What's new

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

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.. none of the other two services had this requirement or need but they still had performance on their mind. It ludicrous to think that the USAF and Marines decided to go with lesser performance out of a single engine.

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.

You CANNOT value performance as a measure of the number of engines a fighter has. Simply because by that logic a ten engined fighter should be able to out do anything in the air.. regardless of how much power those engines produce.
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.

Yes, but the F-35 ended up being downgraded from a true VLO air craft, has a very limited payload and not spectacular performance when it comes to range. While the J-31 may not end up matching the F-35 in sensor fusion with the fancy EOTS and 360 degree MAWS it would still match it in LO performance, have greater range and probably turn out to be cheaper,no?
 
.
Would most procured translate to most lethal remains to be seen, as far as most procured, that might change when PMF/FGFA, J31, j20 comes to fruition.

From the LM website..
The current international partners' planned quantities are as follows: United States, 2,443; United Kingdom, 138; Italy, 90; Netherlands, 85; Turkey, 100; Australia, 100; Norway, 52; Denmark, 30; Canada, 65. Foreign military sales customers' planned quantitiles are Israel, 19 and Japan, 42. With additional foreign military sales, the total number of F-35s produced could reach 4,500.
 
. .
From the LM website..

total foriegn operators are around 600, US numbers are 2443, lets not forget usaf originally planned to procure 750 f22's, but to the dismay only 187 were commissioned, so the LM projected numbers could well be cut to half of what they are claiming...

india and russia alone has 500 pakfa/pmf-fgfa on book, assumtion is china would deploy something similar, then there is pakistan which may opt for J31 or some other 5th gen chinese origin fighter, there will be dassault will come up with something to which will be another odd 200 fighters to replace rafales in future (if still manned), and then there is paper fighters like AMCA, Mitsibishi FX, south koreas's fighter etc.
 
.
Yes, but the F-35 ended up being downgraded from a true VLO air craft, has a very limited payload and not spectacular performance when it comes to range. While the J-31 may not end up matching the F-35 in sensor fusion with the fancy EOTS and 360 degree MAWS it would still match it in LO performance, have greater range and probably turn out to be cheaper,no?

Thats the view of its detractors.. but that has nothing to do with actual RCS figures, and its payload exceeds that of the fighter it intends to replace and its range is also greater than the fighters it replaces.

What the detractors use in their stupid arguments for eg. is comparing a Stealth all internal payload and range to an external loading aircraft carrying fuel tanks.

The F-35 carries two bombs and two missles in its internal bay with fuel to fly more than the aircraft it replaces.
Sure the legacy aircraft might carry two more bombs and two more missiles.. but the legacy aircraft will also be picked up by the S-300 battery some 100km out and fired at while the F-35 will simply whizz around it to strike the target.

total foriegn operators are around 600, US numbers are 2443, lets not forget usaf originally planned to procure 750 f22's, but to the dismay only 187 were commissioned, so the LM projected numbers could well be cut to half of what they are claiming...

india and russia alone has 500 pakfa/pmf-fgfa on book, assumtion is china would deploy something similar, then there is pakistan which may opt for J31 or some other 5th gen chinese origin fighter, there will be dassault will come up with something to which will be another odd 200 fighters to replace rafales in future (if still manned), and then there is paper fighters like AMCA, Mitsibishi FX, south koreas's fighter etc.

At this point, those are the numbers that count..
One must add that even the Rafale was to be procured in greater numbers along with the EF and Gripen and so on. Yet they arent as many of them as supposed.

total foriegn operators are around 600, US numbers are 2443, lets not forget usaf originally planned to procure 750 f22's, but to the dismay only 187 were commissioned, so the LM projected numbers could well be cut to half of what they are claiming...

india and russia alone has 500 pakfa/pmf-fgfa on book, assumtion is china would deploy something similar, then there is pakistan which may opt for J31 or some other 5th gen chinese origin fighter, there will be dassault will come up with something to which will be another odd 200 fighters to replace rafales in future (if still manned), and then there is paper fighters like AMCA, Mitsibishi FX, south koreas's fighter etc.

At this point, those are the numbers that count..
One must add that even the Rafale was to be procured in greater numbers along with the EF and Gripen and so on. Yet they arent as many of them as supposed.
 
.
At this point, those are the numbers that count..
One must add that even the Rafale was to be procured in greater numbers along with the EF and Gripen and so on. Yet they arent as many of them as supposed.

On contrary, over prediction of f22, eft, rafales and gripen stands testament to the point LM numbers are a pipe dream...
 
.
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.. none of the other two services had this requirement or need but they still had performance on their mind. It ludicrous to think that the USAF and Marines decided to go with lesser performance out of a single engine.

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.

You CANNOT value performance as a measure of the number of engines a fighter has. Simply because by that logic a ten engined fighter should be able to out do anything in the air.. regardless of how much power those engines produce.

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.

If there is no much operational cost difference in f22 & F35, why did they go for single engined jet as sancho pointed out?

Or they just find out the same now?
 
. . .
PAF has shown no interest in any of J-11 variants as far as i know, PN raised an eyebrow on J-11B but it remained just that.
 
.
If there is no much operational cost difference in f22 & F35, why did they go for single engined jet as sancho pointed out?

Or they just find out the same now?

Again, a simplistic view. Each aircraft is assigned a different role..
Why did the build the F-16 if there was the F-15.. why build the F-18 if there was the F-14.. I think you are capable of discerning that better.

The F-22 was to replace the F-15.. and in that category for performance requirements a large fighter with enough stores capability and power to undertake those tasks were needed. Hence the power requirements could not be fulfilled by a single engine(since such an engine could not be developed) and so the design came up as it is.

There is still likely to be operational cost differences to the tune as there are operational cost difference solely on the stealth maintenance basis for the F-22 and F-117.. or the B-2. The cost of keeping those coatings maintained, the coatings durability has also increased..infact.. the F-22 will end up using some of the newer methods for applying RAM and reduction in costs that come with it. So a F-35 which is project to cost $36000 (CTOL) per hour against the F-22's 2010 figure of $55000 CPFH..
I fail to see how that is NOT a significant difference in costs... but perhaps thats just the finance analyst side speaking. Somehow 36000 and 55000 are equal in some way.

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/30/f-35-total-costs-soar-to-1-5-trillion-lockheed-defends-program/
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/what-does-it-cost-operate-f-22.html
 
.
If there is no much operational cost difference in f22 & F35, why did they go for single engined jet as sancho pointed out?

Or they just find out the same now?

There is a big difference between $44000 and $30000!

It was also said that the special materials on the F-35 are more advanced than the F-22. The reason for the F-22's superior 'stealth' profile is due to its shaping.

So that may partly explain the F-35's significantly higher operating costs relative to forth gen ones. But noway is it close to the F-22. Especially when we add the total costs altogether. It would lead to very different figures.

They intend to replace most legacy forth gen fighters with the F-35.

Their idea is to significantly reduce the number of platforms in order reduce operating costs and logistical complexities. The F-35 will complement with the F-22.
 
.
Again, a simplistic view. Each aircraft is assigned a different role..
Why did the build the F-16 if there was the F-15.. why build the F-18 if there was the F-14.. I think you are capable of discerning that better.

The F-22 was to replace the F-15.. and in that category for performance requirements a large fighter with enough stores capability and power to undertake those tasks were needed. Hence the power requirements could not be fulfilled by a single engine(since such an engine could not be developed) and so the design came up as it is.

There is still likely to be operational cost differences to the tune as there are operational cost difference solely on the stealth maintenance basis for the F-22 and F-117.. or the B-2. The cost of keeping those coatings maintained, the coatings durability has also increased..infact.. the F-22 will end up using some of the newer methods for applying RAM and reduction in costs that come with it. So a F-35 which is project to cost $36000 (CTOL) per hour against the F-22's 2010 figure of $55000 CPFH..
I fail to see how that is NOT a significant difference in costs... but perhaps thats just the finance analyst side speaking. Somehow 36000 and 55000 are equal in some way.

F-35 Total Costs Soar to $1.5 Trillion; Lockheed Defends Program « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
What does it cost to operate F-22s, CV-22s and Air Force One? - The DEW Line

The F15 was an air superiority aircraft, and the F-14 was a long range interceptor. Both of them were replaced by the F-22 which introduced the total air supremacy jet.

Edit: I typed F-16 instead of F-14 which has been corrected.
 
.
Adding more $ symbols doesnt make a point valid. How much cost difference is there between single and double engine anyway? probably around 1.5 times. That's pretty affordable! When poor African countries can afford Su-30s, Pakistan with a half a trillion GDP very well can afford to maintain it.

:cheesy::cheesy::woot: what r u smoking?
 
.
Nonsense. China has make a pact with Russian. J-11B flanker series is only for domestic use. China will not export any of its flanker lineage like J-11B, J-16.

Actually, this was before the agreement between Russia and China. The Chinese offered to sell Pakistan the J-11B with Chinese engines, but Pakistan declined the offer, because they were interested in the J-10b.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom