Why does IAF emphasize on twin-seaters!

[saurabh]

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.

If that was the case, we would have reduced the no of pilots. Planes are purchased and pilots are recruited considering doctrine, and not vise-versa.

 

[Shambu]

Ek Driver aur Ek Cleaner.

 

[sancho]

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...

...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!!...

...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!!

I mainly agree with you but on the second point, it's true that you can save dedicated trainer variants, but on the other side your fighters will be heavier and less maneuverable as similar single seat variants. IAF countered this on MKI to some extend, with the addition of canards and TVC, but the T/W ration of Su 30 MKI and Su 35 will be clearly different.
On point 5, I would like to hear an explaination of you, why it should save money?

In generall the main advantage of a twin seater is in strike role, because here it has clear advantages to have a second man to concentrate on the target only. That's why USN have twin seat F18SH for strike role and Israel air force would like twin seat F35s. However with more and more guided weapons and better techs for laser, TV, or IR targeting, even those missions will be easier to handle in future for a single pilot. That is also the main point of the US to developm F35 only in single seat versions, although its main role is strike.

In A2A a single seater is sufficiant enough in most missions, except (and maybe this is the most important part for IAF), in long endurance patrol missions!
Keep in mind that the MKI, unlike most normal twin seat fighters can be controlled from both pilots, whereas other fighters has the pilot in front and only a navigator in the back seat.
That means for IAF, that they can use MKI in long endurance patrol missions with inflight refueling and 2 different pilots. If you keep in mind the size of India and that it is way more difficult for a single pilot to keep concentrated at such long missions (up to 9h), it should be clear that this is a big advantage.
FGFA will replace MKI in this role and I guess that's why IAF wanted the twin seat config again, also because of its stealth capabilities, it will be more useful in deep penetration strike mission than MKI.

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?

First of all, there are many reports saying IAF pilots numbers are shrinking, secondly this fully twin seat config is meant only at MKI and its replacement the FGFA. All other fighters in the fleet will be mainly single seat and mainly 2 twin seat trainers (I read somewhere that MMRCA has a focus on more twin seat fighters than single seat, which can hint on strike role, but don't found a reliable source of that claim yet), so there are more than enough single seat fighters in the fleet.