What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Agarici on November 01, 2005 05:55 pm

In fact the defence minister denies any signed contract with any company (Israeli or not) for buying fighters.

http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_39675/avioa...a_negociem.html

So, they don't comment on this news.

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.

Poland signed the contract for buying 36 pieces of F16-C and 12 pieces of F16-D.

In fact the defence minister denies any signed contract with any company (Israeli or not) for buying fighters.

http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_39675/avioa...a_negociem.html

So, they don't comment on this 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.

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.

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!

man the Airbases where rebuild recently for asphaltic coverage ...

This is a good news.

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

This post has been edited by Zayets on November 01, 2005 01:34 pm