What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in June 2004:

http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/PHOTOS04/04292b.JPG

from: http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/news04/uns04292.htm


Zayets, explain me why on Malpensa (Milano), Arlanda (Stockholm), Frankfurt Airport and Munich International Airport are no concrete blocks on runways???
On the other hand I talked about landing and not running to/on.

What's to be explained?

Kandahar airbase:
http://news.mod.uk/img/pressdatabase/image...e/harkan_tn.jpg

from: http://news.mod.uk/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3640

I know that on MK airbase picture posted earlier and also on Kandahar airbase picture are shown the stationary area, BUT there is a difference mate!

You said that each runway has concrete blocks...

Misfortunate use of words, I meant every concrete plates runway. My apologies.
Edit : of course asphalt is better where temperature variations are small , or less rain/snow. Asphalt tend to be very slippery in these conditions. In other regions of the world, where these conditions are not met they use concrete. Of course, not the regular one. Other reasons can be also the cost, maintenance etc.

This post has been edited by Zayets on November 01, 2005 01:44 pm

No problem! Anyway I was thinking of plates but I missed the term!!

Extreme comparision:
I checked (meaning stepping on and looking on) the asphalt on Arlanda - Stockholm and the asphalt on Malpensa-Italy. There are different, of course, but there are asphaltic covers!! In Sweden and in Italy. (Note that I don't mention here Germany - with a smoother climate).

So, IMHO we have no excuse for using concrete instead of special cover.

Sorry for my off-topic posts!!!

Is not offtopic, we speak about F16 landing gear which may not prove worthy on a concrete plate runway (which I doubt, just look at the lancers). Asphalt is diferent from region to region but there is a catch, concrete runways don't crack so often (not necessary because of intensive use). Climate is changing, but even so in the Far North most if not all runways are concrete.They hold up to the freeze-thaw cycles better then asphalt.Asphalt, up until recently, is generally cheaper then concrete. Therefore, many of the runways that are in a region that isn't exposed to the extreme temperature variations like the north are able to use asphalt.Depending on the MTOW of the aircraft using the runway will also determine its construction. Asphalt, if engineered correctly, i.e. thicker sections, can handle the weights of a 747 or a newer A380. Besides, what looks like asphalt (one layer) is not necessary asphalt, it can be a mix of stone/gravel/bitum/tar/etc on a hardened surface. Is really depending on what you want to use.And there's other thing, asphalt can be overlayed if cracked, concrete has to be replaced, cost comes into discussion. I really dont know if surface itself makes any difference. On one hand you have concrete runway with gaps between the plates and on the other hand you have saphalt which expands forming these waves we know from the regular roads. In the end of the day it depende on who's having the contract

Now, that was long, maybe offtopic, sorry.

This post has been edited by Zayets on November 01, 2005 02:08 pm

This is the Arlanda's case!

Anyway in 2001 the F-16 didn't had any kind of problem to take off and land on our concrete runnaways....

For few taking off / landings concrete plates runways wouldn't be a major problem.
I was only concern about hard duty time on Romanian concrete plates runways.

Well,at least we know that most RoAF runways are now asphalt.What you show in the pictures there is just the taxiway/tarmac/apron area. Taxi is usually under 20 kmph. I am not sure though about this figure.

The major that I was talking with said that Otpeni is the only runway where the F 16 can operate safely.
The fact that other runways acros the country were recently repaired,meens nothing.
Look at all the bulevards and streets in BUchgarest thar are falling apart after afew months...
Even if an F 16 can land anywhere ,it can make the costs of maintenence very hight if repairs have to be made regulary to the landing gear.
22 years ago i talked to a woman who was a secretary in an Israeli airforce base.
She talked a little too much...
But since I was a child,and asked a lot of questions about airplanes,she wasn't worried...
She told me that the F -15 Eagle,stays about 14 days in a month in maintain.repairs.
That's A LOT!
And the IAF has a hight budget...

And if we are talking about runways,there is an abandoned one near Caracal.
There is a statue of Alex. Sebanescu.
A good ideea is to take it from there and to put it on a green space on the Bulevard that has his name....

Now, why do I feel like I don't believe a tenth of what are you saying? Obviously , I believe the part with Serbanescu. But that's about it.

This post has been edited by Zayets on November 01, 2005 07:37 pm