Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (61) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?
 
What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?
MIG 29 [ 19 ]  [14.96%]
F 16 [ 28 ]  [22.05%]
a new IAR design, built here [ 36 ]  [28.35%]
JAS-39 [ 59 ]  [46.46%]
Su-27 [ 17 ]  [13.39%]
Mirage 2000 [ 3 ]  [2.36%]
Total Votes: 162
Guests cannot vote 
Dr_V
Posted on November 12, 2003 09:51 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Geto-Dacul
Posted on November 12, 2003 09:59 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



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'
PMUsers Website
Top
cuski
Posted on November 12, 2003 10:28 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 85
Joined: August 21, 2003



Why not the Su-27?
PM
Top
Dr_V
Posted on November 12, 2003 10:41 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



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.
PM
Top
cuski
Posted on November 12, 2003 11:23 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 85
Member No.: 85
Joined: August 21, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted on November 13, 2003 01:21 am
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
inahurry
Posted on November 13, 2003 02:44 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Der Maresal
Posted on November 13, 2003 03:10 pm
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 422
Member No.: 21
Joined: June 24, 2003



QUOTE
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:
PMMSN
Top
Victor
Posted on November 13, 2003 08:06 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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"
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted on November 13, 2003 08:19 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Victor
Posted on November 13, 2003 08:21 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Gripen is not so "neutral" anymore, since BAe got involved. :wink:
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dr_V
Posted on November 13, 2003 08:50 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



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?
PM
Top
inahurry
Posted on November 13, 2003 09:22 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted on November 13, 2003 09:26 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4332
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



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

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.


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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dr_V
Posted on November 13, 2003 09:44 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



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!
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (61) [1] 2 3 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0945 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]