Why does IAF emphasize on twin-seaters?

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,085
Likes
37,562
Country flag
By the way in case of FGFA will the twin seater aircraft, compromise on stealth, as compared to one seater PAK FA
 

Quickgun Murugan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
778
Likes
22
The reason we prefer Twin-seater configuration is because we would be more efficient in handling multiple systems simultaneously in a potential full-blown war. Trust me, it isn't easy to handle everything by oneself and s a great relief if someone behind me is monitoring weapon and other systems. It greatly reduces our workload and also at the same time ensures that we are able to remain outside the stress envelope. The reason why Russia doesn't need them is probably because they are used to a single pilot system for decades as compared to the recent observation by Indian authorities of a better performance when having 2 pilots. If there is a potential conflict where we are to strike deep into enemy territory, a second set of eyes on the scenario in our favor would be really helpful when we fly amidst of all the anti-air fire and SAM batteries.

Perfect. But, I was thinking, all our Mig's Jaguras and Mirages are like single seater and huge in numbers too. So, wont the majority of the pilots be comfortable with single seater?

So that President can sit on the back seat.
ROTFLMAO
 

VayuSena1

Professional
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
200
Likes
16
Well, back then most of our strategists didn't find special reason for twin seater requirements on strike fighters since they would be very unlikely engaged in any maneuverable aerial dogfights as they were accompanied by air superiority fighters as escorts to do the job. Therefore, I believe that the strike pilots didn't seem to find considering the second dimension that adds up in case of a sudden air-to-air scenario in a multi-role fighter. Since the current IAF doctrine as it is well known is for acquiring fighters that can perform both aerial and ground based missions with equal proficiency, the addition of a second brain makes it easier to function in a stressful war scenario, where we might carry ordinance for both aerial and ground threats in one go and engage both platforms of threats simultaneously. Hope that was an adequate answer.
 

Kinshuk

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
59
Likes
2
Its because multi-tasking is more efficient in twine seats. A pilot can concentrate entirely on flying and rest can be left to the other pilot. Though it may have some disadvantages as well, like unity of command. Both pilots may differ in their decision making, and the end result can be contradictory. This is highly vulnerable when you are in close combat situation. But again a twin seat doesn't make it mandatory that both pilot should have a role, I mean a single pilot can also take over the entire functioning of the aircraft while the other pilot can listen to his I POD or have Pizza!!
 

Kinshuk

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
59
Likes
2
It may or it may not. It depends on how much does it affect the geometry of the aircraft. If they can achieve twine seater without much modifications and affecting the geometry and use of composites in the AC then it won't matter.
 

Danaan

New Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
2
Likes
0
Did Su30 have single-seat version ? Or do you prefer Su27 without TVC ?
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
I think one pilot is for flying the plain and the other pilot will squat on the floor and tie his lunge tightly and cook food in the back with an kerosene stove!
 

hitenray09

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
68
Likes
1
I think one pilot is for flying the plain and the other pilot will squat on the floor and tie his lunge tightly and cook food in the back with an kerosene stove!
oviously the co- pilots work is to cook food or else how can our pilots feed bomb to our enemies without cooking it<targeting>.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Its important that both the pilots are same in all missions to help have better understanding of each others decisions and capabilities. But multi-tasking is important too, its a skill and I hope they maintain that when required.
 

duhastmish

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
202
Likes
108
Country flag
most of Indian pilots hate the twin seat fighters, because the second pilot always interfere with decision making.

its mostly the age old strategy to have two pilot for long mission , to divide the work load. but india should look for single seat variant since we don't have our enemy far away from us.
 

hitenray09

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
68
Likes
1
most of Indian pilots hate the twin seat fighters, because the second pilot always interfere with decision making.

its mostly the age old strategy to have two pilot for long mission , to divide the work load. but india should look for single seat variant since we don't have our enemy far away from us.
dont u think in a war scenario a single pilot will be in a stressed state at flying the craft as well as targeting the enemy , double work.......................
 

duhastmish

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
202
Likes
108
Country flag
dont u think in a war scenario a single pilot will be in a stressed state at flying the craft as well as targeting the enemy , double work.......................
twin pilots means more confusion, two minds are not always better than one. because it will put you in flux should i go for it or not.

Most airforce sill run with single pilot. also twin seat increase the rcs. i dont deny that a few win seat must be kept but - not all.

most of the indian pilots hate this concept of having too many twin seat jet. just go n ask any.
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
An analysis of the both based on a study on F/18 Hornets. The original article is heavily edited and irrelevant words have to be taken out. Though time consuming and not totally error free, but still i believe its worth a read .

BeN



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1985, the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) was
tasked by OP-50 to examine the issue of single versus
dual seats with regard to their use in the F/A-18
Hornets.

The initial buy of single-seat F/A-18s was based
on the suspected penalty for an additional crewman in
the cockpit, those being:
* Reduced Fuel Capacity
* Increased Carrier-habitability Problems
* Costs

In response, analysts performed an extensive
literature search on the subject. It was determined
that the annual maintenance costs for the two seat
Hornet would be $14 thousand higher than the single
seater. It would also cost an additional one time
developmental cost of $800,000 per two seat aircraft.





The effect of additional squadron personnel on
carrier habitability was worth noting, but it does not
seem to be significant enough to influence policy
decisions.






The fact that the two seat Hornet carried 102
gallons less than the single seater14 was of concern.

However, analysis has determined that in identical
scenarios, the dual-seat Hornet burned less fuel than
the single-seater.15 Once again chipping away at the
single-seat mentality.






Phase two was to determine the benefits, if any,
provided by the presence of a second crewman.


The decision was made to conduct a one- versus two-seat
cockpit flight simulation.

The simulation took place at the Manned Air Combat
Simulator facility operated by McDonnell Aircraft
Company. Each mission would be flown in a low, medium,
and high threat environment with the aim of increasing
the aircrews workload.16
To determine the degree of impact that the second
crewman would have on the mission, five primary mission
areas17 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 operations18.

The Escort and CAS missions also favored the
dual-seat crew since these missions are highly
dependant on visual contacts.




The Day Strike missions greatly favored the
dual-seat crew in the low and medium threat scenario by
having a higher survival rate and delivery
effectiveness than the single-seat hornet.
The high
threat day strike scenario favored the dual-seat hornet
for survivability but scored the single seat crew with
a higher delivery effectiveness.





Overall the dual-seat crews were almost twice as
survivable as the single-seat crews with a ranking of
51 to 27; while the single seat crews had a slight
advantage in delivery effectiveness, with a rank of 48
to 30.
This result confirms that there was an exchange
of survivability for effectiveness while in the
delivery phase for the single-seat Hornet21.
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

Ground Impact: During the simulation, it was possible
for crews to suffer ground impacts. While there was no
kill removal for ground impact, it was still a matter
of interest in the analysis. The number of ground
impacts was tabulated and examined to see if there was
a difference between the single-seat crews and the
dual-seat crews. No significant difference was
found.



Weapon Delivery Timeliness / Effectiveness: The weapon
delivery analysis focused on the aircrews ability to
arrive on target on time and with a high degree of
effectiveness. The optimum score required bombs to be
dropped on or near the target, with a hit or a near
hit, within 30 seconds of the time-on-target.

Data proved that the dual-seat crews were more
timely using sensors more frequently
. For sensor
acquisitions, the dual-seat Hornets acquired their
targets at a 33% longer average range than the
single-seat crews. However, the single-seat crews were
slightly more effective in their weapons delivery
.


A limitation of this data is that there was no
kill removal prior to the target area, or within the
target area. Since there was no kill removal, there is
no data to determine the number of missions completed
by either the single or dual-seat fighter.


Survivability to the Ground Threat: The performance
against the ground threat was evaluated in great
detail. The simulated ground threat24 consisted of the
following systems:
* Sa-5
* Sa-6
* Sa-8
* Sa-9
* Zsu-23-4


Each aircrew had the ability to employ aircraft
maneuvering, deceptive electronic countermeasures, and
chaff and flare employment. They also had the option
to utilize High Speed Anti Radiation Missiles (HARMS)
in most missions to neutralize / destroy threat sites.


Overall, the dual-seat fighter removed 6% more threats
with HARM than the single-seat crews.



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.



Survivability to the Air Threat: The simulation set
out to analyze the aspects of performance, including
survivability of the aircrews. Both the single and
dual seat Hornets were configured with AIM-7F radar
guided missiles and AIM-9L heat seeking missiles.
The threat aircraft were simulated MIG-23 and MIG-25
aircraft, carrying short range (SRM) and medium range
missiles (MRM) similar to the AIM-9L and AIM-7F
missiles, respectively. Performance against the SRMs
and MRMs were evaluated separately to see if one type
of crew performed better than the other against
different types of Air-to-Air missiles.

The overall results of the interactions of the
single and dual-seat Hornets against the air threat
favored the dual-seat Hornet both for survivability and
lethality.
It was found, for example, that the
dual-seat crews were able to defeat a higher percentage
of Short Range Missiles fired at them than the
single-seat crews.
Single-beat Hornets were 68% more
likely to be hit per IR missile fired than the
dual-seat fighter

The lethality factor was also influenced by the
dual-seat concept in that the dual-seat crews had a
higher exchange ratio than the single-seat crews
against the given threat
. Of note also was the fact
that the dual-seat Hornets fired fewer missiles than
the single-seat Hornets. Overall, the single seat
fighter fired 30 missiles to 20 from the two-seat
fighter.

Based on the requirements, doctrine and the
research data, the determination of the survivability
factor that a dual-seat fighter offers is significant.
Overall, the dual-seat Hornet, exhibits an increase in
survivability and lethality over the single-seat
Hornet.




Through advances in technology the restricted
envelopes for weapon delivery is almost non-existent.
The design and development of the F/A-18 Hornet makes
it the most advanced fighter in the world. But not the
most survivable. The pilot for the first time is the
weak link in this war fighting package. For the first
time, the pilot is unable to exploit all the
capabilities of the Hornet due to the workload level.


single-seat Hornet is more than capable of
performing its mission, but only in a peacetime
environment. The wartime variables that greatly
influence the survivability and success of those
missions are not present in our daily peacetime
exercises. This therefore, builds a false sense of
security into the already over rated single-seat
concept.


In fact, the Dual-Seat, F/A-18 integrated with today's modern
technology, drastically increases the survivability of
Fighters on the modern battlefield.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
twin pilots means more confusion, two minds are not always better than one. because it will put you in flux should i go for it or not.

Most airforce sill run with single pilot. also twin seat increase the rcs. i dont deny that a few win seat must be kept but - not all.

most of the indian pilots hate this concept of having too many twin seat jet. just go n ask any.
Can you post some source validating your claims? Not all of us have the privelige of just walking into some IAF base and asking a pilot their opinion on IAF doctrine (which they are not obliged to answer anyway).

MiG-21s, Mirage 2000s, and MiG-29s are all single seat fighters. It it is only the Su-30MKI which has two seats and that is because it is designed to stay in the air for up to 10 hours at a time. Imagine having a single pilot trying to manage all the controls and procedures by himself for 10 straight hours.

The future FGFA will also have twin seats because it is designed to more or less perform the same roles as our Flanker does today, partially replacing some of the older Su-30s in front-line service.

All other (major) air forces also operate twin-seat aircraft for long-range, high-endurance multirole missions, including the American F-15E and Russian Su-34.
 

hitenray09

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
68
Likes
1
Can you post some source validating your claims? Not all of us have the privelige of just walking into some IAF base and asking a pilot their opinion on IAF doctrine (which they are not obliged to answer anyway).

MiG-21s, Mirage 2000s, and MiG-29s are all single seat fighters. It it is only the Su-30MKI which has two seats and that is because it is designed to stay in the air for up to 10 hours at a time. Imagine having a single pilot trying to manage all the controls and procedures by himself for 10 straight hours.

The future FGFA will also have twin seats because it is designed to more or less perform the same roles as our Flanker does today, partially replacing some of the older Su-30s in front-line service.

All other (major) air forces also operate twin-seat aircraft for long-range, high-endurance multirole missions, including the American F-15E and Russian Su-34.
apart from it , 2 pilots means 1 extra mind to ward off enemies
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top