Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 719
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby rajsunder » 05 Mar 2021 11:29

Prem Kumar wrote:There is another risk with the RR JV approach. That could be a nice way for the West to sabotage our native engine program:

1) Offer "full TOT/IP"
2) String along for half a decade before India wakes up and realizes nothing of value is going to get transferred
3) We pay hard cash for this runaround & some screwdriver tech
4) Come 2026, we are back to square one with the realization that, we have to do the hard work ourselves
5) We buy proven engines off the shelf
6) West funds dalals to say that we are incapable of building own engines, even with foreign help. The Kaveri saga will also be flogged ad-nauseum
7) Scuttle the engine program forever due to negative press

We shouldn't repeat the FGFA mistake. We spent a crapload of money & wasted half a decade, before waking up one morning to the realization that we need to be the masters of our own destiny. Ever since that clarity, the AMCA project has been progressing well.

The right thing to do is to give the middle finger to RR and be ready to invest 1 decade & $10B to build our own engine - on a national mission mode (just like the Tejas or the AMCA or the Cryogenic engine)

This is so critical that I wouldn't even mind of PM Modi gives a clarion call for this project, under the Atmanirbharta scheme. Bring the entire national will & resources to bear!


Frankly, i believe that we should do both. Work with RR and also do a parallel program on the side. Work with RR to build a 132KN Engine for AMCA and try to build our own Engine for the Bomber which we would have to start working by 2030.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Kartik » 11 Mar 2021 16:18

AMCA cockpit with the LAD

Image
Image


nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4416
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby nam » 13 Mar 2021 02:46

Image


SK displayed this radar for KFX, however not known if they proceeded further with it. Took me a while to dig got the image source.

It is an vivaldi AESA antenna. Very TFTA and used for wide bandwidth design. I am expecting something similar for our AMCA.

Before we loose heart vivaldi designs are used on our AESA jammers and AESA missile seekers :)


Edit:
Image

That X band seeker, gentlemen, is AMCA radar in small form.

Vivaldi antenna running through 9-9.8Ghz. It will only get better. :D

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9803
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2021 06:45

South Korea seems to have made a fairly weird trade with their radar. They don't have a slick RCS optimized aircraft yet the radar seems to be sized quite conservatively. The first prototype that was C-130 tested had just a tad over 1,000 T/R modules and ultimately they want to work up to 1,200. Given that there will literally be dozens of KF-X that will never have an IWB, and thus no VLO configuration, they should have tried to size the antenna closer to their F-35 or F-15 fighters. That said, there are probably electrical and thermal margin limitations at least in the initial versions. Given the primary high end targets are going to be the Chinese J series, and the Japanese fighters, those both will likely have a significantly larger radar so even as a limited interim capability they'll be at some disadvantage. This should be avoided on the AMCA. They should size the radar in the 1500-2000 T/R module class so that power and performance can be improved as electrical and thermal margins are increased in successive iterations.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4416
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby nam » 13 Mar 2021 15:07

In our case, we have the Su30 upgrade to try out the any large radar, that we want on AMCA.

I was wondering if SK wants to go with GaN based radar, explaining the lower TRM count. However I guess, lower TRM even with GaN might effect the number of beams that can be formed, there by effecting the tracking counts.

There is also the issue of the vivaldi antenna size, which may not allow compact TRMs. F35 antenna seems to be different and more compact than vivaldi.
Last edited by nam on 13 Mar 2021 17:31, edited 1 time in total.

sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sooraj » 13 Mar 2021 16:56


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby kit » 13 Mar 2021 17:01

brar_w wrote:South Korea seems to have made a fairly weird trade with their radar. They don't have a slick RCS optimized aircraft yet the radar seems to be sized quite conservatively.


Image

the later iterations do look quite stealthy , but then you would know better

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9803
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby brar_w » 13 Mar 2021 19:19

nam wrote:In our case, we have the Su30 upgrade to try out the any large radar, that we want on AMCA.

I was wondering if SK wants to go with GaN based radar, explaining the lower TRM count. However I guess, lower TRM even with GaN might effect the number of beams that can be formed, there by effecting the tracking counts.

There is also the issue of the vivaldi antenna size, which may not allow compact TRMs. F35 antenna seems to be different and more compact than vivaldi.


The decision b/w GaA or GaN shouldn't have any impact on what size radar you should be able to accommodate. What is driving your design trades is going to be the overall aircraft design, internal RCS targets (this impacts how much sensors have to hold the advantage) cost, SWaP, threats (among other things) and their sensor suites. South Korea of late has bought fighters with fairly substantial radars. Their F-15's currently lack an AESA but the upgrade will give them a 1500+ module radar eventually, and their F-35A's have a 1676 module antenna. The KFX seems to have been sized closer to the F-16/F-18 level than contemporary 5th gen fighters. How large a radar you can accommodate is usually locked into the basic design and is always something you build around when it comes time to upgrade the sensor (as opposed to re-designing the base design to support a given future radar) which means its difficult to retrofit.

Looking through the documents that their design team has published (they've published a few papers on their initial testing of the first prototype of the radar), I don't see much around mostly electric architecture work or even test beds to de-risk this aspect ahead of the KFX. They are either doing it and not writing about it or they haven't invested a lot upfront and part of the KFX roadmap will invest into this over time. I suspect that, combined with their engine choice (no 5th gen engine with the higher power capacity) is probably why they've been conservative with this though I don't think it is the right way to go - You're not a true 5th gen IMO if you can't generate 2-3 x the electrical output relative to the aircraft you are replacing. Same for an increased thermal margin than the aircraft you are replacing (this is important for both subsystems and signature). They are fielding a Super Hornet engine with a roughly Super Hornet sized radar. I don't know if they are going aggressive in terms of EHAS implementation etc but they haven't published a lot on what electrical architecture or margins they are using on the KFX and there is certainly not been published work in terms of de-risking for the same.

kit wrote:
the later iterations do look quite stealthy , but then you would know better


Yes for sure. They have iterations on their roadmap that will have an IWB, more RCS enhancements etc. But those aren't retrofittable to the initial aircraft fielded in the next 10 or so years. So those will be at a disadvantage just like they'll be at a performance disadvantage because of the design and external weapons (designed to have an IWB but has no IWB thus you get the higher drag and perf. degradation but no advantage). So some of this could have been mitigated by just giving them higher sensor performance. For a post 2030 IOC fighter, you aren't really competing with the MSA equipped fighters of the world (or that shouldn't be the goal)...the threats (I assume these are China and japan for S. Korea) would have mostly migrated to 1st or 2nd gen. AESA's for the most part.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 16 Mar 2021 22:44


sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sooraj » 18 Mar 2021 00:01

Satwik
@i_m_satwikk
·
43m
The Dark Lord

Image
Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 18 Mar 2021 00:24

WOW

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4793
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Mar 2021 05:33

Interesting rear design... More similar to the ruski layout with big boom between engines than eurocanard layout with engines tightly spaced together.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Kartik » 18 Mar 2021 12:28

Modi Govt's CCS may approve AMCA design and development program with an estimated Rs 15,000 investment required for the program including prototype development and testing.

Link

Bengaluru: With a view to modernising the Indian Air Force and giving it more teeth, the Union government may approve indigenous fifth-generation fighter programme, the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA).

To be designed and developed at a cost of Rs 15,000 crore, the production of these aircraft might start in the next 7-8 years.

...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 28 Mar 2021 23:50

Tweet below says cockpit of Tejas Mk2, but drag & drop the picture into a new browser window and look at the bottom right of the Large Area Display :)

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 8159666179 ---> Tejas MK2 flight simulator cockpit.

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8322
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 29 Mar 2021 23:34

Maan gaye apki paarkhi nazron ko!!!

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 29 Mar 2021 23:38

Indranil wrote:Maan gaye apki paarkhi nazron ko!!!

As much as I would like to take credit for "paarkhi nazron"....I was not the one who caught this :)

https://twitter.com/ButaliaEshan/status ... 86886?s=20 ---> It's AMCA, I guess.

Image

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3759
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby ArjunPandit » 30 Mar 2021 23:03

the prototype woudl be a sight to watch

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Kanson » 31 Mar 2021 07:26

Rakesh wrote:
Indranil wrote:Maan gaye apki paarkhi nazron ko!!!

As much as I would like to take credit for "paarkhi nazron"....I was not the one who caught this :)

https://twitter.com/ButaliaEshan/status ... 86886?s=20 ---> It's AMCA, I guess.

[img]https:%20//pbs.twimg.com/media/Exe7qboUYAULoOJ?format=jpg&name=large[/img]

AMCA technologies are going into LCA-mk2.
Whatever being developed for AMCA is meant for LCA-mk2 too. In other words, LCA-mk2 act as test bed to proof technologies being developed for AMCA. You will see them implemented first in LCA_mk2 before going into AMCA.
This could be one such incident.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1659
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby andy B » 31 Mar 2021 13:20

Indranil! Got a question saar :mrgreen:

Is there any particular reason for the additional smaller head down display. Personally i quite like it. It looks at first glance a classic RWR display readout to my eyes. Would be curious to understand the rationale....could also be for a backup of some sort?

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 511
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby m_saini » 01 Apr 2021 04:45

hopefully this is allowed but someone did a AMCA 3d model, you can rotate it 360 degree etc. Extremely cool.

AMCA 3D

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby AkshaySG » 01 Apr 2021 07:22

m_saini wrote:hopefully this is allowed but someone did a AMCA 3d model, you can rotate it 360 degree etc. Extremely cool.

AMCA 3D



Nice , Gives me some SR-71 vibes tbh ,especially when viewed from below

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2021 07:24

https://twitter.com/dfi_pk/status/13802 ... 43393?s=20 ---> AMCA Internal Weapons Bay (IWB)

Features:
1. Serrated edges of IWB for low RCS during weapons release
2. Four hardpoints for different payload config
3. Two piece folding door mechanism

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 10 Apr 2021 07:25

https://twitter.com/dfi_pk/status/13802 ... 24805?s=20 ---> The bomb seen in the AMCA IWB picture in my previous tweet could be a new long range winged PGM under development. It has a single piece pivoting wing which adds the small possibility that the PGM might be self-powered. Prominent blunt nose cone possibly for IIR or other seekers.

https://twitter.com/dfi_pk/status/13803 ... 90657?s=20 ---> Credibility to the above winged PGM is added by the fact that in all possibility ADA will only include confirmed weapons for AMCA's internal weapons bay or external carriage aerodynamic studies/stimulations, etc because such exercises are time consuming & require lot of effort.

Image

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5875
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Dileep » 10 Apr 2021 21:52

andy B wrote:Indranil! Got a question saar :mrgreen:

Is there any particular reason for the additional smaller head down display. Personally i quite like it. It looks at first glance a classic RWR display readout to my eyes. Would be curious to understand the rationale....could also be for a backup of some sort?


That is a backup display to take you home if the LAD fails. MK1 have a small 3.5" display made by DP.

AMCA and MK2 have a lot common.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1659
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby andy B » 11 Apr 2021 15:56

Dileep wrote:
andy B wrote:Indranil! Got a question saar :mrgreen:

Is there any particular reason for the additional smaller head down display. Personally i quite like it. It looks at first glance a classic RWR display readout to my eyes. Would be curious to understand the rationale....could also be for a backup of some sort?


That is a backup display to take you home if the LAD fails. MK1 have a small 3.5" display made by DP.

AMCA and MK2 have a lot common.


Aah many thanks Dileep saar. This is a very interesting arrangement. I wish you and your company the very best in the domestic aerospace endeavor! May your tribe grow a 1000x!!

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5875
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Dileep » 11 Apr 2021 20:12

Thanks Andy. Things looks great currently.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Kartik » 12 Apr 2021 11:29

Dileep wrote:Thanks Andy. Things looks great currently.


Heartening to hear that Dileep! Is your team also involved in the Tejas Mk2 program? If so, how are things on that front?

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5875
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Dileep » 12 Apr 2021 18:23

We are working on stuff that is common to both. It is difficult to figure which platform is where from the view we get.

Covid isn't helping. Can't do in person visits anymore, so can't meet chaiwalas and get juicy nuggets.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5537
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Kartik » 21 Apr 2021 17:32

AMCA brochure from Aero India 2021..was looking for this one in good size, found it. Can compare all the CG renditions with what we see here, the official AMCA layout.

<removed harami link>
Last edited by hnair on 21 Apr 2021 23:16, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please dont link stuff from a URL that has defense.pk

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 26 Apr 2021 08:43

India’s Next Generation Fighter Aircraft, The AMCA
https://flyingdaggers45.medium.com/indi ... d7e51bf841
15 April 2021

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 28 Apr 2021 18:50


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Rakesh » 28 Apr 2021 22:29


Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Avinandan » 07 May 2021 01:58

1. I am slightly disappointed with only 4 internal hard points. Could we not fatten the air intake area and accomodate hard points ( similar to silent eagle solution) as a last ditch effort so as to increase the overall payload in pure stealth mode ? Would it affect the RCS significantly?
Image


2. How about all moving vertical stabilizers ? Please advise or guide on the advantages and disadvantages of it. It would have surely contributed in shortening the height of the vertical stabilizers (and thereby the RCS overall).

3. I am in awe of F4.1 features mentioned by Rakesh saar many moons back in Rafale dhaaga .https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7266&p=2370767&hilit=Magazine#p2370767. Can we expect similar level of maturity in AMCA/TEDBF when it rolls out in next decade ?

4. Lot of real estate is unused in the cockpit, probably because the displays are same as that of Tejas Mk2 (narrower cockpit) . Could it be improved upon ?
Additionally we are planning to use framed HUD. Would have loved frameless HUD as in Rafale.

Sincere apologies for sounding like being suffering from brochuritis.
_/\_

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8322
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 07 May 2021 02:55

1. You can make the internal bay fatter, but you have to push it through air. So, it is a case of use sometimes, but pay always. There is no right answer. For a medium aircraft, IAF and ADA sat down and chose the balance between aerodynamic performance and stealth.
2. All moving vertical stabilizers certainly helps. I think ADA is doing some risk mitigation by limiting the number of new things that it is trying.
3. You are suffering from brochurities of F4.1. I don't blame you. Those brochures are written really well.
4. Filling up empty space to look busy is not a good thing. One of the principle cockpit design elements is how much does the pilot have to move his/her head to operate the switches and read the dials. Lower is better. HUD design is not finalized.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1056
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sankum » 07 May 2021 03:01

WSO from the rear cockpit is going to rule the aerial combat of the future, as Mission Commander of the MUM-Team.


Harsh Vardhan Thakur
·
May 5
Tentatively, five aircraft in a MUM-team, but only two cockpits. That's a healthy ratio. Therefore, Yes. There would a rear cockpit on the Mothership of a MUM-team.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby souravB » 07 May 2021 08:30

Avinandan wrote:1. I am slightly disappointed with only 4 internal hard points. Could we not fatten the air intake area and accomodate hard points ( similar to silent eagle solution) as a last ditch effort so as to increase the overall payload in pure stealth mode ? Would it affect the RCS significantly?

# of hard point is not the correct metric to measure but volume of IWB should be. One way to maximize the volume is to miniaturize the effectors. Miniaturization of kill solutions is the way to go to increase capacity of IWB.
The reason for this is with LO platforms, one can reach nearer to the target than with conventional platforms, reducing the need for effectors to be launched from a larger distance.

lakshmanM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Jun 2018 09:22

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby lakshmanM » 07 May 2021 19:45

brar_w wrote:South Korea seems to have made a fairly weird trade with their radar. They don't have a slick RCS optimized aircraft yet the radar seems to be sized quite conservatively. The first prototype that was C-130 tested had just a tad over 1,000 T/R modules and ultimately they want to work up to 1,200. Given that there will literally be dozens of KF-X that will never have an IWB, and thus no VLO configuration, they should have tried to size the antenna closer to their F-35 or F-15 fighters. That said, there are probably electrical and thermal margin limitations at least in the initial versions. Given the primary high end targets are going to be the Chinese J series, and the Japanese fighters, those both will likely have a significantly larger radar so even as a limited interim capability they'll be at some disadvantage. This should be avoided on the AMCA. They should size the radar in the 1500-2000 T/R module class so that power and performance can be improved as electrical and thermal margins are increased in successive iterations.

NOOOO.
The Korean radar has 1000 radiating elements, the number of TRMs is exactly half of that. They paired two radiating elements to one TRM.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby kit » 07 May 2021 19:53

lakshmanM wrote:
brar_w wrote:South Korea seems to have made a fairly weird trade with their radar. They don't have a slick RCS optimized aircraft yet the radar seems to be sized quite conservatively. The first prototype that was C-130 tested had just a tad over 1,000 T/R modules and ultimately they want to work up to 1,200. They should size the radar in the 1500-2000 T/R module class so that power and performance can be improved as electrical and thermal margins are increased in successive iterations.

NOOOO.
The Korean radar has 1000 radiating elements, the number of TRMs is exactly half of that. They paired two radiating elements to one TRM.


This has be a first :mrgreen: Brar_w is usually never wrong

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9803
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby brar_w » 07 May 2021 20:00

I was basing my numbers on what the radar design team has published so it is possible that they may have changed things around after those papers were published.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: VipinM and 29 guests