AMCA News and Discussions

[SaiK]

shape and supercruise discussions-http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8338.html, especially this -http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/992/ ... ockum9.jpg, now any jingo here who might do this for AMCA /FGFA?

[Kanson]

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.

Yes, US is talking about the *Next Generation* plane. For them it is called 6th gen. We are talking about our *next generation* plane which is called as AMCA and also tagged as *Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA)*. Which ever we prefer to be adorned by our AMCA, it is our choice. As we are in the feasibility phase, the attempt is made to see what others are doing for their *Next Generation*. Hope it clears your doubt.

Here is a picture from that link about "generations"



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.

As i said, number doesn't matter, but capability matters. Can i take from your observation that, one generation for India is equivalent to 2 gen in American standards? That means next generation AMCA going to be an equivalent of 6.5 gen American plane? Maybe we call Indian PAK-FA as Future Generation Fighter Aircraft and call AMCA as NGFA becoz, AMCA is next gen to FGFA? Just kidding.

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

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.

We are very good in conceptual studies, ideas, thinking. In your own words your described Tejas planform as unique. Even before Americans can think about tailless *fighters* as their next gen, we thought about that in MCA a decade before. What we lack is in technologies that need to implement those ideas. The leaders here are Americans and Europeans(including russians). Naturally we are the followers. We do can start developing technologies as we like, to be leaders. But it needs lot of lead times, and we many not know it holds any relevance. For this we need strong research & foundation. It takes time. Till that time we do both, i mean both in implementing our own ideas and copying/following others.
We purchased, Artillery location radars from Americans after Kargil, then we moved to make one for ourselves which is considered superior to americans. It is we are not the only one following others, Russians follow Americans and Americans follow others and i dont have to say about Chinese. Python 5 is way beyond American thinking, so they just imported and probably copied it in their missiles. Following is not bad as you presume, it lessens the risk and reduce the implementing time.

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?? )
• 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.

Becoz what goes to war is not just "aircraft" but complete weapon system as war machine. HMS/RWR/MAWS/IRST are all not needed for "aircraft" to fly but needed if it is a war machine. So are the weapons. Just as we develop Astra for LCA.

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

Maybe. But it is not so simple.

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

Whom do we want to dominate? The US? Fuggedabahtit

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

Sirji, i do know, after reading many times how we defeated american military systems in our neighborhood from your own words, you know the answers to this. Second, no more we are caring only about our borders, as we are slowly emerging to protect our interest way beyond our immediate neighborhood.

[Kanson]

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...

Actually it is pathetic! Their AF prefers 5th gen, but the industry couldn't provide one as they couldn't find partners to help them develop such tech, even though they had reasonably good industry with some experience.

Lets compare them to us. After the sanction, we went on and developed our own actuators which was denied to us(there is not many who do this). It says lot about nation's will and persistence to develop such high end projects than merely having developed industry.

Infact i like this part...it says about the spirit of the nation....I think this is what keep US ahead of others.

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.”

I see similar thoughts expressed by P.S. in recent interview.

[shiv]

Sorry to go OT again. What is often missed by Indians - and this is reflected in media reports too is that the US does the following things
1) It conceptualizes and sets certain goals that everyone drools over
2) It reaches those goals partially or fully and very quickly exports them and makes money or does "balancing of power"
3) In the meantime research goes on in the background for new goals that will be sold to the same old customers tomorrow.

However I must not blame the US alone. Russia too has done this a well as France. These three nations have ensured that all countries who have fought wars from 1965 to 2010 have always used aircraft only from one of these three countries (barring a few from China and the UK).

On the other hand what India is doing is to try and fight future wars with its own hardware. With no "market share" and a lot of "catching up" to do India has concentrated on indigenization rather than export. The problem with this is that Indians are always tempted by the marketing hype of other nations and since all our wars have been fought with foreign equipment a lot of people say that the foreign maal is "proven". And because of the catching up requirement the seeming attractiveness of foreign stuff is far greater than our stuff which always seems out of date. And this is partly because we are agreeing and accepting the definition of "generation" made by someone else - in this case the US. For most of the people I see who post comments on the net (not just BRF) the "generation number" is more important than anything else. And the minute anyone mentions a technology it is immediately rejected or accepted by checking it out against the "generation number" which the US conveniently makes or breaks as it pleases.

It seems that generation numbers like 4.5, 5 and 6 are "fashions" in which the fashion designer is the US. First of all we need to reject this "generation number and start looking at capabilities. "Generation" is a marketing trick.

[Kanson]

>>And this is partly because we are agreeing and accepting the definition of "generation" made by someone else - in this case the US. For most of the people I see who post comments on the net (not just BRF) the "generation number" is more important than anything else. And the minute anyone mentions a technology it is immediately rejected or accepted by checking it out against the "generation number" which the US conveniently makes or breaks as it pleases.

Valid point. But you see, instead of calling my aircraft having this and this tech and this & this capabilities, by tagging them with a generation tag, it is assumed to have so and so tech. Being Americans having the longest current aviation history and dominating industry, which even the Europeans(incl. russians) follow, others tend to use the same term for comparison. JMT.

[shiv]

. Being Americans having the longest current aviation history and dominating industry, which even the Europeans(incl. russians) follow, others tend to use the same term for comparison. JMT.

In fact the French and British have nearly as long a history as the US. More designs have come from Britain than the US IIRC. If you recall in the 1980s and early 1990s nobody ever spoke of generation numbers. That fashion suddenly started in the 1990s. (I recall protesting the use of that on BRF - ineffectively, and I am still doing that for reasons stated) All of a sudden 4th generation was born and 5th generation was conjured up. This too is, IMO a type of "aviation history" and needs to be noted because it causes only confusion and heartburn at best. But what is worse is that it causes some people to laugh all the way to the bank while others are hoodwinked by the "maya" of generation number.

[Rahul M]

abhik, you are not making a lot of sense. the F-22 is only a little heavier than the F35 %wise yet has a much larger internal bay.

a little understanding of high school 3d geometry would tell you that F35's bloated shape is due to its huge single engine, an aircraft with 2 smaller ones like the AMCA will not have those problems. even the F-22 which carries two of those engines (only a little smaller than the F35's F135) doesn't have that odd shape because it is much larger and hence can accommodate 2 engines better, in spite of being only ~ 20% heavier at MTOW.

[shiv]

All stealthy aircraft use internal bays and as a result have to be larger than an aircraft (of similar weight and power) that just slings the weapons on external pylons. Bigger therefore always means more surface area. More surface area also means far more maintenance for the expensive stealthy skin.

Somehow when I read all the problems of having a stealthy aircraft I begin to feel that the US got it just right with the F-117. Too many, far too many compromises are made for the sake of stealth and to me it seems more and more of a bad idea to have a "multirole" stealth aircraft. A multirole aircraft itself is a compromise between attack and defence. And to that compromise you add stealth. Flippin heck

The F 117 at least made no pretence of anything. It was just good enough to be used at the beginning of a conflict when stealth was vital for SEAD, after which the others took over. The F-22 is the top - but way too expensive. The JSF is nothing of anything other than stealth and eyes.

Internal bays are a problem especially the design for missiles that may have to be ejected and fired off in a hurry. If that does not come off right - that internal bay is not going to be good for missiles. Some modern misiles (I can't recall whether it is Derby or IRIS-T or AIM 9) can lock on before launch. How do you do that in an internal bay? By all means have an internal bay but don't kill the aircraft because of that. With current tech, stealth IMO can only go so far and no further before it starts affecting performance and adds a terrible cost.

[Rahul M]

that is why a robust external weapons option is a must for a strike oriented LO aircraft IMO. this is one thing the F35 has got right. even F22 can carry external fuel tanks if needed.

the idea is that the F35 performs like a F117 at the start of a war and then once stealth is less of a priority it can switch to becoming a modern F-16. in hindsight it is the uber complex F35B that has skewed the program a lot. and of course the US need to gold plate everything. had the VTOL been a separate derivative project the F35 would have been far better managed.

interesting point you mention about the missiles.
I found something at F16.net http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... cfc6#88369
not sure about accuracy of information.

I do think most modern missiles would have LOAL feature so this is less of a problem.

[shiv]

the idea is that the F35 performs like a F117 at the start of a war and then once stealth is less of a priority it can switch to becoming a modern F-16.

That is the theory. Of course the problem is that it still has a more expensive and delicate skin to maintain and remains an aerodynamic compromise that is neither optimised for agility nor low or high flight. Fly by wire can only go so far and so then one is looking at thrust vectoring to make it better. Engines perhaps can be made smart so the perform well at all altitudes - but India is a long way off.

That is why the limited role F-117 seems so attractive to me.

Of course one thing that is sure to happen is phased array radars integrated into fuselage and wings. That itself is going to bulk up the aircraft a bit. But then the material that keep it stealthy over all those larger areas of fuselage/wings hiding radar is a mystery to me. Is it delicate? Is it expensive? Is it difficult to produce?

[Singha]

there is some talk of CFT for F18 to free up centerline pylon for a combined IRST + defensive pod and stealth weapons containers for the main pylons (I assume the 4 inboard pylons)...probably SDB type smaller bombs and amraam missile pairs.

we could rig the AMCA along similar lines with space for just 2 KH31 sized missiles internally for SEAD role and 2 stealthy weapons station on inboard pylons for 2 more large ARMs or 4 AAMs / CFT style conformal weapon stations along side of engine intakes.

this would avoid the obese shape of the current JSF...and god forbid the losing Boeing JSF that looked like a huge frog.

[shiv]

Vayu has an article on missiles which I am still digesting. Will post info by and by. But when one is looking at gaining an advantage in combat every little bit counts - be it helmet mounted cueing, LOBL or active guidance, passive guidance and LOAL or lock on to jammer. Having the missile sit in a big internal bay could count as a great disadvantage despite the hype that has already been put out by the Americans. We just don't know.

The most expensive toys being touted as the future of warfare have hardly been used in wars and have barely won any wars.

[Lalmohan]

shiv i am not sure that your analysis is correct (or atleast completely so)
I dont think we have seen a bvr vs bvr conflict with equally matched foes as yet
in previous periods there was a technical assymetry
in the indo-china scenario, there will be no such assymetry

[SaiK]

What is preventing the striking external weapons and pods take stealthy designs? That way it can still play a part in stealth while ready to strike like in non-stealth designs?

And we should not rule out stealthy designs are purely shaped based. We have no idea what is researched and done out there to consume or convert emitting radiations.

[Rahul M]

shiv ji, IIRC the F117 and B-2 had the most difficult to maintain skins of all. being first gen models this is understandable. there is a reason why the USAF retired the F117 even before they laid hands on an alternative.

[Austin]

Having the missile sit in a big internal bay could count as a great disadvantage despite the hype

Probably yes specially in WVR combat , since it would take 1 or 2 seconds for the internal bay to open and eject the missile while the one on external pylons wont need to do so.

Plus I suppose the one on external pylon can exploit the seeker head of the missile ( LOBL/LOAL ) , while the one in internal bay will have to rely on LOAL capability.

For better or worse its a trade off that designer have to compromise.

[Austin]

shiv ji, IIRC the F117 and B-2 had the most difficult to maintain skins of all. being first gen models this is understandable. there is a reason why the USAF retired the F117 even before they laid hands on an alternative.

Well even the 3rd gen stealth comes with its own set of issues , it was disclosed that for every 1 hour F-22 flies it needs more than 30 hours of maintenance on ground.

Lets hope the F-35 and PAK-FA are more rugged platform and needs far less maintenance hours

[SaiK]

Interesting comparing the WVR with internal bay time loss for launch and the advantage in BVR to conceal the load. That is contradicting in a sense that if BVR weapons that needs to be concealed, then internal weapons have to be really large then to accommodate long ranged missiles.

So, short to medium range ones may be actually be a stealthy pylon rather for the time loss aspect. Again, the role of AMCA for WVR ops must be cleanly defined by IAF.

And, the long range BVR weapons be internal rather !?

[shiv]

Lalmullah - I can't claim that I am right - but I am frankly skeptical of the sort of BVR battles that are described based on the BVR kills done by the US against Iraq or some such foe. Most "BVR" missiles today are claimed to be effective in the 25-80km range depending on launch conditions. Two aircraft heading towards each other at 1000 kmph (each) cover 33 km in a minute and unless a confirmation of IFF and launch is done in seconds BVR can rapidly become WVR. As it will if the BVR missile misses.

I think the Americans have used the tactic of "total sanitization" of airspace. And this has been done using huge numbers of aircraft at their command over a limited area in conflicts like Kosovo or Iraq. Over Iraq a no fly zone had already been there for years making it easy to shoot down anything that went in there. I believe that China will be hard pressed to enforce 24x7 air defence patrols over Tibet which is what we are talking about for sanitizing enemies at BVR. And low flying aircraft among mountains will have to be taken down by ground based defences and not BVR.

No "evenly matched adversaries" with huge BVR missile inventories and AEW assets as large and varied as the US actually exist. The US is the only one currently. Just my thoughts.

[Rahul M]

Probably yes specially in WVR combat , since it would take 1 or 2 seconds for the internal bay to open and eject the missile while the one on external pylons wont need to do so.

Plus I suppose the one on external pylon can exploit the seeker head of the missile ( LOBL/LOAL ) , while the one in internal bay will have to rely on LOAL capability.

For better or worse its a trade off that designer have to compromise.

they can keep the bay door open when in merge.

>>Well even the 3rd gen stealth comes with its own set of issues , it was disclosed that for >>every 1 hour F-22 flies it needs more than 30 hours of maintenance on ground.

>>Lets hope the F-35 and PAK-FA are more rugged platform and needs far less maintenance hours

true, true. but it should be less than 1st gen at least otherwise it's not progress. the B-2's skin used to dissolve every time it went out in the rain !

[Austin]

they can keep the bay door open when in merge.

Yes they can do that , it would come at the cost of its LO and Drag , though i have never come across this theory keep the bay door open.

the B-2's skin used to dissolve every time it went out in the rain !

I think lately the solved the paint and weather issue but B-2 still needs controlled climate hanger and it would be interesting to know the maintenance hours B-2 needs after each sortie.

The USAF probably thinks its worth that kind of money due to the niche capability it offers.

[SaiK]

I am thinking of sun roof like shutters on cars for the opening , to reduce drag.

[Indranil]

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

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.

I never speculated where the Kaveri will stand 10 or 20 years from now. Viv, Rahul da and me were discussing whether we should go for the 119S. Viv was wondering what the empty weight of the plane would be. Rahul da was discussing why a single engined fighter might not be the best of ideas. You came in and said

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.

I asked you what is the point of such a post. Everybody wants a better engine which gives more power and is more fuel efficient. What did you add?

You answered
1. FGFA and AMCA are the same program
2. It is a engine which comes 20 years after EJ 200's first flight, so it should be!

Now you turn it onto me doubting the GTRE! I don't know much but K10 will be the operational engine we have a decade from now. And no it won't be better than the EJ200 in all respects.

Sorry, you won't get what you wan't .

Anyways this discussion is useless and an utter waste of time. I will let it be.

I only wish senior posters here to please follow the policy on the first statement on the LCA page
" If you make ignorant remarks, you could be grilled by gurus
to test your LCA knowledge from these pages !
And, if you come out deficient..............(you would do better not to find out !) "

[Rahul M]

LO won't be that important in merge and the drag due to a couple of open bay doors would be far less than the drag due to ordinance that 4th gen fighters carry externally as a routine.

@indranil, please use the quotes properly. it's a big headache to understand who said what.

p.s. sometimes it is better to simply report posts. saves time and effort.

[Lalmohan]

al hakimi
i do agree about the counter US arguement
but it is reasonable to expect an IAF v PLAAF engagement to include a significant element of BVR combat
certainly it is in the IAFs interest to whittle down the PLAAF numbers before any WVR engagement takes place

int he IAF v PAF scenario, bvr options give us dominance which curtails what the PAF can and will do. it might even chose to sit it out

i don't buy the kill ratio numbers either, but certainly all the NATO forces are training for bvr being the most important part of the inventory. there is a clue in the russian practice of launching 2 missiles at the same target, sandwiching clearly increases the kill ratio - or more likely forces a wvr merge on your terms

who knows, i only have flight sim on my iphone...

[SaiK]

If BVR takes precedence for AMCA, then passive sensors are very important for its wings. I don't see this in the requirements yet, or I missed it.

[Indranil]

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.

Hmmm Abhik if the AMCA is asked to carry as much of ammunitions as the "heavy" fighter internally, then ofcourse you will bloat up! But I don't think the IAF/ADA are foolish enough to confuse the sizes. Infact IAF has been very forth right that it wants a "medium" aircraft.

But the bloating up of F-35 is also because of the single engine problem. The engine itself is very wide (1.35 m). F-35 C in addition has the lift fan and transmission from the shaft to the life fan. The same fuselage is retained in all the F-35s. This was pointed out by Rahul da before.

But with two engines One can choose to bloat it up of one can choose to go longer and closer to the Sears Haack body. You can choose a wider fairing with a wider lifting body to house more missiles while staying flat and using stubbier wings.

For example take the PAKFA decrease it by 3/4 the size, get rid of one of two weapons bay in the centreline. You will still have place for 4-6 missiles of length of 4 mtrs or so. You can now put a collective 200kN of thrust! The aerodynamics is still the same. The TWR is similar. It should make a good plane. Right!

So JSF is only one way to go. Putting it up as the precedent will only be limiting our vision.

[Indranil]

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

I had asked this question in some other thread. I had added that housing produce lift worth it's own weight and the missile it houses. This would do away with some sluggishness issues while turning.

One reason could be.
Very expensive ... imagine the fairings that need to be built.

Second reason could be complexity.
How to ensure that the fairing is always jettisoned, during any point of manoeuvre. That will be critical.

Third reason is increased drag.
The missiles are generally in the "von Kármán ogive" shape which is one of the lowest drag shapes that can be.

Fourth reason will be the pylons can't be made very stealthy as it has make sure that the loads are close to the CG and further away from the control surfaces which is against the concept of body stealth.

[Austin]

Most of the air war in the past with US plus NATO or just US against Iraq or Kosovo were very one sided both technologically and numerically. There was atleast 2 gen gap if i could use the gen term between NATO/US and others.

So they could just fight the air wars on their own terms but like all war it had its own surprises for US and allies ,for eg US/NATO could not kill a single mobile launch of Scud or prevent its launching by Iraqi inspite of complete air superiority and they lost F-117 to smart tactics even though Yugoslavia had nothing that would remotely challenge war hardened NATO.

BVR is always challenging both on IFF front and ability to penetrate the EW/Manouvering opponent plus retain the end game energy to kill them , some would argue even if they dont kill they still can break the engagement and cause them to flee ,may be even a mission kill for opponent if not hard kill.

[Indranil]

Rahul da you are right that we can open the weapon doors for LOBL launches and hang the missile out because missile launch is not LO period any ways.

But do we have mechanisms to do that. I was reading about the missile ejection systems some time back. After a lot of research they went for a trapeze type to a pneumatic type for the F-22. There are numerous advantages of the pneumatic type.

For holding the missile outside the door, we will have to go back to a trapeze kind of arrangement again!

Wouldn't it be better if the aircraft acquired the info and passed it to the missile before launch. It would be very similar to LOBL except for the short while when the missile changes from its pre-fed data to its acquiring its own lock? This could be a foolish ask. Open to grilling.

[Rahul M]

>> Wouldn't it be better if the aircraft acquired the info and passed it to the missile before launch. It would be very similar to LOBL except for the short while when the missile changes from its pre-fed data to its acquiring its own lock?

that's what is called LOAL isn't it ? personally I think for current generation missiles LOAL is enough. it was the first generation CCMs that required extended period lock-ons in order to be able to home on to their targets. BVR missiles have always been LOAL.

btw, do you have a source where I can read up on weapon bays ?

[Indranil]

Please pardon my ignorance. I am not aware of what is passed onto the missile before the fighter fires it in case of LOAL. I thought it was an activate and fire command. I don't know what other information is passed.

For Missile ejection systems (for the F-22), you might like to read about the folloing
link and link.

[SaiK]

how about a LOAL done from a rearward ejection? Must be very stealthy! skunk-works!

[shiv]

Please pardon my ignorance. I am not aware of what is passed onto the missile before the fighter fires it in case of LOAL. I thought it was an activate and fire command. I don't know what other information is passed.

The layest Vayu issue has a great description of AMRAAM, Sidewinder, MBDA Meteor and Mica, Pafael Python and Derby and Diehl's IRIS-T. Was "revising" this morning. Many missiles are inertially guided initially after the target is marked by a helmet mounted cueing system. There may be active guidance from the mother aircraft or some other aircrfat in mid course. But once the missile locks on it can be on its own and AMRAAM even has an ability to switch off its active seeking in case of jamming and shift to homing on the jammer. Of course most manufacturers do not reveal many deatils about capabilities and even buyers don't. I guess it is life or death info.

Mica and IRIS-T are said to have high off boresight capability sighting - up to 90 degrees.

As regards engine the Meteor has a ramjet and therefore cannot to the skidding type maneuvers (skid to turn) of vane controlled or TVC missiles (as the flow to the ramjet will get disrupted) and the missile banks to turn and the course is computer controlled - but the missile retains power for a long percentage of its flight unlike missiles which burn out and coast. The Python has a slow burn motor for the early part of the flight so that the missile does not shoot off like a maniac in front of the launch aircraft when it is supposed to be turning to seek an aircraft on one side. It can turn and do a tail chase after that.

[SaiK]

what is dead reckoning?

even Astra I understand has inertial, mid-course corrections[gps/gagan?], and terminal active (radar/IF/electro-optic) homing.

[Jeff Wickline]

@ shiv saar:
I do not know about Meteor, but AFAIK, many ramjet based missiles do have skid to turn (with fin/canard control) as the primary means of maneuver . The AOA, however has to be limited and for this some Ramjet based missiles may have moving wings as well.
@ Saik saar
Present day inertial navigation is a descendant of "dead reckoning" method used in ships. In modern usage dead reckoning and inertial navigation are one and the same, again, AFAIK.

[Pratyush]

Shiv,

Is this the article that you are refering to.

[kit]

The 6th gen fighter supposedly improves upon 'all aspect stealth' in the F22 to include visual stealth as well (source: flightglobal, sorry no links)., that is well more affordable compared to the Raptor.In effect cheaper better stealth ! Should be interesting to see how to dogfight a fighter that cant be literally seen

[Singha]

nothing is going to be cheaper - but its marketed as cheaper, leaner, less manpower cost, more green to get it through congress.

[NRao]

A few months old article (may have been posted earlier):

Air power redefined by AFRL

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).