andreiMany of the posting in this thread make sense from a technical point of view, but no offence, have little clue about the way Russians think and act. Guys, take a look at rhe russian press if you have access to it and can understand russian. Just a few ideas to fuel up this debate
– Many Russians seems to believe now that in any case, the Soviet Union has rather been a constraint for the development of Russian people and Russian nation. The explanation is the following : the empire was hard to govern, full of muslims, Kazakhs and other Caucasians and it was ruled by an international (i.e. , non russian) bureaucracy that kept in mind their own imperial interests and not the interests of the russian people. This is why young Russian conscript were sent to die in Afghanistan while muslim soldiers were kept at warm in barracks in Eastern Europe – they could not be trusted -. Russia has financed through its own resources – oil, energy, managerial expertise – the development of an entire empire and always gave more to the province than what it received in exchange – the Baltic states were maybe the only difference, they were more developed than Russia -.
Nowadays, of course, there are some nostalgics in Russia who are deploring the lost of the empire but most of the media and the public opinion are rather happy with the current situation. Russia itself is big enough to reasonably compete with other great powers. It has strong economic growth. It has plenty of money – ok, lots of it are going through the Cayman islands and the French Riviera casinos , but so does american , british and japanese cash -. Russia has a better economy than all the former republics and what economic growth there is in such gloomy places such as Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan, it is led by russian capital, russian know how and russian connections. The russians have a double policy now : they invest and control in the republics which have resources – Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan – and they are the leaders because they have the know how – example the % of literacy or primary mathematics education in Turkmenistan and Central asia has plummeted in the last 15 years after the end of the Soviet empire because the russians teachers are gone and the islamic schools aint teach you much – . I have been to the region many times and all the roads are busy with russian trucks, russian signs, russian businesspeople, the russian media from moscow is everywhere. And this is the rich republics where the russians see a potential. In the poor ones such as Kyrghistan, the russians dont care anymore they let them starve and shift back in the middle ages. This is the view of the russian politicians and russian public opinion, that they are much better alone, they are only now starting to make money, they are building an influence in the region without the trouble of financing underdeveloped states. No wonder they are optimistic about the future and no, no, they dont see the Soviet union as the best that could happen to Russia in terms of world influence and as a status that is the maximum they can get.
This is not to say that Russia is the best country in the world with the highest potential and it will catch up and become the first world power, no but I felt like bringing some local input on how they feel about the future of their state. Other problems they have, they share with the EU and the US : they have to fight terrorism – Chechens -, they have a population that is getting old, they have to fund pensions etc. But they are 150 millions now – 160 if you count Belorussia – , they have a strong national feeling, they are overconfident, they have first class technicans and technology and by the way. they don t care if they loose 5000 soldiers every year in the army in Chechenia or another 1000 in harsh army training. this is russia boys, not pussyland, they can handdle the losses, you watch russian tv and you have a short notice – 17 russians soldiers died today in Tadkistan fighting rebels – it is not a big shock , its part of normal life, like in the us, 17 people die every week end in the NY metropolitan area in car crashes.
Now about the strategic competition with the US it is clear for the russian media and russian public opinion that they do not like the us , they believe that the us is making the same mistakes as the soviet union – too many ennemies, not enough crisis management capacity – and they rather enjoy the show seeing the us boggled down in Irak. They are talking to china about expelling the us from uzbekistan. Russia will continue to finance and support anything that will weaken the us – selling weapons to China, Iran etc – , and just hope for time and look forward. They believe the us will not be able to defeat muslims fundamentalism without russian help and knowledge, they will not take on the US in open confrontation, they are not stupid they will just drain their energy until … until what ? Until China is strong enough to compete globally with the US, until Russia can field new technologies and finance a new professional army and become the major regional (at least) player by 2010-2015. Then who knows.
If you compare Russias potential with the EU, I would bet on Russia as a major power in the next 10 years. The are united, they are one people, 160 millions + another 30 milliosn russian speakers in the world – ethnic russians in neighboring countries or russified – , they are not rich as the EU – yet – but they have a strong potential – resources -, the technology and the social and political will – which the EU lacks –
andreiImproving the Mig 29 in the sniper version with Israeli help (Elbit + Rafael + Aerostar Romania) was envisaged as a solution. One demonstrator was built for the Romanian air force.Now they have dropped the ideea and are thinking about new planes. What happens if Turkey DOES not join the EU ?(seems very probable that they will not be accepted). The most popular best seller in Turkey in 2004 was about a war between USA and Turkey (!!!!!) for the control of the Caspian Sea and the Turkish speaking populated states in the region. So there is some food for thought about the possibility of Turkey and Turkish public opinion pursuing a more independent agenda in the next 20-25 years. Bulgaria as part of Nato will not be threatened immediately, but then again Turkey and Greece, both Nato states have colliding interests and are playing games with their air force (remember Cyprus ?(
andreiany ideea of the requirement of the Bulgarian air force ? In numbers ?
I know Romania intends to buy 40-50 fighters by 2010 and is looking at the Rafale, the Jas 39 and the F18E
andreiWrong. Romania does produce a BVR missile that is adapted to the Lancer. It is much better than the apex and works with the Lancer .Go to http://www.expomil.ro/ and in October to the Military technology exhibition in Romania (was there in 2004) and figure it out . You will see the extent of partnerships with Rafael and elbit among others.
The issue is to see the Lancer in the context (South East Europe) and Romania’s role in Nato.
Bulgaria has Mig 29 which Romania has and anyway it is not modernised
Serbia was always a friend of Romania even in the Kosovo war it was not a threat.
Hungary has now leased Ja39 Grypen (a dozen or so) which are new and way above the Lancer in terms of capacity and Hungary is in Nato.
So that leaves Moldova (with no air force and a Romanian speaking population) and Ukraine with a strong air force. Now Ukraine is out of Romania’s league with 60 Su27 and 270 Mig 29’s and 32 Tu22 m . Ukraine and Romania have a lot of disagreements specially in the Black Sea area. Not with Romania in Nato, Ukraine is less of a threat.
In the context, with a limited budget it made sense to overhaul the Mig 21 to the Lancer version with a price tag of 500 millions and transfer of technology which leaves 120 Lancer operational until 2010/2012. with the additional squadron of Mig 29 and a squadron of 24 Iar 99 (modernised also – plane similar to the Hawk -200) Romania can ensure a reasonable defence against any potential threat in the foreseable future and a rapid reaction force for Nato. One Lancer squadron are part of a Rapid reaction force that Romania provides to Nato and they are use to operate with Awacs support – no refuelling capacity -.
So you have to see the choice of the Lancer in the context. In 4/5 years Romania will launch a tender for a new fighter but it will probably not be the F16-50-52 that the Americans have already sold to the Poles.
andreiRomania has had a BVR missiles for a while.
Romania had AA7 Apex (BVR ) on its Migs 23 that were operating at air base 93 in Timisoara. These have been improved by Romaero and Elbit and have an extended range (45 km) , are heavier, and are radar guided (R24 TR and R24 R variants). Apparently they have new anti jamming system which makes them different from the soviet/russian variant – Romania was not quite friendly to the USSR in the late ’80 and not it is part of NATO – .The Mig 23 were retired last year and replaced by Lancers. So the problem is not to install or to operate BVR missiles on Lancers. The Lancers can do that already and operate a mix of BVR and IR missiles. They could also, possibly, as it was said, operate with Western missiles.
The main problem with the Lancers will be the airframe which is getting old. Sometimes in 2010-2012, Romania will replace them. And by the way, they also have a squadron of Mig 29 with BVR capacity and similar missiles, that may be improved by Elbit and Romaero (Mig 29 Sniper variant).
andreiHere is a complete list of equipments on the Lancer
MiG-21 Lancer is an upgrade program for MiG-21 Fishbed fighter, of the Romanian Air Force. The contractors for the upgrade program are the Romanian company AEROSTAR S.A. and ELBIT SYSTEM Ltd. from Israel, and three versions are being built:
Lancer A – Air to Ground version – single-seaters
Lancer B – Air to Ground version – two-seaters
Lancer C – Air to Air version – single-seaters
The MiG-21 Lancer upgrade provides modem combat capabilities and effective service life. Modifications have been introduced to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 Lancer to compete with much costlier fighters and to make the transition to Western standards. The upgrade program keeps the existing airframe, which was retrofitted with an avionics suite and new weapons integrated around two MIL STD 1553B multiplex data buses, including:
Modular Multi-Role Computer
Display And Sight Helmet – DASH
Head Up Display – Elop 921
Multi-Function Display 5×5 in.
Multifunction Color Display 5×5 in.
Hybrid Navigation System – LISA-4000 EB
ILS/VOR/DME
Air data computer – Marconi ADC
Hopping frequency VHF/ UHF radio – ACR 435
VHF/ UHF radio – ACR 430
Radar Warning Receiver – Elisra SPS-20
Chaff and flare dispensers – TAAS/IMI
Range radar Elta EL/M 2001 B (Lancer A/B)
Multi Mode Radar – Elta EL/M 2032, with look-down / shoot-down capability (Lancer C)
Data Transfer System – DTS
Flight data recorder – SAIMS
IFF transponder – Plessey (NATO Mk.-10 IFF compatible)
Stores Management System
HOTAS
Hardpoints for Eastern and Western weapons
Electronic Countermeasure Pod – Elta EL/L-8222R
Laser Designation Pod – Rafael Litening LDP
Photo Reconnaissance Pod – Elbit/Aerostar Airborne Reconnaissance Pod – ARP
Smart weapons – Rafael Griffin laser guided bomb (LGB), Lizard LGB and OPHER – IR guided bomb
Dumb bombs and cluster bombs – Mk-82, Mk-83, FAB-100, FAB-250, FAB-500, BEM-100, CL-250
Air to Air missiles – R-73,R73 R, R-60, Magic II and Python-3 -5
Unguided rockets – S-5 M/K, carried in UB-16-57 / UB-32-57 rocket launchers and
Single large caliber rockets S-24.
MiG21 Lancer was the world’s first widely used operational aircraft which incorporated the HMD (Helmet Mounted Display System) since 1995 in active service. Currently, only the 110 Romanian MiG-21 Lancer A, B, C and the Israeli F-15I and F-16’s operate a HMD. The only competitor which will later operate such a system will be the American F/A-22 Raptor and the F18F, which will enter service in november 2005, which is no less than 10 years after the MiG21 Lancer.
.
andreiThe Lancer A is the fighter bomber version
The Lancer B is the dual seat trainer
The Lancer C is the interception version
Romania has 80 Lancer A, 21 Lancer C and 10 Dual Seaters Lancer B.
The Lancer A has the Elta Israel
EL/M-2001 radar which is less capable but better suited for AG missions and. The Lancer C has the El/M-2032 which is better and can track 8 targets at the sime time.
As for Croatia check this http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/722001/mig21.asp if you speak Croatian. Elbit Israel and Aerostar Romania are joint partners in this contract. They modernise the Croatian Mig 21 bis with the Lancer package – but you are right it is not the full package as in the Lancer A or C – no Pythons yet –
andreiOf course the Lancer is based on the Mig 21. But it is being dissambled and assembled again with new electronic commands replacing hydraulic system. The engine is boosted and the air intake is also changed. Cockpit is redesigned. It carries less fuel because it has a better radar and it is meant for CAP in an European theater- the lesser ranger is a consequence of this decision. Lancers were also equipped with new features to improve flight safety, including support for night flight and all-weather operation with the use of more advanced navigation equipment, such as VOR/ILS, INS and ADF. The pilot can also fly “head-out”, with the use of helmet mounted display, and improved cockpit man-machine interface The cost of upgrading per plane is around 5 millions $. All the navigation system and the displays are built around the HUD and it also has an new IFF system which is NATO compatible . The data links are compatible with the Lockeed Martin designed air defence system which Romania has built around 5 long range radars and a command system. The Lancer has an enhanced warning systems and the ability to operate at night and during adverse weather conditions.
In that sense, it is a 1990′ product with the 1990′ technology. Lancer is cleared for missiles such as the R60, R73 and Python 3 missiles, 250 and 500 lb bombs, laser guided munitions, targeting, ECM and Reconnaissance pods etc. The air ground version has a TACAN for navigation and carriers Durandal (french missiles) and laser guided bombs when it carries a laser pod and TV guided AG missiles with a 15 km range.
The Lancer has demonstrated a circular error point (CEP) accuracy of 7 mil/radian and below, while maintaining 1-2meter CEP with laser guided weapons. The aircraft is also cleared for asymmetric loading of weapons, which provides a more flexible and economical use of weapons The air defence version carries as well as a Romanian BVR missile adapted with Israeli help that ressembles the R73 and has a 30 km range. and can be shot at lateral targets. It, with the Python – lock after launch capacity -give the Lancer a truly fire and forget capacity.
. Among the Romanian 110 aircraft, 85 are configured for ground attack, equipped with a ranging radar, while 25 are air defense variants, using the Elta EL/M-2032 air combat radar .
Moreover, Croatia is also modernising its Mig 21 with the same Lancer package – Elbit from Israel and Aerostar Romania -. It considered that this package is the best suited for CAP in an European environment. The Mig 21 bis and other soviet made upgrades allow also a BVR capacity but they are less reliable. The Lancer is three times more reliable than the other Mig 21 and can fly four times as often with the same maintenance hours
andreiI really doubt that Romania will buy F16. It had the chance to do so in the mid 1990 and opted for improving its Mig21s with Israeli help. the result, the MIG 21 Lancer had helmet sight, improved avionics, HUD, data links, improved enginfes and could operate French Magic 2, Israeli Pythons 2 and Mica missiles. In overall capacity , it was better than early Mig 29s and F16 Cs. The 120 Lancer will stay in service until 2012-2015. So why bother with F16, even the F16-block 50or 60 that are bougt by Poland now. Romania will probably look for another type of figther such as the F18 E with longer range and better BWR and strike capacity. Hungary has already chosen the Grypen which is a better plane than the F16 -50.
andreiThink about it.
– The Cheetah is a late 1970 design
– The Lancer is a 1990′ design
So there are two decades between them.
The Lancer was built to offer a reasonable affordable AA capacity in an environment where the main competition was Mig 29′ and F16A and F16 C. The Cheetah was supposed to deal with MIG 21 Bis and Mig 23.
The Lancer has a HUD and improved engine. So the Lancer is much better because of improved data links, better AAM, helmet mounted sights and capacity to operate in a Nato tactical environment (ECM, dense ADF system, air control).
The Romanian airforces plan to keep using the Lancer until the 2012/2015. In simulated air combats it has done better than early generations Mig 29s. I really doubt that a Kfir or a Cheetah can survive a fight with a Mig 29.
Sign In
