the second pilot is given the control of weapons only right?
then how can there be any confusion?
as long as twin seat does not reduce aircrafts performance IAF should go for it..
i read that russians said designing stealth twin seated FGFA will not be easy..
Twin seaters may not increase cost for India. But for Europeon countries with demographics of low birth rate and stagnant population using two people who are saleried per aircraft means they are putting only one aircraft on duty paying two piliots. So they tend to automate the machine and use a single pilot to control weapons systems as well. The Raptor itself has only one pilot remember. But as the French Rafale deployment showed a second crew member is a valuable asset in strike missions even in an aircraft reaching the highest levels of automation such as the rafale.
The Russians would like to stick to single seater since they are building it to be mostly an air-defence fighter, strike will be carried out by Su-34 and in future PAK DA, which would be a strike variant of the former PAK FA. Besides a second crew member increses weight which has to be balanced by adding additional thrust, triggering a development spiral. The RCS was reported to be 0.5 sqm, which cannot be true, but if it is ,is very low for a stealth fighter Rafale or Eurofighter in clean configuration would be as much that. In fact it could well be no better than F-15 silent Eagle. So two crew dimension adds the risk of stealth compromise. The aircraft from its look is made to be maneoverable at the cost of stealth, redesigning dimension could worsen both.
Another US school VS Russian School of military thought
Limited maneouverability, great Stealth F-35 VS super Manueverability, comromised Stealth Su T-50
