What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

[Dr_V]

QUOTE

Victor:   Who said it was 5% a year? Why are you twisting my words?

Sorry, I got carried away. :oops:

QUOTE

Victor: think that in order to express your opinion on something one should base it first on some research on the subject, not just hearsay. Try to discover things also on your own.

And what exactly do you think I should do, fly one? Don't all of us talk from things we've read on the Net or in newspapers or seen on TV? Any such "research" is in fact made from published matherials. And every man interprets such matherials from his point of view.

Hei, I don't try to annoy you, but I guess even you don't take for granted anything you read.

I've gave this site address to my friends in an attempt to attract in this forum a MIG pilot, so we might have a proffesional oppinion. I hope that will work.

QUOTE

Victor: Your claim that the MiGs belong in a junkyard is pretty much unfounded.

Well, any man is entitled to his opinion and maybe mine is wrong, but it's mine and untill now I haven't seen anything that might change it.

It's clear to me that on this particular matter our opinions are opposite. That's it and we both tried to convince each other, something that I believe none will succeed. I'm preatty strongheaded and I'll stick to my point even if you did posted some pretty valid arguments.

I don't want to annoy anyone, so I'll put an end to this dispute here. Time will tell us who was right.

[Victor]

QUOTE

Also the Mirages cost alot more then what Romania paid of the Migs.

And the Mirage 2000 is the cheapest aircraft in the list!

QUOTE

It looks like an F-16, with the Front section/Cockpit of a Mirage or Tornado. Interesting concept.   Does IAR have more 'futuristic' designs?.

Actually there were two projects: a single engine and a twin engine. I think the photo depicts a mock-up of the single engine.
IAR had nothing to do with this project. It is just a traditional name. None of the IAR-93s or 99s were built at Brasov, IIRC. Today IAR produces mainly helicopters or gliders.

QUOTE

I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988

The project was canceled because we could not get our hands on a supersonic engine. TodayI think it would be possible to do it, but we do not have the money. Maybe cooperation? Possibly IAI?

[Carol I]

QUOTE

QUOTE I understood that the IAR-95 project was cancelled for financial reasons in 1988 The project was canceled because we could not get our hands on a supersonic engine. Today I think it would be possible to do it, but we do not have the money. Maybe cooperation? Possibly IAI?

Thanks Victor. I was merely quoting the statement on the page where I have found the image of the plane.

Probably it would be a very good idea to revive now this project as the plane still looks sleek and menacing. The only question is how it would perfom in comparison to other modern planes?

[Victor]

More on modern fighter losses, for Dr_V:

Five Luke-based F-16s have crashed in the past six months and the latest incident prompted the USAF to ground about 400 aircraft while inspections were carried out. At least two of the events are thought to be due to a weld failure in the augmentor duct. "Ongoing inspections have found cracks in augmentor ducts," says Pratt & Whitney, which has sent teams to help train USAF personnel to perform close inspections.

Source:http://www.aeronautics.ru/f16problems01.htm

The F-16 is 273 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a commercial aircraft (4.5 F-16 accidents per 100,000 flight hours vs 0.017 commercial accidents).
Over the operating history of all F-16s, there has been one crash approximately every 28 days (13 crashes per year).

Source:http://www.melbourneairportf16.com/documen...ts/letter2.html

Air Force statistics show that Fighting Falcons have crashed an average of 13 times a year since 1982, when the plane was first flown heavily, costing an average $260 million annually in destroyed aircraft.

The statistics also show the Air Force's F-16s are more prone to crash than its other aircraft.

While there are more F-16s in service than other planes — nearly 1,400 — meaning there are more opportunities for them to crash, they also crash at greater rates. Over the past 19 fiscal years, from 1982 to 2000, the Air Force averaged about 4.5 Class-A mishaps for every 100,000 flight hours per year for its F-16s.

That's significantly higher than those of its other aircraft, including the other front-line fighter, the F-15, which is made by Boeing.

The F-15 has a lifetime Class-A mishap rate of 2.53, and has had only two such mishaps this year and three in 2000. The only other aircraft to have a Class-A this year was the A-10. It had one.

The Navy says its most widely flown, multi-role aircraft, the twin-engine carrier-based F/A-18 C/Ds, have a lifetime Class-A rate of 3.45.

The F-16's average rate, though, was higher during the first 10 years of that period, 5.6, than during the most recent nine, when it was 3.3, showing improving safety.

With July's crashes and two months to go before the end of the fiscal year, the Fighting Falcons's rate of Class-A mishaps in 2001 is 4.5.

Source:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...ety_010807.html

Peter Dye mentioned in his article on "Soviet Aircraft Maintenance" in Jane's Intelligence Review (April 1990, pg. 160-165) that the Russian Air Force, in general, was having one accident every 5,000 flight hours, which translates to 20 accidents per 100,000 hours, and still well above our speculated 12 per 100,000. Therefore, we assume that the Russians could have realistically lost anywhere between 100 to 200 MiG-29's in accidents since 1985.
Source:http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-1.htm

[Victor]

QUOTE

Thanks Victor. I was merely quoting the statement on the page where I have found the image of the plane. Probably it would be a very good idea to revive now this project as the plane still looks sleek and menacing. The only question is how it would perfom in comparison to other modern planes?

With some good engines and avionics, I think it can do just fine against not super high-tech over 30-40 million USD fighters. It would probably not be as expensive. Just look at how cheap the IAR-99 is compared to other jets of its class.

[Der Maresal]

Why do you think Israel was chosen as a partner to modernize the Mig-21s? Is it because they have the technology and offered the best deals or was it more 'political?'..[to improve the relations between the two countries and so on]..

QUOTE

Just look at how cheap the IAR-99 is compared to other jets of its class.

How much is it? :shock:

[Bernard Miclescu]

When I got to this forum , I voted for the Su 27. I saw flying quite all the fighters on the list. For Romania i think that an appropiate airplane is the russians one (price, maintenance) Of course Grippen is an excelent plane, the Mirage ... only words (French style to talk about them).

What about the Mig 29 Sniper? No one is speaking about it. I saw some images and i was thinking that the Romanians had some Snipers but... no.

BM

[Victor]

QUOTE

Why do you think Israel was chosen as a partner to modernize the Mig-21s? Is it because they have the technology and offered the best deals or was it more 'political?'..[to improve the relations between the two countries and so on]..

Elbit Systems was chosen because it offered probably the best deal. Romanian Lancer pilots use DASH helmets, something many NATO pilots do not have yet.

[Carol I]

A few years ago I was told that the SAAB Grippen had some stability problems. The Swedes even had a joke about it, but I cannot tell it to you as it can only be shown. I guess they solved the problems meanwhile, but that old feeling is still there.

Anyhow, for enthusiasts visit the SAAB Grippen homepage.

[Der Maresal]

QUOTE

The Swedes even had a joke about it, but I cannot tell it to you as it can only be shown.

What's the Joke? :?:
Tell us -or - "SHOW" us ..

[mabadesc]

Victor,

What do you know about the "crash" percentage of the F/A 18? I recently saw a documentary in which mechanics were saying it's much more reliable than the F16 and requires much less maintenance per flight hour (I think they quoted something like 15 minutes of maintenance per flight hour - I wasn't paying close attention).

Of course, neither the F-16 nor the F/A 18 are "last-generation" fighters anymore, since they'll be slowly replaced with the JSF and the F-22 Raptor in the near future.

[mabadesc]

I know the F/22 and the JSF aren't part of the poll, but I'd like to hear some opinions on their capabilities, since they're already being delivered to the US Air Force.

QUOTE

The F/A-22 is a new breed of super-fighter for the 21st century and is the first aircraft with the ability to fly at supersonic speeds without afterburners. [...]The F/A-22 is an air-superiority fighter with improved capability over current Air Force aircraft. From the inception of the battle, the F/A-22's primary objective will be to establish air superiority through the conduct of counter air operations. The F/A-22 also has an inherent air-to-surface capability. A combination of improved sensor capability, improved situational awareness, and improved weapons provides first-kill opportunity against the threat.

[mabadesc]

The JSF is a single-jet fighter which doesn't have the power of the F-22 Raptor, but it can be customized for different branches - Marines, Airforce, Navy, including a VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) version for US Marine vessels and for UK carriers (the UK doesn't have full-size carriers, which is why they've been using the Harrier for their vertical takeoff/landing capabilities).
It's also relatively cheap ("relative" is the key word)
Opinions, comments appreciated...

[Dr_V]

Victor, if you're not still upset on me for my posts about the MIG 21 Lancer, I'd like your oppinion about that:


If Romania will renew it's fighters only in 2010, there are many second-hand more modern aircraft available, many of them listed in the poll. The final decission will probably consider the costs.

In this line of thinking, why not aquering new aircraft? I'm pretty sure we won't have the money for F22 or Mirage even in 2020, but I'm thinking at another aircraft that seams to be a good acheivement. And considering the producer, it might be cheap enough for us to afford it.

I'm talking about the Indian LCA:





It's in the final stages of development and India will use it from 2010 as their main interceptor. It's also described as a versatile aircraft and they also prepare a vertical takeoff version. It's equipped with modern avionics and weapons systems that are also upgradable (designed to be so). It's described as a usefull deffensive plane.

And the most attractive feature is the price: 15 to 20 milion $ apiece. For a new fighter I say it's remarcably cheap.

What's your oppinion about this plane?


P.S.: I've found this comment on the site that presents the Indian LCA:

"The IAF heavily relies on the 1950's design MiG-21 to maintain its numbers, if not its effective force. The LCA was essentially envisioned as a replacement for it. Delays in LCA's development have caused a lot of problems - The MiGs are old, and unforgiving - pilots are losing their lives each year. Such is its reputation, that it is now called 'the flying coffin' in the pilot's mess."
http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/ai...rcraft-lca.html

Peace!

[Florin]

Hello guys,

The Russians developed a better MiG meanwhile, which is not in the poll. But I doubt the Russians would sell some to Romania, so the poll is OK.

I am talking about MiG-31.
I'll send the photo to the site administrators, so maybe you'll see the plane here.

Florin