What's new

Bangladesh Air Force

Destranator

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2018
2,200
-2
3,941
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
I thought BAF sent pilots for training in China according to BDMilitary?
Sending pilots for training and monitoring aircraft performance over long periods are two different things. China is very good at suppressing information about equipment failures. We need to monitor the performance of J-10C with export clients who are relatively less adept/motivated at suppressing information.
 

leonblack08

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 9, 2008
3,052
0
2,536
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Canada
Defseca claiming their "civil sources" confirmed the MRCA deal will be announced before Feb 2022.

On a reliability scale of 1 to poop, this smells like a fart.
 

Michael Corleone

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
10,257
-5
10,626
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ukraine
large motor to accelerate it up to speed, and a smaller, long-burn motor, to preserve its energy.
But the missile will have the velocity of the fighter jet, why does it need a motor that brings it up to speed when it’s momentum is whatever speed the fighter is traveling when it’s launched from the get go? 🤔
 

F-6 enthusiast

FULL MEMBER
Feb 27, 2021
831
0
1,474
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
Sending pilots for training and monitoring aircraft performance over long periods are two different things. China is very good at suppressing information about equipment failures. We need to monitor the performance of J-10C with export clients who are relatively less adept/motivated at suppressing information.
The truth is Chinese and Eastern combat training is nowhere near good as their western counterparts let alone the USAF,USN (which is light years ahead of everyone else). The training is very rigid and hierarchical compared to west.

This is a 40 min long video discussing Chinese airpower and its advances. The Guest is a RUSI think tank analyst. Discusses J-10, J-16,J-20, command and training , doctrine.
I urge everyone to watch the full video.

also see for example at 21:59 where they explain how the AWACS is used.
At 25:16 in the AWACS what they've done is put the regimental Brigade controller (who used to sit on the control tower, giving sequential orders to the fighter pilots during their sorties ). They've moved him to the AWACS. He can see much better what's actually happening but he still has authority to talk to his unit's fighters. He also mentions issues with coordination between ground based SAMs and fighters, Joint engagement zones.

00:00 - Intro 00:28 - Expert: Justin Bronk
01:02 - The Chinese (Army) Air Force until now
04:33 - Why should we care?
07:50 - The J-10: The Return of the Light-Weight Fighter(?)
11:13 - The J-16: The Best Flanker?
16:01 - The J-20: Stealth but not really?
20:52 - China overtaking Russia in basically everything?
27:22 - Crews and Command & Control
30:30 - How could China use their (Army) Air Force? 35:40 - Recommendations
 
Last edited:

UKBengali

ELITE MEMBER
May 29, 2011
18,046
7
22,227
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
But the missile will have the velocity of the fighter jet, why does it need a motor that brings it up to speed when it’s momentum is whatever speed the fighter is traveling when it’s launched from the get go? 🤔


As BVR missiles typically have a cruising speed of Mach 4 and may be launched from a fighter at around Mach 1.5-2.

Yes, it is best for very long-range BVR shots to get as high and fast as possible to give the missile the maximum energy(potential and kinetic).
 
Last edited:

Joy_Bangla

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 17, 2018
44
0
52
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Singapore
Older gen, newer gen, physics remain the same. The higher and faster you are, the higher the energy state of your missile/bomb

Making delta-canards work is extremely complicated from a flight control & stability perspective.

Only possible with the advent of next-gen digital FBW from the late 80s. The flight control system of the EFT was a quantum leap ahead of any 4th gen FBW control system, for instance. It was one of the most challenging aspects of the whole program actually. Also, the EFT/ Rafale used more advanced computer-aided design and simulations, and to a much higher extent than 4th gen platforms. Which ment a much higher degree of aerodynamic optimization and refinement, than made possible during the development of 4th gen platforms.

Also bear in mind, Europeans and Russians always placed a higher emphasis on acceleration and climb-rate, because their airforce was/are expected to operate much closer to the front-line, than US airplanes. Especially after WW2. European airforces like the RAF had to rapidly scramble to meet German threats. USAF operated from bases much further away. Hence they emphasized range/endurance over climb rate and acceleration.
"Also bear in mind, Europeans and Russians always placed a higher emphasis on acceleration and climb-rate, because their airforce was/are expected to operate much closer to the front-line, than US airplanes. Especially after WW2. European airforces like the RAF had to rapidly scramble to meet German threats. USAF operated from bases much further away. Hence they emphasized range/endurance over climb rate and acceleration."

"The higher and faster you are, the higher the energy state of your missile/bomb". This probably was the case in the early 90s but not in the present day. BVRs are able to reach the intended altitude quickly.
 

Avicenna

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 18, 2016
5,279
3
8,566
Country
United States
Location
Bangladesh
"Also bear in mind, Europeans and Russians always placed a higher emphasis on acceleration and climb-rate, because their airforce was/are expected to operate much closer to the front-line, than US airplanes. Especially after WW2. European airforces like the RAF had to rapidly scramble to meet German threats. USAF operated from bases much further away. Hence they emphasized range/endurance over climb rate and acceleration."

"The higher and faster you are, the higher the energy state of your missile/bomb". This probably was the case in the early 90s but not in the present day. BVRs are able to reach the intended altitude quickly.
Physics has changed from the early 90's to the present day?
 

PoondolotoPandalum

FULL MEMBER
Jun 24, 2021
107
-1
277
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
"Also bear in mind, Europeans and Russians always placed a higher emphasis on acceleration and climb-rate, because their airforce was/are expected to operate much closer to the front-line, than US airplanes. Especially after WW2. European airforces like the RAF had to rapidly scramble to meet German threats. USAF operated from bases much further away. Hence they emphasized range/endurance over climb rate and acceleration."

"The higher and faster you are, the higher the energy state of your missile/bomb". This probably was the case in the early 90s but not in the present day. BVRs are able to reach the intended altitude quickly.

Which will go further?

An arrow fired from a car going 100mph or...

An arrow fired from a guy going 50mph

Assuming both arrows are completely the same, fired by the same force, angle, etc

This is basic high-school-level Newtonian physics of motion.

Modern BVR missiles don't travel at the speed of light, constant speed no matter where its launched from. Until fighters field laser weapons (which is really, really long away btw), the performance of an air-to-air missile will always be maximized by higher speed + altitude.

A Eurofighter super cruising at Mach 1.6 is a much more lethal launch platform than an F-16V cruising at Mach 0.9 (typical F-16 cruise speed, without burners), assuming both fire the SAME missile (like Aim-120C7).

BVR missiles improved a lot, but they didn't improve to light speed level, where launching speed + altitude makes no difference.
 

Destranator

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2018
2,200
-2
3,941
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Physics has changed from the early 90's to the present day?
Lol...I think he means inertial guidance, active homing and rocket propulsion tech of air to air missiles have improved to the point where there is relatively leower dependency of missiles on the altitide and momentum provided by the fighter jet itself.

On a seperate note, you guys are changing my mind on going all single engine in the medium term. The problem with EFT and similar fighters is flyaway and maintenance costs which might cripple funding for BAF's overall fleet expansion given how spineless the BAF leadership is when it comes to negotiating with the bureaucracy.
I am concerned that if the govt ends up spending 3 billion+ dollars on a squadron of EFT, they are unlikely to approve any further fighter procurement for another 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Mar 8, 2021
454
0
382
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The truth is Chinese and Eastern combat training is nowhere near good as their western counterparts let alone the USAF,USN (which is light years ahead of everyone else). The training is very rigid and hierarchical compared to west.

This is a 40 min long video discussing Chinese airpower and its advances. The Guest is a RUSI think tank analyst. Discusses J-10, J-16,J-20, command and training , doctrine.
I urge everyone to watch the full video.

also see for example at 21:59 where they explain how the AWACS is used.
At 25:16 in the AWACS what they've done is put the regimental Brigade controller (who used to sit on the control tower, giving sequential orders to the fighter pilots during their sorties ). They've moved him to the AWACS. He can see much better what's actually happening but he still has authority to talk to his unit's fighters. He also mentions issues with coordination between ground based SAMs and fighters, Joint engagement zones.

00:00 - Intro 00:28 - Expert: Justin Bronk
01:02 - The Chinese (Army) Air Force until now
04:33 - Why should we care?
07:50 - The J-10: The Return of the Light-Weight Fighter(?)
11:13 - The J-16: The Best Flanker?
16:01 - The J-20: Stealth but not really?
20:52 - China overtaking Russia in basically everything?
27:22 - Crews and Command & Control
30:30 - How could China use their (Army) Air Force? 35:40 - Recommendations

This is video by Pakistani channel in Urdu.here he compares chinese air force operational readiness and training by data obtained from various exercises and interviews.
Very short and comprehensive analysis of Chinese air force.
 

PoondolotoPandalum

FULL MEMBER
Jun 24, 2021
107
-1
277
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
Lol...I think he means inertial guidance, active homing and rocket propulsion tech of air to air missiles have improved to the point where there is relatively leower dependency of missiles on the altitide and momentum provided by the fighter jet itself.

On a seperate note, you guys are changing my mind on going all single engine in the medium term. The problem with EFT and similar fighters is flyaway and maintenance costs which might cripple funding for BAF's overall fleet expansion given how spineless the BAF leadership is when it comes to negotiating with the bureaucracy.
I am concerned that if the govt ends up spending 3 billion+ dollars on a squadron of EFT, they are unlikely to approve any further fighter procurement for another 10 years.
That lower dependability can be counted on only if your opponents have missiles that are a generation older than yours. But If I'm buying new fighters, I want to get the max bang i can get for my money, and pick an aircraft specifically designed for the rapid interception, as my ariel doctrine depends on it.

Rocket propulsion tech have more or less remained the same. Solid-fueled rockets aren't very high-tech, whether they're on a2a missiles or space shuttle boosters. The difference is, older BVR missiles had a single short burn-high thrust motor. Now we have a dual pulse motor, a second long-burn but very low thrust motor, designed to extend range. AS fitted on AIM-120D and PL-15s. The METEOR uses ramjets, high thrust for very little fuel, to essentially be fully powered throughout its entire flight duration under most realistic circumstances.


And of course, microelectronics becoming a lot more compact. Which meant more space left for solid rocket fuel. And their capability. PL-15 has an inbuilt AESA radar.

Speed and angels' advantage will be less of a factor if your opponents have missiles + radars much older than yours. But that assumption can't always be made. Especially if you're purchasing something that's designed to stay in service until the 2050s. BVR air doctrine is pretty much all air-interception based. We're not India where we can launch fighters halfway across our vast country, supported by tankers, AWACS, ECM platforms, to deal with a local threat. We have no option other than point defense, given how small our airspace is.

In my personal opinion, EFT is probably the best choice available right now for BAF's MCRA requirements. Is it the best plane in the world? No. But it's probably the best plane available for BAF.

I'd prefer Gripen-NG over any F-16 platform for the 2nd tender, but it's probably not an option.
 

Avicenna

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 18, 2016
5,279
3
8,566
Country
United States
Location
Bangladesh
That lower dependability can be counted on only if your opponents have missiles that are a generation older than yours. But If I'm buying new fighters, I want to get the max bang i can get for my money, and pick an aircraft specifically designed for the rapid interception, as my ariel doctrine depends on it.

Rocket propulsion tech have more or less remained the same. Solid-fueled rockets aren't very high-tech, whether they're on a2a missiles or space shuttle boosters. The difference is, older BVR missiles had a single short burn-high thrust motor. Now we have a dual pulse motor, a second long-burn but very low thrust motor, designed to extend range. AS fitted on AIM-120D and PL-15s. The METEOR uses ramjets, high thrust for very little fuel, to essentially be fully powered throughout its entire flight duration under most realistic circumstances.


And of course, microelectronics becoming a lot more compact. Which meant more space left for solid rocket fuel. And their capability. PL-15 has an inbuilt AESA radar.

Speed and angels' advantage will be less of a factor if your opponents have missiles + radars much older than yours. But that assumption can't always be made. Especially if you're purchasing something that's designed to stay in service until the 2050s. BVR air doctrine is pretty much all air-interception based. We're not India where we can launch fighters half way accross our vast country, supported by Tankers, awacs, ECM airplanes, to deal with a local threat. We have no option other than point defense, given how small our airspace is.

In my personal opinion, EFT is probably the best choice available right now for BAF's MCRA requirements. Is it the best plane in the world? No. But it's probably the best plane available for BAF.

I'd prefer Gripen-NG over any F-16 platform for the 2nd tender, but it's probably not an option.
Why NG over F-16V?
 

PoondolotoPandalum

FULL MEMBER
Jun 24, 2021
107
-1
277
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
Why NG over F-16V?

Industry-standard modularity & upgradability, low opera
Why NG over F-16V?

Industry-leading systems integration, upgradability, and modularity. This is perhaps Gripen's most outstanding feature and is something it's virtually unmatched in. Compared to F-16s, it has much more of an upgradability headroom left on it.

And it's a modern (relative to F-16) delta-canard design with some inherent advantages, particularly in acceleration and supersonic agility (F-16s, or any platforms of that era, were optimised for transonic agility, not supersonic). Which are bonus features. Especially when the avionics, weapons systems, ECM of both Gripen-NG and F-16V are very similar. In fact I'd give an edge to the Gripen, based on its ability to fire Meteors and the ES-05 Raven AESA. Which has some really nice tricks. Like an incredibly large scanning zone


Essentially, it has a situational awareness capability that is somewhat close to that of airplanes equipped with multiple radars (Su-57, and the rear-hemisphere radar on Su-35).

To my knowledge, the F-16V does not have such a capacity. Oh and neither does it have an IRST, which is a nice feature to have.

Gripen was always underestimated, but its performance on joint training programs, such as RED-FLAG, was rather outstanding.

Especially when operating as a RED-FOR team. BTW, red-for teams are always put at a disadvantage, they don't have the same level and a number of high-value assets (like AWACs and ECW platforms) the much more numerous BLUE-FOR team. So red-for gripes had much less support.

The main goal of such a scenario was to evaluate how the Gripen would perform in such a role. Everyone thought the simple Swedish plane would fall apart, but boy they were in for a rude surprise!

Gripens network-centric data-link system compensated for the lack of AWAC support, and get comfortable within the range of the enemy blue-for planes. On the first day, red-for Gripens got 10 kills, including F-16 Block 50+ and Eurofighters. And 0 losses.

During that whole red-flag campaign, Gripens never lost a single plane, never failed a single mission, and never delayed a mission due to bad weather and/or technical problems. Unlike its F-16 and EFT peers. The only airplane that scored better than the Gripen, was the F-22. And even that, only by a tiny margin.

On more recent exercises, F-22 pilots have said if the Gripen were to use its ECM for real, they could get scarily close to them. Then there was a time three Gripen went against 5 USAF F-16s. And that result, after 3 rounds were, 5-0, 5-0, 4-1. The Thai's claimed a 4-0 kill ratio against Chinese J-11s and Su-27SK, during Falcon strike 2015. Which the Chinese never disputed

For a country like BD, which is extremely resource and geographically challenged, the Gripen is by far the best airplane on earth. But sadly, unrealistic
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom