The Romanian Chief of Staff Air Force visite, Skaraborg Wing, F7 Såtenäs

It` s all about money afterall... We never had in history the air force ready when the trouble started. At the brink of ww2 a lot of the fighter squadrons had the PZL24. thank god the russians had I-15 and I-16 , but it`s not the case now...

Can you provide a source for that Information?

Sure we don't need a war to make our roads impracticable. I have to see first a road where cars are running smoothly , then we can think at this strategy
Maybe after the highways will be built.
And I don't believe Gripen si cheaper to operate than any version of F16.If you check the range Gripen has and the range F16 has you will see that difference is enormous! Talk about cost effectiveness
And if you check what payload can F16 carry (and quantities) you will also see a big difference. The choice is so big on F16 that it's a guarantee supply will be plenty over years. Talk (again) about operating cost.

This post has been edited by Zayets on May 24, 2006 11:19 am

The fuel consumption of the Gripen RM12 (licence of GE 404) engine with 54 dry/ 80 KN afterburner is much smalller than the compsumtion of a F100 with 65.3 kN dry and 106.0 kN afterburner.

MTBF 7.6 h reported for Gripen versus 4h MTBF F 16(worst for a not in new condition airframe).

Smaller hours of maintenance for one hour of flight. The aircraft is designed to be operated by a team of one specialist and 6 conscripts. (Imagine Ion and Vasile from Poplaca de Vale arming it with laser guided bombs )

You can't seriously take into account FMP characteristics since this is an extremely limited usage in any todays' aircrafts. Is good for takeoff and egressing but these are, say, 2 minutes from the flight plan?
Gripen is designed for small airspaces (obviously, one would argue that SAAF has one Gripen operational,but this is not a convincing amount). Romania has a medium one. I don't say it wouldn't fit in but so far, Gripen didn't prove itself (for me at least).

BTW,AFM said this month that Czech Rep. will start upgrade on their Gripen fleet (software included)
In other news, UK threaten very seriously to withdrawn from JSF programme. This will not affect production of a future JSF aircraft.

This post has been edited by Zayets on May 30, 2006 09:34 am

Zayets regarding JSF UK issue. The 2 big mans signed the agreements that allow full technology transfer between them.
Hadrian you can't be possible more wrong about plane maintenace. 6 soldier can load a plane with bombs and fuel(rearming/refueling). That it was always the case , but maintenance is a whole different issue.

Didn't hear it officially (although Blair visit was few weeks ago and might be already a fact) but even if UK withdraws there's no consequence for the manufacturing the aircraft. BAE will go "as scheduled" in fulgilling their part of fabrication. On the other side , UK played a double game, well a triple game here. And the funny part is that they have to play it till the end regarding US collaboration. Harrier is due to be replaced this decade,hehehe.
What I don't understand in this whole JSF programme is why countries like Denmark and Netherlands need such an expensive programme. Anyway,this is another topic, we can discuss it maybe in another thread.

Tomcat, there were two different issues there, the Maintenance Man Hours/ Per Flight Hour (MMH/FH) wich is around 12H for one hour of flight for the Gripen, it is supposed to made by specialists, and the rearming and refueling (the turnaround, which is 10 min for Air to Air missions) were the aircraft is to be operated by a team of one specialist and 6 conscripts.

then the rearm- refueling is done the same as any other planes

Now I know why I didn't like Gripen.It's the marketing surrounding the whole project. For me, this aircraft has to prove itself. All F's prove their value to me. Also the whole batch of French aircrafts,maybe without Rafale but only an insane person can say that Gripen is "better" that Rafale.
We are talking here about an aircraft made by a neutral country trying to stick their heads out in the weapon market opposed to another aircraft battle proven. We all know what is capable any "F" IN REAL COMBAT. We also know that JAS struggle to put together a competitive aircraft (which is almost the case). We have all details about F-16 (for example) in how this machine operates in real war situations.We wait for these data regarding the Gripen. What? Gripen didn't fought and operational hours are a million part from the operational hours F16 have. Well, then wait a while and buy what's good now. And what's good now it's not the Gripen. This is probably , but probably only, a future good aircraft.
And, in the end of the day it really doesn't matter what we think, decision will be (as always) political. If Sweden will delay UE treaty ratification maybe we will have Gripens,who knows.

This post has been edited by Zayets on May 31, 2006 07:37 am

Goooood point!

Iama

Iama, if that's the criteria then, France will delay us until chose Rafale, Germany ,UK, Italy,Spain until we choose Eurofighter or even better Holland and Norway and UK delay us until we choose F35

Sweden is not one of the Important countries in EU:)

How is that for reasoning ?

First of all there's no plan for any of these countries to sell EF and Rafale to Romania. So your rationament falls as well.
Secondly, that was just a phrase to emphasize (if it was ever needed) that the decision will be political. At stake here it is not Romania acession in the UE (which they can live without for more years from now if needed) , but money! And guess what, there will be a fight carried in Victoria Palace where all offertants will have to show what they hold in their wallets. That was all
Thirdly , Holland is a second grade partner in JSF programme with no word to say in where these plane can be sold.

This post has been edited by Zayets on May 31, 2006 09:13 am

Hopefully, the purchase of a new combat aircraft for Romania will not be overly influenced by national pride. The international community is rife with examples of small countries purchasing and flying airplanes they cannot afford.

Good training and doctrine beats the "latest equipment" most times, except in the example of revolutionary technology. Romanian leaders need to evaluate their actual needs, and decide what will fill that need.

The F-16 is simple, plentiful and available. Israel, for one, continues to upgrade this airframe.

The problem with Russian airframes, are that they are notoriously unreliable, and the supply line for spares is problematic, at times.

The MiG 21 LanceR appears to be a very common sense approach, for now. I think Romania's real need is for CAS, as in an air superiority fight I do not think they will exist for long, regardless of which aircraft they choose, due to the small size of the country.

An unconventional solution I am currently wargaming, is for Romanian aerospace industry to develop a Very Light Jet for sales to business, that can be produced on the same assembly lines using similar jigs for a light fighter/attack aircraft, much like Burt Rutan's Model 151 ARES/Visionare Vantage combination.



And while you are making a light attack jet out of composites, why not design in some stealth features while you are at it? Now you are talking about a low-cost, domestically produced, pseudo-stealthy mission-specific aircraft.

In addition, why not make this theoretical aircraft capable of unmanned flight? The Israelis have proven again and again, that crew survival is everything.