What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Churning water. It is another one of those pieces of non-news rehashing old and tired stuff that has been rehashed many times before.
Radu

We should get the JAS Grippen, but as politics and business seem to be the main things her, we'll probably end up w/ the old F-16... fortunately, until we'll make a decision, perhaps things will change one more.
Otherwise, this is beginning to look more and more like the Skoda affair or its contemporary one, the frigates from British Navy.

Ok ! Constantin Croitoru who asked an new (made) airplane, "has gone". Why ?
Because he don't love F-16 ?

In the same article http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2009-01-06&id=247511 I found F-18
(Este vorba despre F-16 - Lockheed Martin, SUA, JAS-39 Gripen - SAAB, Suedia, Eurofighter Typhoon - consortiu Germania, Marea Britanie, Italia si Spania, F-18 - Boeing, SUA si Rafale - Dassault Aviation, Franta. Cerintele operationale emise pentru achizitionarea avioa­nelor multirol si a suportului logistic initial au fost apro­bate in luna iulie 2005.)
In our poll, I don't see F-18 ?! Where is the mistake?

This is my perference for Romania's next fighter in order!

1. Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 2/3

2. Saab JAS-39 Gripen NG

3. Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker

4. Dassult Refale

5. Boeing F-18 E/F Super Hornet

6. Mikoyan Mig-35 OVT Fulcrum

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on February 18, 2009 12:11 am

Romania likely to shelve fighter jet purchase

REUTERS, 19.02.2009

BUCHAREST, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Romania is likely to shelve multibillion-euro plans to buy fighter planes to bring its air force up to NATO standards this year because of a lack of cash in its crisis-stricken budget, a senior coalition official said.

Bucharest came close to finalising a purchase plan last year with government ministers saying a decision was only "weeks away" in September, but it was put on hold after November's parliamentary election gave power to a new centre-left cabinet.

Five aircraft were in the running for the deal estimated by the previous centrist government to top 4 billion euros.

"Purchasing fighter jets this year is out of the question in such a difficult situation," Mircea Geoana, head of the coalition's Social Democrat party (PSD), told Reuters.

"We have some ongoing purchases that should be maintained, we have troops in Afghanistan, and I think investing in the capacity of our deployed troops overseas is the number one priority."

The PSD and its government partner, the Democrat-Liberal Party of Prime Minister Emil Boc, are due to debate their 2009 budget in parliament on Thursday.

They are struggling to contain the budget deficit within European Union rules, with revenues seen plunging.

Romania, the second-poorest EU member, has been a staunch ally of Washington's military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It joined NATO in 2004 and has agreed to replace its Soviet-made MiG-21s with new aircraft.

Its choices included: the F-16 built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), the F-18 from Boeing Co (BA.N), the Rafale from France's Dassault (AVMD.PA), the Gripen from Sweden's SAAB (SAABb.ST) and the Eurofighter from EADS (EAD.PA).

http://www.militarium.eu/article.aspx?ID=970

Unfortunately (?), the Minister of Defense replied quite fast that Geoană's oppinions and declarations were personal and nothing more (although he is deputy-prime-minister and chief of a party which is at the lead), so the acquisition process would be going on. We'll see this new Skoda affair - the question is when!

If they choose one aircraft, the "opposition" is already sharpening their knives to attack that decision. If they buy F16s, the opposition will start carping "Why not Grippens?" If they buy Grippens, the others will start mumbling "Why not F16s?" (Forget Eurofighters, no one can afford them, not even those who make it.) Look at the "frigate scandal" or this "Skoda" thing that MMM keeps bringing up. No matter what the choice is, there will be complaints that "we could have done better". There were other such "scandals" before. When Vlaicu tried to sell his machine to the Army, the opposition said "Why not Bleriots?" They bought Bleriots. Guess what happened? Yes, you guessed it! The opposition said "Why not Vlaicus?" That was called the "Bleriot Scandal". There was also a Gnome Rhone Scandal. These were not really "scandals" as such, just the oposition trying to score some points.
The problem is not that the opposition are behaving like "street courtesans" (that is what they do, in any country) but rather that the idiot masses ("bizonul") see these as "real issues" and keep bringing them up as examples of incompetence.
At this moment, Romania does not need a sooper-dooper jet, they need plenty of training aircraft. The main asset of any air force are the pilots. Machines can be bought off-the-shelf. Pilots take years to train - you cannot buy that off-the-shelf. In my opinion, the Air Force should buy some affordable trainers such as Embraer Tucanos or Pilatus PC9s and train as many pilots as possible. When the good times come back, then they can buy the "eye candy" that the idiot masses desire, such as the Eurofighter, F35 (oh boy, that one is to funny!), or the Colonial Vipers .
Radu

Would that be so true, the "big money" and the geo-political influence (I have no other term for it) do NOT come from training planes, but from expensive fighters! And, as many a time before that, those in charge are not interested in Romania's well-being (or the airforce, in this case), but in their own purposes, for which they are ready to sacrifice anything. Why didn't we buy those training planes years ago?
And I do not think that it really is necessary to bring about the issue of "opposition", as it is a general truth that, wherever there is an alternative, there will always be people discontented with the decision made and these peoople will have their arguments for their position and against the other/others...

MMM,
Why did we not buy the training planes? Read this whole thread! The idiot masses want the most "shukar", "bengos", "tare" aircraft! The idiot masses want the latest centrefold poster aircraft. The politicians know that. They know that if they buy Tucanos the idiot masses (manipulated by political interests) will be out on the streets protesting that they want F35s and Eurofighhters because they look soooooo cooooool

Big money bothers you? Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately aircraft are "big money". Military hardware is "big money". There is no way around it.

The issue of "opposition" is of immense importance. All over the world, opposition politicians fling muck hoping that some will stick. The funny thing is that in Romania all muck sticks, no matter how preposterous.

Radu

Oh, is that the top priority in Geoana's view?! I guess the several hundred troops deployed overseas will be flown in by the Americans to "boost" our national defenses in case of a crisis, as happened in Georgia last year.

Radub, by big money I meant big illegal money for some of the involved people; I didn't read all 33 pages of the thread, but only the first 3-4 and the last 3-4, k?
Imperialist, just remember what nickname Geoană has
And do NOT compare Romania's situation with Georgia, for at least three reasons:
1. We ARE members of NATO
2. We don't have borders with Russia
3. We have no minority problems unless we take over Bessarabia and Transnistria

I did not compare the situations per se, I only mentioned the act of hurriedly sending back home troops deployed abroad - they were presented as Georgia's best troops.

But on second thoughts, Geoana is not entirely (or the only) prostanac because his statements are partly in agreement with Romania's current defense doctrine (having a small professional army + focusing on peacekeeping/COIN operations abroad). Now we find out we can't really afford a well equipped small professional army. Well, let's just pour billions on several hundred soldiers patrolling some badlands thousands of km away, shall we?

p.s. I think we do have minority problems but let's not start this here. They're at the rhetorical/statements level for the time being anyway.

Is that your idea about peace-keeping?
And however "best troops" were the Georgians, they were severely outnumbered and outgunned. D'ya think US Seals would have done significantly better in the same numbers and with the same equipment?

PS: I don't particularly like the type of peace-keeping (?) in there, but every nation involved does quite the same (argumentul turmei...), so we DO need to respect our prior engagements, as we're too little to have an independent external policy. That's what most people doesn't understand: we're just a small player, even on a regional basis!

This post has been edited by MMM on February 21, 2009 01:30 pm

[1] Is that your idea about peace-keeping?

[2] And however "best troops" were the Georgians, they were severely outnumbered and outgunned.

[3] PS: I don't particularly like the type of peace-keeping (?) in there, but every nation involved does quite the same (argumentul turmei...), so we DO need to respect our prior engagements, as we're too little to have an independent external policy. That's what most people doesn't understand: we're just a small player, even on a regional basis!

1. Yes, briefly put. The point of the post was not to go into those details.

2. That was my point too.

3. If we have to choose between sacrificing our continued deployment in Afghanistan and sacrificing essential defense procurements for our homeland, then I think our allies can understand if we choose to sacrifice the former.

We are small, but that's mostly because we have thought small for a long time and we have allowed some folks to actually make us small under the cover of that excuse (Romania is too small for that, we can't afford that, we can't manage that, we have to get rid of this etc.)

I asked you before if you are familiar with the Monty Python "nudge nudge wink wink" sketch. Well, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

You are doing exactly the same thing. You keep going "nudge nudge wink wink" at me as if I know what you are talking about. I have no clue who you mean and what you are talking about. Yes, there are some so-called journalists that keep doing the same thing as you, nudge nudge wink wink, throwing around inuendos, insinuations and allegations but no hard facts. All heat but no fire, all bluster but no wind. Until I see the evidence that what you call "big money" actually exists, this is nothing more than nudge nudge wink wink.

You keep banging on about the "frigate scandal". Well, that "scandal" was investigated in the UK and in Romania and they found nothing other than insinuations, allegations and inuendos. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck, or as they say in Romania, if two people tell you that you are drunk go home and get some sleep. If they found nothing, then there is nothing. There is no "frigate scandal". Give it up, it is starting to look pathetic.

As for going to war, no amount of sooper dooper aircraft will ever defend us if we are stupid enough to go against Russia. They can take them all out with the first salvo of SAMs.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on February 21, 2009 04:44 pm