What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Article relatively related to the topic: http://www.businessmagazin.ro/opinii/cui-l...ml?5544;2664057

"United States Government Awards Lockheed Martin Contract to Begin Production of Advanced F-16 Aircraft for Morocco


(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued June 6, 2008)



FORT WORTH, Texas --- The United States government awarded Lockheed Martin an Undefinitized Contract Authorization (UCA) for the production of 24 Advanced F-16 Block 52 aircraft for Morocco, making the Kingdom of Morocco the 25th nation to select the F-16.

Morocco will acquire a Block 52 configuration of the F-16C/D aircraft tailored to meet the specific requirements of the Royal Moroccan Air Force (RMAF). The sale will include the aircraft, mission equipment and a support package provided by Lockheed Martin and other U.S. and international contractors. The new aircraft will supplement the RMAF's existing fleet of fighter aircraft and will contribute to the upgrade and modernization of the RMAF.

Lockheed Martin is being awarded a contract totaling $233.6 million to begin production of 24 aircraft, along with associated support equipment, alternate mission equipment and other support elements for Morocco. This effort will support the Foreign Military Sales program for Morocco."

Full article at: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/c...j&modele=jdc_34

Iama

So what`s gonna be? the moment is approaching. F16`s or Gripens? The others seem to be more ore less out.

It seems it will be F16:

http://www.ziare.com/NYT__Romania_cumpara_...F16-411747.html

why F16 !!!! AMERICAN FIGHTER WHY ???

Why not?
There were only two realistic contenders.

The Gripen was designed by a neutral nation who never went to war since the times of Napoleon. The Gripen never fired a gun in anger. It is not battle tested. But it looks nice.

The F16 Block 52 is a very well designed succesful aicraft, proven in battle, with better performance than the Gripen. Also, the F16 Block 52 (first flight in 1991) is a much more recent design than the Gripen (first flight in 1987). But it is like Marmite: some like it some, hate it.

This is like a choice between John Rambo and Bjorn from Abba. If you want a nice looking piece of bling that has never been anything more than a very popularised pop sensation, go with Gripen. If you want an ugly, incoherent but experienced brute that can get the job done, go with the F16.

Radu

By this criteria, Romania should get Spitfires - they were very successful and well proven in battle.

If the F 16 are the latest block (is it 60 now?) for the same money - maybe.

However Gripen, espacially when operated in a similar way as the Swedish AF would make more sense. And with Avioane Craiova using some of the 100% off-set money to build and maintain Gripens (from Hungary and Chech Republic too).

But it all depends on who bribes more I guess...

Does that make logical sense to you?
Of the options avialable to RoAF, the F16 is the only one tested and proven in battle. That is all I said and when I said that I only stated a fact that is clearly obvious to anyone with a discerning common sense. By being facetious and biased you actually diminish your argument.

I could not care any less about what kind of goat Hungary or the Czech Republic have. Capra Vecinului ("Neighbour's goat" - for non-Romanians, the "neighbour's goat" is somehow the Romanian version of "the grass is greeneer on the other side") is irrelevant. Both Czech republic and Hungary have different demographics, landmasses, economies, requirements and traditions. Comparing them like for like is silly and futile. If we are to look at what other former communist nations chose, why ignore Poland who use F16s? And if you are to compare the number of nations that use the Gripen against the number of nations that use the F16, guess which is the more popular aircraft? So, if you are to use the "everyone else is doing it so why can't we?" argument, then the Gripen loses again.

There has been a lot of talk about the Swedish airfare doctrine especially the use of "motorways" as landing strips for their aircraft, but again, that has not been properly explained. I had the opportunity to see these "motorways" for real. The better description is that in Sweden, you are allowed to drive on a section of a landing strip. Not any motorway can be used. Sections of selected motorways chosen to be used as landing strips are signalled with proper aistrip lighting (including approach signalling and ILS), the road is significantly wider and strengthened to take the impact of a landing aircraft, there is no cable divider in the middle of road (usually in Sweden the opposing lanes of traffic are divided by a cable or sometimes by concrete barriers) and the ends of the runway are controlled by traffic lights and barriers to stop traffic. Also, there are barracks along the road (where troops are stationed all the time) and hangars. Furthermore, they have specially dedicated cleaning vehicles that sweep that airstrip continuously. When you enter these sections of motorway, there are speed restrictions.
So, these are not any regular run-of-the-mill motorways. That is why the concept of "you do not need aistrips for Gripens because they can land on a motorway" is true only when you are refeerring striclty to Sweden.

The F16 is a good choice.
Radu

About voting, where is Eurofighter?

Right where it has always been.
It is too expensive to be considered. The British, the Germans and the Italians are reducing the size of their orders because it is waaaay to expensive. It was always a pipedream for the RoAF and never a contender with any real chances.
Radu

Is more expensive that an original design and built aircraft in Romania, wich it can be voted?

Hmmm - you prefer to support your argument with personal attacks - this seems to be common on this board. Very mature.

Why people go on about the "proven in fight" record of F 16?! This argument would make sense if you would compare planes of the same generation. BTW - F 16 also have a record for being shot down.

Is Romania going to get new latest block F 16's like Poland did? So far the offer is half the number of planes Poland's got for more money - why is this good?!

Also using the off-set money to build/improve the roads in Romania is another advantage. Else, regardless what planes they buy they can be taken out with 2 strikes (in the current RoAF configuration of 2 AF fighter bases).

The data link system used in Gripen is something that gives it an excellent advantage. Yes, it may not stop a full Russian attack, but neither F 16...

Where is the personal atack?

I fail to see where the personal attack is.

The F16 has a record of being shot down because it has a record to speak of. The Gripen has no record of anything (or has broken any records if we come to think of that) It only made appearances at airshows.
I hope you realise that we are talking about a warplane here and, like anything to do with the military, these things are in the business of seeking and getting into trouble. If they get shot down in the process, that is all in a day's work. Go to YouTube and have a look at the Gripen crashing and falling off from the skies without actually being fired at.

Romania is going to get exactly the same aircraft as Poland: F16 Block 52. This is the latest type in use. You mentioned Block 60, but that is not in use as such yet. See here why: http://www.f-16.net/
Why do we need to look at what Poland spent on their aircraft? (They actually spent more than we plan to spend on these, but I do not care). Why is the neighbour's goat so important? Poland is a... to quote Forrest Gump... a whole different country. I only brought Poland into the conversation because you kept looking at the former communist states for examples and kept avoiding the elephant in the room, i. e. the largest, most populated and wealthiest of all former communist countries: Poland. Again, I could not care any less what Poland does. They make their deal we make ours. What they got for their money is their business. You must stop thinking that we are all equal in this world. We are not.

The Gripen datalink that you mention is inferior to that of the F16 Block52. In fact, the avionics suite of the F16 Block 52 is one of the best there is. Both the Gripen and F16 Block 52 are the same generation, with the difference that the Gripen is actually slighlty older than the F16 Block 52.

The Gripen is a failed concept. Only 200 were built since 1988, yes 20 years ago, this is not a spring chick anymore. Even the IAR80 was built in larger numbers in 5 years. The Gripen is used by only 5 countries, of which Hungary and Czech Republic are only leasing them. Why would Romania need it? Just because it looks good? I don't think so.

I am not going to speculate about a Russian attack. That is a whole different discussion and irrelevant here.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on October 05, 2008 09:46 pm

If you remember there was a similar section of road on the Bucharest - Pitesti highway back in the communist times and a few years afterwards.