Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 23 Jul 2014 16:43

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1757 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 44  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 17:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36
Posts: 536
Gaur wrote:
I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.


I understand and agree with your concerns.. However, still I feel the decision is best taken considering the our maturity now, our strength by the time we will be inducting them and also back up plan in case, AMCA is delayed..

Further, the best part is unlike LCA which was developed to replace aging fleet. LCA got so much criticism because it is was delayed tejas because of which we could not retire our aging force and our numbers started falling... Just think if we had a competent force and delayed LCA would not have resulted in falling numbers, LCA would not have been such victim... Instead, we would have shortage of words to praise it... Compare the timelines of LCA with tiffy and rafale and you will know...

AMCA is not being developed to replace any aircraft... Jags and M2K will be replaced by MMRCA and AMCA will just add to numbers... Thus even if the project is delay say by 5- 8 years, we wont be in a dire situation as was with LCA

Please refer my below two posts which is why I feel we should go for AMCA....

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5693&p=967559#p967559

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5693&p=967615#p967615


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 17:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2238
indranilroy wrote:
^^^ What has generation got to do with size?!


Generation itself has nothing to do with size. But if the aircraft is to carry an internal payload, how can size not be a consideration?

Quote:
F-35 wanted to put everything into one plane. Whether that pays off remains to be seen. Under such circumstances it can't be the precedent.


The AMCA will enter service in 2025 or later. What does the F-35A feature that the AMCA is not going to? The only thing that comes to mind is the EOTS instead of an external targeting pod. And even that may become a necessity given the proliferation of S-300 class systems in the vicinity.

Quote:
According to PS Subramanyam, "the AMCAs will bridge the gap between the Tejas and Su-30MKI class heavy fighters. With Russia and the US focusing on fighters in the 30-35 ton category, there was market space for a 20 ton aircraft." Going by this it is very unlikely that the AMCA and F-35 will be in the same category.

AMCA is supposed to be land attack variant. I will be very happy to see the AMCA stick to this role, with the ability to defend itself. I personally don't give a hoot whether it is called fifth gen or sixth gen. I am pretty sure the pilots/strategist will agree. I sincerely hope they don't emulate the F-35. Please keep it tailor made to our needs, a supreme ground attack plane.

For that it doesn't need the 119s. It needs around 180 kT to 200 kT. 2 Kaveris can definitely provide the same. We need to work towards the maturing of those engines.


What sort of empty weight are we looking at for an aircraft with internal payload? How are they going to pull it off in the 10 ton range without serious compromises on range or payload (both essential for a supreme ground attack plane). Like I said before, just the Tejas with an addition F414 and the same airframe would weigh in at 7.5 tons.

Quote:
P.S. ASR by the IAF mandates the MCA should not be greater than 25T. Engine requirements should be 90kn in thrust. IDRW reports "Its almost sure that the first aircraft will not be powered by the Kaveri-2 since it will take more then 5 years to develop this engine for the aircraft and will only power the later developed prototype , mostly likely new engine which will power Tejas MK-2 either Ej-200 or Ge’s F414 will power initial aircraft." I have to agree with them.


25T is certainly a more realistic figure. Well... the EJ-200 will be scaled up to a thrust-vectoring 120kN so ... maybe. I'm still wondering in terms of performance where exactly will sacrifices vis-a-vis the F-35 be made (range looks most likely - the F-35 carries 8T of fuel internally).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 17:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 18 Jan 2005 01:58
Posts: 283
Gaur wrote:
I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.



An engine for an aircraft which is likely to see the light of day most probably 15 years from now, without Supercruise and TVC? 4th gen aircraft have TVC. Supercruise is already present in 5th gen aircraft. So it better damn well have Supercruise and TVC.

Partnership's are the way to go!!!!!!!! Working partnerships at that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 17:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Posts: 297
One must understand that the technology gap of a couple of decades cannot be bridged in one single leap. A major part of gap has been covered by the LCA. AMCA may not be 100% of what F35 is going to be but, even if it is 80-90%, I will be happy. Rest of the percentage can easily be taken care of in later marks/tranches.

By then we will have enough experience built in to come up with new innovations/ideas that some say are "new brochure features" completely on our own and will hopefully stop playing catching up.

I am pretty much sure the IAF also understands it and is just waiting to taste the LCA pudding via the IOC. If they find it sweet, and I have little reason to believe they will not, then there is no looking back. The key is gaining their confidence. It is here that the Mk1 will play the crucial role. We can hope to see much greater participation with AMCA post Tejas IOC.

My two cents....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 18:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36
Posts: 536
^^^
Although agree with you on greater support for AMCA post Tejas IOC, however still it is no where near IN which though had less time with NLCA comparatively, still got a taste and is now backing AMCA with financial support also... Although it is OT for this thread....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 18:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
nrshah wrote:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9987/amca.jpg

Dont know, if covered earlier.

the above report from aviation week, suggest Indian Navy has expressed interest in the naval version of AMCA and will contribute towards funding as well(again unlike IAF, where nothing of that sort has come so far).Also, naval version is now official part of AMCA programe


Some of the "gory details" in the article may be "innovative" reporting. The guy seems to be giving too much detail about things that can only be a gleam in the eye of the designers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 18:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Willy wrote:
Gaur wrote:
I get a little worried whenever I read the requirements of supercruise and TVC. I know that the requirements are not yet frozen, I am worried that these 2 things may prove to be very risky for AMCA. Engine is surely not our forte and I hope that IAF finalizes ASR considering that.



An engine for an aircraft which is likely to see the light of day most probably 15 years from now, without Supercruise and TVC? 4th gen aircraft have TVC. Supercruise is already present in 5th gen aircraft. So it better damn well have Supercruise and TVC.

Partnership's are the way to go!!!!!!!! Working partnerships at that!


Which 5th Gen aircraft other than the F-22 has supercruise?

3rd gen aircraft like the Harrier had TV - why did no 4th gen apart from Su-30MKI adopt TV as a standard?

Supercruise is to aircraft like mass dosa production is to MacDonalds. It was there for a long time before MacD but the term "fast food" did not become fashionable till some US marketing whiz US invented it. Same goes for supercruise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 18:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36
Posts: 536
Shiv, agree with you that supercruise and TV is not related to any generation and that US marketing gimmicks associated them with 5th gen although they were there even before that.... But still, we cannot deny the advantage they have....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 18:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25359
Location: NowHere
I don't see a big future with Snecma M88 Eco core. All Kaveri versions must be home grown including R&D. Why spend billions for re-inventing the wheel?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 19:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2687
The Sixth Generation Fighter
By John A. Tirpak
Executive Editor
The technologies are emerging, but what’s needed is a program to pull them together.

Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth generation [fighter] capabilities necessary for future air dominance.” The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael B. Donley, and the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, issued that statement in an April 13 Washington Post article.

The Air Force may have to move a little faster to develop that next generation fighter. While anticipated F-22 and F-35 inventories seem settled, there won’t be enough to fix shortfalls in the fighter fleet over the next 20 years, as legacy fighters retire faster than fifth generation replacements appear.

The Air Force will have to answer a host of tough questions about the nature of the next fighter.

Image

From left to right, USAF fighter generations one through five, plus a placeholder for generation six. *Illustrations not to scale. (Illustrations by Zaur Eylanbekov)

Should it provide a true “quantum leap” in capability, from fifth to sixth generation, or will some interim level of technology suffice? When will it have to appear? What kinds of fighters will potential adversaries be fielding in the next 20 years? And, if the program is delayed, will a defense industry with nothing to work on in the meantime lose its know-how to deliver the needed system?

What seems certain is that more is riding on the Air Force’s answers than just replacing worn-out combat aircraft.

Initial concept studies for what would become the F-22 began in the early 1980s, when production of the F-15 was just hitting its stride. It took 20 years to go from those concepts to initial operational capability. Industry leaders believe that it will probably take another 20 years to field a next generation fighter.

That may be late to need. By 2030, according to internal USAF analyses, the service could be as many as 971 aircraft short of its minimum required inventory of 2,250 fighters. That assumes that all planned F-35s are built and delivered on time and at a rate of at least 48 per year. The shortfall is due to the mandatory retirement of F-15s and F-16s that will have exceeded their service lives and may no longer be safe to fly.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has set the tone for the tactical aviation debate. He opposed the F-22 as being an expensive, “exquisite” solution to air combat requirements, and has put emphasis on the less costly F-35 Lightning II instead. He considers it exemplary of the kind of multirole platforms, applicable to a wide variety of uses, that he believes the US military should be buying in coming years. He and his technology managers have described this approach as the “75 percent” solution.

Gates has also forecast that a Russian fifth generation fighter will be operational in 2016—Russia says it will fly the fighter this year—and a Chinese version just four years later. Given that US legacy fighters are already matched or outclassed by “generation four-plus-plus” fighters, if Russia and China build their fifth generation fighters in large numbers, the US would be at a clear airpower disadvantage in the middle of the 2020s. That’s a distinct possibility, as both countries have openly stated their intentions to build world-class air fleets. If they do, the 75 percent solution fails.

What You See Is What You Get

The Air Force declined to offer official comment on the status of its sixth generation fighter efforts. Privately, senior leaders have said they have been waiting to see how the F-22 and F-35 issues sorted out before establishing a structured program for a next generation fighter.

The Air Force has a large classified budget, but it seems there is no “black” sixth generation fighter program waiting in the wings. A senior industry official, with long-term, intimate knowledge of classified efforts, said the F-22 wasn’t stopped at 187 aircraft because a secret, better fighter is nearly ready to be deployed. He said, “What you see is what you get.”

That opinion was borne out in interviews with the top aeronautic technologists of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, the three largest remaining US airframers. They said they were unaware of an official, dedicated Air Force sixth generation fighter program and are anxiously waiting to see what capabilities the service wants in such a fighter.

The possibilities for a sixth generation fighter seem almost the stuff of science fiction.

It would likely be far stealthier than even the fifth generation aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to optimize for either speed or persistence, and its engines will likely be retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic loitering.


Image

A Northrop Grumman artist’s conception of a sixth generation fighter employing directed energy weapons and stealthy data networking. (Northrop Grumman illustration)


The sixth generation fighter will likely have directed energy weapons—high-powered microwaves and lasers for defense against incoming missiles or as offensive weapons themselves. Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type, able to cause anything from impairment to destruction of an air or ground target.

Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar as it is known today. It would be equipped for making cyber attacks as well as achieving kinetic effects, but would still have to be cost-effective to make, service, and modify.

Moreover, the rapid advancement of unmanned aircraft technologies could, in 20 years or so, make feasible production of an autonomous robotic fighter. However, that is considered less likely than the emergence of an uninhabited but remotely piloted aircraft with an off-board “crew,” possibly comprising many operators.

Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single, multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.

“I think this next round [of fighter development] is probably going to be dominated by ever-increasing amounts of command and control information,” said Paul K. Meyer, vice president and general manager of Northrop Grumman’s Advanced Programs and Technology Division.

Meyer forecast that vast amounts of data will be available to the pilot, who may or may not be on board the aircraft. The pilot will see wide-ranging, intuitive views of “the extended world” around the aircraft, he noted. The aircraft will collect its own data and seamlessly fuse it with off-board sensors, including those on other aircraft. The difference from fifth generation will be the level of detail and certainty—the long-sought automatic target recognition.

Directed Energy Weapons

Embedded sensors and microelectronics will also make possible sensor arrays in “locations that previously weren’t available because of either heat or the curvature of the surface,” providing more powerful and comprehensive views of the battlefield, Meyer noted. Although the aircraft probably won’t be autonomous, he said, it will be able to “learn” and advise the pilot as to what actions to take—specifically, whether a target should be incapacitated temporarily, damaged, or destroyed.

Traditional electronics will probably give way to photonics, said Darryl W. Davis, president of Boeing’s advanced systems division.

“You could have fewer wires,” said Davis. “You’re on a multiplexed, fiber-optic bus ... that connects all the systems, and because you can do things at different wavelengths of light, you can move lots of data around airplanes much faster, with much less weight in terms of ... wire bundles.”

Fiber optics would also be resistant to jamming or spoofing of data and less prone to cyber attack.

A “digital wingman” could accompany the main fighter as an extra sensor-shooter smart enough to take verbal instructions, Meyer forecasted.

Directed energy weapons could play a big role in deciding how agile a sixth generation fighter would have to be, Meyer noted. “Speed of light” weapons, he added, could “negate” the importance of “the maneuverability we see in today’s fashionable fighters.” There won’t be time to maneuver away from a directed energy attack.

Image

F-22 Raptors on a training mission soar over the mountains near Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. The fifth generation fighter features all-aspect stealth and full-sensor fusion. (USAF photo)



Pulse weapons could also fry an enemy aircraft’s systems—or those of a ground target. Based on what “we have seen and we make at Northrop Grumman,” Meyer said, “in the next 20 years ... that type of technology is going to be available.”

With an appropriate engine—possibly an auxiliary engine—on board to provide power for directed energy weapons, there could be an “unlimited magazine” of shots, Meyer said.

Hypersonics—that is, the ability of an air vehicle to travel at five times the speed of sound, or faster—has routinely been suggested as an attribute of sixth generation fighters, but the industry leaders are skeptical the capability will be ready in time.

While there have been some successes with experimental hypersonic propulsion, the total amount of true hypersonic flying time is less than 15 minutes, and the leap to an operational fighter in 20 years might be a leap too far.

“It entails a whole new range of materials development, due to ... sensors, fuzes, apertures, etc.,” Meyer noted, “all of which must operate in that intense heat environment at ... Mach 5-plus.”

Still, “it is indeed an option that we would consider” because targets will be fleeting and require quick, surgical strikes at great distances. However, such an approach would probably be incompatible with a loitering capability.

Davis said he thinks hypersonics “will start to show up in sixth generation,” but not initially as the platform’s power plant, but rather in the aircraft’s kinetic munitions.

“I think it will start with applications to weapons,” Davis said. And they may not necessarily be just weapons but “high-speed reconnaissance platforms for short missions on the way to the target.”

Because of the extreme speed of hypersonic platforms and especially directed energy weapons, Davis thinks it will be critical to have “persistent eyes on target” because speed-of-light weapons can’t be recalled “once you’ve pulled the trigger,” and even at hypersonic speed, a target may move before the weapon arrives. That would suggest a flotilla of stealthy drones or sensors positioned around the battlefield.

Not only will hypersonics require years more work, Davis said it must be combined with other, variable-cycle engines that will allow an aircraft to take off from sea level, climb to high altitude, and then engage a hypersonic engine. Those enabling propulsion elements are not necessarily near at hand in a single package.

The sixth generation fighter, whatever it turns out to be, will still be a machine and will need to be serviced, repaired, and modified, according to Neil Kacena, deputy director of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works advanced projects division. He is less confident that major systems such as radar will be embedded in the aircraft skin.

“If the radar doesn’t work, and now you have to take the wing off, ... then that may not be the technology that will find its way onto a sixth gen aircraft,” he said. In designing the next fighter, life cycle costs will be crucial, and so practical considerations will have to be accommodated.

Toward that end, he said, Lockheed Martin is working on new composite manufacturing techniques that use far fewer fasteners, less costly tooling, and therefore lower start-up and sustainment costs. It demonstrated those technologies recently on the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft program.

Given the anticipated capabilities of the Russian and Chinese fifth generation fighters, when will a sixth generation aircraft have to be available?

Davis said the Air Force and Navy, not industry, will have to decide how soon they need a new generation of fighters. However, “if the services are thinking they need something in 2020” when foreign fifth generation fighters could be proliferating in large numbers, “we’re going to have to do some things to our existing generation of platforms,” such as add the directed energy weapons or other enhancements.

Image

In Boeing’s conception, traditional electronics give way to photonics, reducing weight and increasing processing speed. (Boeing illustration)

Kacena agreed, saying that Lockheed Martin has “engaged with both services and supplied them data and our perspectives” about the next round of fighter development. If the need exists to make a true quantum leap, then sixth generation is the way to go, but, “if it’s driven by the reduction in force structure [and] ... the equipment is just getting old and worn out in that time frame, then [we] may very well be on a path of continuous improvement of fifth generation capabilities.” Lockheed Martin makes both the F-22 and F-35.

He said the company’s goal is to find the knee in the curve where “you get them the most bang for the buck without an 80 to 90 percent solution. Something that doesn’t take them beyond the nonlinear increase in cost.”

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance and a fighter pilot, said the next fighter generation may well have characteristics fundamentally different from any seen today, but he urged defense decision-makers to keep an open mind and not ignore hard-learned lessons from history.

Although great strides have been made in unmanned aircraft, said Deptula, “we have a long way to go to achieve the degree of 360-degree spherical situation awareness, rapid assimilation of information, and translation of that information into action that the human brain, linked with its on-site sensors, can accomplish.”

Numbers Count, Too

Despite rapid increases in computer processing power, it will be difficult for a machine to cope with “an infinite number of potential situations that are occurring in split seconds,” Deptula added, noting that, until such a capability is proved, “we will still require manned aircraft.”

It’s important to note that America’s potential adversaries will have access to nearly all the technologies now only resident with US forces, Deptula said. Thinking 20 to 30 years out, it will be necessary to invest properly to retain things US forces depend on, such as air superiority.

However, he warned not to put too much emphasis on technology, per se. “Just as precision air weapons and, to a certain degree, cyberspace are redefining our definition of mass in today’s fight, we have to be very wary of how quickly ‘mass’ in its classic sense can return in an era of mass-precision and mass-cyber capabilities for all.”

In other words, numbers count, and too few fighters, even if they are extremely advanced, are still too few.

Hanging over the sixth generation fighter debate is this stark fact: The relevant program should now be well under way, but it has not even been defined. If the Pentagon wants a sixth generation capability, it will have to demonstrate that intent, and soon. Industry needs that clear signal if it is to invest its own money in developing the technologies needed to make the sixth generation fighter come about.

Moreover, the sixth generation program is necessary to keep the US aerospace industry on the cutting edge. Unless it is challenged, if the “90 percent” solution is needed in the future, industry may not be able to answer the call.

Under Gates, Pentagon technology leaders have said they want to avoid cost and schedule problems by deferring development until technologies are more mature. Unfortunately, this safe and steady approach does not stimulate leap-ahead technologies.

Meyer said, “We need to have challenges to our innovative thoughts, our engineering talents, our technology integration and development that would ... push us ... to the point where industry has to perform beyond expectations.”

He noted that today’s F-35 is predicated on largely proven technologies and “affordability,” but it was the B-2 and F-22 programs that really paved the way for the systems that underpin modern air combat.

The B-2 bomber, he noted, “was a program of significant discovery,” because it involved a great deal of invention to meet required performance. The B-2 demanded “taking ... basic research and developing it in the early ... phases” of the program, which yielded nonfaceted stealth, enhanced range and payload, nuclear hardening, new antennas, radars, and flight controls.

Today, Meyer said, most programs are entering full-scale development only when they’ve reached a technology readiness level of six or higher (see chart).

“We probably had elements on the B-2 ... that were at four, and a lot at five,” Meyer said.

Programs such as the sixth generation fighter “are the ones we relish because they make us think, they make us take risks that we wouldn’t normally take, and in taking on those risks we’ve discovered the new technologies that have made our industry great,” he asserted.

Davis said that other countries are going to school on the US fighter industry and taking its lessons to heart.

“We still think you have to build things—fly them and test them—in order to know what works and what doesn’t,” said Davis. “And, at some point, if you don’t do that, just do it theoretically, it doesn’t get you where you need to be.”

He added, “If we don’t continue to move forward, they will catch us.”

Fighter Generations

The definition of fighter generations has long been subject to debate. However, most agree that the generations break down along these broad lines:

Code:
Generation 1: Jet propulsion (F-80, German Me 262).

Generation 2: Swept wings; range-only radar; infrared missiles (F-86, MiG-15).

Generation 3: Supersonic speed; pulse radar; able to shoot at targets beyond visual range (“Century Series” fighters such as F-105; F-4; MiG-17; MiG-21).

Generation 4: Pulse-doppler radar; high maneuverability; look-down, shoot-down missiles (F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29).

Generation 4+: High agility; sensor fusion; reduced signatures (Eurofighter Typhoon, Su-30, advanced versions of F-16 and F/A-18, Rafale).

Generation 4++: Active electronically scanned arrays; continued reduced signatures or some “active” (waveform canceling) stealth; some supercruise  (Su-35, F-15SE).

Generation 5: All-aspect stealth with internal weapons, extreme agility, full-sensor fusion, integrated avionics, some or full supercruise (F-22, F-35).

Potential Generation 6: extreme stealth; efficient in all flight regimes (subsonic to multi-Mach); possible “morphing” capability; smart skins; highly networked; extremely sensitive sensors; optionally manned; directed energy weapons.


Technology Readiness Levels

Pentagon leaders now seek to reduce weapon risks and costs by deferring production until technologies are mature. Pentagon technology readiness levels—TRLs—are defined as follows:

Code:
TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported. Earliest transition from basic scientific research to applied research and development. Paper studies of a technology’s basic properties.

TRL 2: Invention begins; practical applications developed. No proof or detailed analysis yet.

TRL 3: Active R&D begins. Analytical and lab studies to validate predictions. Components not yet integrated.

TRL 4: Basic elements are shown to work together in a “breadboard,” or lab setting.

TRL 5: Fidelity of demonstrations rises. Basic pieces are integrated in a somewhat realistic way. Can be tested in a simulated environment.

TRL 6: Representative model or prototype. A major step up in readiness for use. Possible field tests.

TRL 7: Prototype of system in operational environment is demonstrated—test bed aircraft, for example.

TRL 8: Final form of the technology is proved to work. Usually the end of system development. Weapon is tested in its final form.

TRL 9: Field use of the technology in its final form, under realistic conditions.


Link: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 19:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35
Posts: 1148
Taking Flight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 21:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
nrshah wrote:
Shiv, agree with you that supercruise and TV is not related to any generation and that US marketing gimmicks associated them with 5th gen although they were there even before that.... But still, we cannot deny the advantage they have....


What advantage, may I ask? Are we talking about a theoretical advantage that the US will have with its money and technology or the advantage that piddly air forces get by desperately hankering for stuff that costs a bomb for which they do not yet have the tech.

Are we really looking at a conflict of 150 AMCA with supercruise and TV versus 200 JF-17 (FC-1), 150 J10 and 150 J-11?

I am not arguing about the greatness of these technologies. The iPhone is great but I use a Samsung Corby. It makes sense for me. Where does the time-cost factor of developing supercruise and TV fit in against the pragmatism of doing the achievable in a reasonable time frame? Every country does what it can. The US made the F-22 after Russia made the MiG 29 and Su-27/30. Europe stuck to Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen.

I believe we must do what WE can rather than trying to do what the other guy can. The top guns do what they can and do it well. We must not delay AMCA until we get TV/Supercruise. we can achieve that later if it takes longer. The program must not be held up just for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 22:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06
Posts: 3341
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
shiv wrote:
The iPhone is great but I use a Samsung Corby. It makes sense for me.

Good analogy. The Iphone is pretty useless, without a good 3G network in place. Since this is not there in India yet, this phone has very limited capabilities to offer for consumers in India. But then, when has that stopped the roaring sales of ALL the 3G phones in the market. Have you seen the resolution, the beauty of the touch screen, wow.... :((

I am agreeing a lot with you these days, have to find some contrary opinions now :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 22:08 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Shiv sahab,

Tejas with K9 was supposed to supercruise ... so don't worry about that ... that isn't the biggest deal.

TVC is a good to have thing if it comes light like the 40kgs on EJ or Russian engine being offered to China (not RD 93) which said that there was no additional weight for TVN. However, I don't think that the AMCA program will be held up for want of TVC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 22:42 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Viv S wrote:
Generation itself has nothing to do with size. But if the aircraft is to carry an internal payload, how can size not be a consideration?

Go for a fatter lifting body. The arrangement of the air intake and the internal weapons bay will be the key. It only becomes more difficult if your intake has to curl more to cover the engine face. There is no problem with length of any missile I know.

Quote:
The AMCA will enter service in 2025 or later. What does the F-35A feature that the AMCA is not going to? The only thing that comes to mind is the EOTS instead of an external targeting pod. And even that may become a necessity given the proliferation of S-300 class systems in the vicinity.

Everything is to scale. What does the F-35 not feature which the F-22 does. Similarly what does the F-35 feature that the EF doesn't, similarly what does the EF feature which Gripen doesn't. Few of the hardware will always be the same weight no matter how big or small your plane is. Rest will differ, like payload, engine weight, required fuel and percentage of weight gain according to size gain.

Quote:
What sort of empty weight are we looking at for an aircraft with internal payload? How are they going to pull it off in the 10 ton range without serious compromises on range or payload (both essential for a supreme ground attack plane). Like I said before, just the Tejas with an addition F414 and the same airframe would weigh in at 7.5 tons.

Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball to answer you the exact empty weight. But you seem to make so much out of "internal payload". Internal payload is volume management. It is not weight management! It is not as simple but, what would you do if you had to add internal weapons bay to Tejas? Move one of the inboard pylons closer to the body and wrap it up in a good shape. Will it add to weight. Yes, but how much?

Quote:
25T is certainly a more realistic figure. Well... the EJ-200 will be scaled up to a thrust-vectoring 120kN so ... maybe. I'm still wondering in terms of performance where exactly will sacrifices vis-a-vis the F-35 be made (range looks most likely - the F-35 carries 8T of fuel internally).

Are they adding that thrust to increase the acceleration/top-speed/agility of the EF. I doubt so, the TWR of the Tiffy was never an issue. I doubt they would like to burn more fuel to do the same thing. What they would use those extra kN needs to be seen, they will have to forego one or 2 hardpoints for external fuel tanks (unless they are going for CFTs) for the same range that they presently have. Otherwise they would have to keep it throttled down. I can certainly see the usage of the TVC + more power in naval version of Tiffy if they are planning on one.

You see by keeping the plane light AMCA can have similar range with 3/4 th fuel (i.e. around 6T). And I am actually being conservative. To give you an idea the Tiffy has 4.5T of internal fuel and almost the same combat radius as the F-35.

P.S. Internal weapons bay is technology which doesn't add much to weight. It is a tech acquisition and space optimization problem. It has almost no relation to weight gain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 22:49 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Pratyush wrote:
What I am looking at is an EJ 200 type powerplant. But one which is better then it in all respects.

Ie thrust, fuel effency and the size and weight are not that much greater then the current generation.

IIRC, that jet can with a proposed upgrade reach 26000 LBS of AB thrust.

So I want the GTRE motor to be better then that.

Can the GTRE do that. I have no idea.


Who doesn't want that, except if you realise that the EJ 200 is the state of art.

It's like saying I want a BMW engine in the size of the Alto engine. Only it should perform better and more efficiently.

I wouldn't like to do any policing and I don't mean to undermine you or your post, but in the golden years of BRF, posters would be fried in hell for a post which added nothing. I wish seniors do the same now, even with my posts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2010 23:37 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 16 Dec 2009 20:53
Posts: 41
Shiv Aroor reports of a partnership with SAAB in AMCA..?
The question is Why SAAB..? :eek:

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/11/ma ... -amca.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 01:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2299
Seoul Drops KFX Technology Target To Generation 4.5

Sep 20, 2009


Bradley Perrett


South Korea will focus on developing a Generation-4.5 fighter under a proposed program that previously aimed at an equivalent of the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35.

Downgrading of ambitions for KFX follows condemnation last year of the original specification from the Korea Development Institute state think tank.

An officially commissioned study from another think tank now urges that Gen-4.5 technology would meet South Korean needs.

The new KFX specification calls for an empty weight of 10.4 metric tons (23,000 lb.), reduced observability and either one or two engines. It would have an active electronically scanned array radar and an infrared search-and-tracking sensor.

Development cost is estimated at 5-6 trillion won ($4.1-4.9 billion) and production at 50 billion won per unit, with entry into service in 2021.

The highly stealthy KFX would have cost 10 trillion won to develop, according to the Korea Development Institute.

The report recommends that as many as 250 KFXs be built to push down the unit cost. The first 120 aircraft would replace the country’s McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms and Northrop F-5 Tigers. A further 130 KFXs would replace Lockheed Martin F-16C and D Block 52s.

If KFX costs $41 million a copy, South Korea might export 300-500 to countries such as Indonesia and Turkey, it suggests. Indonesia signed a letter of intent with South Korea to participate in the KFX study


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 02:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25359
Location: NowHere
It reads "Technology Consulting and Partnership with SAAB" ! Sounds like EF2K bus is being missed for MRCA. And.. Neelam Mathews would have got some noooj.

Why SAAB? may be they are inexpensive compared to other Euro-peans. If you take vote, I am sure the majority would be cancel AMCA and concentrate on getting the LCA done first. This is a moot point in investing in consulting for R&D, and spending heck off a money there, when it can't be done from first principles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 02:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46
Posts: 2238
indranilroy wrote:
Viv S wrote:
Generation itself has nothing to do with size. But if the aircraft is to carry an internal payload, how can size not be a consideration?

Go for a fatter lifting body. The arrangement of the air intake and the internal weapons bay will be the key. It only becomes more difficult if your intake has to curl more to cover the engine face. There is no problem with length of any missile I know.


I'm not saying the missile length is problem. The airframe itself will need to be substantially larger. In addition the weights of doors, their hydraulics, missile ejection systems and all this has to be optimally designed around the air intakes and landing gear.

Quote:
Everything is to scale. What does the F-35 not feature which the F-22 does. Similarly what does the F-35 feature that the EF doesn't, similarly what does the EF feature which Gripen doesn't. Few of the hardware will always be the same weight no matter how big or small your plane is. Rest will differ, like payload, engine weight, required fuel and percentage of weight gain according to size gain.


F-35/F-22: Twin engines, very high t/w ratio/supercruise, eight missile internal load (four on F-35), range, payload.
EF/F-35: Stealth, internal payload, integrated A2G sensors
Gripen/EF: Range, payload, t/w ratio

I get what you're saying about the scale of the aircraft. My question is - how do you scale down a plane that's been widely criticized (esp. on this forum) for being a bare minimum aircraft in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground profiles (avionics apart)? The JSF project was intended as a successor to the original LWF - F-16. Is it feasible to expect a lighter, smaller, cheaper aircraft from HAL that still excels in the strike role?

Quote:
Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball to answer you the exact empty weight. But you seem to make so much out of "internal payload". Internal payload is volume management. It is not weight management! It is not as simple but, what would you do if you had to add internal weapons bay to Tejas? Move one of the inboard pylons closer to the body and wrap it up in a good shape. Will it add to weight. Yes, but how much?


'How much' is a very valid question that I'd like answered as well. Compared to the Rafale, the F-35 has a lower payload, lower range and comparable t/w ratio and yet weighs almost four tons more. The Su-30MKI has vastly superior range and payload than the F-22, yet has an empty weight that's 1.3T lower. Of course there's more to it than just the weapons bay, but I think its safe to assume that all the relevant factors will also apply to the AMCA (unless its supposed to be stealthy only from a frontal aspect).

Quote:
Are they adding that thrust to increase the acceleration/top-speed/agility of the EF. I doubt so, the TWR of the Tiffy was never an issue. I doubt they would like to burn more fuel to do the same thing. What they would use those extra kN needs to be seen, they will have to forego one or 2 hardpoints for external fuel tanks (unless they are going for CFTs) for the same range that they presently have. Otherwise they would have to keep it throttled down. I can certainly see the usage of the TVC + more power in naval version of Tiffy if they are planning on one.


Your approaching it as a pass/fail condition. There are degrees of performance. Also while the engine will be less efficient at higher thrusts, it wouldn't necessarily be so for the same thrust. The French are satisfied with the Rafale in service right now, but they still plan to upgrade to a 90kN engine in the future. The F404 was satisfactory for the SH, Gripen and Tejas, yet they all are being upgraded to the F414. 2 x EJ-200s sounds satisfactory today but would have been overkill 20 years back. How's it likely to fare twenty years into the future?

Quote:
You see by keeping the plane light AMCA can have similar range with 3/4 th fuel (i.e. around 6T). And I am actually being conservative. To give you an idea the Tiffy has 4.5T of internal fuel and almost the same combat radius as the F-35.


How do you keep the plane light? Why did the F-35 go 'overweight'? That's why I was asking what aspect is going to be scaled down - to have lighter fighter but with the same range as the F-35?

Quote:
P.S. Internal weapons bay is technology which doesn't add much to weight. It is a tech acquisition and space optimization problem. It has almost no relation to weight gain.


No relation to weight?

Another unsaid assumption being made, is that a smaller aircraft will be cheaper to design and produce than a larger 25T+ one. If one goes by the F-35's development program, despite borrowing the majority of its stealth technology from the F-22 project, the development will still end up costing just much, and there's only so much that can be attributed to inflation and a STOVL variant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 03:34 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Viv S wrote:
I'm not saying the missile length is problem. The airframe itself will need to be substantially larger.
.
How Viv! The airframe has to accommodate the weapons so it will be fatter. That is a given. But that doesn't mean it's weight goes up. You must know enough structural knowledge that it takes much less to strengthen a tube like fuselage than a wings, which is flat and wants to flex much more.
Quote:

In addition the weights of doors, their hydraulics, missile ejection systems and all this has to be optimally designed around the air intakes and landing gear.

You are right. Thats why said almost no weight addition. The door replaced the skin of the fuselage. If you are smart you can draw the door through strengthening elements. By passing the door edges along those elements, you can split it in half on the inside of the door and the housing of the door, thus adding minimal weight. You are right that the hydraulics will add weight. However, these hydraulics don't move control surfaces and can be much lighter. This is in terms of tens of kilos, not even hundreds.

for Missile ejection systems, you might like to read about the following. The weight of each AVEL on the F-22 is 50 kgs. link. So lets say we have 6 (most probably not) internal weapons. The weight gain is 300 kgs.

Quote:
I get what you're saying about the scale of the aircraft. My question is - how do you scale down a plane that's been widely criticized (esp. on this forum) for being a bare minimum aircraft in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground profiles (avionics apart)? The JSF project was intended as a successor to the original LWF - F-16. Is it feasible to expect a lighter, smaller, cheaper aircraft from HAL that still excels in the strike role?

JSF's role changed from supporting the F-22 to complimenting the F-22. So if you say that F-35 is a minimalistic design, I don't think we will be correct.

Quote:
Unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball to answer you the exact empty weight. But you seem to make so much out of "internal payload". Internal payload is volume management. It is not weight management! It is not as simple but, what would you do if you had to add internal weapons bay to Tejas? Move one of the inboard pylons closer to the body and wrap it up in a good shape. Will it add to weight. Yes, but how much?
Quote:
'How much' is a very valid question that I'd like answered as well. Compared to the Rafale, the F-35 has a lower payload, lower range and comparable t/w ratio and yet weighs almost four tons more. The Su-30MKI has vastly superior range and payload than the F-22, yet has an empty weight that's 1.3T lower. Of course there's more to it than just the weapons bay, but I think its safe to assume that all the relevant factors will also apply to the AMCA (unless its supposed to be stealthy only from a frontal aspect).

The idea is that IAF is looking for a "medium" weight strike platform. The expectations from a medium fighter is as you guessed it is "medium". Payload-wise, range-wise and in some aspects capability wise (say radar size etc.). For F-35 type roles it will have the FGFA. Ofcourse we could have gone for all FGFA, why AMCA? FGFA could do everything the AMCA is supposed to do! But thats not how AFs work and we all know why.

Quote:
Your approaching it as a pass/fail condition. There are degrees of performance. Also while the engine will be less efficient at higher thrusts, it wouldn't necessarily be so for the same thrust. The French are satisfied with the Rafale in service right now, but they still plan to upgrade to a 90kN engine in the future. The F404 was satisfactory for the SH, Gripen and Tejas, yet they all are being upgraded to the F414. 2 x EJ-200s sounds satisfactory today but would have been overkill 20 years back. How's it likely to fare twenty years into the future?

Yes but nobody is strapping an engine for the 30T plane in a 20T plane.
Quote:
How do you keep the plane light? Why did the F-35 go 'overweight'? That's why I was asking what aspect is going to be scaled down - to have lighter fighter but with the same range as the F-35?

If you have to design a plane for an objective you can reach it through many ways. Some designers go one way, others go another way. Tiffy's designers went in a different direction than the F-15/Su-27. Yet they cater to the same requirements. Of course if you go bigger, in most cases you can carry more per plane or go further. But keeping your plane lighter you can maintain and send 2 planes to war. albeit that won't take care of the range. This is one of the critical advantage of the Su-30s over the Tiffy.
Quote:
Another unsaid assumption being made, is that a smaller aircraft will be cheaper to design and produce than a larger 25T+ one. If one goes by the F-35's development program, despite borrowing the majority of its stealth technology from the F-22 project, the development will still end up costing just much, and there's only so much that can be attributed to inflation and a STOVL variant.

F-35 has lot more in avionics than the F-22. For the US, they have a problem on their hands being decades ahead of the rest. They have to research everything out. Others get a lot of it by just analysing their products.
Anyways, philosophy aside. A lighter plane might not be proportionally cheaper to produce. But it is definitely proportionally cheaper to maintain/store.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 04:11 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14000
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
viv, the VSTOL version has everything to do with the F35's problems. it is because of the need to maintain significant commonality with that version that the other two versions have been effed up. IOW have not been optimised as much as they could have been.
the F35 is verily not a good standard to judge these things.
secondly, it is my opinion that a single engine design offers lesser internal volume than an equivalent twin engine design.

btw, I don't quite get why you think the F-22 lags behind the su-30 in terms of payload or range by a vast amount. the payload figures are actually quite comparable with the flanker. except for the fact that flankerF-22 has a smaller internal fuel capacity since it has to carry weapons internally as well, unlike the flanker.
the limiter on amount of weapon carried is again volume available, not weight.
simply put, you would run out of space available to put your weapons in before you run out of weight capacity.

Quote:
The French are satisfied with the Rafale in service right now, but they still plan to upgrade to a 90kN engine in the future. The F404 was satisfactory for the SH, Gripen and Tejas, yet they all are being upgraded to the F414. 2 x EJ-200s sounds satisfactory today but would have been overkill 20 years back. How's it likely to fare twenty years into the future?

the point that needs to be understood here is that all of those engine changes are happening at least 20+ years after their first flight, they will spend anywhere between 10-15 years of their service life with their original spec engines. and even then the uprated engines offer an improvement of 15-20% at most.
going by this, the AMCA would need its uprated engines in 2037 and beyond. so why should we bother about that right now ?
like any other aircraft it can be re-engined in its MLU if needed ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 04:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Rahul M wrote:
it is my opinion that a single engine design offers lesser internal volume than an equivalent twin engine design.

Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 05:03 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14000
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
because the space between two engines provides a larger continuous area which can be used optimally while in a single large engined fighter such as the F35 only bits and pieces of space are available around the engine many of which won't be large enough for carrying munitions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 05:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
vic wrote:
Seoul Drops KFX Technology Target To Generation 4.5

Sep 20, 2009


Bradley Perrett


South Korea will focus on developing a Generation-4.5 fighter under a proposed program that previously aimed at an equivalent of the fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35.

Downgrading of ambitions for KFX follows condemnation last year of the original specification from the Korea Development Institute state think tank.

An officially commissioned study from another think tank now urges that Gen-4.5 technology would meet South Korean needs.


Ah! That gives us an idea of what the Koreans believe is achievable by them. Link please...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 05:30 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Hmmm ... But what is the length of the missile we are speaking of? Most of the missiles are below 4 mtrs in length (may be slightly above). For a single engine fighter they can be accommodated in internal bays in the fork of the Y. There can be additional space by the side of shaft of the Y.

Even the PAK-FA which has the largest continuous area has them broken in two parts.

But it is true that if we go for a large single engine then the fuselage would have more height. That is a problem, as internal compartments will have more depth than breadth. That can be a challenge if you have to stack missiles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 09:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5624
indranilroy wrote:
Who doesn't want that, except if you realise that the EJ 200 is the state of art.

It's like saying I want a BMW engine in the size of the Alto engine. Only it should perform better and more efficiently.

I wouldn't like to do any policing and I don't mean to undermine you or your post, but in the golden years of BRF, posters would be fried in hell for a post which added nothing. I wish seniors do the same now, even with my posts.


Well the EJ200 is 10+ years old today by 2017 it will be reaching 20 years in service. A wish to out do a 20 year design is realistic to day and that far into the furtre as well. So the comment above is unwarrented.

WRT the BMW and Alto example, I request you to looK ad the K series and compare it with the comparable BMW engine and you will see that they match quite well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 09:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 10872
shiv wrote:
Ah! That gives us an idea of what the Koreans believe is achievable by them. Link please...


link


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 09:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5624
indranilroy wrote:
The idea is that IAF is looking for a "medium" weight strike platform. The expectations from a medium fighter is as you guessed it is "medium". Payload-wise, range-wise and in some aspects capability wise (say radar size etc.). For F-35 type roles it will have the FGFA. Ofcourse we could have gone for all FGFA, why AMCA? FGFA could do everything the AMCA is supposed to do! But thats not how AFs work and we all know why.



The FGFA & the AMCA refer to the same programme.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 09:46 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
indranilroy wrote:
Hmmm ... But what is the length of the missile we are speaking of? Most of the missiles are below 4 mtrs in length (may be slightly above). For a single engine fighter they can be accommodated in internal bays in the fork of the Y. There can be additional space by the side of shaft of the Y.

Even the PAK-FA which has the largest continuous area has them broken in two parts.

But it is true that if we go for a large single engine then the fuselage would have more height. That is a problem, as internal compartments will have more depth than breadth. That can be a challenge if you have to stack missiles.


completely OT

What would I learn from this post.

Imagine me telling you the next Su-30 engines which come 10-15 years from now should be more powerful and more efficient.

Did you learn anything new? What will be the objective of such a post?

I leave it to you to see what I meant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 09:50 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Pratyush wrote:
indranilroy wrote:
The idea is that IAF is looking for a "medium" weight strike platform. The expectations from a medium fighter is as you guessed it is "medium". Payload-wise, range-wise and in some aspects capability wise (say radar size etc.). For F-35 type roles it will have the FGFA. Ofcourse we could have gone for all FGFA, why AMCA? FGFA could do everything the AMCA is supposed to do! But thats not how AFs work and we all know why.



The FGFA & the AMCA refer to the same programme.


I suggest you to delete your comment to save yourself from the embarrassment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 10:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Posts: 10057
Location: Satte pe satta satte pe soot; Pakistan ki m@ ki ....
Well given the industrial base of KAI ,favorable terms with the Unkil and experience with license manufacture of teens should place them in a position to design and build a decent 4.5 gen AC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 10:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5624
indranilroy wrote:

I suggest you to delete your comment to save yourself from the embarrassment


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 11:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 2786
Pratyush,

What should I say? :)

Here's a starter for you
FGFA

AMCA

Hmmm ... what were you saying about engines for the AMCA ... Nah, nevermind. You must be right!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 12:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5624
WRT, the Wiki links, dont trust every thing that is written in Wiki is all I will say.

BTW, quotation from the wiki AMCA like it self

Quote:
The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), formerly known as the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA), is a twin-engined 5th generation stealth multirole fighter


So some one like me concluding the AMCA is a FGFA is embarrising. OK, I concede your point.

What about the engines. Please tell?

As I seem to to be interacting with an all knowing guru according to whom GTRE will not be able to design one that can outperform the Ej 200, 20 years after it was designed. If the IAF wish / specification called for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 12:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02
Posts: 1291
Thanks Kanson for posting the article. It gives quite a few insights into what the yanks are planning for their 6th generation fighter. How I wish our MoD was so forth coming.

I have one question, regarding the AMCA. If anybody knows please feel free to answer. Will AMCA have S/VTOL capability ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 14:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Kanson wrote:

Many thanks for posting.

Already people in the US are making a wish list for 6th gen. But before we talk of 6 gen - we must understand that it is 6th gen for USA. Not for India.

Here is a picture from that link about "generations"

Image

India's Tejas is between F-15 and F-22 and therefore 4.5 gen according to that photo. HF 24 was 2.5 US generation. But for India Tejas is 2 gen because we only had 1st gen HF 24.

The point I am making here is that the US sets its eyes on goals. It sets the pace. It defines the parameters. And we ghulaams follow. To repeat a post I made earlier

Quote:
America leads because it sets the pace using technologies that it already has. Others who follow will always be behind because they have to get the technology first and then make the hardware, while the US moves on. This is not the route to leadership. This is the route of permanent ghulaami and dependence.


The article has a great list of things that the US is probably already working on to make a 6 gen.(US defined 6 gen)

  • far stealthier than even the fifth generation aircraft. It may be able to change its shape in flight, “morphing” to optimize for either speed or persistence, (not swing wing then?? :eek: )
  • engines will likely be retunable in-flight for efficient supersonic cruise or subsonic loitering.
  • directed energy weapons
  • Munitions would likely be of the “dial an effect” type
  • Materials and microelectronics technologies would combine to make the aircraft a large integrated sensor, possibly eliminating the need for a nose radar
  • Not clear, yet, is whether the mission should be fulfilled by a single, multirole platform or a series of smaller, specialized aircraft, working in concert.

Most of the features of "aircraft" in this case have nothing to do with the aircraft itself and have more to so with other areas.

Clearly it may well be possible to integrate some such advances into older aircraft - provided such advances are made in the first place.

But all this is what the US is looking at for dominance.

Whom do we want to dominate? The US? Fuggedabahtit :lol:

We need to pick our enemies carefully and decide what we need to develop to dominate them. Sorry if OT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 14:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22442
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Christopher Sidor wrote:
Thanks Kanson for posting the article. It gives quite a few insights into what the yanks are planning for their 6th generation fighter. How I wish our MoD was so forth coming.

What?? :roll:

You're not really following any Indian news and links that are posted are you?
Official Wishlist of Evolutionary Technologies for India's 5thGen AMCA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 15:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1087
indranilroy wrote:
P.S. Internal weapons bay is technology which doesn't add much to weight. It is a tech acquisition and space optimization problem. It has almost no relation to weight gain.

How does one come to that conclusion? Internal weapons bay specifically its capacity on a fighter design is directly related to the weight of the aircraft. Though true that the internal bays by them selves don't add much weight to the aircraft, it does have a cascading effect on the design which you simply cannot overcome with just 'space optimization'. Take for example the F-35, here's a aircraft which by requirement had to have the capability to carry 2x2000lb bombs plus 2 AAM (amongst other configurations) internally on a single engine platform. So after all the design optimization(including space optimization) being done what do they come up with ? A plane that looks like a bloated frog from the front (which is probably no where as sleek aerodynamically as any legacy 4th gen aircraft or even the large 5th gen ones like the PAK-FA or the F-22). Now if your 9 ton two engined plane has to have the same amount of internal weapons capacity as the JSF then I'm quite sure that your the aerodynamics of your fighter are going to get similarly f-ed up. So to compensate you might have to increase engine power(and hence size) which in turn means an increase in internally carried fuel. You will end up with either a fighter with sub optimal performance like the JSF or simply a larger one like the PAK-FA. So a fighter of particular weight and size can only have at the maximum a certain amount of internal capacity (after all sorts of optimizations) , any thing more will come at the cost of degrading the performance. So the important question is what quantity of weapons is the AMCA, a multi-role fighter (form what I have read the IAF wants a full multi-role not a strike or strike oriented ) required to carry. The design that was shown in AI 09( I guess it will be similar in weight and size to the rafale as it is projected to use essentially the same engine) can carry only 6 AAM (4 medium and 2 short ranged) internally in air to air mode. Is that really enough? I am skeptical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Dec 2010 15:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11263
Location: In between wars in our time
wonder why aircraft don't have a jettissionable 'shroud' for stealth
carry bombs as normal below fuselage, then shield it using a stealthy fairing
prior to bomb drop, ditch the fairing, drop the bombs and then you're back to being stealthy after a few seconds of exposure


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1757 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 44  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nitesh and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group