Su-24, Su-25, MiG-29, Su-27/30/34 - any signs of two-engined redundancy saving them during the war in Ukraine?

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
12,851
3,630
Apr 3, 2008
Having two engines on a combat aircraft was often touted as a good feature, since the aircraft are supposed to make it to the friendly airbase to be repaired and used again. Can any forum member confirm that was the case here, ie. that being 2-engined helped vs. what will surely doom an 1-engined combat A/C?
I know that we will get only the fragmentary info, since this was is still very active, but still.
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,683
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
The theory was twin engine fighters had a built in safety margin, one of the reasons why Canada went with the CF-18. These days engine reliability is much better say 40 plus years ago so that needs to be considered in today's world. IMO I think the Russians are having a high attrition rate for three reasons;

1. Poor Maintenance
2. lack of training
3. The weapons taking down these fighters are effective enough to limit the advantage of the second engine

Although there are structural safeguards that shield each engine from taking out the other during a catastrophic event, it doesn't always work. I know a former F-4 driver who had a major engine failure during a training mission and the second engine didn't help as it was promptly taken out when the first engine blew.
 

Thumpalumpacus

1st Lieutenant
6,258
8,796
Feb 5, 2021
Tejas
There was a picture circulating a few months ago of an Su-25 having limped back home on one engine, the other having been torn up by a SAM.

Su-25-hit-by-MANPADS-top.jpg


 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,683
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
There was a picture circulating a few months ago of an Su-25 having limped back home on one engine, the other having been torn up by a SAM.

View attachment 691677

Posted on here several months ago. This is one example where the 2nd engine brought the crew home but then again this is an aircraft that is designed to be shot at and take battle damage
 
30
50
Mar 1, 2020
GB
www.facebook.com
My understanding is that most sorties are being done at low level - since to go higher is running the risk of the various SAMs both sides have in decent numbers. Go down low and the bigger systems have a harder job finding you - but it isn't without its own risks.

If you lose an engine at low level due to anything - be it a hostile missile, bird strike, mechanical gremlins - the unfortunate pilot doesn't have the luxury of having plenty of altitude to sort themselves out and make a reasoned decision whether to limp back with a single engine. This is assuming that the people shooting at you don't have another crack at you in one form or another. Having one or two engines probably doesn't help all that much in the scheme of things.

That's my take on it anyway. When it is all over and the intelligence boffins get a chance to tot up the losses/causes it might throw up some interesting trends or just confirm what everyone knew anyway (contested airspace makes life difficult for aircraft trying operate in it).
 

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Staff
Mod
28,098
8,683
Apr 9, 2005
Colorado, USA
If you lose an engine at low level due to anything - be it a hostile missile, bird strike, mechanical gremlins - the unfortunate pilot doesn't have the luxury of having plenty of altitude to sort themselves out and make a reasoned decision whether to limp back with a single engine. This is assuming that the people shooting at you don't have another crack at you in one form or another. Having one or two engines probably doesn't help all that much in the scheme of things.
For the most part correct but if you have enough excess thrust you can pitch up to best glide speed and sought out the issue providing the aircraft is holding together or not on fire.

These guys did it right. Although the aircraft was lost they both walked away, however I do believe that one of them were injured.

 

elbmc1969

Senior Airman
393
253
Feb 16, 2019
For the most part correct but if you have enough excess thrust you can pitch up to best glide speed and sought out the issue providing the aircraft is holding together or not on fire.

These guys did it right. Although the aircraft was lost they both walked away, however I do believe that one of them were injured.


In a battle zone with AAA, MANPADS, and heavier SAMs around?
 

Users who are viewing this thread