Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: AlphaOne on July 23, 2008, 05:59:52 am
-
Oki so Here it goes there is a heated discussion over what should the Romanian Airforce be equiped.
There are 3 choices to be made regarding this. However i would of preffered 5 .
1-F16 :The drawback is that they can get only 24 new planes and 24 second hand [planes (evn though oland bought 48 new ones for the same money )
2- Saab Grippen A much newer planet then the aging F16 . It is also Cheaper and less expensive to operate and maintain. And it comes with a almost 100% offset program. Also the planes will be maintained and built by a romanian firm .
3-Eurofighter Typhoon one of the most advanced planes in the world . However it is also very expensive. Much more then the Saab and the F16 but it is latest generation plane.
These are the 3 official choices.
However i would of preferred to see also
5-The french built Rafalle
6-The Mirage Also from France. which are both superior planes when compared to the F 16 and perhaps even the Saab.
The only major drawback aside from cost of the F 16 is the dated tech and frame of the lane. Sure numerous upgrades were made to it but that also increases the weight and cost of the plane far beyond its original intents. Making it a less agile dogfighter. It also requires numerous attachements in order to make use of the latest weapons sistems.
So i await your take on the matter. Opinions etc.
Please dont turn this into a nationalistic thing with the F 16 . Had the F 16 been a few decades younger it would of been the referred weapon of choice.
-
From the way you put it, it seems like the Saab JAS 39 Gripen is the obvious choice.
EDIT
:nervous:
-
process of elimination.
f-16: 24 new and 24 refurbished - low cost, but aging. no
Saab Gripped A: Sweden finest engine in the back of a fighter more less up to date, good cost progresive outcoomes. a big yes.
Typoon: too expensive. no
Rafelle: unknown plane, no info said. unsure if romania can have it.
Mirage: Mirage is a good fighter, the cost might be good, will france agree to it though?..
-
Under these circumstances, it really seems like the best choice
-
AlphaOne, I think there isn't enough information on your post to say anything about this. (And if there were, I wonder what anyone could say about that here, except nuclear1 who is working with USAF.)
The things what I would consider are one engine / two engines configuration, role of the aircraft, where is the aircraft ought to be operated during crisis time, what kind of weapon systems and avionics do the conditions in Romania require, compatibility issues, what is the supposed threat and so on.
But then again, I never participated in any Air Force activity.
Mika
-
Try and get some Su-35's... :p
-
Bah, wheres a perseus when you need one!? On topic though, the Saab Grippen does seem like the best choice, since you provided no info on the rafalle...
-
Planes? For what? Air superiority, CAS, multi-role, interdiction-strike? Without stating the role, how can the suitability of various models be accessed?
When saying Mirage, at least say Mirage 2000. That plane is older than the Rafale and probably be partially replaced by it. Buying Mirage 2000s is like buying F16As when you ought be getting F16Cs Block 50/52.
*edit*
Anyway, it seems that the Mirage 2000 production line has been shut down. No one is going to pay to restart the line to produce 3-4 squadron's worth of planes.
-
Oki so Here it goes there is a heated discussion over what should the Romanian Airforce be equiped.
There are 3 choices to be made regarding this. However i would of preffered 5 .
1-F16 :The drawback is that they can get only 24 new planes and 24 second hand [planes (evn though oland bought 48 new ones for the same money )
2- Saab Grippen A much newer planet then the aging F16 . It is also Cheaper and less expensive to operate and maintain. And it comes with a almost 100% offset program. Also the planes will be maintained and built by a romanian firm .
3-Eurofighter Typhoon one of the most advanced planes in the world . However it is also very expensive. Much more then the Saab and the F16 but it is latest generation plane.
5-The french built Rafalle
6-The Mirage Also from France. which are both superior planes when compared to the F 16 and perhaps even the Saab.
F-16: Marvelous dogfighter that would mop the floor with the others, superb multirole craft capable of handling almost any mission given it, but short range. Hardly obselete, a Block 52 with AMRAAMs will acquit itself well against any of these, though with the Typhoon it would be at some small disadvantage until it turned into a dogfight, where the F-16's smaller size and better manuvering would give it an edge. Disadvantage is that refurbished airframes are getting slightly old, and it's only marginally capable all-weather strike via the addition of a LANTIRN pod. Has a wide variety of precision ordinance available, except for laser-guided. On the plus side, it's also relatively cheap to purchase and maintain. This is also one of only two aircraft on the list capable of performing Supression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) missions with some degree of success.
Grippen: Multi-role capablity, able to operate from almost any paved surface, but it gave up a lot of weight to get that, resulting in short range and low overall capablity. Not as good a dogfighter, and its missiles are rather lackluster compared to the other options (or even buying SU-27Ds/whatever the latest version of the MiG-29 is from the Russians). Like the F-16, the airframes are getting slightly old. It's not capable of all-weather strike. Weapons load is surprisingly large all things considered, but not as large as an F-16 or Rafale. Capable of using precision ordinance including laser-guided weapons, but not many of them.
Eurofighter Typhoon: Best BVR fighter of the bunch, with the longest-ranged missiles, and an excellent dogfighter (though not as good as the F-16 or Rafale). Not a multirole aircraft in any sense of the word, this is an air defence fighter, and while like any plane in the world it can carry iron bombs for ground attack, it's not going to be pleased with the mission and there are much better options. Absolutely no capablity to use precision ordinance for ground attack, and its weapons load in such a situation would be considered very small. Also very expensive.
Rafale: Available with a variety of options and in both two-seat and single-seat forms, the Rafale is as good a multirole aircraft as the F-16, has better range than even the Eurofighter (it descends from a carrier aircraft, so this is to be expected), and comparable missiles to the F-16. It dogfights well, probably being the runner-up after the built-for-the-dogfight F-16, and unlike the F-16 can be purchased with options allowing for true all-weather strike and laser-guided munitions. The Rafale is also capable of SEAD missions in a pinch, though its options in the antiradiation missile department are not as capable as the F-16's HARMs. It also has superior standoff attack options that are probably of no use to the Romanian Air Force, but you never know. Cheaper than the Eurofighter, but more costly than the other options.
Mirage 2000: The Armee'de la Air doesn't like these aircraft, and for good reason. They are available with an even greater variety of options then the Rafale, the problem is they're also very much constrained in their roles. Variants exist for air-to-air, daylight attack, all-weather attack, and (somewhat superfluously for Romania), nuclear ordinance delivery. All Mirage 2000s are capable of serving in a fighter role in a pinch, medium range, but mediocre weapons load compared to any of the others, even the Grippen, and their missiles were showing their age 10 years ago. Not capable of SEAD missions.
Just for fun, let's assess a few other possiblities:
MiG-29: Wide availablity, easy of maintaince, and in newer models quite capable, this is one of the few aircraft that would really hold it's own in a dogfight with an F-16 (partly because of the MiG's ability to launch missiles off-boresight). Designed as a multi-role aircraft and in some configurations all-weather capable, but the ordinance at its disposal are not as capable as the Western options and it can't perform SEAD missions like the F-16 or Rafale.
SU-27: Wide availablity, like the MiG-29, and high performance, this is an excellent air-defense aircraft. It is not truly multi-role capable but offers some options in that way, more than the Eurofighter, with some precision-guided munitions capablity and a large weapons load, but like the Typhoon it's just not going to be happy in the role. The ordinance, like the MiG-29, is slightly aged, but still reasonably competitive. Likely to be somewhat expensive, though.
Tornado: While like the Mirage 2000 it is constrained by its variant, but the air-defense version of the Tornado is a very good aircraft that would respond better to being used in a strike or CAS role then the Typhoon or SU-27. The ground-attack variant of the Tornado is probably still the best strike aircraft in the world, capable of performing any sort of mission except (unfortunately) close air support in superb fashion, with a wide variety of precision-guided munitions, and in a dogfight could give most interceptors a run for their money. It also has built-in SEAD capablity since it carries ALARM missiles for self-defense purposes (opposite the defensive Sidewinders), and could carry more if needed.
All in all, were it available, I would have said the Rafale, but since it's not, the F-16 will get you the most options and capablity for the money.
-
Pfft. SF Dragons all the way. Let's see ANY country try to shoot THOSE *****es down!
-
150m/s max afterburner velocity doesn't sound that speedy though. But it's probably way more agile than any of the jets mentioned above.
-
NGTM-1R, you might want to check your information. I think there are several errors in there, or at least I think so.
Personally, I don't think MiG-29 or SU-27 (or its variants) are choices here. Tornado is quite old at the moment also.
Mika
-
NGTM-1R, you might want to check your information. I think there are several errors in there, or at least I think so.
Well, that's your problem. It's about as reliable as I can make it from my sources, which are slightly closer to the planes in question then, say, wikipedia. :P
And yes, the Tornado is old, but I've yet to see an aircraft more capable in the strike role emerge; with the F-111s all in the boneyard, the Russian FN-32 is the only real competition for the title and it's not quite a match, despite being larger it lacks the Tornado's ability to fly as low and as fast or carry the variety of weapons the Tornado can.
-
About the Typhoon. It has just been cleared for RAF use in the ground attack role, although, interestingly it isn't set up for conventional 'iron' bombs, but can carry both Paveway (laser or GPS guided precision munition), Brimstone (variant of Hellfire Anti-tank missile modified for use on fast jets rather than helicopters), and most impressively, storm shadow, a small cruise missile, this is definitely the armament of a true multi-role aircraft, although it doesn't have the ground attack capability of an aircraft optimised for ground attack such as the Tornado or F15E, primarily because of it's small size, and an inability to carry HARMs.
On the subject of the Romainian airforce, due to their small size, their main role would be likely to be support of multimational forces and showing the flag, neither of which generally need the best (and most expensive aircraft). As such, the Saab or a Block 52 F-16, would probably be the best option.
-
Yeah, I was wondering about the air-to-ground capability of Typhoon myself. I also thought it was designed to be quite good in air-to-mud role also. Thanks for clearing it up. Another bit that strikes me as odd is that Gripen wouldn't have all weather strike capability. Supposing I knew something of the weather conditions in Sweden (or Scandinavia), this sounds highly suspicious. Also, I don't think the Gripen frame is yet showing its age.
Regarding weaponry, it will be interesting to see if Meteor will succeed in its original design goals of improving AMRAAM by a factor of three. The missile is tested with Gripen and Typhoon, but it is not in service yet. In a couple of years, the BVR capabilities of both of them could be improved radically, but this is of course only speculation at this point and might not have any effect on a nation that needs airplanes now.
The next thing to consider is compatibility or delocalization? Compatibility towards NATO systems from F-16's side, or delocalization in the form of short take-off and landing distance? There are more spares for F-16s around the world and it is definetely combat tested. For Gripen, the actual combat tests are waiting for it, but on the other hand the frame is probably designed to withstand more abuse than F-16s. Typhoons ace is that it has two engines, and given the mean time between failures in engine departments, it could be possible to calculate if the savings in the fuel are offset by the destruction of X number of single-engine aircraft, since it is not that likely that both of the Typhoons engines would fail at the same time.
Mika
-
I have a squadron of GTF Apollo craft capable of sub orbit travel going if Romania are interested. I have no need for them since I have recieved GTF Ullyses and GTF Hercules fighters. One problem is getting them to 21st century Earth. Internet telecommunications is one thing, but I've not tried sending matter...
-
Oki so the deal is this. The RoAirForce wants to buy 48 Multi-Role aicrafts.
They have to also be easy to maintain they have to operate on all weather conditions and take off from poor runways. Basicly they have to de everithing do it good and do it from poor runways and be serviceble really fast and cheap.
that would throw both the Typhoon and the F-16 out the window since they both cost and arm and a leg to maintain and operate.
The F-16 would be vulnerable from debries on the poor runways.
The Typhoon would be ideal if we could aford it.
That would in therory only leave the Raffale and the Grippen as real contenders.
Also the Idea of buying 70' tech and half of it refurbished did not go well with the gouverment and parliament not to mention the pilots.
To put it another way we are not that rich that we can afford to buy second hand.
Those planes will be retired from active service by the USAF in a matter of years. So that means we have to buy the junk others are throwing ??
The F-16 is my least favorite. They would be dated and would have to be replaced in a matter of years. Sure Lockhead said they will consider the option of us buying the JSF . But that thing costs even more the the Typhoon and its not even more capable then the Typhoon.
At this moment in time the Typhoon and the F22 are the most advanced planes in the world .
Whyle the Typhoon doesnt have as many weapons sistems as the F-16 new ones are beeing developed for the planes as we speak. Since its brand new. It has super cruise and it can dog-fight at supersonic speeds. It has more advanced radar sistems targeting everithing. And it is 2 engined.
On the other hand it cost and arm and a leg.
So what option are left?? Well the Raffale wold be a good choice as would the Grippen wich is about 20 years or more younger then the dated F-16 . Also a new variant based on the Grippen is being developed more powerfull etc. If romania would buy them they could service them here build and repair them since Saab would buy the a factory here to produce the planes etc.
And we would get acces to the new plane that is beeing developed by Saab.
Si in reality the choices are limited.
I mean to get an idea of the kind of environment the planes would have to endure: They would have to endure beeing parked outside with minimal protection from the weather .
They have to endure temperatures of -30 celsius on the runway and be readyu to start up by the flick of a switch. as well as beeing kept in +40 celsius outside.
Oh did i mention the almost paved runways???
The F35 JSF is a capable aircraft for the US marines in ground support roles. but at the projected price tag of over 200 million dollars per plane as i read over on the net it is ridiculous. Im better off buyng russian planes and refitting them with NATO standards avionics. Its cheaper and would perform a lot btter.
-
Are you just speculating, or do you play some role in this purchase?
-
I have a squadron of GTF Apollo craft capable of sub orbit travel going if Romania are interested. I have no need for them since I have recieved GTF Ullyses and GTF Hercules fighters. One problem is getting them to 21st century Earth. Internet telecommunications is one thing, but I've not tried sending matter...
Remember the thing I said earlier about people relating EVERYTHING to Freespace to the point where it's not funny anymore? Yea, this is the sort of stupid crap I'm talking about. Get some freaking imagination.
And I'm not singling you out wolf, I'm just quoting you because you were the response in this line.
And I really doubt AlphaOne has any direct connection with the purchasing. Still, off the top of my head, the Grippen or F-16 would be the best choice. The Mirage is dated compared to both of them, in terms of design, weaponry, avionics, etc - the F-16 is still being updated and will probably be on the forefront of low-cost air forces for at least 5-10 more years. The Grippen is brand new off the assembly line, and although I don't know much about it, I would say this would be the best choice for Romania, because of it's ability to be operated from remote airstrips. Romania is not going on any conquests - it wants these fighters most likely for home defense, where the Grippen's short range (and the F-16's as well) won't really matter - and the ability to operate from so many different places would only benefit Romania in a self defense conflict.
-
Does anyone really have any data on the price of maintenance for any of these aircraft? I mean, the F-16 was designed with export in mind, and the Mirage is an older plane, so it may well cost more in straight up maintenance.
-
f-16 block 60. Same airframe with all new avionics.
-
Anyone want to buy some F/A 18s from Canada so we can get some new hotness in here?
-
No i do not play any part in this purchase. However the statement is public notice that we asked for Multi-Role aircrafts that can witstand harsh conditions and take a lot of abuse.
The thing is While the F-16 may be around for 5-10 more years the Grippen will be around for 20 or 30 .
The same for the Typhoon. Both planes were developed to be in service for a few decades given they recieve updates in avionics etc.
I will attempt to get some cost figures here later today. For now im way too busy to be able to do anithing about it.
-
to operate in such bad conditions, the Romanians would need to improve their hangers to withstand the temperatures, because i do not think any protection like a plastic sheet will keep the fighters out of the bitter cold :lol:.
-
Anyone want to buy some F/A 18s from Canada so we can get some new hotness in here?
QFT. But isn't the 18 air superiority, and not multi-role?
-
The F/A-18 is multirole, but it's typically carrier based.
-
Not in Canada, I believe most of them are based in Alberta/Quebec, being the land-based "L" variant. And there are only 80 left with modern tech.
-
We (the US) ditched ours for the Superhornet, but it's certainly not a budget plane
-
Well the Mig's we have now seem to withstand the harsh conditions here.
It's a damn shame they did not went along with the Sniper project they had for the Mig 29's !
The Snip[er project was basicly improved engines avionics weapons radar comunications you name it. And they were damn good.
The Mig 29 even today is a very formidable aircraft if you have the proper avionics on it.
Twin engined faster then the F-16 and just as manouverable in a dogfight if not more.
There as this statement regarding maintenance for the f-16 as about 10 hours minimum for every hour in the air. And that is a lot of maintenance.
Also the offset program is not as favorable as the one proposed by Saab and the Eurofighter wich is close to 100 % for the Eurofighter and 100% for the Grippen .
As i stated above the Eurofighter is the only 5'th generation fighter that has entered competition so that is a big + for it. However because it costs some 60 to 70 million euros fully stocked and loaded its a lot more expensive the the Grippen and the F-16 even wich is about 40 or so.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18_Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-18_Hornet)
there's some good old wiki knowledge.
I'd love to see some nice shiny F-35 JSF planes for the great white north...but that'll happen sometime after they're irrelevent.
-
where are people getting this "eurofighter is not a better dogfighter than the f-16"
the eurofighter was designed to beat the flanker
-
the f-16 can still beat even the best of them today. to me the typoons main wings seem a bit too big for real dogfighting more like a smaller bombing role.
-
the f-16 can still beat even the best of them today. to me the typoons main wings seem a bit too big for real dogfighting more like a smaller bombing role.
So it's the visual appearance now that defines the abilities of an airplane...?
(Hint: It doesn't. :p)
-
oh really? well ok, dont come telling me one day they create an ugly plane with wings bigger then the eurofighter and find out its a real ***** to fly.
in a steaight line the euro fighter can do best because the wings give stability when in the sky. but when the air hits the biggest part of the wing above or below, it dont go over or around, insteead it hits the wing and the stability is lost overall. im not a navy air specialist but i am pretty sure that the way its build means its also got something to do with visual appearance.
-
Larger wing area typically means more lift, and in some cases, better maneuverability.
The Eurofighter is better than the F-16... it just is; they're not even in the same generation, and the F-16 was designed to be cheap. Now if you want to compare F-4s to MIG-21s or F-22s to Eurofighters, go right ahead, but don't compare different generations.
-
Then it pretty much sounds like Gripen would be the best, for me at least.
Lift is produced also by the fuselage in modern aircrafts, not only by wings. This itself is a factor why F-16 is so agile. I'm quite sure that the aircraft design methods since the F-16 have improved, leading to more agile fighters. Don't get me wrong, F-16 is agile, but it might not be the agilest one nowadays.
It is interesting to see if US goes with instaneous turn rate or sustained turn rate, F-22 looks, and I emphasize looks, it would sport good instaneous turn rate by air show demos, sustained turn rate parameter not being shown on those demos. This is important as turn rate is the capability of pointing the nose of the aircraft towards enemy so that weapons can be employed. F-16's problem is that it doesn't have high instaneous rate (to preserve good sustained turn rate), so it cannot point nose towards enemy to launch short range missiles as quickly as the opposing fighters that might trade speed for nose position.
Here, also a clarification of what is meant by dogfight would be in order. Dogfight for me at least is engagement within visual range. Beyond visual range fights are most dominant nowadays, so the radar, avionics, and missiles of the aircraft are of utmost importance, depending of the strategy of the country. For Romania, with a limited number of fighters, staying out of the dogfights might be a good strategy.
Mika
-
Its semi-official. I just read the news here.
We are freaking retards or at least our corupt politicians are. Someone nuke the freak out of us an put all of us out of our missery.
Theyre gooing to buy 24 yeah you heard me 24 freaking piece of junk F-16 SH . Then they will refurbish them =))
Oh man someone please put an end to all of this. Not only do they buy 70's tech but they are not even the new variant =)))
This has got to be the mother of all screwups.
The grippen was not good even if it does cost bradn new he same as the piece of **** F-16 A/B .
The F-16 has an average cost of about 20k dolars per hour of flight compared to the 4k needed for the Grippen.
Can anyone say big fat juicy bonuses from Loched to the cruked romanian politicians??
I can. Not that i can blame them they are just dooing business.
So please some pleaseeeeee nuke the f**k out of this piece of **** lame excuse of a country. At this rate our armed force will have dated equipment in less then 5 years time. All equipment bough at the price of brand new equipment even though its SH.
They are actualy buyng the SH versions for 50 milion dolars =)))))))) OMG this has got to be hilarious.
Anyone know any friendly suicide bommbers il give them my paycheck for 1 year if they agree to detonate inside the gouse of parliament or any political building as long as they take the politicians with him.
-
... :wtf:
-
So youre not up to date. Well for about 2 years or so the RO Air force neded to replace its aging Mig's.
So the politicians decided it as time to buy NEW ones.
Now not only do they not buy new ones but they are gooing to pay about 2 billion dollars give or take a few hundred milions (who cares anyway) to buy second hand planes 24 in total for the price of a brand new airplane.
That is of course wih a total ignorance to what military officials and the pilots mainly in regards to the purchasing.
They did not want the F-16 since they considered the Grippen to be a far more better choice for us.
Now i wont be taken back even by the fact that they buy SH planes but for the total price of new ones??
that is ridiculous.
At this rate they are better off with the Mig's since in they current state compared to the ones they are gooing to buy they are more advance avionics wise. And we already have them.
Oh yeah and who the hell retires 18 mid life airplanes out of a sudden?
they retired 18 Mig 29 mid life cuz they were too old. Even though they were 80' tech. and with the improvement they originaly had in plan they could of been far better they what we want to buy.
Oh boy this is the friggate case for the navy all over again only this time were talking bilions not milions.
-
why don't you send a letter of disappointment to your government.
-
=)) that has got to be the most hilarious thing i ever heard. No insult meant.
Its just that the gouverment here doesnt really listed to the people. I mean no matter what the people want unless the gouverment and parliament can benefit in some ways from it they wont take action.
The gouverment ic corupt and so is the justice sistem.
Sending such a letter would only provoke laughter. Noone reads or cares about what i or anyone lese has to say believe me. we tried.
Hell even the Airforce voiced they objections and were quickly silenced .
The press belongs well the majority of the press belongs to 2 or 3 people in the parliament.
So basicly they controll what we see hear and almost what we think. Good thing for the internet.
As an example of what the sistem is all about romanian citizens are forbiden to bring law suit cases to the International courts unless they can prove to a romanian court that the judge ruling was not fair.
this measure was taken by the former gouvernment because romania has LOST EVERY SINLGE CASE where romanian citizens brought the gouvernment decisions or actions to trial.
Romania has not won a single lawsuit to this day. And there are hundreds solved and several thousand pending investigation.
So basicly that is why the vast majority of the ppl. dont trust the gouvernment structures inclueding police judges parliament etc.
In fact the parliament and the police and the justice sistem in general have about a total of less then 40% trust from the population. that is total not separate.
Separate i believe there is something 21% +another 17% dont remeber exactly.
The army has about 70% .
that is why i have no love of politicians . In fact i dont believe they are even worthy of beeing called humans. No politician should be alowed to subject his our country to such economical harships. No to mention make such bad decision that affect the security of the nation.
Only here does a politician acused and proved to be traitor for divulging state secrets , is allowed to walk away hads free.
this really is the land of all posibilities. America doesnt hold a candle next to us. =))
-
sounds like your politicans are really...idiots..
-
Shame...I was hoping Romania would give the Saab Gripen a chance. Its an excellent Gen 4+ like the Rafael and Typhoon but cheaper and built for harsh conditions. Sounds like it would have been a great choice. The latest version that Saab is offering up seems like a fantastic aircraft.
Its too bad.
I think Saab seems to be offering a fantastic package that nobody is biting due to politics.
-
Yeah i know what you mean.
I understand that there must be some sort of political controll over the armed forces but too much influence from the politicians leads to such dizatrouos consequences.
However all is not completely lost. I mean there are still about 2 week left before in 100% official.
If by that time the prime minister holds true to his word that he will not permit SH planes to be aquired for the armed forces then we might still have a chance.
I mean the guy all of a sudden decided that for the 5 billion dolars they originaly wanted to spend on new planes they want to buy planes attack helicopters radars APC's and a truck load of other stuff for the army. I mean the original plans for the next 2-5 years was for a 10 billion euros spending and aquiring new tech and equipment.
And that was just for the beginning. the total spending for the next 15-20 years was for over 20 billion euros. on equipment alone. nothing else.
The Saab really is a more formidable machine when compared.
And if the final decision can be influeced by the prime minister then we should be able to buy Saab's !
And there is something even more important if we decide to buy planes from Saab 48 brand new ones they are offering a 100%+ offset for us.
Inclueding the aquisition of our own airplane factory where the planes will be partialy build maintained and serviced. Inclueding trainging etc.
Lockeed doesnt offer anithing even close to that.
-
Romania is one hell of a country(in a good way!). Its economical improvements are impressive.
I heard of an article of the British who criticized Italy's economical progress compared to the progress of other European nations, claiming that Romania will "overtake" us in a matter of years. An Italian journalist replied to the article claiming that after a few years Romania will "overtake" the UK, too. Let's say that Romania is the EU's little China.
IMO the RoAF should try to get modern planes like the EF-2000(as an European country it shouldn't be difficult to join the EF project) or the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35(the Russian Federation might sell this kind of fighters to India in the future, why wouldn't the RoAF get some as well?).
-
IMO the RoAF should try to get modern planes like the EF-2000(as an European country it shouldn't be difficult to join the EF project) or the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35(the Russian Federation might sell this kind of fighters to India in the future, why wouldn't the RoAF get some as well?).
These things cost far more than Romania seems willing to spend, so are not an option. As for joining the EF project, that would be quite difficult as the project is over, and the result, the Typhoon, is in use.
-
Is the Meteor and other aspects of the EF-2000 development over, too? The Typhoon is intended to remain in service for about 40 years and like the F-4 and the MiG-21 it will be upgraded continuously.
Air Forces are tending to prefer quality over quantity. With the arrival of the Typhoon, in fact, the Luftwaffe will be radically reducing the number of fighters.
What about the Gripen? It has STOL capabilities and many other features that help with maintenance, if I remember well. It means that its use would require small bases and limited costs.
-
Indeed the Gripen was designed from the outset to be able to operate from roads and semi-prepared fields. The Swedish defense plan seems to revolve around dealing with any invasion or attack by dispersing forces from regular bases to hidden ones and then operating from places where the enemy seems it would be unlikely to do so. So its got STOL capability as a result and is designed to be tough...probably tougher than the other competitors.
I'm not sure how the Gripen holds up against the competition but its a pretty solid entry. But I don't think Sweden and SAAB have the political clout.
-
@Mobious : IF Romanias GIP continues to rise at the saame level it has been dooing these past few years then we will catch up and perhaps surpass some of the older european countryes.
However we still have a problem with the inflation rate which for this year is suposed to be somwhere at aroun 6 or 7 % which is still rather high . But they are working on reducing the inflation rate.
And considering our GIP doubled in the last 10 or 15 years i would say that is a preatty good economical performance.
As for the Eurofighter IF we had the money to actualy buy them I mean we can buy them even now but that is just refering to the planes alone nothing else. No armamaments no simulators no nothing. That would cost us another 1 or 2 billion euros or so. Thats about 3 or so billion dolars.
The original budget spending for new planes was suposed to be about 9 or 10 billion euros. Sure not just planes inclueding armamaments training simulators the works inclueding some radars and AAAF missile bateries.
However that budget has been reduced significantly. it now stands at about 4 or 5 billion euros .
The Eurofighter is a great piece of machienary comparable to the F-22 . While they are not the same they are both the most advaned and capable fighters in the world.
While the F-22 was designed for stealth and BVR engagements the Eurofighter is designed for extreme manouverabilaty and dogfighting at supersonic speeds even and beeing a multirole plane . It has some stealth abilaties but not as advanced as the F-22 .
However the Rafalle would of been second on my choice for planes since its comparable in performance and tech and price to the EF .
Saab would be the 3-rd and perhaps the most cost efective choice of them all. The F-16 would of been last.
In fact i would of prefered we buy planes from Russia Like the new Mig's or Sukhoi.
Im just throwing a question here have any of you seen what an actual air strip looks like im talking about romanian miliatary airstrips.
You have concrete slabs put next to one another from which planes take off. Such an airstrip would tear an F-16 to shreads . Not just the F-16 in fact other then the Saab plane any other plane in the list would have its engines explode on takeoff due to debries on the runway.
Il see if i can find any pic's on the net and post a link or something.