Pic of 5th Generation Russian Fighter (PAK-FA)

Originally posted by planeman
Gulf War 1 was used as an example to support a twin engine aircraft case on the grounds of battle damage. Yet in GW1 of the 40 aircraft the Allies lost, 70% were multi-engine. I’m not going to use that as an argument for single engine being better, merely to point out the stupidity of the case put forward.

That means nothing, as what roles each type of aircraft were given would affect the danger each was exposed to.

But you can be sure that every 2 engined aircraft that had to limp home on one would have been lost if it had been single engined.

This design looks like a typical Su but has only one engine and a F-35 engine inlet.

Single engine fighters are cheaper and easier to maintain. They are mostly used for bombings and attacking, or multi-role. But who says they cannot be good in Air to Air? Mirage 2000 is an air-auperiority fighter. Though i still agree that a twin engine fighter has a slighter better advantage in air combat, and they can be used for bombing too as their payload is much more and may also travel longer distance. But we can leave that to the cheaper F-16, gripens, JSF or single engine fighters so called the "workhorse" of Air Forces.

Anyway i wonder if India is offer F-35, will it still want to continue with PAK-FA? Which one will be better?

[edit on 30-11-2005 by NotheRaGe]

Originally posted by NotheRaGe

Anyway i wonder if India is offer F-35, will it still want to continue with PAK-FA? Which one will be better?

I doubt the Indians would be offered the JSF with a technology level high enough to please them.