Romania to start talks to buy fighting jets

[drg]

Here:
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/08/11/2008-08-11T115942Z_01_LB53054_RTRIDST_0_ROMANIA-JETS-INTERVIEW.html
48 jets by November (mixed or mono-typal)
Seeking "high-altitude rockets" (TMD as Czech Rep and Poland?)
Seeking 4 corvettes and 4 minesweepers as well as "armoured transporters" for troops.
A post for all those who already have all the details of the South Ossetia conflict :)

[steppewolf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

F-16's have already been requested (about half-way down this link (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nothing-but-netz-will-romanias-new-fighters-come-from-israel-01499/#more-1499) ), 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]

F-16's have already been requested (about half-way down this link (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nothing-but-netz-will-romanias-new-fighters-come-from-israel-01499/#more-1499) ), 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 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/) 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 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm) 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]

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.

[Grand Danois]

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


JDAM and Brimstone integrated.

SEAD/DEAD capability.

an antishipping capability.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


JDAM and Brimstone integrated.

SEAD/DEAD capability.

an antishipping capability.

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]

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]

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..

[Aussie Digger]

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]

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.

[kato]

Can you name even one force that has announced plans to phase the F-16 out of service in "under 10 years"?

I could do with 15 (ie around 2020). Then it would be:
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
Venezuela (presumably)
Indonesia (not unlikely)
Turkey (F-16A/B only)

Depends a lot on how much of a failure, timeline-wise, the F-35 will be.

[ASFC]

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.

Yes, if I was a US ally. Cheaper Planes (i.e relatively cheaper than EF, Rafaele, F-15) multirole capability, large number of weapons to use on it, general more 'bang for the buck', large number of spares to pick over as other Air Forces retire fleet their fleets, Instant NATO standard interoperability. Proven track record.

TBPH I would not expect them to last the 30-40 years you expect, but they are a good 'entry level' fighter for those new to US Fighters and Systems, and which some countries (Poland, Singapore spring to mind) see as a way to establish a path to buying better F-35As later on.

[Grand Danois]

I could do with 15 (ie around 2020). Then it would be:
Belgium
Norway
Denmark
Venezuela (presumably)
Indonesia (not unlikely)
Turkey (F-16A/B only)

Depends a lot on how much of a failure, timeline-wise, the F-35 will be.

Holland (and Portugal?).

[Grand Danois]

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.

I am a bit confused. Is the Typhoon capable of using GPS guidance alone or is it only laser designated guidance (albeit the weapon can use dual guidance if the mission computers allow it)?

[Aussie Digger]

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.

You missed my point entirely I think.

You claim the F-16 is rapidly becoming an obsolete platform and yetyou have not justified this claim in any way whatsoever, whilst simultaneously criticising other posters for "weak arguments"...

The point of mentioning the Countries I did is to illustrate that the F-16 is the cornerstone of most modern Air Forces around the world and despite newer types being ordered, will remain the West's "maian" fighter. For the next 15 to 20 years at least until replacement aircraft reach FOC. This could be the F-35, as quite a lot of current F-16 users are likely to place orders for F-35's I agree, however there are almost as many, if not more who have NO announced plans to replace the F-16, but extensive plans to upgrade their F-16 variants, both structurally and through avionics enhancements and continuing operating the aircraft for more than 10 years yet.

The fact that companies such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are investing heavily in development of AESA radar technology retrofits for F-16's and other aircraft (SABR and RACR) show that THEY expect to get upgrade work for F-16's for many years to come.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2748.html

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2965.html

The F-35 is unlikely to achieve full operational service in the Countries that order it FIRST (USA, Britain, Australia etc) much before 2020. Other Countries may indeed order later versions of as is happening with Block 50/52/60 versions of the F-16 right now.

These "other" Countries are likely to only see FOC on the F-35 in the 2020-30 timeframe and yet will rely on existing F-16's for that entire time. In Europe alone these Countries are likely to include Poland, Belgium and Portugal at least, all of whom operate modern "first world" military forces and yet have no plans to replace their F-16's in under 10 years.

It's not hard to do a bit of research before making a point...

[Aussie Digger]

I could do with 15 (ie around 2020). Then it would be:
Belgium

I have not seen any info from Blegium to show that it is considering retiring it's F-16's at any point.

Norway

I'll bet you a beer they have F-16's in-service still in 2018. :)

Denmark

As above.

Venezuela (presumably)

Granted. However I was asking Zeven...

Indonesia (not unlikely)

Maybe. Depends whether they get US help to operate them or not, ie: if the US FUNDS them, I'll doubt they'll be retired any time soon.

Turkey (F-16A/B only)

They will still have 200 F-16's in-service in 2020. I'd bet my house on it. I wasn't stating that ALL F-16's in-service now will still be in-service in 2020, but I would bet a large amount that F-16's still provide the bulk of Turkey's air combat capability in 2020...

Depends a lot on how much of a failure, timeline-wise, the F-35 will be.

To a certain extent, but it's a value for money issue. Turkey for instance is spending a massive amount upgrading 200+ F-16's to Block 52+ (equivalent) standard and this upgrade isn't likely to finish before 2013-2015 due to the sheer amount of work to be performed.

Morocco has just ordered 24 new build Block 52 aircraft. These won't even start to be delivered until 2012 I would suggest...

These will NOT be obsolete aircraft in 2018...

[andrei]

So here is the deal. There will be new elections in november, a new government by December. There is 0 chances that the current government will close the fighter deal by then. The probable next government will then have to make the choice.
The army likes the Grypen for a lot of reasons, maintenance, cost effective, local manufacturing of many components.
The Eurofighter is considered superior (of course) in theory but not a mature technology (in terms of obtaining the fighters in time , i.e. by 2012, with all relevant AG and AA integrated systems) and quite expensive. Nobody is able to provide the Romanians a defined answers in terms of how much it would cost to integrate all the necessary weapons : BWR missiles, AG, Anti radiation etc
The F16... nobody likes it, nobody wants it except the president (Basescu) who owes the americans. He has been elected with american $, support and so forth. But the president will not have a decisive say if a new social democrat coallition comes to power in december.
The F18 and the Rafale are not considered seriously. They have not been tested enough by the army. (the eurofighter and the Grypen have spent a lot of demo time here)

[Todjaeger]

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.

As I understand it, the RAF did an accelerated mod/development program for some of their Typhoons, post-production. A number of AGM systems were fitted to those Typhoons, but the program AFAIK did not involve developing multi-role production variants of the Typhoon. These will (were? are to? :unknown) be done for the Tranche 3 production Typhoons I believe.

Over the next few years, the Typhoon will have a greater multi-role capability, but I believe at this point, it is more a planned or notional, as opposed to actual capability for most Typhoons currently in inventory as well as those in production.

-Cheers

[Scorpion82]

As I understand it, the RAF did an accelerated mod/development program for some of their Typhoons, post-production. A number of AGM systems were fitted to those Typhoons, but the program AFAIK did not involve developing multi-role production variants of the Typhoon. These will (were? are to? :unknown) be done for the Tranche 3 production Typhoons I believe.

Over the next few years, the Typhoon will have a greater multi-role capability, but I believe at this point, it is more a planned or notional, as opposed to actual capability for most Typhoons currently in inventory as well as those in production.

-Cheers

That's wrong all block 5 Typhoons (final tranche 1 configuration) are basically multirole capable and cleared for gun strafing as well as the deployment of LGBs in the 2000 lb and 1000 lb classes including the GBU-10/16 and Paveway II. But the stock block 5 aircraft are dependent on buddy-lasing for accurate weapons delivery. All customers placed priority on the AA role, just the RAF has a more urgent need for AG capabilities, that is the reason for the austere package which adds Enhanced Paveway II dual-mode boms and the Litening III LDP for autonomous precision strike capabilities. Initial block 8/tranche 2 aircraft will merely focus on the AA role either and just later tranche 2 examples will introduce more comprehensive AG capabilities.

[kato]

Tranche 2 is primarily about integrating a number of weapon systems planned to be carried. Meteor for AA, Storm Shadow and Taurus as ACM.

[swerve]

Tranche 2 is primarily about integrating a number of weapon systems planned to be carried. Meteor for AA, Storm Shadow and Taurus as ACM.
Weapons integration doesn't correspond precisely to the production batches, & is not linked, except sometimes for convenience. Tranches 1, 2, & 3 are production batches.

[2S1]

I agree with earlier comments here, for me F-16 and Grippen are the only real options when it comes to cost/numbers required.

One possibility I can see however, and Grand Danois states this earlier; the security relationship between France and Romania is strong. Does anyone know how many Mirage 2000C are currently available on the second-hand market? Perhaps a deal similar to that Dassault has with Brazil could be explored, with an eye to a future Rafale bid perhaps?

[Tudor]

...the security relationship between France and Romania is strong. Does anyone know how many Mirage 2000C are currently available on the second-hand market? Perhaps a deal similar to that Dassault has with Brazil could be explored, with an eye to a future Rafale bid perhaps?

Not anymore. France is too weak to have critical influence in Romania. The Romania is way too weak to have an independent opinion.

[2S1]

Not anymore. France is too weak to have critical influence in Romania. The Romania is way too weak to have an independent opinion.

Fair play, I did say it was only possibility.

I assume your Romanian from other posts. What do you think Romania will go for?

[2S1]

Fair play, I did say it was only possibility.

I assume your Romanian from other posts. What do you think Romania will go for?

Can anyone else here properly rule out a French option?