@Loki @TopCat @bd_4_ever my prediction is Mig35 for AF, because BAF already has Mig experience+ less operational cost than Mig 29 but more advanced+ less fly away cost than su series.
But Navy will get Su series
The MiG-35 is what is akin the American F-18 Super Hornet. The Russians have been way too slow in developing the MiG-35. Albeit purposefully I'd wager. The Americans on the other hand deployed the SH way back in the late 1990's. Why such a huge gap? Are the Americans more efficient than their Russian counterparts? Not necessarily.
It's all about a military's requirements. The Russians had to rely on machines that are powerful, can move vast distances, and do so reliably under harsh conditions. This is in part their doctrine. Hence, their preference for the Flanker models. The MiG had never been to big among them.
I would say there were commitment issues with MiG. I have also heard that MiG has quality issues. Recently, much of their orders come from abroad - Namely India.
Now let's ask ourselves. Considering the state of matters right now, would it be rational to buy a new platform like the MiG-35? Would there be quality issues? Can Bangladesh as the first customer for that plane afford the risk?
Excellent posts Loki Bhai.
I'd say though that the following are what I thought were the Bangladesh Defense Doctrine for air force (for
both holding and
strike forces).
- Exhaust all other avenues (diplomatic etc.) in parallel with activating defensive measures (holding forces).
- Utilization of passive defense measures like radar and satellite warning systems along with active defense (holding forces).
- Place active point air defense (missile defense and air superiority holding forces) to protect major infra assets
- As a last resort - use of limited offensive measures (strike forces) but only to protect our vital interests, to neutralize enemy - only to the extent strictly necessary and only after struck by enemy.
I know that these are very high level principles however
holding and strike force choices for ground attack and air superiority fighters need to be well thought out in a combat scenario. You are welcome to share your musings.
I don't know about doctrine. A military's doctrine is a highly secretive matter which is why I didn't talk much about it. I know for a fact that that Soviets didn't let anyone know their doctrine to any of its arms customers. And rightly so. Who'd want someone else to know it? But they are very different from let's say the British one.
Who knows? Maybe we can ask 'Prince Moosa' to bug the supply lines of the enemy and blow them up in the middle of a fight or something
Now that would be ugly.
I think you should cancel out BAF's experience with Mig-29. This has been nothing but nightmarish.
Nightmarish due to their negligence. They used cheap parts from Central Asian countries instead of original parts from Russia. It was so bad that there were rumors of cannibalization. I'm sure you'd know better if there hadn't been so much intellectual dishonesty coming from you.
Of-course, Khaleda Zia (who never even read intelligence reports) wanted to sell them to prove SHW wrong and that she was part of the corruption scandal involving those MiGs. And that was just about it. This form of idiocity needs to stop. There needs to be change.
But, was it a worthy experience? I would say yes.
Of course it is an Islamic state. Which ranks ahead of us in the fragile states index.
An Islamic state that allows women to be heads of state? It is generally discouraged in Islam.
But the fact remains that despite being a fantastic administrator, your leader allowed thousands of your own people die for his beliefs. Now that makes him a wildcard.
Or is your constitution such an useless document ?
