You do realize that most of the weapons inovations came from US?
Kobra Su-24 was a different category plane. and no WP country ever had it.
One thing is Il-78 are not actually tankers.. more like flexible tankers ..they use 3 UPAZ Sakhalin pods as refueling points..
The original Lightning and Mustang weren’t mud-movers.
Mustangs created havoc as fighter bombers
Superb name for the JSF, which is shaping up to be a amazing fighter
you are quite wrong about it.. They never matched the P-47 and P-38 in fighter bomber role 🙂
You guys forgot a basic principle here due to imbecil politicians.
Si vis pacem, para belum – If you want pease , prepare for war. One of the oldest military principle.
Why would belgium wants to have Rafale, I mean it hasn’t carriers
You are serrious right?
Rafale is also for AirForce. Aeronavale got the first Rafale because they couldn’t keep the Crusaders any longer.
K-50 might be a good option actually. If Sk will sell it. Why because is a development of a F-16, helpd from LM, armed with US designed weapons which is surprisingly ..NATO standard. :dev2:
Because of the numbers. We didn’t had many 29’s. we had 20 Mig29A. 2 where damaged beyond repair. We received on 29C from Moldova. But main issue was that type was not common in our bases( only one operated the 29 -Mihail Kogalniceanu base), there where not enough spare parts, supply chain was let say problematic, maintenance was to be done abroad. So it was a NO go, but also Lancer update was in progress at the moment Sniper proto was tested.
We didn’t aquired any kind of BVR weapon. Not that is not possible to integrate them into the Lancer C (in theory it could cary what ever weapon Israel envisioned for Lavi’s). We just didn’t bought them. We had instead Matra Magic2 and Python 3, and that’s it.
Bison was a paper thing back then. Not that is way better now. 21Bison just have the R-77 in usage, and that is it.
maybe second hand JAS-39A ?
When the program started in 93, there where no second hand Gripen. They’ve just been introduced in service. 🙂
Romania did the best choice we had back then. We had in use 21, 23, 29 and IAR-93’s. 21 was the only choice. A bunch of planes with low airframe hours, operated by almost all airbases, we had many spare parts for them, and more important maintenance work was don in Romania.
We needed a credible Airforce with modern capabilities. We got that. Only recently the ex-WP airforces gained this capability.
Regarding the F-16, the rummours is that we will get that now, a bunch of seccond hand of F16 🙁 . Source is debatable US AMARC facility or Israeli ones.
Anyway they said that the F16’s will be subject to upgrades a la Lancer way.
Well who knows maybe we will buy 40 new planes.. 2006-2007 is the decision year. SO everybody is trying to get chosen. 😎
No. The Lancer isn’t a good comparison. The planes were already old & well-used, & what was being taken out was obsolete.
the ones that where subjected to Lancer updates where the planes with low flight hours… They where somewhere at 20% of their airframe time.. Last aquistion of Ceausescu , then the fuel consumption was “saved” bassically grounding the planes.
And press , Israel provided the electronics kits only. The whole thing was done by romanians from Aerostar.
It is sad… their ancestors died to get the union done, and they are bracking it just because some asshole politicians want more power…
Well the ..SAAB still ownes them until then don’t they 🙂
so technicaly is not a Sell 😀
Well I wouldn’t consider the Hun and Cz Grippen a sell. They are leased. The are actually sweedish own plane, sweedish maintained and still register as sweedish airforce planes .
M54 where almost a direct descendent of the ww2 bombs .
What is strange is that M-54 are used without any kind of restrictions in external stores.
The russian had also different types of bombs
Lets take the FAB serie.
M-54 is what apper a draggier that US counterpart.
M-62 is low drag version.