What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

http://www.mapn.ro/cpresa/13361_COMUNICAT-DE-PRESĂ

To this:

http://poland.usembassy.gov/poland/f16.html

We're a country led by second-hand leaders.

Very well said, Imperialist!

Bad deal as usual, used F-16's with no offsets! no benefit to our economy! Hopefully the won't get thourgh Parliament. Even if does BAE/SAAB will likey file against the deal, which may void the deal!

Both bids should be submitted to Parliament, its only fair!

Swedish Saab surprised at Romania's F-16 jets choice
Print this page Send to friendPublished on ASDNews: Mar 25, 2010
BUCHAREST, March 25, 2010 (AFP) - Swedish group Saab said Thursday it was "surprised" at Romania's choice of F-16 second-hand aircraft to the detriment of its Gripen and asked authorities to submit all offers to parliament.

"We are surprised at the statement indicating that the Supreme Defence Council is pursuing the old F-16s, without any offset, due to lack of financial resources,", said Richard Smith, Saab's marketing director for Romania.

"Unfortunately, the Romanian armed force may end up with someone else's junk."

The Supreme Council announced Wednesday it would submit to parliament its decision to purchase 24 F-16 aircraft currently used by the US air force.

Bucharest is also considering buying 24 new F-16 and, at a later stage, acquiring 24 F-35 jets, the defence ministry said, stressing this was part of the Romanian-US "strategic partnership."

But Saab said the ministry should "present to parliament all the offers that have been submitted, so that all the facts are available for discussion."

The Swedish group also argued its offer was "better by far, from the economic perspective, due to.... the generous 100 percent offset."

"We are guaranteeing offset which will bring investments and create tens of thousands of new jobs. The US is promising nothing. In a period of economic crisis, this is simply outrageous."

Romania has long mulled the purchase of fighter planes to replace its ageing, Soviet-made MiG-21 Lancer aircraft, but has delayed the decision due to lack of funds.

The F-16 (Lockheed Martin) were competing with the Gripen jets, the Eurofighters (EADS, BAE Systems and Alenia/Finmeccanica) and the French-made Rafales (Dassault).


by Joseph Krauss
© 2010 AFP

To Imperialist,
excellent point, this is indeed the difference which suggests the value of the leaders that we have! And the respect these leaders showed us in the last 20 years, is the same respect they show to the national defense of our country!
As I said before I believe that the acquisition of the 24 F-16C/D Block 25 multirole jet fighter aircraft without an addition to romanian national defense or our economy, not to mention the completely inappropriate time, is an error. I mention that I am no fan of any other type of aircraft, but just wanted an acquisition that takes into account the real needs of national defense and the country's ailing economy.

Dear Friends,

Offset, in former Comunist Soviet Republic???
Romania was the worst off CAER.
Romania have had an aeronautic industry???
It"s, a joke

Canada still use CF-18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18_Hornet

Gripen, Eurofighter, F22, F35

CF-18
It's our best artic interceptor, vous an roumanie, vous ete un usine de reve.

Oh boy, from where you come?

And where you learn all those stuff you mentioned?

Romania wasnt a former soviet republic lol, and among all members of Warsaw Pact was the only one who builded its own original war planes - IAR 93 (ground attack plane, in collaboration with Yugoslavia) not related by anything sovietic. And, as USSR and Czekoslovakia builded its own trainer jets (which can be used for limited ground attack plane too), IAR 99, and advanced in late 89`s with the planification for its own fighter jet, IAR 95. I think it was second just to USSR back then.
Not to mention previous realization, as one of the first countries in the world who used airplanes for military purposes (Aurel Vlaicu airplane in 1910), in interbelic period had a airplane, IAR 16, who in an (unfortunately) not omologated flight beat the world record at altitude and speed, and in 1939 IAR 80 was on fourth place in the world. Unfortunately, as today, some other interests prevailed, and aeronautic industry didnt develop as it should.

F-18 isnt an interesting airplane for Romania, even F-16 (especialy those SH ones, even upgraded at block 50-52) isnt much better in my opinion. The only possible significant benefit will be a further aquire of F-35. But i still think that the best choice is an offset for Eurofighter, the fighter who have the biggest winning chances in front of SU-30 series, or at least that 100% offset for Gripen, who is close as performances and capabilities with F-16 (or F-18) but have too as bonus a much cheaper mentenance and an autochtonus industry for spare parts etc.

This post has been edited by udar on March 26, 2010 07:10 am

chrisf453
You looks to me like a type of guy that occurs in a discussion, in which he has nothing to say, only to hear himself and possibly feel valuable! If you know nothing about Romania, about its position within the Warsaw Treaty, about the Romanian aerospace industry during or after the end of the Second World War, why interfere in a discussion with senseless comments, who bring nothing to the topic? You wanted to say something and we don't understand? Or you wanted to talk so of boredom? Try to be more serious and communicate something to the people who listen you, or, at least, refrain yourself from senseless comments!

"3-5 years"

This is rather vague and I wonder how much of that contract contains vague terms like this?

Is it 3 or 5 or 4?!! I think it is important.

Out of the 24 jets, how many will be combat ready at any time?

How many hours per pilot are planned per year?

What weapons will they have available for A-A and A-g missions?

Who and where will the maintenance be performed?

Will the Romanian aircraft industry be involved in this in any way?

What are the expectations from these 24 planes?

The deal looks bad however you look. Not a deal that has Romania's defence as purpose.

My impression - they will decorate an airfield just like the Migs 23 and 29 decorate MK and Giarmata today... No relevant pilot hours compared with our neighbours (Hungary and Czech Republic)... Some pilots may train for a few months in US - not a big deal I think...

A few other points I picked up from the newspapers and forums.

I don't think Romania will ever afford or need the F35. So that reason is not valid.
Some say this deal ensured the recent IMF loan. I don't think that's the case, but if it is is a very bad idea. It is bad enough to get an IMF loan (see Greece).
Some say the deal will ensure removal of US visas for Romanian nationals. If this is the case, the price is far too high not to mention unjustified!

Well said, redcooper,
and justified questions!
I only hope this business will not resemble the other big deal with United States involvement, the famous Bechtel and the Transilvania highway! We'll see!

What kind of expectations could one have from 24 planes? To fight what? Trans-Dnestra?

you arm yourself for a certain scenario. in this scenario you are part of the NATO and you're taking part in NATO operations. therefore, with 24 aircraft you're a part of an alliance. you're not supposed to go on your own. 24 aircraft are a lot if the other side doesn't have any and are close to nothing if the other side has 400 comparable. our glorious DoD is not supposed to go to war over a pisspoor strip of land, nobody really cares about, but to fulfill its obligations as a part of a greater alliance.
which is why 24 isn't much but still something. to me it's the wrong choice, but better than none at all.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on March 28, 2010 08:10 pm

This is a nice conclusion, fit to end the discussion of this topic!
Presuming, of course, that we will eventually buy those F16's...

This post has been edited by MMM on March 29, 2010 04:20 pm

What F-14? You mean these? http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/eveniment/vez...le-noastre.html
It is all part of the wider programme of "tara te vrea prost" [your country wants you to be stupid] that has enveloped this whole issue from the very beginning.
Radu

Actually one man's disappointment is another man's good fortune. It looks that after Romania chose the F-16 over the Gripen Saab has made an instant improvement of their offer to provide Bulgaria with the JAS-39, including offset for more than 100% of the total price, providing jobs for several thousand people and deliveries of the first units, starting in 12 months after the deal has been signed. That's what our new defense minister announced today in a speech before the North Atlantic Club of Bulgaria.

Problem is that my personal favourite is the EF-2000.
Anyway the former Chief if the Air Force and present Chief of Defense General Simeonov is in favour of the F/A-18 E/F and in a procedure some couple of years ago that type has been confirmed as the winner of a canceled fighter tender.

As for Romania IIRC there was an offer for a triangular deal in which France would supply Rafales to Qatar and/ or UAE, buy their Mirage 2000s and resell some of them to Romania. What hapened with that one? I thought that Romania is generally simpathetic to France?

Ooops, sorry! I meant F111, I guess...
Anyway, we coannot afford a new plane, that's the theory of the day, isn't it?

Hallo,
to be honest, I do not expect that our country will buy another plane than F-16, but I hope (don't know why) to take a newer version, not one 26 years old! We all knew the reasons we choose the F-16, and is was written in all newspapers a few years ago. Still...

Should we laugh or cry when reading this?