Bangladesh Air Force

[TopCat]

Interesting claim. Could you explain further? What's the price tag of SU-35s now?

China bought 24 for 2 billion.

 

[bd_4_ever]

China bought 24 for 2 billion.

Thanks. How about the fact that only 4 can defend our airspace? I know you are generalizing but being specific would help.

 

[TopCat]

Thanks. How about the fact that only 4 can defend our airspace? I know you are generalizing but being specific would help.

You can check the initial Syrian deployment. For a counter measure American deployment of F-15C in inglak airbase.
You have to closely follow the countermeasure to see actual field strength. You cant get it in any book.
Only 3 Su30 was sent after shooting down of Su-24 by Turkish F-16.

 

[Zabaniyah]

You can check the initial Syrian deployment. For a counter measure American deployment of F-15C in inglak airbase.
You have to closely follow the countermeasure to see actual field strength. You cant get it in any book.

It's still a generalization. Neither the Americans or the Russians would risk armed conflict with one another. Doing so would give the factions in Syria an advantage along with other consequences.

It is what we require. And not somebody else's requirements.

 

[bd_4_ever]

SU-35 would be a very potent purchase, no doubt. The only thing I can assume for this long delay in fighter purchase is that BAF is considering all options and will come up with the best. Having said that, I am pretty darn sure it will be Russian. Getting YAKs as trainers was a major indication towards that. As @TopCat mentioned, 24 for 2 billion to China is a good news. We can afford it quite easily, given our current standing of our economy.

I would recommend sourcing fighters from Russia and keeping army and naval purchases from China. South Korea is also a viable option for the latter. What is interesting is that we have not looked towards Europe for major military purchases apart from radios, communication devices and Noras. This is quite intriguing as Europe does have good military industry but not too sure if its the cost factor or strings attached.

 

[Zabaniyah]

SU-35 would be a very potent purchase, no doubt. The only thing I can assume for this long delay in fighter purchase is that BAF is considering all options and will come up with the best. Having said that, I am pretty darn sure it will be Russian. Getting YAKs as trainers was a major indication towards that. As @TopCat mentioned, 24 for 2 billion to China is a good news. We can afford it quite easily, given our current standing of our economy.

I would recommend sourcing fighters from Russia and keeping army and naval purchases from China. South Korea is also a viable option for the latter. What is interesting is that we have not looked towards Europe for major military purchases apart from radios, communication devices and Noras. This is quite intriguing as Europe does have good military industry but not too sure if its the cost factor or strings attached.

Having a heavy fighter as our backbone is not rational. The Su-35 has got teeth, no doubt. But as with all Flankers, they are heavy. They are called 'flying tanks' for a reason..

And neither would it be rational to source sensitive parts all the way from Russia.

The Yak-130 is a good trainer. It gives us many options ranging from a MiG-29 to a F-35 (yes, it can simulate Western fighters).

The choice of the plane would depend on the air force's doctrine. What is their doctrine? We do not know. The Israelis have a beautiful doctrine that determine the SOP's for counter-BVR tactics, SEAD/DEAD operations, etc. Again, the Israeli part was a very general description, but we have seen and heard of them in action haven't we?

It is not a matter of which plane we choose. It is all a matter of formulating a doctrine that would satisfy our security needs which in turn would determine what aircraft we need. This is one determinant that we should not disregard.

Money shouldn't be a factor.

Another thing: Our leadership need to actually listen to our military people. This is very important. And something I feel had not been practiced for decades. If that's not the case, there really isn't much hope. It is high time that our armed forces are a proper fighting force to reckon with. At least, so much so that some old geezer from next door wouldn't have the audacity to suggest 'upgrading' our military.

 

[TopCat]

Having a heavy fighter as our backbone is not rational. The Su-35 has got teeth, no doubt. But as with all Flankers, they are heavy. They are called 'flying tanks' for a reason..

And neither would it be rational to source sensitive parts all the way from Russia.

The Yak-130 is a good trainer. It gives us many options ranging from a MiG-29 to a F-35 (yes, it can simulate Western fighters).

The choice of the plane would depend on the air force's doctrine. What is their doctrine? We do not know. The Israelis have a beautiful doctrine that determine the SOP's for counter-BVR tactics, SEAD/DEAD operations, etc. Again, the Israeli part was a very general description, but we have seen and heard of them in action haven't we?

It is not a matter of which plane we choose. It is all a matter of formulating a doctrine that would satisfy our security needs which in turn would determine what aircraft we need. This is one determinant that we should not disregard.

Money shouldn't be a factor.

Another thing: Our leadership need to actually listen to our military people. This is very important. And something I feel had not been practiced for decades. If that's not the case, there really isn't much hope. It is high time that our armed forces are a proper fighting force to reckon with. At least, so much so that some old geezer from next door wouldn't have the audacity to suggest 'upgrading' our military.

You are correct for the defense we dont need Flanker but J-10 or F-16 should be more rational. But looking at land size of our neighbor and their arsenal we must have couple of squadron of long range Flanker. So I would suggest if we want to have have 10 squadron of aircraft then we may have 6 air superiority J-10/F-16/Gripen, 2 Su-35, and 2/4 left over of old junks of F-7s would be great. Mig-29 cant be considered.

It would be great if we could fly 1/2 a squadron of J-10 backed by couple of Flanker with huge PESA radar nobody going to dare flying over Bangladesh airspace in a war scenario.

 

[Zabaniyah]

You are correct for the defense we dont need Flanker but J-10 or F-16 should be more rational. But looking at land size of our neighbor and their arsenal we must have couple of squadron of long range Flanker. So I would suggest if we want to have have 10 squadron of aircraft then we may have 6 air superiority J-10/F-16/Gripen, 2 Su-35, and 2/4 left over of old junks of F-7s would be great. Mig-29 cant be considered.

It would be great if we could fly 1/2 a squadron of J-10 backed by couple of Flanker with huge PESA radar nobody going to dare flying over Bangladesh airspace in a war scenario.

Well, not only that. We have to sustain and win the war don't we? And that with a dangerously unstable nuclear armed-country run by a religious nut job. Now that is some serious mind-bending we have to do don't we? But there's time for that.

And like I said, it's all about the doctrine we have in mind. And it has to be the correct doctrine.

Agreed, a small number of Flankers (or something of similar size) would be sufficient. Despite the pains, the MiG-29's we have now had taught us many important lessons.

I really liked the J-10. It was perfect. Yet for some reason, it is increasingly falling into obscurity.

There are many options (good ones) out there. We just need to think, look, network, be creative and know what we need. But first, we really need to put our own house in order. The state of affairs of the ruling party and beyond (particularly at grass-roots level) are not good. We must mitigate those risks. Otherwise, it'd be business as usual and we'll never see the light of day.

 

[BDforever]

@Loki @TopCat @bd_4_ever my prediction is Mig35 for AF, because BAF already has Mig experience+ less operational cost than Mig 29 but more advanced+ less fly away cost than su series.
But Navy will get Su series

 

[Bilal9]

Well, not only that. We have to sustain and win the war don't we? And that with a dangerously unstable nuclear armed-country run by a religious nut job. Now that is some serious mind-bending we have to do don't we? But there's time for that.

And like I said, it's all about the doctrine we have in mind. And it has to be the correct doctrine.

Agreed, a small number of Flankers (or something of similar size) would be sufficient. Despite the pains, the MiG-29's we have now had taught us many important lessons.

I really liked the J-10. It was perfect. Yet for some reason, it is increasingly falling into obscurity.

There are many options (good ones) out there. We just need to think, look, network, be creative and know what we need. But first, we really need to put our own house in order. The state of affairs of the ruling party and beyond (particularly at grass-roots level) are not good. We must mitigate those risks. Otherwise, it'd be business as usual and we'll never see the light of day.

Excellent posts Loki Bhai.

I'd say though that the following are what I thought were the Bangladesh Defense Doctrine for air force (for both holding and strike forces).

• Exhaust all other avenues (diplomatic etc.) in parallel with activating defensive measures (holding forces).
• Utilization of passive defense measures like radar and satellite warning systems along with active defense (holding forces).
• Place active point air defense (missile defense and air superiority holding forces) to protect major infra assets
• As a last resort - use of limited offensive measures (strike forces) but only to protect our vital interests, to neutralize enemy - only to the extent strictly necessary and only after struck by enemy.

I know that these are very high level principles however holding and strike force choices for ground attack and air superiority fighters need to be well thought out in a combat scenario. You are welcome to share your musings.

 

[TopCat]

Excellent posts Loki Bhai.

I'd say though that the following are what I thought were the Bangladesh Defense Doctrine for air force (for both holding and strike forces).

• Exhaust all other avenues (diplomatic etc.) in parallel with activating defensive measures (holding forces).
• Utilization of passive defense measures like radar and satellite warning systems along with active defense (holding forces).
• Place active point air defense (missile defense and air superiority holding forces) to protect major infra assets
• As a last resort - use of limited offensive measures (strike forces) but only to protect our vital interests, to neutralize enemy - only to the extent strictly necessary and only after struck by enemy.

I know that these are very high level principles however holding and strike force choices for ground attack and air superiority fighters need to be well thought out in a combat scenario. You are welcome to share your musings.

I may add. There few scenarios you need to consider before laying out doctrine.

1) Direct confrontation between Ind/bd
2) Direct confrontation mm/bd
3) Diemrect confrontation Ind/chn where China advances in nortth east when Ind needs air and land passage. BD must have to take a side. If BD allows India the passage right means war against China. If not and Ind push for survival then bd needs enough deterrance
4) Multinational participation in middle east and beyond. We may even need to cover our soldier overseas.


We need to consider all the scenrio before laying out doctrine.

 

[bd_4_ever]

@Loki @TopCat @bd_4_ever my prediction is Mig35 for AF, because BAF already has Mig experience+ less operational cost than Mig 29 but more advanced+ less fly away cost than su series.
But Navy will get Su series

Reasonable guess but do you think getting Migs after our not-so-good experience with 29s be a wise idea? Not sure how the AF will think.

And are you sure about navy getting SU series? In that case, I would assume their operational HQ will be the forward AF base in that region?

 

[asad71]

@Loki @TopCat @bd_4_ever my prediction is Mig35 for AF, because BAF already has Mig experience+ less operational cost than Mig 29 but more advanced+ less fly away cost than su series.
But Navy will get Su series

I think you should cancel out BAF's experience with Mig-29. This has been nothing but nightmarish.

 

[extra terrestrial]

@Loki @TopCat @bd_4_ever my prediction is Mig35 for AF, because BAF already has Mig experience+ less operational cost than Mig 29 but more advanced+ less fly away cost than su series.
But Navy will get Su series

Navy getting Su? They are yet to get even a potent MPA... And given the fact that BAF hasn't yet bought the new generation fighters, fighters for naval air arm is simply beyond the radar...

Reasonable guess but do you think getting Migs after our not-so-good experience with 29s be a wise idea? Not sure how the AF will think.

I could be wrong but I guess BAC has acquired (or in the process of acquiring) overhauling capabilities for migs which will reduce the maintenance costs... They can now produce certain spare parts...

 

[BDforever]

Reasonable guess but do you think getting Migs after our not-so-good experience with 29s be a wise idea? Not sure how the AF will think.

And are you sure about navy getting SU series? In that case, I would assume their operational HQ will be the forward AF base in that region?

1. Mig experience was not bad
2. no, Navy is going to get dedicated fighter aircraft squadron. The kolapara Naval base is going to be epic sized with full aviation support system

Navy getting Su? They are yet to get even a potent MPA... And given the fact that BAF hasn't yet bought the new generation fighters, fighters for naval air arm is simply beyond the radar...