Bangladesh Air Force

[UKBengali]

Uses of Russian engines cannot be a good reason not to sell it to BAF. China is trying frantically to develop its own engines, but still the Chinese engines remain immature. So, China uses Russian and Ukrainian engines. THese countries' jet engines are fully developed because of a long history of their development process. As far as I know, even FC-1/JF-17 uses Russian engine.

The "immaturity" tag of Chinese engines is a bit out of date in my opinion.

The WS-10A has been powering J-11B twin-engine fighters since 2010.

The WS-10B equipped J-10B probably would take no longer than a year or two to be ready for service.

Even if BD places an order for J-10 today, it would not be delivered till around 2015 anyway.

 

[Zabaniyah]

J-10B could be exported to BD in the next five years as by the time that BD gets it, then J-20/J-31 could be ready for service into China. Whether BD can wait till 2017-2018 is another matter.

J-10B would far exceed the capabilities of the F-16 Block 52 and I would say that it could be slightly better than F-16 Block 60 as it has a more superior airframe when it comes to air-to-air missions. There is a good reason why the Euro-fighter and Rafale like the J-10 are both delta-canards and that is for the best air-to-air performance possible.

Got any evidence to back up your claims? Otherwise, it's all speculation. I doubt if the Chinese have a system equivalent to SPECTRA.

About F-16E/F Block 60. Some links say UAE has provided the entire 3 billion USD cost of developing this block. So, only this country now has this plane other than the USAF itself. The report says UAE will get royalty over any sale of this plane to foreign countries.

Anyway, BAF may not need this plane or cannot afford it, and US govt will veto any sale to BD because of India's objection. However, I think, because of a 3rd party involvement, there is a possibility that US will sell this plane to countries other than SA or Israel. Then why not BAF, if it needs it? Perhaps, my dream is too big.

India won't be able to do anything. It is more of a question of money and politics.

 

[eastwatch]

The "immaturity" tag of Chinese engines is a bit out of date in my opinion.

The WS-10A has been powering J-11B twin-engine fighters since 2010.

The WS-10B equipped J-10B probably would take no longer than a year or two to be ready for service.

Even if BD places an order for J-10 today, it would not be delivered till around 2015 anyway.

While western countries including USA have many hundreds of years of COMBINED experience in building engines, China only has 30 years of experience. It will take at least two or three more decades before China can develop a sustainable and dependable jet engine. Of the jet engines, the engines in the war jets are more difficult to develop.

Jet engines have to take a tremendous thrust while it climbs @220 m/s or more. China may be using its own engines in some of its jets as a part of the development of its engines. But, China yet has to build a reliable engine. No foreign customer would accept Chinese engines it its war jets.

 

[UKBengali]

Got any evidence to back up your claims? Otherwise, it's all speculation. I doubt if the Chinese have a system equivalent to SPECTRA.

J-10 uses a delta-canard like the two Euro-canards which makes for better handling at the high-speed BVR engagements over fighters such as F-16.

India rejected the F-16I, basically another version of the F-16 Block 60 in favour of Rafale.

Spectra is a Rafale product and not F-16 so not sure why you mentioned that.

It is quiet possible that F-16 Block 60 will have better electronics than J-10B but that is by no means guaranteed, and even if it does the difference may not matter that much anyway.

As for BD, I would much rather go with a speculated 40 million price tag of a J-10B over the 70-80 million for that of the F-16 Block 60.

 

[BDforever]

UPCOMING KASTA2E2 Radar ...

The Kasta-2E2 radar is a mobile automated solid-state system which can detect targets, measure their distance, azimuth and height, as well as track the targets and furnish their motion parameters to operators. The radar can handle such targets as fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, remote-piloted aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, including those flying at extreme-low altitudes, on the background of intense ground and cloud clutter. The radar can detect 'stealth' and moving sea-surface targets.

source: Modern Air Defence Radars

 

[eastwatch]

J-10 uses a delta-canard like the two Euro-canards which makes for better handling at the high-speed BVR engagements over fighters such as F-16.

BVR technology is in demand throughout the world's air forces, no doubt. But this technology is not any advantage in real air wars. BVR missiles miss nine times out of ten shootings.

 

[BDforever]

BVR technology is in demand throughout the world's air forces, no doubt. But this technology is not any advantage in real air wars. BVR missiles miss nine times out of ten shootings.

what ? really bro ? ! ! where did you get it bro ?

 

[Zabaniyah]

BVR technology is in demand throughout the world's air forces, no doubt. But this technology is not any advantage in real air wars. BVR missiles miss nine times out of ten shootings.

How did you come up with such an absurd conclusion?

 

[UKBengali]

BVR technology is in demand throughout the world's air forces, no doubt. But this technology is not any advantage in real air wars. BVR missiles miss nine times out of ten shootings.

Not true at all now as the technology is better than before.

F-22 virtually completely relies in bvr missiles to defeat opponents.

Anyway planes usually fire more than one bvr missile to increase chance of hit.

 

[eastwatch]

Not true at all now as the technology is better than before.

F-22 virtually completely relies in bvr missiles to defeat opponents.

Anyway planes usually fire more than one bvr missile to increase chance of hit.

Past war records since the start of Vietnam war era show BVR average killing rate is very low.

The enemy plane always moves away from its position at which point the BVR is fired. So, the rate of BVR killing success so far is only 2.8%. The overall success is the percentage of BVR kills based on total radar BVR missile firings.

The percentage was much lower until Bekaa Valley war. It only improved to 2.8% because the Iraqi pilots were inefficient to counter the attacks in the Desert Storm.

The percentage of radar missile kill was 13.5%, but not all the killings were by firing Beyond Visual Range or about 37 km away. BVR killing was only 2.8% and including non-BVR radar missile the killing was 13.5%.

Even multiple firing of BVR radar missiles does not guarantee a much better killing although Russia and USA both are developing bigger planes that can carry many BVR radar missiles.

Well, BVR is not a hoax, but its real performance does not warrant a big spending on its procurement.

 

[BDforever]

Past war records since the start of Vietnam war era show BVR average killing rate is very low.

The enemy plane always moves away from its position at which point the BVR is fired. So, the rate of BVR killing success so far is only 2.8%. The overall success is the percentage of BVR kills based on total radar BVR missile firings.

The percentage was much lower until Bekaa Valley war. It only improved to 2.8% because the Iraqi pilots were inefficient to counter the attacks in the Desert Storm.

The percentage of radar missile kill was 13.5%, but not all the killings were by firing Beyond Visual Range or about 37 km away. BVR killing was only 2.8% and including non-BVR radar missile the killing was 13.5%.

Even multiple firing of BVR radar missiles does not guarantee a much better killing although Russia and USA both are developing bigger planes that can carry many BVR radar missiles.

Well, BVR is not a hoax, but its real performance does not warrant a big spending on its procurement.

LOL bro....you are giving vietnam war reference? that was because that time Guided Missile system was not available.

 

[eastwatch]

LOL bro....you are giving vietnam war reference? that was because that time Guided Missile system was not available.

No, no. Click on the BVR planes in the Internet, you will get many references. It is full of genuine research results by the military aviation experts. Study these and come to your own conclusion by yourself. It will not be very different than my own.

By the way, what air wars have been fought after Desert Storm? None, essentially. Only the result of this war has raised the killing rate to 2.8%. In case of Vietnam wars and Beeka Valley war the killing ratio is near 1%.

There are some fundamentals of physics that cannot be changed. One is the speed of a radar missile. Even if it is a fast 4 mach, it will take more than 40 seconds to reach the enemy plane at a 70 km distance. 40 second is a very long time. Even at a low 150 m/second climbing rate, a trained pilot will move the plane 6,000 m away in any direction. The radar missile will misfire, certainly.

The BVR radar has to lock the enemy plane before the missile can be fired. But, whenever an enemy plane is locked, the enemy plane's own radar starts warning the pilot. The Iraqi pilots in the Desert Storm did not steer away their planes because they were not properly trained. So, desert storm has a better record of killing by BVR missile.

An experienced pilot would immediately move his plane away and the radar/BVR missile will fail to hit his plane.

 

[UKBengali]

There are some fundamentals of physics that cannot be changed. One is the speed of a radar missile. Even if it is a fast 4 mach, it will take more than 40 seconds to reach the enemy plane at a 70 km distance. 40 second is a very long time. Even at a low 150 m/second climbing rate, a trained pilot will move the plane 6,000 m away in any direction. The radar missile will misfire, certainly.

The BVR radar has to lock the enemy plane before the missile can be fired. But, whenever an enemy plane is locked, the enemy plane's own radar starts warning the pilot. The Iraqi pilots in the Desert Storm did not steer away their planes because they were not properly trained. So, desert storm has a better record of killing by BVR missile.

An experienced pilot would immediately move his plane away and the radar/BVR missile will fail to hit his plane.

No, no that is not the way it works.

A BVR missile fired towards a plane will get constant updates from the fighter's radar so any change in the enemy plane's position will be taken account of.

You are still relying on war records from mainly 40 or more years ago when BVR missile technology was still in it's infancy. In the Bekaa valley 30 years ago, the reason why BVR was not used more was that the two sides were so close to each other, it was safer to visually identify the enemy plane visually before firing a missile at it.

It is true that BVR is not the only way to fight but without it you will have a serious handicap. Pakistan in the Kargil war did not dare send it's non-BVR F-16s up against Indian BVR capable Mirage-2000 or Mig-29s as it was not confident they could engage the Indian planes with a decent chance of success.

Like it or not, BVR is essential in fighter planes nowadays.

 

[eastwatch]

No, no that is not the way it works.

A BVR missile fired towards a plane will get constant updates from the fighter's radar so any change in the enemy plane's position will be taken account of.

You are still relying on war records from mainly 40 or more years ago when BVR missile technology was still in it's infancy. In the Bekaa valley 30 years ago, the reason why BVR was not used more was that the two sides were so close to each other, it was safer to visually identify the enemy plane visually before firing a missile at it.

It is true that BVR is not the only way to fight but without it you will have a serious handicap. Pakistan in the Kargil war did not dare send it's non-BVR F-16s up against Indian BVR capable Mirage-2000 or Mig-29s as it was not confident they could engage the Indian planes with a decent chance of success.

Like it or not, BVR is essential in fighter planes nowadays.

Let us assume you are correct, but why the past record is so dismal? The 2.8% killing I have noted in my previous post is not actually Beyond Visual (BVR) killings, but many are Within Visual Range (WVR) killings, but by the radar missiles.

If you are correct that the BVR missiles will keep on tracking the enemy planes for a long time in the sky, then why it is necessary to fire many radar missiles simultaneously? One radar missile is enough to kill one enemy plane, isn't it?

It is not personal liking or disliking. I am talking facts. BVR should certainly be fitted, because it causes the enemy plane to run away from its main mission of bombing the vital assets. But, it does not kill that much. This is why the planes are also fitted with heat seeking missiles and machine guns.

Not withstanding that BVR is also needed, I must say the past wars upto Desert Storm have shown a very bad killing results of the BVR radar missiles. Heat seeking missiles and cannon or machine gun fires have much more killing rates.

When both the sides have BVR capable planes the outcome of air battles will depend on the non-BVR attacks.

 

[UKBengali]

Let us assume you are correct, but why the past record is so dismal? The 2.8% killing I have noted in my previous post is not actually Beyond Visual (BVR) killings, but many are Within Visual Range (WVR) killings, but by the radar missiles.

I am repeating myself but it is to do with immature BVR technology in past wars. In the Bekaa valley, BVR was mature but was not used as the fighters were so close to each other anyway in the crowded Lebanese skies.

If you are correct that the BVR missiles will keep on tracking the enemy planes for a long time in the sky, then why it is necessary to fire many radar missiles simultaneously? One radar missile is enough to kill one enemy plane, isn't it?

One BVR missile may have 50% chance of destroying the opposing plane while with 2 the success rate goes up to 80%. You need to make sure that you definitely shoot-down the other plane so no harm in using 2 out of your 6-8 BVR missiles that your plane carries.

It is not personal liking or disliking. I am talking facts. BVR should certainly be fitted, because it causes the enemy plane to run away from its main mission of bombing the vital assets. But, it does not kill that much. This is why the planes are also fitted with heat seeking missiles and machine guns.

BVR planes are still fitted with WVR missiles and guns as you need weapons when you are up close to dog-fight. BVR will not always win the fight for you 100% of the time but that does not mean it won't take out 80% of the enemy planes before you even see them.

When both the sides have BVR capable planes the outcome of air battles will depend on the non-BVR attacks.

No, no, no.

Let us say you have 12 BVR panes in total. 6 on each side closing in on the other.

Chances are most of the 12 planes would be shot down by BVR missiles before any of the survivors can get within WVR range.