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



Pages: (61) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 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 ]  [14.84%]
F 16 [ 28 ]  [21.88%]
a new IAR design, built here [ 36 ]  [28.12%]
JAS-39 [ 59 ]  [46.09%]
Su-27 [ 17 ]  [13.28%]
Mirage 2000 [ 4 ]  [3.12%]
Total Votes: 163
Guests cannot vote 
PanzerKing
Posted on November 22, 2003 08:58 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 216
Member No.: 29
Joined: July 07, 2003



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.
PMUsers WebsiteMSN
Top
Victor
Posted on November 22, 2003 09:18 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



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).
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
el Greco
Posted on November 23, 2003 02:13 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 126
Joined: October 21, 2003



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.
PM
Top
mabadesc
Posted on November 23, 2003 04:36 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



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.
PM
Top
MuddyBoots
Posted on December 02, 2003 11:00 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 15
Member No.: 151
Joined: November 30, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Dr_V
Posted on December 02, 2003 09:11 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

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



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.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted on December 03, 2003 01:40 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



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

QUOTE
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.


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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted on December 03, 2003 01:47 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

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



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]
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dr_V
Posted on December 04, 2003 10:12 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

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



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..."???
PM
Top
Victor
Posted on December 05, 2003 01:21 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



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. :D

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).
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Der Maresal
Posted on December 05, 2003 03:28 pm
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

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



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! :lol: :o
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
(IMG:http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetrAzQ/9526%20MIG%2021%20LANCER.jpg)
vs.
Mirage 2000-5
(IMG:http://homepage.tinet.ie/~steven/images/mirage-2051.jpg)
More on this will follow- :idea:
PMMSN
Top
Carol I
Posted on December 05, 2003 03:48 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



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

(IMG:http://www.jed.simonides.org/radar/misc/ion-001/iar95a.jpg)

I found it on the Romanian Radar Development page.

Carol I
PM
Top
Der Maresal
Posted on December 05, 2003 05:21 pm
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

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



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?
PMMSN
Top
Carol I
Posted on December 05, 2003 05:24 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2250
Member No.: 136
Joined: November 06, 2003



I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988.
PM
Top
PanzerKing
Posted on December 05, 2003 07:24 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 216
Member No.: 29
Joined: July 07, 2003



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

Topic Options Pages: (61) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0250 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]