What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

See this:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....293&postcount=4

What about Hornet ?
I saw in Aeromagazin that the F-18 is a posible choice for RoAF.

Dan, that was only an opinion from mr. Robanescu, maybe from Aeromagazin collective.

Iama

In terms of BVR combat the JAS 39 is a much better choice than F-16s F-18s or the Mig-29.It's great advantage is that is can fire active radar guided missiles like the AMRAAM passively without turning it's own radar on while another JAS or an AWACS located farther away can guide the missiles to their targets.This provides a huge edge in BVR air combat against aircraft wich lack this capability.And the JAS has the best datalink system in the world better than the US Link-16.The 39's only disadvantage is it's air to ground capability inferior to the F-16.

Something as a little dream, or maybe you will considr this as one "what if". Ww2 forum and other places have a lot of opinions pro and contra F-16, and only future will show us what plane will be choose for RoAF.

This post was inspired from one of Tomcat's posts in another topic, where he says about good conditions of IAF F-16, and from another sources. If F-16 is one of the choices what about F-16 FSX/F-2? It is more unrealistic for Romania tu buy japanes equipment. To this momment only Arisaka rifle was the only "made in japan" thing in Ro. More, Japan had a contract with american part for a limited production for this F-16 based new plane...

FSX means Fighter Support - eXperimental (that was the name of the project)... JASDF consider F-16/F-2 only a support fighter or it is a cammuflaged expression based on the deffensive force polytics of the niponese? Because theyr powerfull fleet serves also for Deffensive...

Iama

Some informations about Mitsubishi F-2, from www.f-16.net:

"The FS-X is quite similar in appearance to the F-16, but structural modifications include:

Japanese-designed co-cured composite wing of greater span (1.7m wider) and root chord, with slightly less leading edge sweep. The composites give the wing added strength while reducing the weight;
increased span tailplane;
slightly reshaped and enlarged radome and forward fuselage (fuselage length has increased by 0.5m);
slightly altered Leading-Edge Root Extensions (LERX).
Overall, the FS-X is substantially larger than the F-16, resulting in a maximum take-off weight of 49,000lb, compared to the F-16C's 42,000lb, although both are powered by the same 129kN (29,000lb)-thrust General Electric F110-129 turbofan engine. Other FSX structural-design changes include radar-absorbent material (RAM) applied to the aircraft's nose, wing leading-edges and engine inlet, the use of titanium in the tail and fuselage, the addition of a braking parachute and a two-piece canopy reinforced against large bird strikes.

The primary difference, although less conspicuous than the structural modifications, between the FS-X and the F-16 is in the use of Japanese domestic technology for much of the avionics, including:

a new Mitsubishi Electric (Melco)-designed active phased-array radar comprising 800 3W gallium-arsenide transmit/receive modules;
Yokogawa LCD multi-function display (MFD);
Shimadzu holographic head-up display (HUD);
internal Mitsubishi Electric integrated electronic warfare system;
Japan Aviation Electronics laser inertial-navigation system backed-up with four conventional gyros;
Japan has also been forced to develop its own fly-by-wire software by the US Government's refusal to release the F-16s computer source codes. The FS-X's software is based on MHI's control-configured vehicle (CCV) research program flown in the early 1980's using a modified Mitsubishi T-2 trainer."

Iama

F-2 is in relation with F-16, like F-18E/ is in the relation with F-18C/D
Japan do have quite some army there.

Considering we don't have money to spend on brand new fighters, the israeli F-16s are perfect. From what I've read, at least some of them would be F-16Is, and the F-16I is better than the C/D, and the israelis maintain them in perfect condition.

2 Squadrons. F-16. As requested. As discussed. As previously agreed.
http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.p...19042006&idx=24

@Burner : there will never be F16I for RoAF soon.At least not in the Israeli configuration.And maybe not C/D.

This post has been edited by Zayets on April 18, 2006 09:50 pm

IDF Netz are equivalent with the F-16 C's in electronics. They where continuouslly updateted.

IDF Netz are equivalent with the F-16 C's in electronics. They where continuouslly updateted.

IDF Netz are merely F16A with Israeli (read "some") updated avionics. If I am not mistaken some of this batch had Venezuela as destination.That until George opposed the move.But I might be wrong here.
But then again, Netz is exactly what was proposed in the first deal. What makes the whole story extremely interesting is the fact that RoAF is commited to also buy NEW aircrafts.Will they be F16 as well?

We should have at least a squadron of new aircraft.

Anyway, some Romanian military oficials said that they don t want Romania to be the last country who buy F 16 s.

In my oppinion, they are right.

Even if the israelis mintained them well they are still old airframes, the norwegians and dutch want to replace their A models soon because they are literally cracking.

Norwegian F-16s are cracking

February 10, 2004 (by Anonymous) - The Norwegian Air Force's F-16 Fighting Falcons have become too old and are now subject to crack formations, according the Inspector General of the Royal Norwegian Air Force.

Inspector General Tomas Colin Archer highlighted the problem at a seminar in Trondheim, and he warned against waiting too long to replace the planes which were bought in 1980.

Air Chief Arild Heiestad at �rland main air station said to Adresseavisen that problems with crack formations were discovered rather early. The wear and tear increases if weapons are attached underneath the jets wings.

According to the Air Chief, the pilots can be sure that if planes are not entirely safe, they will not be allowed to fly. Areas with crack formations are often inspected and parts are replaced.

All planes have a certain running time and for the F-16 this is 8,000 hours. The older the plane gets, the more it needs to be repaired so they have to be flown more carefully.

According to the plan, the planes will be replaced in 2015. The planes will probably hold that long, but there is a limit to how long it is profitable to repair them. After a while, it cam become more expensive to maintain the plans than to buy new ones.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article990.html