What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

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

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 25, 2004 04:49 pm

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

Iama

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 26, 2004 07:32 pm

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).

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

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


Col. Dénes

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.