Should Pakistan go for a Twinjet or not?

[vizier]

You can increase range with f16 block60 or f16 sufa style upper fuselage conformal fuel tanks possibly in jf17 block3 for strike and navy missions. Su30 may have a better radar but can be detected further having a larger signature. With aesa in block3 this gap will be reduced and jf17 having lower signature giving you adventage.

 

[niaz]

Single engine versus two engines debate has been going on ever since I started reading aviation magazines about 50 years ago.

Speaking as an engineer, single powerful engine would be more efficient & more cost effective per unit of weight versus 2 smaller engines of equal thrust assuming both are at par of in terms of technology. Nations using twine engine aircrafts are not stupid, but it is always because of a special reason.

Main reason why some early aircrafts had two engines was because single jet engines with sufficient power were not available. For example MiG -17 was an excellent single engine fighter; however two engines had to be fitted into MiG -19 in order to achieve supersonic performance. Same was true in case of the British Lightening. Same logic applies when you design a true multirole role aircraft such as Phantom and/ or a heavy fighter such as F-15; one needs two engines to provide the aircraft with sufficient T/W ratio for the required performance.

Second reason is redundancy. US Navy preferred F-18 over F-16 because even if one engine fails, the aircraft can be brought back to the Carrier. However, reliability record of F-16 has demonstrated that even a single engine can do the job satisfactorily. Most glaring example is F-35; even though carrier based; its 125 KN dry thrust F-135 turbo fan makes it about the best fighter/bomber in the world.

I am not against twine engine fighters, but why have 2 engines if a single engine can do the job? It is not only the cost of purchase, one engine is also easier to service & maintain than two engines. I would prefer single engine aircraft unless 2 engines are absolutely necessary to meet T/W requirements

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

The issue here is not if PAF is going to induct twin engine aircraft but when....
It has historically used twin engine fighter aircraft that were replaced by JF-17s. ie A-5 Fatans.

PAF was offered the F-15's, Euro Fighter Typhoon, SU- 30 and J-11's. PAF is not interested in getting an other 4th gen aircraft because it is considering the 5th gen aircraft F-31, J-20, TFX and KFX are being looked at. They all are going to be multi-engine fighter aircraft.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The twin engine , talk is like the talk 14 year old make to climb the highest peak in Village , however when they hear it has to be done at night , the ambition fizzles away

 

[hellraider]

Just buy JF-17. Thats sufficient to keep your pilots engaged.

 

[saadee]

F-15s offered to Pakistan?

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

The issue here is not if PAF is going to induct twin engine aircraft but when....
It has historically used twin engine fighter aircraft that were replaced by JF-17s. ie A-5 Fatans.

PAF was offered the F-15's, Euro Fighter Typhoon, SU- 30 and J-11's. PAF is not interested in getting an other 4th gen aircraft because it is considering the 5th gen aircraft F-31, J-20, TFX and KFX are being looked at. They all are going to be multi-engine fighter aircraft.

F-15s offered to Pakistan?

@MastanKhan has over the past many times quoted sources regarding all these offers.

 

[MastanKhan]

Single engine versus two engines debate has been going on ever since I started reading aviation magazines about 50 years ago.

Speaking as an engineer, single powerful engine would be more efficient & more cost effective per unit of weight versus 2 smaller engines of equal thrust assuming both are at par of in terms of technology. Nations using twine engine aircrafts are not stupid, but it is always because of a special reason.

Main reason why some early aircrafts had two engines was because single jet engines with sufficient power were not available. For example MiG -17 was an excellent single engine fighter; however two engines had to be fitted into MiG -19 in order to achieve supersonic performance. Same was true in case of the British Lightening. Same logic applies when you design a true multirole role aircraft such as Phantom and/ or a heavy fighter such as F-15; one needs two engines to provide the aircraft with sufficient T/W ratio for the required performance.

Second reason is redundancy. US Navy preferred F-18 over F-16 because even if one engine fails, the aircraft can be brought back to the Carrier. However, reliability record of F-16 has demonstrated that even a single engine can do the job satisfactorily. Most glaring example is F-35; even though carrier based; its 125 KN dry thrust F-135 turbo fan makes it about the best fighter/bomber in the world.

I am not against twine engine fighters, but why have 2 engines if a single engine can do the job? It is not only the cost of purchase, one engine is also easier to service & maintain than two engines. I would prefer single engine aircraft unless 2 engines are absolutely necessary to meet T/W requirements

Sir,

If you need twin engines in this day and age to meet the T/W requirements----then the purpose is lost. The twin engine is not the A5 Fantan----or the mig 17 that we are looking for----. These aircraft could not take off on a single engine----even with twin engines---their load carryng capacities are miniscule----.

Now when you have an aircraft with 10 or 12 BVR missiles facing you----and you have one that can carry 2 only and both missiles have similar capabilities----then the bigger aircraft with its larger radar and larger jamming capabilities would have a much better chance to come out the skirmish unscathed---.

Secondly---this same larger aircraft can target 5 enemy aircraft at one go---whereas our single engine can only target at one----.

When facing an enemy the size of the neighbor----you have to have heavy aircraft----. Every armed force in the current time or in the past had heavy armory to counter the enemy----.

The induction of a twin engine twin tail wll depend on the defence minister----. Someone knowledgeable would order the aircraft and order the airforce----here it is---operate it---.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

Single Engine is the best choice for economical point of view.But for fifth generation we will acquire twin engine Birds.

 

[HAIDER]

Single engine proven well in battle field in all wars. Plus F16C/D doing well as bomber role, so in near future Pakistan will go for more F16s and will see total new shape of JF17 and will play vital role in as light combat aircraft. US JSF f35 is single engine....So, its not choice, that countries go for single engine or double engine. Plus Pakistan and India has limited air defence cross section where no need of very high engine performance planes. Pakistan India scenario is all Pilot and air craft agility to strike and back to base.

 

[MastanKhan]

Single engine proven well in battle field in all wars. Plus F16C/D doing well as bomber role, so in near future Pakistan will go for more F16s and will see total new shape of JF17 and will play vital role in as light combat aircraft. US JFS f35 is single engine....So, its not choice, that countries go for single engine or double engine. Plus Pakistan and India has limited air defence cross section where no need of very high engine performance planes. Pakistan India scenario is all Pilot and air craft agility to strike and back to base.

Hi,

It is a matter of load capacity and loiter time----. Heavy air superiority fighter are there to smash thru the enemy's air force to control the dominance over the skies----.

each and every aircraft of its size has its utility---just like the rifles in the army---.

In today's army---you have your hands tied down if you don't have .50 caliber sniper rifles---why don't yu take them away from your army and see what happens----.

Then you have the .338 Lapua and then you have the .308's and at the bottom of the barrel you have the .223's.

What are the .50's and .338 do to you---they put the fear of God in you----you don't hear rthe sound of the round being fired----you don't see nothing and then you are smashed into a pulp by the .50 caliber round----from so far away that it is beyond imagination.

What a .50 caliber rifle anti material rifle is for the army---the heavy air dominance fighter aircraft is for the air force.

 

[tahir195]

JF 17 we cant chase enemy jets beyond 200/300 kms.

1350 km range not 200 and chase and return it will go inside 500 km+ inside india

 

[HAIDER]

Hi,

It is a matter of load capacity and loiter time----. Heavy air superiority fighter are there to smash thru the enemy's air force to control the dominance over the skies----.

each and every aircraft of its size has its utility---just like the rifles in the army---.

In today's army---you have your hands tied down if you don't have .50 caliber sniper rifles---why don't yu take them away from your army and see what happens----.

Then you have the .338 Lapua and then you have the .308's and at the bottom of the barrel you have the .223's.

What are the .50's and .338 do to you---they put the fear of God in you----you don't hear rthe sound of the round being fired----you don't see nothing and then you are smashed into a pulp by the .50 caliber round----from so far away that it is beyond imagination.

What a .50 caliber rifle anti material rifle is for the army---the heavy air dominance fighter aircraft is for the air force.

My argument is in context of Pak-India scenario. Where both side is heavily fortified by all type of air defence weapons. From high altitude intrusion to low level intrusion. Where defence think tanks recommend weapon by looking at requirement and budget constraints . A best use of limited resources. Previously Pakistan fought war and recent tackling Indian airforce probing very efficiently. Pakistan is quite successful by using light combat from F86 to F16. Now Pakistan air defence system track Indian plane when its miles away from border by checking its speed and direction. And some of airbase already in radar range where constantly keep eye on movement of those planes and daily route and drill checks. And exactly same Indian are doing.

 

[niaz]

Sir,

If you need twin engines in this day and age to meet the T/W requirements----then the purpose is lost. The twin engine is not the A5 Fantan----or the mig 17 that we are looking for----. These aircraft could not take off on a single engine----even with twin engines---their load carryng capacities are miniscule----.

Now when you have an aircraft with 10 or 12 BVR missiles facing you----and you have one that can carry 2 only and both missiles have similar capabilities----then the bigger aircraft with its larger radar and larger jamming capabilities would have a much better chance to come out the skirmish unscathed---.

Secondly---this same larger aircraft can target 5 enemy aircraft at one go---whereas our single engine can only target at one----.

When facing an enemy the size of the neighbor----you have to have heavy aircraft----. Every armed force in the current time or in the past had heavy armory to counter the enemy----.

The induction of a twin engine twin tail wll depend on the defence minister----. Someone knowledgeable would order the aircraft and order the airforce----here it is---operate it---.

Honourable Mastan Khan,

You have correctly pointed out that fighters such as Su-30 Mk1 (max loaded weight 85,600lbs capable of carrying 12 missiles and F-15 ( max take of weight 65,00 lbs) that carries 11 missiles, need 2 engines to have the world beating performance. Your point however reinforces my earlier post that since US has no engine with 129.8 kN dry thrust, two P&W F100-220 engines with 64.9 kN dry thrust each power the F-15.

My argument is that apart from redundancy, having 2 engines do not necessarily mean more capable fighter. Should a reliable and powerful engine such as Pratt & Whitney F-135 (125 kN dry & 191kN with reheat) that is fitted to F-35 be available, you don’t really need 2 engines; depending of course on size & weight of the fighter.

I stand by my assertion that as long as technology level is the same; I would prefer a larger single engine to 2 smaller engines because 2 engines would weigh more, cost more and require twice as much maintenance. I would only go for the two engines for the lack of an alternative.

 

[Humble Analyst]

While twin engine jets are costly for Pakistan and the maintenance becomes even more expensive, we do need them in two roles. First as the Naval Air Arm, due to the absence of Aircraft carriers, to protect our subs and coast from Indian Naval Sea and Air assets (P8, destroyers, stand off delivery planes SU30, Rafael and Air craft carriers having mig 29s) We need two squadrons of twin engine long range multirole aircraft to protect our coast. We do need deep penetration and air superiority planes (2-3 squadrons). In case Forward operating Air fields are compromised and Air refueling capacity is not available for sometime then will we postpone deep strike missions? Cannot fire missiles as that would mean we are initiating the risk of nuclear war. As India may see any cruise or ballistic missile potentially nuclear armed. Whereas a deep strike mission by planes may or may not be seen as such if the target is tactical to strategic level. Finally the wallet will dictate this that we can buy some used F15, F18s or Chinese capable twin engine jets. Yes I know we will get Stealth planes but there is time and type lapse here.

Honourable Mastan Khan,

You have correctly pointed out that fighters such as Su-30 Mk1 (max loaded weight 85,600lbs capable of carrying 12 missiles and F-15 ( max take of weight 65,00 lbs) that carries 11 missiles, need 2 engines to have the world beating performance. Your point however reinforces my earlier post that since US has no engine with 129.8 kN dry thrust, two P&W F100-220 engines with 64.9 kN dry thrust each power the F-15.

My argument is that apart from redundancy, having 2 engines do not necessarily mean more capable fighter. Should a reliable and powerful engine such as Pratt & Whitney F-135 (125 kN dry & 191kN with reheat) that is fitted to F-35 be available, you don’t really need 2 engines; depending of course on size & weight of the fighter.

I stand by my assertion that as long as technology level is the same; I would prefer a larger single engine to 2 smaller engines because 2 engines would weigh more, cost more and require twice as much maintenance. I would only go for the two engines for the lack of an alternative.

While all your arguments are correct in the favor of efficient more powerful single engine, producing such an engine is much more difficult because of lack of enough knowledge and experience with composite materials. Everybody understands this then why they are still going for twin engines? China is struggling with composite materials and aircraft engines. USA can afford to build such planes as they have the technology and experience with best engines due to their vast programs including space and military. Who will give us the technology or the engine of such type? Twin engines are easier to build than a single engine of high thrust.