Why only single engine planes?

[khansaheeb]

F-35s are not available to both India and Pakistan. Any point in discussing hypotheticals



F-16 can be reconfigured to be air superiority aircraft. Do you realize F-16 program arose from the fact that F-15s were too large and too expensive in a lot of scenarios ?

Always prepare for any eventuality.

 

[gambit]

Most countries cannot afford the operational cost of twin engined fighters. Money is the harsh truth. Even US knows it, hence, the F-16. Further, when you take into consideration of your alliance's defense needs, single engine fighters make even more sense. Easier and faster to manufacture make it easier and faster for the alliance to come to a mutual defense agreement.

 

[Goritoes]

Who told you that? we have 200 F-22 Raptors are on Order, Delivery begins when Pakistan is bankrupt.

 

[kingQamaR]

The simple answer is cost. Double the engines adds at least another engines cost to the aircraft plus additional components on the airframe. Modern jet engine reliability for fighter aircraft is such that a single engine is worth the reduction in cost.

 

[SQ8]

It's a multi role. Not air superiority. The US. Considers the f16 inferior to f15 and even f14 & f18

Did the US send you a memo on that?

 

[kingQamaR]

Exactly. India has many dual engine models. I don't think anyone considers single engine crafts as air superiority fighters

Pakistan Air Force defence doctrine is quite different brother . PAF has always preferred lightweight, single-engine fighters for the following reasons: PAF is supposed to defend its aerial frontiers. It is not an aggressive force. However, it is, in essence, trained as an aggressive defender

 

[Baburfromsarmarkand]

Pakistan Air Force defence doctrine is quite different brother . PAF has always preferred lightweight, single-engine fighters for the following reasons: PAF is supposed to defend its aerial frontiers. It is not an aggressive force. However, it is, in essence, trained as an aggressive defender

I don't know. Even small defensive nations like Israel , south korea and Canada have dual engine jets. I think its just cope.

Japan has no proper army they still have them

 

[nahtanbob]

Pakistan Air Force defence doctrine is quite different brother . PAF has always preferred lightweight, single-engine fighters for the following reasons: PAF is supposed to defend its aerial frontiers. It is not an aggressive force. However, it is, in essence, trained as an aggressive defender

It is just luck of the draw. PAF has F-16s. The IAF has MiG-21/Mirage-2000 as single engine fighters. The rest of the IAF is dual engine aircraft - Rafale, MiG-29, Jaguar, Flankers

 

[gambit]

I don't know. Even small defensive nations like Israel , south korea and Canada have dual engine jets. I think its just cope.

Japan has no proper army they still have them

First, the US does not consider the F-16 to be 'inferior' to the F-15. Not sure where you got that from, but never mind.

When I was active duty, I went from the F-111 (Cold War) to the F-16 (Desert Storm). During the Cold War, the F-111 was a strategic bomber capable of reaching Russia proper. Then during Desert Storm, the F-111 became the fighter-bomber capable of going anywhere in Iraq. When I got orders to deploy to DS, I got calls from former F-111 teammates and we talked about what our respective squadrons would be doing in Iraq. Suffice to say that we knew before deployment that the F-16 would be doing more in terms of versatility than the F-111 could. That is not a knock on the F-111 but even though both jets can go anywhere in Iraq, that the single engine F-16 can turn around faster than the F-111 made the F-16 the better choice for most combat missions.

Anyway...Doctrines compels hardware, whether it is development and/or purchase. The corollary is that the hardware available compels doctrines. It is a push-pull relationship. Twin engine platforms like the F-15 and F-111 compels a doctrine of deep incursions into enemy territory, air and/or ground. If the F-16 was not available, what would you do? Limiting the F-15 usage to only border defense? Not likely. But if you have a limited budget, then with the combination of budget and hardware availability, you would have no choice but to purchase the F-15 and limit its usage via doctrines. Your budget would have allowed more F-16s but unfortunately, it does not (yet) exist, and your defense needs is urgent, so you buy what is available and develop your doctrines from there. Do you see the problem here?

On the other hand, for US, given our national wealth, we can afford to make doctrines leads development, meaning we outline what we want to do THEN we build the hardware to suit. The US and the Soviet Union can afford to do this. Most of the rest of the world -- cannot. Not on a consistent basis. Now that the SU is no more and Russian aviation is a shell of its former self, that leave US and China as the two aviation powers that can execute on the formula: doctrine before development. The rest of the world buy THEN come their doctrines.

Israel is wealthy enough and has an ally -- US -- that are willing to support it in spite of global opinions. Plus, given their national defense needs, they can afford to buy the F-15 THEN develop their doctrines. Am not going to get into geopolitical and moral debates on the US-Israel alliance. I will leave the forum's Israel members to do that. But I will say that from a military aviation power perspective, Israel needs the F-15 more than the F-16, and they got both, and that made them the dominant regional air power they are today.

During the Cold War, the US and the SU developed their doctrines, built to match, then sold to our allies. The F-4 is an example. That jet was sent to everywhere. Today, it is different. We talked to our allies, formulated a common doctrine, then COOPERATIVELY build. The results are the F-16 and F-35. Of course, the US and China will build and keep our respective superior platforms, the F-22 and J-20. Each serves unique doctrines.

In terms of utility, the F-16, in my opinion, is the best platform out there. For example...If you have a border crisis, threatening the enemy's capital deep inside his territory is an option. For most of the world's countries, the F-16 can do that PLUS capable of carrying enough ordnance to support frontline troops fighting at the border. The F-16 with a centerline fuel tank and an all-air config is a capable patrol platform from inland to marine territories. An F-16 with a centerline fuel tank can carry more bombs to make a quick dash to the battlefields. The jet's flexibility is well known and that is why it is still in production today.

 

[kingQamaR]

It is just luck of the draw. PAF has F-16s. The IAF has MiG-21/Mirage-2000 as single engine fighters. The rest of the IAF is dual engine aircraft - Rafale, MiG-29, Jaguar, Flankers

Single engine fighters are cost effective to operate & maintenance. Unit costs less & maintenance friendly. I’m sure ,if PAK is serious China is the only one who would sell dual engine fighters to us.

 

[TheSolution]

I don't know. Even small defensive nations like Israel , south korea and Canada have dual engine jets. I think its just cope.

Japan has no proper army they still have them

Israel - GDP per capita: 51,430.08 USD (2021)

Canada - GDP per capita: 52,051.35 USD (2021)

South Korea - GDP per capita: 34,757.72 USD (2021)

Pakistan - GDP per capita: 1,537.94 USD (2021)

Spot the difference

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

1. Market Availability: Currently, there aren't many twin-engine aircraft available to the PAF to buy, even if it wanted to.

2. Cost. When said aircraft were available (e.g. Tornado), they were too cost prohibitive.

3. The PAF wants a twin engine aircraft. If and when the J-35/J-21 or MMU materialize, it'll probably pursue one of them.

 

[dBSPL]

Demands are identified: What kind of platform is required, the lift capacity, maneuver and engagement capabilities that this platform should have for specific mission profiles and flight envelopes. Then a call for tender document is issued.

Then, among the aircraft that fit this description, those that are suitable for the country's political conditions and foreign relations are identified and comparative analyses are carried out. At this point, the tender process begins.

The systems deemed adequate are compared with logistics and life cycle cost assessments. The main issue is now financial economic issues. Negotiations with vendor countries begin. At this point, mostly there are only two open options. And many things are negotiable, mostly things that are not directly related to the aircraft. If one of these companies is Lockheed and this tender is taking place in the 1980s, someone might get rich in the meantime, I'm leaving out the details.

Bingo, you have started procuring a new combat aircraft. Long before the contract was signed, the staff officers may have issued a completely different request document, but what can be done? If you can't get what you love, you have to love what you get.

That was the first way. It is usually followed by countries that have a good air force infrastructure, but are dragged from one economic crisis to another.

The second way is to buy aircraft without any technical infrastructure (which politician reads these documents anyway) with the sole purpose of gaining the support of a country as a foreign policy lever. This method is followed by countries that do not even train pilots for their air forces, but have dollars gushing out of the ground. Put the money on the table and don't think about the rest.

Notice that I did not mention twin-engine or single-engine. There are so many other issues until we get to that point.

Why doesn't Pakistan supply twin engines?

A - The force prioritizes low logistics footprint and flight costs in its fighter jets.
B - It has a doctrinal structure that prioritizes more versatile and agile platforms, not more lift capacity and longer range per platform.
C - Political conditions and economic constraints have always limited the Pakistani air force's options.
D - All of them.

 

[nahtanbob]

Single engine fighters are cost effective to operate & maintenance. Unit costs less & maintenance friendly. I’m sure ,if PAK is serious China is the only one who would sell dual engine fighters to us.

that is what meant by luck of the draw

 

[sparten]

2. Cost. When said aircraft were available (e.g. Tornado), they were too cost prohibitive.

Tornado was never available. The Brits were toying with us in the 1990’s.