Who on earth said PAF will get only single engine fighters?

[Zabaniyah]

The F15 was an air superiority aircraft, and the F-16 was a long range interceptor. Both of them were replaced by the F-22 which introduced the total air supremacy jet.

While the rest of the remaining F-15's and F-16's in service would gradually be replaced by the F-35.

 

[SQ8]

The F15 was an air superiority aircraft, and the F-16 was a long range interceptor. Both of them were replaced by the F-22 which introduced the total air supremacy jet.

Not at all, the F15 was the long range interceptor cum air superiority craft. The F-16 was a light weight fighter developed to counter the more agile soviet migs and establish air superiority against them although it had range requirements as well.
A history of the F-16.
F-16 Versions - F-16 LWF :: F-16.net

The F-22 was build to replace the F-15C in its role.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Not at all, the F15 was the long range interceptor cum air superiority craft. The F-16 was a light weight fighter developed to counter the more agile soviet migs.
A history of the F-16.
F-16 Versions - F-16 LWF :: F-16.net

Sorry my typographical mistake. I meant the F-14 was the long range interceptor. The F-15 was the air superiority fighter.

Edit: Original post corrected.

 

[SQ8]

Sorry my typographical mistake. I meant the F-14 was the long range interceptor. The F-15 was the air superiority fighter.

Edit: Original post corrected.

The F-22 was not looking to replace the F-14 initially since at that time the Navy was waiting to see what the Air Force came up with.
However, seeing as the Air Force's ATF program was in full swing(and funding) ..the Navy came up with the NATF program to adapt the ATF to replace its tomcats.. however, that program went nowhere and was cancelled in 1990.

 

[Pakistanisage]

u sure about that ???? USA is not even giving us the spare parts at times and they'll let us built their best dog fighter ...

I don't understand your reference to the USA ?

J-15 is not a US Fighter. J-15 is a Chinese Fighter under-development.

I think you might be confusing it with F-15 which is a US Fighter.

 

[Zabaniyah]

The F-22 was not looking to replace the F-14 initially since at that time the Navy was waiting to see what the Air Force came up with.
However, seeing as the Air Force's ATF program was in full swing(and funding) ..the Navy came up with the NATF program to adapt the ATF to replace its tomcats.. however, that program went nowhere and was cancelled in 1990.

Too bad it was cancelled:

Would have looked pretty awesome.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

The F-22 was not looking to replace the F-14 initially since at that time the Navy was waiting to see what the Air Force came up with.
However, seeing as the Air Force's ATF program was in full swing(and funding) ..the Navy came up with the NATF program to adapt the ATF to replace its tomcats.. however, that program went nowhere and was cancelled in 1990.

The F-14 was superseded by the F/A-18 and its developments, with the F-22 now working in conjunction with those and other types such as the F-35. It is sort of like the PAF philosophy with an overachieving cover over adjunct aircraft, suitably scaled of course.

 

[SQ8]

The F-14 was superseded by the F/A-18 and its developments, with the F-22 now working in conjunction with those and other types such as the F-35. It is sort of like the PAF philosophy with an overachieving cover over adjunct aircraft, suitably scaled of course.

Quoting global security.

Due to Congressional intervention, the US Navy agreed to evaluate a navalized version of the US Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter (now the F/A-22) as a possible replacement for their F-14s. In return, the US Air Force would evaluate a derivative of the ATA as a replacement for their F-111s.

In late 1988, a Naval ATF (NATF) program office was set up at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the existing ATF Dem/Val contracts were modified to include studies of potential NATF variants.

The Major Aircraft Review reduced the peak production rates of both the ATF and NATF. This had the effect of substantially increasing the program cost. In August 1990, Admiral Richard Dunleavy, who was in charge of Navy aircraft requirements, stated that he did not see how the NATF could fit into any affordable plan for naval aviation. In early 1991, before the final contractor for the ATF was even selected, the consideration of the NATF was dropped. This was mainly due to the fact that the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14's could meet the Navy's air superiority needs through 2015

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Quoting global security.

the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14's could meet the Navy's air superiority needs through 2015

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...y-single-engine-fighters-7.html#ixzz2XvlSturU


But the F-14 was retired way back in 2006 when the F-18 replaced it. What you quote is perhaps outdated.

 

[SQ8]

the Navy realized that a series of upgrades to their existing F-14's could meet the Navy's air superiority needs through 2015

But the F-14 was retired way back in 2006 when the F-18 replaced it. What you quote is perhaps outdated.

Nope, that was the Navy's decision in 1990. Hence it is correct in its view.
The F-14 was retired because its airframes were getting older and many of the planned upgrades and new purchases had been cancelled.

 

[sancho]

I disagree with the assumption that the F-35 is single engined only to the services requirements. The US Navy has a twin engine requirement for over water operations.

I said it was based on the common design of all three varients and this only confirms it, since the USN had to compromise and take a single engine fighter, "against" their own requirements, since the main design was meant to replace single engine F16s and Harriers in the USAF and USMC. If the USN had the possibility to get an own stealth fighter, they would have opted for a twin engined.

The F/A-18E has two engines that produce 98 Kn.. the F-35 has one that produces 191Kn both at AB.. Yet the F-35 carrying two bombs and two AA missiles... flies farther than the F-18 and has better T/W in that configuration.

Actually it is meant to replace the Hornets, not the Super Hornets and they are lighter than the F35C, faster has a better TWR and recent reports said that the acceleration should be less too. The range might be higher, but the final specs of the F35C needs to be seen, the Pentagon corrected that downwards several times now.

You CANNOT value performance as a measure of the number of engines a fighter has.

I didn't said it generally, but for stealth fighters, which carries much higher basic weights than an F16s for example, which is also a medium class fighter with a single heavy engine. The F16 still is very agile and maneuverable, since it's basic weight is pretty low, a stealth fighter on the other side has to counter the higher weight with the power of a single engine only. That was even critizised even by US experts, that the F35A won't be able to match the flight performance of the F16s it will replace and PAF with the F16s and JF 17 is used to good flight performance, so do you think they will compromise with less?

Anyway, I am pretty sure that PAF will go for J31 anyway, for some commonality advantages to the JF 17 fleet and since PAF can't develop an own 5th gen fighter, nor is there currently another single engined stealth fighter under development, there hardly won't be a choice anyway.

The reason why all these large 5th gen projects are going for Twin engines is simply because at this stage there is no single engine powerful enough besides the F-135 and F-136 to produce the thrust needed to get an aircraft that carries all those avionics, weapons and RAM shaping measures and so on .. aloft by itself. Hence , you develop two engines that give it enough thrust to perform those tasks.

Exactly, but even these F35 engines doesn't produce enough thrust to offer good flight performances, but that simply wasn't the aim of the fighter anyway.

 

[sohail.ishaque]

I don't understand your reference to the USA ?

J-15 is not a US Fighter. J-15 is a Chinese Fighter under-development.

I think you might be confusing it with F-15 which is a US Fighter.

yep,.. sorry, my bad...

 

[chanikya]

This maybe not an good thread for most of members here. But I think this is one of the good threads to debate. Pakistan Air force even if is not inducting 2 jet engines today. But has been getting full training to reserved pilots and some veteran's by simulators and Saudi and Chinese twin jet engines fighters like f 15 and j 11(SU 27). Because PAF is fully sure that in case of conflict will buy / lease fighter jets from specially china and SA. There is no issue of Bucks. since Malaysia, Indonesia and African's are buying sukhoi's without any issue. indeed in small numbers but they do buy them.

From the beginning I have stated many times that we don't need j10's anymore due to jf17 and f16 with equivalent avionics and role. apart from payload they are the same.

It is been claimed by many members here that jf17 is just to replace mirages and f7 aging fleets. it does not in any sense means that they are just new jets with nothing new. its like saying F35 replacing f16 which means f35 radar is 30 to 40% more good. but in reality f35 radar and avionics are 200% better. Replace word needs to be taken very seriously.

JF 17 is very potent aircraft.

My friends Buying twin seat fighter does not bring a huge expense gap b/w single and twin fighter jets there is a quarter only diffference. Which PAF can handle if by 36-40 of them instead of j10.

furthermore I am pretty sure that PAF will lease f15 from SA and j11,j16 or other from china in case of war that is obvious.

Hei buddy r u talking about twin engine or twin seat jet.

 

[Storm Force]

J31 in paf is 15 years prématuré. And belongs in another tueras.

 

[alimobin memon]

twin engine ... I dont know why the post edit option isn't coming ... :/