Why the IAF keeps its twins in the limelight??

[Windjammer]

@ ganimi kawa, Read the opening topic again, the point being overseas deployment. !!!

Now did the EFs came to India or the Mirage-2000s and MIG-27s visited UK. ?? !!!

 

[anathema]

@ ganimi kawa, Read the opening topic again, the point being overseas deployment. !!!

Now did the EFs came to India or the Mirage-2000s and MIG-27s visited UK. ?? !!!

Dont know about UK...but some googling skills revealed a certain Golden excercise which IAF participated in SF with M2k's.
Exercise Golden Eagle 2004 (South Africa) - Vayu Sena
Mig 27 lack refuelling probe which explains their short leggedness but i guess that is more than enough to carry out A2G role in a indo-pak scenario...

Finally it doesnt matter what any one says if ones intention is purely to flame ....

 

[John Doe]

Do the topics, "Last Air Battle" and "PAF Pioneers CFT" ring any bells ???, well since you really love your self, those threads are very much there for all to view and decide as to who fell flat on his face. !!!
Did you have to resort to your Cubist-Revisionist painting to conclude this. ? as you your self have said,
Dual engined aircraft are inherently safer than single engined aircraft, hence the psyche of my topic that the IAF doesn't have the confidence in the single engine alas relies on the twin engine machines, let me make it easy for you, seven days is equal to one week.
And let me remind you that the likes of MIG-21 and Mirage (Single engine) were the most widely used aircraft in their hey day and even today the F-16 is the most successful jet fighter in the world.

Even so, the A-5 could have been replaced by another twin engine machine, but it all kicks back to confidence, and the PAF indeed had the choice of just sending the F-16s, it's most reliable aircraft, however the fact remains that it's the IAF which only resorts to the SU-30s.!!!
Well, for whatever reason it doesn't seem to exercise that choice now does it. ?? And since you knowledge only extends to the fact that the PAF aircraft flew all the way to Middle East for a photo session, then I am indeed addressing the Bollywood fan that you often expose.

Leaves little to imagination as to who needs enlightening in a little military aviation..... those idiots at Lockheed Martin, SAAB, Dassault and CATIC keep churning out single engine jet fighters little realizing that all passenger airliner have two or more engines. Bravo John Doe.

Glad you brought up those 2 threads, and may I add the one about "IAF plagued by accidents". Just in case members are wondering why the floor around my feet has been wiped clean and how.......

Repeating my points to me does not strengthen your position you know!

So we both agree that 2 engines are safer than 1, and that only IAF (and not PAF) sends Su-30's to air exercises. Duh.....or should I say 'Wow'?

I could have said a lot more to address your other ideas, but other members seem to have the floor around their feet already cleaned.......

I hope for the sake of the pilot whose photo you are misusing in your avatar, that you will read and answer each and every post directed to you in this and the prev. page. Heroes images should not be bandied about lightly for frivolous & dishonest posts, no?

PS: Have you once, even once, read any link that I have posted before replying? I feel more and more bad for the damage you are causing the unfortunate pilot on your avatar. Of course, you will say that he pleaded with you to use it, while you were sharing strategies with PAF's CAS.

 

[jha]

Glad you brought up those 2 threads, and may I add the one about "IAF plagued by accidents". Just in case members are wondering why the floor around my feet has been wiped clean and how.......

Repeating my points to me does not strengthen your position you know!

So we both agree that 2 engines are safer than 1, and that only IAF (and not PAF) sends Su-30's to air exercises. Duh.....or should I say 'Wow'?

I could have said a lot more to address your other ideas, but other members seem to have the floor around their feet already cleaned.......

I hope for the sake of the pilot whose photo you are misusing in your avatar, that you will read and answer each and every post directed to you in this and the prev. page. Heroes images should not be bandied about lightly for frivolous & dishonest posts, no?

PS: Have you once, even once, read any link that I have posted before replying? I feel more and more bad for the damage you are causing the unfortunate pilot on your avatar. Of course, you will say that he pleaded with you to use it, while you were sharing strategies with PAF's CAS.

CLASSIC...

 

[KS]

Yeah its a major crisis that IAF has a different doctrine than PAF. Not our problem that PAF can't afford twin engine fighters.

Good for PAF if they could fly their Thunder to Europe, but its not like they had options. If you only have single engine planes you ll fly single engine planes!

Its like if my neighbor has a BMW and I have a Toyota. I say hah look at him, hes scared of driving, so he is driving in relatively safer car. When the fact is that deep down I wish i could afford a BMW myself.

This sums it up all. You fly what you have.Period.

 

[ganimi kawa]

@ ganimi kawa, Read the opening topic again, the point being overseas deployment. !!!

Now did the EFs came to India or the Mirage-2000s and MIG-27s visited UK. ?? !!!

I presume there was some talk regarding Republic Day parade ,too. Never knew that it was considered to be a part of overseas deployment!

Anyways, this has already been answered very well by posters like Pandora, anathema et al. I'll just recap and add a few points.

1. Overseas deployments are costly things and so, every year the IAF has maximum one deployment.

2. The choice of fighter to be deployed is not a one way decision. It is taken in full consultation with the host nation.

3. Also, the engine status (single/double) plays a very minor role in selection of the aircraft for deployment. Instead; the following rubbish (!) criterion is used.

a) The role of the craft in the future force matrix of the IAF.

b) Potential for simulating real life missions as closely as possible.

c) Need to exercise with other aircraft types to evolve the tactics.

d) Formulating future needs for the crafts.

e) Requests from the host nation.


4. Taking all these points into consideration, you will realise that the worldwide trend is to field the frontline crafts for the overseas deployment and exercise all others when you play the host.


5. Currently all the frontline jets of IAF are twinners, thus the bias!

6. Do not jump at non existing shadows!

 

[rockstarIN]

They may be more redundant.. if that is what you mean to say..
Twin engine safety is preferred over the sea.. yet the F-35 is single engined.. the F-8, the Fj fury.. the F9F.. the super etendard.. etc
Twin engines are safer in the case that if one flames out.. you still have one to keep going..
In combat too.. they offer an advantage.. if one of your engines gets taken out.. you still have one that might help you get home..
although on fighters such as the F-6 and jaguar ..with engines spaced closely together.. that may not be such a help.. since its quite likely both engines took the damage. or if one decided to go up in flames..the other wont stay cool for long.

Now.. come to other factors.. twin engines.. more fuel for each engine.. the jet's fuel fraction decreases..
more maintenance.... your turn around time is effected in wartime.
Two pieces to pack.. your jet grows in size.. so does its RCS..and its visibility to the nakes eye.. the F-16 is a lot harder to spot from 7km than the Mig-29.
They burn a LOT more gas.... means for that very gas.. you could get two single engined fighters up..and a lot farther... which is great for peace time flying.. we arent always at war.

If I were buying a fleet of jets for combat, I would want capability for my money. The long term benefits are better. The extra motor, which is of duboius benefit with respect to survivability,will cost money that could be used for a few extra airframes. If we loose a few that might have made it on one motor, we are still ahead. And when we consider logistics, the single-engine comes out ahead.

Now.. coming to overseas exercises.. lets call it simple.. the PAF has generally been more media savvy..
whether it was hiring a brit to do the story on us.. or getting in with the yanks..
The Indian's alignment with the USSR did not help either.. they really did not know media that well.
The IAF has in the past participated in exercises with the EAF..and the RN.. amongst others.. but due to the alignment of most of these participating nations with the eastern bloc.. the flair never got out.. but that does not mean the lessons did not.

Also.. participating in airshows.. etc.. is part of your image..its just PR for the PAF..
we are active participants in the anatolian eagle.. ATLC.. small less announced participations with arab nations and the chinese..
and have quite a few exchange pilots abroad.. some in nations where others dont go.
So our participation is pretty meaningful as well.. thank you very much.
Old aircraft.. does not mean bad pilots. .. and those underestimating the F-7PG.. are really digging their grave.. there is a LOT more to it than meets the eye.. period... F-22,Rafale and EF pilots testify to that.. (im going to see who posts the "i wanna link" post here ).

as far as the increase in crashes go... do intensive flying hours on increasingly aged airframes mean anything to people.. somehow this is bought up when the Mig-21 bison was concerned.. but conveniently forgotten here by some to score points.

Apart from the safety and survivability concerns there is some more things for going for twin engines in case of IAF. IMHO twin engine means more load, more range. Being a big country, we could not have more bases all over the border but to have air crafts which have more range, sustain in the air more time. That is the case for USN carrier jets too, which does not have a single engined jet for the carrier. (Why there were no naval variant of F-16? simply USN need more range, more load in their craft.

In case of PAF, single engined jets are suitable coz of more defensive strategy in case of air war, geographical aspects etc apart from cost benefit pattern.

And regarding the air shows, that is the platform where you can show off your product which you intend to sell or just for pride. IAF have nothing to sell, but to show off the cobra..so we do it everywhere. And in case of exercises, as I said everybody wants to know how the other block's best is working etc in case of IAF with RAF etc.

And regarding F-7PG underestimation.....well, even a third generation jet with decent BVRs is a credible threat even for unknown UFOs too, leave alone F-22. Pilots testify that. A saying like, 'in land you might get a second chance but in air, you do not have second one'

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Well people are totally forgetting the concept of power generated for supplying the electronics on board. 2 engines give more power and you have better reserve power for the avionics suite and the Radar. Its EW and jamming is easier with more power output from the engines.

 

[manojb]

Have you ever seen Su30 take off in real life? Not on 2 dimensional video. I saw one @ air show. It takes half runway as compared to other singles. Climb rate is near vertical. If pilots can push their craft so aggressive in public show what else can they do in combat situation?

Down side is its too expensive nd Its fuel guzzler. In that case we should sit quite.

 

[MST]

Isn't it common sense that you deploy your better planes for overseas exercise (minus stuff that you don't want to show others e.g. 5th gen planes). Possibly because you will be most likely going to take these planes into enemy territories to fight the war and you want to see how these stack up with other advanced planes around the world as well as work out the best possible strategies through different exercises. And this holds especially true for overseas exercises which can be very expensive.

I mean isn't 270 SU 30MKI the main stay of IAF and 250 JF-17 going to be the mainstay of PAF. So why is it such a surprise that IAF send Su30MKI and PAF sends JF-17? And from where did 2 engine vs 1 engine came up . Both Airforces are sending the best they have got.

 

[sancho]

Now.. come to other factors.. twin engines.. more fuel for each engine.. the jet's fuel fraction decreases...
...They burn a LOT more gas.... means for that very gas.. you could get two single engined fighters up..and a lot farther... which is great for peace time flying.. we arent always at war

Wrong, because most twin engine fighters are designed to carry more internal fuel, which equals the fuel fraction again:

Gripen NG - fuel fraction 0.32
F16 Block 60 - fuel fraction 0.25
Rafale - fuel fraction 0.33
F18SH - fuel fraction 0.32

The performance during peace time is not an issue, because you calculate that before you buy these fighters. You will buy them only if you can afford to operate them. If that is the case and you have an operational requirement for it (be it in air superiority role, or strikes), there should be no doubt, that any AF would opt for a twin engine version, if they have the choice.

Two pieces to pack.. your jet grows in size.. so does its RCS..and its visibility to the nakes eye.. the F-16 is a lot harder to spot from 7km than the Mig-29.

Debatable, because it depends on the fighter designs:

Length: F16 - 15.03m / Rafale - 15.27m / J10 - 15.50m
Wingspan: F16 - 10.00m / Rafale - 10.80m / J10 - 9.70m
Height: F16IN - 5.09m / Rafale - 5.34m / J10 - 4.78m
Empty weight: F16IN - 9979 kg / Rafale - 9500 kg / J10 - 9750Kg
MTOW: F16IN - 21800Kg / Rafale - 24500Kg / J10 - 19277Kg

As you can see on the pics, it's not the twin engine that makes Rafale more visible, but the different wing design. If we now consider the J10 besides the Rafale, we would hardly see a difference.

If I were buying a fleet of jets for combat, I would want capability for my money. The long term benefits are better. The extra motor, which is of duboius benefit with respect to survivability,will cost money that could be used for a few extra airframes. If we loose a few that might have made it on one motor, we are still ahead. And when we consider logistics, the single-engine comes out ahead.

An F16 IN is expected between $50 and 60 million dollar fly away, the Rafale around $85 millions. The maintenance of the single engine fighter is of course cheaper, but if you loose one fighter due to engine failure, you lost $50 to 60 million dollar. The Rafale on the other side, has good chances to return home, even with 1 engine, now how much higher must be the operational costs of the Rafale, to equal the loss of around $30 millions?
More importantly, you started with the statement that you want capability for your money, but here is the problem. A Rafale can carry more load and will offer better performance with higher loads, exactly because of the higher thrust of 2 engines (F16 B60 dry thrust, 84kN, Rafale dry thrust 100kN) and bigger twin engine fighters like F15, or Flankers will be even better in this field. They can carry more fuel and loads, while offer better thrust performance than a single engine opponent, which clearly makes it more capable.

The bottom line is, it's not that easy to say where the advantages of single, or twin engine fighter lies. The engine technology has matured during the past decades and especially the western engines are very reliable now, but you can't rule out a loss of a fighter and you can't generalise it either.
The US forces are stating, that the single engine F35, will be up to 1.5 times costlier to operate than the twin engine F18 Hornet it will replace.
Dassault has developed the twin engine Rafale, based on operational and maintenance routines of the single engine Mirage 2000. They say that it needs 25% less ground crew to maintain the Rafale and the operational costs are said to be just 12 to 15% higher.

 

[IndianArmy]

JF-17 Is better because It has Participated overseas while India has Kept LCA home?? May I ask You, Who will Pilot the LCA for Overseas Airshows?? Will It go under the banner IAF or National Flight Test Centre?? It has not been Inducted into the Airforce. Lets wait Until that very moment for it to participate overseas...

 

[sancho]

the point being overseas deployment. !!!

Now did the EFs came to India or the Mirage-2000s and MIG-27s visited UK. ?? !!!

Exercise Golden Eagle

The South African armed forces (SANDF) held the biennial Exercise Golden Eagle in the last week of September 2004. Like the one held in 2002, this time too there was significant international participation in the 'games'. Aircraft and aircrews from Germany and India took part in the exercise for the first time and the accompanying defence exhibition. Additional military observers were called in from Germany, Sweden and Zimbabwe to ensure fair and accurate ratings...

...Departure

The IAF group comprised of ten aircraft, centered around a detachment of six Mirage-2000s from the No. 7 Battleaxes Squadron from Gwalior. As these aircraft do not have the range to fly the entire distance to South Africa, they were supported by two IL-78 Mid-Air Refuelers of the Agra based No. 78 Battle Cry Squadron. Two IL-76 Gajraj transporters hauled the supporting men and equipment...

Exercise Golden Eagle 2004 (South Africa) - Vayu Sena

Albeit, the Thunder has recently entered Squadron service, the PAF had enough confidence to fly it out to UK and China to participate in respective air shows, but it was a lack lustre display of seeing the LCA being driven past the saluting dais perched on a clumsy platform. Furthermore, as the PAF progressively participates in International Exercises, it not only deploys the trustworthy F-16s but even the Mirages and F-7s are flown out to engage against the top line combatants in DACT and other missions

P.S. PAF don't show any confidence by participating at airshows with JF 17, because the one has nothing to do with the other. JF 17 is the only export fighter possibility that Pakistan has at the moment, presenting them at Farnborough is logical in regard to PR and if LCA MK2 will be aimed on exports as recent news says, it will do the same as well (Dhruv is a constant participant at the Berlin Air show!).
Now coming to the exercises, where I already proved you wrong, you also have to keep in mind where PAF deployed the F7s and where MKi Jags, or Mirage 2000s were deployed!
UAE is hardly far away from Pakistan, so logistics and support isn't really an issue. Participating in South Africa, France, or even the US in this regard is a totally different issue, with transport aircrafts, ground crews, but also long range fighter with mid air refuelling capability. That last point should explain why Mig 27s will not be deployed to such exercises, while it always participate in exercises in India, be with US F15s, british EFs and Tornados, or even F16s from Singapore. IF IAF had any lack of confidence in this type of fighter, it wouldn't field it against such capable and upgraded fighters (all more capable then anything PAF has).

 

[Windjammer]

@John Doe
Before i rain on your parade, let me ask you, what has an avatar to do with discussion in place, there are members here displaying cricketers as their logo but discussing on military matters and vice versa, and what about you JD, shall we assume that you were dumped by your parents and raised by some Tom, Dick and Harry, hence your user name. Since you are incompetent to engage in a meaningful debate, then any wonder You will digress to
any level to redeem your bankrupt mind set. Too bad, since I give as good as I get. Now allow me to plant another egg on your face.

Glad you brought up those 2 threads, and may I add the one about "IAF plagued by accidents". Just in case members are wondering why the floor around my feet has been wiped clean and how.......

I can post the link, where you actually thanked the Indian member for informing you that it's impossible to provide an up to date data since such is classified, yet you were demanding such from me as part of your Dowry. What shall we call this,...... a marriage of inconvienince. !!!

Repeating my points to me does not strengthen your position you know!

Never, not even to save my self. However then again, you do often refer to the Bollywood Drama Queens. Guess no surprises there.

So we both agree that 2 engines are safer than 1, and that only IAF (and not PAF) sends Su-30's to air exercises. Duh.....or should I say 'Wow'?

Even if it's as such, the rest is your assumption since the PAF has also deployed to UK and USA on a single engine like the JF-17 and F-16. Hell that Wow must represent the Warrior of wonder that you are.

I could have said a lot more to address your other ideas, but other members seem to have the floor around their feet already cleaned.......

Yup, it indeed looks like rush hour down Kolkota street, what say JD, have you been busy on your PMs again or shall we assume these members as Man's best friend ( Hello.... knock ...knock... any one home)
And for you and all the KODAK MOMENT fans, get your laughing gear around this.
F-22 Raptors return from training in Middle East | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

 

[John Doe]

Instead of trying to redeem yourself in my eyes, you should have been answering the other members who gave you fact after fact to correct your mistaken notion.

This is not a popularity contest you know (I don't see you winning that one anyway!), but a FACT based discussion forum. Answer those posts (almost every post on page 3) where you have been proved at the very least, wrong.

About your avatar, if you consider a cricketer's honor and his contribution to the nation on par with that of a PAF pilot, then you are not a Pakistani. I am disappointed that you don't understand the concept of 'Izzat' to a warrior. When someone lies, makes vulgar/misogynistic remarks, and is an overall bag of shames and does this under the photo of a patriot and warrior, let me tell you, you are causing his image and honor a lot of damage.

I don't wish to educate you any more, please go ahead with your usual water color posts, which I now believe is preferable to your current brand of threads.

PS:
You have made no sense with the rest of your post by repeating exactly what I have been saying along, and then drawing the exact opposite conclusion. About the earlier threads, I've already requested others to read these posts to understand how I wiped the floor around my shoes spotlessly clean.......