Gripen for Bangladesh?

[The Ronin]

MIG-35 also has a brand new FBW system which the previous MIG-29 lags. And this is where my concern stands. Mig 35 has not been formally inducted in Russian AF,in fact its still in flight testing. so, IMHO, not enough flight hours has been logged to hint that its FBW system is fully mature. JF-17 afaik,does not have a FBW system. I dont know much about crashes of j-10 due to faulty FBW

It has engine issue. Recently J-10C was spotted with TVC engine, i doubt they will offer that to us with J-10B as they don't export what they use for themselves. But if it comes with Russian engine won't be bad as i already mentioned Chinese engine tech isn't matured yet, a cost effective single engine aircraft with double engine Su-30 is a good combo. Both Mig-35 and J-10 are good options for BAF's MMRCA. Though both have some issue these are still best options for us. Others are exceptional.

 

[bluesky]

Peaople here are praising FC-1/JF-17. But, is this plane any better than F-7BGI BAF has? Why to pay 35million dollar when BAF has F-7s which has almost the same performance? Below is a few excerpts from GlobalSecurity.org on the JF-17:

Sidharth K Menon argues that China " ... probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely. Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight".

Its spine, & wings bearing resemblance(in wing twist & wing area) to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading.... The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft. The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. India's LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. LCA's primary BVR missiles are R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 uses the SD-10, a variant of Chinese PL-12".

Both missile have similar performance - India's R-77 has range of 80 km while Pakistan's SD-10 has a range of 70 km. The range of the missile may matter less than that of the radar, with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first it will o have the advantage to fire first.

The Angle of Attack [AoA] of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 claims 26 degree [the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees]. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. The inferior AoA of Tejas is copsated for by its better TWR. The JF-17 would definitely have an advantage during the first few turns in a dogfight, but if Tejas survived this period, then the would JF-17 face a disadvantage due loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive by having the JF-17 in sight because of smoke trail left by its engine.

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. The JF-17 can climb above the service ceiling of Tejas to avoid a dog-fight. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas".

 

[Centaur]

Peaople here are praising FC-1/JF-17. But, is this plane any better than F-7BGI BAF has? Why to pay 35million dollar when BAF has F-7s which has almost the same performance? Below is a few excerpts from GlobalSecurity.org on the JF-17:

Sidharth K Menon argues that China " ... probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely. Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight".

Its spine, & wings bearing resemblance(in wing twist & wing area) to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading.... The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft. The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. India's LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. LCA's primary BVR missiles are R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 uses the SD-10, a variant of Chinese PL-12".

Both missile have similar performance - India's R-77 has range of 80 km while Pakistan's SD-10 has a range of 70 km. The range of the missile may matter less than that of the radar, with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first it will o have the advantage to fire first.

The Angle of Attack [AoA] of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 claims 26 degree [the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees]. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. The inferior AoA of Tejas is copsated for by its better TWR. The JF-17 would definitely have an advantage during the first few turns in a dogfight, but if Tejas survived this period, then the would JF-17 face a disadvantage due loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive by having the JF-17 in sight because of smoke trail left by its engine.

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. The JF-17 can climb above the service ceiling of Tejas to avoid a dog-fight. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas".

Ok cool no more praising, atleast not from me . Now Gripen or better plane!!

 

[Avicenna]

I believe that the new Gripen E is so potent that even a fleet of 12 can shoot the whole of the 50 or so Mig-29s and JF-17s of Myanmar out of the sky with ease.

The AESA radar on the Gripen E is made by the UK which has radar technology on par with US and the one on the Mig-35 is the poorest - even inferior to the one of the Chinese J-10C fighter. Gripen also comes with Meteor ramjet AAM which is rated to be the best long-range AAM in the world currently.

You are very optimistic.

Peaople here are praising FC-1/JF-17. But, is this plane any better than F-7BGI BAF has? Why to pay 35million dollar when BAF has F-7s which has almost the same performance? Below is a few excerpts from GlobalSecurity.org on the JF-17:

Sidharth K Menon argues that China " ... probably forced Pakistan to accept its avionics to offset some its development costs. Chinese who are known for their self reliance first and quality next, are further downgrading JF-17s capabilities with their poorly copy-pirated avionics. Along with their dubious weapons, any chance of JF-17 maintaining BVR edge over its adversary’s front-line combatants, for the most part, is unlikely. Even in close combat JF-17 lacks what it takes to win the fight".

Its spine, & wings bearing resemblance(in wing twist & wing area) to a fighter which china knows inside out, the J-7, doesn’t have wing twist nor does it have enough area to provide a low wing loading.... The next Achilles heal is JF-17’s speed. For a good interception, speed is an important criteria. However JF-17’s max speed is Mach 1.6 which is claimed by PAC. This indicates that JF-17 is draggier. When compared, their F-7s(Reverse engineered Mig-21s) have higher speed of mach 2+ with a lower thrust engine. The IAF fighters which it is going to face, all have speeds greater than the Thunder.

Both Tejas and JF-17 uses PESA multi-mode radars. The JF-17 uses KLJ-7 radar which has a detection range of 130km for 5m2 size aircraft and 75 km for 3m2 size aircraft (Chinese claim). Generally detection and tracking range is always given for 5m2 size aircraft. The JF-17s official website claims it has a 105 km for 5m2. India's LCA Tejas uses EL/M-2032 radar which has detection and tracking range of 150 km. LCA's primary BVR missiles are R-77 and Derby while the JF-17 uses the SD-10, a variant of Chinese PL-12".

Both missile have similar performance - India's R-77 has range of 80 km while Pakistan's SD-10 has a range of 70 km. The range of the missile may matter less than that of the radar, with Tejas being able to detect the enemy first it will o have the advantage to fire first.

The Angle of Attack [AoA] of Tejas is 24 degrees while JF-17 claims 26 degree [the F-16 has an AoA of 28 degrees]. The TWR (thrust to weight ratio) of Tejas is 1.07 and the JF-17 is 0.95. The inferior AoA of Tejas is copsated for by its better TWR. The JF-17 would definitely have an advantage during the first few turns in a dogfight, but if Tejas survived this period, then the would JF-17 face a disadvantage due loss of speed. Given the fact that the JF-17 has smokey RD-93 engines, there is possibility for Tejas to survive by having the JF-17 in sight because of smoke trail left by its engine.

The service ceiling of the LCA is 15250m while that of the JF-17 16500m. The JF-17 can climb above the service ceiling of Tejas to avoid a dog-fight. But the difference of barely 1250m will not keep the JF-17 safe from the missiles loaded on the LCA Tejas".

This blurb is inaccurate. Regardless, specs on paper are just that. You cant really compare two platforms based on those. There are so many more factors, not released to the public as well as intangibles that go into the equation.

 

[Bilal9]

You are very optimistic.



This blurb is inaccurate. Regardless, specs on paper are just that. You cant really compare two platforms based on those. There are so many more factors, not released to the public as well as intangibles that go into the equation.

Well optimistic he may be (or not), but we need to keep in mind that the 'other' neighbors of Myanmar (Thai AF) use Gripens as well. Don't know how many squadrons by now (they re-ordered a few more I think).

 

[Shahzaz ud din]

I believe that the new Gripen E is so potent that even a fleet of 12 can shoot the whole of the 50 or so Mig-29s and JF-17s of Myanmar out of the sky with ease.

The AESA radar on the Gripen E is made by the UK which has radar technology on par with US and the one on the Mig-35 is the poorest - even inferior to the one of the Chinese J-10C fighter. Gripen also comes with Meteor ramjet AAM which is rated to be the best long-range AAM in the world currently.

Pak JF 17 Thunder Block 3 VS Eurofighter Typhoon

Pak JF 17 Thunder Block 3 VS French Rafale

Pakistan JF-17 Thunder Block 3 VS Hal Tejas

Pakistan JF-17 Thunder Block 3 VS Sukhoi SU-30MKI

PAK JF-17 Thunder Block 3 VS USA F-16

 

[Shahzaz ud din]

Maybe not 50/60 in a single battle but over a period of time. Losses of Gripen to Myanmar's Mig-29s and JF-17 will be miniscule as it so much more advanced in terms of it's technology and also it's network centric warfare which the other two aircraft lack.

JF 17 Thunder: JF-17 Block 3 Most Updated and Confirmed specification of 2017

 

[Centaur]

its fly away cost around $120 million USD

Vai, can you give me an authentic link where I can find the fly away cost/operating costs of few great planes like Rafale , typhoon, f -35 ,f -16 ( and few more) etc etc? Or at least can you write here those costs? Really want to know about it.
Found a link with some planes operating costs ,not sure if it's authentic nor not .

 

[The Ronin]

Vai, can you give me an authentic link where I can find the fly away cost of few great planes like Rafale , typhoon, f -35 ,f -16 ( and few more) etc etc? Or at least can you write here those costs? Really want to know about it.

COST OF FLYING;

F-16 aircraft cost the Air Force Korean, or Egyptian 720 000 per year by dividing the number of flying hours to 200 h becomes a cost of $ 3600 per flight hour is believed that the latest model F-16Block52 + flight hour has Talakafp 4500-5000 dollars.

Mirage 2000 will realize this to some $ 2700 for an hour flight but it is believed that the figure rose for the models of Mirage-2000-5MK2 / 9 and appreciated to $ 5000.

Hour flight Rafale estimated value of $ 14,000 is French and the Brazilians and their clients they are working to reduce the cost per flight hour to no more than 15% of the cost per flight hour for the Mirage 2000.

F-15 flight-hour cost her $ 17000.
The cost of thousands of 22-hour flight with 19 000

Aliorvitr said in marketing them to flight hour with $ 15000, but the data which comes from Austria and Germany show that it ranges between $ 33000 and 73 000 euros, a significant figures illustrate the great escape with the Alliance of manufactured especially with the global financial crisis, which does not allow Bastzaf resources the Air Force even in the countries Europe, which entered the state, including income equivalent to the Arab countries combined.



The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected . The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected. With the price is 73 992 per flight hour , almost twice as high as originally planned With the price is 73 992 per flight hour, almost twice as high as originally planned

Gripen NG model will not exceed $ 3000, making it the cheaper the cost of aircraft so far.

MiG-29 flying hour is estimated to have $ 5500

Sukhois 27/30 cost per flight hour with $ 7000, but believed that he had up to 14000 dollars for the latest Trzac of Sukhois 30-35

Chinese aircraft to extend data on the cost per flight hour does not publish on the Internet, but aircraft and single engine F-C-1 and Jian-10 is estimated it will be in levels of thousands of 16 for it and a single-engine general aircraft bombed the Chinese old short thousands of MIC-1 is equal to 4000 flight hours

Source: PDF Moderator Manticore.

 

[Centaur]

COST OF FLYING;

F-16 aircraft cost the Air Force Korean, or Egyptian 720 000 per year by dividing the number of flying hours to 200 h becomes a cost of $ 3600 per flight hour is believed that the latest model F-16Block52 + flight hour has Talakafp 4500-5000 dollars.

Mirage 2000 will realize this to some $ 2700 for an hour flight but it is believed that the figure rose for the models of Mirage-2000-5MK2 / 9 and appreciated to $ 5000.

Hour flight Rafale estimated value of $ 14,000 is French and the Brazilians and their clients they are working to reduce the cost per flight hour to no more than 15% of the cost per flight hour for the Mirage 2000.

F-15 flight-hour cost her $ 17000.
The cost of thousands of 22-hour flight with 19 000

Aliorvitr said in marketing them to flight hour with $ 15000, but the data which comes from Austria and Germany show that it ranges between $ 33000 and 73 000 euros, a significant figures illustrate the great escape with the Alliance of manufactured especially with the global financial crisis, which does not allow Bastzaf resources the Air Force even in the countries Europe, which entered the state, including income equivalent to the Arab countries combined.



The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected . The operating costs for the Eurofighter are significantly higher than expected. With the price is 73 992 per flight hour , almost twice as high as originally planned With the price is 73 992 per flight hour, almost twice as high as originally planned

Gripen NG model will not exceed $ 3000, making it the cheaper the cost of aircraft so far.

MiG-29 flying hour is estimated to have $ 5500

Sukhois 27/30 cost per flight hour with $ 7000, but believed that he had up to 14000 dollars for the latest Trzac of Sukhois 30-35

Chinese aircraft to extend data on the cost per flight hour does not publish on the Internet, but aircraft and single engine F-C-1 and Jian-10 is estimated it will be in levels of thousands of 16 for it and a single-engine general aircraft bombed the Chinese old short thousands of MIC-1 is equal to 4000 flight hours

Source: PDF Moderator Manticore.

Thank you , but I think that f 16 cost is old cost ! What's the current cost ! I saw this thread but a bit confused too as some cost are too low compared to others !
And also I actually wanted the total operating costs of developed versions too.

As this link suggests

 

[mb444]

Personally I would like BAF to expand its horizon and opt for western option.

Whilst these would come with political strings I think following the rohingya debacle our strategic calculation must change.

In times of need BD has no friends. We require two primary platforms and must play the odds. Our interceptors should probably be Chinese of the J10 varieties. We need these in numbers and our interest align. In the long run we need to produce these ourselves.

For deep strike capabilities I think we need a western platform. We need only a few of these and can cope with the political strings.

Coming back to Gripen even though it is single engine, it has a very efficient power plant. With right weapons mix I think it can serve in this role. Point is I would like us to dump Russian jets once and for all. Our mix should be few of the very best jets money can buy, lots of bog standard cheap (in context) interceptors complemented by a comprehensive defensive missile shield and a stockpile of offensive missile.

In the long run we need indigenous capability. We need to join the Turkish jet project lock stock and barrel and acquire TOT for chinese missile systems. .

 

[UKBengali]

Personally I would like BAF to expand its horizon and opt for western option.

Whilst these would come with political strings I think following the rohingya debacle our strategic calculation must change.

In times of need BD has no friends. We require two primary platforms and must play the odds. Our interceptors should probably be Chinese of the J10 varieties. We need these in numbers and our interest align. In the long run we need to produce these ourselves.

For deep strike capabilities I think we need a western platform. We need only a few of these and can cope with the political strings.

Coming back to Gripen even though it is single engine, it has a very efficient power plant. With right weapons mix I think it can serve in this role. Point is I would like us to dump Russian jets once and for all. Our mix should be few of the very best jets money can buy, lots of bog standard cheap (in context) interceptors complemented by a comprehensive defensive missile shield and a stockpile of offensive missile.

In the long run we need indigenous capability. We need to join the Turkish jet project lock stock and barrel and acquire TOT for chinese missile systems. .

The Russians have one jet that BD cannot get anywhere else and that is the SU-30SME.
BD needs these planes as they carry a massive payload and have a very long range.
This plane would be very useful to provide air-cover to the BD Navy deep out in the Bay of Bengal.

 

[bluesky]

A single unit of Saab Gripen will cost more than 40 million USD. It is still cheaper than Rafael. But, how a poor BD can afford to pay this much of money? 50 units will cost $2 billion. So, I am wondering about the prospect of purchase.

 

[UKBengali]

A single unit of Saab Gripen will cost more than 40 million USD. It is still cheaper than Rafael. But, how a poor BD can afford to pay this much of money? 50 units will cost $2 billion. So, I am wondering about the prospect of purchase.

Gripen E would be the version that BD would be interested in.
That would come to 65-70 million dollars each.
BD is unlikely to order more than a single squadron at a time.
Say it orders 16, that would be 1 billion US dollars. It can pay
for them over 5 years I would say. Remember BD defence budget is growing
7% a year in real terms and so these weapons will become cheaper
over time.

 

[Flynn Swagmire]

Personally I would like BAF to expand its horizon and opt for western option.

Whilst these would come with political strings

What political strings? We like the western way and we are too much dependent on western countries. We must have close relation with the west anyway...