What's new

PAF Single engined Doctrine Good or Bad.

The Canadian government had second thoughts about the F-35 because it a was single engined aircraft unlike the Hornet. It only signed the deal when it was assured of the F-35 will be as reliable as any twin engined fighter.

Differences, Canada.. a lot of overwater flying... where pilots prefer twin engines.
However.. what suits Canada.. does not suit us.
What suits India, does not suit us... this particular mentality from some must be ditched..
how Pakistan tackles a threat from India is not on a one to one basis.
 
Differences, Canada.. a lot of overwater flying... where pilots prefer twin engines.
However.. what suits Canada.. does not suit us.

My point was that if you can have very reliable engine (through maintenance or otherwise) you don't need a second

What aircraft did the F-16 replace in quantity in the USAF ..... Yup the twin engined Phantom
 
My point was that if you can have very reliable engine (through maintenance or otherwise) you don't need a second

What aircraft did the F-16 replace in quantity in the USAF ..... Yup the twin engined Phantom

To add onto it, the F-4 carried more than the F-16 did, but more efficient engines and weapons allowed the F-16 to outperform the Phantom in every field.
 
these small countries operate a handful of fighters-- paf will buy more than a couple of squadrons , so cost effectiveness does matter
 
these small countries operate a handful of fighters-- paf will buy more than a couple of squadrons , so cost effectiveness does matter
Sir 50 60 Planes will not be that much of a problem
 
well if indians are considering a cost issue..lets ask a simple question..
had india had been a bigger econmy then USA would it wanted to have had 6000 aircrafts instead of its declining 29 squardorns..
ofcourse money is sissue for every one from PAF,IAF to USAF..
so bringing money here is silly...
why we went for JF-17 single engine is due to fact that furtherst possible airbase from india is merely 650 km while most of the airbases are within 100km of india..
a jf-17 with operational range of near 3000 km is over sufficient especailly considering the air refeulers and vast network of motorways that can be used for quick refeuling...
sweden had a simpler situation like us and they developed a simmilar aircraft..
we dont really need a twin engine to be honest.
 
The number of engines is primarily driven by the need for thrust, then by reliability. Larger, heavier airplanes or airplanes that need to carry more weight (F-14, F-15) need two engines, where smaller airplanes like the F-16 need only a single engine. Single engine airplanes are smaller, lighter, simpler, cheaper to manufacture, operate and maintain.

While two engines do provide increased reliability, they also have twice the chance that something will fail. Jet engines are reliable enough where having the second engine is not a major player in airplane design. Arguably, naval aircraft have the highest need for reliability.

Advantage of single engine over twin is simplicity and lower cost. Also, a bit of efficiency, as one large engine is usually more efficient that two engines of exactly half the power, all other things being equal.
This has nothing to do with speed. For supersonic flight, the most important aspect is aerodynamics related, essentially in the presence of a suitable engine air inlet (most of the thrust in a supersonic aircraft comes from the inlet, the engines is essentially a pump to relieve the internal pressure. This may sound weird, but that is the way it is).
If one wants to install double the power in an otherwise identical aircraft, the plane may be able to get to speed faster, but the top speed may not change that much, as it is usually dominated by other restrictions, materials for instance. The F-104, for instance, among a few other single engine supersonic aircraft, had to be restrained and throttled down at high speed, as it could have otherwise reached speed that the structure could not stand, mechanically and thermally.
Having two engines is somewhat like having two hoses pulling a carriage; the horses may go faster if the load is heavy, but with a light load, they would run at their top speed, and no more.

Flying at Mach 3 means first and foremost having an air intake able to supply an engine with the right air flow at that speed. Which in turns means that the air intake will not be that great at speed less than Mach 3. Unless it is a variable intake, which is a complex, heavy and costly solution.
And then you have to have an airframe (wing and fuselage) that could fly well at Mach 3, but also is able to fly reasonably well at 150 knots, because the plane still has to be able to take off and land at a reasonable speed.

Super high speed is not of a very good use for fighter. At Mach 3, evading a missile (turning) takes a couple of Zip code area. Moreover, since the airframe is basking in its own kinetic heating, it becomes an interesting infra-red emitter, which some missiles would have little trouble locking into (i.e. it is not only the engine that are emitting heat).
Mach 3 makes sense if you are sneaking above (spying), or dashing through (bomber) at an altitude where interception is unlikely. For dogfighting, what is needed is large wings and high thrust to weight ratio, to provide with quick acceleration and fast turn rate.

So from above long essay, we can conclude that for dogfite or CAS or raid on Indian Targets PAF's single Engined fighter jets are capable enough to make a strong statement. But when it comes to protecting its Maritime intersts and ports, Pakistan need to have a dedicated Air wing in its Naval fleet comprised of J11B.. Why there is need some members may ask... Its due to the induction of Aircrat carriers and 48 Mig 29KUB along with Naval Tejas by Indian navy. Ignoring sea supply lines may cost Pakistan dear at the time of war.. Meanwhile I heard long back that PAF was interested in J11B as well. Whats the current status??
 
In my opinion the single engine doctrine is the best suited for us technically as well as economically.:smokin:
 
300 JF-17 Level 2 with 200 J-10 B and 60 + F-16 Pakistan Air Force will be really great one and plus we can get J-20 as soon as China develops it and also Pakistan has started its on stealth project in China
 
What advantage would twin engines bring, to a PAF in its current operational environment and requirements.?
let me ask you that..
There are already strike assets with Standoff weapons that will hit the targets needed to be hit the most.
most major enemy assets are ten minutes from the border.. east OR west.
Loiter time will be increased by AAR... incorporated.

Also, carrying more weapons , doesn't mean that there is a higher chance of surviving.
You may fire four out of ten of your missiles, but if the second missile from the guy carrying only four is going to get you, its a waste of resources.

If you need to hit a single target, why carry twenty CM's when two at most will do the job.. and current single engined craft can do that.
And you're arguing with folks who see topspeed, weapons load, number of engines and price as a measure of comparison. C'Mon give yourself a break!

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

300 JF-17 Level 2 with 200 J-10 B and 60 + F-16 Pakistan Air Force will be really great one and plus we can get J-20 as soon as China develops it and also Pakistan has started its on stealth project in China
Thanks god you didnt use F-16 level 50/52 after that....
 
And you're arguing with folks who see topspeed, weapons load, number of engines and price as a measure of comparison. C'Mon give yourself a break!

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------


Thanks god you didnt use F-16 level 50/52 after that....
Yes! abosolutely right we shold stand and depend only on our own feet. shold never even think of US/Western dependance.:smokin:
 
Again the ever great Storm force, soo much worried about Pakistan's security and its military. :disagree:


The answer to bolded part, dear friend why you always forget pakistani ALCM Raad, Why it was made if PAF cann't use it on its fighters. Both FC20 and JFT will carry Raad with range of 350km at the moment, which is more than what your MMRCA aircrafts will have in future.[/QUOTE]

Brother
the army is nothing without a Strong Airforce

in battle field what ever you needs air force provide you.

EVERY THING

but remember to reach AIr force in battle field
Strong Back is needed
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom