Bangladesh Air Force

[Avicenna]

Are you suggesting some other fighter to be built locally under ToT? Which one?

“ToT” isn’t an immediate priority for me.

Fielding an effective fighting force is.

When your potential adversaries are fielding JF-17 possibly with AESA, SU-30SME, not to mention SU-30MKI, or Rafales and BAF buys an uber evolved F-7 in 2019, there’s a problem.

 

[Bilal9]

“ToT” isn’t an immediate priority for me.

Fielding an effective fighting force is.

When your potential adversaries are fielding JF-17 possibly with AESA, SU-30SME, not to mention SU-30MKI, or Rafales and BAF buys an uber evolved F-7 in 2019, there’s a problem.

I get your point - however, an airforce needs to field two types of platforms per tried and true Russian Airforce principle, if I may. What you mention is only one part of an equation.

One is a cheap, effective and expendable platform (maybe not so reliable but workable) in NUMBERS. I'd compare this to the ubiquitous T-34 Tank fielded in numbers in the Battles around Moscow in the early 40's. The Russians simply out-produced the Germans with these tanks (last count was some 20,000 produced) and other armor and the Germans could not destroy enough of them. For every one that broke down, there was five/six of them ready to go.

The other is the QUALITY offensive platform that you field against any high quality weapons fielded by your enemy. That is what you are talking about. It has it's place, but it cannot be fielded in numbers because of cost and hence will need to be fielded selectively and strategically, in the right place and at the right time.

Both types of fighters have their place in an air force.

 

[Avicenna]

I get your point - however, an airforce needs to field two types of platforms per tried and true Russian Airforce principle, if I may. What you mention is only one part of an equation.

One is a cheap, effective and expendable platform (maybe not so reliable but workable) in NUMBERS. I'd compare this to the ubiquitous T-34 Tank fielded in numbers in the Battles around Moscow in the early 40's. The Russians simply out-produced the Germans with these tanks (last count was some 20,000 produced) and other armor and the Germans could not destroy enough of them. For every one that broke down, there was five/six of them ready to go.

The other is the QUALITY offensive platform that you field against any high quality weapons fielded by your enemy. That is what you are talking about. It has it's place, but it cannot be fielded in numbers because of cost and hence will need to be fielded selectively and strategically, in the right place and at the right time.

Both types of fighters have their place in an air force.

I agree with that principle of course.

It seems every air arm in the world seeks that balance from the USAF to the BAF. (Especially in light of expensive 5th gen options)

That being said, how many fighters is the BAF seeking to field?

Right now there are 2 F-7BG and BGI squadrons at about 15 and 16 aircraft apiece.

And the half strength Fulcrum squadron with 8.

Then an unknown number, probably around 10 or so legacy F-7MB.

Then 13 Yak-130, which I hesitate to call combatants. (At least in the supersonic multi role sense) so I will exclude those in the count.

So about 50 total aircraft comprising 3.5 squadrons or really 4 I suppose?

How many total new planes is the BAF seeking to acquire?

 

[Species]

“ToT” isn’t an immediate priority for me.

Fielding an effective fighting force is.

When your potential adversaries are fielding JF-17 possibly with AESA, SU-30SME, not to mention SU-30MKI, or Rafales and BAF buys an uber evolved F-7 in 2019, there’s a problem.

I believe the need for ToT stems from the struggles BAF faced in terms of unreliable suppliers throughout its history. In 1975, almost the entire fleet of BAF had to be grounded as the Soviets refused to supply spare parts after the military coup. I guess the same thing happened with the Mig 29s when BNP came into power. There were even rumours of cannibalizing different units of the aircraft to keep them operational.

Perhaps, there is a concern that China also couldn't be trusted if there is a conflict with Myanmar. The West is not reliable either, given the political strings they attach. In short, there is simply no alternative to building indigenous capabilities and earning self-sufficiency as much as possible.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Well you have made very good points.

Fast is one thing, maneuverable is even better (corrected with the double-delta or cranked delta wings on the latest J7 variants supplied to us), and the Chinese WP-13/14 power-plant has become quite reliable and has boasted increased MTBF over the years - but these days, as even basic fighters have BVR (our fighter if created locally should have it), sensors and radar (meaning where to place them) becomes more critical. Granted sensors and radars themselves are getting smaller and smaller but even current 'cheap' radars like the Italian Grifo (or the Chinese KLJ-7 developed from the Russian Phazotron radars as used in the JF17) that some basic fighters use, has a minimum size. One cannot get away from it. AESA in the later variants is better, negating the need for mechanical steering. Grifo comes in many sizes and variants.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...galileo-improves-grifo-radar-new-applications

So you have to place the radar on the nose and have to move the engine intakes to the side (taking care of boundary control layer issues) and you end up with the Guizhou JL-9 (or FTC-2000 as it is called nowadays).

This line is still open and still being produced albeit in very small numbers, as I understand it. But compared to the F7 (J7) there may be aerodynamic issues because it is not as 'clean' a design. As you can see, intake backward, It is the same F7 we use. But now you have space to put the radar on the nose.

The PLANAF is planning to use it as a Carrier based trainer. They are still milking the J7 design!!

i wonder how much increase in drag in trying to increase the overall height of the fuselage....

 

[Destranator]

I believe the need for ToT stems from the struggles BAF faced in terms of unreliable suppliers throughout its history. In 1975, almost the entire fleet of BAF had to be grounded as the Soviets refused to supply spare parts after the military coup. I guess the same thing happened with the Mig 29s when BNP came into power. There were even rumours of cannibalizing different units of the aircraft to keep them operational.

Perhaps, there is a concern that China also couldn't be trusted if there is a conflict with Myanmar. The West is not reliable either, given the political strings they attach. In short, there is simply no alternative to building indigenous capabilities and earning self-sufficiency as much as possible.

This is not a correct charecterisation of events. The Soviets used to respect BB a lot. Relations were such that when BB visited Russia in 1972, he got them to supply a squadron of brand new MiG-21s for free. It is only natural that the Soviets would choose not to empower a military, that grabbed power by assassinating the man they admired, by supplying military spares.

When BNP returned to power in 2001, they deliberately violated agreements with Russia by refusing to pay for the 8 Fulcrums supplied and cancelling the order for another 8. Russia then took us to court to retrieve due payment. This was all purely due to the saltiness of the 8th grade educated woman in charge.

BNP chose to retire the MiG-29s and Ulsan frigate, the lone missile frigate of BN at the time, purely out of jealousy and in complete disregard for national security. There were no attempts to buy any spares back then. Labelling Russia as the unreliable party in this context is deeply ironic.

Do not get me wrong: Russian manufacturers do have reliability issues but in the grand scheme of things Russia is among the more reliable military suppliers in the world for us as they usually supply if you pay them right and do not attach political strings like the West does.

 

[Bilal9]

i wonder how much increase in drag in trying to increase the overall height of the fuselage....

The height increase of the fuselage (if you're talking about the pilots' canopy) does not induce a lot of extra drag. The Mirage two-seaters all look like this and that is a highly efficient airframe.

In any case we are talking Mach 1.2 and not Mach 2 with supercruise etc. I reckon the main drag is induced by wing tip/tail tip shapes, and the wing planform.

As you can see, wing was not only made larger, but there is a little twist in the wing-joiner fillet. Also, the tailplanes were made larger and the wingtips and tail's tip were clipped and rounded to reduce drag (a la 80's/90's Russian aircraft like Su-27). The long fins under the exhaust are also gone. I also believe some of the components may be made of GFRP/CFRP to reduce weight.

From left to right: FTC-2000G，JL-10，Yak-130，M-346，T-50，T-X

Now if they could fit a cheap turbofan with FADEC to this design - that'd increase the range quite a bit (at least say 70%). Turbojets are notorious gas-guzzlers, but they are also simpler to maintain and reliable in rough use compared to Turbofans. But Turbofans are more expensive and then we'd have a tough choice to make, a 60's era design with the expense and the relative economics of say, the Gripen. Do we want such a thing?

I think better to just leave it at cheap, somewhat reliable and expendable. That is not a detriment to this machine. It is what it is and is superb as a 'bang-for-the-buck' platform. Kind of like a modern day Chinese T-38 Talon.

 

[TopCat]

It is sure that FTC-2000G is much cheaper than JF-17.

It may use the PESA radar of JL-10, if needed.
View attachment 536935
View attachment 536937

What is that made of

The height increase of the fuselage (if you're talking about the pilots' canopy) does not induce a lot of extra drag. The Mirage two-seaters all look like this and that is a highly efficient airframe.

In any case we are talking Mach 1.2 and not Mach 2 with supercruise etc. I reckon the main drag is induced by wing tip/tail tip shapes, and the wing planform.

As you can see, wing was not only made larger, but there is a little twist in the wing-joiner fillet. Also, the tailplanes were made larger and the wingtips and tail's tip were clipped and rounded to reduce drag (a la 80's/90's Russian aircraft like Su-27). The long fins under the exhaust are also gone. I also believe some of the components may be made of GFRP/CFRP to reduce weight.

From left to right: FTC-2000G，JL-10，Yak-130，M-346，T-50，T-X

Now if they could fit a cheap turbofan with FADEC to this design - that'd increase the range quite a bit (at least say 70%). Turbojets are notorious gas-guzzlers, but they are also simpler to maintain and reliable in rough use compared to Turbofans. But Turbofans are more expensive and then we'd have a tough choice to make, a 60's era design with the expense and the relative economics of say, the Gripen. Do we want such a thing?

I think better to just leave it at cheap, somewhat reliable and expendable. That is not a detriment to this machine. It is what it is and is superb as a 'bang-for-the-buck' platform. Kind of like a modern day Chinese T-38 Talon.

Canopy Actually increases liftl

 

[Bilal9]

What is that made of

PESA radar is a newer and more inexpensive version of AESA radar as far as I know. AESA uses Active Electronic Scanning using an array, and I believe PESA uses Passive Electronic Scanning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_electronically_scanned_array

Canopy Actually increases liftl

And you'd be right.

 

[Nilgiri]

When your potential adversaries are fielding JF-17 possibly with AESA, SU-30SME, not to mention SU-30MKI, or Rafales and BAF buys an uber evolved F-7 in 2019, there’s a problem.

Excellent. Now I know which one I will be rooting for

Can't wait for all the flood of threads that go to nothing again. @Imran Khan @Aung Zaya

 

[Imran Khan]

Excellent. Now I know which one I will be rooting for

Can't wait for all the flood of threads that go to nothing again. @Imran Khan @Aung Zaya

Bhai mery ko is lafry main nhi parna

 

[Bilal9]

I agree with that principle of course.

It seems every air arm in the world seeks that balance from the USAF to the BAF. (Especially in light of expensive 5th gen options)

That being said, how many fighters is the BAF seeking to field?

Right now there are 2 F-7BG and BGI squadrons at about 15 and 16 aircraft apiece.

And the half strength Fulcrum squadron with 8.

Then an unknown number, probably around 10 or so legacy F-7MB.

Then 13 Yak-130, which I hesitate to call combatants. (At least in the supersonic multi role sense) so I will exclude those in the count.

So about 50 total aircraft comprising 3.5 squadrons or really 4 I suppose?

How many total new planes is the BAF seeking to acquire?

I will leave the question of force strength and strategy to people far more intelligent than myself. But we need to standardize those two types of operational fighters (not Lead In trainer platforms) and at least produce the simpler/cheaper fighter platform locally with ToT, like Pakistan is doing. For the higher grade platform, we need to have fully independent capability to stock/overhaul/supply critical spare parts, both engine and air frame-wise.

 

[TopCat]

PESA radar is a newer and more inexpensive version of AESA radar as far as I know. AESA uses Active Electronic Scanning using an array, and I believe PESA uses Passive Electronic Scanning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_electronically_scanned_array



And you'd be right.

Did you notice the rivet holes in them? Murir tin has better craftsmanship than this. I guess the aircraft body is made of aluminium. No wonder its 7 million a piece.

 

[Species]

This is not a correct charecterisation of events. The Soviets used to respect BB a lot. Relations were such that when BB visited Russia in 1972, he got them to supply a squadron of brand new MiG-21s for free. It is only natural that the Soviets would choose not to empower a military, that grabbed power by assassinating the man they admired, by supplying military spares.

When BNP returned to power in 2001, they deliberately violated agreements with Russia by refusing to pay for the 8 Fulcrums supplied and cancelling the order for another 8. Russia then took us to court to retrieve due payment. This was all purely due to the saltiness of the 8th grade educated woman in charge.

BNP chose to retire the MiG-29s and Ulsan frigate, the lone missile frigate of BN at the time, purely out of jealousy and in complete disregard for national security. There were no attempts to buy any spares back then. Labelling Russia as the unreliable party in this context is deeply ironic.

Do not get me wrong: Russian manufacturers do have reliability issues but in the grand scheme of things Russia is among the more reliable military suppliers in the world for us as they usually supply if you pay them right and do not attach political strings like the West does.

Well, you have explained the political causes of the issue which might be true but that's not really the point here. What I'm saying is, end of the day, BAF had to struggle because of the erratic supply (for whatever the reasons are), that's enough to justify going indigenous which I think BAF too is looking forward to. There is every possibility that the same issues could occur again; geopolitics is a tricky business.

And there is no free lunch my friend. Soviets supplied those Mig-21s as BB was pro-Soviet. After the coup in 1975, they correctly predicted that the new government would be pro-West, hence, stopped the supply of those spare parts. Perhaps, the same thing happened with the Mig-29s as well since BNP, to this day, is quite pro-West.

Note that, countries like Poland or Egypt also went through similar changes in their foreign policies and geopolitical pursuits but never had to face the same challenges as BAF. Something wrong with our negotiations and dealings perhaps? Debatable, and a bit off-topic as well.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Did you notice the rivet holes in them? Murir tin has better craftsmanship than this. I guess the aircraft body is made of aluminium. No wonder its 7 million a piece.

The ft2000 (f7 successor) whatever it’s model name may be?

Well, you have explained the political causes of the issue which might be true but that's not really the point here. What I'm saying is, end of the day, BAF had to struggle because of the erratic supply (for whatever the reasons are), that's enough to justify going indigenous which I think BAF too is looking forward to. There is every possibility that the same issues could occur again; geopolitics is a tricky business.

And there is no free lunch my friend. Soviets supplied those Mig-21s as BB was pro-Soviet. After the coup in 1975, they correctly predicted that the new government would be pro-West, hence, stopped the supply of those spare parts. Perhaps, the same thing happened with the Mig-29s as well since BNP, to this day, is quite pro-West.

Note that, countries like Poland or Egypt also went through similar changes in their foreign policies and geopolitical pursuits but never had to face the same challenges as BAF. Something wrong with our negotiations and dealings perhaps? Debatable, and a bit off-topic as well.

Forgive me for saying this but Lund pro west. They effectively gave BAF the death sentence, had they tried to purchase f16 with lobbying and sold off the mig29 as justifications, I would have been singing a different song