What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

[QUOTE=tomcat1974,May 24, 2008 06:05 am] [/QUOTE]
You mean you are against the weapons that where actually battle tested?

Guys you should check the links/google for the real price of the Gripen / how expensive they are ... Polish F16 deal was cheaper including the weapons than what had been offered by Saab/Bae without any kind of weapons. [/QUOTE]

Ok Tomcat1974,
If its battle tested we r looking for? lets get some good old "Spitfires" lol
U can't get more battle tested then the hero of the battle of Britian.
For that matter why not just keep our trusty Mig-21's? you want battle tested? lets review the Mig-21s record; its been operated by over 50 AF's, been involved in almost every war since the mid-sixties, has claimed more kills then any other mach-2 jet, except the Mirage-III/5 family. And can still hold its own against G-4 fighters provided its been upgraded, ex our own Lancers, Indian Bisions. Just zero time the airframe and wire them for some AMRAAM Aim-120C-5's!

The F-16 block-52 is very good fighter at the present, but its close to the max. of its potential. The Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale are all not only superior fighter at the present, but they have a lot of development potential remaining in there designs.

I could live with "all" new block-52's, but Romania has been offered a horriable deal. Only half the f-16's offered r new! The other 24 r used surplus block-25's built in the Eighties! The fighters we buy in this deal; r going to have to be in service for at least 20 years, used f-16's r therefore unacceptable! Poland received all new F-16's and payed less! unacceptable!!!! Poland was given offsets greater then 100%, Romania gets "0"offsets, totally unacceptable! Poland was given spare f-16s, both block 15&10 models, free ex-RAF C-130's, enough free weapons including Aim-9X's, Romania gets no weapons included in the deal! This deal is a slap in the face to Romania! The F-16 Block 52 is a good fighter! But unless they give us the same deal or better then they gave Poland! they can keep them!

Thank you

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on May 25, 2008 06:50 am

No, no, no, YOU do not understand. The Current F16 is almost an entirely new aircraft compared to the original F16. The current version, Block 52, is made with composite materials, has some stealth capabilities, improved weapon load, an upgraded engine, completely new electronics suite. And believe me, there is plenty of room for improvement.
You make the mistake to think that because the first F16 flew in the 70s, it must be obsolete. That is WRONG. There are hundreds of aircraft still flying today that due to continuous upgrades and improvements are still up to today's standards and will continue to be with us for decades to come. Look at the Boeing 747 or 737 for example. Look at the B52 - it flew in the 50s and will be with the USAF for the next 20 years (if not longer). Look at the C130 Hercules - it is still able to do its job efficiently and reliably.

You also make a number of glaring mistakes:
1. Rafale, Grippen and F22 are NOT new designs.
Work on the Grippen began in 1979.
Work on the Rafale began in 1979.
Work on the Eurofighter began in 1979.
Work on the F22 (called ATF then) began in 1981.
Work on the F16 began in 1974.
Practically speaking, all of these aircraft are just as old.
HOWEVER, since its inception, the F16 has undergone a great number of imrovements and changes that kept it up to date with the day's standards.
The Rafale, Eurofighter and the Grippen did not. The F22 changed a lot and it is very different from the orginal design, but I think that is it pointless to speak about F22 for Romania, because it ain't gonna happen.

2. The F16 is forecasted to remain USAF use until 2025, and even that date is uncertain and can be changed. This is not an obsolete design, not by far.

3. In as far as I can see, the only reason why the F16 is not liked is because it does not have the "cool factor". Yes, the other aircraft may look cooler but it took more than 15 years to make them fly. Face it, in the time that "the others" kept faffing about and trying to figure out what was wrong with their designs, the F16 flew well and fought valiantly. The reason why these things are the "latest thing" is simply because they were so delayed. Does that not speak volumes?
I would rather have an "ugly" plane that flies well than a "cool" plane that seems to have trouble geting off the ground. I am trying to figure out how the Eurofighter is "cooler" than an F16 (they are both just as ugly) and the Grippen looks like an F16 with the intakes on the sides.

I am not a sales rep for Lockheed Martin, I am just trying to correct the mistakes and half-truths disseminated in relation to this. Many Romanians lost their eyesight watching the skies for the arrival of the Americans, and when they came, they asked for something else. Typical!

Radu

You mean you are against the weapons that where actually battle tested?

Let me explain myself: I fear that American wheapons are only effective when used by the americans themselves, and do not suit the needs of our own airforce. For example, consider this:

(from Wikipedia

and allso:
Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon

What does that tell us? "long range sensors" means AWACS and other such systems. Whatever air battles the USAF has won, it did so because it had better sensors and because it allso jammed enemy radars (a tactic used in both Yugoslavia and the Gulf War), therefore it had better situation awareness. In a "fair fight", US aircraft did not perform so well. In general, the US have won wars not because of having superior wheapons, but because of a wide range of auxiliarry factors (which do not apply to smaller countries like Romania), such as: better battle management systems, superior logistics, superior numbers, etc. This is why I think that americans never had to "push the envelope" when it comes to the quality of their weapons, because their strength comes from other factors.

You mean you are against the weapons that where actually battle tested?

Let me explain myself: I fear that American wheapons are only effective when used by the americans themselves, and do not suit the needs of our own airforce. For example, consider this:

(from Wikipedia

and allso:
Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon

What does that tell us? "long range sensors" means AWACS and other such systems. Whatever air battles the USAF has won, it did so because it had better sensors and because it allso jammed enemy radars (a tactic used in both Yugoslavia and the Gulf War), therefore it had better situation awareness. In a "fair fight", US aircraft did not perform so well. In general, the US have won wars not because of having superior wheapons, but because of a wide range of auxiliarry factors (which do not apply to smaller countries like Romania), such as: better battle management systems, superior logistics, superior numbers, etc. This is why I think that americans never had to "push the envelope" when it comes to the quality of their weapons, because their strength comes from other factors.

Great Points Sig

I would add that in many cases, with the US air vics the exact results are hotly debated. Also don't forget the North Vietnamese fought very well against them; of course the Americans are full of excusies as to why they failed to defeat the Vietnamese AF.

It is too bad Romania getting in as partner in the SU-50/T-50 program is not an option. As this Russian 5th gen. promisses to be the best in the world, and relatively at cheap 45-60 mil depending on options, while the F-22 is 272 mil. India and Brazil are already signed up! so could Romania, if not for NATO! Sukhoi is currently building the prototype, preproduction is expected by the end 2009 and service entry is expected in sometime in 2011 or 2012.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on May 24, 2008 12:54 pm

I am not going to get into speculation and "what if" scenarios. I am not going to worry that "the block of salt" is going to fall and crush the baby. (For the non-Romanians, that is a reference to "Povestea Prostiei" / "A Tale of Stupidity" by Ion Creanga )

I would like to stick to the facts: all the specs, pedigree and performance of the F16 show that it is a good aircraft that can hold its own in a battle and is a favourite with many air forces. That is all. I am not going to get into discussions about what kind of battles Romania is going to fight, against what enemy and with what tactics.

Radu

Radu

No one, is talking "what if scenarios" the Sukhoi t-50 is real. I was simply stating that would be nice to have the choice, to aquire it. The reality is that fighters such as the Mig-29, Mig-35, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, FC-1, J-10, J-11a/b, are for sale to anyone! They are all potent fighters, that could pose a threat! The reality is we (Romania) now has a small AF, if we are to have 48 fighters. Then we need to have the best. The F-16 is past its prime; and why don't you stop quoting folkore instead read up on how bad this deal is. Then maybe you can see the truth!

Also while I like the F-16, I also like Spitfires, BF-109 and Mig-21's but are all past there prime! We need the best, and I think most would agree the other 4 offers are better, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the Rafale, the Saab JAS-39E/F, or the ultimate Typhoon Trache 3.

We get it you love the F-16, but I have to wonder if you are work for or are being payed by LM

Thank you,
have a great day!

Everything you said above implies a "what if" scenario in which Romania WILL go war and WILL lose unless they have the latest aircraft.
Now, watch out for that block of salt!
Radu

Can you show me a real picture of an Sukhoi t-50 ? (PAK-FA maybe?) .A Sukhoi 30 MKI has a RCS of 5^m,a block 52 has a RCS of 0.2 ^m. The block 52 with AIM-120D( Operational range 205km) will destroy a Su 30 MKI in 5 seconds. The Pugachev's Cobra is good for the air shows not for 21th century combat. And for Su 35 :is so good that the Russian Air force only have 15 in active service.

HI,
Every russian built fighter sold to Romania will have an inbuilt inferiority factor as they did with Mig 29 sold to their closest ally GDR (Rep.Dem. Germana)

Stephen Dabapuscu,

I have edited your post to remove a part of the smilies and swearing. This is not a chat room, so I expect you to write properly in the future. Thank you.

On the subject, my personal opinion is these are not money well spent. Not that the F-16 Block 52 isn't a great airplane (btw you don't really need an AWACS to engage beyond visual range, the Lancer can already do this and IIRC in mock dogfights with French Mirages it constantly won this way) or that we don't get any offset. The main problem is the strategy adopted. I don't think we need 48 fighters. A mix of advanced SAMs and 24 fighters, for example, would have been better IMO to secure our air defense. Our pilots get less and less training flights every year. What is the point of having 48 state of the art fighters, if they stay on the ground and pilots get their training in simulators (if we are going to buy simulators as well, that is)?

The Government of Romania has requested a possible sale of 24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft with either the F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines (IPE) and APG 68(V)9 radars; refurbishment and upgrades of 24 F-16C/D Block 25 aircraft being provided as Excess Defense Articles


Pilot Stress, Aging Equipment Cause Angst at D.C. Air Guard

The F-16 Block 30 aircraft that the wing operates can conduct air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions and provide close air support.

“The capability limits in an airplane that was built in 1986 are tangible,” says Johnson, who has flown the F-16 for 18 years.

The aircraft have been updated. But some of the airframes and bulkheads have become weakened and are cracking.

“We’re holding them together with duct tape and bailing wire,” quips Johnson.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/iss...PilotStress.htm

Lol! I bet in RoAF they will use "traditionala sarma".. ho to say properly? But, romanian readers knows what i mean to say.

Iama

And some well placed hits of hammer...

One interesting thing...

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b...ria%2002-19.pdf

The proposal for Austria from some years ago... Sam think same wording... an we know how it ended...

Nothing is certain until is signed.

The wording is the same because the document uses the same template. Many legal/official documents are identical in general, only the detail is different. Official documents /contracts / court transcripts etc. tend to be very repetitive.
This is not an indication of success or failure of the contract. Templates are not a sign of things to come!
Radu