Bangladesh Air Force

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

Yak to replace A-5 and L-39 and K-8 for J-6

yea, doesn't that mean that the Yaks are not just for training?
quite obviously they're for 21st and 25th Squadrons....

and most probably the K-8s will go to 15 Squadron, which used to operate the T-37s.....

 

[BDforever]

yea, doesn't that mean that the Yaks are not just for training?
quite obviously they're for 21st and 25th Squadrons....

and most probably the K-8s will go to 15 Squadron, which used to operate the T-37s.....

16 Yak-152 for T-37

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

16 Yak-152 for T-37

you mean.... to replace the PT-6.....

 

[BDforever]

you mean.... to replace the PT-6.....

oh yea , sorry most likey CJ-7 is coming

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

oh yea , sorry

but that deal isn't official as yet as far as I know..... do you have a lead on that?
so far, only 24 Yak-130, 5 Mi-171Sh, 9 jet trainer (K-8), 2 maritime SAR helos and 3 transport trainers are official..... the PM uttered those herself....

 

[Bilal9]

I think we have to rule out air-launched or torpedo tube launched maritime strike for BAF or BN using C-802's or improved variants - specifically Chinese copies of Russian export Novator Alpha (3M54E KLUB/ NATO designation SS-N-27B) which is most appropriate for this role. The most improved YJ-8 model (C-802 export variant) is what Pentagon confirms as the Chinese designation CH-SS-NX-13, see here and here). Only Ming 035B is capable of launching latest YJ-8 variant as noted above, and not Ming 035G which Bangladesh is getting. Someone made sure of this. Of course Yuan, Song, late Ming classes are all capable of this, but not early Ming classes which Bangladesh is getting.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

I think we have to rule out air-launched or torpedo tube launched maritime strike for BAF or BN using C-802's or improved variants - specifically Chinese copies of Russian export Novator Alpha (3M54E KLUB/ NATO designation SS-N-27B) which is most appropriate for this role. The most improved YJ-8 model (C-802 export variant) is what Pentagon confirms as the Chinese designation CH-SS-NX-13, see here and here). Only Ming 035B is capable of launching latest YJ-8 variant as noted above, and not Ming 035G which Bangladesh is getting. Someone made sure of this. Of course Yuan, Song, late Ming classes are all capable of this, but not early Ming classes which Bangladesh is getting.

umm..... the question is, can we guarantee what we are getting?...... thing of subs are usually not visible outside.... pictures won't tell anything..... unless those are specifically mentioned, we'll never know what we got.... usually some submarine specifics are not made public.... we still don't know how much modifications the subs may go through.... its all speculation.... my belief is that even if we get to know some stuff, none would officially confirm those....

oh.... this is Air Force thread.....

 

[Bilal9]

umm..... the question is, can we guarantee what we are getting?...... thing of subs are usually not visible outside.... pictures won't tell anything..... unless those are specifically mentioned, we'll never know what we got.... usually some submarine specifics are not made public.... we still don't know how much modifications the subs may go through.... its all speculation.... my belief is that even if we get to know some stuff, none would officially confirm those....

oh.... this is Air Force thread.....

Thanks for bringing me back on topic. I was hallucinating and drifting off a bit due to lack of sleep...

The first link I posted in my last post is an excellent (I repeat excellent IMHO) discussion on the latest variations (both air-launched and torpedo-tube launched) of YJ-82 (C-802A) AShM. It details (among other things), why the latest AShM from China (air-launched variant) is no longer comparable to Exocet and more comparable to latest versions of the Russian KLUB AShM (which in turn is a copy of Harpoon II). Meaning it is no longer Subsonic and is at least Supersonic in the last (terminal) stage so as to foil counter-offensive measures from the target. Chinese bloggers and others were calling it C-803 since 2005 but the Chinese designation is something different.

Unlike the BrahMos which is Supersonic all the way - this latest Chinese missile being subsonic in the launch and cruise stages affords jet fuel efficiency, increases range (reportedly around the same as BrahMos which is always under 300 KM because of MTCR compliance) and keeps fuel weight down. Which means you can pack more explosives and anti-radiation measures (Magnetic Pulse shock). This is the reason western analysts are calling the new Chinese missile an 'AEGIS-killer'.

So IMHO this would be the replacement for the C-802 and the one to get for maritime strike use. I think JL-9 could launch this (only from a central hardpoint) but I'm sure not L-15 and definitely not JL-8 (whose export designation is K-8 Karakorum) and is a very lightweight platform. As I mentioned - Pakistani JF-17's came with this C-802 AShM family maritime strike mission capability designed-in from the outset. For any Bangladeshi Air Force missile launch platform, it has to be a retrofit and tacked-on scenario (Ghorar agey Gari attach korar moto situation).

Amader BAF mission planners derkey ami boka dhorina kintu ami shotti obak hobo jodi eta ora agey chinta korey air-launch platform select korey thakey.

 

[Bilal9]

oh yea , sorry most likey CJ-7 is coming

Is this the tricycle version of the Yak 152 as shown here?

This is light years better as a training platform than the CJ-6. Yak 152 is one of the best aerobatic airplanes currently available...

Of course it is not as well suited for COIN roles as Super Tucano or the Korean KAI KT-1 Woongbi but oh well.

 

[BDforever]

Is this the tricycle version of the Yak 152 as shown here?

This is light years better as a training platform than the CJ-6. Yak 152 is one of the best aerobatic airplanes currently available...

CJ-7 is developed based on Yak-152

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

Amader BAF mission planners derkey ami boka dhorina kintu ami shotti obak hobo jodi eta ora agey chinta korey air-launch platform select korey thakey.

well, lets see..... I mentioned my opinion based on assumed primary strategic concerns.... getting more AShMs operational seems like one of the priorities.... diversified platforms of delivery for AShMs may be preferred.... these are my speculations only.....

 

[Bilal9]

well, lets see..... I mentioned my opinion based on assumed primary strategic concerns.... getting more AShMs operational seems like one of the priorities.... diversified platforms of delivery for AShMs may be preferred.... these are my speculations only.....

Mine too if one follows basic logic but then is there any large-scale strategic defense think tank in Bangladesh who have a 20-50 or 100,000 foot global view? More importantly - does the govt. and the military actually listen or heed their concerns? Ideally IMHO all possible threats and mission scenarios would be thought of, then deterrents and compensating controls/measures/weapons would be researched and and then optimal yearly equipment planning to support long-term doctrine would be obtained. To date that trend remains to be seen in BAF. Look at the standardization of trainers in BAF for example. For Basic, Intermediate and Advanced training we are using a hodge-podge (tokai) collection of T-37's, Fougas, CJ-6's, L-39's, FT-7's etc. So would it be inaccurate to say that standardization or mission based planning does not exist? Of course this is all playing armchair Air-Vice-Marshall but the first step in solving any problem is acknowledging it exists.

 

[Ideas_R_Bulletproof]

Mine too if one follows basic logic but then is there any large-scale strategic defense think tank in Bangladesh who have a 20-50 or 100,000 foot global view? More importantly - does the govt. and the military actually listen or heed their concerns? Ideally IMHO all possible threats and mission scenarios would be thought of, then deterrents and compensating controls/measures/weapons would be researched and and then optimal yearly equipment planning to support long-term doctrine would be obtained. To date that trend remains to be seen in BAF. Look at the standardization of trainers in BAF for example. For Basic, Intermediate and Advanced training we are using a hodge-podge (tokai) collection of T-37's, Fougas, CJ-6's, L-39's, FT-7's etc. So would it be inaccurate to say that standardization or mission based planning does not exist? Of course this is all playing armchair Air-Vice-Marshall but the first step in solving any problem is acknowledging it exists.

ha ha.... yea, we're all frustrated thinking about an apparent lack of many things..... but I won't conclude on anything rightaway.... and neither can I share the reasons why I won't conclude..... I would only put a full-stop by saying that I'm always optimistic.... we have a lotta potential, and I don't think most people would like to waste it....

 

[BDforever]

ha ha.... yea, we're all frustrated thinking about an apparent lack of many things..... but I won't conclude on anything rightaway.... and neither can I share the reasons why I won't conclude..... I would only put a full-stop by saying that I'm always optimistic.... we have a lotta potential, and I don't think most people would like to waste it....

Mine too if one follows basic logic but then is there any large-scale strategic defense think tank in Bangladesh who have a 20-50 or 100,000 foot global view? More importantly - does the govt. and the military actually listen or heed their concerns? Ideally IMHO all possible threats and mission scenarios would be thought of, then deterrents and compensating controls/measures/weapons would be researched and and then optimal yearly equipment planning to support long-term doctrine would be obtained. To date that trend remains to be seen in BAF. Look at the standardization of trainers in BAF for example. For Basic, Intermediate and Advanced training we are using a hodge-podge (tokai) collection of T-37's, Fougas, CJ-6's, L-39's, FT-7's etc. So would it be inaccurate to say that standardization or mission based planning does not exist? Of course this is all playing armchair Air-Vice-Marshall but the first step in solving any problem is acknowledging it exists.

we had heavy loss in 1991 cyclone. around 60 aircrafts we lost (40 of them fighter aircrafts), since then we did not recover

 

[Bilal9]

we had heavy loss in 1991 cyclone. around 60 aircrafts we lost (40 of them fighter aircrafts), since then we did not recover

I think a majority of these were ex-Pakistani F-6 which would have been a large maintenance headache in any case - notwithstanding the generosity of the Pakistanis. In the ultimate analysis training with up-to-date technology is better than losing valuable pilots to obsolete equipment. Look at India with its Mig-21MF/S and other upgraded variants. Even after the glass cockpit upgrades, some of these are falling out of the sky with tragic consequences. There is such a thing called MTBF (mean time between failure) which can wreak havoc with Titanium engine turbine blades or pneumatics / hydraulics or electronics. There is only so much life expectancy you can expect out of fighters, much less Chinese or Russian ones.