Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 20 Dec 2014 18:28

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1925 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 49  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 07:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34010
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
ideally I think one needs two eqpt - the top one for a2a and bottom one for a2g and supplementary lookdown a2a like covering the rear side if possible using a rotating assembly. but nobody has it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 07:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2698
Image

From this angle, are the intakes and nose/cockpit looks more like PAK-FA or F-22? It seems there are testing various permutation and combination for the AMCA. Rear end fuselage and vertical stabilizesr very much look like F-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 07:36 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 34010
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
can anyone explain how this edge alignment thing helps to reduce RCS ? does it restrict the number of angles from which a emitting radar will get a +ve reflection from the plane vs a tangle of unaligned edges?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 07:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7092
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
Quote:
Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle. Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 10:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Posts: 2030
Location: Trivandrum
As a form of passive optical ranging, wondering if offset reads from two or more widely separated (wingtips, fin tip etc) IR sensors can be used instead of lasers? Even better would be two silent crafts widely spaced, but sharing the data of their sensors over the datalink to form a sort of really wide parallax rangefinder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 12:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26831
Location: NowHere
F35 EO DAS configuration is ideal for AMCA. Since we have already cornering on F35 comparability, we should see AMCA as F35++, while it can be a raptoriski.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 17:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42
Posts: 1308
Gagan wrote:
Shiv Aroor gets it drawn by a Graphics Artist.

The AMCA drawing is not accurate. The vertical stabilizer (rudders) and the Elevators are wrongly drawn.


That is a scan of the official pamphlet from the (ADA?) stall, not Shiv Aroor's creation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 18:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Posts: 915
Location: India
Rahul M wrote:
Venkarl wrote:

image doesn't appear. from some pvt channel ?


Sorry Sir..here it is

Image

looks like these folks developed it

Image

Clicky


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 18:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Posts: 281
Location: Pune
^^^Not impressed with the rendering. Looks like they squeezed the a**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 23:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Posts: 366
Location: Stuck between a rock and a hard place
^^^i asked about that too here only....:-P
like no spacing between engines


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 13 Feb 2011 23:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Drishyaman wrote:
^^^Not impressed with the rendering. Looks like they squeezed the a**

I am unable to understand your statement. Are you disappointed with the CG artist for doing a sub par work or do you find the AMCA's design unimpressive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 00:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Posts: 127
Location: Pune
Comparing the F22,F35 and PAK-FA with AMCA, the latter's horizontal tail fins looks puny (and IMHO a bit small in proportion). Moreover there is a gap between where the wings end and from where the tail fins start.

Newbie question: What is the optimum angle at which the canted vertical tail fins could be placed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 00:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Avinandan wrote:
Comparing the F22,F35 and PAK-FA with AMCA, the latter's horizontal tail fins looks puny (and IMHO a bit small in proportion). Moreover there is a gap between where the wings end and from where the tail fins start.

Yes, the size of horizontal stabalizer is small. However, what effect will that have is unknown to me.
But regarding to the gap, even F-35 has it. But how is that determental for the aircraft?

Avinandan wrote:
Newbie question: What is the optimum angle at which the canted vertical tail fins could be placed?

PAK-FA and F-22 seem to have their vertical stabalizers canted at 65 degree while F-35 has them canted at 70 degree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 00:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14159
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
I guess it will have all moving tails. Avinandan, PAKFA tail is also tiny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 01:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Rahul M wrote:
I guess it will have all moving tails. Avinandan, PAKFA tail is also tiny.

He is talking about horizontal stabalizers. Those of PAK-FA's are huge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 01:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 5046
The AMCA is still very much on the Drawing board. The final airframe might look very different from the model displayed at AI. They'll obviously change the size and shape of the control surfaces if necessary based on the wind-tunnel tests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 01:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Posts: 14159
Location: General Error : Bhery Phamous General !
hmm, it does look kinda small.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 14 Feb 2011 01:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
nachiket wrote:
The AMCA is still very much on the Drawing board. The final airframe might look very different from the model displayed at AI. They'll obviously change the size and shape of the control surfaces if necessary based on the wind-tunnel tests.

Of course. Was it not reported (in Broadsword or Livefist?) that ADA is still in the process of analizing different permutations and all this will take another year or so before some basic idea of the final design will be decided?
Considering that AMCA is supposed to make its maiden flight after a decade, it only makes sense that the final design will be very different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 17:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Posts: 166
Location: Mumbai
Gurus, a couple of questions on the AMCA design:

1) It looks a lovely, perfectly optimised VLO design, with a minimum number of edges, wings and horizontal stabilisers in one line, etc. Not even the PAK-FA looks quite that smooth. Is this just a good example of learning from others' mistakes, or is this a very optimistic design that we're likely to have to change for, say, aero reasons? (For example, there were, IIRC, very good reasons why the PAK-FA had its horizontal stabs slightly below the line of the main wing and not in the same line - so have we overcome that, or have we just gone for a different aero setup?)
2) Why not a Russian-style wide-body design, like the PAK-FA? Wouldn't it simply make for larger internal weapons bays? If we take Gagan's rendition as being accurate, the AMCA would only have space for two WVR missiles, nothing more. Or would a wide-body design mean bad news for weight and stealth?
3) Can someone come up with a laundry list (which we can tick off as time goes by) of tech that we would need to develop to achieve the VLO characteristics we're looking for?

And on a related note, it's good to see the enthusiasm (hopefully in the armed forces as well) for a stealth jet - but what are we doing to develop tech to find/track/kill enemy stealth fighters? Do we have any such projects in the pipeline?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 17:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11352
Location: India
I guess that we'll be speculating for aeons here! The real "meat" of the moment will be when the prototype first takes to the air.To achieve that,the engine has to also be picked/developed! I think that the FGFA programme will have a huge bearing upon the AMCA,which will in effect be a smaller stealth FGFA,benefiting from the results achieved with the FGFA.As of now,there are only three nations with an FGFA in service/in the works.The US,Russia/India and China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 22:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Posts: 281
Location: Pune
Gaur wrote:
Drishyaman wrote:
^^^Not impressed with the rendering. Looks like they squeezed the a**

I am unable to understand your statement. Are you disappointed with the CG artist for doing a sub par work or do you find the AMCA's design unimpressive?

Gaur Ji,
I did not like the artist's work. Look at the back end of AMCA drawing, it looks like the artist constricted that. The Model at AeroIndia 2011 looked attractive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 22:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Posts: 1260
Location: Land of Trala-la
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 22:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26
Posts: 671
KrishG wrote:
Image



Joint Direct Attack Munitions - JDAMs?

Where did that come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 23:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
All the CG deisgns of AMCA are very different from the model! :-o

Either the display model is wrong or the CGs are wrong. Aren't both the display and the 3d model not made by ADA folks themselves? If so, then god only knows if even one of them are accurate!

Personally, I feel that the display model is more accurate. This is because the nose has uncanny resembelence to PAKFA (which makes sense) but on the other hand the horizontal stabalizers on the display model look all wrong! :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 23:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Nov 2009 20:42
Posts: 504
Location: Ozzieland
Atleast the advertising poster seems to be up to scratch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 23:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
^^
Which one?
Both of the above 3D models are different from the display model.

As for the one posted by Venkarl, I really do not think that the model was created digitally (3d or otherwise) by the artist. It looks like a PS job to me and a very bad one at that. I am pretty sure that the artist just used a AMCA display model pic, skewed it in PS to make his work easier and then applied a texture layer while using generous amount of F-22 pics for copy paste job.

Sure, I have hardly any right to criticise as I am not much good myself but you would think that the proffessionals would know better. More than that, one would hope that ADA would know better than to create this kind of confusion regarding their premiere proposal during the most prestegious Indian airshow when the whole world is watching!

Or may be I am underestimating the SDRE folks at ADA. Maybe all this confusion and seemingly PR incompetence is some form of chankian strategy too complex for our minds to fathom. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Feb 2011 23:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 7092
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
The plane can change shape


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2011 06:30 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 29 Dec 2010 06:15
Posts: 4
I agree that it is a very elegant yet simple design. I think we, as a nation, has no issue about doing it given our opportunities for international cooperation. The final plan definitely would have more details, but I do expect it to be like a F35 kind of skin smoothness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2011 08:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 1070
handsomemwl wrote:
I agree that it is a very elegant yet simple design. I think we, as a nation, has no issue about doing it given our opportunities for international cooperation. The final plan definitely would have more details, but I do expect it to be like a F35 kind of skin smoothness


:mrgreen: i wont say anything .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2011 10:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23785
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Drishyaman wrote:
I did not like the artist's work. Look at the back end of AMCA drawing, it looks like the artist constricted that. The Model at AeroIndia 2011 looked attractive.


In fact the man standing next to the AMCA model told me that the main change from the 2009 model and the new one is the segment cut out of the tailplane. The graphic may be from the old model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Feb 2011 11:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21
Posts: 3105
shiv wrote:
Drishyaman wrote:
I did not like the artist's work. Look at the back end of AMCA drawing, it looks like the artist constricted that. The Model at AeroIndia 2011 looked attractive.


In fact the man standing next to the AMCA model told me that the main change from the 2009 model and the new one is the segment cut out of the tailplane. The graphic may be from the old model.


Shivji, that man has been dozing over the last few years.
1. Compare the front fuselage, air intakes, vertical stabilizers. They are moons apart. Not even small changes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2011 14:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59
Posts: 641
Gallery Updated

AMCA (2 Pages)

Added to Brochures section


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Mar 2011 16:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32
Posts: 987
Navy keen on AMCA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2011 11:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Posts: 4159
Location: Frontier India : Nemo me impune lacessit
DRDO to complete feasibility study for Indian Stealth fighter project in 18 months


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2011 23:52 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Posts: 1131
Location: India
^^Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first,or they will blame someone else this time?
Quote:
“Based on the feasibility study, ADA would be able to define technologies required for the aircraft along with the timelines for design and development and subsequent manufacturing. The feasibility study is expected to take about 18 months,” he said.

Here feasibility study doesnt means that the work on actual project will start from the 19th month ... :( :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2011 00:32 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 09 Oct 2010 07:09
Posts: 54
Samay wrote:
^^Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first,or they will blame someone else this time?
Quote:
“Based on the feasibility study, ADA would be able to define technologies required for the aircraft along with the timelines for design and development and subsequent manufacturing. The feasibility study is expected to take about 18 months,” he said.

Here feasibility study doesnt means that the work on actual project will start from the 19th month ... :( :roll:


If you look at some of the enterprises with a more robust Program Management, one can see that they spend 50 -70% of the Prod Dev cycle time in the 'early phase', which is feasibility studies, technology path and concept down-select. This is what dictates bulk of the production cost also. So DRDO spending 18 months for feasibilty tells me that they have clearly become mature in program management and the 2017-2018 timeline now seems more realistic.
Here is how it might play out. By end of 2012 they could complete the feasibilty study and by mid to late 2013 they may even down-select the finalized concept. Then all these experience they gained from LCA testing, manufacturing etc will begin to show up. I think 2017 is looking pretty good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2011 00:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Posts: 209
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Samay wrote:
^^Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first,or they will blame someone else this time?
Quote:
“Based on the feasibility study, ADA would be able to define technologies required for the aircraft along with the timelines for design and development and subsequent manufacturing. The feasibility study is expected to take about 18 months,” he said.

Here feasibility study doesnt means that the work on actual project will start from the 19th month ... :( :roll:


Patience is a virtue, even the Dark side taught it.

Think about programming for example, majority of time spent is during conceptual design phase and debugging at the end. Same can go for aircraft design


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2011 02:46 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26831
Location: NowHere
Does any of the fighter manufacturing biggies do Micro Fighter radio-controlled planes along with wind tunnel models? Is it worth to collect data from the micro fighters? context: shape design for the expected mach level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2011 02:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19
Posts: 1907
Samay wrote:
^^Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first,or they will blame someone else this time?
Quote:
“Based on the feasibility study, ADA would be able to define technologies required for the aircraft along with the timelines for design and development and subsequent manufacturing. The feasibility study is expected to take about 18 months,” he said.

Here feasibility study doesnt means that the work on actual project will start from the 19th month ... :( :roll:

It seems that ADA is to be cursed either way. If they were to conjure up a PR plane with no edge allignement, no internal bays and a box for a fuselage, half of us would be ridiculing the incompetent SDREs at ADA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2011 04:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11367
Location: Revive Sanskrit
Samay wrote:
^^Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first,or they will blame someone else this time?
Quote:
“Based on the feasibility study, ADA would be able to define technologies required for the aircraft along with the timelines for design and development and subsequent manufacturing. The feasibility study is expected to take about 18 months,” he said.

Here feasibility study doesnt means that the work on actual project will start from the 19th month ... :( :roll:


A great part of the problem is created by you yourself:

Quote:
Why they(DRDO) were sleeping till now, waiting for *deleted* to do it first


If you had followed the progress of the MCA and then the AMCA (and perhaps Kaveri, etc) such comments would not be made.

The Chinese effort has been known for a very long time, just that their product has been brought in the open only recently. (I am not sure if it has even flown since the 15 minute flight, which is another topic.) China is expected to come out with a 5th gen in about 2020 and India with the AMCA around 2022-25.

Different planes for different uses, so I normally do not compare such planes. However, this one time I am willing to bet that the AMCA will trump the J-20.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1925 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 49  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, Nishant Kumar Jha, prahaar, pushkar.bhat, vishant chaudhary, Yahoo [Bot] and 32 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