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

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > recent Mig-21 crash in Romania

Posted by: Der Maresal September 29, 2003 02:43 pm

Heard a story that some two days ago a Mig 21 crashed, and the Pilot who did not want to abandon his plane.. went down with it.. :cry: Who can confirm the story and the events that lead to this tragedy.. ? :?:

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 29, 2003 02:50 pm

It was the Captain-Commander Sorin Popa who died during military exercices, after his MIG-21 Lancer crushed. The accident took place near the locality of Viisoara (Cluj county), being the third one this year in the Cluj county.

Posted by: Victor September 29, 2003 05:09 pm

[quote]It was the Captain-Commander Sorin Popa who died during military exercices, after his MIG-21 Lancer crushed. The accident took place near the locality of Viisoara (Cluj county), being the third one this year in the Cluj county.[/quote] The 3rd this year in Cluj county? Are you sure? I know that a total of seven Lancers crashed so far. This would be the second pilot killed.

Posted by: Dénes September 29, 2003 05:33 pm

This year, there were three fatal airplane accidents in Cluj County in total (not only MiGs): the Alouette III helicopter of SMURD, the Extra 300L sports plane and the most recent one, the MiG-21 Lancer jet. Very sad statistics, indeed. Dénes

Posted by: C-2 September 29, 2003 06:56 pm

I never understood why were the very old 21's modernized with a great cost of money ,insted of the newer 23/27 or the 29... Or even buying second hand western fighters...

Posted by: PanzerKing September 29, 2003 07:29 pm

Yeah I know F-16s are pretty easy to come by...we sell them to a lot of countries.

Posted by: C-2 September 29, 2003 07:37 pm

It's an expensive aircraft I was thinking more about a F-20...

Posted by: Victor September 30, 2003 03:46 am

[quote]I never understood why were the very old 21's modernized with a great cost of money ,insted of the newer 23/27 or the 29... Or even buying second hand western fighters...[/quote] Putting 3 million per aircraft and bringing its weapons systems up to date is not that expensive. With the 300 million we could have bought 12 F-16s. This way we have 100 Lancers.

Posted by: Der Maresal September 30, 2003 02:27 pm

[quote]I never understood why were the very old 21's modernized with a great cost of money ,insted of the newer 23/27 or the 29... Or even buying second hand western fighters...[/quote] Actually some Mig 29's were modernized too with more up to date equipment...(Mig-29 SnipeR). Like Victor says, it was more convenient to upgrade our older Mig 21's then to buy entirely new aircraft. It was a better deal. + the Migs can accept western and eastern weapons. Most of our arsenal is of eastern origin. The f-16's only carry western equipment. That's one thing. If it was up to me to "replenish" the Romanian airforce, I would prefer as my number one choice the Mig29M , it is an amazing plane and the pilots already have experience with Russian aicraft. Second, the "M" version is very advanced and can carry alot of air-to-ground armament, + it's full of avionics and modern equipment. It is an entirely new aircraft quite different from the original Mig29A. I would even buy the licence and have the Mig29M produced by IAR Brasov! ie..."IAR-29M" :wink: :wink: My second choice would be the Mirage 2000-5, but these are very expensive ..'ridiculously expensive'... until we have more money we'll just have to keep the LanceRs in service for as long as we can.. :cry:

Posted by: Dr_V September 30, 2003 11:21 pm

I wonder if it's not a false economy with theese "modernised" 21's. Regardless of what weapons they can carry, can a 30 y.o. fighter be effective in real combat today? More, with these crushes we loose our best pilots and a good fighter pilot can't be "manufactured" over night when it's needed. Oh, and what about that romanian built fighter "IAR 99"? Is it so bad that it's used only for trayning? I've heared that it's more effective in a dogfight that the MIG21, even if its slower. If theese MIGs are so unreliable, why can't we use our own IARs till we'll have the money to buy a western interceptor? It would be good for the economy as well and even if they're not great fighters they'd be new and more reliable. Anyway, we won't have a modern air force very soon. We live in a country where a pilot's life is cheaper than a new plane. Let's hope we'll not be engaged in a war for the next 20 years, 'cause we'll certainly loose it!

Posted by: Victor October 01, 2003 06:11 am

QUOTE Actually some Mig 29's were modernized too with more up to date equipment The MiG-29 Sniper was only a demonstrator. The project was canceled and all MiG-29s are now grounded because their flight resource expired and it was decided that 50 million USD are too much to modernize a squadron of those. Until 2010 the Lancers are the backbone of the RoAF. After that probably they would buy either the F-16, either the JAS-39. I would prefer the Swedish aircraft. QUOTE I wonder if it's not a false economy with theese \"modernised\" 21's. Regardless of what weapons they can carry, can a 30 y.o. fighter be effective in real combat today? They are pretty effective, despite the bad jokes around them. For instance, in joint exercises with Mirage F1s of the Normandie-Niemen Squadron, the Lancers generally had a missile lock before the French did. The lack of funds makes their maintenance difficult, but the avionics are state of the art. The pilots are equipped with displays and sensors on their helmets and can target just by looking at the enemy. QUOTE Oh, and what about that romanian built fighter \"IAR 99\"? Is it so bad that it's used only for trayning? I've heared that it's more effective in a dogfight that the MIG21, even if its slower. The IAR-99 is not a fighter, but a trainer, which can be used also in CAS missions. The IAR-99 Soim, updated version, is probably one of the best deals on the market. It offers a high quality at a low price. Unfortunately, many foreign buyers hesitate, because the RoAF does not have them in its arsenal yet. Dr_V, the IAR-99 is more maneuverable than the MiG-21, just like any subsonic aircraft is more maneuverable than a supersonic. But in terms of aerial combat from distance, I doubt it would have a chance.

Posted by: Der Maresal October 01, 2003 02:42 pm

I believed there was a competition regarding Romania's next generation fighter aircraft. The 3 candidates were the Saab Grippen , the F-16 and the Mirage 2000-5. It was expected that the Mirage would win and be picked by Romania because of the country's close ties to France. But in the end because of the lack of money...none got picked and instead it was chosen to modernize the old Migs. I personally prefer the Mirage 2000-5, rather then the F-16. I think too many countries have the F-16 already. (Denmark, Norway etc...) and the Mirage is more 'exotic'. And the Grippen i would place on number 2, the F-16 being my last choice. **The Hungarians have already the Saab Grippen - it should enter service in the near future. They 'leased' the planes from Sweden for a decent sum of money. That's one reason I don't want the grippen - but in any case i rather have that then a western aircraft. * I vote Mirage :wink: photo curtesy of the french website http://kovy.free.fr/pages/planchef1.html, excellent photos source !

Posted by: Der Maresal October 01, 2003 03:56 pm

QUOTE **The Hungarians have already the Saab Grippen - it should enter service in the near future.   They 'leased' the planes from Sweden for a decent sum of money. That's one reason I don't want the grippen - but in any case i rather have that then a western aircraft. As for those who prefer the Gripen, this Hungarian website will tell you all about it.. http://www.gripen.hu/index_2.asp (For some reason I don't think Romania and hungary should have the same plane...) ..and by the way..Austria will buy the Gripen too! I think for them this plane fits better then it does for either hungary or romania... http://www.gripen.at/main.jpg

Posted by: C-2 October 02, 2003 07:08 pm

How much does it costs to modernized a Mig 21? How much does a sec.hand western fighter costs?

Posted by: Dr_V October 02, 2003 07:12 pm

Thanks Victor!

Posted by: Victor October 03, 2003 11:57 am

Armament orders are not issued because the particular aircraft fits better, but because (hopefully) it is better suited for our requirements. The IAR-95 would have fitted us very nicely, but we did not have the engines for it. So I guess the F-16 /Jas 39 competition is on. The Mirage 2000, Rafale and Eurofighter have fewer chances.

Posted by: inahurry October 10, 2003 04:00 am

Mig29 is present in a too small number in Romania while the Mig21 Lancers were more than 120 pieces (in all variants - ground attack, intercept, double-seat). Now there are with 6 (Victor said 7, maybe he is right) fewer. While the percentage of lost aircraft is rather high, the Lancers flew significantly many more hours, their performance is good and the cost for modernizing them is acceptable (though there are "hidden" costs I think, about participations in Aerostar factory, and we all know how under-evaluated state-owned shares become when sold to foreigners). Only 2 pilots, if not mistaken, died flying Lancers and the last one tried to save the plane and probably hesitated too long before ejecting. One way or another, all the Lancers fleet will be withdrawn before 2010, more likely 2007-2008 so it is very probable Romania will be left without any significant airforce in a few years. Any rolled-out of the factory gates plane, be it American, french or swedish is simply unaffordable in larger (let's say 3 squadrons) quantities. My money goes on the American planes. Until now all we bought for the military was Israeli, German, French, British. If we "pass" the Americans this time too I guess they will send those planes here alright, but to bomb us :evil: .

Posted by: Der Maresal October 10, 2003 04:14 pm

QUOTE My money goes on the American planes. Until now all we bought for the military was Israeli, German, French, British. If we \"pass\" the Americans this time too I guess they will send those planes here alright, but to bomb us  :evil: . How about russian planes? They are not so expensive as Western aircraft, plus the russians need money at the moment so they will probabily sell cheaper. Also Romania has experience with russian aicraft ever since World War 2, while with American planes we can not say the same thing. :? + One thing that bothers be is the Instrumentation on board American planes which calculate Meters in FEET, and Kilometers in MILES or Nautical Miles, kilograms in pounds and so on.... We are used to the metric system, that's one reason I reject western aircraft. The latest generation russian planes if new and well build are a match, the russians make great designs only that they don't maintain them as well. Russian planes are cheaper then western planes in cost but not in maintenance. That's one thing to consider. Also I think that we are still in the Russian zone of influence, buying western aircraft will be seen as a threat to russia and would make it clear that Romania is in the American campus. That's why a more neutral country like Sweden or even France( )is a more appropriate choice. * and inahurry just because we don't buy american planes does not mean that they will come and bomb us, unless they find oil in Romania or somthing. :?

Posted by: inahurry October 10, 2003 07:30 pm

I don't think they will bomb us, of course, but I think we are in their zone of influence. About the oil, so far it seems Haliburton (a Bush/Chenney pet company ) was rejected from the privatization of Petrom (which is probably the most important company in Romania outside the financial area and probably competing with Sidex in strategic importance). The major privatizations so far are in the hands of French ( cement, Dacia, BRD), Russians(through Lukoil, Alro), Germans(rubber/tire plant, mechanical plants, detergents), Austrians(sugar, cement), Italians(textiles, now Tractorul Brasov), Greeks(RomTelecom), Anglo-Indians(Sidex), Hungarians(everywhere in Transylvania through small and spreaded investments, but also some notorious scandals in the ago-business) etc. and while Americans are indirectly present through OTE/ROMTELECOM or the south koreans and a few direct investments(Colgate, that Resita failure, now, though very unclear who and how, - ARO) I doubt they will try to maintain only political control while all the rest take a far more consistant piece of the pie.

Posted by: 88mm January 15, 2004 12:34 pm

I didn't want to start a new topic about MiG 21 "the Plow" so I'm writting here. What do you think is the cause of so many Lancer crusing : poor mantainance from the Air Force or the modernizantion pacage, mainly the new avionics implemented, has errors, a conflict between the new techonology and the plane's implicit commands?

Posted by: Victor January 15, 2004 08:20 pm

QUOTE I didn't want to start a new topic about MiG 21 \"the Plow\" so I'm writting here. What do you think is the cause of so many Lancer crusing : poor mantainance from the Air Force or the modernizantion  pacage, mainly the new avionics implemented, has errors, a conflict between the new techonology and the plane's implicit commands? What makes you say that there are "so many" crashes in the first place? As I showed in another thread, F-16s fall more often,yet nobody regards them as "plows".

Posted by: dragos January 15, 2004 08:25 pm

I'm not documented in this matter, but how is the fatality ratio, compared with Americans?

Posted by: dragos January 15, 2004 08:32 pm

Not only that we can't afford to crash planes, but the last killed pilot was one of the most experienced, IIRC.

Posted by: C-2 January 15, 2004 09:33 pm

The Romanian AF is loosing 21's because they're the only fighters we got! If we'd have F-16's the accidents would be with F-16... The pilots are flying few hours and the budget is low. Maybee someone can tell us the accident rate in other airforces.

Posted by: Victor January 15, 2004 09:42 pm

Look here, at the middle of the page: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=480&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45

Posted by: 88mm January 16, 2004 01:53 pm

You can not compare the number of active US F-16 with our numbers of MiG's. But let my tell you why I put this question. I came over an articol on the net from "The Hindu" : The Indian Air Force is trying to upgrade it's MiG 25. They to choose an Israeli company for it - less money then getting the upgrade package from the russians. The russian officials gave Romania as an exaple after the indians wanted to go along with the israelits - the inexplicabale loss of so many Lancers imidiatly after the firsts upgrades. They also said that a romanian delegation visited the M&G bureau to talk about this.

Posted by: Victor January 16, 2004 02:25 pm

QUOTE You can not compare the number of active US F-16 with our numbers of MiG's. But let my tell you why I put this question. I came over an articol on the net from \"The Hindu\" : The Indian Air Force is trying to upgrade it's MiG 25. They to choose an Israeli company for it - less money then getting the upgrade package from the russians. The russian officials gave Romania as an exaple after the indians wanted to go along with the israelits - the inexplicabale loss of so many Lancers imidiatly after the firsts upgrades. They also said that a romanian delegation visited the M&G bureau to talk about this. I am referring more to the Dutch AF, than to the USAF. THey lost quitea percentage of their F-16s. I would not givetoo much consideration to the Indian newspaper and their Russian "source". First, IIRC, they give a number of Lancers lost, double than in reality and second, the Russians are very objective and not at all interested in seizing the contract for themselves. :roll:

Posted by: C-2 January 18, 2004 08:16 pm

Today ,I saw on tv news about a crach of a Turkish fighter,I belive it was a F 16.Unfortunatly tha pilot lost his life. Like you see it happens also in a country with a huge military budget and very new equipment.

Posted by: C-2 February 13, 2004 06:22 pm

I red in yesterday newspaper,that some "iregularities" were found in some military airfields;tones of aviation fuel were stolen and pilots "got"flying hours that they never flew....

Posted by: Iamandi December 03, 2004 09:13 am

Anyone knows how manny planes had lost Romania in accidents from ww2 to present? And how manny lifes are loosed in this accidents? "A total of 157 Indian Air Force pilots have been killed in MiG crashes since 1971-72 to 2004-05 (up to 24th November 2004). A total of 40 civilians have been killed in these crashes. The regularized financial loss in respect of these MiG aircraft crashes is Rs17,71,70,60,026/-. A continuous and multi-faceted effort is always being undertaken in the Indian Air Force to enhance and upgrade flight safety. Measures to enhance the quality of training to improve the skill levels, ability to exercise sound judgment and situational awareness of pilots are being pursued. Constant interaction with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs) of concerned countries are also pursued to overcome the technical defects of aircraft. Besides, anti-bird measures are also undertaken. This information was given by the Defence Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee in a written reply to Shri Datta Meghe in Rajya Sabha today. " India Press Information Bureau, at 1 December 2004 Iama

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)