What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Guys, I think you are confusing things.

A state is a regional power when it concentrates most of a region's power distribution. So a discussion about alliances is irrelevant in assessing whether a state is a regional power or not.

From what i read it on that other site, they put those dozen of old T 72 on reserve as well. Not that those tanks represented something anyway.

About our weapon system, at least we have the plans, prototypes (more new then 60's obviously) and factories where we can build them if need it, which we can't say about any of our neighbours (with exception of Ukraine).
Again (going somehow on this "what if" scenario), having a dozen of Mig 29 or Grippen will not give you any real air superiority. You need to avoid AA defense, and fight with more enemies, and Mig 21 Lancer in bigger numbers and with modern avionics (DASH helmet and new AA missiles) can be a bit hard to win against too easy.

Nobody will be able to have total air control, and your examples cant be used here.
-Falklands 1982 - an isolated island, with a poor defense plan
-Irak - a flat open desert, with an irakian army unable to understand what happen and heavy outdated in many parts compared with their enemies, and nor prepared for an attrition and guerilla war either

If you look at the book i posted, you will see some examples of wars betwen highly technologized forces (having obviously a total air supremacy), superior in numbers too sometimes vs. low equiped guerrila forces or armies, but the results was surprinsigly in the favour of the last ones due to determination and ingenuozity

C'mon, nothing would had happened in 1918/1919 without the tacit, and often open, approval of the French. They were the masters in the region and pulled the strings accoring to their own interest.

Gen. Dénes

Having plans, prototypes and factories means nothing in case of a conflict. It takes years to make a workable series production item from a prototype, to arrange the logistical chain to support it and train troops with it. Any conventional shooting conflict Romania vs. a neighbour will last days or weeks. We are NATO and EU members, diplomacy (theirs, not ours) will put a swift end to any war.

A dozen MiG-29 or Gripen with BVR AAMs and moderately trained pilots could win air superiority against RoAF in a few days.

Aboout our MiG-21s: only the Lancer C (20 in number) have a useful air intercept radar. The others have a ranging radar, useful only for measuring the distance to a target at close range (no search and track functions).

DASH is useful in dogfight only if coupled with a high off-boresight missile, such as Python 4,5, Mica IR, IRIS-T, AIM-9X, etc. What they use now are Magic II - largely an AIM-9L/M equivalent with a FOV of just 20 degrees; and Python III which is a bit better with a FOV of some 30 degrees. By comparison the regular R-73 has a FOV of 45 degrees. FOV = field of view of the seeker. Couple this with the Lancer's poor maneuvrability compared to the other types mentioned, appauling range and you get the picture.

Romanian AA defense: a few obsolete, fixed SA-2 sites around Bucharest and 3 SA-6 regimets at three location around the country with missiles nearing the end of their shelf life won't deterr anyone. HAWK isn't operational yet, they never fired a single round in training. Everything else we have is too short ranged for medium-high flying aircraft. Not to mention that our airbases rely on 57 mm guns for self defence.

The SAM defences of our country - especially the deployment pattern show just how obsolete is not only the equipment, but the defence doctrine and mentalities in the command structure. They are prepared for the Vietnam war, with a SAM ring around the capital, while all recent conflicts showed that the prime targets are early warning radar sites, airbases and command and control centers. Industrial and population centers are not prime targets any more - or at all.

This post has been edited by Vici on February 28, 2010 04:22 pm

Gulf War 1 was a land war. A part of the coalition forces pinned the Iraqi forces that were in Kuwait while another part swinged through Iraq and pressed them from the flank. Air power was just another asset used to attrition the Iraqi forces and disrupt the Iraqi movements.

I agree with Vici's "cold shower" assessment.

We are right at the same spot that we were in some 60 years ago. The Romanian armed forces are no more ready to fight World War III today than they were ready to fight World War II back then.

Sure our training might be better,but our equipment is comparatively in worse shape.

Take the air force.Back then we had the IAR-80. Sure, not a Spitfire,P-51 or Fw-190, but it was a plane a pilot stood a fighting chance in. Today, our MiGs would be shot out of the sky by AMRAAM-class missiles like flies.

A war today would see us trounced like Georgia back in August '08.

And I wouldn't bet on the US or EU powers jumping in the fire to save us,either.

The alliance with the US is useful in the sense that having facilities like the ones used by JTF East, we have American "human shields" on home soil that no country would dare harm.

The moment the "geo-strategic wind" blows differently we are as much screwed as we were back in 1940 when France fell.

Having the US backing us up is good and all,but relying on them blindly to "bail us out" is just asking for trouble.

I agree, because another Frenchman, former Ministry of defence, said one time:
"One country will come to help another country who is attacked only it has an interest and the firtst country will made all possible to defend herself".

Agree again, it is the moment when Russia decides to come back in bussines, to became a major power again. It is important how Russia will decide to do this, in hard way or soft way. August 2008 in Georgia made them overthrusting in themselfs.
And after that moment, if Russia is backed out, his power will decrease dramatically, because a failure will open old wounds and will increase the apetite for independence for many parts of the over 100 nations that have Russia in his componence.

Why should the EU, or the US for that matter, go to war to implement the territorial ambitions of some strange countires?
Georgia had it comming. Whatever their president was smoking 2 years ago, it must have been really good stuff.
This would never have happened with Shevardnadse.

Why should the EU, or the US for that matter, go to war to implement the territorial ambitions of some strange countires?
Georgia had it comming. Whatever their president was smoking 2 years ago, it must have been really good stuff.
This would never have happened with Shevardnadse.

Pretty sure he was smoking the good stuff,Saakhashvili's wife is Dutch

But yeah, Saakhasvili sure overplayed his hand. He actually believed all the US bull about "spreading democracy". Too bad it's always ordinary people that pay for the mistakes of politicians.

P.S. : Who are you calling strange? We invented baseball - oina ! That's as american as apple pie.

This post has been edited by IAR80 on February 28, 2010 06:34 pm

When he was elected, Shaakashvili promised to give back Georgia's unity. He was reelected, and at a referendum that took place in late 2007, 75% voted for NATO membership.
He "overplayed his hand" and loose. Georgian lost 168 soldiers KIA. Russians? Why they never declare their losings? Because are too big.
In 2002, Russia lost 500 soldiers not in Battle, but killed by accidents or by "veterans", older soldiers with little conscription time remain. Other years, the figures are apropiate. (Anna Politovskaia)

what exactly would your point be?
that the georgian "army" actually won? or victoriously retreated before an enemy who advanced in utter confusion?
it was clear to everybody how this would end. i still don't understand how the current politician class there could produce politicians who actually thought they could get away with this.

The Georgians lost the war. But Russians don't win it.

The Russians didn't win it? What do you call Georgian forces being routed from Tskhinvali? A cunning strategy of 'scorched earth'?

To say nothing of the fact that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now firmly in the Russian sphere,recognized as part of the Russian Federation.

This post has been edited by IAR80 on February 28, 2010 06:51 pm

What was Russia's aim? To recognise Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia as independent states? BTW, they're not part of Russian Federation, as you said. It not need a war for this. They could recognise them anytime, they were the only state who recognise them (an exception, Nicaragua). Even the Russia's closest allies don't recognise them.

Their aim was to overthrone Shaakashvili from power. It don't realise.
Another aim was to cripple Georgian military power. Don't realise, just a part of military hardware was destroyed, and will be replaced soon.