@Quwa Yes, if only BAF was competence and innovative enough for out of the box thinking and a new reform.
In an Ideal condition, 24x Gripen for more or less $3 billion would've been a better choice than 16 Eurofighter.
Price war unleashed ahead of IAF’s mega global competition, pitting 125 Mn Euro Gripen against 216 Mn Euro Rafale , , defence deals, defence, Saab Group
www.businessworld.in
1. We could make two squadron with independent operational sctrucutre. Permanently assigned them at two different air bases (preferably at Dhaka and Chottogram)
2. And at war time we could easily disperse them at multiple bases and airfields. (Enhancing the survivability of the platform and increasing the operational flexibility, in the meantime maintaining the qualitative advantage with gripen)
However, what we are talking about above would require doctrinal changes not only for the BAF, but also for all warfighting forces across the spectrum.
Bacause in reality such single engine fighter would only be best suited for A2A or A2G/A2S missions at once per individual sorties.
A2A loadout With a single fuel tank under the main fuselage (like the picture below) to increase flight hour/airborne time for CAP.
Or like this one for mainly A2G
Even though gripen
technically can perform both A2A and A2G in single sortie but it is practically insufficient for a single engine light fighter. (
As it won't be able to maintain 4 BVR missiles while performing dual mission in single sortie) Especially when we are planning to go against numerically superior adversary while relying only on the qualitative age.
However, when it comes to the Eurofighter, it can effectively carry out both A2A A2G mission in a single sortie somewhat sufficiently thanks to its twin engine and 14 hard point.
Changing those two fuel tanks under the wing with two NSM/JSM or scalp while adding one under the main fuselage (like the picture below)
And this is advantageous considering our Numerical limitation.
For example, in case of a conflict with Mayanmar two BAF typhoon can take off and perform deep strike/Anti ship strike while simultaneously be completely ready for CAP and A2A engagement with over the bay of bengal or at our south-eastern airspace, all in relative sufficiency in a single sortie.
Also, after receiving warning from our early warning radars about approaching potential enemy aircrafts, it is tactically time critical to climb up to the higher altitude (Typhoon can climb up to 9000 meters in 60 seconds) given our uncomfortably small Airspace and lack of strategic depth.
Specially when we will deploy some of the fighters at Chottogram or Cox bazar. And twin engine jet, more specifically Eurofighter is very ideal for that.
Unlike Gripen which has quite a low thrust to weight ratio.
So, in a nutshell with single engine fighter BAF A2G/A2S strike capability would become limited, as they would likely to require proper A2A escorts in highly contested airspace.
If we want BAF to become a dedicated force for airspace denial role with single engine platforms, ( which would be a very sound strategy considering all the aspects )
that would require a revaluation of army and navy's dependency on BAF for deep strike and anti ship missions.
Hence the question is, can they achieve those without too much dependency on BAF?
I would say yes, specially for navy. Our new frigates+new submarines ( +preferably 2/3 costal batteries ) would be sufficient enough even without air forces A2S support.
However, for army that would be more complicated.
But in my opinion, we should invest heavily in type-A (like khan) and type-b MLRS (like TRG-300) capabilities to strike targets behind enemy lines. (similar to how Ukraine did)
And this is how BAF can rightfully focus on its main strategic objective, which would be Airspace denial.
However, it would require doctrinal changes across the all spectrum. Which is unlikely to happen.
