Romania to start talks to buy fighting jets

steppewolf

New Member
Romania to purchase new fighter plane

Well, starting from this year Romanian authorities will be in position to purchase a new fighter for Romanian Air Force (48 fighters).
The candidates will be Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16, F-18 and Gripen.

the rumors are that old F-16 will be the winner considering his lower price.

What you think guys? Which kind of plane is more appropriate?
 

zeven

New Member
hmm surplus F-16s :( so boring.

i hope they ope for Gripen, Gripens Low LCC will make up for it in the end, considering, Romania will operate these A/C for the next 30 years or so..

EF and rafale are to expensive...
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well, starting from this year Romanian authorities will be in position to purchase a new fighter for Romanian Air Force (48 fighters).
The candidates will be Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16, F-18 and Gripen.

the rumors are that old F-16 will be the winner considering his lower price.

What you think guys? Which kind of plane is more appropriate?
In order to gave a decent answer to this question, answers to other questions are needed.

1. What is the expected or planned role for the fights?

2. What weapons systems are desired and/or available, as well as any upgrades or support packages?

3. How much money is actually available for the purchase?

This first question IMV is key, since if the planned aircraft is to be multi-role, then the Typhoon would likely be a very poor choice. OTOH if Romania felt the need for an interceptor and air superiority fighter, it would do quite well. It boils down to the proper tool for the job.

#2 & 3 are in a similar vein and related. For example, old or surplus F-16's might be a great choice, price-wise. However, if they have not undergone any upgrades or MLU then significant resources might be required for them to meet #1.

Is there any additional information as to what Romania is looking for?

-Cheers
 

steppewolf

New Member
1. What is the expected or planned role for the fights?
Well, I am not quite sure. The romanian civil officials are talking about a multirole fighter. the militaries are somehow silent. the best option as price/quality I consider is Gripen followed by F-18.

2. What weapons systems are desired and/or available, as well as any upgrades or support packages?
I believe that the fighter should be able to do the following (although no official statement yet) :
fist, defending romanian air space as interceptor or dogfights
second, performing decent strike against enemy
third, limited naval strike or antiradar attacks
I am assuming that because at this point we have no decent planes. there are some upgraded Mig-21 but their performances is limited. Some upgraded Iar-99 (light attack/training plant, L-39/Hawk class) can be used for antitank attacks

3. How much money is actually available for the purchase?
4 bilions euro with training and all stuff
 

Pro'forma

New Member
Many planes are designed to go decent strike in the air; I
assume the netherlander fighter jet could come off with flying colours,
if only there would be a netherlander fighter jet. Now or never.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well, I am not quite sure. The romanian civil officials are talking about a multirole fighter. the militaries are somehow silent. the best option as price/quality I consider is Gripen followed by F-18.


I believe that the fighter should be able to do the following (although no official statement yet) :
fist, defending romanian air space as interceptor or dogfights
second, performing decent strike against enemy
third, limited naval strike or antiradar attacks
I am assuming that because at this point we have no decent planes. there are some upgraded Mig-21 but their performances is limited. Some upgraded Iar-99 (light attack/training plant, L-39/Hawk class) can be used for antitank attacks


4 bilions euro with training and all stuff
If Romania does not currently have any "decent" planes, then multi-role aircraft would seem to be the way to go.

Not too surprising that new aircraft are needed really, given the time, money, effort, etc that has been needed to bring Romania more in line with NATO and EU forces.

Of the shortlisted aircraft, any could act as an air defence fighter, some admittedly better than others, with Eurofighter likely being the best.

However, given how most air conflicts seem to be unfolding with current equipment, tactics and forces, it would seem more sensible for Romania to have a good strike aircraft that also can do air defence, as opposed to the other way around. Having said that, I would not consider the Eurofighter Typhoon a good choice for Romania. If Romania could afford to have 2-3 squadrons of different types of fighters based on roles, it would be a different story.

That would leave the Rafale, F-16, F-18 and Gripen. IMV the Rafale would likely be eliminated due to cost and commonality issues, unless France and/or Dassault offered very favorable rates and offsets for the purchase. Personally I do not think the Rafale bid would be "sweet" enough for Romania to become the first foreign operator of the Rafale. Could be wrong though.

That would leave either the F-16, F-18 or Gripen. Here it is difficult to tell which option would be best, as any or all of them could be new, or secondhand. In terms of overall capability and service life, the best option would likely be new F-18 E/F Superhornets or perhaps late block F-16's. However, the cost could exceed the available budget and the timeframe might be as issue as well. By way of example, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is set to get 24 F-18F Superhornets in approximately the same timeframe, at a cost of ~A$6 billion IIRC, however that also includes costs for training, support, weapons and operations for ten years. Romania might be able to get 48 Superhornets for ~4 billion Euros, assuming that figure did not include ongoing operations and support costs, just the initial acquisition and training costs.

On the other hand, if Romania is just looking at the 2nd hand market, it is hard to say. Any of the three could be picked up since there are some surplus aircraft available. What is less certain is if any of the aircraft what are available would meet Romanian needs in terms of service life and capabilities.:unknown

It will be interesting to get more information on the available offers, as well as what Romania is really looking for in terms of capabilities.

-Cheers
 

DefConGuru

New Member
In either case, not having yet retired your mig 21's and maintaining national borders at the same time is an epic achievement. They are heavily leaning toward Gripen afaik.
 

ASFC

New Member
F-16's have already been requested (about half-way down this link ), and what they requested gives some idea of the capabilities they are after. Note however this is a request, no contracts have been signed.

This competition has been up in the air forever. At one point (as the link shows) they were offered secondhand Israeli F-16's.

Todjaeger, why do you think the Typhoon is not multi-role? The RAF have already introduced the FGA.4 and declared it operational after it did tests at a USAF range. The only fighter I would have definitely discounted is the Mig-29 (and variants et.al), simply because they had these in the past and retired them due to high operating costs.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
F-16's have already been requested (about half-way down this link ), and what they requested gives some idea of the capabilities they are after. Note however this is a request, no contracts have been signed.

This competition has been up in the air forever. At one point (as the link shows) they were offered secondhand Israeli F-16's.

Todjaeger, why do you think the Typhoon is not multi-role? The RAF have already introduced the FGA.4 and declared it operational after it did tests at a USAF range. The only fighter I would have definitely discounted is the Mig-29 (and variants et.al), simply because they had these in the past and retired them due to high operating costs.
Typhoon IMV is not a multi-role aircraft, yet. It was initially designed as an interceptor and air superiority fighter, much like the US F-22 Raptor. And also much like the Raptor, as threats have changed, additional roles and weapons are, and will be fitted to the Typhoon. However, such development takes time and money and more remains to be done.

AFAIK, at present the Typhoon has not had the development done to make use of a number of the available PGM and standoff weapons, nor has the work been done on the various targeting/sensor pods like the Litening, which is to be fitted this year. Phase 1 Enhancements will resolve a number of these issues, with Phase 2 likely making the multi-role functionality more attractive for potential export customers.

For the RAF Typhoons, their air-to-ground development was part of an accelerated program called "Austere" where a number of PGMs were fitted. The first RAF Sqd equipped with the multi-role Typhoons reached IOC last month I believe.

It does have a ground attack capability, but with present systems would not be suited for CAS, strike or maritime strike IMV. According to Airforce technology the Typhoon can conduct SEAD missions carrying 6 ARM. I find it curious since the name of the ARM is not mentioned, I am only aware of two currently in use in the West, namely HARM and ALARM, so I find it curious that those two missiles were not named. Even more so when having check the manufacturer's site for HARM, Typhoon is not mentioned and same when checking RAF site if Typhoon had it. In the listed multi-role mission profile, carriage of 2 ARM and 2 GBU-24 Paveway III/IV bombs are mentioned. For something like a strike mission, that seems rather light to carry out an attack. Also, for the listed maritime attack, it mentions carrying up to 6 AShM. Having gone through other sources, there seems to be a dispute as to what AShM are to be fitted. The wonderul :sarcasm source Wiki mentioned the AGM-84 Harpoon, but according to the Boeing site, they are not set for use with Typhoon.

At present, it seems to me that a number of PGM and/or standoff munitions are in the works for use from a Typhoon, but is at present still in development. Until that is completed, I would not really consider the Typhoon as a multi-role. At present, the RAF which already has ground-attack capable Typhoons has plans to upgrade their pending Tranch 2 Typhoons to improve those capabilities, see here for more info. If the RAF is already planning on upgrading their new aircraft that are still pending production, it does lead me to believe that whatever they are upgrading it not really a finished product, hence not a true multi-role aircraft yet.

-Cheers
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Typhoon IMV is not a multi-role aircraft, yet. ...

AFAIK, at present the Typhoon has not had the development done to make use of a number of the available PGM and standoff weapons, nor has the work been done on the various targeting/sensor pods like the Litening, which is to be fitted this year.
-Cheers
The Litening pod was declared operational by the RAF on 1st July, which means that it was usable (in fact, used, in exercises) some months earlier

Currently qualified air-ground weapons are at least Paveway II (UK), Enhanced Paveway II, GBU-10 and GBU-16.
 
Last edited:

Grand Danois

Entertainer
IMHO it takes more than a LGB capability to make a fighter multirole; LGB only is very austere. I'd like to see in prioritised order

  1. JDAM and Brimstone integrated.
  2. SEAD/DEAD capability.
  3. an antishipping capability.
  4. an ALCM capability.

As to 1 and 4, the weapons are known entities, mature and in production, i.e Brimstone/JDAM/Storm Shadow/Taurus KEPD350.

As to DEAD/DEAD, well the Germans/Italians use HARM and the British Alarm, which is IIRC, not in production anymore. So it may not be practical to integrate the latter missile. The Italians are developing a late variant of HARM with the US, just as the US is looking into a replacement for the HARM. The Euros may or may not develop an ARM based on the seekers from Armiger put on an Meteor missile.

I speculate that the consortium is trying to decide what way to go on this point.

Storm Shadow and an AShM are also known quantities. Why Eurofighter does not hurry to check the boxes is beyond me. It would be a much more attractive product on the world market.

(and CFT's and AESA and... *sigh*)
 

Scorpion82

New Member
It is all about requirements. All of the Eurofighter customers use other assets for SEAD/DEAD, therefore integration of ARMs isn't planned yet. But integration of such weapons as well as anti shipping missiles is offered as an option by the manufacturer. So far Typhoon is able to deploy LGBs, with RAF Typhoon being able to use the laser-/GPS guided EPW II. Additional weapons of that kind (EGBU-16, EPW IV and maybe EPW III and GBU-54 LJDAM) will follow. The next step will see the integration of weapons such as the Brimstone and Taurus & Storm Shadow stand-off missiles. In most current scenarios many a/c assigned for CAS use indeed LGBs or GPS guided munitions.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Yup. requirements. Of the nations in the consortium, who all have dedicated strike/SEAD/DEAD assets and other complimentary capabilities.

Which the export customers doesn't have and thus the added cost is a liability when competing. Also export customers will have to pay for the full palette instead of only a few niche capabilities they explicitly need.

Yes, laser-/GPS designation makes up for a lot of CAS. But that is the nature of current theatres, not necessarily what a customer needs.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Since the consortium members get a levy from every Eurofighter exported, it is in their financial interests to see more exports. But the air forces don't get that levy (it goes to the treasuries which funded development of the aircraft), so have nothing to gain from spending their budget on weapons integration they don't need, to aid exports.

What might work is funding separate from the current defence budget to pay for integration, to be clawed back by the treasuries from the export levy in the short to medium term, & earmarked as a claim on future defence budgets, when they retire the assets which currently provide the capability.
 

zeven

New Member
IMHO it takes more than a LGB capability to make a fighter multirole; LGB only is very austere. I'd like to see in prioritised order

  1. JDAM and Brimstone integrated.
  2. SEAD/DEAD capability.
  3. an antishipping capability.
  4. an ALCM capability.

As to 1 and 4, the weapons are known entities, mature and in production, i.e Brimstone/JDAM/Storm Shadow/Taurus KEPD350.

As to DEAD/DEAD, well the Germans/Italians use HARM and the British Alarm, which is IIRC, not in production anymore. So it may not be practical to integrate the latter missile. The Italians are developing a late variant of HARM with the US, just as the US is looking into a replacement for the HARM. The Euros may or may not develop an ARM based on the seekers from Armiger put on an Meteor missile.

I speculate that the consortium is trying to decide what way to go on this point.

Storm Shadow and an AShM are also known quantities. Why Eurofighter does not hurry to check the boxes is beyond me. It would be a much more attractive product on the world market.

(and CFT's and AESA and... *sigh*)
Indeed.

But i think EF is to expensive for romania. and i cant see why Romania need a twin engine configuration either, regarding what Romania will use them for.
F-16 is an interesting choice if we're talking about block 52/60 otherwise i can't see what Romania will earn in the long term. vs Gripen C new ones. both LCC and technology speaking Gripen is the best suited choice. Singel engine. less maintaince, less fuel. vs F-18, EF and Rafale. Romania aint the richest country in the world.

F-16 is a superb platform and have served the world well. but it is rapidly becoming an obsolete platform. that most air forces are phasing out. under the next 10 years.

so for the next 30 years if you want a singel engine. its Gripen or F-35 if you want twin engine its EF or F-18 i do wish Rafale get some exports too. they deserv it.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Indeed.

But i think EF is to expensive for romania. and i cant see why Romania need a twin engine configuration either, regarding what Romania will use them for.
F-16 is an interesting choice if we're talking about block 52/60 otherwise i can't see what Romania will earn in the long term. vs Gripen C new ones. both LCC and technology speaking Gripen is the best suited choice. Singel engine. less maintaince, less fuel. vs F-18, EF and Rafale. Romania aint the richest country in the world.

F-16 is a superb platform and have served the world well. but it is rapidly becoming an obsolete platform. that most air forces are phasing out. under the next 10 years.

so for the next 30 years if you want a singel engine. its Gripen or F-35 if you want twin engine its EF or F-18 i do wish Rafale get some exports too. they deserv it.
At a first glance it should be either the F-16 or Gripen. Poland bought 48 F-16 block 50/52, which I doubt will be phased out inside 10 years. There is the added complexity if Romania wish to align (or placate) themselves with. IIRC there has traditionally been a close relationship with France, just as Germany could be a player as well.

Now the Romanians also have high altitude SAMs on the shopping list (and some other stuff). This plays into the hands of the yanks, as they can provide a complete package. And maybe they're more interesting to the Romanians as a direct security partner.

So it's complicated to make an educated guess - there is more than just money and platform performance to consider...
 

zeven

New Member
Grand Danois

Thanks for a supurb answer, you included a couple of aspects there i never thought about befor, you got me to reconsider the entire situation about Romanias future purchase..
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
F-16 is a superb platform and have served the world well. but it is rapidly becoming an obsolete platform. that most air forces are phasing out. under the next 10 years.
Can you name even one force that has announced plans to phase the F-16 out of service in "under 10 years"?

I can name any number of forces that will be operating it well beyond it. Will 15 do?

1. Poland.

2. Pakistan.

3. Morocco.

4. The United States.

5. Thailand.

6. Belgium.

7. Turkey.

8. Israel.

9. Singapore.

10. Chile.

11. United Arab Emirates.

12. Egypt.

13. Jordan.

14. South Korea.

15. Portugal.

Countries I can recall off the top of my head that are contemplating new build F-16 acquisitions:

1. India.

2. Romania.

3. Bulgaria.

4. Pakistan.

It is VERY far from obsolete. Perhaps YOU should research these matters just as you have instructed others to do with your opinion of their "weak" arguments...
 

zeven

New Member
Aussie Digger

A lot of countries you just mentioned, will very soon look or buy new ones. under the next ten years.
some have already done their choice, and it was not F-16 who won.. i hope you get my point. now

but if you believe F-16 will be market leading in the next 30 to 40 years. so be my guest. but you are well aware what i mean.. so no need ot be sarcastic.

ask youself,
would you (if you were a country) build your air force fleet on F-16 as you main A/C for the next 30 to 40 years??????
maybe you would. but something tells me. F-16 not gonna win many more competetions in the timeframe present - 2020, except from third world countries. who knows i might be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Top