![>](style_images/1/nav_m.gif)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
88mm |
Posted on November 19, 2003 11:32 am
|
![]() Fruntas ![]() Group: Members Posts: 54 Member No.: 18 Joined: June 23, 2003 ![]() |
Everyone is talking about Romania changing it's fightres. In my opinion priority is tomodernize our air defense sistems. This includes a better comunications and radar sistems. Even if somone obtains fighter superiority, he can not have a good air support for the ground troops until the entire air defense is destroyed. So my question is to what should we focus first: mobile air defense sistems (I want to ad that todays mobile air defense sis. are equiped even with anty tank missiles, besides the SA missiles for medium range (the service altitude for a fighter) and miniguns for close range against incoming missiles and big shels) or a fleet of uptodate fightrers?
|
dead-cat |
Posted on November 19, 2003 03:01 pm
|
![]() Locotenent ![]() Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 ![]() |
and what do you use for ground support?
pretty much nobody affords to build interceptors only today, that's why Mig29 didn't sell by far as well as one would expect from its capabilities. it was perfect for the russians who had a myriad of other planes for their specific role, but nowadys nobody affords to build single-role aircrafts only. that's behind the eurofighter idea as well. neglecting the aircraft and investing into AA defence only leaves you with little ground support ability, which, by yesterdays and todays methods of warfare, is a requirement. |
cuski |
Posted on November 19, 2003 05:11 pm
|
![]() Fruntas ![]() Group: Members Posts: 85 Member No.: 85 Joined: August 21, 2003 ![]() |
How about both?
![]() |
Dr_V |
Posted on November 19, 2003 10:19 pm
|
Caporal ![]() Group: Members Posts: 146 Member No.: 71 Joined: August 05, 2003 ![]() |
Cuskys idea is not bad, but I voted for fighters, for 2 good reasons. First is that our AA defence systems are not so obsolete or ineffective as the fighterplanes are. Even if modern AA weapons and, more important, detection and communication means are required, we do not stay so badly in that area.
Secondly, you can't win a fight only with defence. However modern or mobile the ground defences would be, a fighter fleet is more flexible and can counter-attack if needed. That besides the ground support role that "dead-cat" argumented already. |
dead-cat |
Posted on November 20, 2003 09:03 am
|
||
![]() Locotenent ![]() Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 ![]() |
that'd be the ideal solution but impractical for financial reasons, i'm afraid. then again, there are many more urgent problems to solve, especially in RO, than giving the army news toys to play with. |
||
Victor |
Posted on November 20, 2003 12:05 pm
|
||
![]() Admin ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 ![]() |
Actually is quite the other way around. Many of the SAMs are old, some even expired. The radar system is looking good, but it still needs improvement. As for the MiG-21s, you know very well my opinion, which is the opposite of your's. |
||
88mm |
Posted on November 21, 2003 09:38 am
|
![]() Fruntas ![]() Group: Members Posts: 54 Member No.: 18 Joined: June 23, 2003 ![]() |
:? You can not win a war whit SAM's but you can not lose one either.
My second point is that even if somone gives us for nothing uptodate fighters, we don't have the money to keep them in flight. And without pilots who have tousands of ours of flight on this planes, they are usless. You can onky show of whit them and not posing a real threat. |
Dan Po |
Posted on March 11, 2004 03:26 pm
|
![]() Sergent major ![]() Group: Members Posts: 208 Member No.: 226 Joined: February 23, 2004 ![]() |
I know that i broke the regulations here :oops: but i find this interesting article at http://www.presamil.ro " Obvervatorul militar" nr. 8/2004 the on line edition. If somebody who have enough time can traslate this in english ......
"Avem un inventator care nu dispune de fonduri. CE NE PROPUNE? Sistemul integrat de baraj aerian (SIBA) Maistrul militar principal ® Ionel Ignat este un om pasionat de tehnica. Absolvent al Scolii Militare de Maistri si Subofiteri de Tancuri si Auto „Mihai Viteazul“, in 1971, Ionel Ignat a slujit armata romana acolo unde aceasta a avut nevoie de el: la Magurele, la Targoviste, la Cernavoda, la Poarta Alba, la Midia si Navodari. Peste tot competentele i-au fost apreciate de unii, suspectate de altii, insa nimeni nu i-a pus la indoiala creativitatea si geniul sau tehnic. Autor al unor proiecte si inventii care surprind prin simplitatea solutiilor, maistrul militar Ionel Ignat a incercat, ani de-a randul, sa le dezvolte si sa le transforme in solutii tehnice viabile, care sa poata fi folosite de armata noastra. Cel mai elaborat proiect al sau se numeste „Sistem integrat de baraj aerian (SIBA)“, proiect avizat si sustinut de multi specialisti, ingineri si tacticieni. – Domnule Ignat, pe scurt, care este destinatia sistemului realizat de dumneavoastra? – Sistemul a fost gandit ca o solutie constructiva ieftina, care sa descurajeze si chiar sa distruga avioanele inamice, in eventualitatea unei agresiuni militare impotriva tarii noastre. – Detaliati-ne, in cateva cuvinte, solutia dumneavoastra, stadiul in care se afla, modul de functionare, efectele la tinta pe care le preconizati si avantajele unei eventuale productii de serie. – As vrea sa precizez ca am putut aloca resurse limitate pentru dezvoltarea acestui sistem, asa incat stadiul de realizare a acestuia ramane o problema care este inca in discutie. De aceea, eu afirm ca sunt deschis oricarei colaborari. De altfel, alaturi de mine, la dezvoltarea acestui sistem au mai contribuit vicepresedintele Federatiei Romane de Modelism, domnul Silvestru Moraru, precum si capitan-comandorul dr.ing. Mircea Boscoianu. Coordonatorul proiectului a fost domnul locotenent- colonel dr. Eugen Boamba. Toti suntem familiarizati cu modul in care ajung pe pamant semintele de artar. Ele planeaza prin aer, datorita acelei membrane care le franeaza caderea. Acelasi principiu functional l-am avut si noi in vedere. Lansam in spatiul aerian mici rachete purtatoare de granule explozibile de impact controlat, care, prin simpatie, pot declansa explozia incarcaturilor de la bordul avioanelor sau rachetelor inamice. In acelasi timp, gradul de eficacitate la tinta sporeste si datorita faptului ca, o data cu aerul necesar arderii combustibilului, sunt aspirate si aceste granule, ceea ce produce perturbari in functionarea lor. Este evident faptul ca acest sistem este ieftin si poate fi integrat cu alte sisteme de arme clasice si folosit in functie de strategia de lupta adoptata. In plus, nu avem cunostinte ca, pana la ora actuala, o astfel de solutie tehnica sa fie detinuta de alte armate. Sistemul de baraj aerian este o arma simpla si, sustinem noi, eficace, cu un cost redus, ce poate crea un scut antiaerian de inaltimi variabile, cu o persistenta indelungata datorita curentilor de aer, cu suprafete variabile, nedetectabil de radare, datorita compozitiei corpului rachetei, si care disloca o serie de resurse militare ce pot fi directionate pe alte directii tactice, operative sau strategice. – Unii specialisti care au studiat proiectul dumneavoastra l-au considerat viabil in masura in care sistemul de baraj aerian poate fi controlat, indiferent de metoda, ceea ce presupune ca scutul aerian sa poata fi dirijat si, la nevoie, dezafectat. In caz contrar, el ar putea genera numeroase consecinte nefaste, in special legate de deplasarea aleatorie, in functie de curentii atmosferici, afectand astfel culoarele de zbor ale aviatiei proprii sau aliate. Cum v-ati propus sa rezolvati aceste neajunsuri? – Eu sunt de acord cu punctele de vedere prezentate de colegii care au analizat proiectul meu. Am precizat ca resursele de care am dispus si dispun la ora actuala, pensionar fiind, nu mi-au permis sa realizez acest sistem de control. Insa, in epoca cipurilor, a transmisiilor fara fir, a undelor radio sau magnetice, e putin probabil sa nu putem reusi, – daca vrem cu adevarat ca acest proiect sa fie dezvoltat pe scara larga in armata noastra, – sa cream un mijloc securizat de control al acestor nori de particule. Clasic, acest lucru se poate realiza prin dotarea cu un focos de proximitate care, dupa un anumit interval de timp stabilit de la sol, sa declanseze autodistrugerea particulelor din spatiul aerian. – Ati facut suficiente demersuri pentru a gasi resursele financiare necesare dezvoltarii proiectului dumneavoastra. In ce stadiu va aflati acum? – Cunosc prioritatile armatei romane privind dotarea cu armament si tehnica militara care sa-i asigure interoperabilitatea cu noul sistem de aliante; sunt de acord ca efortul financiar este important, insa trebuie sa fiti de acord cu mine ca acest sistem de baraj aerian, in anumite conditii, ar putea fi o solutie eficienta pentru apararea antiaeriana. Ea ar suplini cu succes o serie de tehnologii de ultima generatie din domeniul rachetelor si tunurilor antiaeriene, al avioanelor de vanatoare sau radiolocatiei. In aceste conditii, imi pare rau s-o spun, n-am reusit inca sa identific acele minime resurse financiare care sa faca posibila dezvoltarea proiectului. In acelasi timp, starea de sanatate imi limiteaza din ce in ce mai drastic demersurile." |
Alexandru H. |
Posted on March 11, 2004 04:11 pm
|
![]() Sergent major ![]() Group: Banned Posts: 216 Member No.: 57 Joined: July 23, 2003 ![]() |
Oh, well, we still have our good "MIGs". I hate those death traps :x
|
Dan Po |
Posted on March 11, 2004 08:44 pm
|
||
![]() Sergent major ![]() Group: Members Posts: 208 Member No.: 226 Joined: February 23, 2004 ![]() |
Why ? What about mines and machine guns .... if we compare those weapons with a honest spear ..... ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |