Between I can see that your feathers are quite ruffled with AMCA

Austin wrote:NRao wrote:Who is even close today? AESA?
The NIIP chief designer in a recent interviews claims the new AESA under test for PAK-FA with more than 1500 T/W module will out match F-22 AESA ( he mentions its based on evaluation of new AESA Transmission Power and Reception Noise ) will post the scan copy of the interview next week.
More info includes AESA will be fitted on 3rd prototype of PAK-FA.
Two protrusions extending behind the engine might help, I guess.indranilroy wrote:Kanson wrote:>>With its wing pushed so far back and the tapering of the body starting barely 2-3 mtrs from the end of the plane. Thhe are curve will not be very pretty at the back.
Its Ok. We may not be able judge it properly but there is tapering starting from the Canards. Of course it wont be a perfect Sears-Haack body at the back.
YEs the canards will help in the forward part and also in capturing a lower maxima of the curve. But the back, I am not too sure.
Chinese obviously know this. They have tried to mitigate it with the big actuator housings and the trailing thing next to the nozzles, but still ...
Your assertion could be true. If you see the IAF trend, Gnat was intially A2A later modified to have A2G. Similarly LCA was primarily meant for the air interceptor role but converted to multi role. Su-30 is an A2A platform. Same way Pak-Fa is more about A2A. So AMCA too evolve in that fashion. In short, in achieving multi role, it is from A2A -> A2G.I believe their priority was not too make a A2A weapon. It seems like a A2G weapon with A2A capabilities, somewhat like the F-35. The AMCA seems more akin to PGFA/F-22, an A2A weapon with A2G capabilities.
indranilroy wrote:Austin sahab,
I was pointing out that the F-22 was there at 1995 where PAKFA will be at 2020 (may be or may not be in certain aspects, only time will say). So it is 25 years ahead of the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong in giving credit where it is due.
NRao wrote:That I understand. What about all other aspects? I doubt they are close.
manish.rastogi wrote:okay...might be a newbie poonch...still will ask here...
I feel AMCA is somewhat anorexic/thin at the tail end,maybe lack of spacing between engines or whatever....so anyone could tell me that if it is widened how will it affect stealth airframe aerodynamics etc...??
TIA
Gagan wrote:With thanks to Rahul Devnath.
Notice the parallel lines in the design, intended to ensure that reflections are controllable
Venkarl wrote:
Rahul M wrote:the troll wen was posting with the email ID wen@imperial.ac.uk which is the domain address of imperial college london.
assuming that's actually his email ID and not a stolen one, it just goes on to show that education is no hindrance to behaving like a moron.
SaiK wrote: There are others ways [why not peripheral h2o ejections to reduce IR? any reduction in thrust?].
[size=50]
Gagan wrote:The F-22 raptor had a concept of having the OLS in front of the cockpit glass, but it was blended into the shape of the cockpit bulge, and perfectly streamlined, and not a ball jutting out.
The US eventually decided to not include this in the final product.
I think that concept needs to be looked into since that seems logical.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests