What's new

Bangladesh Air Force

The reality is irrespective of the times when two groups of machines are manufactured, the quality of each depends upon the quality of armament, other input and specifications. All the plane technology were fully matured even though it was built twenty years ago. So, because F-7 was produced quite a time before JF-17 was produced, therefore, the latter is better than the former is not true.

We have to note that F-7 planes have been derived from a matured Mig-21 plane, which was once called "Poor man's F-16." Mig-21 is no more being produced, but it is being produced by the designation of F-7 in China. F-7 is certainly not worse than JF-17. It still remains the poor man's F-16.
source regarding the bolded parts?
 
.
Was F-7PG a plane different from the F-7 group?

I accept your scolding me a novice and ignorant on avionics. But, you have failed to pinpoint the advantages of JF-17 Block 2 even over F-7BGI. Instead of getting emotional you must send a comparison table for even an ignorant like me to understand fully why BAF should discard F-7BGI and induct JF-17 instead?

When the BAF bought the BGI planes there were rumors all across the country that it would induct JF-17. It may not have materialized due to geopolitical reason, but there were also talks that the F-7BGIs are for an interim period and BAF would purchase 5G planes. So, why do you think when the BAF did not even consider JF at that time, how it can consider it now when it altready has F-7BGI (poor man's F-16) in its arsenal. Is JF-17 a 5G plane?

So, BAF certainly is planning to buy Russian or western planes. It may be considering also J-10s from China. So, however you tit, I do not think JF-17 will anytime be inducted by the BAF. This plane is not even at par with Tejas except the ceiling height.
Basically we need a plane which should permanently shut monkeys up from the south so that we can concentrate on our big dada in the west.
 
.
Basically we need a plane which should permanently shut monkeys up from the south so that we can concentrate on our big dada in the west.

SU-30SME and any Western 4th generation fighter can shoot down their Mig-29s and JF-17s down with ease.
 
.
Was F-7PG a plane different from the F-7 group?

I accept your scolding me a novice and ignorant on avionics. But, you have failed to pinpoint the advantages of JF-17 Block 2 even over F-7BGI. Instead of getting emotional you must send a comparison table for even an ignorant like me to understand fully why BAF should discard F-7BGI and induct JF-17 instead?

When the BAF bought the BGI planes there were rumors all across the country that it would induct JF-17. It may not have materialized due to geopolitical reason, but there were also talks that the F-7BGIs are for an interim period and BAF would purchase 5G planes. So, why do you think when the BAF did not even consider JF at that time, how it can consider it now when it altready has F-7BGI (poor man's F-16) in its arsenal. Is JF-17 a 5G plane?

So, BAF certainly is planning to buy Russian or western planes. It may be considering also J-10s from China. So, however you tit, I do not think JF-17 will anytime be inducted by the BAF. This plane is not even at par with Tejas except the ceiling height.

F-7PG is a Pakistan specific, modified version of the J-7E. The J-7E had some structural changes most notably on the wings to give improved flight performance. I have no knowledge of the specific subsystems on the PG or BGI but yes you can make the arguement that the BGI is sort of a "mini F-16".

I am not advocating for discarding the BG/BGI for the JF-17. I am just making the assertion that the JF-17 is by far a superior platform. Tables are almost meaningless. Higher service ceilings of the Tejas by itself are meaningless. I suppose the real issue is the capability the platform brings to the table. Again, just one case in point vis a vis Thunder/BGI, the SD-10. BGI, as far as I know can not mount the SD-10. At least I have not seen any credible info that it can. For the Thunder, it is a primary weapon. If you look at the historical context of the JF-17. Pakistan was SCREWED in the 90's to the mid 2000's before it got its hands on some -C5 AMRAAMS. PAF was at a serious disadvantage to the IAF becuse of the availability of types such as the R-77 to the latter. The war on terror and its ripple political effects allowed PAF to obtain the AMRAAM. However, if not for that, PAF would have only had the SD-10 as an active radar homing AAM.

This alone IMO, makes the Thunder a better platform than the BGI. It brings a capability to BAF that wouldnt be present with the BG/BGI.

However, with that being said, at this point, if I was running the BAF, I would break the cycle of China/Russia and bite the bullet and go to Gripen/Eireye.

Not gonna happen though unfortunately.
 
.
This alone IMO, makes the Thunder a better platform than the BGI. It brings a capability to BAF that wouldnt be present with the BG/BGI.

However, with that being said, at this point, if I was running the BAF, I would break the cycle of China/Russia and bite the bullet and go to Gripen/Eireye.

Not gonna happen though unfortunately.

I still think there is hope.

Remember that the "life-cycle" cost of the Gripen E is no more than for either Russian Mig-35 or Chinese J-10B.
It seems that BAF really does not want the Mig-35 and the Chinese J-10B may not be that desireable due to suspicion over it's effectiveness against China's client state Myanmar.

Western countries can and do give out loans to buy their arms and so the Gripen E is definitely affordable for BD in numbers as Russian or Chinese options. The two big questions are whether US will approve due to engine and is BD able to think out of the Chinese/Russian box.
 
.
F-7PG is a Pakistan specific, modified version of the J-7E. The J-7E had some structural changes most notably on the wings to give improved flight performance. I have no knowledge of the specific subsystems on the PG or BGI but yes you can make the arguement that the BGI is sort of a "mini F-16".
I am happy that you forgot to call me a stupid this time. But, even a stupid like me knows that PG is Pakistan specific. But, is not the F-7 plane itself a derivation of the basic Mig-21? Even some people regard JF is partly a derivation from F-7. Read other sources. In the initial stage, the Chinese named it Super-7. Do you really understand that it is because it was derived from F-7?

About Mig-21 being called in those days by, "Poor man's F-16", people should find out the truth by themselves. Our BGI is supposed to be a better plane than PG, is not it? PAF has 50 units of F-7PG and IAF has many units of Mig-21. These two airforces are not thinking of dismantling these planes of theirs, but, here, in the PDF our arm chaired warriors are talking left and right to destroy F-7 planes of ours, as if they earn $15 million every minute.

BAF must buy a better plane than JF-17 that has a speed of only 1.6 mach. Read the explanation of many of the controversial specifications of the Thunder. Note the speed and others below:

Technical data sheet of JF-17
Empty Weight - 6586 kgs / 14520 lbs
* Engine Thrust
- Emergency takeoff Thrust - 8700 kgf / 19200 lbf
- Afterburner Thrust - 8300 kgf / 18300 lbf
* Radar Range(Detection) - 75 km for 3m2 target
* Speed - Mach 1.6*****
* Weapons Payload - 3400 kgs / 7500lbs
 
.
The F-20 and F-16-79 were developed for the export market in Carter's time, who had maintained restrictions on the technology the US could export. This was lifted during Reagan's time, at which point, countries wanted the F-16-proper - basically leaving the F-20 and F-16-79 to wither.

IMO it'd be wise for Bangladesh to avoid Russian planes all together. I know the MiG-35 and Su-30SME are solid platforms, but you're not just buying the fighter, but the after-sale support, training and logistics packages. The Russians have every incentive - especially as a probable credit/loan-source - to tie Bangladesh to the Russian industry for spare parts, MRO, etc. Sure, I think one could try pushing the Russians to open up shop in Bangladesh by investing in the local MRO base and manufacturing parts under the UAC brand (but in BD), but that's no guarantee for war-time security (as Moscow can ask UAC-BD to stop or recall critical staff). There's also the risk of tying one's budding aviation industry to foreign ownership - e.g. capital outflows from profit, inability to control pricing domestically, etc.

The alternative (if not JF-17/FC-1) should be the JAS-39C/D or E/F or the J-10A (or if possible J-10C, though AVIC hasn't put it up for export). The JAS-39E/F's all-in costs (i.e. flyaway cost plus after-sale support etc) is around $130-150 m per jet, which is the lowest of the Western fighters. Sweden is also willing to release loans for sales.

Avoid local assembly, push for stockpiling as many spare parts and spare engines as possible and aim for domestic overhauling. Once you finish paying for the purchase, leverage a follow-on purchase to having Saab outsource some parts manufacturing work for all Gripen (or other products) to Bangladesh.

Many Thanks for your valuable comments. All wonderful and practical suggestions. @Avicenna bhai would you concur?

Is there a standard list of critical spares to stockpile besides engines? And which spares for the engines themselves?

And what is the ratio of extra engines to keep around handy per how many fighters?

I am sure best practices dictate such a ratio but I have a hunch that spares for the engine for Gripen E/F (GE F414G) would not be as frequently needed as Russian ones, because Mean time between overhaul would be longer.
 
.
I am happy that you forgot to call me a stupid this time. But, even a stupid like me knows that PG is Pakistan specific. But, is not the F-7 plane itself a derivation of the basic Mig-21? Even some people regard JF is partly a derivation from F-7. Read other sources. In the initial stage, the Chinese named it Super-7. Do you really understand that it is because it was derived from F-7?

About Mig-21 being called in those days by, "Poor man's F-16", people should find out the truth by themselves. Our BGI is supposed to be a better plane than PG, is not it? PAF has 50 units of F-7PG and IAF has many units of Mig-21. These two airforces are not thinking of dismantling these planes of theirs, but, here, in the PDF our arm chaired warriors are talking left and right to destroy F-7 planes of ours, as if they earn $15 million every minute.

BAF must buy a better plane than JF-17 that has a speed of only 1.6 mach. Read the explanation of many of the controversial specifications of the Thunder. Note the speed and others below:

Technical data sheet of JF-17
Empty Weight - 6586 kgs / 14520 lbs
* Engine Thrust
- Emergency takeoff Thrust - 8700 kgf / 19200 lbf
- Afterburner Thrust - 8300 kgf / 18300 lbf
* Radar Range(Detection) - 75 km for 3m2 target
* Speed - Mach 1.6*****
* Weapons Payload - 3400 kgs / 7500lbs

JF-17 does have a better payload though, F7-BGI has a payload of 4000 lbs. Wouldn't JF-17 be useful in ground attack roles,at least compared to F7-BG/BGI for its superior payload?


EDIT: Also, PAF is gradually replacing all its f7's with jf-17's, is it not? And india is trying to do the same with Tejas. And while i agree that we should replace F7 MB's with something better than Jf-17, but i dont think GOB is willing to spend $5-6 billion for BAF
 
Last edited:
.
Many Thanks for your valuable comments. All wonderful and practical suggestions. @Avicenna bhai would you concur?

Is there a standard list of critical spares to stockpile besides engines? And which spares for the engines themselves?

And what is the ratio of extra engines to keep around handy per how many fighters?

I am sure best practices dictate such a ratio but I have a hunch that spares for the engine for Gripen E/F (Volvo/GE flygmotor) would not be as frequently needed as Russian ones, because Mean time between overhaul would be longer.
The engine is your main dynamic component, so spare engines, line replaceable units (LRU) for the engines and critical components (e.g. crystal blades) would be key.

The specific set of spare parts stockpiles depends user-to-user (e.g. Pakistan bought 2 spare engines for the AH-1Z fleet) and the extent of your maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) base. If you're going to select any jet - be it Gripen, MiG-35, J-10A or Su-30SME/Su-35 - go all in with the MRO as well in addition to stockpiling or, ideally, license manufacturing wearable parts.
 
.
JF-17 does have a better payload though, F7-BGI has a payload of 4000 lbs. Wouldn't JF-17 be useful in ground attack roles,at least compared to F7-BG/BGI for its superior payload?

No, the F-7BGI fighter jets can carry 3000 kgs (6,600 lbs) of weapons payload. Upgraded F-7BGI can carry and fire BVR & WVR air-to-air missiles, GPS/Laser guided bombs, Anti-Ship Missiles (AShM) and two types of rocket pods to fire unguided rockets. New engine has a wet thrust of 82kN. How about the thrust of JF-17? It is same like BGI.

So, I think, JF-17 will not be useful for BAF. Only Swedish, Russian or Chinese J-10 with Russian engine will be a mark of upgrading for our BAF. The govt is targeting any or combination of these planes. Anyway, a plane with only a speed of 1.6 mach was obviously not considered before buying the BGIs, and BAF is certainly not considering it now. BAF is certainly not swayed by the JF propaganda.
 
. .
No, the F-7BGI fighter jets can carry 3000 kgs (6,600 lbs) of weapons payload. Upgraded F-7BGI can carry and fire BVR & WVR air-to-air missiles, GPS/Laser guided bombs, Anti-Ship Missiles (AShM) and two types of rocket pods to fire unguided rockets. New engine has a wet thrust of 82kN. How about the thrust of JF-17? It is same like BGI.

So, I think, JF-17 will not be useful for BAF. Only Swedish, Russian or Chinese J-10 with Russian engine will be a mark of upgrading for our BAF. The govt is targeting any or combination of these planes. Anyway, a plane with only a speed of 1.6 mach was obviously not considered before buying the BGIs, and BAF is certainly not considering it now. BAF is certainly not swayed by the JF propaganda.
Can you provide a source for your claims? Bdmilitary isn't a credible source. If F7BGI has all those capabilities, I don't see a reason for BAF to procure a 4th Gen fighter.
 
.
No, the F-7BGI fighter jets can carry 3000 kgs (6,600 lbs) of weapons payload. Upgraded F-7BGI can carry and fire BVR & WVR air-to-air missiles, GPS/Laser guided bombs, Anti-Ship Missiles (AShM) and two types of rocket pods to fire unguided rockets. New engine has a wet thrust of 82kN. How about the thrust of JF-17? It is same like BGI.

So, I think, JF-17 will not be useful for BAF. Only Swedish, Russian or Chinese J-10 with Russian engine will be a mark of upgrading for our BAF. The govt is targeting any or combination of these planes. Anyway, a plane with only a speed of 1.6 mach was obviously not considered before buying the BGIs, and BAF is certainly not considering it now. BAF is certainly not swayed by the JF propaganda.


BAF themselves said that F7 BGI has 4000 lbs of payload. I very clearly remember the commentator saying 4000 pounds of payload while F7 BGI was performing aerial acrobatics for the 2016 victory day parade.
 
.
Many Thanks for your valuable comments. All wonderful and practical suggestions. @Avicenna bhai would you concur?

Is there a standard list of critical spares to stockpile besides engines? And which spares for the engines themselves?

And what is the ratio of extra engines to keep around handy per how many fighters?

I am sure best practices dictate such a ratio but I have a hunch that spares for the engine for Gripen E/F (GE F414G) would not be as frequently needed as Russian ones, because Mean time between overhaul would be longer.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) is straight gangsta. His viewpoints and suggestions are always appreciated and taken with gravity.
 
.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) is straight gangsta. His viewpoints and suggestions are always appreciated and taken with gravity.[/QUO

Hi, all the best wishes to everybody, I am a newbie here.
Regarding the BAF figjterjet choices I become confused when I see there choice su30(I mean the BAF Pilots regardless of the geopolitical issue) incomparable to grippers it is more costly to maintain, more easy to breakdown, far less of a dogfighter let alone having far less bvr capability, combat range far less important when other parameters (above mentioned) are weaker even in comparison to a small figjterjet like gripen.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom