What's new

In Future we should get Gripen NG for our AF

Status
Not open for further replies.
oh my am i reading this.... china,s.korea etc don't have capability to made Engine yet... chinese are working on it...:rofl::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:
please share technical stuff not just statement..... speak about radar,avionics, RCS, Payload, EW suites...

Whats funny man! I can be wrong :blah:

Gripen NG still in development and test so, no official source. But you can see current Gripen tech stuff in here.
 
.
If we move S-300s on Bangladesh border, we don't have to fly over Bangladesh to score hits over archaic BAF. We can enforce 'no fly zone' over entire Bangladesh with only SAMs. :lol:

technically you can, practically you can not. BD army majors in guerilla warfare. so some can always snoop beyond border lines and take care of SAM installations. besides I think if we have good network centric AAD , (considering BD is smaller than India), access to BD airspace by anyone would be somewhat highly expensive.


:lol:fan boy wet dreams......our army is a mercenary force and gets punked by BDR...The only fighters we will acquire are more mig 21s in the name of f-7

lol....you do sound like some loser. You are a senior member, at least act like one.
 
.
I might be wrong, then give me some.

Only the US, some EU states like UK & France and Russia have truly mastered the art of designing and manufacturing turbofan engines for both commercial and military platforms. Period.

Japan have the capability, but why should they spend money on developing one from scratch if they easily get ToT options from the US?

besides I think if we have good network centric AAD , (considering BD is smaller than India), access to BD airspace by anyone would be somewhat highly expensive.

Bangladesh does not have net-centric warfare capabilities at present. IMO, India and China are currently working on that capability at present.
 
.
I dont know how much it is possible or to be frank available to the BD air force, because this plane is about to enter the Swedish service only in 2017 or beyond and as of now, I am not sure if there is a process in place to export it and if there is one, I am not sure BD is this list or not.
Right now if Sweden is ready to export JAS 39, that is a good choice for BD. It has a good profile to suit the needs of BD.


Kindly note BD member - we are not at war with each other and the people of both the nations would like not to see a war in the future too. so do not drop in your ideas of being hostile to us when we are not. and that goes to the Indian members as well. Please try not to be hostile to each other.
 
.
Only the US, some EU states like UK & France and Russia have truly mastered the art of designing and manufacturing turbofan engines for both commercial and military platforms. Period.

Japan have the capability, but why should they spend money on developing one from scratch if they easily get ToT options from the US?

Add China to the list.

This is one area where Japan is actually lagging in, for a country that is highly respected for its advancements in all areas of science and particularly, technology.

Aviation propulsion is not one of Japan's strengths, compared to Western, Russian or Chinese companies.


Bangladesh does not have net-centric warfare capabilities at present. IMO, India and China are currently working on that capability at present.

Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I still respect you for reasons I have mentioned earlier.

One request: do not ever mention China and that 'blot on humanity' blighted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world in the same sentence.

Also, whether you use an alphabetical list, or whether you use a list based on 'power ranking', China should come first, as China is far and away multiple times (4 to 10) stronger than that hellhole afflicted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world.


On topic: NO. WE SHOULD NEVER GO FOR GRIPEN-NG.

1. Price tag of $60 million is way too high for such a 'lightweight' aircraft with low payload and radar capabilities.

2. What air to air and air to surface missiles would we use on Gripen-NG?

3. Engines come from USA! Another big reason for a "No".

If some of these teenagers are so desperate, they should go and beg USA personally to donate 5 squadrons of F-16 block-60 for free to be delivered starting in 2013 and ending in 2018, let's say. That'd be much cheaper, comes with the same set of strings attached as a Gripen-NG, and same set of restrictions of warfighting capabilities as the West would impose if we go for Gripen-NG.
 
.
Add China to the list.

This is one area where Japan is actually lagging in, for a country that is highly respected for its advancements in all areas of science and particularly, technology.

Aviation propulsion is not one of Japan's strengths, compared to Western, Russian or Chinese companies.




Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I still respect you for reasons I have mentioned earlier.

One request: do not ever mention China and that 'blot on humanity' blighted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world in the same sentence.

Also, whether you use an alphabetical list, or whether you use a list based on 'power ranking', China should come first, as China is far and away multiple times (4 to 10) stronger than that hellhole afflicted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world.


On topic: NO. WE SHOULD NEVER GO FOR GRIPEN-NG.

1. Price tag of $60 million is way too high for such a 'lightweight' aircraft with low payload and radar capabilities.

2. What air to air and air to surface missiles would we use on Gripen-NG?

3. Engines come from USA! Another big reason for a "No".

If some of these teenagers are so desperate, they should go and beg USA personally to donate 5 squadrons of F-16 block-60 for free to be delivered starting in 2013 and ending in 2018, let's say. That'd be much cheaper, comes with the same set of strings attached as a Gripen-NG, and same set of restrictions of warfighting capabilities as the West would impose if we go for Gripen-NG.

americans will never sell us amraams, malaysia wanted some and the US refused.
 
. . .
supply Bangla with Raad Cruise and Then try to enforce about 50 of them will take care of all the mighty s-300 Problems and S-300 are sh1t they didnot even detected ISraeli air craft when they came in and bomb Syrian sites

Raad is a nuclear capable cruise missile with a range of 350 plus km with a warhead payload of 450 kg, HE or Nuclear 10 kT, if Pakistan even think of exporting it, those MTCR guys are gonna sanction our a$$ through the roof !

though abdali & nasr missiles sounds more logical since its range is between 60-180 km so MTCR should not have a problem with that, but anything with a range of 300 km & above is inviting the wrath of MTCR & they will screw both Pakistan & Bangladesh with sanctions

on-topic problem is grippens uses GE F-404 engine which needs clearance from u.s, so to be on the safe side its more realistic for BD to go for either J-10's or su-27/30's
 
.
Hi, whoever started the Thread and All those who favored Gripen NG need to do some Research.

NG/IN A proposed Program including for india [fell through] but continues with Sweden/Switzerland. NG is Next Generation Program in development of Gripen E/F Variants. The Final product would have a value of $65M And double the price with life time complete support costs including training. Do you Think BAF can pay $150M per Gripen E/F[PAF paid appx $167M per F-16 BLK 52], Highly doubt so. BAF doesn't even have money to upgrade mig-29s or second mig-29 out of russian inventory being put on sale for 20M-25M AS IS.

Gripen E/F Engine US
Gripen E/F [US refused F-16s to BAF, assuredly Gripen would be refused]
BVR weapons is still AM-120 AMRAAM [Neither US would sell it nor would Sweden allow you to temper with Gripen]
Nothing special would come for Anti-Shipping and Chinese/Russian weapons cannot be integrated.
Data Link between Gripens would be fine or ground stations but without AEW&Cs which in my opinion is essential.
Higher Price Tag even a second hand mig-29 with upgrades and spares for next 20 Years would costs $60M.

There are three Threads with BAF purchase of suitable Aircraft and I read a couple of bangladeshis without keeping data and information on JF-17/FC-1 rated F-7BGI better then JF-17s. The go ahead would be of BAF. The way Technology is moving ahead and Economy is slowing down Globally BAF is out of options for a high end fighter in next 10 Years except if Russians sell them sukhoi-30/35 on soft very long term loans because sukhoi-35 is more expensive then Gripen and perhaps under indian pressure russians might never offer su-35 but a specific variant of su-30 yet it would depend upon if long term soft loans are offered or not as well as the total cost could end up $150M.

Nobody is going to advocate FC-1/JF-17 but logically any Air Force with limited budget would go for it along with reasons/factors.

No Sanctions, Effective Radar [PESA/AESA might be part of program in future blocks], IFR BLK II+, Array of weapons/weapons assistance equipment available to choose from for Air Force/Navy, HMD/HMS, Eventually Chinese WS series Engine or better russian Engine would come by. Brazil is a reliable seller and does not come under western pressure. Anti Radiation Missile MAR-1A could be weapon of choice/offer, Chinese AEW&C available for sales, procuring even one in a package would prove heavy capabilities with Eyes in the Skies.

To all of this if we forget about any aircraft purchase, did you people think of better ground Radars and Surface to Air Missiles. If I have $2B before going for any Aircraft I would buy Medium/Long Range SAMs network centric mesh and to make it difficult for Enemy to enter into my relatively small Air Space even for Rafale/su-30 it would not be easy to roam in Bangladeshi Air Space. A network centric warfare is need of the hour.

Now instead of coming here opening Threads that I like it so I want it, shall we talk the technical side the cost associated in long run, the weapons of choice, sanctions, the fair partners.

Wait...I gotta reply to a bangladeshi post from other Threads a poor logic comparing RD-93 to be poor with Mach 1.6 vs F-7BGI Mach 2 Engine. If PAF wanted it would along with Chinese designed the aircraft to take WP-14C Kunlun-3 Engine or WP-13F Engine short life but works but there are alot of technicalities associated with it.
 
.
lol Hahahahahhahahaha

Also give them Babur Cruise Missiles about 3000 in the next 5 years and 500 Raad and 2 Sqauds of GRIpen with like 1000 SD 10 and PL-9C and Sniper pods and GBU-12 like 500 of them That will Take care of the indian Problem on the bangladesh Side for like net 3 decades

LETS FACE LCA Started in 1990 Its been more then 2 decades its not operational highest service celling to date is 11000 Ft while JF-17 does 55000 or so
their Bara-h-mouse is still not deployable on any platform

like i said 3000 Babur 500 Raad and couple of other goodies indians wont dare look at bangladesh and dont forget the Cm400 like 300 of those then their will be no water problems for bangla

and NASTIK BANGLA DOnt BUY JF-17 if you dont want too BUT the Weapon package is far superior on Jf-17 and its tested in war then any other platform that european offers

Only US equipment,Pakistani/chinese equipment is tested even France use american Bombs when they go to war, Russian Equipment is a Failure of the century the only good thing about russia is its is some what advance in jet engine tech rest is a fail
look at Syria they are loosing it from unorganized non rank having structure like rebels

stop posting nonsense will you

http://www.reallifephilippines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Implied-Facepalm.jpg
 
.
technically you can, practically you can not. BD army majors in guerilla warfare. so some can always snoop beyond border lines and take care of SAM installations. besides I think if we have good network centric AAD , (considering BD is smaller than India), access to BD airspace by anyone would be somewhat highly expensive.

You really know anything about network centric AAD. lol

It doesn't depend upon country area. While seeing your AAD s/s I don't think that there is any thing like network centric, while IAF already connetced its all AAD s/s and radars.
 
.
hahaha you don't understand what i mean do you? Even the power exchange happen.... gripen stands in last row .... anyways i thought to quit this thread... but really funny thing going on here.... so i deleted my post...

I understand Bro, You mean that Bangladesh never ever can afford Gripen NG! isn't it?
 
.
I dont know how much it is possible or to be frank available to the BD air force, because this plane is about to enter the Swedish service only in 2017 or beyond and as of now, I am not sure if there is a process in place to export it and if there is one, I am not sure BD is this list or not.
Right now if Sweden is ready to export JAS 39, that is a good choice for BD. It has a good profile to suit the needs of BD.


Kindly note BD member - we are not at war with each other and the people of both the nations would like not to see a war in the future too. so do not drop in your ideas of being hostile to us when we are not. and that goes to the Indian members as well. Please try not to be hostile to each other.

SAAB making Gripen NG for export too. Gripen NG will available in 2018 for export. Bro use Google if you have confusion.
 
.
Add China to the list.

This is one area where Japan is actually lagging in, for a country that is highly respected for its advancements in all areas of science and particularly, technology.

Aviation propulsion is not one of Japan's strengths, compared to Western, Russian or Chinese companies.




Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I still respect you for reasons I have mentioned earlier.

One request: do not ever mention China and that 'blot on humanity' blighted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world in the same sentence.

Also, whether you use an alphabetical list, or whether you use a list based on 'power ranking', China should come first, as China is far and away multiple times (4 to 10) stronger than that hellhole afflicted with the worst humanitarian crises in the world.


On topic: NO. WE SHOULD NEVER GO FOR GRIPEN-NG.

1. Price tag of $60 million is way too high for such a 'lightweight' aircraft with low payload and radar capabilities.

2. What air to air and air to surface missiles would we use on Gripen-NG?

3. Engines come from USA! Another big reason for a "No".

If some of these teenagers are so desperate, they should go and beg USA personally to donate 5 squadrons of F-16 block-60 for free to be delivered starting in 2013 and ending in 2018, let's say. That'd be much cheaper, comes with the same set of strings attached as a Gripen-NG, and same set of restrictions of warfighting capabilities as the West would impose if we go for Gripen-NG.

Gripen NG will be a medium AC with more payload and high tech radar capabilities.

SAAB give Gripen users weapon control software source code to make missiles or other ordinance compatible.

What problem with USA engine?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom