
You can already see mr. Ion "din vale" taking lessons to pilot jet crop-dusters...

With these guys trained for ground-attacking crop destroyers, Romania could also have an important reserve of jet fighter pilots.
The "Morometii" squadrons could wreak havoc on any enemy...

p.s. just a joke

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 20, 2005 04:03 pm

The lancers will have same fate as Mig 29's ..stripped of all Electronics and let decay in open field.

Posted by: Iamandi April 21, 2005 05:52 am

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Apr 20 2005, 04:03 PM)

The lancers will have same fate as Mig 29's ..stripped of all Electronics and let decay in open field.

Unfortunatelly, are much chances to ...you are right, Tomcat.
Well, others had chosen the proper way:

"First JAS-39 Gripen Fighters Arrive in Czech Republic
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, PRAGUE

The first six supersonic Jas-39 Gripen fighters leased from Sweden by the Czech Republic arrived there April 18, the Czech defense ministry said.

The Gripens — 12 one-seater JAS-39 Cs and two two-seater training JAS-39Ds — will be leased for 10 years at a cost of 19.6 billion koruna (649 million euros, $842 million dollars), after which the country has an option to buy them or returned them to Sweden.

Eight more will join the Czech air force by the end of August, the ministry said.

The planes gradually will replace the obsolete soviet MiG-21s and will be based at the Caslav air force base, 70 kilometers (44 miles) east of Prague.

They will be equipped with American AIM-120 medium-range air to air missiles and will be used to defend the country’s air space as well as operations with NATO, which the Czechs joined in 1999.

The deal, signed in June 2004, also includes a multi-purpose simulator, a mission planning system, complete technical equipment for the jets and training for both pilots and ground personnel.

Under the terms of the agreement, Sweden is committed to investing 130 percent of the contract’s value in so called “off-sets” in the Czech Republic, 20 percent of which will be direct investments into the Czech economy.

The lease of the Gripens was approved by former Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla’s government last June.

The government initially planned to buy more planes but after the 2002 devastating floods the number was cut. The opposition Civic Democratics (ODS) opposed the deal, arguing that it was beyond the country’s financial capacity.

Hungary has also decided to buy Gripens complete with AIM-120 missiles. "

They will have BVR. Nice to have neighbours superior in power, even they are allies.

Iama

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu April 22, 2005 05:32 am

Romania must maintain a viable Air Force, in order to this Romania needs modern mutli-role fighters. There are a number of choices, the SAAB JAS-39 and Lockheed-Martin F-16 being the most likey selections.They are both excellent aircraft, capable of performing any mission which they are assigned to perform. I personnaly prefer the JAS-39 Gripen, I feel that it is the better fighter. However I could live with the F-16, being selected as long as:

A: A reasonable number where purchased, at least 48 if new, 100 if second-hand.

B: There is some aid to Romania, in the form of FMS funds and off-sets to the Romania Aviation industry.

C: They where well equipped to the lastest standards, and armed with AMRAM BVR missiles!

Thank You

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 22, 2005 09:05 am

hehe.. it seems that you din't hear the news about Czech Grippen

Well 3 out of 6 developend malfunctions. One was hastly replaced just in time to fly to Czech republic. During that flight one lost Comunication system and had to follow the leader plane Blindly . Another one had malfuntion to Navigation system

Not to mention that Czech Grippen are not cleared for AIM9M which they aquired and Sweeden don't have those integrated, but only to AIM9L which Sweeden has and kindly sell 27 to CzAF . As for AMRAAM, well they don't have them yet in their inventories

Posted by: Iamandi April 22, 2005 09:12 am

Bad start! Maybe is just a matter of time, and in future they will resolve the problems, and etc. But, to then, they have a brand new plane plane to defend from nobody: L-159 ALCA!

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 April 22, 2005 03:34 pm

its like having our Iar 99 Soim tasked to defend us.

Posted by: Iamandi April 27, 2005 07:39 am

From romanian language forum www.aviatia.ro i read about www.roaf.ro changed his face.

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi August 25, 2005 05:17 am

This morning i heard at radio a title from a newspaper: "Romania se va dota cu un nou tip de avion de lupta". Unfortunatelly, i don't remember the name of the newspaper... Anyone knows more about that - name of the newspaper and ... about the new fighter plane?

Iama

Posted by: Iamandi August 25, 2005 05:38 am

Bingo!

http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=183418&data=2005-08-25&kword=

QUOTE

In scurt timp, va fi lansata marilor firme producatoare de aeronave de lupta invitatia de participare la licitatie pentru dotarea aviatiei militare cu aproximativ 50 de avioane de lupta din generatia a IV-a. Cei mai importanti competitori care se arata interesati de a participa la viitoarea licitatie sunt suedezii de la SAAB, cu avionul multirol Gripen si Lockheed Martin, producatorul interceptorului F-16.

Iama

Posted by: Zayets August 25, 2005 05:41 am

Now,lets's keep our finger crossed that they won't fsck up this time.Although there's few chance in doing that.Given the fact that the *** president we have went clearly on Washington-London axis I expect that they will rule out any Europeean competition.Which leaves room for the Falcon.Which is not necessary a bad thing.
Neverthless,is a thing to follow closely.

admin edit - avoid libels

Posted by: Iamandi August 25, 2005 08:43 am

So, the battle will be between Grippen and Falcon? At least appears to be according to this article.

I doub't in the game will participate F-15, F-22, F-35, etc.

If we will be good guys, can Santa Clause bring us 50 Rafales?

Iama

Posted by: Zayets August 25, 2005 08:51 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Aug 25 2005, 08:43 AM)

If we will be good guys, can Santa Clause bring us 50 Rafales?

I will join the army if that will happen

Posted by: Iamandi August 25, 2005 10:24 am

QUOTE (Zayets @ Aug 25 2005, 08:51 AM)

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Aug 25 2005, 08:43 AM)

If we will be good guys, can Santa Clause bring us 50 Rafales?

I will join the army if that will happen

I will do the same action! I imagine myself... a 27 (

28 so soon..) years old recruit! A comedy movie...

Iama

Posted by: Dénes September 22, 2005 11:42 pm

Rumania eyes 24 F-35s JSF as replacement for the MiG-21s (article by Mediafax, in Rumanian):

QUOTE

Romania cauta noi avioane de lupta, pe care le va achizitiona anul viitor pentru a inlocui vechile MiG-21, de conceptie sovietica, a declarat, ieri, ministrul roman al apararii, Teodor Atanasiu, intr-un interviu acordat Reuters. Potrivit ministrului, cele 24 de avioane noi vor fi cumparate, inchiriate sau achizitionate prin participarea la proiectul aviatic al companiei Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - JSF.
[Mediafax]

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Zayets September 23, 2005 05:48 am

Yes,that would be a big move.I still think they will buy something different.
Here is an article from Ziua :

http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=185299&data=2005-09-23&ziua=ccd11bd30497a5f783dec367de2be4cf

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 23, 2005 07:17 am

I highly doubt that ... maybe is F16's, JSF won't be arround for some time.

Posted by: Imperialist September 23, 2005 07:21 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ Sep 22 2005, 11:42 PM)

Rumania eyes 24 F-35s JSF as replacement for the MiG-21s (article by Mediafax, in Rumanian):

QUOTE

Gen. Dénes

Why not Eurofighter? Is this politics mostly, or the JSF is above the Eurofighter?

Posted by: Zayets September 23, 2005 08:01 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Sep 23 2005, 07:21 AM)

QUOTE (Dénes @ Sep 22 2005, 11:42 PM)

Rumania eyes 24 F-35s JSF as replacement for the MiG-21s (article by Mediafax, in Rumanian):

QUOTE

Gen. Dénes

Why not Eurofighter? Is this politics mostly, or the JSF is above the Eurofighter?

JSF is way above (as concept) Eurofighter. Eurofighter is a superb aircraft but I doubt it will excel in anything else than fighter role.
My favorite is Rafale,but I highly doubt this will even happen.In fact I will hold a party if we will ever buy a Rafale squadron.

Posted by: Iamandi September 23, 2005 08:47 am

...and some (some???) Scalps.

Iama

Posted by: tomcat1974 September 23, 2005 09:05 am

You should hold a party if they ever sell a single Rafale outside France:)

Posted by: dragos03 September 23, 2005 12:19 pm

Is that news for real? Does Romania have any chance to get JSFs?

Posted by: Zayets September 23, 2005 12:57 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Sep 23 2005, 12:19 PM)

Is that news for real? Does Romania have any chance to get JSFs?

Probably not but one could hope.Definitely I didn't expected that. I was always thought that they will buy something like the Falcon/Gripen or maybe Hornet ( a long shoot).
But JSF, I never thought they will see it as a viable option for the budget they have.So far,no JSF was delivered>I do see some advantages in the decision to go after JSF.Most probably they will opt for that becasue is a whole program,countries joining to this effort are pumping money not for the buy,but also R&D and very probably for manufacturing.
And given the fact that the first amount will be paid somewhere in 2006-2007 it will give them some room.ATM Lancers are doing their jobs just fine.They will be phased out in 2010 most probably so there is enough space.
As for the news,you should take it as it came but the journalists are the same that adverted for free one month ago the Gripen

. I see this article in the same light as the previous one

Posted by: Dani September 23, 2005 01:12 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Sep 23 2005, 02:19 PM)

Is that news for real? Does Romania have any chance to get JSFs?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20050921171309990014&cid=1205

Edited: Quite strange that I didn't find on Reuters this news...

Posted by: Dani September 23, 2005 01:42 pm

Mr. Martin Dokoupil is a Slovak working for Reuters. The following infos are public:

Email: martin.dokoupil@reuters.com;
Tel: +421-2-5341-8402

(A short search on Google will display the above informations)

Posted by: Dani October 26, 2005 09:12 am

From http://www.romtehnica.com.ro/

-GENERAL LIST OF MILITARY PRODUCTS AVAILABLE TO BE DELIVERED FROM ARMY STOCK
-III AVIATION
-1. AIRCRAFT

AN-24 - 3 pieces;
AN-26 - 3 pieces;
AN-2T - 3 pieces;
HONG-5 B - 5 pieces;
HONG-5 C - 2pieces;
HONG-5 DC - 2 pieces;
IAR-93 DC-B - 4 pieces;
IAR-93 DC-PRESERIES 1 - 4 pieces;
IAR-93 DC-PRESERIES 2 - 4 pieces;
IAR-93 SC-B - 22 pieces;
IAR-93 SC-MB - 14 pieces;
IAR-93 SC-PRESERIES 1 - 8 pieces;
IAR-93 SC-PRESERIES 2 - 13 pieces;
MiG-21 C - 9 pieces;
MiG-21 F-13 - 1 pieces;
MiG-21 M (2 without engine) - 6 pieces;
MiG-21 RFM - 29 pieces;
MiG-21 RFMM (7 without engine) - 41 pieces;
MiG-21 U - 6 pieces;
MiG-21 UM -5 pieces;
MiG-21 US (1 without engine) - 6 pieces;
MiG-23 MF - 32 pieces;
MiG-23 U - 2 pieces;
MiG-23 UB - 4 pieces;
MiG-29 MF - 15 pieces;
MiG-29 UB - 3 pieces;

-ENGINES
R 29-300 ENGINE FOR MiG-23 MF - 38 pieces;
R 27-300 ENGINE FOR MiG-21 A/C - 9 pieces;
WOPEN-5JIA ENGINE FOR HONG-5 A/C - 23 pieces;
VK 1A ENGINE FOR HONG-5 A/C - 42 pieces;
RD-33 ENGINE FOR MiG-29 A/C - 8 pieces;

I quoted only planes and plane engines available from stock.
So we are preparing for new aircrafts!

Posted by: Imperialist October 30, 2005 03:43 pm

Heard on the news that Romania will buy Israeli second-hand F16s which will then be modernised with the same Israeli firm that did the MiG21 upgrade.

Posted by: Zayets October 30, 2005 09:02 pm

Yah, here's the link. Is just rumour.
http://www.adevarulonline.ro/index.jsp?page=articol&article_id=160011

BTW : I don't think is true. 150 mil is peanuts if you want to refurbish your whole fleet. You might buy around 15-20 pieces second hand

for the same amount you can get 10 brand new.

Posted by: Dani October 31, 2005 08:36 am

And here is the news cited by Adevarul:
http://www.arutzsheva.org/news.php3?id=91992

Posted by: tomcat1974 October 31, 2005 11:13 am

It might be a different thing..
We get the F-16s from USAF stocks (they have a lot of them in stores-prepared for WW3 ) and the deal is with Israel to upgrade them.
This way we might be close to reality
110 lancers update costed 300M$
x F-16 update .... 150M $

No way in hell to get more than 10 F-16 at that price tag. A new one is 40M$. Older ones at 15M a piece.
We need more data.

Posted by: Zayets October 31, 2005 01:09 pm

Yes and don't forget F16i are top of the line. I want to see at least a Romanian F16 patrol equiped with the "i" model. This news is vapour ware. It is indeed more plausible that we'll benefit an upgrade program worth $150 mil. Here's the I version, courtesy of http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html

user posted image

Posted by: Dani October 31, 2005 01:45 pm

QUOTE (Dani @ Oct 31 2005, 11:36 AM)

And here is the news cited by Adevarul:
http://www.arutzsheva.org/news.php3?id=91992

It is spreading:
http://www.southeasteurope.org/subpage.php?sub_site=2&id=15372&head=hl

Posted by: Zayets October 31, 2005 02:41 pm

Sweet. So, if I put all these information together I conclude that we'll buy anno 1983-84 A/B's and then we will pay $150 to upgrade these to the Israeli standards ("I" model anyone?)
This will give tons of ammo to the ones saying that the Fulcrums were newer than the Falcons we're about to buy.

Posted by: tomcat1974 October 31, 2005 04:27 pm

Actually they are older than that ...

Osirak was in 1981 and was bombed by trully yours F-16 A's.

I'd say is a cheap bargain ...we will get shitload off spare parts...

Posted by: C-2 October 31, 2005 07:54 pm

A military pilot told me a few days ago,that buying F 16 would be a mistake,since his landing gear is very fragile and exept of Otopeni,he cannot land safely .

Posted by: tomcat1974 October 31, 2005 08:28 pm

I very much doubt that...
1) check the numbers of the operator of F-16 in the world. I doubt that any would say that landing gear is weak.
2) In any case almost all RoAF runaways where rebuild and we have asphalt on them.

Posted by: Zayets October 31, 2005 09:14 pm

Has this military pilot ever tried the falcon? I mean F16 are deployed in Afganistan right now (A/B models , exactly what we can buy here). Talk about rough conditions.

There are pro and contras for this aquisition (if the news confirm at all). Next time a military pilot will say that we should buy only the models with the tinted canopy since the normal one melts on Fetesti AFB.Or , who knows , is not good because engine doesn't run on diesel.

We don't know exactly which batch will be for sale but I'm sure the begining 80s are already scrap parts.So we are looking now at '82-'84 batch. Of course, this is just a guestimation, I have no data to back this afirmation.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 05:10 am

QUOTE (Zayets @ Oct 31 2005, 05:41 PM)

Sweet. So, if I put all these information together I conclude that we'll buy anno 1983-84 A/B's and then we will pay $150 to upgrade these to the Israeli standards ("I" model anyone?)

As I understand we'll buy 12 pieces of F16-A and B for 150 mil. USA and after that, for an unspecified amount the Israelis will upgrade those.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 06:55 am

They say "dozens" , thus most probably is more than 12. Besides, MApN said they want MINIMUM 24 aircrafts (instead of 48 for start). I guess we should wait. Especially because MApN denies these news.

Posted by: Agarici November 01, 2005 08:14 am

QUOTE (C-2 @ Oct 31 2005, 07:54 PM)

A military pilot told me a few days ago,that buying F 16 would be a mistake,since his landing gear is very fragile and exept of Otopeni,he cannot land safely .

An earlier “Top Gun” issue presented a common Dutch-Romanian military operation involving Dutch F 16s and Romanian Migs (if I remember well the 29s, which at that time were still in use). Among all the good things the Romanian pilots were saying about the Falcon (after seeing it in action and after their discussions with the Dutch pilots) they were indeed talking about the frailty of its landing gear and about the problems which the big size air intake could pose (they were saying that the Dutch pilots were terrified by the big number of birds from the airfield area, being afraid that any of those could jam the Falcons’ engines). Also if I am right, apart from its structural complexity and smaller number available, the fragile landing gear of the Mig 23 was another argument behind the air force decision from mid-90s to choose for the modernization program a plane from an earlier generation (the Mig 21). Now I don’t think a fragile landing gear could be a problem in the situations when the planes would be operating from dedicated and consolidated runaways (from the FAR airbases), but it could indeed create troubles when provisional/improvised airfields are to be use; let’s not forget that one shouldn’t rule out even the worst case scenarios (like war, peacekeeping operations, and so on) when such a decision is taken.

PS: if I’m right the Dutch-Romanian exercise included, more or less off the record, a simulated dogfight between an F 16 and a Mig 29. Guess which one won? Wrong…

it was the Mig 29.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 08:14 am

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 09:55 AM)

Especially because MApN denies these news.

In fact the defence minister denies any signed contract with any company (Israeli or not) for buying fighters.

http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_39675/avioane_la_mana_a_doua__israelul_zice_ca_negociem.html

So, they don't comment on this news.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 08:18 am

QUOTE (Agarici @ Nov 1 2005, 11:14 AM)

QUOTE (C-2 @ Oct 31 2005, 07:54 PM)

A military pilot told me a few days ago,that buying F 16 would be a mistake,since his landing gear is very fragile and exept of Otopeni,he cannot land safely .

An earlier “Top Gun” issue presented a common Dutch-Romanian military operation involving Dutch F 16s and Romanian Migs (if I remember well the 29s, which at that time were still in use).

... And the latest "Top Gun" issue are only about JAS-39 Gripen.

Do not forget Gripen's booth at EXPOMIL...

So far Czech Republic and Hungary leased Gripen and Poland bought (tough I'm not so sure) F16s.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 08:35 am

Poland signed the contract for buying 36 pieces of F16-C and 12 pieces of F16-D.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 09:19 am

QUOTE (Dani @ Nov 1 2005, 08:14 AM)

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 09:55 AM)

Especially because MApN denies these news.

But that is all about! As far as I'm concerned this is just PR stunt for Elbit. How would MApN would aprove such a deal (mind you, not sign) when the approved buy budget ($400-$450 mil) is overstretched? They talk about years now renewing the tanks regiments, and AA's and MLI's and many other things such as infrastructure made NATO compatible. I just don't believe 150mil can be used to buy 12 F16 and reequip these. A Lancer C upgrade was about 4 mil per piece.
I, for one, will wait to see how this will develop. I just can't stop smiling thinking back when MP Athanasiu looked so confident about the F-35

. Poor guy.

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 11:46 am

Well the pilot that told me his and other military pilots opinion about the F16 is a major an d over 40. He flyies a lot and that's all I can tell you since his a pacient...
He explained me something about the concrete that the runways are made of.
I didn't understand much.
It was about the fact that the runways have every few m a space of 1-2 cm between the concreet parts,and that's too bad for the F 16's landing gear.
He can be fabulated also.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 12:53 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Nov 1 2005, 02:46 PM)

It was about the fact that the runways have every few m a space of 1-2 cm between the concreet parts,and that's too bad for the F 16's landing gear.
He can be fabulated also.

I think he is right! For instance, remember the feelings on landing on Otopeni (Henri Coanda) airport!!
I flew several times with Boeing 737 and on each landing I was shaken on each passing through the spaces between concrete blocks.

And this happend on a civil airport!

Posted by: tomcat1974 November 01, 2005 01:10 pm

man the Airbases where rebuild recently for asphaltic coverage ...

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:16 pm

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Nov 1 2005, 04:10 PM)

man the Airbases where rebuild recently for asphaltic coverage ...

This is a good news.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 01:21 pm

Is amazing how rumours can wreck a good thing. FYI , "the space between concrete blocks" exist on every runway simply for expansion. Whatever you'd do, whatever aircraft you'd take for taxi you WILL feel the shake. And I bet you many things that Otopeni layer is better than Kandahar. And guess what, there are F16's taking off and landing daily.
As for the news, these are 2 years old news since MK AFB was disbanded, everybody knew that new runways are redone.

Edit : sorry is not kandahar,my mistake

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:29 pm

Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in June 2004:

http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/PHOTOS04/04292b.JPG

from: http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news04/uns04292.htm

Zayets, explain me why on Malpensa (Milano), Arlanda (Stockholm), Frankfurt Airport and Munich International Airport are no concrete blocks on runways???
On the other hand I talked about landing and not running to/on.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 01:35 pm

QUOTE (Dani @ Nov 1 2005, 01:29 PM)

What's to be explained?

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:35 pm

Kandahar airbase:
http://news.mod.uk/img/pressdatabase/images/supportingImages/large/harkan_tn.jpg

from: http://news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3640

I know that on MK airbase picture posted earlier and also on Kandahar airbase picture are shown the stationary area, BUT there is a difference mate!

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:37 pm

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 04:35 PM)

What's to be explained?

You said that each runway has concrete blocks...

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 01:41 pm

Misfortunate use of words, I meant every concrete plates runway. My apologies.
Edit : of course asphalt is better where temperature variations are small , or less rain/snow. Asphalt tend to be very slippery in these conditions. In other regions of the world, where these conditions are not met they use concrete. Of course, not the regular one. Other reasons can be also the cost, maintenance etc.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:43 pm

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 04:41 PM)

Misfortunate use of words, I meant every concrete plates runway. My apologies.

No problem! Anyway I was thinking of plates but I missed the term!!

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 01:51 pm

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 04:41 PM)

Edit : of course asphalt is better where temperature variations are small , or less rain/snow. Asphalt tend to be very slippery in these conditions. In other regions of the world, where these conditions are not met they use concrete. Of course, not the regular one. Other reasons can be also the cost, maintenance etc.

Extreme comparision:
I checked (meaning stepping on and looking on) the asphalt on Arlanda - Stockholm and the asphalt on Malpensa-Italy. There are different, of course, but there are asphaltic covers!! In Sweden and in Italy. (Note that I don't mention here Germany - with a smoother climate).

So, IMHO we have no excuse for using concrete instead of special cover.

Sorry for my off-topic posts!!!

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 02:02 pm

Is not offtopic, we speak about F16 landing gear which may not prove worthy on a concrete plate runway (which I doubt, just look at the lancers). Asphalt is diferent from region to region but there is a catch, concrete runways don't crack so often (not necessary because of intensive use). Climate is changing, but even so in the Far North most if not all runways are concrete.They hold up to the freeze-thaw cycles better then asphalt.Asphalt, up until recently, is generally cheaper then concrete. Therefore, many of the runways that are in a region that isn't exposed to the extreme temperature variations like the north are able to use asphalt.Depending on the MTOW of the aircraft using the runway will also determine its construction. Asphalt, if engineered correctly, i.e. thicker sections, can handle the weights of a 747 or a newer A380. Besides, what looks like asphalt (one layer) is not necessary asphalt, it can be a mix of stone/gravel/bitum/tar/etc on a hardened surface. Is really depending on what you want to use.And there's other thing, asphalt can be overlayed if cracked, concrete has to be replaced, cost comes into discussion. I really dont know if surface itself makes any difference. On one hand you have concrete runway with gaps between the plates and on the other hand you have saphalt which expands forming these waves we know from the regular roads. In the end of the day it depende on who's having the contract

Now, that was long, maybe offtopic, sorry.

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 02:26 pm

QUOTE (Zayets @ Nov 1 2005, 05:02 PM)

Besides, what looks like asphalt (one layer) is not necessary asphalt, it can be a mix of stone/gravel/bitum/tar/etc on a hardened surface. Is really depending on what you want to use.

This is the Arlanda's case!

Posted by: tomcat1974 November 01, 2005 02:41 pm

Anyway in 2001 the F-16 didn't had any kind of problem to take off and land on our concrete runnaways....

Posted by: Dani November 01, 2005 03:00 pm

QUOTE (tomcat1974 @ Nov 1 2005, 05:41 PM)

Anyway in 2001 the F-16 didn't had any kind of problem to take off and land on our concrete runnaways....

For few taking off / landings concrete plates runways wouldn't be a major problem.
I was only concern about hard duty time on Romanian concrete plates runways.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 03:09 pm

Well,at least we know that most RoAF runways are now asphalt.What you show in the pictures there is just the taxiway/tarmac/apron area. Taxi is usually under 20 kmph. I am not sure though about this figure.

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 06:44 pm

The major that I was talking with said that Otpeni is the only runway where the F 16 can operate safely.
The fact that other runways acros the country were recently repaired,meens nothing.
Look at all the bulevards and streets in BUchgarest thar are falling apart after afew months...
Even if an F 16 can land anywhere ,it can make the costs of maintenence very hight if repairs have to be made regulary to the landing gear.
22 years ago i talked to a woman who was a secretary in an Israeli airforce base.
She talked a little too much...
But since I was a child,and asked a lot of questions about airplanes,she wasn't worried...
She told me that the F -15 Eagle,stays about 14 days in a month in maintain.repairs.
That's A LOT!
And the IAF has a hight budget...

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 07:01 pm

And if we are talking about runways,there is an abandoned one near Caracal.
There is a statue of Alex. Sebanescu.
A good ideea is to take it from there and to put it on a green space on the Bulevard that has his name....

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 07:36 pm

Now, why do I feel like I don't believe a tenth of what are you saying? Obviously , I believe the part with Serbanescu. But that's about it.

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 07:39 pm

What exactly you don't belive?

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 07:41 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Nov 1 2005, 07:39 PM)

What exactly you don't belive?

A tenth of what are you saying.Actualy 90% to be more precise.

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 07:43 pm

So I'm a liar?
And what are the 10% that I'm not laying about?

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 07:45 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Nov 1 2005, 07:43 PM)

So I'm a liar?

Are you?

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 07:46 pm

That's what are you calling me ...
or not?
And there's agood way to find out if I'm a liar or you are not able to belive things you don't know ;
Send an email to a former member of this forum-Alexkdl.
He's a former F-16 pilot and can provide you some information.
But I think you won't belive him either.

Posted by: Zayets November 01, 2005 08:21 pm

QUOTE (C-2 @ Nov 1 2005, 07:46 PM)

That's what are you calling me ...

I very much doubt that.Besides, I believe what I want. I guess you don't have a problem with that.

Posted by: C-2 November 01, 2005 08:27 pm

Not at all!

Posted by: Dani November 02, 2005 08:30 am

Gen. Eugen Badalan, head of the Romanian General Staff, said yesterday that Romania intend to acquire (mostly to buy) 48 fighters for replacement of MIG 21s but he denied any negociations on acquiring second-handed F16s from Israel.

On the other hand he admitted that there are discussions "with many" when he was asked about any discussions with other countries for acquiring.

From: http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_39746/badalan___luam_48_de_avioane.html

Posted by: tomcat1974 November 02, 2005 10:22 am

There is no smoke without the fire...

Posted by: Zayets November 02, 2005 11:14 am

See? and how would 48 f16 cost $150 mil?

Even upgrade for 48 aircraft falls short using this amount.
On the other side, good news for the military, they got their budget increased

Posted by: tomcat1974 November 02, 2005 05:08 pm

150 M would be ok as upgrade

for 48 old F-16.
I mean the extend of modification needed by F-16 is not the same as it was with Mig-21.
Heck F-16 was the electric jet from birth...

Posted by: Zayets November 02, 2005 06:11 pm

We should cool down and wait further development.

Posted by: Imperialist December 08, 2005 11:27 am

What do you make of this:

http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-12-08&id=12838

Posted by: Dani December 08, 2005 11:38 am

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Dec 8 2005, 02:27 PM)

What do you make of this:

http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-12-08&id=12838

They called themselves "reporters"

Check my post: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=480&view=findpost&p=41063

Posted by: Iamandi December 08, 2005 11:38 am

I read it this morning. Nice to see a fragement there: "reporterii „Averea“ au descoperit ca 18 avioane MiG 29 (foto)" when in photo it is an F-16... And i ask myself from where they coppied more than 2/3 of the article?

Iama