"Regele Ferdinand" warship was commissioned today

What do you mean I dont make sense? The frigate deal was signed during PSD government, so why would Gandul, a PSD propaganda paper in your opinion, push this story so vehemently when the bribery could very well involve an important PSD member, as you already said it could? What doesnt make sense at all?

Yes and no.Do you think anyone cares when the deal was signed? It is always when the truth was discovered.Besides,there's a huge fight withinin PSD. Some members would very much like some other members gone for ever from political/public life.The bribery might very well (and I also think this is the case) involve a high ranking PSD (and probably other party) but maybe not the main sponsor(s). Or do you think that the anti-Basescu , anti-government stance from this paper is genuine? Let's not forget how the main journalists from this newspaper behave during the last elections. They were almost kissing Nastase & Co. right in the arse (sorry for the language).
And to continue,what the fsck is doing police home at George's? Where the fsck are 6 million pounds???? We are talking millions here. Who the fsck would be so stupid to take these money and leave traces?Nobody is accused yet and guess who's getting all the kicks right now : 2 steel monsters. They are talking only about them, no freakin' name, no freakin' detail! We have the George's! What they did is also unclear. Did they paid somebody???PROBABLY! What was doing police there, at home? Looking for money? The 6 millions? (or some proofs).
Question is what the heck are these papers trying to hide because this stinks from miles as diversion. Take for example articles from Jurnalul and Gandul where they speak about the frigates and hoe BAE bribed some guy in Qatar for Christ sake! No details about the deal and no detail on how these 6 millions could be paid! If they were paid,of course.And to make all things round, Times took the story from Reuters which in turns quotes Romanian sources, funny isn't it?

This post has been edited by Zayets on June 12, 2006 07:46 am

Well, "when the deal was signed" IS part of the truth, why do you think people will ignore the relevant details and only note the date in the calendar when the truth was revealed?

Yesterday, the SFO said: "The Serious Fraud Office in partnership with the Ministry of Defence police executed a search warrant at 45 Cheyne Court. A woman aged 41 was arrested at the premises on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and conspiracy to corrupt.
"A man aged 61 was subsequently arrested on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and conspiracy to corrupt."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1792576,00.html

Does this answer at least part of your questions?

Well, if your premise is that the papers are trying to hide something, but you cant point out what, I guess there is nothing much to argue on that matter. I will say no, you will say yes, a childish argument would ensue.
If you have a theory, do present it.

Also:

How much does a new frigate cost, anybody knows?

Well, "when the deal was signed" IS part of the truth, why do you think people will ignore the relevant details and only note the date in the calendar when the truth was revealed?

Yesterday, the SFO said: "The Serious Fraud Office in partnership with the Ministry of Defence police executed a search warrant at 45 Cheyne Court. A woman aged 41 was arrested at the premises on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and conspiracy to corrupt.
"A man aged 61 was subsequently arrested on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and conspiracy to corrupt."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1792576,00.html

Does this answer at least part of your questions?

Well, if your premise is that the papers are trying to hide something, but you cant point out what, I guess there is nothing much to argue on that matter. I will say no, you will say yes, a childish argument would ensue.
If you have a theory, do present it.

Also:

How much does a new frigate cost, anybody knows?

No sir, it does not answer my question. First of all all this fuss was very well known when the frigates were bought. And in spite of what C-2 said I was never a supporter of these two ships (you can check my records on the subject and you'll see my stance against the subject).Anyway, why the press kept low the whole story for about one year? I mean, let's go back then when there were big questions about the whole aquistion.Most of these irregularities were presented in the press at that time but everybody was in awe seeing these ships, isn't it? Even the scandal with the payment was not that much chewed by the papers,remeber?
I am not saying that THE papers are trying to hide something, they do what they are paid to do.Who's behind the whole story and who's interest is I don't know yet (and sure I don't know if we will find so fast). My points:
- UK newspaper say 6 mil. pounds are in possesion of an ex-govt. member of Romania. Which is silly, these money can't come like that, in cash or in accounts. Say that they are somewhere in the Virgin Island or Bahamas offshore accounts. That's pretty much easy to find out who the beneficiary is.Remember, war against terror, we can check everything from your DNA to your bank account. My take? Money was split! If there was ever this amount (6 mil.) To many person knew about , so that means a lot of mouths to close, right?
- UK newspaper start the investigation based on chunks presented by Romanian press almst a year ago.So , our dear journalists HAD a subject then. Isn't it? Why bring it up right now?I have a theory. BAE is building the export version of the JAS-39,right? BAE is involved over the neck in this deal (plus the Qatar thing). Then who in their right minds would dare to make business with BAE regarding such a (big) subject? Nobody. Which brings us to the next point : who's behind the whole stuff? I dare not to say because I have no proofs. Are we talking about huge amounts yet to come? Yes we are. Who's gonna be out?Well,BAE. Who's gonna be in? We all know.
Finally, I do have some satisfaction in this whole dispute though. Now that BAE will be out of the business, I'm 100% sure now that our next fighter plane won't be the Gripen.But that's a small consolation,isn't it? After all what do I know. I am just Dutch,or so are some people say.

C-2 and Zayets, if you have something to sort out, please do it by PM or other means. Meanwhile, I don't have the time to review the entire topic to find out who is right, so C-2, unless you point to the post containing the allegedly claims of Zayets, stop flaming the topic.

That "discussion" does not exist anymore, because you two carried it out along the same lines as in the 2 posts I just deleted from this topic. If you can't get yourselves to post in a civilized way, then just don't.

Chile will buy 3 Type-23 frigates:

F 230 NORFOLK - 1990
F80 GRAFTON - 1996
F233 MARLBOROUGH - 1991

The value of the sale to Chile which includes the three ships, pre-sale sanitisation and maintenance, and training is £135million.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/c...Rg&modele=jdc_1

We bought 2 Type-22 for 116 million, and they were built around 1987 or so.

That "discussion" does not exist anymore, because you two carried it out along the same lines as in the 2 posts I just deleted from this topic. If you can't get yourselves to post in a civilized way, then just don't.

There are some of my "remarks" about the ship(s)in other thread called Regina Maria or something like that. And there must be a way to restore some conversation (if the effort is worthed). I stand by my word. If there's no proof then I would very much like to be left alone. Is really that easy.

@Imperialist : I strongly believe that the £135 million is not the cost of the vessels. It is just the price BAE will ask to DELIVER the vessels (sanitize etc). Why I say that is because such a vessel cost between £70-100 mil (maybe less once the technology will allow in the future) And that is only the manufacturing cost, For the first one vessel in the row (Norfolk I think) the manufacturing cost was even higher,over $100 millions.But yes, I stand to be corrected, I don't have all detals with me here.

This post has been edited by Zayets on June 13, 2006 08:18 am

I can't stop myself to say again... My option:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lupo/

Iama

It is the cost of the veseels per se, if Chile wants to do something else to them, upgrade them or so, it will have to pay more, I guess. The point was they get 3 Type 23 for 135 mil. while we bought 2 Type 22 at 116 mil. And we still have to pour money into them for weapons systems, so eventually I think we will have 2 20 years old Type 22s equal in price if not more expensive than 3 10-15 years old Type 23s.

Imperialist . What is your problem with years of launch? You are repeating 1987. What is so different in 3 years between them? Anyway the Coventry was commisioned in 1988, but it doesn't matter for you anyway. They are the younger than Marasesti and any other Frigate/Corvete we have.

Before just writing random years, just take a look at the commision years of US Navy ships. Just an example CVN-65 USS Enterprise - comisioned 25 November 1961.

It is the cost of the veseels per se, if Chile wants to do something else to them, upgrade them or so, it will have to pay more, I guess. The point was they get 3 Type 23 for 135 mil. while we bought 2 Type 22 at 116 mil. And we still have to pour money into them for weapons systems, so eventually I think we will have 2 20 years old Type 22s equal in price if not more expensive than 3 10-15 years old Type 23s.

Well,you have some numbers, I have others :

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...11/ai_n15745777

This is wikipedia (you don't have to relay 100% on them)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate

I tell you a secret a new type 22 frigate was 180 mil pounds :

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Today/type22.htm

Do you believe now that somebody wants somebody else out? And it is using the press to achieve this goal?

LIke I wrote in the delayed post;
The Romanians training in England,were eating in the same time and in the same hall with their british mates.The rOmanian's food was less and less calitative then the one get by the Brits.
In the papers they should have get the SAME food!
They also got much less pocket money.
All those entered in "others "pockets.
The price I knew was about twice of the real worth of the ships (the newps. say 3 times...).
Unlike the info thet zayets gets ,I heard it from a guy who trained on that ship,and was working on it.He didn't know I'm a militaria fun.He talked like any other person who complains about something.
And if you like it or not,Regina Maria is a piece of junk.

...I would prefere Meko 2000 class frigate..., german made.., turks and greeks bought it....

Rumania has paid three times more for the frigates [The Guardian newspaper]

România a plătit de trei ori mai mult pentru fregate - The Guardian

România a plătit pentru fregatele britanice de trei ori mai mult decât era necesar, a apreciat fostul şef al comandamentului pentru operaţiuni al Marinei române, Victor Blidea, citat de ediţia electronică de marţi a cotidianului britanic The Guardian.

© Mediafax 2004.


Gen. Dénes

So years dont mater that much?
Ok, look at the type then. Type 23 is supposed to have some improvements over Type 22, or are these random numbers too?
As for the money, 3 type 23s for 135 mil. makes 45 million a piece. 2 type 22s for 116 mil. makes 58 million a piece. To me it looks like a bad deal paying 13 million more for a frigate of a lower type, when with 20 extra million beside that 116 million sum you could have gotten 1 extra frigate and all of them type-23.
Or they could've collected some more money and waited a few more years, to buy a new one. Either we have absolutely no connections and nobody wants to sell us new things (I doubt it), either some people want to make some money from commissions.

take care