Talk:Romanian Air Force

Post coldwar
As part of the history section, it may be worthwhile to add some info about the post cold-war era, basically from the 90s til 2010 (transitioning into current state). This article has a ton of info about failed programs to acquire F16s of various spec, block 25, block 50, etc. https://www.4aviation.nl/reports/article-romanian-air-force-lancers-to-falcons/ In my opinion, we could probably lump the 2007 baltic policing into that era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSP Aviator (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Lancer not LanceR
Official site of Romanian Air Force call Romanian MiG-21s Lancer not LanceR. I don't see any reason for entering new name which is not confirmed by official source. --Piotr Mikołajski 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can check on the RoAF site when you enter the inventory section. On the MoD official site it's called 'LanceR' not 'Lancer'.--Eurocopter tigre 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would this be an accepatable solution? The Lancer (sometimes spelled LanceR) - BillCJ 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill's suggestion is a good one. The "LanceR" formulation (the 'R' = 'Romania') is used pretty much only in Romania, and, if I remember correctly, was not an original rendering, but one created later. I believe it is now official, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden age
...between the world wars. That section mentions the Warsaw Pact - this didn't exist at that time! Actually, the whole section is wrong - it doesn't mention the IAR 11, 12, 14 etc and other planes of the period, but mentions the German planes which entered service AFTER WW2 already started.

I corrected the sentence with Warsaw Pact countries. Regarding those types of aircraft, please feel free to make insertions in the section. --Eurocopter tigre 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - thanks. However almost the entire section is still wrong. Those planes, including IAR80 were in service AFTER the war already started. They had nothing to do with this so called Golden Age. What is the statement "The RoAF was subject to re-organisation, over 2,000 military and civil aircraft were built in Romania within 18 years based on own or licensed designs" based on? I am not saying is wrong, but it has to be backed up by the source. About the inter-wars period - I don't have information of what was used or not - just what I remember from the number of books that mention RoAF. I remember names like AVRO, SET, the use of French, Polish and British aircraft.

A correction is mentioned - but not seen... The article is still wrong and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miglancer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the Warsaw pact in a period it didn't exist gives the impression of clumsy reporting - why is important to mention WP here? It doesn't make sense to me - I now expect a following sentence that makes the reference relevant - this doesn't happen. I suggest removal of that reference.


 * "Golden age" seems POV, it might be better to rephrase it, perhaps to "Interwar years". --Victor12 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters
I doubt Romania had any Mi-2 helicopters. I know for sure it had Mi-1 though...

Aviaţie Şcoala de Legătură
What is the English translation of this? I know all of it but the "Legătură". Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Legătură means connection, (in this context it means the connection courses between trainer aircraft and fighters). So, the exact translation would be "Connection Aviation School", but I don't know the equivalent. --Eurocopter tigre 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I got that from an online translator, but it didn't seem to fit (and those things are notoriously bad anyway). From its equipment (Iak-52) I suppose it was a "Primary" Aviation School? That seems to me to be the closest thing, "connecting" grading and basic training. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that school teaches students to make the step from an advanced jet trainer to a fighter aircraft (in RoAF case from L-39/IAR-99 to MiG-21 LanceR). --Eurocopter tigre 21:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that conversion was done at the Air Force Application School ‘Aurel Vlaicu’ (S.A.p.F.A.) at Boboc. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Also the unit you mentioned, Grupul Aviaţie Şcoala de Legătură was disbanded in 2004. So the unit responsible for this step is Centrul 95 Trecere pe Avioane Supersonice (95th Centre for Transition to Supersonic aircraft). The other educational units of the RoAF are the Academia Forţelor Aeriene "Henri Coanda" ("Henri Coanda" Air Force Academy - at Braşov) and Şcoala de Aplicaţie pentru Forţele Aeriene "Aurel Vlaicu" ("Aurel Vlaicu" Application School for the Air Force - at Boboc). --Eurocopter tigre 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I’ve figured out where my source went wrong. It had primary training being conducted in the early 1990s by the Institutul Militar de Aviaţie “Aurel Vlaicu” at Boboc and supplemented by Yak-52s operating at Focşani (BA 19) – which is where the Av.S. Legătură was located.  The Yak-52s there were then, I suppose, a detachment from the IMA “Aurel Vlaicu”, but the source must have assumed they belonged to the Av.S. Legătură.


 * I’m still a bit confused, though. Focşani was closed in 2001, so wouldn’t the Av.S. Legătură have been closed earlier than 2004?  One source I’ve read says that it was disbanded in late 2002 and its aircraft were transferred to the S.A.p.F.A. at Boboc in Oct. 2003.  If the Av.S. Legătură was a jet conversion unit (equipped with, I presume, L-29 and L-39 and perhaps IAR-99 at some point), then its equipment would have gone to the Centrul 95 Trecere pe Avioane Supersonice at Bacău – which was already extant (although under a slightly different name before 2001) and operating MiG-21s.  Any insight into this transition process?  Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly when was the ASL disbanded, but in 2004 it didn't exist anymore. The aircraft from ASL were certainly transfered to Boboc [this being a weird thing for me, and I don't know exactly which was the role of the ASL, or what transitions/connections were actually made there - maybe it was for the transition between Yak-52s and jet aircraft (L-29/39 or IAR-99)]. --Eurocopter tigre 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know anyone who might know? Almost nothing turns up on the internet on the ASL (in English or Romanian) and half the Google hits I got were officers' resumes. I'm trying to sort this out so I can add a section on training here. TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, I don't know anybody who is familiar with the RoAF, as I wrote alone almost the entire article. If you make a training section, which would be very welcome, you could mention only the three educational/training units currently active mentioned above. --Eurocopter tigre 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In this expression,LEGATURA means a task of the unit and is synnonime whit LIASON.The small aircrafts,like iak-52 or IAR 823 were designated to ensure link between different location or parts of the army.--Bogdan123456 (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC) bogdan123456

F-16 orders
I think that Romania has purchased 48 new and upgraded planes, worth as much as $4.5 billion according to Wall Street Journal. . This is stated in the 3rd and 4th to last paragraph. Cheers--EZ1234 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the Minister of Defense will take final decision within 2-3 weeks. Indeed, there will be a 4.5 billion euros procurement and they have to choose between the F-16, JAS-39 and Eurofighter Typhoon. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Block 20 F-16 (soon to be ordered) are considered similar to the Block 50. Evidently, the Block 50 is the USAF designation, whereas the Block 20 is the modernized Block 15 for EU nations. Not sure if this needs to be accounted for somehow when referencing the Block 20, as the uninformed may feel the Block 20 is significantly more obsolete vs a Block 50. https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSP Aviator (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Check General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants. Also the current Romanian F-16s were referred to as Block 15 MLU: here, here and here (in Romanian). According to the third source, the Block 15 MLU that Romanian currently operates is more equivalent to the Block 40 with some elements from the Block 50/52. The Norwegian F-16s that will be purchased are Block 20 MLU. Alin2808 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Air Force Reorganization
Starting with July 1, the air bases of the RoAF have been renamed to Air Flotillas, as seen in this article, http://www.financiarul.ro/2010/07/02/romanias-air-force-staff-to-be-overhauled-starting-july-1-2010/, and also on the official RoAf site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulttras (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No unconfirmed equipment please
Please don't add equipment to the inventory which is not yet purchased and at least one delivered. There were talks of purchasing new f-16s from lockheed and they appeared on the list. that deal fell through. Now the F-16s from Portugal are there, which shouldn't be delivered until 2016. Alex Roșu 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandru.rosu (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Romanian Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613140153/http://www.scramble.nl/mil/2/far/orbat.htm to http://www.scramble.nl/mil/2/far/orbat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

World Air Forces source
I have noticed that the World Air Forces source was brought back for the fighter and helicopter numbers. Now, while I don't think it is an unreliable source, it does get some numbers wrong and it also doesn't mention the methodology used to get those numbers.

-Number of F-16s: It says that there are 11 F-16A and 3 F-16B (total 14). This is definitely not correct, as the total number of F-16s owned by Romania is 17, namely 14 F-16A (numbers 1601-1609 and 1613-1617) and 3 F-16B (numbers 1610-1612). See the individual aircraft here

-Number of MiG-21s: The official number is not available to the public as it is 'confidential'. So the number from World Air Forces must be an estimate. The first source I replaced it with says that in 2015 there were 26 MiGs (unclear where that number was taken) and since then 3 crashed so the current number is 23. The second source says that there are 28 MiGs currently, number given by counting individual serial numbers seen in recent photographs (taken withing the last 2 years). The IISS from February 2021, gives the number of 24 MiGs. So all these numbers are between 23 and 28, but not lower than 20, as World Air Forces suggests (a number of 17).

-An-26: On to the official site of the RoAF, the An-26 is not listed. It is likely that there is one left (as mentioned in World Air Forces) but in storage, not active service.

-IAR 330L/M and SOCAT: The source gives the number of 58 total, but it does not separate between the two versions, one being transport/utility, the other being attack/gunship. According to IISS 2021 and IISS 2010, the numbers are 24 SOCAT, 35 L/M (total of 58). Interestingly, in IISS 2021, the number of IAR 330 L/M is given as being only 24 (12 L and 12 M) but this would not work with the number given by World Air Forces.

So, to reiterate, this doesn't mean that the World Air Forces is unreliable, but it does get some numbers wrong. Alin2808 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * An-26 801 is stored and 810 is active according to one of the spotting databases. Also an image available of 810 operating in February 2021 and a radar tracking site has a movement on 25 August 2021 MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright. I have looked around and I did find recent photos of 810 still in use (here). There a comment also mentioned that the aircraft was reactivated, meaning that it was stored for a period of time. A facebook comment of course isn't a usable source, but just wanted to mention it here because it does answer why the An-26 is missing from the official site. Will be adding it back in the article (where it was removed) and remove the stored note. Alin2808 (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am pretty much agree with you and actually I have some discussion regarding "World of Air Forces" source before on some Air Force pages before, such as here. In short, "World of Air Forces" is generally reliable until proven that it isn't. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

F-16 number
As said previously, Romania currently has 14 F-16AM (numbers 1601-1609 and 1613-1617) and 3 F-16BM (numbers 1610-1612) for a total of 17 aircraft. Can everybody stop changing the number of F-16AMs from 14 to 17, without even consulting the cited source or adding one that says Romania has 17 F-16AM? Alin2808 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO, such edit can be considered as vandalism. If the edit is done by new or IP editor, I suggest you to ask for page protection per Requests for page protection. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have thought about that, but I don't think it's necessary yet. If either the same or another IP/new editor will change the number again then I'll go ask. As of right now, I don't think it was vandalism but rather the editors who saw the table didn't think about checking out all the numbers and variants and see that the two F-16 versions are in the table separately. And thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Press Release not preliminary report
This section here claims "The preliminary analysis published on 23 March showed that the crashes occurred due to human and environmental factors." But reading through it, it seems to be a press release not, preliminary report, I mean it reports nothing new that isn't already public knowledge and furthermore the phrase, "showed that", the press release makes claims but it doesn't show any analysis. Are there others that agree that this is a press release stating the official government line and not a report containing technical analyses? Or am I wrong? 83.252.99.126 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)