Bangladesh defence budget and your expecations

[Alim]

19 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

I don't understand why people are so eger to give fighter jets to navy. It is one thing to run some choppers and trasnport aircraft but running fighter jet is another ball game. Heck, few years back our AF didnot have enough pilots to run 4++ generation aircraft and they want to give fighters to the naval aviation which is not even 10 years old.

It is because BN are forward-thinking and quick on their feet in terms of decision-making.

Giving them maritime strike aircraft would allow them to readily protect their rapidly expanding fleet without being held hostage by BAF's indecision and inefficiency.

 

[Dark Carnage]

10 minutes ago, Alim said:

It is because BN are forward-thinking and quick on their feet in terms of decision-making.

Giving them maritime strike aircraft would allow them to readily protect their rapidly expanding fleet without being held hostage by BAF's indecision and inefficiency.

 

Navy would never get better aircraft or get any aircraft faster than AF. See the example of attack helicopter between AF and army. And I still think navy is not ready to operate any fighter aircraft.

[Zoro96]

38 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

I don't understand why people are so eger to give fighter jets to navy. It is one thing to run some choppers and trasnport aircraft but running fighter jet is another ball game. Heck, few years back our AF didnot have enough pilots to run 4++ generation aircraft and they want to give fighters to the naval aviation which is not even 10 years old.

Because overwhelming majority of our foreign trade and communications is through the sea. If BN needs six to eight dedicated MRCA type medium weight aircraft with deep strike capability over the BoB, to prevent any potential blockade from taking place, and keep our sea lanes open for trade, well I say let the BN have their own dedicated maritime strike arm.

 

37 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

Hey, we are talking about next years budget, not next 10 or 15 years budget.

I have listed items for the next budget, and as large ticket items procurement budget is mostly separate from the officially disclosed (as it's based on suppliers credit/foreign loans), most of those are doable.

As for the items you think would require 10 to 15 years, well I would like those to be on a much more condensed timetable. 2 to 4 years, maybe 5 tops. It's doable, if we go on a war footing to arm ourselves and keeping an eye on Arakan. Arakan needs to be resolved ASAP and in our favor, which means it either needs to be completely annexed or under our indirect control and the Bummers sent packing across the Arakan Yoma and Chin Hills.

We cannot have an Arakan Damocles sword hanging over our head every time the uncivilized idiots have an anti-Muslim, anti-Bangalee itch in their rear end. This has been going on for almost seventy years now, and every single time it has happened has had negative effects on our security, as it destabilizes our frontiers next to Arakan, and on our national and economic development too. And the biggest problem of us not responding to the Arakan problem in a more forceful manner? The other uncivilized idiots the West of us thinks now they too can also carry out another ethno-religious genocide and drive out their unwanted population towards our border, albeit, with a little more paperwork (a.k.a CAA/NRC).

 

5 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

Navy would never get better aircraft or get any aircraft faster than AF. See the example of attack helicopter between AF and army. And I still think navy is not ready to operate any fighter aircraft.

 

BAF shouldn't operate any attack helis, period. All attack helis should be given to BA, as these types are mostly for anti-armor and ground troop support. BAF can have fixed wing aircraft, including ground attack and transport types.

[Alim]

15 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

Navy would never get better aircraft or get any aircraft faster than AF. See the example of attack helicopter between AF and army. And I still think navy is not ready to operate any fighter aircraft.

It is not about better or worse; purpose matters. Apaches are not purpose built for naval ops. They will rust quickly if operated over seas.

As for the navy not being ready for fighters: it is about being allowed the opportunity. If the government gives the go-ahead, they will run with it. They will  bolt through primary and jet training for initial batches. They will send pilots overseas for jet training if necessary if BAF try to create impediments with their bureaucracy.

BA have already procured their own primary trainers as they do not want to remain handicapped.

[Darth Nihilus]

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Hey, we are talking about next years budget, not next 10 or 15 years budget.

From the looks of it, since the President has already made the announcement for the hardware, either the money has been secured for it or it has already been signed and the money for it has already been locked away. Sure, wording is a touchy subject here as no one has definitively said anything about it being concluded so you can imagine that the money has already been allocated for it worst case scenario. As our fiscal year starts from June and the announcement has been made before June, you can rest assured the money is from the previous budget for the AF (not the one officially declared last year don't get me wrong). As for the defense budget, won't increase significantly as we have a lot of development projects in the pipeline and majority money would be going towards there. Don't worry about anything else as Bangladesh seems to be in the right track with the way she is handling her business given the circumstances.

[Dark Carnage]

8 hours ago, Zoro96 said:

I have listed items for the next budget, and as large ticket items procurement budget is mostly separate from the officially disclosed (as it's based on suppliers credit/foreign loans), most of those are doable.

As for the items you think would require 10 to 15 years, well I would like those to be on a much more condensed timetable. 2 to 4 years, maybe 5 tops. It's doable, if we go on a war footing to arm ourselves and keeping an eye on Arakan. Arakan needs to be resolved ASAP and in our favor, which means it either needs to be completely annexed or under our indirect control and the Bummers sent packing across the Arakan Yoma and Chin Hills.

We cannot have an Arakan Damocles sword hanging over our head every time the uncivilized idiots have an anti-Muslim, anti-Bangalee itch in their rear end. This has been going on for almost seventy years now, and every single time it has happened has had negative effects on our security, as it destabilizes our frontiers next to Arakan, and on our national and economic development too. And the biggest problem of us not responding to the Arakan problem in a more forceful manner? The other uncivilized idiots the West of us thinks now they too can also carry out another ethno-religious genocide and drive out their unwanted population towards our border, albeit, with a little more paperwork (a.k.a CAA/NRC).

 

5 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

From the looks of it, since the President has already made the announcement for the hardware, either the money has been secured for it or it has already been signed and the money for it has already been locked away. Sure, wording is a touchy subject here as no one has definitively said anything about it being concluded so you can imagine that the money has already been allocated for it worst case scenario. As our fiscal year starts from June and the announcement has been made before June, you can rest assured the money is from the previous budget for the AF (not the one officially declared last year don't get me wrong). As for the defense budget, won't increase significantly as we have a lot of development projects in the pipeline and majority money would be going towards there. Don't worry about anything else as Bangladesh seems to be in the right track with the way she is handling her business given the circumstances.

So you guys think 32+ EFT, 2-4 subs, LR GMLRS, ToT for SRBM & LACM all possible in next years budget? You should consider the current scenario of government funds. Revenue collection has taken a major heat this year and also the foreign donors are slowing the fund release creating a high pressure on govt fund and as a result shrinking the govt expenditure. This must have an impact in next years budget.

[Dark Carnage]

8 hours ago, Zoro96 said:

Because overwhelming majority of our foreign trade and communications is through the sea. If BN needs six to eight dedicated MRCA type medium weight aircraft with deep strike capability over the BoB, to prevent any potential blockade from taking place, and keep our sea lanes open for trade, well I say let the BN have their own dedicated maritime strike arm.

What's wrong with AF having them?

 

8 hours ago, Alim said:

It is not about better or worse; purpose matters. Apaches are not purpose built for naval ops. They will rust quickly if operated over seas.

As for the navy not being ready for fighters: it is about being allowed the opportunity. If the government gives the go-ahead, they will run with it. They will  bolt through primary and jet training for initial batches. They will send pilots overseas for jet training if necessary if BAF try to create impediments with their bureaucracy.

BA have already procured their own primary trainers as they do not want to remain handicapped.

I am not talking about giving Apaches to navy. The thing I wanted to say is AF will get priority to buy aircraft over any other force. And don't think any other force will do better than AF in maintaining aircraft. You can see the blunder army made when they bought Eurocopters. Also see the ASW helicopter tender by navy. It was designed in a way that only AW-159 could meet the requirements allowing them to ask higher price. Also how many aircraft navy bought all these years? The Dornier and AW-109 purchase was also managed by AF officials. So, may be buying and maintaining aircraft is not as easy as you are saying?

And BA have primary trainers since long in the form of Cessna-152.

8 hours ago, Zoro96 said:

BAF shouldn't operate any attack helis, period. All attack helis should be given to BA, as these types are mostly for anti-armor and ground troop support. BAF can have fixed wing aircraft, including ground attack and transport types.

Most of the air force in the world operates attack helis. So, it is nothing new.

[Zoro96]

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

 

So you guys think 32+ EFT, 2-4 subs, LR GMLRS, ToT for SRBM & LACM all possible in next years budget? You should consider the current scenario of government funds. Revenue collection has taken a major heat this year and also the foreign donors are slowing the fund release creating a high pressure on govt fund and as a result shrinking the govt expenditure. This must have an impact in next years budget.

WTF! I have clearly stated in my previous post that most of those, if not all, is achievable within 4-5 years. If proper planning is done and that plan is systematically and efficiently implemented, it's achievable. So let me jog your memory a little on what I said before:

13 hours ago, Zoro96 said:

As for the items you think would require 10 to 15 years, well I would like those to be on a much more condensed timetable. 2 to 4 years, maybe 5 tops. It's doable, if we go on a war footing to arm ourselves....

 

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

What's wrong with AF having them?

Are you for real? What's wrong you ask? Why not let BAF have ships, subs or tanks too while we're at it? If you can't see why giving more tasks to an incompetent force is a problem (who by the way can't even do the only damn thing they've been tasked with, which is to defend our airspace), well then, I can't really help you.

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

I am not talking about giving Apaches to navy. The thing I wanted to say is AF will get priority to buy aircraft over any other force.

Which is why adding just 4 EFT's for the BN (or 8 the following year instead of the additional 4 the first year), when getting 16 for BAF is doable. So, let's try this out; two options for purchasing the number we require, lets say within the next 4-5 years.

• Option 1

1. st year = 16 for BAF + 4 for BN
2. nd year = 4 for BN
3. rd year = 8 for BAF
4. th year = 8 more for BAF

• Option 2

1. st year = 16 for BAF
2. nd year = 8 for BN
3. rd year = 8 for BAF
4. th year = 8 more for BAF

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

And don't think any other force will do better than AF in maintaining aircraft.

Maintenance work can be done at the same facility for all the aircraft to reduce cost. So whether the EFT's belong to BAF or BN, all will be repaired/MLU'd at the same location (which I hope will be setup in BD).

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

You can see the blunder army made when they bought Eurocopters. Also see the ASW helicopter tender by navy. It was designed in a way that only AW-159 could meet the requirements allowing them to ask higher price.

So are you willingly ignoring BAF's MRCA 'blunder'? Incompetence (this will require a separate thread and very long posts to explain how our armed forces have ended up so incompetent, so excuse me if I don't go into it here) and corruption is not just limited or endemic to our government (yes, all the way to the top of the civilian leadership) or general society, but extends it's tendrils right into the armed forces too.

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Also how many aircraft navy bought all these years?

And just how many combat aircraft has BAF bought in the past decade? It's a big fat '0'; and now you know why I have chosen 'Zero' as my handle!

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

So, may be buying and maintaining aircraft is not as easy as you are saying?

No one is saying that. Also this is why it's the AF choosing the aircraft, and only a small number (say an additional 8 air-frames) of the same model aircraft being specifically fitted for the BN to own and operate directly.

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

And BA have primary trainers since long in the form of Cessna-152.

Once again incompetence rears it's ugly head. If having pilots with very good flying skills in every branch of the armed forces is to be achieved, proper planning would look like this: same model for all basic, intermediate jet and advanced jet trainers. A large enough training facility to train potential pilots for all three branches, which would also include lots of simulators (so trainees can get a lot of hours in) and even facilities to train future drone pilots. After this pilots from BA/BAF/BN can have further training in their respective branches for specialized missions (if any).

Commonality in platforms (spares and maintenance) and training facilities is how you save money, not to mention making sure all future pilots achieve very similar level of flying skill.

6 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Most of the air force in the world operates attack helis. So, it is nothing new.

Yeah sure, most of the incompetent ones! But the more successful and professionally competent ones usually don't saddle their AF with flying off of an aircraft carrier's deck or flying rotary wing attack helis on missions of anti-armor/ground troops in support of ground operations.

[Salted Cola]

As sad as it is the truth must be told; BAF is indeed incompetent. They are looking to fly attack helicopters when they can't ensure our airspace remains defended which is their primary task. 

BA & BN should look to operate their own air wings to some extent, as BAF already has too much on their plate or atleast that's what it seems like looking at the way they're going about their duties.

 

[TigerShark]

17 minutes ago, Salted Cola said:

As sad as it is the truth must be told; BAF is indeed incompetent. They are looking to fly attack helicopters when they can't ensure our airspace remains defended which is their primary task. 

BA & BN should look to operate their own air wings to some extent, as BAF already has too much on their plate or atleast that's what it seems like looking at the way they're going about their duties.

 

What makes you fit to judge an entire force? Attack helicopers have their place, so does MRCA. BAF is buying 56 aircraft this fiscal. An org of its size needs time to absorb the equipment because infratructure, personnel, POLs, munitions, support elements all have to be put in place. There are very few 'poor countries' buying so many new aircraft like Bangladesh does. I say this knowing Bangladesh is a LDC, buying Apache attack helicopters. Its unheard of!

[Zoro96]

12 minutes ago, Salted Cola said:

As sad as it is the truth must be told; BAF is indeed incompetent. They are looking to fly attack helicopters when they can't ensure our airspace remains defended which is their primary task. 

Do you know what's even funnier? While they fail miserably at their primary, and single most important, task, they're looking to start a squadron for aerial acrobatics! They want to 'ooo' and 'uhh' us by releasing colorful smoke contrails at Independence/Victory Day parades; while in reality we'll all be 'ooo'ing and 'uhh'ing and seeing blood red, in a real life conflict when either our Eastern/Western enemy decide to drop ordinance directly on our heads.

 

13 minutes ago, Salted Cola said:

BA & BN should look to operate their own air wings to some extent, as BAF already has too much on their plate or atleast that's what it seems like looking at the way they're going about their duties.

BN probably do need some manned aircraft for deep strike missions over BoB, but I'd like both branches to draw up plans for unmanned armed drones to do most of the work they need done. So for BA close air support (CAS) and for BN anti-surface/ship (ASuW/AShW) roles.

[Dark Carnage]

26 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

WTF! I have clearly stated in my previous post that most of those, if not all, is achievable within 4-5 years. If proper planning is done and that plan is systematically and efficiently implemented, it's achievable. So let me jog your memory a little on what I said before:

It seems I misunderstood. Sorry if I hurt you.

29 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

Are you for real? What's wrong you ask? Why not let BAF have ships, subs or tanks too while we're at it?

Like ships or subs, aircraft is not navy's domain. So, this argument is invalid.

30 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

Maintenance work can be done at the same facility for all the aircraft to reduce cost. So whether the EFT's belong to BAF or BN, all will be repaired/MLU'd at the same location (which I hope will be setup in BD).

By maintain, I meant operate.

 

31 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

If you can't see why giving more tasks to an incompetent force is a problem (who by the way can't even do the only damn thing they've been tasked with, which is to defend our airspace), well then, I can't really help you.

 

32 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

So are you willingly ignoring BAF's MRCA 'blunder'? Incompetence (this will require a separate thread and very long posts to explain how our armed forces have ended up so incompetent, so excuse me if I don't go into it here) and corruption is not just limited or endemic to our government (yes, all the way to the top of the civilian leadership) or general society, but extends it's tendrils right into the armed forces too.

 

32 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

Once again incompetence rears it's ugly head. If having pilots with very good flying skills in every branch of the armed forces is to be achieved, proper planning would look like this: same model for all basic, intermediate jet and advanced jet trainers. A large enough training facility to train potential pilots for all three branches, which would also include lots of simulators (so trainees can get a lot of hours in) and even facilities to train future drone pilots. After this pilots from BA/BAF/BN can have further training in their respective branches for specialized missions (if any).

Commonality in platforms (spares and maintenance) and training facilities is how you save money, not to mention making sure all future pilots achieve very similar level of flying skill.

Incompetence is there in every force. Calling only BAF doesnot help the cause. Army always had influence over the govt which helps them to get what they want. Navy is getting special priority from the government due  to the blue economy and 2008 skirmish. But AF was always left behind. They even suffered more during the time of military rulers. During 2013-14 they tried to get 8 Su-27/Mig-29SMT using US$ 1b credit from Russia but army got involved resulting BAF to get only YAk-130 due to fund shortage. By 2017, BAF was all in for Su-30 and released that infamous tender. If Rohinga problem did not occur, they would have at least 12 Su-30 by now. But that incident changed everything and AF again fall behind as there was a policy shift and they had to re-evaluate and re-negotiate.  I am not saying BAF has no blame in the process but they are not the only one to blame.

33 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

Yeah sure, most of the incompetent ones! But the more successful and professionally competent ones usually don't saddle their AF with flying off of an aircraft carrier's deck or flying rotary wing attack helis on missions of anti-armor/ground troops in support of ground operations.

I believe you do not think Israel, Singapore or South Korea Air Force incompetent?

[Dark Carnage]

As for navy, they are going after ASW helis when they have an almost non-existent MSAR squadron is even hilarious. More funny is they are trying to get MH_60 which can not land on any naval ships helipad as it is so big. I don't know if they are planning to do all the ASW operations from shore or what

[TigerShark]

8 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

As for navy, they are going after ASW helis when they have an almost non-existent MSAR squadron is even hilarious. More funny is they are trying to get MH_60 which can not land on any naval ships helipad as it is so big. I don't know if they are planning to do all the ASW operations from shore or what

Its hilarious to read your comments because you don't have a clue about BN planning.

- MH-60R or AW-159 would be used on new frigates. The OPVs indicated a rating for 11-ton helicopters.

- BN is raising its own MSAR helicopter squadron.

- BN is purchasing ASW simulator drones to mimic enemy submarines.

- ASW happens to be the most complex naval operation you can imagine.

[Zoro96]

30 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

What makes you fit to judge an entire force?

Oh I dunno, maybe their performance over the last 10 or 15 years?

30 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

Attack helicopers have their place

Yeah in the army; it'd in the wrong place in an airforce.

31 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

so does MRCA

Yeah in the airforce; now this'd be in the wrong place if placed in the army.

32 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

BAF is buying 56 aircraft this fiscal.

Can you give us a break down of what and how many they're acquiring? Also, any reliable sources for verification of the news?

35 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

There are very few 'poor countries' buying so many new aircraft like Bangladesh does. I say this knowing Bangladesh is a LDC

We, the citizenry, will not hold it against our country for being a LDC. We understand our position quite well.

36 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

buying Apache attack helicopters. Its unheard of!

Yup, airforces buying rotary wing ground attack choppers is quite unheard of. Just let BA have those and get BAF to seriously try to achieve their primary mission goals without veering off to buy ships, subs or tanks, and everyone will be over the moon.

[Dark Carnage]

31 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

MH-60R or AW-159 would be used on new frigates. The OPVs indicated a rating for 11-ton helicopters.

And what about the ships we already have? Why won't they use the potential of those vessels?

32 minutes ago, TigerShark said:

BN is raising its own MSAR helicopter squadron

Yes, is raising. And nobody knows when that will happen.

[Zoro96]

38 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

It seems I misunderstood.

That you have, but I'm glad that you've finally understood what I was trying to convey.

39 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

Sorry if I hurt you.

No, no. Not at all. I was a little confused as to why you didn't understand what I clearly mentioned, and especially after the second post where I went into great lengths to explain it. But it's all good, now that you get it.

42 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

Like ships or subs, aircraft is not navy's domain. So, this argument is invalid.

You really should educate the navies of US, China, UK, France, Japan and many other countries as they allow them to operate aircraft. Clearly, they don't understand how to operate and I'm sure you'll be a great help in setting them straight.

46 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

But AF was always left behind. They even suffered more during the time of military rulers. During 2013-14 they tried to get 8 Su-27/Mig-29SMT using US$ 1b credit from Russia but army got involved resulting BAF to get only YAk-130 due to fund shortage.

Utter nonsense and hearsay. You're just making stuff up for arguments sake here. I'd specially like for you to provide some credible sources we can read up on to verify the bold part. I'm sure 8 MiG-29SMT should be cheaper than buying 16 all new Yak-130 (which would've required new pilots and ground crew to be trained, repair and maintenance facilities to be built and stores of spares and weapons to be bought), because we already operate 8 MiG-29.

53 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

By 2017, BAF was all in for Su-30 and released that infamous tender. If Rohinga problem did not occur, they would have at least 12 Su-30 by now. But that incident changed everything and AF again fall behind as there was a policy shift and they had to re-evaluate and re-negotiate.

Rohinga issue has affected all the other branches too, not just BAF. This issue has even changed our strategic outlook and we had to change our calculation; but again, all this has affected the other service branches too, and not just BAF.

56 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

I am not saying BAF has no blame in the process but they are not the only one to blame.

Their incompetence is entirely theirs, they or you can't blame that on anyone else.

57 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

I believe you do not think Israel, Singapore or South Korea Air Force incompetent?

LOL! First one can't even defeat a paramilitary group called Hezbollah.

The second one hasn't fought a single damn war; all Malaysia has to do is cut off their fresh water and power supply, and that little island will go all belly up in days. Let's not even bring up what Indonesia could do to them.

As for the last one, they have not won a single war in the last 200-300 years; for all their advanced weaponry, high-tech economy and large military/national budget, they still can't fight a country which has only a $1,400 dollar per capita GDP, without hand holding from the US.

59 minutes ago, Dark Carnage said:

As for navy, they are going after ASW helis when they have an almost non-existent MSAR squadron is even hilarious. More funny is they are trying to get MH_60 which can not land on any naval ships helipad as it is so big. I don't know if they are planning to do all the ASW operations from shore or what

But they already started a SAR squadron, albeit with only a few helis; just give it more time and I'm sure they they'll complete the squadron, maybe in batches of 2-3 at a time.

Well I'm as surprised by MH-60 news, as I was hoping for the AW-159's to be inducted this year. As for the bold part, maybe these are for the new frigate program; at 4000+ tons per frigate, they should be large enough to handle the MH-60.

But most importantly, whether BN chooses AW-159 or MH-60, as long as our frigates get good and reliable ASW capable choppers, I'd be happy.

[Dark Carnage]

48 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

You really should educate the navies of US, China, UK, France, Japan and many other countries as they allow them to operate aircraft. Clearly, they don't understand how to operate and I'm sure you'll be a great help in setting them straight.

Now you are taking things to the personal level. I said it is not their domain, buy that does not mean navu cannot operate them. And I hope you understand that we are not any US, China, UK, France or Japan.

51 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

LOL! First one can't even defeat a paramilitary group called Hezbollah.

The second one hasn't fought a single damn war; all Malaysia has to do is cut off their fresh water and power supply, and that little island will go all belly up in days. Let's not even bring up what Indonesia could do to them.

As for the last one, they have not won a single war in the last 200-300 years; for all their advanced weaponry, high-tech economy and large military/national budget, they still can't fight a country which has only a $1,400 dollar per capita GDP, without hand holding from the US.

If think these AF are incompetent, there is no point continuing the discussion with you.

53 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

Utter nonsense and hearsay. You're just making stuff up for arguments sake here. I'd specially like for you to provide some credible sources we can read up on to verify the bold part.

Finding source for BD Defence matter is hard. But I can assure you I read the news about combat aircraft procurement in a national daily (most probably Prothom Alo). I will try to fond it.

Finally, as you are in so attacking mode I think its better not to continue this discussion with you. Lets agree to disagree.    

[Zoro96]

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Now you are taking things to the personal level. I said it is not their domain, buy that does not mean navu cannot operate them. And I hope you understand that we are not any US, China, UK, France or Japan.

Sorry if I came off that way, was not my intention.

But you're just not willing a concept, because it contradicts your preconceived ideas. If a navy needs an aircraft to fly off of it's aircraft carrier, LPD, assault ship or a naval base, to strike at an adversaries naval (or air) assets located in a sea/ocean, then that means operating fixed wing or even rotary wing aircrafts, is in their domain. So simply put, if a navy has the requirement to operate such an aircraft, then it is in their domain.

We don't have to be the US, China, UK, France or Japan to study and learn from their force structure and operating procedures.

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

If think these AF are incompetent, there is no point continuing the discussion with you.

But you're the one mentioned the name of these three countries to me, as an example of some great air forces! Here let me remind you to what you wrote before:

5 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

I believe you do not think Israel, Singapore or South Korea Air Force incompetent?

 

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Finding source for BD Defence matter is hard. But I can assure you I read the news about combat aircraft procurement in a national daily (most probably Prothom Alo). I will try to fond it.

Thank you for putting in the effort to try and substantiate your earlier statement. I still greatly doubt that news, simple because, the $1 Billion credit isn't just for BAF, but also BA and BN. But itself used up more than half that amount just get those Yak-130 AJT.

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Finally, as you are in so attacking mode I think its better not to continue this discussion with you.

Once again, I'm sorry if I have come across as adversarial. That was not my intention.

3 hours ago, Dark Carnage said:

Lets agree to disagree.

Absolutely, there's nothing with having disagreements; the thing about exchanging views on this (or any other) forum is not just to argue just for the sake of arguments, but also to learn from each other.

Thank you.

[Darth Nihilus]

The issue with BAF is very simple. They change their minds in the turn of a dime. Not always their fault as we didn't comprehend that Russia would charge so much for Su-30s and Su-35s. The US has it's own complex mechanism so having US fighters wasn't on the tables then. That's all fine so far as that is not in our hands.But someone explain to me the need of YAK-130s. Wasn't it meant to be a trainer/LAC for our AF given that we were gunning for Russian MRCAs then? Now we are going for EFTs and by the looks of it, it is pretty damn certain at this point. Won't we need another model of trainers for these or are we gonna still use YAKs? Other than that, what wrong has BAF done in the last 3 years? They bought radars, they bought transport aircraft, MRO plants, BAC and so on and so forth. So where else is their mistake.

All I can see is that they haven't bought anything for a long time which is why we are so behind and now that they're gearing up to push forward and hasten their progress, they're still getting flak from us. Why is that?

[Zoro96]

8 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

Other than that, what wrong has BAF done in the last 3 years?

You mean other than to completely leave our airspace undefended (against enemies with increasing ability to attack us from the air), hence utterly failing in their primary (and the single most important) task?

8 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

They bought radars, they bought transport aircraft, MRO plants, BAC and so on and so forth.

Which is all good, and all of us applaud them for those achievements. But these will not cover for the humongous incompetence they've shown in other areas.

9 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

So where else is their mistake.

Please read my first statement in this post again.

9 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

All I can see is that they haven't bought anything for a long time which is why we are so behind and now that they're gearing up to push forward and hasten their progress, they're still getting flak from us. Why is that?

You answered your own question, the bolded part; just read the underlined part.

[Zoro96]

9 hours ago, Darth Nihilus said:

But someone explain to me the need of YAK-130s. Wasn't it meant to be a trainer/LAC for our AF given that we were gunning for Russian MRCAs then? Now we are going for EFTs and by the looks of it, it is pretty damn certain at this point. Won't we need another model of trainers for these or are we gonna still use YAKs?

Hence the flak they get from everyone for incompetence. They wasted some 500-600 million dollars on that alone! Even though the Yak-130 is closely related to transitioning trainee pilots to Russian SU/MiG series aircraft's, they can still be used to train pilots for other 4+ generation aircraft's, just that you have to spend a lot of time transitioning them into the EFT's.

The Yak-130s were unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money. They could've just bought an additional 20-30 JL-8W's and do exactly the same thing that has to be done now when transitioning trainee pilots from Yak-130 to any NATO aircraft, but with a lot less money and also wasting of time.

 

[sibghat_99]

31 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

You mean other than to completely leave our airspace undefended (against enemies with increasing ability to attack us from the air), hence utterly failing in their primary (and the single most important) task?

What exactly has happened recently that makes you think that the AF left the airspace undefended?
I thought it was a well established fact that not dealing helicopter incursions with force was a government decision and the establishment of the ADIZ was a direct response to that. 

 

17 minutes ago, Zoro96 said:

The Yak-130s were unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money.

The statement does not hold any merit given that the yaks didn't even cost 400 million dollars and was a logical decision at the time of purchase as it was pretty clear back then on what was BAF planning to acquire. No one predicted CAATSA back then.
Yaks are marketed from the start with the ability to be used in training for western pilots after just minor software updates and therefore can be used in conjunction with BAE Hawks in any potential EFT purchase. Hence the number of Hawks ordered will be small. 
Yak-130s operate under the old a-5 squadron as well which suggests that they were always intended to be used in a dual role here /

[Zoro96]

2 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

What exactly has happened recently that makes you think that the AF left the airspace undefended?

The fact that they cannot prevent or even put up a challenge against either of our adversaries if those two decides to mount some sort of aerial attack. Also why are you bringing up 'recently'? BAF hasn't had the capability to be able to put up any challenge or prevent intrusions by any of our adversaries for more than a decade now.

2 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

I thought it was a well established fact that not dealing helicopter incursions with force was a government decision and the establishment of the ADIZ was a direct response to that.

About the bolded part, unarmed choppers straying (or intentionally entering) a bit into our territory during peacetime is not a threat. Any chopper, armed or unarmed, can be shot down easily with MANPAD or even concentrated fire from the ground. However the fact remains that BAF can't do much against some two bit country's air force if they decide to mount a concerted attack on us (sporting with more than 30 MiG-29, F-7, a bunch of rickety old Q-5 and now FC-1/JF-17 armed with PL-12/SD-10).

As for ADIZ, it was only put into place because they couldn't detect all the intrusions through the South Eastern border back in 2016/2017. These incidents only became known because of eyewitnesses on the ground who were close to the border during the intrusions. More than three years after those incidents, there is still gaps in radar coverage of the country. Instead of waiting for an incident and reacting to it by setting up an ADIZ, it should have been done proactively before the incidents occurred. But I suppose it's better late than never.

3 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

The statement does not hold any merit given that the yaks didn't even cost 400 million dollars

24 Yak-130 was slated to cost $800 million, so $33.333 million a piece. Even at this price, the 16 we finally purchased would've cost $533.328 million. But reduced number of Yak's, from 24 to 16, should have increased the per unit price and as I recall the news from some years ago were quoting almost (or just tad over) $600 million. So where exactly are you getting this $400 million from? If the price did indeed drastically reduce by more than 30% (from $600 to $400 million) and I somehow missed that news, please feel free to post a link to some reliable source. Thank you.

3 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

was a logical decision at the time of purchase as it was pretty clear back then on what was BAF planning to acquire. No one predicted CAATSA back then.

Given the track record of the former USSR, our Western enemy who depends on their weapon and continuously trying to push us into the Russkies current weapons ecosystem so that we are dependent on our enemy and their primary weapons supplier (on whom this enemy can exercise a great deal of influence against us), any major purchases/platform acquisition from this source is a big effin NO!

In 1975 USSR stopped supplying us with spares grounding our MiG's and mothballing lots of other weapons. Ever wonder why we have so much Chinese weapons system, especially major items, in our inventory? Because of the 1975 incident reforms were put into place to completely wean ourselves off of Soviet weapons and switch to the Chinese. After decades of painstaking hard work, today you can observe the success of this policy by walking into any BA, BAF or BN base and taking a gander at their current weapons systems they own and operate.

In 1999 this same Western enemy through bribing officials, got us into that MiG-29 fiasco. Because they were operating those, they thought they could make us dependent on them for training, spare and maintenance. What a colossal waste of money and resources that ended up being for us and still continues to be to this very day. These relentless mofos are still at it, just recently news surfaced of HAL wanting to service/maintain and sell spares for the MiG's.

Then these fuxxurs weaseled themselves into Rooppur NPP project because that was handed to their but buddy the Russkies. And who knows what kind of shenanigans they're up to. I guess we'll only find out when that thing blows up killing millions and making an entire region of the country uninhabitable.

So give this long sordid affair, MRCA debacle has to be seen in the proper historical context and not as some one off, isolated incident.

As if all this wasn't enough, recent visit of a Reliance delegation to BD to push (read bribe) for the Rafale to be selected for our MRCA program is frankly quite unsettling. It's not because they tried that (yeah well, HTF were they even allowed in Dhaka or the AF HQ?), but the fact that BAF actually put a team together and then sent them to France to negotiate for this aircraft.

If some people compromises our national security to help out our biggest enemy, by selecting Rafale, some heads will definitely roll, even if not now, but surely down the road. No one should forget how BAF and DGFI intelligence hounded the AF Chief, responsible for that Sheet-29 fiasco, on the streets of BD because they suspected bribery and enemy influence in the decision making process.

4 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

Yaks are marketed from the start with the ability to be used in training for western pilots after just minor software updates

An d just who's going to do that upgrade? The Russkies? Just why are they going to do that since we're not buying any of their crepware and they wont make any money from us?

4 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

therefore can be used in conjunction with BAE Hawks in any potential EFT purchase. Hence the number of Hawks ordered will be small.

So after wasting more than half a billion of tax payers money on these Yak-130's, they still need even more AJT? And you wonder why BD's call BAF incompetent?

4 hours ago, sibghat_99 said:

Yak-130s operate under the old a-5 squadron as well which suggests that they were always intended to be used in a dual role here /

So after blowing more than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money on these AJT, they decided to use them for CAS (Close Air Support)/ground attack? If they need CAS/attack aircraft maybe get some Brazillian Super Tucano's, as they cost less than $10 million and only cost a little over $400 (yup, you read that right, just a little over four hundred dollars) to operate.

And then everyone gets their panties in a bunch when they hear others calling BAF incompetent.

[Darth Nihilus]

The whole fiasco of the YAKs were that the AF planners put too much hope into the Russian deal. So much so that they made the tender specifically for the Russians giving them an insane amount of leverage to ask for whatever price they wanted. They also put so much faith into this deal that they bought Russian specific AJTs. Not gonna debate on the price as the exact amount might never be disclosed. Keeping all that aside, now that we are going towards EFTs, it makes sense that we cover up our losses somehow and employ these YAKs as a complimentary trainer as well as a LAC. Who knows, if the MMRCA deal goes to the Russians (Su-30/35) then the YAKs won't be a waste at all at that point. But, I will give you that the procurement of the YAKs were a waste NOT when they were bought but because of the events that happened after.