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

[Argus Panoptes]

An addition to that is " meet the requirement".
The B-2 has fantastic performance and capabilities, but it has little to do with the requirements of the PAF.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but at what point does the tendency to redefine requirements downwards become a real consideration, given ever increasing constraints?

 

[Manindra]

Thats a simple consequence of larger twin engined aircraft such as the Flanker series or F-15s.....otherwise the F-18 is also twin engined.. yet the F-16 is able to fly much further on its single engine as compared to it. Your assertion fails if you compare the F-35 to the F-18. Even though the F-35 is larger and has a single engine, it flies much further.

You need twin engines to get the larger aircraft off the ground.. and the extra fuel is needed to fuel those two engines.

You know how much power F-35 & latest blocks F-16'S engine emits . you should compare F-16 with SU-30 & F-35 with F-22 then what is your opinion.

 

[SQ8]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but at what point does the tendency to redefine requirements downwards become a real consideration, given ever increasing constraints?

Look at at from a different perspective, take an example of Sweden.. even though it has had a well established aircraft industry in SAAB..and was generally able to meet financial commitments better than other European states... it still persists with the single engine requirement. WHY? Because to meet the needs of Sweden's defense those requirements are more than enough and creating twin engined aircraft is simply an exercise in needless expenditure.

Yes, the day the PAF decides it needs an aircraft that can maintain air superiority over long distances from its borders.. it may look into twin engines planes.

You know how much power F-35 & latest blocks F-16'S engine emits . you should compare F-16 with SU-30 & F-35 with F-22 then what is your opinion.

Incorrect assertion again, If generation is your argument defense.. then look at the F-16 Block 15 and Mig-29A (both same generation).. Even though the Mig-29 is a larger aircraft.. its combat radius for a ground attack mission even with a 1500L drop tank was 240km.

Comparatively the F-16 on a similar profile could do 550km without the external fuel tanks and carrying six 500 pound bombs.

Two engines WILL need more fuel.. plain and simple.. You can add fuel for it, like the Mig-29 has in its fatback tanks.. to increase the range.. or design a larger aircraft from the outset like the Su-27 and give it enough fuel tanks to feed the engines it needs to stay aloft.

 

[sancho]

Two engines WILL need more fuel.. plain and simple.. You can add fuel for it, like the Mig-29 has in its fatback tanks.. to increase the range.. or design a larger aircraft from the outset like the Su-27 and give it enough fuel tanks to feed the engines it needs to stay aloft.

Actually that's why twin engine fighters generally are bigger and carry more fuel, the Mig 29 was just not good designed in that regard in the past, with way too less internal fuel. When you compare that to the F18SH, Rafale or EF instead, things are pretty different wrt to range and endurance. Not to forget that the load is important for the fuel consumption too! An F16s with around 8t will have a difference performance than a Rafale, since the twin engine power will give more ease to handle such a load, than the single engine at it's maximum performance, which dramatically will increase the fuel consumption again.

 

[SQ8]

Actually that's why twin engine fighters generally are bigger and carry more fuel, the Mig 29 was just not good designed in that regard in the past, with way too less internal fuel. When you compare that to the F18SH, Rafale or EF instead, things are pretty different wrt to range and endurance. Not to forget that the load is important for the fuel consumption too! An F16s with around 8t will have a difference performance than a Rafale, since the twin engine power will give more ease to handle such a load, than the single engine at it's maximum performance, which dramatically will increase the fuel consumption again.

Yes, but the tonnage the aircraft carry.. along with the operating costs are also different.. are they not?

 

[rockstarIN]

Isnt the initial low-power engines paved the way for twin engined long range fighters?

Like France, they have no choice but to go for twin engine for Rafale?

 

[474474]

Buy irani f-14s?
I've heard they can crap all over the useless coffins called f16s

 

[muse]

I Think @Oscar will expound on the kind of Air Force and especially doctrine, that PAF is with single engine aircraft and the kind of Doctrinal change twin engine, higher performance, range and genuine multi-role capablity suggest.

 

[Storm Force]

Firstly lets get this ridiculous idea out of the way

ie

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.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...nly-single-engine-fighters.html#ixzz2Xj78eRQU

No body is going to you LEASE you $40 million + combat planes to FIGHT a indo pak war....

THAT IS comments from desperate people.

Coming back to twin engines v single engines

Whilst agree for a very limited budget constrained air force predominately single engine fighters is theright doctrine YOU some times need a twin engined option. The bigger more potent fighters offer far more safety. operational range and carry bigger threat.

By operating a single engined fleet PAF is restricting its POTENTIAL operational enevlope TO MOSTLY ITS OWN AIR SPACE or THE BORDER areas only.

I have long advocated 2 sqds of 40 J11/J16 for PAF over he J10 anyday/

the FLANKERS wil give the indian Navy & air force a big problem. FAR bigger than j10/jf17

 

[muse]

Whilst agree for a very limited budget constrained air force predominately single engine fighters is theright doctrine YOU some times need a twin engined option. The bigger more potent fighters offer far more safety. operational range and carry bigger threat.

By operating a single engined fleet PAF is restricting its POTENTIAL operational enevlope TO MOSTLY ITS OWN AIR SPACE or THE BORDER areas only.

I think you've nailed the major issue of doctrine between the protagonists. In Pakistan and among Pakistanis, the idea of change is highly suspect - we really really hate it.

We are locked into the hold the adversary at bay for 2 weeks and pray for the US to intervene, now things have changed, the US will intervene but we won't like it one bit because their intervention is going to be against us - that is to say, the proponents of the larger twin engine, high performance multi-role are those who recognize that the strategic environment is changed in a fundamental way, that unless one possess the ability to strike deep and inflict unacceptable loss, Pakistan is all but lost -- the other side argues that we have a missile force for that, however, this view is restricted in the sense that it does not allow for a deep conventional capability and therefore the nuclear threshold is reached very quickly. Readers can decide for themsleves which allows greater flexibility

 

[alimobin memon]

I feel sorry for you... PAF has leased many times and you don't even know ... check 65 and 71 war ...

Just like Pakistan has always supported Saudi Arabia in Arab wars and once even stationed 15000! of combat force which is completely not a joke.

There is even an close to reality rumor that Pakistan will provide nuclear support to Saudi if attacked. So jets are nothing.

This is a proven fact that Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes Iran has yet to test it. keeping in mind that it has importance for Muslim countries.

nobody is desperate.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...pakistan-use-saudi-uae-aircraft-case-war.html

just read this and then you will be desperate !

this link is just an information for you don't take it as if I am saying on that.

 

[SQ8]

I Think @Oscar will expound on the kind of Air Force and especially doctrine, that PAF is with single engine aircraft and the kind of Doctrinal change twin engine, higher performance, range and genuine multi-role capablity suggest.

You have to look at the threat we face.. first. Then the requirements of facing that threat.. second.. and third.. the budget we have to meet those requirements.
The threat is not paper equipment but rather their employment. Like all Air forces the PAF keeps tabs on the IAF plans(and vice versa)..and based on these plans prepares its own to defend against. These plans are prepared knowing what budget the PAF has, and take into account mission effectiveness, survival of the force.. etc and then various levels of targets it has to accomplish in different hostile scenarios.
These plans are phased into the sort of posture the over-all airforce, the sector, the wing and the unit.
Will the unit be dedicated to defensive operations, offensive operations ..a mix.. etc

Once all these ideas are settled, then resources are allocated.. from what is(will be) available.

Hence, your doctrine comes into effect..
So if there are particular objectives such as disrupting a strike mission through interception or otherwise.. then this objective is carried out as effectively by a single seat light weight fighter as it would be a heavy one. If it entails providing close air support to troops from a base that is ten minutes of flight time from the border.. then a single engined jet will suffice.

Sure, having a big twin engined jet with lots of power is always welcome.. but not always needed. The UAE is still sticking to its F-16s.. so is the US with the F-35. Just depends on their operational requirements and doctrine. Had Pakistan the need to go and strike an enemy beyond 1000km and massive land to conquer or had it not developed ballistic missles.. perhaps that would make sense. But within its requirements to defend its airspace and provide support to the troops and stall the enemy's warmachine at the border.. its adequate.

I cant recall who, but I read of an USAAF officer who was asked by Gen Doolittle about the best bomber they had.. The officer replied "The P-38".. to which the general was irked and annoyed.. and asked why? The officer replied..
"because , it can carry two thousand pound bombs which are usually all that is needed for most targets, deliver them with better accuracy than most aircraft.. and carry this payload to Berlin and back.. And.. it can defend itself from fighters while cost much less than a B-17".

 

[SQ8]

I think you've nailed the major issue of doctrine between the protagonists. In Pakistan and among Pakistanis, the idea of change is highly suspect - we really really hate it.

We are locked into the hold the adversary at bay for 2 weeks and pray for the US to intervene, now things have changed, the US will intervene but we won't like it one bit because their intervention is going to be against us - that is to say, the proponents of the larger twin engine, high performance multi-role are those who recognize that the strategic environment is changed in a fundamental way, that unless one possess the ability to strike deep and inflict unacceptable loss,

That would hold true, except that a lot of enemy's own keystone's for its warmachine against us.. specifically that which threatens us.. lies within the reach of current assets. If you ever have a change to read on the history of the Gulf war and this man..
John A. Warden III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will have an idea of the doctrine I talk about..

 

[muse]

I cant recall who, but I read of an USAAF officer who was asked by Gen Doolittle about the best bomber they had.. The officer replied "The P-38".. to which the general was irked and annoyed.. and asked why? The officer replied..
"because , it can carry two thousand pound bombs which are usually all that is needed for most targets, deliver them with better accuracy than most aircraft.. and carry this payload to Berlin and back.. And.. it can defend itself from fighters while cost much less than a B-17".

So your point here is that a larger fighter, a true multi-role is what we should go for? After all the comparison between a bomber and a fighter/bomber (multi-role) and a comparison between a light fighter (point defense) and a fighter/bomber (multi-role) should also hold.

I also take your point about adversary assets being close to the border - however, ought we fight on our border or take the fight to the adversary's heartland? If we fight at the border, then we are truly locked into the 2 week thing are we not? And if yes, then we are screwed are we not because intervention will not be to our advantage, and perhaps this is why "Surrender" is a real option for our armed forces.

 

[SQ8]

So your point here is that a larger fighter, a true multi-role is what we should go for? After all the comparison between a bomber and a fighter/bomber (multi-role) and a comparison between a light fighter (point defense) and a fighter/bomber (multi-role) should also hold.

I also take your point about adversary assets being close to the border - however, ought we fight on our border or take the fight to the adversary's heartland? If we fight at the border, then we are truly locked into the 2 week thing are we not? And if yes, then we are screwed are we not because intervention will not be to our advantage, and perhaps this is why "Surrender" is a real option for our armed forces.

Nope, My point is that whatever aircraft suits our requirements best is what we go for. Your definition of true multi-role needs to exclude size or engines. A true multi-role aircraft is one that can perform both air to air and air to ground tasks in one single mission and seamlessly perform both roles simultaneously during that mission. To achieve that task, the aircraft should be able to carry enough tonnage in both air to air and air to ground at the same time.. and be able to attack n air target whilst engaging a ground target. Now, for that to happen... it should be able to target both at the same time and send weapons to them at the same instant.
Here is an example of what that means.

However, if a more lax definition is taken.. of aircraft that can work in both air-to air and air to ground roles within a mission...then the F-16 does that with ease. Now, is a heavy multi-role fighter or light multi-role fighter more suitable. That depends both on the resources you have and the roles you require. Sending a multi-role fighter worth millions of dollars to intercept and engage enemy strike aircraft over your own airspace where(in light of current missiles and accuracy) you will probably be able to employ no more than two or so before you end up engaging them in visual combat and due to the very accurate air to air missiles available for short range engagements.. shoot down and be shot down.. its a waste. Which is why various airforces continue to operate tier fighters for their roles.

Now, the idea is to hit the enemy in its critical sectors.. create confusion.. slow them down. Then you have to identify those spokes whose destruction(or disruption) will do that. Those key spokes(for now) rest in range of newest strike aircraft. The J-10B was supposed to add to this particular level of punch..sadly the finances did not permit for that.
So at the moment..the PAF has 18 aircraft that are able to hit the further(as an exclusive) critical nodes of the enemy and have enough chances to complete the mission.