Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (61) « First ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?
 
What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?
MIG 29 [ 19 ]  [14.84%]
F 16 [ 28 ]  [21.88%]
a new IAR design, built here [ 36 ]  [28.12%]
JAS-39 [ 59 ]  [46.09%]
Su-27 [ 17 ]  [13.28%]
Mirage 2000 [ 4 ]  [3.12%]
Total Votes: 163
Guests cannot vote 
Stealth3
Posted on July 13, 2007 04:53 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Member No.: 265
Joined: April 11, 2004



QUOTE
one thing i did not get from the hole sniper deal...
why upgrade the mig 21 and let the 29 tu rust?
poland bought 48 f-16 but also mig-29 from germany ans czeh republic...
those moldovan mig 29c could have ended up here insteed of US


Why? Because our politicians are idiots. I bet something dirty was involved again.
As long as morons lead us, don't expect things to get better. Every minister in our country is most likely an incompetent fool. The justice minister, agriculture minister, defense minister, Taricianu, their all fools. Their loyalty is to their party.

wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif
PMAOLMSN
Top
dead-cat
Posted on July 13, 2007 12:43 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



even the MiG-29 border obsolescence as a multi-role weapons platform nowadays, except maybe MiG-35, of which there arn't actually many being build. and you'll depend on Russia for maintenance and spare parts.
Poland took the Mig-29s from Germany for the symbolic price of 1€ as an intermediate solution until they recive the F-16.
PMYahoo
Top
osutacincizecisidoi
Posted on July 13, 2007 02:34 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Member No.: 1505
Joined: July 10, 2007



QUOTE (dead-cat @ July 13, 2007 12:43 pm)
even the MiG-29 border obsolescence as a multi-role weapons platform nowadays, except maybe MiG-35, of which there arn't actually many being build. and you'll depend on Russia for maintenance and spare parts.
Poland took the Mig-29s from Germany for the symbolic price of 1€ as an intermediate solution until they recive the F-16.

do u know how much USA payd for the moldovan mig-29 ?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/...ig-29-sale.html
of course these jets would require major overhaul and upgrade
but I DOUBT these costs would be significant higher than the lancer upgrade.
I dont want to hear any crying anymore about coruption here in romania cause it obvious to me that we could have bribed that man and we did not.
rolleyes.gif

PMEmail Poster
Top
dead-cat
Posted on July 13, 2007 11:05 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



you should be aware, that most major weapon sales (and not only) involve some form of corruption.
that price was for the USA and it includes political lobby for the seller. it would have been a different price if Romania was the buyer.
and at the end of the day, it would have been money, thrown out of the window.
21 MiG 29 in various states of readiness might not have been enough and you don't want to operate 2 diffrent weapons systems, alone for cost reasons.
It was a good deal for the US as they wanted the aircraft for training purposes. Why do you think Poland is replacing the MiGs they got for 1€?
PMYahoo
Top
guina
Posted on July 15, 2007 11:27 am
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 339
Member No.: 1393
Joined: April 16, 2007



Guys.forget about russian planes.They will sell them OK,but only a watered down version that will pose no threat to them.They know that this planes will not be used against Micronesia
PMEmail Poster
Top
osutacincizecisidoi
Posted on July 15, 2007 08:51 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Member No.: 1505
Joined: July 10, 2007



Last time i`we check they were seling aircraft better than anything they had in the airforce.
I guess thas why we let the 23 and 29 to rust also...
to operate 1 type of aircraft mig-21....


This post has been edited by osutacincizecisidoi on July 15, 2007 08:55 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
dead-cat
Posted on July 15, 2007 09:34 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



if there are not enough MiG-29, then yes, let them rust, or even better, sell them.
15 MiG 29s won't decide a war, nor make the airforce look mighty. scrapping, or even selling them, saves money, much needed elsewhere. air base modernization, modern equipment, flying hours for pilots , air force integration into NATO and last but not least, aquisition of a more modern, flexible and military potent weapons platform, be it the EF, F-16 or Gripen.
50 modernized MiG-21 are good enough as an intermediary solution and 1 weapons platform is better than 3, especially since, as you (and pretty much everybody else) know well, the entire MoD has a lower budget than Bill Gates made last year.
PMYahoo
Top
osutacincizecisidoi
Posted on July 15, 2007 09:50 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 72
Member No.: 1505
Joined: July 10, 2007



Scraping planes costs money, selling planes also does not bring allot of money.
Upgrading planes also cost money but it`s cheaper than buying a new airplanes.
Buying a new platform also cost alot than buying an existing platform.(maitenance and training).
PMEmail Poster
Top
dead-cat
Posted on July 15, 2007 10:16 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



yes but you'll have something up-to-date, at least for a while instead operating obsolete hardware.
and scrapping is a one-time expense not a continous one like maintaining. i don't think you'll argue that scrapping 20 aircraft is cheaper than maintaining 20 aircraft.
especially since the latter comes without much of a benefit.

if the airforce is to be taken seriously it has to upgrade its hardware. which will cost money which *has* to be forked over.
other than that, the goal of the romanian airforce was not operating the best aircraft in the world, but something much more basic: surviving as a functioning unit the budget cuts of the last decade. which certainly would not have been possible by wasting money on 2-3 different combat aircraft types.

everybody else goes multirole because of high cost. the MiG-29 is not a great solution for that. neither is the MiG-21. the latter will be thrown away once replaced. same would have to have happened to the MiG-29 if the airforce chose to keep them instead the MiG-21. but if they decided pro MiG-29, they'd ended up with 18 airframes in various states of readiness which would also cry for upgrade and modernization. which is not enough.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on July 16, 2007 08:28 am
PMYahoo
Top
Hadrian
Posted on July 15, 2007 10:44 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 245
Member No.: 875
Joined: April 09, 2006



The MiG-29 and also MiG-23 have bigger operation costs than the one small motor, simple airframe, delta wings of the MiG-21. Also the maintenance of the MiG 21 was assimilated in Romania since the seventies, the others not. The MiG 29 stopped flying in 2004 because the original lot of spare parts with which the aircrafts came was finished. For the upgraded MiG 21 there is a pool of components from the unmodernised Migs, also spare parts can be bought also from other parts except Russia, if necessary (other operators, China).
PMEmail Poster
Top
redcooper
Posted on August 17, 2007 10:28 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 1329
Joined: March 01, 2007



PMEmail Poster
Top
redcooper
Posted on August 17, 2007 10:28 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 1329
Joined: March 01, 2007



PMEmail Poster
Top
redcooper
Posted on August 17, 2007 10:30 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Member No.: 1329
Joined: March 01, 2007



PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted on September 11, 2007 07:59 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



Melescanu explained that the decision on purchasing the fighters should be made this year because it takes relatively long for the aircraft to be built.

http://www.nineoclock.ro/index.php?page=de...d=20070910-7370

So did he make a mistake or are we finally buying something newly built? smile.gif


--------------------
I
PM
Top
AlexC
Posted on October 05, 2007 07:25 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 75
Member No.: 786
Joined: January 19, 2006



Pentagon’s offer
2007 10 05| de Razvan Belciuganu

The USA Defense Department representatives and Lockheed Martin have proposed Romania to enter the program for the purchase of the invisible supersonic F 35. This is possible in 2018 and the Americans say the F16 should be Romania’s defender in the meantime. State Secretary for the Ministry of Defense, Cornel Dobritoiu, the Chief of the Aerial Forces, General Constantin Croitoru, and the Ammunition Department Second-in-Command, General Eftimie Sandu, have received an offer from the American officials regarding the multipurpose plane during their visit to Washington. “During the talks at the Lockheed Martin headquarters and at the Pentagon with officials of the American aerial forces, we saw a perspective of USA regarding the purchase of the F35 plane by Romania”, Corneliu Dobritoiu stated for us. “If Romania is interested in buying this plane, we will have to consider a transition period from the moment of taking a national political decision to the moment of the actual purchase and this could happen in 2018 the soonest”, the Romanian dignitary added.


http://www.jurnalul.ro/articole/104948/pen...E2%80%99s-offer
PMEmail Poster
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (61) « First ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0183 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]