Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
single-engine vs twin-engine MRF
Topic Started: Aug 3 2006, 02:16 PM (595 Views)
tirad
Member
[ *  *  * ]
The issue of 1 vs 2 engines for a PAF MRF crops up in the sidelines of most MRF-related topics, it would be interesting to hear people's thoughts focused on this particular issue.

Being a "future PAF MRF", hopefully this doesn't become a we-can't-afford-it-anyway thread. Future MRFs for external defense scenarios.

I'm biased toward twin-engine MRFs myself. It's not a deal-breaker but still preferred.

In Philippine external defense scenarios, what I can see are over-water encounters, whether intercepting fighters or conducting maritime strike, such as over the expanse of the South China Sea.

Jet engines have become much more reliable but it still remains a fact that in a one-engine-inoperative (OEI) scenario, a single will have to be ditched and the pilot rescued, whereas a twin can probably limp back to base and be repaired.

Also, two engines don't necessarily mean twice more expensive to acquire/operate -- as long as we speak of roughly the same fighter class, meaning F-18 vs F-16 or some future twin JSF-wannabe vs F-35 (naks naman, JSF na, tinanggihan pa). For example, instead of a single, powerful 35,000-lb-thrust engine, why not have two 20,000-lb-thrust engines for redundancy.

Or, what with even the USN going for the F-35C, is the preference for twin-engine MRFs for over-water ops a passé idea?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tora^2
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Again, the issue here would be a matter of trade-offs.

Two engines could mean the other can bring you home if the other one conks out. However, 2 engines mean 2 times the fuel consumption.

Light weight twins like the F5E and the MiG29 may have the redundancy. On the plus side, you get a relatively cheaper jet with excellent maneuverability and agility if well-built. However, the airframe can only acommodate so much fuel giving it a range penalty. In addition, a lighter frame can mean lower payloads.

One way to offset that would to have a bigger airframe to give space for internal tanks. This could offer an explanation as to why why long-haul interceptors like the F14, Flanker, F15 and the Foxhound have larger frames. This could also explain why the E/F variants of the FA18 are bulkier to address the payload and range shortfallss of the A-D variants of the Hornet.

Ideally if we are to get a twin in the future the two engines should have enough power to take-off on one engine with half its total payload.

In the Russian Air force btw, it would a SOP for MiG29s to take using only one engine to save on fuel
Posted Image



JOIN UP!
POWER UP!
DO MORE MORE WITH LESS!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
edwin
Member
[ *  *  * ]
The selling point of Twin engine is Safety and Power.

No back-up safety for an aircraft with single engine if its fail to operate and it is much more expensive if the whole jet crash.
Twin engine does have a chance to save the whole aircraft if another one break down.

So, twin engine does not equate more expensive to operate from tactical point of view, but the safety and reliability it can give to the pilot and fighter plane itself in which more valuable to save than to loose the whole aircraft because no alteranative power to lean on.

A single engine aircraft cannot go out far in the sea while twin engine inherent safety and reliability is already a proven performer for any Maritme operation

but hey, JSF or F-35C for US navy is single engine.

Cheers :armycheers: Peace to all.



Posted Image
It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tirad
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Admittedly, the F16 blk 60 and the JSF can reach out farther than previous singles, and out to sea. But I agree, singles are safe but twins are safer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Philippine Air Force · Next Topic »
Add Reply