What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Gentelmen,
Lets be serious,buyng new planes does not bring any votes.Like in many countries the governement cares only about staying in power.As for their patriotism.......
I dont thing I have to elaborate.
See yeah>

according to the german weekly magazine "Spiegel", the cost of the entire F-35 program is running high and apparently will amount close to 1 trillion US$, of which 300 billion are purchase costs for the 2458 aircraft and about 650 billion for maintenance and operating costs.
that'd make about 122 million apiece, purchase cost.
it doesn't seem a realistic option.

according to wikipedia, the flyaway costs are even 200 million apiece.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on March 13, 2008 08:09 am

I know that, I have said this before; but I hope that Romanian buys either the JAS-39 Gripen or the Eurofighter Typhoon. Forget about overpriced American toys like the F-22 and F-35 Time to upgrade our Air Force! our fighters should not be older then there pilots!

Thank You

The F-22 is not for sale.

But like you say, the F-22 and F-35 aren't even appropriate for a small power like Romania anyway.

Anyway,it seems that F-16 can kill its own pilots
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3524572,00.html

The issue of new fighter planes for the Airforce is again making the news.
Ministerul Apararii: Romania ar putea cumpara 24 de avioane second-hand si 24 noi

For those who do not read Romanian, here's a short summary:
Mircea Geoana (leader of the leftist Social-Democratic Party) is very vocally oppsed to the aquisition of new fighter planes for the air force and declared that Romania does not need 48 new fighters. The government quickly backed off and now claims that half of that number could be second hand aircraft.
Allso, according to the MoD, they asked for offers from all the aircraft producers in the world, but the only offers were: JAS Grippen, F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter and F-18.

My opinion is that if we decide to invest in new fignters, we should make a long term investment. We absolutely must stay away from F-16 or any other obsolescent american airplane. We need a very modern and very powerfull fighter that we can use for decades before it becomes obsolete, and then upgrade it and use it some more, like we did with the MiG-21.

On the other hand: do you think that Geoana is right? Why do we need to buy new fighters? Are we going to war in the near future? Can we rely on our allies and on diplomacy for our security? I think this is an interesting topic for debate

And why should our allies carry us piggy-back?.Following Geoana's raesoning we don't need an army at all.After all we can allways use our miners.
No ofence intended for the miners.

I don't think that reasoning is new.

A certain variation of it was used while trying to join NATO. It was said that NATO will take the military burden off our shoulders, we will be protected, nobody will dare attack us any longer etc.

Then it was also used when eliminating conscription. Then the line was - whoever wants to train and serve in the army should volunteer. We don't need such a big army anyway.

Now we go a step further and in our case that line should be - whoever wants to buy defense products for Romania should pay for them. We don't have to do it all.

It is a certain trend.

In Geoana's case he is irresponsibly preparing for elections. I heard he also said Romania's involvement in Irak and Afganistan should also be reconsidered.

Good point (as our foreign minister would say ) but
the truth is that NATO was from the very beginning a scheme designed to allow the weaker European nations to be "carried piggy back" by the USA with regards to security. That's whay the western european nations joined NATO in 1949, and that's why we joined it. It's not a very "honourable" thing to do, but it's the truth. Every country in Europe knows this. The proof: look at the size of their militaries and at their defence spendings, and compare it to that of the USA.
However, the question is not wether we need an army, or wether we need to fight wars or not. the question is wether we need new fighter planes. I wish to list below several points which I find to be evident, and which should be taken into consideration:

It would definitely be "cool" to have some high-tech fighter planes, form a perspective of national prestige, but this is not a strong enough reason to spend that much money.

We definitely do noot need fighter planes in the War on Terror. If we decide to "pull our own weight" and help our allies, we need to contribute with infantry and policing forces, not with airplanes.

In the unlikely case that we need to fight in a conventional war, we can certainly rely on our allies (see above). The only excepitions are:
a) we are at war with the US. In that case we are lost anyway and any tanks/ships/aircraft we have will be overwhelmed and destroyed and the money spent on them will be wasted
b ) we go to war against a country, or alliance of countries, that is strong enough to take on NATO (who? there is no such country/alliance today). Suc a massive war will probably go nuclear right away and again we have no use for conventional assets

There is however another scenario. What if NATO collapses and we need to take care of ourselves. My opinion is that we need to prepare for such a scenario and that this is the reason why we need a military now.

As for Geoana, I agree that he is just saying those things for electoral reasons

This post has been edited by SiG on April 08, 2008 05:55 pm

Hi SiG,
In 1932 your arguments looked as valid as they look today,at least for Romania.What hapened after only 7 years we all know.I dont want to elaborate further,but lets keep in mind what the romans used to say: "Si vis pacem parra bellum"

You have to admit hovewer that the security situation of today is much better than that of 1932. Alliances and international organizations could not be relied upon. In those times, it was possible to start a war and invade a foreign country and get away with it (think about the Mukden incident), today this is not possible (think about the Gulf War).

Again, I'm not saying that we don't need an army, or that a war can not happen, only that it is very unlikely to happen.

Today it is possible to start wars and invade foreign countries too. Think Irak war 2003.

Anyway, here is some some news from MoD:

article in full:
http://www.nineoclock.ro/index.php?page=de...20080409-509233

This post has been edited by Imperialist on April 08, 2008 10:29 pm

Geoana is from PSD; that makes it impossible and against nature to be "right" in anything. pun intended

one reason for this is however, that arms industry lobbyists are far weaker than in the US.
also, as long different members of the EU walk on different paths it does not make sense spending money. except the former warsaw pact nations, which need to integrate their armed forces into NATO (and upgrade their hardware), on what exactly should 500+ billion $ be spend? a large part of the military budget of the US is going to the iraq war.
in what specific area are the "old" EU member armed forces lacking and for which threat scenario should they prepare to vindicate such an expense?
while several countries "could" spend a bit more to finish some delayed projects (METEOR anyone?), i fail to see the areas where a few hundred billions spend per year are justified.

It seems that is F-16. An obsolote choice I might add.

in romanian, linky:
http://www.evz.ro/articole/detalii-articol...-fara-licitatie

Guys,
I'm prepared to bet that,after the elections,the romanian gouvernement will sign for F 16.For political reasons,of course.Now, if we speak of four squadrons of F 16 Blok 50/52/60 and new,then I think it's ok.Yes,this is not the 5 generation but neither is Grippen.This plane not only is not obsolete,but not even obsolescent,and taking into account our potentzial enemies,could do a good service for the next 20-25 years.On the other hand,if we buy old Blok 30/32 which allready served in USAF orIAF,even refurbished,than the deal is lousy and the money thrown down the drain.But Chief Air Marshals like mr.G and mr.T,with their long military experience and studies in West Point probably know better.
See F 16 blok 50
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-...vanced-f-16.htm

As for atmospere in the early thirties,if you realy want to know how it was,just go to a public library ( it doesent mater where you live,Bucharest,Viena,Paris or London ) and ask for a collection of nwspapers from that period.People everywhere were optimistic and sure that The War To End All Wars has just done that.