What fighter plane do you think Romania should use?

http://www.financiarul.com/articol_43501/a...ta-din-nou.html

It seems that the aquisition is blocked from Parliament approval because the law request an auction, so SAAB and maybe Eurofighter might have a second chance

It is a bizarre piece of non-news.
The writer manages to contradict himself a few times. He states that the planes are free and the money "quoted" needs to be spent on improving the infrastructure and training the pilots (which needs to be done anyway, no matter what Romania got). So... if the planes are free... hmmm.. what tender process can come up with a "better deal"?
Radu

Well, sounding like this (quote from article):

"pentru aceeiasi bani, 1,3 miliarde de dolari, ofera 24 de aparate noi, an­tre­na­mentul a 30 de piloti si 60 de teh­ni­cie­ni, mentenanta pe o durata de cinci ani si offset 100%. In plus, ofera conditii de plata atragatoare: plata in 15 ani, cu o perioada de gratie de doi ani si un imprumut din partea Guvernului Sue­diei cu o dobanda foarte mica. "

the SAAB offer seem quite very good. Gripen is as well cheaper (or even much cheaper) in exploation then SH F 16, and if is the NG variant how was said, i think is a better deal. They are new planes, with close or even better characteristics then F 16, and partialy will be made here, and our aviation industry will have something to work as well. Gripen can use the infrastructure we have now, the same as MIG's use, so no need of improvment now. The only good deal with americans was the future aquisition of F 35, but at the price it have now, and with the problems it have, i am sure they will gladly sell us after 20 years from now on, even if we dont take their F 16 now.

Anyway, if we didnt make our own fighter a while ago, at least to partialy make a foreign one, and dont lose the contact with planes industry. I will prefered Eurofigher to make a similar offer, since is clearly the best as technico-tactic characteristics, maybe the only one able to put some problems to F 22 today, and clearly the best vs new russian SU - series (except the same F 22 ofcourse)

Yes indeed, the Eurofighter would be better.
Radu

There seem to be more offers: http://www.ziuaveche.ro/007/armata/3371-ba...da-in-parlament

Let's hope they take the Eurofighter option.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on May 12, 2010 09:24 am

Or at least the Gripen. Anyway, if the planes cost 1bn, compared with the 1,3 bn costs for the F-16, it means more than 10 milions per plane to buy weapons, that would be enough at least for AA missiles.

I see why Swedes are so desperate to sell the Gripen to the Romanians and make all kinds of concessions. Romanians are THE ONLY ones who have any kind of faith in it. The rest of the world completely ignored it or lost interest. Nothing about it is so unique or great as to warrant such devotion. It is not faster than the others, it is not stronger that the others, it is not even new. It looks good, but even that is subjective.

Now that Eurofighters are available at the same price (or expense) as the F-16, there is no "choice" anymore.

Radu

In the begining of the discution, I don't want to part of it, because, whatever, the decision don't belong to us.
Later, I see the dicusion last later, and I decide to say my opinion. We had three choices. Anyone we choose, somebody will said the option isn't correct. But let see the facts.
Grippen is made by Sweds, but Sweden is not part of NATO. How many countries, NATO members, have Grippens? Hungary? Cehia? And others?
About Eurofighter. Is a fine plane made by western european countries. But Western Europe had a important role in NATO today? I think their role is diminished by their atitude about their contribution in other operatthion theatres, like Afghabnistan.
We choose american planes, and this is a strategic choose. The future will say if we were right or wrong.

In fact, we did not.
We only had one choice: F-16. Any other aircraft were way too expensive for Romanians. When the F-16 Block 52 offer was mentioned a couple of years ago, all others were still too expensive. Two months ago we got the offer of 24 free F-16 (but we had to pay for pilot training and upgrading the infrastructure). It is hard to beat 24 free aicraft, so that caused the others to rethink their offer! The others dropped their prices, so it is only NOW that we truly got 3 choices. This can be interesting. The good thing is that Romania is in a very good position to negotiate. Even if they fail to get a deal with the others, there are always the 24 free F16 to fall back on.
Radu

Today I visited this site first time in over a month... And although I promised myself won't get involved, I feel I have to. For the last time. So moderators can ban me, it won't make a difference as I will not return.

This thread is hijacked by Radub with his incessant need to repeat his own personal opinion over and over again...

Sometimes using abusive language against other users... But that's OK. My polite criticising of him is observed by the admins, but his abuse not. I rest my case.

For the record radub, your opinion was was noted. You never backed up your statements! Links to some obscure fan sites don't count as serious sources...

This is not a sensible discussion anymore. I hoped this was the point of this entire thread. I guess I was naive. I have no interest in repeated personal opinions, yours or otherwise...

When is SAAB ignored? When they get deals in South Africa and Thailand and have countries like India, Brazil and probably some Balkan countries interested? SAAB who is continuing research and development and are ready to offer a SeaGripen?Define "ignored"! Why would they do that if they were so "ignored"?

You think the F16 deal is better when there are plenty of sources stating what offset and options SAAB offers via the Swedish government? Ignoring the advantages of high tech jobs in Romania in favour for boosting jobs in USA?!!!!

You don't seem to care that SAAB offered NEW Gripens for the price of 30 year old F16s...

BTW - don't bother answering - the questions where rhetorical.

This whole thread is now a joke.

Anyway, I needed to air this and I feel better for it. Do as you wish...

Adios!

Redcooper, you seem to have a problem with my strength of convictions. I do not flip-flop and bend over backwards to please some random dude on the internet. Yes, I have a backbone. Problem? Deal with it!

Again, you attack me personally instead of coming with counter-arguments. the only person who is abusive and a bully is you. Why do you need to personalise this discussion and turn it into a fight? This is not a moral or a legal issue, it is just opinion.

To answer your question, it matters very little how many people are "interested" in the Saab. What matters is how many Saabs are "sold". They just do not sell. But don't take my word for it. Look that one up for yourself.

Radu

According to Finance Minister Valdescu we won't buy these either:

http://www.ziare.com/sebastian-vladescu/mi...le-f-16-1021283

For the Gripens we would need to pay later, not now...

some problems with Romanian language

Ministrul de Finante, Sebastian Vladescu, este de parere ca achizitionarea de avioane multirol pentru armata in acest moment nu au sens, deoarece Romania nu are bani pentru asa ceva.

Well after one month i closed my poll "Daca s-ar alege avionul multirol, tu pe care l-ai vota?" / If you could choose multirole aircraft, you whom you vote?

115 votes:

"Mirage 2000 în uz: 0 – 0 %

F-18 în uz: 1 – 0,9 %

F-16 în uz: 2 – 1,7 %

Rafale în uz: 3 – 2,6 %

Gripen în uz: 4 – 3,5 %

Typhoon în uz: 5 – 4,3 %

F-16 noi: 11 – 9,6 %

Rafale noi: 11 – 9,6 %

F-18 noi: 17 – 14,8 %

Typhoon noi: 30 – 26,1 %

Gripen noi: 31 – 27 %"

From Resboiu military blog.