What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

Well... have a look, just out of curiosity at the "performance" of the Grippen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS-39_Grippen in comparison with F16 Block 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
Now, that is an F-16 Block 30. TheRoAF was poised to purchase brand new Block 52, which has a better engine and much improved avionics suite.

http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

The price per unit for the F-16 is 18.8 million dollars. The price per unit for the Grippen is yet unknown.

First Gripen was rolled out in April 1987.
First F16 Block 52 was rolled out in October 1991.

Do not allow yourself to be bamboozled by idiots who say that the F16 is an "older" model. A Block 52 F16 has no relationship to the first model, just like the latest model of VW Golf has nothing to do with the first VW Golf.

But, proof of "success" is the number of customers. Compare the number of nations that use the F16 to the number of nations that use the Gripen.

I am not comparing the Gripen to the F16 because I am biased towards the F16. No bias here, just comparison of figures.
I am comparing the two because they are in the same category and are the only viable options for RoAF at this moment. All the other stuff, like Eurofighter, Rafale, F35, ozeneuri, are just delirious babblings. RoAF cannot afford them.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 01, 2009 10:21 am

The first Gripen C/D enter service in 2001, and the Gripen A/B enter service in Swedish Air Force in 1996. The price for F16 is to small,it's in 1998 dollars. The price now for an block 52 is 50 mil $. Check the facts better, check the Poland F16 deal and you will see that Gripen C/D was offered at a prince 20% lower than the F16. Why Poland chosed F16? Wo do you want to be your friend: USA the only superpower or Sweden?

That was the Poland F16 deal?

Hmmmmm... let me think about this for a while... Do I want to be friendly with a nation that helped win WW2, has a masive arsenal and has plenty of experience of war? Or do I want to be friendly with a nation that has not been to war since the times of Napoleon, has a small army and little experience of actual fighting? What was the question again?

Don't get me wrong, I like the Gripen, it is a really good looking plane. But the F16 has a better performance all-round.

Radu

This seems to be a story of sympaties and antipaties rather than planes themselves. I wonder if this is the normal way...
BTW, how did the frigate acquisition improved our relationship with Britain? I cannot remember for now.

This post has been edited by MMM on March 01, 2009 04:08 pm

That was why the question "who do you want to be your friend" was silly to start with.
This is the kind of stuff you hear on a playground! It is like a 5-year-old saying "My brother is 7 and he will come and give you a spanking"
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 01, 2009 02:59 pm

Why Poland chosed F16? Wo do you want to be your friend: USA the only superpower or Sweden "
Why,because unlike us they have plenty of common sense and take their Army seriously.The responsible people here,have to make a decision:Do we need the planes for 1 december parade ? Then "o patrula " should be suficient.But if they want an Air Force capable of sustaining more then two weeks of fighting,Saab is out of the question.Supose we buy it,then spent thirty month training the pilots,ground crews and building the infrastructure.Then,in two weeks of fighting we loose half of the planes(you know,it hapenes unless we go to war with Gagautzia).What you do,order new ones?Probably in 2 years we'll get them.Oh,we can buy another planes available in the market,and then spend another year training the pilots........By then Comrat will be the capital.
So the only sensible solution is Block 52,no matter how anti american we are.Plenty of them in the depo's.And then F 35.

I allready made this point some time ago,and I'll make it again next year when the situation will be vthe same.

Well, since you put it that way, if the Gripen is not NATO-standard, perhaps it is NOT the best choice, then. In this case, maybe the best (yet impossible) would be a new Romanian plane, manufactured here. Alas, that's wishful thinking and nothing more...

Nu ma mai chinui sa scriu in engleza ca oricum toti suntem romani aici: intrebarea nu era adresata nimanui, era o intrebare retorica, pentru a demonstra de ce Polonia a ales F16 si nu Gripen. Nu din cauza ca Gripen ar fi mai prost, mai scump, mai greu de intretinut.
Cunostiintele tale despre aviatie in general sunt reduse,iar la nivel de Gripen sunt 0. Gripen este un avion mai ieftin decat F16, a fost conceput ca sa poti sa zbori cu el in conditiile in care esti atacat de un inamic net superior din punct de vedere aerian. (URSS vs Suedia) Din aceasta cauza Gripen are nevoie de foarte putini oameni ca sa il intretina si sa il inarmeze,e capabil sa aterizeze si sa decoleze de pe autostrazi. Daca ai 48 de F16 in prima zi in care inamicul ti-a distrus pistele de decolare esti in pom cu aviatia. Daca ai 48 de Gripen mai poti sa zbori atat timp cat mai ai avioanele alea si macar un km de drum drept. Chiar daca F16 block 52 ar fi mai performant decat un Gripen, nu poti sa faci fata impotriva a sute de Su 27 si Mig 29 indiferent daca ai Gripen sau F16. Daca vrei un avion ieftin ca sa zboare misiuni de patrulare, atunci Gripen e avionul pentru tine. O ora de zbor cu Gripen costa 16.000 de dolari, o ora de zbor cu F16 costa 48.000 de dolari. Fa un calcul sa vezi cati bani economisesti numai din motivul asta. Poate nu m-ai inteles suficient pentru ca engleza mea nu e foarte buna, si din cauza asta am avut probleme de comunicare. Si Polonia de una singura nu are nici o SANSA impotriva Rusiei fie ca ar avea 40.60.80 sau 100 de avioane F16. Au ales F16 pentru ca au nevoie de USA,nu pentru ca sunt mai responsabili ca au armata mai buna etc etc etc. Ultimul meu post pe topicul asta, am impresia ca scriu degeaba pe aici.

Well,Mihai,I did not say that Grippen is not NATO standard just that is next to impossible to replace it in time of nee.
NATO standard is not about how you fly a plane.

Let's try to keep it in English - among other things, it's just a way to improve your skills at it
I understood what Radu said and I agreed with him; I also agree with you - it IS possible. However, the main issue is: do Romanian know what for they need an airplane? After that, one should establish some criteria and see which plane fits best. This is the ideal way.
As for the standing alone against Russia, NOBODY has this chance. Not even USA, without any allies!

As for the standing alone against Russia, NOBODY has this chance. Not even USA, without any allies! "

Here you are compltly wrong,I don't want to go into details,russians themselvs do not consider that they are able to win a conventional war with NATO ( see the theme of last year's maneuvers ), at least not with the army they have now.That's why they put most of their money in rocketry (Bulava,Iskander,Topol M etc.)
The cath is that we cannot win either
,we'll end up ,all in flames.

I presume you speak about me...

They say that when one says "do you know who I am" it is too late!

I may not know much about aviation and I may not know much about the Gripen. Or maybe I do.
However, I was only talking about figures, the kind of stuff that anyone with no knowledge of aviation (but a bit of stuff between their ears) can figure out.

Here are some numbers (all from Wikipedia):
Max take-off weight: Gripen: 14.000 kg - F16 Block 30: 19.200KG (This means that the F16 can take off while carrying more weight, such as for example bombs)
Powerplant:
Dry Thrust: Gripen: 54 kN - F16 Block 30: 76.3 kN
Thrust with afterburner: Gripen: 80.5 kN - F16 Block 30: 128.9 kN
Max. Speed: Gripen: 2,130 km/h - F16 Block 30: 2,414 km/h
Combat radius: Gripen: 800 km - F16 Block 30: 550 km (infinite with in-flight refueling)
Ferry range: Gripen: 3,200 km - F16 Block 30: 4,220 km (infinite with in-flight refueling)
Maximum altitude: Gripen: 15,240 m - F16 Block 30: 18,000+ m
Armament: Gripen: 1 × 27 mm cannon, 120 rounds - F16 Block 30: 1× 20 mm Vulcan gatling gun, 515 rounds


Gripen Armament:
6× Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
6 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4 x Rb.75
2 x KEPD.350
4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets
2 x Rbs.15F anti-ship missile
2 x Bk.90 cluster bomb
8 x Mark 82 bombs
1 x ALQ-TLS ECM pod

F16 armament:
Hardpoints: 2× wing-tip Air-to-air missile launch rails, 6× under-wing & 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 20,450 lb (9,276 kg) of payload
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× /7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively) or
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets) or
4× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets)
Missiles:
Air-to-air missiles:
2× AIM-7 Sparrow or
6× AIM-9 Sidewinder or
6× IRIS-T or
6× AIM-120 AMRAAM or
6× Python-4
Air-to-ground missiles:
6× AGM-45 Shrike or
6× AGM-65 Maverick or
4× AGM-88 HARM
Anti-ship missiles:
2× AGM-84 Harpoon or
4× AGM-119 Penguin
Bombs:
2× CBU-87 Combined Effects Munition
2× CBU-89 Gator mine
2× CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
4× GBU-10 Paveway II
6× GBU-12 Paveway II
6× Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
4× JDAM
4× Mark 84 general-purpose bombs
8× Mark 83 GP bombs
12× Mark 82 GP bombs
B61 nuclear bomb
Others:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys dispenser pod and chaff pod or
AN/ALQ-131 & AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
LANTIRN, Lockheed Martin Sniper XR & LITENING targeting pods or
up to 3× 300/330/370 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.


So, I may not know much about aircraft, as you say. But, going by mathematical rule that the higher number is... more than a lower number (i.e. 2 is more than 1), please explain to me how can you still believe that the higher figures for the F16 make the Gripen better?

All the best of luck to you!
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on March 01, 2009 06:59 pm

As I said a few pages back, I actually had a chance to see these "motorways" you calim are used as runways. read a few pages back, there is no need to repeat myself. Well, things are not as simple as you imagine.

I was recently talking to a pilot (a NATO pilot, he is now in Afghanistan) about this doctrine of using any straight stretch of road as a runway and his opinion this was one of those monumentally idiotic things that can cause more problems than help. If the "enemy" knows that your airforce is going to use any straight stretch of road as a runway, then, right after taking out all your proper runways, they will take out every straight stretch of road you got. The offshoot of that is that your transport infrastructure is shot and the refugees will have no way to move and end up blocking your roads with their belongings, thus causing even more chaos.
If anything, you DO NOT WANT to use your roads for any such military purposes and make them legitimate targets!

All the best of luck!
Radu

Come on man, How would know what the Russians think? Who is this that speaks for all Russians? Even if that was true why would they tell you? NATO is weak; just a bunch of weak nations. Dependant on the US for defense, foolish in thinking that the US can or save them. The european NATO members would wise to rearm. Romania needs to realize that it must be able to defend its self. As for MMM's statement about the US standing alone against Russia, He is right on the money!
Thank you