Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bangladesh Buys Russian Combat Training Jets Worth $800M
RIA Novosti ^ | January 28, 2014

Posted on 01/28/2014 9:22:42 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

MOSCOW --- Bangladesh ordered 24 Russian Yak-130 light fighter jets worth $800 million in the final quarter of last year, a Russian newspaper reported Tuesday.

The deal was paid for with a loan extended by Moscow to the country a year ago, the director of Russian state arms exporter Rosoboronexport said in a separate interview published by Kommersant on Monday, without disclosing the deal’s price tag.

The newspaper said Tuesday that the sale was worth $800 million, citing unnamed sources in the defense industry. The planes are to be fitted with English-language cockpits and delivery is scheduled to begin next year.

The Yak-130 is a lightweight subsonic trainer aircraft designed to mimic the cockpit and handling capabilities of Russia’s more advanced fighters.

The plane can also be configured to carry a small payload of ground attack and air-to-air weapons.

Russia has targeted South Asia as a growth market for arms exports. The country delivered a refitted aircraft carrier, the INS Vikramaditya, to India earlier this month and is in the process of supplying Vietnam with six advanced attack submarines.

-ends-


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; ajt; bangladesh; yak130

Bangladesh has ordered 24 Yakovlev Yak-130 advanced jet trainers, Russian media report, in a $800 million deal it will finance thanks to a soft Russian loan. (Wikipedia photo)

1 posted on 01/28/2014 9:22:42 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Why does Bangladesh even need a military?


2 posted on 01/28/2014 9:24:56 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I’ll take one.


3 posted on 01/28/2014 9:26:55 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
To protect their valuable Jute exports
4 posted on 01/28/2014 9:32:30 AM PST by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I wonder if Russia will ever get the loan repaid?


5 posted on 01/28/2014 9:41:45 AM PST by yarddog (Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
They can hardly feed their own people, but will spend $800 million for training jets. Reminds me of an old comedy movie, "John Goldfarb Please Come Home" wherein one scene the senate foreign relations committee is grilling the DOD over transfer of fighter jets to a small third world country that has no pilots or airports:

Senator: "can you tell me why we're sending them these planes? Who's going to fly them?"
AF Colonel in charge of the program: "Well, you see, sir...they don't actually fly them. The opposition groups place them on two really big hills, facing each other. Then, roll them down hill at each other, sorta' crashing them together. Then, they start throwing spears at each other.
6 posted on 01/28/2014 9:44:07 AM PST by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

Bangladesh has pilots and airports, and in fact does manage to feed its people much better these days.
And it could use some functional aircraft. They have borders with sometimes difficult neighbors like Burma/Myanmar, and insurgents within their borders, as well as various groups drifting across the border with India, which has its own insurgent problems in Assam and Bengal.


7 posted on 01/28/2014 9:57:25 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

They are, by far, the largest supplier of soldiers for UN missions in crap holes like Sudan, so they have a pretty good military funded by others with them supplying the bodies.


8 posted on 01/28/2014 9:59:50 AM PST by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

$800,000,000! What a poor country. Maybe the USA should give them more money?


9 posted on 01/28/2014 10:00:49 AM PST by ogen hal (First amendment or reeducation camp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Because it looks cool to have one.


10 posted on 01/28/2014 10:03:46 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey
They can hardly feed their own people, but will spend $800 million for training jets.

Bangladeshis do a very good job of feeding themselves, as they possess the most fertile land in the world. It only takes something like a half-acre to feed a whole family year round.

Besides needing to maintain independence from Pakistan, they also have a common border with Myanmar (Burma). So they have some worries.

These are light attack/trainers, which are perfect for a country like Bangladesh, because they are cheap $33 million each, and much easier to maintain. Yet, they can provide ground attack and some air-to-air capability against a similar opponent.

Although India would likely take on the bulk of the fighting against Pakistan, Bangladesh is expected to do what they can, e.g. Denmark's role in NATO.

11 posted on 01/28/2014 10:04:35 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Why does Bangladesh even need a military?

It's a Muslim country completely surrounded by a Hindu country. I'm sure that's part of it.

12 posted on 01/28/2014 10:04:37 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Besides needing to maintain independence from Pakistan

Not too difficult, I would think, since to attack Bangladesh Pakistan would need to fight its way clear across India. Which is by itself considerably more militarily powerful than Pakistan.

13 posted on 01/28/2014 10:29:50 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

But that Hindu country fought a war that lead to Bangladesh becoming an independent country. Before it was part of Pakistan.


14 posted on 01/28/2014 10:44:00 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

and to whom is such a security need directed at????

I can only imagine the political class’s need for
“internal security” measures against its own population
as the cause behind this purchase.

India poses no threat to Bangladesh and Pakistan no longer does either. That leaves just Bangladesh’s dysfunctional politics and its always restive populace as conditions that threaten the security of the state at any time.

Frankly I’m glad the planes are not coming from us. We let Pakistan play us for geopolitical fools for years, as they promoted their “cold-war stance with us” to obtain billions in arms that they really had only one desired interest for - use against India. I can only imagine one target the state is trying to impress, and warn, with these planes - their own people.


15 posted on 01/28/2014 10:49:42 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Not too difficult, I would think, since to attack Bangladesh Pakistan would need to fight its way clear across India. Which is by itself considerably more militarily powerful than Pakistan.

It was a nasty fight the first time. Myanmar, China, and Pakistan are all buddy-buddy, so perhaps not a cake walk this time either. Consider Spain's role in NATO. Those Russians were going to have to push a long way to get to Spain, but their border wasn't the logical place for the Spanish to start fighting the Russians.

16 posted on 01/28/2014 10:55:58 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Sorry. I don’t think that makes much sense.

India is 1.2B, Pakistan 180M people. It’s a little as if Canada was supposed to be worried about needing to defend itself against an invasion from Mexico.

Which leaves out of the equation that both Pakistan and India have nukes, now. Which if past history holds, as we can hope, means they won’t ever go back to fullbore war with each other.


17 posted on 01/28/2014 11:05:11 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
India is 1.2B, Pakistan 180M people. It’s a little as if Canada was supposed to be worried about needing to defend itself against an invasion from Mexico.

If you dismiss 1.35 billion Chinese from the equation, then you have a point. Which would make your example analogous to the Norwegians not being worried about the NAZIs in 1938, because Hitler would first have to fight his way through the more populace and more powerful (on paper) French, British, and Poles. That worked out pretty well for the Norwegians as I recall.

18 posted on 01/28/2014 11:33:55 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Except that to get to Norway Hitler only had to make his way across essentially unarmed Denmark.

As you hopefully know, the Germans did not defeat the Brits and French in order to get at the Norwegians. They attacked Norway while the Sitzkrieg was still in effect on the Western Front.

My point is that it is pretty darn ludicrous to think that Pakistan poses a realistic conventional military threat to Bangladesh.

Now if they could get one over there, I suppose they could nuke Dacca. But I’m unclear why they would want to.


19 posted on 01/28/2014 11:52:34 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Check the order of sequence on Denmark/Norway and why it went down like that. Wasn’t going to happen without France and Britain sidelined.

Now tell me how you see a Sino-Indian war playing out, Pakistanis role, and what Pakistan’s war goals would be.

The history of countries taking a neutral stance in the belief that larger countries can/will defend them isn’t a very happy history.


20 posted on 01/28/2014 12:17:55 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I’m going to have to give myself 100 demerits concerning Denmark/Norway. You are absolutely right about it occurring before the attack on France. Not sure where my brain was on that.


21 posted on 01/28/2014 12:22:25 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

No problem. Interesting but little-known fact is that the English/French were planning to thoroughly violate Norwegian neutrality, though not perhaps by full-scale invasion, when (as usual in the early years of the war) the Germans beat them to the punch.

This, of course, gave some degree of credibility to the German claim that they had invaded Norway to protect them from the Allies. Though not much.

As far as the notion of Bandladesh needing to protect itself from Pakistan, I’m afraid I just can’t see it. Any war in which Pakistan struck that far into/across India would be such a catastrophe for all involved that I can’t see anybody being focused on attacking Bangladesh.

Not to mention that Bangladesh is not exactly a cornucopia of wealth. Why would anyone want to invade it?

Obviously China could get into this mess, but it should be noted that the terrain between China and India is the most difficult terrain on the planet to launch a major offensive across. And that Pakistan, India and China all have nukes. In such circumstances I just can’t see a major conventional military attack.


22 posted on 01/28/2014 3:30:39 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Its not that I think a Paki attack is likely, under the current conditions. My point is that the purpose of Banglidesh playing a role is to ensure the current conditions continues (a friendly India).

That was my initial point with Denmark and NATO. Was Denmark’s contribution ever going to be a factor if a war started? No, I don’t think so. But had Denmark and other smaller countries taken the stance that they simply weren’t going to contribute anything, then the political situation may not have supported a large American presence in Europe, thus ensuring Denmark’s defeat in a war.

So, this continues to give Banglidesh skin in the game, and there is always Burma, which shares a border.


23 posted on 01/28/2014 8:11:10 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson