Design your own fighter

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 22 Nov 2010 17:23

Better late than never, no?

And I really would not want to be so horribly dependent on an MMRCA for the medium swing-fighter role. If we do as Philip says, for example, and have a separate order for Mig-35s, then ok. To be very honest, even if we don't go for an American MMRCA, the threat of sanctions (and also the lack of numbers) will remain.

I don't really see the AMCA emerging by 2017; this 4++ fighter will at least start emerging as a concept by then. And whatever happens, it'll be a fighter that we KNOW we can make, while there's nothing concrete or dependable yet about the AMCA.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 22 Nov 2010 17:27

Some how I am not really convinced by the idea of additional project for the home made 4++ gen aircraft. But I am not convinced by the dog and pony show of the MMRCA compitition as well.

I think that the IAF ought to concentrate on two types the LCA and the MCA. But that's just me. Same for the 5th gen.

For heavy PAK FA, for medium light roles AMCA.

JMT

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 22 Nov 2010 19:46

^^^
I understand what you mean, but I'd rather not have my eggs in one AMCA basket, especially when the basket doesn't even exist yet.

Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India. In a non-literal sense, I want a big LCA: don't even bother developing new tech. I'm happy to freeze the tech level at whatever we get for the LCA Mk2, just with a bigger airframe and two engines. That's it. All I'm asking HAL-ADA to do is to make me an airframe about the size of the Typhoon to bung this stuff into. What I would definitely prefer is that it has 4++ tech, Kaveri engines and an Indian AESA, but if it can't be done, nuts to that. I'll take what I can get, as long as we have the numbers in case the AMCA is delayed (more than likely with such an ambitious step).

Does anyone have pics of the MCA (not AMCA) concept that was up on wikipedia a few years ago? I'm not talking about the original tailless line drawing, I'm talking about a trim little twin-engined, twin-finned jet that popped up for a while, before being replaced by the wind-tunnel model shown at Aero India 2010. It looked exactly like what i'm talking about, except maybe with TVC. It had the same wings as the LCA, IIRC.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 22 Nov 2010 19:49

Also, the AMCA designation suggests they're thinking of a three-tier setup. Expect talk of an Advanced Light Combat Aircraft sometime in the future

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 22 Nov 2010 22:45

i doubt ada has enough workforce to execute 2-3 projects simultaneously.....at proper speed!!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 22 Nov 2010 22:49

^ No sir, we are short of aero engineers and specialists.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 22 Nov 2010 23:08

so what could be done for that....when you dont give enough pay to them....obviously they will leave...also there are hardly any institutes teaching aeronautical engineering...and not even ada is taking any initiative to build future engineers....clearly they lack vision....and dont have a good foresight!!

P.S.-dont say sir....i am 16 only....sounds weird and not right to me!!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Nov 2010 23:12

>> Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India.

unfortunately the IAF doesn't want a larger LCA. your best bet is to form your own air force and fund this project.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Nov 2010 06:06

manish.rastogi wrote:so what could be done for that....when you dont give enough pay to them....obviously they will leave...also there are hardly any institutes teaching aeronautical engineering...and not even ada is taking any initiative to build future engineers....clearly they lack vision....and dont have a good foresight!!

P.S.-dont say sir....i am 16 only....sounds weird and not right to me!!

Hi Manish. Education is always about demand and supply. India makes over a million road vehicles per year but maybe a just a handful of aircraft. So the demand for Aero Engineers is not high. It might not be necessary to do Aeronautical engineering as a primary course. Aviation has so many aspects to it - ranging from pure science - physics and maths to mechanical, metallurgy and ceramics. And don't forget software and electronics.

In my view the best way to design an aircraft is to build models and play. That will give you a working knowledge of basic aircraft structures which can be backed up by theory once your education advances.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 23 Nov 2010 06:54

sir....i agree that india doesnt make many aircrafts.....but ada should have seen the upcoming need for aeroengineers....also i believe that a person dedicated to aviation right from b.tech...would have more knowledge and more chances of being specialist soon!!also thanks for the aeromodels advice!!

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 23 Nov 2010 08:22

Rahul M wrote:>> Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India.

unfortunately the IAF doesn't want a larger LCA. your best bet is to form your own air force and fund this project.

Sigh. Oh well, all right. Who's signing up?

I can promise good canteen food, at least.

On a serious note, maybe decisions like this shouldn't be left entirely to the armed forces. With the nonsense over the LCA and the Arjun, maybe the IAF and IA need to be told that they're not capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality and that they need to start supporting viable projects as well, if they're going to demand the very edge of tech. There's a spoilt-kid feel to the whole thing, and we could get into trouble because of it.

Anyway, I'm moving this particular rant to the Mil-Aviation thread.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 03 Dec 2010 17:05

@ Seniors, Can we please resume this thread?
I joined the BR forum for this thread and another thread started by Dileep Sir (Spy Story-4, not ashamed to admit). Unfortunately both the above threads are currently silent.

Is it feasible to discuss (in this thread) about a twin engined, (optionally twin seating) self defending attack aircraft cum trainer, with technologies almost available with us/ developed for Tejas? I can venture some specs which seniors can criticize and refine? I would open my mouth if at least one senior permits/encourages.
Regards.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Dec 2010 18:15

Jeff Wickline wrote:I can venture some specs which seniors can criticize and refine? I would open my mouth if at least one senior permits/encourages.
Regards.

Go ahead quick - before they lower my coffin

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 03 Dec 2010 19:35

Thank you Shiv Saar.
Here is the wish list:
Role: Self defending Ground Attack cum trainer. Trainer version should have twin seat front and back, rear seat raised, just like Tejas trainer. Most stores internal, except midboard drop tanks and two outboard AA's . (Tobe refined by As decided by the BR board.
Design Constraints:
To use Tejas Technology as far as practicable, K9+ specs power plant, 2 engines, Similar or Same LRU's
1. Empty Mass:11 T
2. Normal Take-off Mass:16 T , may be reduced to 15T when taking off from high altitude Runways
3. Maximum Take-off Mass: 20T at Sea Level,
4. Disposable Pay load (Ground attack +A2A, Addl fuel tank): 3.0T
5. Internal Fuel: 4T
6. Max airspeed: 1.8 M at 11000m
7. Super cruise: Desirable 1.2M at 11000m
8. Service ceiling (altitude):15000m
9. Max Ferry Range (internal Fuel+ drop tanks): 1800 km
14. Combat radius (air to air):? To be derived/calculated
15. Combat radius (strike):? To be derived/calculated.
16.Thrust vectoring Pitch: To be avoided if possible in Block-I
17. Thrust Vectoring Yaw: No
18. g-level:-3g to 9g (usual), may be revised
19. Aerodynamic control : Tail elevons (pitch and roll moments), twin canted Radavetor (Yaw,Pitch, parasitic roll)
20.Wing loading at Normal Take off mass:300 kg/m² (cf. 375 kg/m² for F22)
21. Wing area: about 60 m² (likely to be revised)
22. Stores (Missiles, Bombs): As decided by the BR board.
23. Radar:As decided by the BR board.
24. Avionics Back Bone: As in Tejas MC, MFD, Soft& button keypad
25. Cockpit layout:As decided by the BR board.
26. Thrust(with AB)/weight(Norm take off) : 11kN/T (cf. approx same as F22, 1.06 kgf/kgf )
27. Thrust(dry)/weight(Norm take off):8kN/T (cf. approx same as F22)

Computation for Power Plant: Dry Thrust required:2X(64kN), With A/B: 2X(90 kN)

Rest of the specs. As decided by the BR board.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 03 Dec 2010 20:18

^^ I have forgotten to mention "Stealth".
Stealth: Yes, super-stealth: Not now. In any case, us, the armchair designer, cannot ensure super-stealth in our back of envelope design. But we can certainly discuss the sub-features which would contribute towards stealth and the design/implementation costs for the same. Cheers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Dec 2010 21:06

The problem with composite materials is that though it is stealthy, the radar waves can reflect out from the inner construction. If the inner construction are such that it deflects off or at least 50* away from the source of radiation, then we can achieve good stealth. It is a challenge.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Dec 2010 17:12

Are you thinking of Tejas X 2 with stealth?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Dec 2010 17:49

Rahul M wrote:>> Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India.

unfortunately the IAF doesn't want a larger LCA. your best bet is to form your own air force and fund this project.

What could be the reasons for it?

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 04 Dec 2010 18:32

Pratyush wrote:Are you thinking of Tejas X 2 with stealth?

Thanks for caring to respond to my post Pratyush sir.
I did two things:
1) Took hint from the Mod's comment

Rahul M wrote:>> Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India.

2) Took whatever is known about ADA-AMCA from the AMCA thread.
In my woolly brain, I thought (a) If we proceed with our design we would be able to better understand the design choices made by ADA , as and when such info is made public. (b) if this thread comes up with "some" design we can make some comparisons.

I am aware that IAF wants a multirole AMCA, whereas we propose to design a "strike" aircraft. But IMVHO, due to the present air tactics, the specs of a viable modern self defending strike aircraft and of multi-role and swingrole crafts are rapidly converging.
Thanks again.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Dec 2010 18:38

ShauryaT wrote:
Rahul M wrote:>> Forget even the 4++ part, what I basically want is a viable 4th gen jet, twin-engined and twin-seating, affordable and able to be made in India.

unfortunately the IAF doesn't want a larger LCA. your best bet is to form your own air force and fund this project.
What could be the reasons for it?

increasing sophistication in adversary equipment to our north.
they already have the Mk2 in development, which is in effect a larger LCA. why would they want to spend money and a LOT of effort on something that only gives marginal improvements in capability ? that's grossly inefficient use of resources.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 04 Dec 2010 23:17

Jeff, your specs for "Ground Attack" some what matches the requirements of "AMCA" only thing is that "AMCA" is specifically not a "Ground Attack" aircraft but its going to be a "Multirole" aircraft.

Other then that could you please explain the need to make the same aircraft a trainer as well ?
Are you talking about the role of an "Advanced Jet Trainer" ?
And if its the role of an "Advanced Jet Trainer" you are talking about, can you tell us, if we need such huge Advanced Jet Trainer i.e. Empty Mass:11 T ?

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 04 Dec 2010 23:46

I feel if India aspires to be a Super Power be the permanent member of Security Council, then we should be going in for a long range bomber, with delta wing, stealth, and probably 4 Kaveri Engines which be able to make Inter Continental Trips.

May be it should be a mix of B-2, Vulcan, PAK-DA, or Tu-160 but definitely it should be much smaller then these.
I can understand that India currently does not have the requirement for such an Aircraft now.
But, 20 yrs down the line, when we will be flexing our muscles, we might need that who knows ?
We can surely go to the drawing board now ( or atleast in this thread).

Technolgies which are available or will be available to us shortly via other programs which we are running and which we can reuse probably are :
1. Airframe, Fuselage and Landing gear Design ( CFD etc.).
2. Engine Technology ( Via Kaveri).
3. AESA Radar Technology ( Via Tejas).
4. Stealth Technology ( Via AMCA, FGFA)
5. Composite Technology ( Via Tejas)
6. Titanium Frame Technology ( Via FGFA)

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 04 Dec 2010 23:51

are there any softwares(free) for designing aircrafts??where can i get them??

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 00:13

B_Ambuj wrote:Jeff, your specs for "Ground Attack" some what matches the requirements of "AMCA" only thing is that "AMCA" is specifically not a "Ground Attack" aircraft but its going to be a "Multirole" aircraft.

Thanks for the comments. I am aware that AMCA would not be a ground attack a/c. Please see my previous post. But I thought our design project should have its own personality, a bit different than AMCA.

B_Ambuj wrote:Other then that could you please explain the need to make the same aircraft a trainer as well ?
Are you talking about the role of an "Advanced Jet Trainer" ?
And if its the role of an "Advanced Jet Trainer" you are talking about, can you tell us, if we need such huge Advanced Jet Trainer i.e. Empty Mass:11 T ?

Frankly I do not know what such a trainer would be used for. Admittedly this would not be suitable for learning how to fly a combat plane. As an after thought, it could be a good platform to train advanced ground attack tactics, new types of airborne radars, ECM, ECCM and AWACS connectivity, maritime surveillance etc., etc. I know it does not sound very convincing. More suggestions would be welcome.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2010 00:24

There are lot of links for aircraft design softwares, I am not sure about the free ones. check out on google for yourself.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 00:28

manish.rastogi wrote:are there any softwares(free) for designing aircrafts??where can i get them??

I do not think any good freeware would exist but would keep on searching. I vaguely remember some toy-ish program, quite some time back.
Incidentally, some textbooks have software for different aspects of aircraft design. These are in bits and pieces, chapter-wise.
Stevens' book has matlab programs (at every chapter) for Aircraft Dynamics and control and claims to give data for F-16.
"Aircraft control and simulation",Brian L. Stevens, Frank L. Lewis,Wiley-IEEE, 2003.
I came across the following book, which looks quite readable, recent and useful. It has a website and a few sections of the book are available there.
"Aircraft Design",Ajoy Kumar Kundu, Queen’s University Belfast,Cambridge University Press,2010.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 00:31

Thanks Saik saar,
an excellent link. I too got interested. It would be a good past time to convert these codes into matlab/scilab codes with interactive screens and graphic outputs.
Would report progress or otherwise.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Dec 2010 00:37

Great Jeff, all the best. Please do let us here know how you did.

....

LM's sabre warrior for anyone's reference on designing a NG craft.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 00:47

B_Ambuj wrote:I feel if India aspires to be a Super Power be the permanent member of Security Council, then we should be going in for a long range bomber ... ...

Couldn't we use cruise missiles and ballistic missiles for the same tasks? A bomber would be very vulnerable IMHO. Just a thought.

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 05 Dec 2010 00:54

thanks everyone....would definately try....

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 05 Dec 2010 01:08

Rahul M wrote: increasing sophistication in adversary equipment to our north.
they already have the Mk2 in development, which is in effect a larger LCA. why would they want to spend money and a LOT of effort on something that only gives marginal improvements in capability ? that's grossly inefficient use of resources.

It will be good to understand these threat perceptions from the north in terms of capabilities of the PLAAF, current and projected against India's current and projected capabilities. I do not see the PLAAF having a great advantage but possible, I do not know enough on the maturity of the J-XX program.

Rahul, as of now, we do not have a product to use by way of Tejas. This usable product in a Mk2 configuration (judging by the way IAF sees it) is seven years away. Even this product, will lack in indigenous key systems, weapons and engine. I do not want to reiterate all the reservations expressed on the thread in terms of a capability and execution risk to the AMCA, however those objections remain valid.

Coming to the investment angle and efficient use of resources, while we would be investing in the Tejas and the Pak-FA programs, in the middle category the MMRCA and along with all these investments, we are to believe that an AMCA would be delivered in a decade or so, is a tall order. I would say it is a downright waste of precious resources and capabilities.

A twin engine powered aircraft which can incrementally grow to provide fifth gen technologies should be the work horse along with the Tejas, with key systems, weapons and engines, which are indigenous, is the need of the hour.

Indian investments in the Pak-FA is the hedge against the PLAAF. There are many other investments that we need to do and deliver a product, such as the MTA. If the DRDO wants a challenge, give them 20 years and let them produce a UCAV to join Indian forces in 2030. As for the IAF, get them off the import drug and go Indian, with the capabilities in our grasp.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 01:28

manish.rastogi wrote:
Rahul M wrote:it can't be explained by someone in one post or even a dozen. there's a very approachable book aircraft design : a conceptual approach by daniel p raymer. you need 1st year engn/physics/maths background to get the basic idea.
thank you sir....guess still have a year to get that book!!

OT: Manish, I have the above book. Next year when you join engineering college, you can have it.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Dec 2010 01:41

It will be good to understand these threat perceptions from the north in terms of capabilities of the PLAAF, current and projected against India's current and projected capabilities. I do not see the PLAAF having a great advantage but possible, I do not know enough on the maturity of the J-XX program.

people make the mistake of comparing aircraft vs aircraft which can be misleading. you have to compare the entire ADGES including SAMs and AEW&C, in addition to fighters.

Rahul, as of now, we do not have a product to use by way of Tejas. This usable product in a Mk2 configuration (judging by the way IAF sees it) is seven years away. Even this product, will lack in indigenous key systems, weapons and engine. I do not want to reiterate all the reservations expressed on the thread in terms of a capability and execution risk to the AMCA, however those objections remain valid.

didn't quite get this. even if we assume that a) Mk1 is un-usable and b) Mk2 will lack in key systems (both not true by varying degrees btw) how would simply launching a twin engine fighter project solve these issues ?
moreover, if you try to design a twin engined tejas you will end up with something very much like the AMCA. the question then would be would you prefer to design a fighter to the best of your abilities or would you design a sub-capable fighter (at about the same money and effort) just for the sake of making a twin engined LCA ?
IOW, AMCA is the twin engined LCA you are talking of. if you follow its evolution from the early 2000's this will become all the more clear. they started off with an idea very similar to yours but with better understanding of their own capabilities and the needs of tomorrow the design has evolved to its present version.

Indian investments in the Pak-FA is the hedge against the PLAAF. There are many other investments that we need to do and deliver a product, such as the MTA. If the DRDO wants a challenge, give them 20 years and let them produce a UCAV to join Indian forces in 2030. As for the IAF, get them off the import drug and go Indian, with the capabilities in our grasp.

the AMCA is within our capabilities, period. if we could go from 2nd gen to 4+ gen in the same time it took for established aerospace powers to go from 4th gen to 4+gen, we can most certainly go from 4th gen to 5th.

the assumption that DRDO is embarking on this as an open ended science 'challenge' or that IAF is letting it go ahead only because they want to import is frankly ridiculous. sometimes forumites need to understand that we are not the only ones thinking what is good for the country. in fact for most of us, thinking is all we do. the people whose commitment and intentions you have questioned without any valid ground do more thinking and 'doing' for the country in a single day than most of us manage in our lifetime.

Coming to the investment angle and efficient use of resources, while we would be investing in the Tejas and the Pak-FA programs, in the middle category the MMRCA and along with all these investments, we are to believe that an AMCA would be delivered in a decade or so, is a tall order. I would say it is a downright waste of precious resources and capabilities.

eh ? AMCA is a waste because we are spending on PAKFA ?
what kind of reasoning is that ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 05 Dec 2010 09:49

Jeff Wickline wrote: Here is the wish list:
Role: Self defending Ground Attack cum trainer. Trainer version should have twin seat front and back, rear seat raised, just like Tejas trainer. Most stores internal, except midboard drop tanks and two outboard AA's . (Tobe refined by As decided by the BR board.
Design Constraints:
To use Tejas Technology as far as practicable, K9+ specs power plant, 2 engines, Similar or Same LRU's
1. Empty Mass:11 T
2. Normal Take-off Mass:16 T , may be reduced to 15T when taking off from high altitude Runways
3. Maximum Take-off Mass: 20T at Sea Level,
4. Disposable Pay load (Ground attack +A2A, Addl fuel tank): 3.0T
5. Internal Fuel: 4T
6. Max airspeed: 1.8 M at 11000m
7. Super cruise: Desirable 1.2M at 11000m
8. Service ceiling (altitude):15000m
9. Max Ferry Range (internal Fuel+ drop tanks): 1800 km
14. Combat radius (air to air):? To be derived/calculated
15. Combat radius (strike):? To be derived/calculated.
16.Thrust vectoring Pitch: To be avoided if possible in Block-I
17. Thrust Vectoring Yaw: No
18. g-level:-3g to 9g (usual), may be revised
19. Aerodynamic control : Tail elevons (pitch and roll moments), twin canted Radavetor (Yaw,Pitch, parasitic roll)
20.Wing loading at Normal Take off mass:300 kg/m² (cf. 375 kg/m² for F22)
21. Wing area: about 60 m² (likely to be revised)
22. Stores (Missiles, Bombs): As decided by the BR board.
23. Radar:As decided by the BR board.
24. Avionics Back Bone: As in Tejas MC, MFD, Soft& button keypad
25. Cockpit layout:As decided by the BR board.
26. Thrust(with AB)/weight(Norm take off) : 11kN/T (cf. approx same as F22, 1.06 kgf/kgf )
27. Thrust(dry)/weight(Norm take off):8kN/T (cf. approx same as F22)

Computation for Power Plant: Dry Thrust required:2X(64kN), With A/B: 2X(90 kN)

Rest of the specs. As decided by the BR board.

Single seat? Twin seat?

Which engine?

One engine or two?

Why tailplane? Why not canards? Why not pure delta since we have experience?

Why twin canted rudder-elevator?

What is the need for supercruise as a design goal? Would supercruise be dispensable if range/payload goals are met? HF 24 could supercruise so why is it specifically being mentioned as a design goal? What is the need for supercruise in the Indian context?

What would be the timeline to achieve these goals if "we" start work in in Jan 2011?

What would be the export potential in 2020? In 2030? In 2040?

If the ferry range with max fuel is 1800 km, then the plane's combat radius will be less than 900 km without refuelling. I would accept that as long as the engine is 100% Indian

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 10:48

shiv wrote:
Single seat? Twin seat?

Which engine?

One engine or two?

Why tailplane? Why not canards? Why not pure delta since we have experience?

Why twin canted rudder-elevator?

What is the need for supercruise as a design goal? Would supercruise be dispensable if range/payload goals are met? HF 24 could supercruise so why is it specifically being mentioned as a design goal? What is the need for supercruise in the Indian context?

What would be the timeline to achieve these goals if "we" start work in in Jan 2011?

What would be the export potential in 2020? In 2030? In 2040?

If the ferry range with max fuel is 1800 km, then the plane's combat radius will be less than 900 km without refuelling. I would accept that as long as the engine is 100% Indian

Thanks again Shiv sir for bringing back this thread to its original intent.
You may have already noted that most of the preliminary design choices were derived from the wind tunnel model posted in the AMCA thread. But I would try to justify these choices for "the BRF Ground attack" A/c as far as my limited knowledge goes.
1. The first design would be for a single seat. Accommodating a second seat would need some sacrifice. We would try to locate some of the LRU's which are not required for the trainer duty in the volume space to be occupied by the second seat. The advantages of a second crew to man and operate advanced radars are being appreciated now. But unless we proceed a bit further, we cannot say whether we can accommodate both seats without compromising some functionality. We would review the case after the first design iteration.
2. As regards engine, the specs are (a) two engines, (b) Dry Thrust required:2X(64kN), With A/B: 2X(90 kN). This appears to be adequate for both K9plus and GE-F414. Alas none of these have thrust vectoring. So a do-able compromise is to explore whether a single axis vectoring would do. Limited degree of single axis thrust vectoring using secondary fluid injection, may just be feasible in a 2 year time frame. I do not know whether there would be any indigenous thrust vectoring engine soon. We are gambling with the fact that AMCA would need one and we would see what choice ADA/HAL makes.
3. Twin canted Radavetors permit (i) to reduction of RCS by geometry and reduction of metal component (ii) extra pitch moment if requited.

4. Canards have not been totally ruled out at this stage. We have to see whether the advantages it provides would be required for the envisaged role of the aircraft.
5. As regards tail, i thought it looks nicer and easier to size up in first design. However, if we want to use the same hydraulic actuators as in Tejas, we may have to revise our choice.

5. Supercruise, I thought is a means to increase the range as it consumes less fuel for the same distance. But I could be mistaken.
end of submission.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 11:14

^^
"What would be the timeline to achieve these goals if "we" start work in in Jan 2011?
What would be the export potential in 2020? In 2030? In 2040? "
I have not answered the above two comments earlier. Frankly, I do not have any answers.
I would standby for comments from the more experienced members.
Cheers

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 05 Dec 2010 13:59

Jeff Wickline wrote:Thanks for the comments. I am aware that AMCA would not be a ground attack a/c. Please see my previous post. But I thought our design project should have its own personality, a bit different than AMCA.

I understand the term “Multirole” covers the functionality of “Ground Attack”.
At the same time we can also have a variant of “AMCA” which would play the dedicted role of “Ground Attack”.
This would address the Issue of cost of developing a separate aircraft for “Ground Attack” role.
Let me know if you would agree.

Jeff Wickline wrote:Frankly I do not know what such a trainer would be used for. Admittedly this would not be suitable for learning how to fly a combat plane. As an after thought, it could be a good platform to train advanced ground attack tactics, new types of airborne radars, ECM, ECCM and AWACS connectivity, maritime surveillance etc., etc. I know it does not sound very convincing. More suggestions would be welcome.

I came across this sentence in my childhood, “Necessity is the mother of Invention”. I doubt if there is no necessity, there is a need for invention. What I am trying to say is that if there is a need ( read a business case) for some Invention, some one can go for it. Otherwise, the Invention will just be a white elephant.
The point I am trying to explain here is, before we place the requirements for a project, we need to have a business case and then do a feasibility analysis for the same and then place the requirements. Otherwise, I doubt if that project will be successful.

So, in layman’s term you should clearly define the “use” first.

Jeff Wickline wrote: Couldn't we use cruise missiles and ballistic missiles for the same tasks? A bomber would be very vulnerable IMHO. Just a thought.

Cruise missiles / Ballistic missiles / Surface to Air missiles can perform all the tasks of any fighter aircraft. So, do you mean to say that we do not need that ?

Agree a bomber will be vulnerable and so would be a fighter aircraft, considering the fact of adequate inventory of SAMs and BVRs with our adversary. Unkil Sam was using B-2 and B-52 in Iraq and Afghanistan till recent times.
Russia resumed their flights of strategic aviation on Tu-160. On 10 September 2008, two Russian Tu-160 landed in Venezuela as part of military maneuvers and Russia is now developing PAK-DA.
The use of a strategic bomber would be for would be for sheer display of dominance.
Please, refer to my post; I have said “20 yrs down the line, when we will be flexing our muscles, we might need that…”

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 05 Dec 2010 14:24

Rahul M wrote:moreover, if you try to design a twin engined tejas you will end up with something very much like the AMCA. the question then would be would you prefer to design a fighter to the best of your abilities or would you design a sub-capable fighter (at about the same money and effort) just for the sake of making a twin engined LCA ?
IOW, AMCA is the twin engined LCA you are talking of. if you follow its evolution from the early 2000's this will become all the more clear. they started off with an idea very similar to yours but with better understanding of their own capabilities and the needs of tomorrow the design has evolved to its present version.

Thankx Rahul for clearly, explaining this. I have seen many a people in this forum advocating the need to create a twin engined LCA without realizing the fact that AMCA is actually a twin engined LCA.

Hopefully, the advocacy for twin engined LCA will end here with your clear explanation.

Rahul M wrote:eh ? AMCA is a waste because we are spending on PAKFA ?
what kind of reasoning is that ?

Obviously, a bad reasoning.

Jeff Wickline · Post by **Jeff Wickline** » 05 Dec 2010 14:40

^^ Thanks B_Ambuj (the earlier post) for the criticisms. This kind of criticisms are necessary to debug our thoughts regarding "our" very own designed combat aircraft.

Here, "we" stands for the mango jingo's and not ADA, nor IAF, nor HAL. So this thread can take some liberties regarding the specs. On the other hand we would add real value if we can justify why we took a particular set of requirement.

As we interact and utilize our dialectics, our specs would get refined, hopefully.
IMHO nobody would tell us the detailed rationale behind GSQR or ASR, or whatever is the sacred specs. We would develop our own argument in this process and may even be able to decode the intent behind the ASR.
It is quite possible that seniors might know the exact reasons behind a particular choice of an ASR but us, lesser mortals need to learn through this process.
So please help refine the specs or requirements. I just thought it unacceptable that even after 240 posts, we are unable to define the problem. Let us start with an imperfect and half-baked idea and shape it up as we go. Please continue your contributions.

Regarding the Long Range bomber, from the trend it just appeared to me that days of such huge aircraft are possibly numbered. But that is just a personal opinion onlee. I am sure it is fairly easy to figure out the respective complementary roles of missiles and aircraft.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 05 Dec 2010 14:40

Rahul M wrote:it can't be explained by someone in one post or even a dozen. there's a very approachable book aircraft design : a conceptual approach by daniel p raymer. you need 1st year engn/physics/maths background to get the basic idea.

Rahul / Shiv

Please, let us know if it will be feasible to have a dedicated thread for reference books / reference URLs / Softwares for aircrafts or other military designs ?