What's new

Bangladesh Air Force

Avicenna

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 18, 2016
5,274
3
8,559
Country
United States
Location
Bangladesh
Industry-standard modularity & upgradability, low opera



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
Agree with this.

I never really got why Gripen is unavailable to BAF.
 

Michael Corleone

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 27, 2014
10,247
-5
10,604
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Ukraine
That's ancient history. Nothing is stopping BAF from buying new or leasing used Gripens today.
BAF is a faggot organization. They got piss for budget and piss for officers, it’s best to disband them.
what pisses me off is they announced attack helicopter plans earlier and now army issued tender and will likely have the, sooner. It’s time navy and army take their air defence needs into their own hands. They have been poaching pilots from Air Force so not a big deal either.
 

Destranator

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 20, 2018
2,198
-2
3,930
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
BAF is a faggot organization. They got piss for budget and piss for officers, it’s best to disband them.
what pisses me off is they announced attack helicopter plans earlier and now army issued tender and will likely have the, sooner. It’s time navy and army take their air defence needs into their own hands. They have been poaching pilots from Air Force so not a big deal either.
It would be much easier, quicker and cheaper to install administrators from BA and BN and revamp the organisational structure and culture. This way the existing skilled manpower and infrastructure can be quickly reorganised towards building a lethal fighting force.

We also need to replace AFD with A Joint Services Command headed by a 4 star Joint Chief and 3 star deputies to streamline development and prioritise defence procurement for the three services. This organisation will continue to whip BAF in the *** even after the administrators withdraw.
 

Joy_Bangla

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 17, 2018
44
0
52
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Singapore
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.
Nobody claimed missiles flies at speed of light.
You are just putting words into my mouth.

BVR missiles can fly at higher altitude but have to compensate for range. However, BVR missiles of this era and the future will continue getting extension on their range.They already have have thrust vectoring functionality, higher velocity of mach 3-4 and multiple data-links for targeting.

According to your comparison between F16 and Eurofighter.
F35s have poorer maneuverability , lower service ceiling and IAS compared to Eurofighter so I can assume that they are less lethal platform?:disagree:


And lastly, pilots will try to lose altitude when doing evasive maneuvers. The higher the altitude the lower your lift, you need to generate lift for rapid maneuvering.And aircraft is already at a disadvantage since it has lower thrust-to-weight ratio.

Please don't quote me further.
 

Joy_Bangla

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Mar 17, 2018
44
0
52
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Singapore
It would be much easier, quicker and cheaper to install administrators from BA and BN and revamp the organisational structure and culture. This way the existing skilled manpower and infrastructure can be quickly reorganised towards building a lethal fighting force.

We also need to replace AFD with A Joint Services Command headed by a 4 star Joint Chief and 3 star deputies to streamline development and prioritise defence procurement for the three services. This organisation will continue to whip BAF in the *** even after the administrators withdraw.
BAF lost bunch of staffs from 2005 onwards.
My uncle was an Air Force Engineer at BAF before joining commercial aviation. Majority of his juniors have switched careers also. BAF experienced job poaching during that period.
Probably the wages were too low.
 

PoondolotoPandalum

FULL MEMBER
Jun 24, 2021
107
-1
276
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United Kingdom
Nobody claimed missiles flies at speed of light.
You are just putting words into my mouth.

BVR missiles can fly at higher altitude but have to compensate for range. However, BVR missiles of this era and the future will continue getting extension on their range. They already have have thrust vectoring functionality, higher velocity of mach 3-4 and multiple data-links for targeting.

According to your comparison between F16 and Eurofighter.
F35s have poorer maneuverability , lower service ceiling and IAS compared to Eurofighter so I can assume that they are less lethal platform?:disagree:


And lastly, pilots will try to lose altitude when doing evasive maneuvers. The higher the altitude the lower your lift, you need to generate lift for rapid maneuvering.And aircraft is already at a disadvantage since it has lower thrust-to-weight ratio.

Please don't quote me further.
Most effective way to burn a missile's energy is by 1) asking it to climb, as it needs more thrust to increase the vertical component of velocity, 2) asking it to maneuver at low altitude, as air is thicker, hence more parasitic loss from drag

Therefore, it is always preferable to launch higher and faster. And an aircraft that gives you that advantage will have an inherent advantage if everything else were more or less equal.

Which the F-16V and EFT are more or less are. Though the EFT does have quite a bit more bells and whistles. But let's assume their weapons, systems, avionics, ECM/ECW are the same. Which aren't btw

If the F-35 wasn't stealth, then yes, it has a major disadvantage against an EFT. In fact it's questionable if its front aspect low RCS is enough to ever compensate for that. There's heated debate about the low RCS of the F-35 in the first place. But that's a different topic.

When we're talking about F-16V, there's not a single area where it has a substantial advantage over EFT. But EFT's kinematic performance, particularly at high altitude, is very, VERY significant.

For countries that place a great emphasis on point-defense interception, it matters. Especially if they're expected to fire the SAME kind of BVR missiles. But I hope BAF goes for MBDA Meteors


"They already have have thrust vectoring functionality, higher velocity of mach 3-4 and multiple data-links for targeting."

BVR missiles don't usually come with thrust vectoring, certainly not AMRAAM's, PL-15's, Meteors. Thrust vectoring are used on some short range AAM's, like the R-73/74, and the MICA, which is in between a BVR/WVR missile with fairly short range (for a modern BVR missile)

Also maximum speed of all aim-120D variants is more or less the same, between mach 4-4.5. USAF recently claimed their max BVR shot. It was from an F-15, their fastest platform, flying at high altitude (and probably at high speeds) shooting down a nonmanuvering drone.

You can bet that range would've severly degraded at lower altitudes. A2a missiles are more effective up high because of low drag. One way to bleed a missile's energy is by forcing it to go DOWN, not up, as it losses more energy from drag, especially when turning. But this puts your airplane at a disadvantaged position also. So your opponents can take more shots at you, and you no longer have any altitude leverage and options.
 

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


Top Bottom