BAF to induct Su-30SME from Russia

[UKBengali]

Nice one, can you help me understand how you reached that conclusion?

being sarcastic or what?

Dudes, look up what subsonic Sea Harrier did to the Mach 2 BVR Mirage during the Falklands War.
As long as the engagements are WVR, then the Yak-130 has every chance against Mig-29 and JF-17.

 

[bluesky]

Dudes, look up what subsonic Sea Harrier did to the Mach 2 BVR Mirage during the Falklands War.
As long as the engagements are WVR, then the Yak-130 has every chance against Mig-29 and JF-17.

Please, straighten your thinking. You are talking about the exceptional case of Harrier in the Falkland war. A trainer is a trainer Yak-130 or K-8. These two can be used in a limited scale in an insurgency like situation and not in a dense war.

In a WVR dogfight, the Yak will be destroyed in minutes because it has slow speed. It is almost impossible to stand against the Migs in such a situation. Please do not keep on repeating your mistaken thinking.

 

[Avicenna]

Dudes, look up what subsonic Sea Harrier did to the Mach 2 BVR Mirage during the Falklands War.
As long as the engagements are WVR, then the Yak-130 has every chance against Mig-29 and JF-17.

Two things. They were British trained pilots against Argentine pilots.

Secondly, the Mirages were extremely limited operationally due to the Falklands distance from the mainland.

They could barely make it to and back from the Falklands from the mainland.

Third thing actually, theoretically a Yak-130 can possibly beat a MiG-29 or JF-17. Its not impossible. However, with all things being equal its likely the Yak would be blown out of the sky.

 

[UKBengali]

Two things. They were British trained pilots against Argentine pilots.

Secondly, the Mirages were extremely limited operationally due to the Falklands distance from the mainland.

They could barely make it to and back from the Falklands from the mainland.

Third thing actually, theoretically a Yak-130 can possibly beat a MiG-29 or JF-17. Its not impossible. However, with all things being equal its likely the Yak would be blown out of the sky.

Disagree.
Yak-130 has similar radar, T/W ratio, g rating and missile armament as say JF-17.
Only advantage that JF-17 has is using afterburner for speed.

Let us ask an expert on this.

@gambit

 

[Avicenna]

Disagree.
Yak-130 has similar radar, T/W ratio, g rating and missile armament as say JF-17.
Only advantage that JF-17 has is using afterburner for speed.

Let us ask an expert on this.

@gambit

I welcome his input.

Tell me though if you had to go 1 v 1 would you rather be in the Thunder or Yak?

 

[UKBengali]

I welcome his input.

Tell me though if you had to go 1 v 1 would you rather be in the Thunder or Yak?

Thunder of course.

But all that BD has right now is 8 Mig-29s and these now 13 Yak-130s. Take out F-7BGIs.
Funny thing is that the Yak-130 has a much better radar than the Mig-29 of BAF!

 

[Imran Khan]

why using yak130 bangladeshis can shot down any fighter with catapult.

 

[bluesky]

why using yak130 bangladeshis can shot down any fighter with catapult.

Yes, it is possible to do so if only @UKBengali is the pilot in Yak-130.

 

[gambit]

Gents,

In reference to the Yak-130 vs JF-17...

The -130 is designated to be a 'light attack' aircraft. There is persistent confusion about this class.

After you drop a bomb, your role as a weapon is effectively ended. The consequence of the act depends completely on the bomb. On the other hand, an 'attack' aircraft is intended to deliver munitions in a more accurate and deliberate manner than a bomber. By the word 'deliberate', it means you are able to deliver one type of munition against one type of target at will. An A-10 is an 'attack' aircraft designated by the prefix 'A'. An A-10 can carry several types of munitions against a wide variety of targets in the tactical battlefield such as anti-tank missiles against tanks, the Sidewinder air-air missiles against airborne targets, bombs against less fortified ground targets, and the cannon for lesser fortified ground targets.

For this, you need a dedicated delivery platform, hence the creation of the 'attack' aircraft where the aircraft is designed with many sacrifices and compromises in other areas in order to better accommodate ground attack capabilities. One sacrifice is that of speed, or specifically straight line speed where that capability is often needed to escape threats. One compromise, in this age of avionics, is that the avionics, specifically the sensor suites, is geared towards ground attack modes by default and the pilot has to switch to other modes when needed. We can see this level of specialization other than the USAF A-10 -- the US Army 'attack helicopter' like the Cobra and the Apache.

When a platform's physical design is oriented towards a mission type, that platform will have increasing vulnerabilities in areas of combat that are outside its design parameters. Take the SR-71 and the F-16. Despite the large wing area and powerful engines, the SR-71 simply cannot maneuver like the F-16 even though the F-16 has less in both wing area and engine thrust.

So here is the crux of this 'A vs B' question...

The Yak-130 is an airborne target to the JF-17. But is the JF-17 a ground target to the Yak-130? That is the philosophical and technical differences between the two platforms, one an 'attack' and one a 'fighter'. For each platform, its design parameters is oriented towards a specific target type. The JF-17 is an airborne target to the Yak-130 but only in an emergency and when the Yak pilot has to switch combat mode, whereas the Yak-130 is an airborne target to the JF-17 all the time.

The philosophical differences in designs and usage are what is taught today at the USAF Weapons School, formerly Fighter Weapons School. Pilot training will be different to match the platform he is assigned.

So even if the Yak-130 have the same level of avionics sophistication as the JF-17, the air-air combat odds favors the JF-17 in both platform technical aspects and pilot training.

 

[UKBengali]

Gents,

In reference to the Yak-130 vs JF-17...

The -130 is designated to be a 'light attack' aircraft. There is persistent confusion about this class.

After you drop a bomb, your role as a weapon is effectively ended. The consequence of the act depends completely on the bomb. On the other hand, an 'attack' aircraft is intended to deliver munitions in a more accurate and deliberate manner than a bomber. By the word 'deliberate', it means you are able to deliver one type of munition against one type of target at will. An A-10 is an 'attack' aircraft designated by the prefix 'A'. An A-10 can carry several types of munitions against a wide variety of targets in the tactical battlefield such as anti-tank missiles against tanks, the Sidewinder air-air missiles against airborne targets, bombs against less fortified ground targets, and the cannon for lesser fortified ground targets.

For this, you need a dedicated delivery platform, hence the creation of the 'attack' aircraft where the aircraft is designed with many sacrifices and compromises in other areas in order to better accommodate ground attack capabilities. One sacrifice is that of speed, or specifically straight line speed where that capability is often needed to escape threats. One compromise, in this age of avionics, is that the avionics, specifically the sensor suites, is geared towards ground attack modes by default and the pilot has to switch to other modes when needed. We can see this level of specialization other than the USAF A-10 -- the US Army 'attack helicopter' like the Cobra and the Apache.

When a platform's physical design is oriented towards a mission type, that platform will have increasing vulnerabilities in areas of combat that are outside its design parameters. Take the SR-71 and the F-16. Despite the large wing area and powerful engines, the SR-71 simply cannot maneuver like the F-16 even though the F-16 has less in both wing area and engine thrust.

So here is the crux of this 'A vs B' question...

The Yak-130 is an airborne target to the JF-17. But is the JF-17 a ground target to the Yak-130? That is the philosophical and technical differences between the two platforms, one an 'attack' and one a 'fighter'. For each platform, its design parameters is oriented towards a specific target type. The JF-17 is an airborne target to the Yak-130 but only in an emergency and when the Yak pilot has to switch combat mode, whereas the Yak-130 is an airborne target to the JF-17 all the time.

The philosophical differences in designs and usage are what is taught today at the USAF Weapons School, formerly Fighter Weapons School. Pilot training will be different to match the platform he is assigned.

So even if the Yak-130 have the same level of avionics sophistication as the JF-17, the air-air combat odds favors the JF-17 in both platform technical aspects and pilot training.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to us.

I am coming from a situation where there is already a war between BD and Myanmar and the only modern aircraft that BD will have against the Myanmar Mig-29s and JF-17s are it's own Mig-29s and Yak-130s.

In this case the Yak-130 will already be in air-to-air mode and hence it's munitions will be air-to-air missiles like R-73.

If we look at some of the specs of the YAK-130 versus JF-17 we see the following.

G: +8/-3G Yak-130 against +8/-3G for JF-17
Radar: 85km range track 8 and engage 4 for Yak-130 versus longer range and no more targets engaged simultaneously for Yak-130


T/W ratio I do not have actual figures for as it depends on fuel and weapons load but in dry thrust it is higher for the Yak-130 since it has two engines and Jf-17 has only one.

So looking at the experience of the Falklands war, if the Yak-130 was in air-to-air mode and somehow got into a dogfight situation with a Jf-17 at low to medium altitude then it should stand every chance of beating it with pilot skill the main factor.

 

[AMG_12]

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to us.

I am coming from a situation where there is already a war between BD and Myanmar and the only modern aircraft that BD will have against the Myanmar Mig-29s and JF-17s are it's own Mig-29s and Yak-130s.

In this case the Yak-130 will already bee in air-to-air mode and hence it's munitions will be air-to-air missiles like R-73.

If we look at some of the specs of the YAK-130 versus JF-17 we see the following.

G: +8/-3G Yak-130 against +8/-3G for JF-17
Radar: 85km range track 8 and engage 4 for Yak-130 versus longer range and no more targets engaged simultaneously for Yak-130


T/W ratio I do not have actual figures for as it depends on fuel and weapons load but in dry thrust it is higher for the Yak-130 since it has two engines and Jf-17 has only one.

So looking at the experience of the Falklands war, if the Yak-130 was in air-to-air mode and somehow got into a dogfight situation with a Jf-17 at low to medium altitude then it should stand every chance of beating it with pilot skill the main factor.

I see no reason for BD to procure 4th gen fighters, instead it should stick with Yak-130 as it can take down most 4th Gen fighters including Thunders, Migs and even F16. Since BD pilots are in the same class as British pilots and have enough experience from Falkland like scenarios, Yak-130 serves them well.

 

[bluesky]

I see no reason for BD to procure 4th gen fighters, instead it should stick with Yak-130 as it can take down most 4th Gen fighters including Thunders, Migs and even F16. Since BD pilots are in the same class as British pilots and have enough experience from Falkland like scenarios, Yak-130 serves them well.

Do not worry. Our 12-year-old @UKBengali will certainly kill all those big birds with his toy pistol while sitting in the Yak-130 cockpit. He is an exceptionally meritorious BD boy. Probably, this is an effect of watching animation all the time.

 

[Avicenna]

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to us.

I am coming from a situation where there is already a war between BD and Myanmar and the only modern aircraft that BD will have against the Myanmar Mig-29s and JF-17s are it's own Mig-29s and Yak-130s.

In this case the Yak-130 will already bee in air-to-air mode and hence it's munitions will be air-to-air missiles like R-73.

If we look at some of the specs of the YAK-130 versus JF-17 we see the following.

G: +8/-3G Yak-130 against +8/-3G for JF-17
Radar: 85km range track 8 and engage 4 for Yak-130 versus longer range and no more targets engaged simultaneously for Yak-130


T/W ratio I do not have actual figures for as it depends on fuel and weapons load but in dry thrust it is higher for the Yak-130 since it has two engines and Jf-17 has only one.

So looking at the experience of the Falklands war, if the Yak-130 was in air-to-air mode and somehow got into a dogfight situation with a Jf-17 at low to medium altitude then it should stand every chance of beating it with pilot skill the main factor.

Come on buddy give it a rest.

 

[bluesky]

Some people are born with an inflexible one track mind.

 

[Windjammer]

@Windjammer your thunder can be shot down by YAK-130?

Yes off course, that's why we are arming our Super Mashaq trainers so they could save us from YAK-130s.