Why does IAF emphasize on twin-seaters!

[Saint N sinnerr]

I know , the veterens here have an idea as to why IAF prefer twin seater aircrafts , but there are a lot of people out there who dont know much abt it , so heres a try. also, I read this in another forum hence pasting it here. Ur welcome to share your views on the issue.

If you note, india uses 2 seater versions for long range fighters. case in point - our SU 30MKI's and the coming FGFA. there is a good thought behind the rationale. points to be noted -

1. these a/c's are meant for deep penetration into enemy territory. the rules of the game changes here. one will be up against not only air assets but ground ones too. to evade by way of piloting and out maneur them and in the end take them out is too huge a burden for a single person. dividing it is to make both the men to be effective and efficient.

2. during peacetime the same a/c's act as trainers!! saving on extra machines plus being able to use the same acclimitised machines in combat!!

3. you can maximise training and tactics during peacetime which can be put to use easily in combat situation.

4. though 2 men are needed, the success rate that it may bring in far outweigh the single piloted ones because of the points noted above.

5. point that it is expensive also does not hold true. in long term it actually saves!!

A two-pilot crew provides higher work efficiency (thanks to distribution of the aircraft handling and armament control functions) as well as the engagement in close and long range combats and the air situation observation. Besides, the same dual control aircraft can be used as a combat and training aircraft. Additionally, the integrated air-borne equipment enables the aircraft to be used as an air command post to control the operation of other aircraft.

In practice, the front seater is the pilot and the back seater is the "Wizzo", the WSO (Weapons Systems Operator). The pilot flies the aircraft and handles air-to-air and some ATG weapons, as well as countermeasures. The WSO takes care of the detailed aspects of navigation, ground radar mapping & target designation, setting up delivery solution for ATG weapons, designating for guided bombs/missiles, ECM, and so on. There are many tasks which overlap; either pilot or WSO can do the job depending on circumstances. The aircraft can be flown from either seat, however only the front cockpit driver can operate the helmet mounted sight (Sura) as sensors are only in the front. The rear cockpit has a HUD repeater.

 

[LCA Tejas]

yeah buddy....... You are absolutly right.....

 

[sivadreams]

I know , the veterens here have an idea as to why IAF prefer twin seater aircrafts , but there are a lot of people out there who dont know much abt it , so heres a try. also, I read this in another forum hence pasting it here. Ur welcome to share your views on the issue.

If you note, india uses 2 seater versions for long range fighters. case in point - our SU 30MKI's and the coming FGFA. there is a good thought behind the rationale. points to be noted -

I've learnt that even Israeli Air Force prefers twin seaters... need to understand whats the school of thought for em!

 

[Red Dwarf]

2. during peacetime the same a/c's act as trainers!! saving on extra machines plus being able to use the same acclimitised machines in combat!!

3. you can maximise training and tactics during peacetime which can be put to use easily in combat situation.

Please enlighten me on this saving part. Most of the twin-seaters are also twin engined. So it need more maintenance than a single seater. So what advantage will it give against single seater aircrafts when used as trainers.

4. though 2 men are needed, the success rate that it may bring in far outweigh the single piloted ones because of the points noted above.

Its debatable..

 

[Dark Angel]

Please enlighten me on this saving part. Most of the twin-seaters are also twin engined. So it need more maintenance than a single seater. So what advantage will it give against single seater aircrafts when used as trainers.


Its debatable..

SINGLE-SEAT FIGHTERS: A QUESTION OF SURVIVABILITY



Advantages of asingle- versus dual-seat fighter, with emphasis on survivability and lethality of the F/A-18 Hornet, The need for a replacement for the aging F-4 Phantom was overshadowed by the hype of the manufacturer's concept and design, and the Navy's attempt to solve the berthing problems aboard ship. The single-seat mentality of a few overwhelmed the cries of the tactically proficient, and convinced those in power that the advances in technology will counter the advantages of the dual -seat fighters. The end result is a fleet of single-seat fighters that are not as offensive or survivable as the same dual-seat fighter.

 

[Dark Angel]

cont.....

Technology was to provide the
silver bullet. Overall, modern technology was to absorb the
increased workload that was the task of the second crewman.
Unfortunately, the cloud of enthusiasm for the return to the
single-seat design disreguarded the advances that would reshape
the battlefield that this single-seat fighter would face. The
development and employment of third and fourth generation SAM's
and AAA systems integrated into a sophfisticated command and
control system would drastically increase the lethality of the
threats' integrated air defense system. Therefore, reducing the
survivability of the penetrating Hornet due to the increased
workload on the weakest link in the Hornet's design, the pilot.
IV. Conclusion: In the case of the F/A-18 Hornet, the dual-seat
design, integrated with today's modern technology, has an
significant advantage over the single-seat Hornet in the areas of
mission success and survivability.

As for the aircrews survivability, studies have
shown that although the single-seat Hornet is superior
to its predecessor in capabilities and reliability, the
weak-link is found in the one man concept and that in
the majority of scenarios, a well trained, dual-seat
Hornet would be more survivable on the modern day
battlefield.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

Twin seater makes the airplane a true airborn superiority platform. It's not about the engines in this case, you split the workload of the pilot in ways which gives you a great overall response and awareness in A2A combat. As already pointed out above, it is great for A2G as the pilot can worry about avoiding oil fields (lingo for SAM dense areas) and the weapons officer can take out vital ground assets along the way and return home. Air Forces who have twin seater air superiority aircraft with powerful radars and long range missiles can probably outlast those who don't in war time.

 

[Dark Angel]

To determine the degree of impact that the second
crewman would have on the mission, five primary mission
areas were singled out:
* Day Strike
* Strike Escort
* Close Air Support (CAS)
* Night Strike
* Adverse Weather

The results concluded that in the Night Strike and Adverse Weather missions the second crewman was able to relieve the pilot workload by providing
dedicated attention to sensor operations The Escort and CAS missions also favored the dual-seat crew since these missions are highly
dependant on visual contacts


To further determine specific advantages of the
dual crew concept, five sub-mission areas were measured
within each of the primary missions investigated.
These factors were:
* Avoidance to Ground Impact
* Delivery Timeliness
* Delivery Effectiveness
* Survivability to the Ground Threat
* Survivability to the Air Threat

The overall comparison of survivability against the ground threats showed that, in 14 of the 15 scenarios, the dual seat aircraft were more survivable
on the average than the single-seat aircraft in simulation..



link : Single-Seat Fighters: A Question Of Survivability

 

[Abi]

Large population, high levels of unemployment, maybe?

 

[BlackSonic]

why IAF prefer twin seater aircrafts

So that President can sit on the back seat.

 

[sivadreams]

Large population, high levels of unemployment, maybe?

Cut the crap dude

 

[jagjitnatt]

there are basically two reasons for it.
1. the job is distributed. efficiency increases due to this and multiple jobs can be carried out at the same time. Aerial maneuvers and weapon handling can both be done at max efficiency.
2. We have a large number of fighter pilots and not so many number of fighter planes. This is the main reason.

Also there is a big disadvantage. The pilot and WSA have to be very well co-ordinated and trained. They must understand each other and lack of communication can be a big problem while combats. They both need to think about the same thing at the same time. Quite tough.

 

[Saint N sinnerr]

2. We have a large number of fighter pilots and not so many number of fighter planes. This is the main reason.

Also there is a big disadvantage. The pilot and WSA have to be very well co-ordinated and trained. They must understand each other and lack of communication can be a big problem while combats. They both need to think about the same thing at the same time. Quite tough.

I seriously beg to differ mate.
As pointed out in the article above , india`s enemeys are right at the doorstep for this reason we need 2 brains to work ,and also what wud U say abt USA making F-15D, thats also a twin seater fighter plane .And more over Dark Angel explained a lot in his reply to the thread.

And tregardin the coomumication b/w the pilots , thats when the training kicks in ....
hope it answers :thumbs up:

 

[jagjitnatt]

I seriously beg to differ mate.
As pointed out in the article above , india`s enemeys are right at the doorstep for this reason we need 2 brains to work ,and also what wud U say abt USA making F-15D, thats also a twin seater fighter plane .And more over Dark Angel explained a lot in his reply to the thread.

And tregardin the coomumication b/w the pilots , thats when the training kicks in ....
hope it answers :thumbs up:

I partly agree. But considering the number of single seater and dual seaters all over the world, a certain pattern emerges.
India has much more number of pilots than operational fighters. So at time of a war, much of the pilot workforce would be left doing nothing, or ground duties. If we have them, why not utilize them?

As for F15D, the number of F15D compared to F15 speaks a convincing story.

 

[Mister X]

Why does IAF emphasize on twin-seaters!

Simple, Ek se bhale do................