Replacing the venerable MiG-21 Fishbed's

[B3LA]

What about the J-10B then ?

For $40 Millions it's the cheapest new jet on the market.
I would not buy a Chinese car for many, many years yet to
come, but "beggars can't be choosers", and it seems to
be much bang for the buck...


BBC News - China shows off its fighter jets to the world

 

[Feanor]

Hardly the cheapest new jet. The cheapest new ket on the market would be something along the lines of a K-8. I bet even the JF-17 would be cheaper, while still providing a real fighter jet.

In the case of Romania price and capability had to also be juggled with NATO interoperability, which made used F-16s an almost unchallenged choice in my opinion. Only the Gripen could compete, and then future prospects would be murky.

 

[shag]

thats true, 40 mil as base price is not cheap at all for russian of chinese equipment. for a benchmark India spends approx $40 mil as base price for its Su-30MKIs.
Ofcourse what comes after the base price(maintainance,spare parts etc.) is a different matter

 

[BuSOF]

The Bulgaria is a mystery to me, so if anyone can share some insight on Bulgarian Airforce and its MiG-21 replacement plans would be appreciated.

Well, to be honest there is nothing specific really. According to our current defence planing, which is called Plan 2015 around that year we are to have (official bulgarian MoD information):

Land Forces:
Main Battle Tanks: 160 (out of 160 in 2008)
IFVs/ APCs: 378 (out of 378 in 2008)
Artillery pieces, calliber over 100mm (including MLRS): 192 (out of 378 in 2008)

Air Forces:
Fighter Aircraft : 20 (out of 32 in 2008)
Fighter Trainer Aircraft: 0 (out of 10 in 2008, meaning all future twin-seaters will be fully combat capable)
Cargo Aircraft: 10 (out of 10 in 2008)
Training Aircraft: 18 (out of 18 in 2008)
Attack Helicopters: 12 (out of 12 in 2008)
Multirole Helicopters: 18 (out of 18 in 2008)
Training Helicopters: 0 (out of 6 in 2008)
Air Defence Missile Battalions: 9 (out of around 20 in 2008)

Naval Forces:
Major Surface Combatants: 6 (out of 6 in 2008)
Combat Support Ships: 14 (out of 16 in 2008)
Combat Service Support Ships: 6 (out of 6 in 2008)
Naval Utility Helicopters: 6 (out of 6 in 2008)

Last week our new defence minister was talkin about starting a procedure for fighter acquisition until th eend of the year. Some 3-4 years ago the then Chief of Air Forces and current Chief of Defence spoke in favour of the Super Hornet and the program also ended with that type declared as victorius, but afterwards the tender was canceled. After that there were offers for second-hand belgian or american F-16, but the only person if favour is former foreign affairs minister Solomon Pasi and noone here conciders the Viper as a potent aircraft, except for teens spending way too much time in wikipedia or the discovery channel. Nevertheless the bulgarian aviation society is deeply concerned about the possibility of Washington forcefully offering the F-16 on a pollitical basis the romanian way.

The plans for 20 future fighters, combined with the latest overhaul of our MiG-29s and the expiring life cicle of the MiG-21s (until a year from now) clearly shows that whatever fighter we are looking for would be a substitude not for the Fishbed, but for the Fulcrum.

Anyway two things are pretty clear:

1. A procedure about the future fighter aircraft ot the bulgarian AF is to start in the following months.
2. Having in mind the financial problems of the MoD that lead to ideas like cutting the C-27J Spartan deal short to the 2 machines already delivered (our MoD is going to court for that, sued by Alenia), declining the 12th AS.532 AL (the machine will be delivered afterall), declining the 6 naval AS.565 MB and instead paying off the 12 AS. 532 ALs (latest info is that the 3 already produced will afterall be delivered to our navy) we can be sure that the new fighters will start arriving at earliest in the second half of 2015. And it's not only a question of money, that's just one side of the coin. The other side is the crapy way both our MoD and AF are negotiating the deals. To this you can also add the financial scams the Société Générale and Eurocopter are pulling through and the fact that Alenia and Eurocopter HAVEN'T FULFILLED their offset commitments THEY OUGHT TO according to the deals, and you could well imagine how cautious the civil and military experts involved in the negotiations for the project would be.

 

[Toptob]

To BuSOF, Very very cool post. you dont hear much about about the Bulgarian Air Force, so thx I learned a lot of interesting stuff.

To fromzg, your post 37. I think its an awesome analysis, thx for that. (But I think I had outlined before that there are in my mind, several different kinds of Mig-21 (or j-7) operators. ((see post 18)) but you added nicely to that.)

In this post I want to concentrate on Eastern Europe. I think our E-European users here made it clear that there are basically 2 kinds of country's there that want to replace their Fishbeds. NATO and non-NATO, so the NATO members probably will choose either old F-16's or new Gripens. And the other country's maybe Mig-29?

Personally I would really like to see all E-European country's go for the Gripen, and create an underdog European technology block. But thats just my fantasy so take no offense to that .

As I see it the Gripen is a better choice then the F-16's for several reasons. Maintenance will be cheaper. Gripens if purchased will be newbuilt airframes, but the Gripen also has a smaller maintenance footprint and better austere airfield capabilities than an F-16. Capability wise I think the Gripen has more spare room with Sweden developing the NG which could pose nice possibilities for the aerospace industry if the E-Europeans cooperate in that (but thats fantasy again tho). Also proposed F-16's are all very old and tired airframes which would have to recieve an overhaul. For the aforementioned Belgian F-16's that would mean a second overhaul with them being MLU's. I dont know the state of the US F-16's up for sale, but you cannot convince me those would ever be better than a newbuilt airframe.

Also I read on DT News blog that Saab has offered Gripens to Bulgaria for 2nd hand F-16 prices Defense Technology News

It also says "he Bulgarian government has made no final decision yet. However, the Head of Defense (formerly known as Head of the General Staff of the Army), General Simeon Simeonov recently stated that Bulgaria needs to buy multipurpose fighter jets, and that it needs to buy new ones rather than second-hand."

I dont know the reliability of this report, or General Someonov, maybe BuSOF can enlighten us?

 

[BuSOF]

Well, I already told you, that nothing specific is being told right now, but to be honest there was complete information blackout (meaning complete lack of news) concerning the Air Force since about the beginning of 2010, and then all of a sudden Bucharest went on to second hand F-16s and at the same time the information made it to the news network worldwide our new defence minister (who is former chief of the Land Forces Air Defence Arm) was speaking before the Bulgarian North Atlantic Club. In his speech he declared (in responce to the minor attitude of all the bulgarians, concerned about our military aviation) at the time, that, quote:

"In there 2010 a vision about the development of our Air Force (answering a question from General (Ret.) Miho Mihov, former Air Force Commander and after that Chief of General Staff, a MiG-29 pilot). The decisions in it will be followed in the period 2011-2013 and after that. They will be consultated with the Land and Naval Forces. If we in 2011 take the political commitment to acquire a newly built fighter aircraft tipe, then we are to buy it in the 2013-2014 timeframe... At least these are the intentions of my team. A decision about the helicopter fleet readiness will also have to be taken. As for the NATO-commitment for Air Policing I will have a meeting with my romanian counterpart. It is important that we, as countries in the Southern Flank of NATO cooperate in such a manner, as to optimize and reduce as much as possible the burden at least in the logistical support. Nevertheless that operation is of paramount importance to us."

Well you don't know where the things are heading, but as far as I'm following the development of that process we have the following options:

MiG-29 SMT - RSK MiG has offered us an exchange. As our MiG-29s are extremely well taken care of (meaning the technical expertise of the personnel, both on the ground and in the air) and the fact that the aircraft have an average of 300-400 flight hours since their delivery RSK MiG would take them back and supply us with an advanced variant of theMiG-29 SMT with some elements of the MiG-35. Technically the perfect solution for us. The pilots are already trained on the basic plane variant, to the fighter capabilities will be added ground attack capacities, the ground based infrastructure is already there. The political side of the question is the problem.

Super Hornet - Chief of Defence Gen. Simeonov flew it, Former 3rd Fighter Air Base Brig. Gen. Radev flew it, about 10 fighter pilots flew it as a couple of Super Hornets spent a week in Graf Ignatievo. Evereyone was extremely pleased with it. Evereyone said this is just what we need. We have strong ties with Washington, so if we buy it, we will receive the standart version, not a downgraded one. The USD is cheaper than the EURO. Problem is the ground based supporting vehicles and the infrastructure. We will also have to buy the weaponry starting from scratch.

Gripen - not really a need to write about the plane itself. We all know the pros and cons about it. Saab office in Sofia revisits the parameters of a possible acquisition on a monthly basis and after the romanian decision the new deal offered is REALLY GOOD!

Eurofighter - personally I would like to see if in bulgarian decals. The EF-2000 was not considered a player in our contest until recently. It turns out that our current Chief of Air Force Readiness Staff Maj.-Gen. Popov flew it in Grosseto, and that some of our top fighter pilots frequently go to Grosseto and Gioia dell Colle on business trips to familiarize themselves on the Eurofighter:
Here is a photo of Capt. Ljubomir Slavov, an experienced fighter pilot, highly regarded by the USAF pilots that came to Bulgaria on several occasions for training exercises, and lately performing the in-flight demos on the MiG-29 on our air festivals.
Pan.bg | ÐÐ²Ð¸Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ | Ð’ кабината на Eurofighter
Photo is from pan.bg: Politics, Army, National Security, a site of Airgroup 2000 Publishing house, which is also the owner of Krile Magazine, our major aeronautics magazine.

 

[Feanor]

Romania has just been offered new Gripens at the price of used F-16s.

 

[LeGrig]

Replacing MiG-21s

Yes, media is saying the Swedish offered Gripen at the same price as the offer for used F-15s. Gripen officials presented also a couple of other incentive items along it, mainly through media. At this moment, Romanian Parliament position is waited for and a long hot debate is expected.
Coming back to the title:
1. MiG-29 is out of any discussion - Romanian AF already has some +20 of them (entered in service 1990 - much younger then the proposed F-15s) and does not think to go on this way. The 29s were only used until the terms of first factory revision and put out of service especially due to tha fact that the relations were not so good with USSR/Russia and engineering was to be accompanied by political issues. Refurbishing MiG-21s with Israeli Elbit was choosen as the only solution at that time (1992). It is important to notice that the minimum amount of aircraft needed for the Romanian AF is 48 pcs. Also, since the budget does not allow other option, the multirole option is the only one feasible. Taking 24 used pcs. and having to by other 24 / other type in a few years is not an option.
2. Any source/provenience other than EU or US is also not taken into consideration (mainly because of the Romanian membership to EU and NATO, compatibility, standards, a.s.o.).
3. The general debate is now to have a competition based selection or a decision at the level of legal competent leadership; the latter is expected to take less consideration on the operational / commercial issues and be more politically oriented.
4. A request for information was issued one year ago and answers for F-16 (second-hand), Gripen and Eurofighter were received.
5. First step of the leadership: Supreme Council for Country's Defence (which, according to the law, has an advising role) decided that used F-16s should be the good solution. The reason is the budget. Parliament is to have the final word.
6. There is a wide spread wording: too poor to afford second-hand items. It leads most of the Romanians still faceing the financial crisis.
7. All AF personell (especially the pilots) would prefer a new appareil. This is an expert expertise to be taken into consideration. It is grounded on long term expertise and focuses on F-16s needs for special operational and maintenance requirements, which needs additional expenses (runways, ground equipment, hangars, a.s.o.); this is not entirely the case with Gripen and partially with Eurofighter. Also, if a second hand F-16s scenario is taken into consideration, an actual pilot wil be a beginner for the next 8-10 years or more.
8. Economically, used F-16s would not bring any "offset" imput. It means that maintenance will be havier and operational awailability will suffer.
Summarizing: It is an option to go for second-hand due to the crisis; but, it is not a good moment to decide in crisis conditions for long term run. It means: Gripen roadmap is much more feasable, especially when US proposal does not clearly specify Romanian access to F-35, and this issue is the strongpoint of the decision up to now.

 

[Toptob]

Hey LeGrig thanks for the clarification. I mostly agree with you. Easpecially on the maintenance and infrastructure argument.

But you said:

Also, if a second hand F-16s scenario is taken into consideration, an actual pilot wil be a beginner for the next 8-10 years or more.

That would also be the case with the Gripen and especially the Typhoon (depending on the tranche ofcoarse).

You also said:

Economically, used F-16s would not bring any "offset" imput.

I'm curious, how would you see the potential for offsets and cooperation with other nations aerospace industries in a case where your air force bought the Gripen? There are several services operating that airframe that represent country's with potent aerospace industries (Sweden, Tsjech republic, South Africa). Could you see an underdog aerospace development block where Romania and or Bulgaria would work with these country's to maybe procure an upgraded version?

(I know most country's just got their airframes but: development takes time and I just love that the S-Africans upgraded their Mirages and most other airframes they use(d). So I include them on the back of their potential, same with the Tsjechs.)

 

[LeGrig]

Replacing MiGs

As clarification for quoted:
Second-hand F-16s means 2 steps (do not forget: RO needs 48 aircraft). 1st step 24 used aircraft for which personnel is trained. In Romania, a pilot goes through 3 stages, as 3rd (low), 2nd and 1st (high) class qualification. 1st class means fully qualified for all types of missions and as instructor; getting to this stage, some 4-5 years are needed at least. 2nd step in the aquisition means new F-15s (after some other years - not yet clear how many), which new F-15 will be a model technically and operationally enough different to the previous ones, so that the pilots have to start again the process of training for achieving 1st class qualification (duration may be shorter this time). Meantime, just when these two stages are done, the second-hand F15s would need replacement. Obviously, that time (+10 years from now) new model of aircraft will be taken into consideration - this wil make things even worst. Different from this, a single new model of aircraft would not rise this question. Also, from individual perspective, a pilot will not be satisfied to have to pass through the qualification process for so many years (if only for the monthly income: cca. 40% less).
Offset: Romanian law specifies that the seller should invest at least 80% of the contract value in Romanian industry (any industry). The law does not apply if the "seller" is a Government. F-15s will be "donated" by US Government (through USAF which may contract LM to deal technically with the process). Different from this, Gripen or Eurofighter will be a result of a commercial contract. Gripen already proved good offset behaviour in Hungary and Czech Republic)

 

[LeGrig]

MiGs replacement

As for investing in the industry, the background of the Romanian Aerospace industry:
- jet fighter-bomber IAR-93 (Serbian known as "Orao")
- jet trainer IAR-99 Soim ("Hawk") - latest delivered in 2008
- Alouette III and SA-330 Puma helicopters manufactured under French license
- BAC-1-11 jet passenger airliner manufactured under British license (including Spey engine)
The factories are active but at low level (maintenance, spares - cooperation with different manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin and EADS). Gripen was planning to set up a regional maintenance centre in Romania due to these facilities and in the perspective of having their aircraft in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Czech Republic.

 

[Feanor]

As clarification for quoted:
Second-hand F-16s means 2 steps (do not forget: RO needs 48 aircraft). 1st step 24 used aircraft for which personnel is trained. In Romania, a pilot goes through 3 stages, as 3rd (low), 2nd and 1st (high) class qualification. 1st class means fully qualified for all types of missions and as instructor; getting to this stage, some 4-5 years are needed at least. 2nd step in the aquisition means new F-15s (after some other years - not yet clear how many), which new F-15 will be a model technically and operationally enough different to the previous ones, so that the pilots have to start again the process of training for achieving 1st class qualification (duration may be shorter this time). Meantime, just when these two stages are done, the second-hand F15s would need replacement. Obviously, that time (+10 years from now) new model of aircraft will be taken into consideration - this wil make things even worst. Different from this, a single new model of aircraft would not rise this question. Also, from individual perspective, a pilot will not be satisfied to have to pass through the qualification process for so many years (if only for the monthly income: cca. 40% less).
Offset: Romanian law specifies that the seller should invest at least 80% of the contract value in Romanian industry (any industry). The law does not apply if the "seller" is a Government. F-15s will be "donated" by US Government (through USAF which may contract LM to deal technically with the process). Different from this, Gripen or Eurofighter will be a result of a commercial contract. Gripen already proved good offset behaviour in Hungary and Czech Republic)

The F-15 isn't on the table at the moment. Or did I miss something? Are those all typos and did you mean F-16?

 

[LeGrig]

MiG-21 replacing

Sorry! Everything is F-16s. No discussion about F-15.

 

[Toptob]

Sorry! Everything is F-16s. No discussion about F-15.

Oww that clarifies things . I forgot IAR, but you're right they license built a whole lot of stuff and the Orao is just much to cool. Thats what I'm talking about the technology block. You basically have Germany France working together with Italy, Britain and Spain also working with them.

So could you see a "Baby EADS" or EF program be developed in Eastern Europe with Sweden and maybe S-Africa?

Obviously, that time (+10 years from now) new model of aircraft will be taken into consideration

Absolutely thats one of the reasons I think second hand F-16's are not a good Idea for new NATO country's. I think it will ultimately be more expensive then buying something else.
I also think that country's like Morocco and the UAE made a big mistake buying F-16 and if the Indians buy F-16 they're nuts.

It is a great plane, but if the Indians buy the F-16 those will probably be the last F-16 airframes ever made. The thing that makes it attractive is the fact that the US uses the F-16, that is going to change and will make support less efective and more expensive.

I think on the merit of the greatness of the airframe the F-16 can be seen as a Mig-21 replacement. But in my opinion, everyone buying the F-16 now is about 10-15 years to late, you can upgrade it all you want, but the amazing support structure from the US is not going to be there for too much longer making sure the F-16 will be very expensive in the long run.

2nd step in the aquisition means new F-16s

Didn't think about that, and while buying 2nd hand F-16's would be a bad idea (all of them being ragged) mixing 20/30 year old F-16 with new ones (I take it they would be brand new ones). where would one even get new F-16 in that time frame.

Anyhow, thx for your reply's LeGrig I found them to be very interesting.

 

[BuSOF]

As clarification for quoted:
In Romania, a pilot goes through 3 stages, as 3rd (low), 2nd and 1st (high) class qualification. 1st class means fully qualified for all types of missions and as instructor; getting to this stage, some 4-5 years are needed at least.

This is not the romanian standard, this is the Warsaw Pact standard. The romanian tendency to declare every aspect of their military to be unique really astonishes me. In all of Central and Eastern Europe pilots are categorised in 3 classes:

3rd class - Ready for combat in simple weather conditions daytime
2nd class - Ready for combat in adverse weather conditions daytime and simple weather conditions at night
1st class - Ready for combat in adverse weather conditions both daytime and at night

And 1st class is not equal to instructor quallification. An instructor MUST already BE 1class pilot when he starts his instructor training, but a pilot 1st class doesn't neccessarily have to be an instructor.

Basically it's a function of the intensity of flying. In our Air Force until around 1990 when our pilots still flew a lot our air force cadets graduated from Higher Air Force School (ie Air Force Academy) with the status of pilot 3rd class and immediately after assignment to a combat unit they started their preparing for 2 class exams. So for less than a year they had to fly 100+ hours and after thatundertake the exams. So you need to fly a lot, but just that doesn't automatically turn you into a higher class pilot.

 

[Air Force]

Sorry for of topic but does anyone have picture of Gripen cockpit live pictured?

 

[LeGrig]

This is not the romanian standard, this is the Warsaw Pact standard. The romanian tendency to declare every aspect of their military to be unique really astonishes me. In all of Central and Eastern Europe pilots are categorised in 3 classes:

3rd class - Ready for combat in simple weather conditions daytime
2nd class - Ready for combat in adverse weather conditions daytime and simple weather conditions at night
1st class - Ready for combat in adverse weather conditions both daytime and at night

Hy BuSOF! Interesting debate! As for quoted: please notice that I did not say it's a Romanian patent! Simply it is like this. More clarifications (for RO, not for WP): 3rd class is ready for combat in adverse weather conditions day and night. After being assigned to the unit, a skilled pilot is able to become 3rd class after 3-4 years (flying MiG-21). 2nd and 3rd means the pilot meets additional requirements (number of flying hours, post into the unit/formation, number/difficulty of exercises, a.s.o.). You are right, its all pending on the intensity of flight. As I know, ROAF was implementing similar sistem before WWII. I also would mention that USSR troops went out of RO in 1962 and RO decided not to participate into WP exercises since 1968. I was too young that time but I can tell that no WP standard was implemented in Romania during the eighties.

 

[adriann]

What about Chinese J-7G or JL-9 ??
I assume chinese are not are very not skilled in bribery and lobbying for their a/c.
If people/country have no pants, they can buy cited planes, it is not imperative for everyone to buy Mercedes ?

 

[A.Mookerjee]

The MiG-21's were the mass produced aircraft of the Warsaw Pact, during the Cold War. The NATO pact and the Warsaw Pact, needed to consider many considerations, when arming their Air Forces. I believe, that if a conflict had erupted between only the Soviets and the U S A, around the late 1970's, early 1980's then the Soviets had the advantage. The Soviets made the some of the most role specific aircraft, during the cold war. They had the numbers, to have a dedicated specialist air superiority fighter arm, and a dedicated specialist ground attack aircraft arm. It seems, that they had enough people, to man their armed forces. The MiG-23, and the MiG-21, were perhaps basically the same aircraft, but the MiG-21, was perhaps a fixed wing aircraft, and the MiG-23, was perhaps a swing-wing aircraft. This made the MiG-21, and the MiG-23, very different, even though the concept was similar. The Mikoyan Gurevich design bureau had a very distinguished past, before the MiG-21 Fishbed, and carried it forward.

 

[LeGrig]

MiG-21s

Hi Mookerjee! Yes, it is right that MiG-21 was a mass production but it was already old fashioned fighter for the last decade of the cold war (low performance radar and missiles, high fuel consumption / low operational radius) - anyhow, production stopped in 1979. MiG-23 was the replacement for a short period of time (until 1985 probably) and MiG-29 came into force. So that, it is MiG-29 only which may be compared to F-16 and its generation. Of course, other tipes were in full production in USSR during that time but not able to face western / US tipes of their times.