Pakistan Air Force to be transformed by 2012

[kidwaibhai]

but dosnt any body think that we need a twin engine air craft that is as capable as the indian mig-35.

 

[BATMAN]

As per my knowledge, Mig-35 is not yet sold to India.
There had been some aurguments in past on twin engine vs single, as I remember twin engine add redundancy can carry more pay load but single engine are more manuverable and less maintanence.
Now a days single engines are also multirole.

 

[BATMAN]

you are right f-16 is way old they should look after new tecnology like euro-fighter
but euro cost more then f-16 and pak always go for cheap fighter like f-16

New F-16 will come with new technology and remaining is the airframe and F-16 has the best of airframes.
If possible F-16 should be the first choice and if US allow F-35.
If really PAF decided today to buy some western in case above two are not available than I would support more, the french 'Rafael'.
I agree with Mr. Murad that its not the looks which decide its more the needs and capacity which influence.

 

[Contrarian]

As per my knowledge, Mig-35 is not yet sold to India.
There had been some aurguments in past on twin engine vs single, as I remember twin engine add redundancy can carry more pay load but single engine are more manuverable and less maintanence.
Now a days single engines are also multirole.

Manouverability comes with the design of the airframe, not just the engine. MiG 29A/B is far more manouverable than the F-16, even though it is double engined.

Along with double engine comes the range, payload, speed etc, etc that are all advantageous.

The downside is the maintenance. It depends on country to country and their economic conditions, whether they want a less problematic single engined plane or an maintenance intensive double engined one.

 

[BATMAN]

Manouverability comes with the design of the airframe,
not just the engine.

Yes that's true, perhaps my phrase was not so clear. I wanted to point that to accomodate two engines surface area needed to be increased which definately effect the agility and I believe, increased weight will also have nagative effects on sharp turning and stoping due to high inertia issue.
That is why 'light weight' is a positive characterisitic of fighter jets.

MiG 29A/B is far more manouverable than the F-16, even though it is double engined.

Are you sure. I dispute this claim

Along with double engine comes the range, payload, speed etc, etc that are all advantageous.

Pay load yes but there can be many single engines which have same speed as twin engine MiG29. Twin engine probably few seconds quicker in acceleration due to more power (if same engine is used for comparison).

The downside is the maintenance. It depends on country to country and their economic conditions, whether they want a less problematic single engined plane or an maintenance intensive double engined one.

Exactly, and twin engine can be more dependable for critical strike missions and enhance the survival chances in case of trouble.
Twin engine definately suits European countries who never have to face war and planes have to fly more on excercise missions or against lower rated planes of week military regimes.

 

[Adux]

Yes that's true, perhaps my phrase was not so clear. I wanted to point that to accomodate two engines surface area needed to be increased which definately effect the agility and I believe, increased weight will also have nagative effects on sharp turning and stoping due to high inertia issue.
That is why 'light weight' is a positive characterisitic of fighter jets.

Space needed for the extra engine, doesnt have much to do with agility, agility is a cause of design

Are you sure. I dispute this claim

He is right, MiG-29 A/B is more manoverable, while F-16 carrier more energy

Pay load yes but there can be many single engines which have same speed as twin engine MiG29. Twin engine probably few seconds quicker in acceleration due to more power (if same engine is used for comparison).

Few seconds mean a hell lot in Fighter world

Exactly, and twin engine can be more dependable for critical strike missions and enhance the survival chances in case of trouble.
Twin engine definately suits European countries who never have to face war and planes have to fly more on excercise missions or against lower rated planes of week military regimes.

What!!!!!!, How did you come to that conculsion, No war means two engines...lol and european countries havent seen war..lol

 

[Contrarian]

Yes that's true, perhaps my phrase was not so clear. I wanted to point that to accomodate two engines surface area needed to be increased which definately effect the agility and I believe, increased weight will also have nagative effects on sharp turning and stoping due to high inertia issue.
That is why 'light weight' is a positive characterisitic of fighter jets.

Are you sure. I dispute this claim


Pay load yes but there can be many single engines which have same speed as twin engine MiG29. Twin engine probably few seconds quicker in acceleration due to more power (if same engine is used for comparison).


Exactly, and twin engine can be more dependable for critical strike missions and enhance the survival chances in case of trouble.
Twin engine definately suits European countries who never have to face war and planes have to fly more on excercise missions or against lower rated planes of week military regimes.

Adux has said basically all that is required. The MiG 29A/B's were superbly and i mean superbly manouverable compared to the F-16's which before the MiG 29's were the blue eyed boys of manouverability. Please check your sources or confirm from aviation enthusiasts who would point you.

Pay load yes but there can be many single engines which have same speed as twin engine MiG29. Twin engine probably few seconds quicker in acceleration due to more power (if same engine is used for comparison).

I need to clarify this thing, when you are comparing engines of the same generation then 2 engines are most siginificantly better than one. Infact using a single engined fighter is not because of mechanics, but because of economics and a countries ability to support them.

If you start comparing a newer engine which gives twice the thrust of the two engines for a MiG 29, then it is not a valid comparison. Imagine then having that 2 of those particular engines that have the same thrust as two engines for a MiG 29.

Having 2 engines is almost always better than having one. We are having such a stupid discussion only because Pakistan fields only single engined planes.

 

[niaz]

I concur that this discusion is pointless. Two verses single engine is an age old debate. Mig -19 had two engines and we had them for a quarter of centurty! One must understand that the choice of a fighter depends on a lot of factors. Assuming PAF will have no political contraints from the seller, the choice of plane is a compromise between cost per unit and operating costs; this includes maintenence, fuel consumption, pilot training, availability of spare parts over a 20 year period and its ability to perform the required tasks.

Are we implying that PAF planners dont know their job??

 

[Contrarian]

Niaz sir,
what we are discussing here, is which is better during the times of war, what would be better as more effective during the times of war, single engined planes or double engined.

PAF planners do know their job and have done well in the limitations that are imposed on them. For instance, it is money that is the reason PAF does not like to operate double engined planes, they are costlier to maintain, they have a high cost per sortie, etc,etc, yet having double engined planes would be better.

 

[niaz]

Niaz sir,
what we are discussing here, is which is better during the times of war, what would be better as more effective during the times of war, single engined planes or double engined.

PAF planners do know their job and have done well in the limitations that are imposed on them. For instance, it is money that is the reason PAF does not like to operate double engined planes, they are costlier to maintain, they have a high cost per sortie, etc,etc, yet having double engined planes would be better.

Yf-16 and Yf-17 actually flew against each other in a light weight fighter competition. YF-16 actually won the contest and later became F-16. USN on the other hand was skeptical of a single engined fighter and opted for the Yf-17 which was inducted as F-18. The reason was that USAF required a light weight multirole fighter to replace aging Phatoms. US Navy on the other hand wanted a strike aircraft to replace F-4's, F-14 and F-6's. How to decide whether single engine is better or two engines?? I still maintain that it depends what you would like the fighter to do.

 

[Contrarian]

I say this all with a purpose of discussion here sir, to get your views and others..

For a Navy, it is imperative to have a double engined plane, it is good to see the IN induct MiG 29K's rather than the single engined Sea Harrier's that were single engined.

Incase of land fighters, single engined planes are only as good for light fighters, an AF always needs heavy fighters as well, those which are made to go in the thick of things, which carrier more ordinance, has more range, has a bigger and better radar, etc, etc.

Light Fighters are normally used for homeland defence and to fill the numbers, provide the backup, etc, etc.

 

[blain2]

Manouverability comes with the design of the airframe, not just the engine. MiG 29A/B is far more manouverable than the F-16, even though it is double engined.

Along with double engine comes the range, payload, speed etc, etc that are all advantageous.

The downside is the maintenance. It depends on country to country and their economic conditions, whether they want a less problematic single engined plane or an maintenance intensive double engined one.

That is a misconception. Mig-29A/B is nowhere close to being "far" more manueverable than the Viper. At least Mig-29 B can't even withstand sustained 9 G turns. If anything both are pretty similar. F-16 can be operated at the limit much more safely than a Mig-29.

 

[Contrarian]

Blain my man, you otta read more on the subject about comparisons of manouverability b/w F-16 and MiG 29. Almost universally the MiG 29 is considered to be far more manouverable than the F-16.

 

[Adux]

That is a misconception. Mig-29A/B is nowhere close to being "far" more manueverable than the Viper. At least Mig-29 B can't even withstand sustained 9 G turns. If anything both are pretty similar. F-16 can be operated at the limit much more safely than a Mig-29.

Nowegian F-16 v/s Luftwaffe MiG-29 A/B. The results are widely available

 

[BATMAN]

Those were not maneuverability demonstrations.
What is widely established is that MiG pilots have advantage of HMS which was missing in F-16.