Design your own fighter

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.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby SaiK » 19 Feb 2011 03:11

well, few aspects just doesn't make the thread valid -
1. Kaveri engine in another 6 years time is a challenge
2. Imported components still rely on imported sub components
3. Rubber stamping that we are "sanction proof" with our current capability is very difficult.
4. Whatever comes out must be base-lined off LCA mk-?

hence ..

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 19 Feb 2011 13:49

SaiK sir,
The objective of the thread was to design an attack/fighter aircraft that can be built with the material we currently posses and be able to bring it to front line duties as early as 3-4 years down the line.
It need not be 100% SDRE designed and made. It could be the technology we have absorbed through the various other deals. It need not be 4 gen aircraft also. If its 3++ gen, its good enough for the work its about to do, which is CAS and short range interdiction.
Just clearing the picture.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Drishyaman » 19 Feb 2011 14:09

Honeywell F125IN is one of engines shortlisted for re-engining IAF Jags. Why not get the TOT for the same from Honeywell manufacture it under license in India. Strengthen the IJT ‘ s fuselage and airframe to carry the F125IN. Get some bells and whistles from Tejas and Voila !! you get a cost effective AJT / CAS aircraft. OK someone can say why not use the Adour as it is already being manufactured in India. I will agree with that thought as well.

iparvas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Oct 2010 21:03

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby iparvas » 19 Feb 2011 18:50

is there any open competition to design the fighter jet .... if not then it would be a good idea for the DRDO to conduct such a competition in India .... maybe involve all the IIT's and the engineering colleges .... India needs to enocourage young talent and groom them ....
Remember the Titanic was designed and made by experts whereas the Noah's arc was made by amateurs....
Result matters....

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 19 Feb 2011 19:13

Drishyamanji,
I am currently unable to get the physical spec of the F125IN, but i am assuming its comparable to the Adour its envisaged to replace. So based on this data i can tell you that its significantly larger than the Al55I and that mere strengthening of the IJT airframe will not do.
The entire airframe will need to be redesigned for the F125IN.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Drishyaman » 19 Feb 2011 19:34

iparvas wrote: maybe involve all the IIT's and the engineering colleges

Are you missing out the BRFites :wink:
Bala Vignesh wrote:Drishyamanji,
I am currently unable to get the physical spec of the F125IN, but i am assuming its comparable to the Adour its envisaged to replace. So based on this data i can tell you that its significantly larger than the Al55I and that mere strengthening of the IJT airframe will not do.
The entire airframe will need to be redesigned for the F125IN.

Bala Vignesh Ji,

I was expecting such an answer from someone actually, so I had already typed my answer. Here it goes.
IJT ( having 1 turbofan 17kN engine) is comparable to Aero L-39 Albatros (having 1×turbofan, 16.87 kN engine)

Aero L-39 Albatros (having 1×turbofan, 16.87 kN engine) was further developed into Aero L-59 Super Albatros ( having 1 Turbofan, 21.57 kN engine ) and was in turn further developed into Aero L-159 Alca ( having 1× Honeywell F124-GA-100 turbofan, 28.2 kN (6,330 lbf))

Aero L-159 Alca is a CAS aircraft and is having comparable thrust as Hawk AJT.

So, IJT has the potential to develop in to AJT / CAS aircraft, things required will be higher trust engine like F125IN or an Adour and redesign / strengthening of Airframe

F125 link --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_F124

manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby manish.rastogi » 11 Mar 2011 17:47

guys what exactly constitutes in the feasibility report...like take AMCA as example??

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Mar 2011 08:40

manish.rastogi wrote:guys what exactly constitutes in the feasibility report...like take AMCA as example??


Its like this

First ask what are the technologies required for making a 5 gen aircraft. For example the committee may say that the following are absolutely essential for 5th gen
a) Composites
b) AESA
c) fuel-efficient, light and powerful engine

For each of these what is required?

Composites: The chemical precursors to make composites. The ability to mix and form them in the required sapes and do that in large enough volumes to produce hundreds of aircraft parts

AESA: The electronics required to make the AESA. Who has the technology in India? Who can create the tech within a given time frame? Can it be imported. if imported will it face sanctions?

Engine: What is the current status in India? What is required for achieving that efficiency? Blisk? Powder metallurgy? single crystal blades? Composite blades? Can anyone make these in India. Can they be put into an existing engine.

A long list of available technologies and the people who can produce them has to be made and if most of the requirements can be met in the available funds the project is "feasible". If many of them are not there then the project may be feasible with some imports

If India has almost none of the technologies, the project will not be feasible without developing those technologies.

manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby manish.rastogi » 12 Mar 2011 10:42

if some technologies are not available and they have to develop them...then how do they go about it??

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 12 Mar 2011 10:54

manish.rastogi wrote:if some technologies are not available and they have to develop them...then how do they go about it??



Well that is what happened to the LCA.

The plan was to develop an aircraft with 4th gen tech (it was not known as 4th gen then - this "gen" business is new fashion). The tech to be developed was composites, fly by wire and glass cockpit (and an engine). But in those days no feasibility study was done to see if it would be possible given the tech then available in India. People simply started working on it thinking it would be easy. it was not easy.

So the lesson learned was to check the feasibility of any program before making promises.

If AESA must be made then we have to see if any group in the country is fabricating the components for that. if not we have to see whether any foreign supplier will supply it along with tech transfer. In the meantime a process of in house development has to be started anyway - so if nothing else works out - at least we would have indigenously developed AESA in 10 years.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rahul M » 12 Mar 2011 11:05

manish.rastogi wrote:if some technologies are not available and they have to develop them...then how do they go about it??

identify pvt co's, PSU's, DRDO labs or academic institutions that already have some skill in related areas. these are then approached to develop individual aspects of the program. usually the relevant DRDO lab is in charge of co-ordination.
for example an univ may work on materials for AESA modules, DRDO and PSU labs might work on exact manufacturing process and so on. the overall leadership would be in hands of LRDE.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vic » 12 Mar 2011 11:22

I would say that LCA Mark-2 has all the points I would like to cover in design my fighter! So I propose LCA Mark-2 as my design :D

manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby manish.rastogi » 12 Mar 2011 15:40

thank you guys...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 23 Apr 2011 06:08

I had mentioned in another thread that Prof Prodyut Das is back with another article in Vayu. I have not scanned it yet because of some technical issues but will post some impressions of the article starting with a cross post from the China thread because it appears that China is doing what the Prof recommends - at least in part

Juggi G wrote:Is China Developing a VSTOL Fighter ?

WTF :-
J-18 Red Eagle (VSTOL)
J-15 Flying Shark (Copy of the Sukhoi Su-33)
J-17 (Long-range fighter-bomber based on the Russian Sukhoi Su-34)
J-16 (stealthier dedicated attack version of the J-11B (Su-27) multirole fighter)
J-19 (Heavy multirole fighter based on the J-11B)
J-20 Black Eagle


It is a long article which has parts which are bound to irritate some readers, and other things that are definitely debatable and difficult to swallow. I guess everyone will have something good or negative to take away from such a long article, but let me post the points that struck me.

Prof Das makes many of his earlier points again. Here is my understanding of his article

  • He points out that so called BVR missiles are hardly BVR under most conditions. Making seriously long range missiles is beset by the problem of not having large enough platforms to launch them - note the current struggle to fit a single Brahmos on the Su-30. An aircraft like LCA/MCA and even far larger fighters can never ever hold huge BVR missiles as well as the radar and electronics that such long range missiles will need.

  • Stealth - especially so called "total stealth" is a liability as the American experience reveals. Age and dust both add to loss of stealth and the larger stealthy aircraft rapidly become detectable at lower ranges

  • Chasing technology eventually ends up as a race to chase problems and Das suggests that the problems are chased first rather than blindly chasing technology.

  • High Mach numbers and high altitude designs are a hang over of cold war thinking where fast high flying objects could not be shot down. Nature still puts a limitation on aircraft in the Mach 0.9 to 1.3 range and it is better to stick to those limits.

  • He refers to a German "64 solutions" (or was it 64 routes?) approach to a problem. Look at all possible solutions and list them according to feasibility and cost, and ruthlessly choose the best two or three. Don't blindly look for ideas because they are high tech or the current fashion or you get bogged down by all the problems



All in all Das is suggesting a large, low to medium tech aircraft that can carry 3-4 Brahmos missiles, is just about transonic/supersonic and has a long range and can carry a lot of avionics.

For research Das once again suggests the use of existing proven designs. Use the controls of the IJT and undercarriage of the Hawk to make an experimental stealth aircraft so you can figure out what is good and bad. Don't get bogged down by controls, actuators, FBW, materials etc.

Das offers many suggestions using existing designs to make new aircraft. Amng his suggestions are 4 engine copy of the Su-34. But he settles on his pet idea of an RD-33 or F-414 engined Canberra. He says that a Canberra of this type will have excellent performance, can carry 3-4 Brahmos, have an unrefuelled range of 1800 km, and can double up as buddy tanker, engine test bed platform or AWACS.

Very interesting. And in my view, very doable.

Finally I must add that Das also suggests something that some BRFite suggested on this forum - (which I had argued against) - the armed AWACS.

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Drishyaman » 23 Apr 2011 12:01

shiv wrote:All in all Das is suggesting a large, low to medium tech aircraft that can carry 3-4 Brahmos missiles, is just about transonic/supersonic and has a long range and can carry a lot of avionics.

For research Das once again suggests the use of existing proven designs. Use the controls of the IJT and undercarriage of the Hawk to make an experimental stealth aircraft so you can figure out what is good and bad. Don't get bogged down by controls, actuators, FBW, materials etc.

Das offers many suggestions using existing designs to make new aircraft. Amng his suggestions are 4 engine copy of the Su-34. But he settles on his pet idea of an RD-33 or F-414 engined Canberra. He says that a Canberra of this type will have excellent performance, can carry 3-4 Brahmos, have an unrefuelled range of 1800 km, and can double up as buddy tanker, engine test bed platform or AWACS.

Very interesting. And in my view, very doable.

Finally I must add that Das also suggests something that some BRFite suggested on this forum - (which I had argued against) - the armed AWACS.


Sounds like, something which I had suggested on 1st Nov, 2010 :D

Drishyaman wrote:May be we should design an Aircraft with the following specification:
1. Delta Winged some what shaped like the Vulcan,
2. With 4 Kaveri Engine.
3. Air frame and Fuselage made of Titanium and composite.
4. Skin made of Russian RAM.
5. AESA Radar.
6. Capable of carrying 10 Brahmos, 10 Nirbhay and 10 Astra concealed within the fuselage and wings.
7. Huge Internal fuel carrying capacity.

Tactics should be that this Aircraft should not venture any where near 200 km of our friendly International Border. It should only fly from Mumbai to Delhi and Delhi to Kolkata.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby NRao » 23 Apr 2011 20:08

Shiv ji,

Looking forward to the scanned article - whenever it comes.

I at times wonder if he is up to speed on current happenings.

manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby manish.rastogi » 24 Apr 2011 01:21

Well,a bomber jet might solve the problem.
It can give fair amount of stealth.
High Speed,not much maneuverability though which itself would be difficult even in a fighter jet with that kinda payload.
Long Range.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 24 Apr 2011 09:50

Well we are already designing the UCAV. How infeasible would it be to design the UCAV taking into consideration a payload of one internal Brahmos or 2 Nirbhay cruise missiles. In case of brahmos this would require bomb bay of at least 8-8.5 m in length and 0.8-1.0 in width. For nirbhay the requirements might be less demanding in terms of length but may be 1.2 m width.

Thus build the UCAV around a bomb-bay 8.5 m x 1.2 m x 0.8 m. Total weapons load of 3 tons. Such a bomb-bay would also enable upto 12 500lbs bombs. Fuel of 5 tons, total max load of 14-15 tons, single non-afterburning Kaveri with 60-65 kn thrust, total length of 15-16 m. Integrated radar for ground attack & terrain following, optics, laser designation and ECM. Voila ,Le Formidable. Hit anything within 1500-1800 kms and with Nirbhay even interiors of chicom.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 27 Apr 2011 20:43

OK folks, here is Prof Prodyut Das' latest article - how to put Brahmos on a plane. Rapidshare pdf 2.3 mb or so
Haft of the Spear

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 30 Apr 2011 19:58

shiv wrote:OK folks, here is Prof Prodyut Das' latest article - how to put Brahmos on a plane. Rapidshare pdf 2.3 mb or so
Haft of the Spear

up.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby SaiK » 18 Jul 2011 06:25

http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/art/Su ... -179945260
Now, we are talking design..

awesome.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 18 Jul 2011 09:46

SaiK wrote:http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/art/Sukhoi-SU-60B-firefox-179945260


Nice to see someone playing although the cynic in me can see many flaws in the concept and design.

Perhaps people may want to post their take on the images of something that has clearly been done as "a bit of fun". I will post my criticism later - I don't want to sound harsh by passing half-baked technical objections about the work of someone who is just enjoying some artistic creativity.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7415
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby nachiket » 18 Jul 2011 10:53

^^That design is clearly inspired from the aircraft of the same name from the 1982 Clint Eastwood movie "Firefox". This guy has tried to make it a lot stealthier using panel faceting, reducing the size of the vertical tail fins and basically flattening the aircraft. We can also see moving wingtips borrowed from the XB-70 Valkyrie.
I know little about aerodynamics so cannot point out the design flaws except two.
1. The visibility out of that cockpit is going to be horrendous.
2. The nose looks too flat and wide to be practical.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby ArmenT » 18 Jul 2011 11:14

^^^^
WTF? Mach 6 top speed? What is this Tumansky RJ15bd-600 engine?? There is a Tumansky R15BD-300 which was used on Mig-25 and those produce 50% of the thrust of J58 engine on the SR-71 Blackbird, which only did Mach 3+.

The inlets don't seem to have the retractable cones like the blackbird does either. Those cones actually served a very important purpose at high altitude/high speed. For one thing, they were responsible for producing 70% of the thrust at Mach 3 speeds, a fact that the engine designers at Pratt & Whitney were very loath to admit :).

As for the firefox's engines, I wonder how those two underwing mounted engines will actually perform given where the intakes are positioned. Methinks they are too far back personally and the shockwave at mach speeds is going to do all sorts of wonderful things to them. Engines also look like they're positioned to set the aircraft's musharraf on fire.

Where are all the missiles listed going to be carried, with only 2 internal bays.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby jamwal » 23 Jul 2011 20:36

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... NCl0dcsAI4

Paper Stomp Jets
I love things that fly, so it seems natural that my kids do too.

A while ago, I put together the instructable Paper Stomp Rockets. It was a great project, and my kids loved making and shooting them off.

I was looking for something to do with my kids today, and got the idea to revisit this basic stomp-bottle propulsion idea.

This time, instead of rockets, we made little paper jets that you launch sideways that can have their control surfaces tweaked and adjusted to determine their flight. The video below shows some of our first flights, which were pretty crazy.

After the video below was shot and our first models were thoroughly trashed, I made another plane and spent some time gently flying it by hand and fine tuning it. Once I got it dialed in, it flew extremely well off of the launcher, and not near as wildly as our original attempts. I was very impressed, and actually kind of surprised!

This turned out to be a great introduction for my kids to see how airplanes work. They were able to experiment with the jets to see specifically what the ailerons and elevator actually do to a plane. (The rudder was there too, but it didn't effect the planes much.)

I definitely recommend giving this project a go, and patiently working on fine tuning the planes to really make them fly. It's worth it.

I've included a template for the planes when you get to step 5.

Check out the video below. I hope you try this out!


http://www.instructables.com/id/Paper-Stomp-Jets/

Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Drishyaman » 05 Oct 2011 23:42

Tejas with CWB and CFT. Not sure if this can be implemented on Tejas MK2. Integrated CWB with CFT. Configuration would be two 500kg LGB in tandem on both the sides of air intake and then 2 Air to Air Astra on both the sides. Remove 6 hard points to reduce the drag and radar cross sectional area and also because in stealth mode external hard points won’t be required.

Total Internal payload would be :: 4 X 500 Kg ( 2000 Kg ) + 2 X 160 Kg ( 320 Kg ) = 2320 Kg.
Total Internal fuel would be :: 2400 Kg ( MK 1 Capacity ) + 800 Kg ( to be added in MK 2 by fuselage extension and moving of the rear wheels towards the wing root ) + 4 X 200 Kg ( at the 4 tips of the CWB cum CFT and in between the CWB and the wing root ) = 4000 Kg


http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4860/5thgenlca.jpg

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Jaeger » 07 Oct 2011 11:42

Drishyaman wrote:Tejas with CWB and CFT...
Total Internal payload would be :: 4 X 500 Kg ( 2000 Kg ) + 2 X 160 Kg ( 320 Kg ) = 2320 Kg. Total Internal fuel would be :: 2400 Kg ( MK 1 Capacity ) + 800 Kg ( to be added in MK 2 by fuselage extension and moving of the rear wheels towards the wing root ) + 4 X 200 Kg ( at the 4 tips of the CWB cum CFT and in between the CWB and the wing root ) = 4000 Kg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4860/5thgenlca.jpg


Nice. Sort of like FAST packs for Tejas. However, there may be some issue with undercarriage placement - IIRC, the Mk 2's u/c is between wing and fuselage? and Mk 1's u/c lowers from the fuselage side & bottom... so... perhaps an over-wing fuel & sensor unit like the F-16? With only room for fuel and sensors, there would be less of an aerodynamic impact and less overall weight to be lugged around?

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 11 Nov 2011 08:33

Don't know why I ever stopped visiting this thread...

I'm going to do a bit of a sum-up, mainly for my own use, but perhaps we could use this to harden the concepts, maybe even sort of have project leaders and teams for each proposal?

I can see four major proposals here:

1) The original BRF Jingo 1: Small, Kiran-based CAS jet, somewhere between a Hawk and an A-10, also described as a Frogfoot-lite. CAS mainly (will it be able to perform strike missions? Possibly - it's definitely designed to be over-engined, with the two Adours, so I assume it can handle a reasonable payload at lower altitudes, though I don't know about range.) No stealth. Probably rates highest on Shiv's make it now/make it sanctions-proof requirement list.
2) Rahul M's LCA-1S: An LCA with minimal modifications, basically a DARIN-III kit. Should be great at deep strike in particular, and at CAS, though I'm not certain of its loiter time and low-low-speed ability. Rahul, could you give us an idea on that point? Apart from that, extremely doable, more so than the Jingo 1, but not as sanctions-proof as Shiv had asked for.

Both the above are based on Abhibhushan's requirements.

3) Vivek Ahuja, Indranilroy (and vardhank :D)'s LCA-2: This is the bunny I was talking about earlier, a twin-engined, slightly larger LCA. The twin engines are, to me at least, more for survivability than anything else, and I think this could make a great naval fighter.

4) A Canberra with four RD-33/Adour/other engines, as a bomber. According to Shiv, very feasible.

There were other interesting planes up too, mainly stealthy planes of one kind or another, but I've left them out for the moment only, as the requirement was to make a fighter out of tech we have NOW. We can come back to those again (we'll have to).

If possible, can we stick to these four for a little while and get some numbers and illustrations down?

Tumba
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 06 Aug 2011 09:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Tumba » 11 Nov 2011 09:47

A complete delta air frame... perfect triangle ..

Engine combustion situated at the center of Delta ...a circular combustion chamber

Four engine exhaust situated in three directions and one at the bottom of delta

Intakes can be situated at one of the cones or at multiple cones of the delta

Thrust can be directed in any one or all of the exhausts

A UCAV

Stealthy Airframe

Internal Weapons Carriage

AESA

....

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rahul M » 11 Nov 2011 10:13

2) Rahul M's LCA-1S: An LCA with minimal modifications, basically a DARIN-III kit. Should be great at deep strike in particular, and at CAS, though I'm not certain of its loiter time and low-low-speed ability. Rahul, could you give us an idea on that point? Apart from that, extremely doable, more so than the Jingo 1, but not as sanctions-proof as Shiv had asked for.


not sure what you mean by low low speed ability ?
loiter time is more than adequate, Abhibhusan sir was asking for 200km radius at 15,000 feet.

this is what the LCA is actually capable of
Image

Image

vardhank
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 17 Feb 2007 15:16
Location: Mumbai

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 11 Nov 2011 11:36

@Rahul M

Low-speed ability... I'm probably not using the proper term here. What I mean is a low stall speed, to be able to engage ground forces effectively (especially in the mountains, where you'd probably need visual confirmation, at least for foot-soldiers). I would imagine this is not so easy to achieve with a delta wing, though it's probably an acceptable compromise, given that this is also a deep-strike fighter.
Re loiter time - great.
Is there any way of gaining STOL ability also, or would the extra weight of the armour plus the high-altitude of most of the airfields in the Himalayas make it too difficult to achieve?

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 11 Nov 2011 14:16

RahulMda,
What is the total time spent on station in the above projections?
Just out of curiosity.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 11 Nov 2011 14:57

Vardhank,
I foresee a need for the first and the last type of aircraft mentioned in your post. The Jingo Fighter would be a dedicated CAS bird with low speeds but heavy payloads.
The modified Canberra can be used for strategic bombing in the Tibet plateau and of course for bombing the hell out of our western neighbhour's strategic targets. it also offers a myriad of spin off platforms for various purposes.

JMVHO.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rahul M » 11 Nov 2011 16:14

vardhank, almost all fighters designed in 80's and later can be considered STOL. if Mk2 has levcons LCA would do even better.

coming to stall speed, there was a very interesting picture from 1989 air power demo at tilpat range. it featured 2 mirage 2000's flying with a quite slow flying prop driven aircraft (was it a HPT-32 ?) ;)
you can guess the speed.

however it must be said that fixed wing jets are not going to be used against individual soldiers so that the need for a very slow aircraft is not there. for that kind of thing you are best off with aircraft like pucara, bronco or armed helicopters. frankly, I don't see us using prop powered attack aircraft.

Bala, it's not possible for me to calculate that without having access to info I will never have. I will guess between 1 and 2 hours depending on payload and flight altitude with 15-30 min time over target.

>> The Jingo Fighter would be a dedicated CAS bird with low speeds but heavy payloads.
realistically speaking, you are not going to see a dedicated attack aircraft anytime soon anywhere in the world.

>> The modified Canberra can be used for strategic bombing in the Tibet plateau and of course for bombing the hell out of our western neighbhour's strategic targets.

far too complex and costly with questionable gains. the MKI carries twice the equivalent bombload of two canberras and then some.

akshay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 20 Jun 2009 12:54

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby akshay » 11 Nov 2011 17:24

If i had to design a fighter i would give speed the most factor. Design a fighter to surprise that hits inside and hurts enemy assets.
Twin Engine/Twin TailFin/NextGen AL41 engines/Frontal Stealth/No need for all aspect/Titanium-Aluminum body/PESA Radar/Cruise speed above Mach 2.
More surface areas to carry weapon Internally.
Just Pilot required since Avionics are advanced and Mission is specific.

This is surely a design that India can manage by 2015

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2004
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 11 Nov 2011 20:05

Rahulda IMVHO.
Rahul M wrote:Bala, it's not possible for me to calculate that without having access to info I will never have. I will guess between 1 and 2 hours depending on payload and flight altitude with 15-30 min time over target.

Sorry da, forgot to add "assume" in the previous post. I understand that you cannot give me the true data even if you laid your hands on it. Confidentiality and all that.
Rahul M wrote:realistically speaking, you are not going to see a dedicated attack aircraft anytime soon anywhere in the world.

Sir, i am not assuming international sales. The bird is meant solely for our use. Any sales at all is an additional bonus. Plus as people have said hundreds of times in the forum, our needs are unique so should our weapon systems. My idea is just an product of that thinking, in my own way.
Rahul M wrote:far too complex and costly with questionable gains. the MKI carries twice the equivalent bombload of two canberras and then some.

True for the original Canberra. With some strengthening, usage of modern materials and better engines, the birds should be able to haul a much higher payload. I am unable to give the figure now as i am not aware of the all the formulas and calculations, but i will certainly ask me cousin to do so and give me the figures. But i believe i can safely assume that the numbers that can be achieved will be anywhere between 1.5 to 2 times the original payload. If that is the case then the project is justified as the airframe can be used for other purposes too..
As usual

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Singha » 11 Nov 2011 20:32

LL-LCA - The long loiter LCA
1 x item117S engine
twin air intakes of greater mass flow with moveable m2k style stealthy shock cones
fuselage 3m longer with bigger wing area to maintain low wing loading
bigger wing fuel tanks
wing L-band radar
nose aesa radar
conformal silent eagle type missile stations below fuselage and outside of fuel tanks to have 7 meteor AAM
two supersonic stealth missile pylons for total 4 small IR AAMs
top speed mach2.3
acceleration from 500kmph -> 1500kmph - "best in class"
supercruise at mach1.4
frontal stealth
sustained turn rates and climb rates - "scary"
flat 2D TVC exhaust f22 style
range on internal fuel & drop tanks - 3500km
patrol endurance on full internal fuel & 2 x drop tanks @ 500km away from base - 4 hrs @ 600kmph
ceiling - 65000ft

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16943
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rahul M » 11 Nov 2011 22:38

balasaheb ( :P ) in both cases you are *seriously* underestimating the amount of work involved. it would easily take up 10-15 years at a minimum, even if we assume we have the design manpower to spare, which we don't. the amount of modification in both those examples are as much as full fledged new projects.

Sir, i am not assuming international sales. The bird is meant solely for our use. Any sales at all is an additional bonus. Plus as people have said hundreds of times in the forum, our needs are unique so should our weapon systems. My idea is just an product of that thinking, in my own way.
I am not talking of sales either.
simply put, IAF is not going to accept a de novo single role fighter design any more. nor will any other major air force. modifying an existing adequate design is the closest we can get.

while this is a fantasy thread I prefer to stay on the margins of reality rather in a completely different land. :wink:

on canberra, I question the need for a dedicated bomber altogether, esp one that can't fight back (unlike the MKI), will be slow, has an unstealthy airframe and hugely outdated design. tell me one thing it can do that MKI (say) can't.
for that matter we did not produce the canberra and have no background info to fall back on.
it's a completely unfeasible solution IMHO.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 196
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Luxtor » 12 Nov 2011 02:01

I would design a fighter/attack/bomber aircraft in a flat disk configuration like a flying saucer. No protruding flight control appendages at all. All flight stablity and control would be done through reaction valve thrusters placed around the disk. It would be a twin engine design with S duct configuration. Engine air intake and engine thurst outputs would be through slits in the front and back of the disk with adequate cooling and masking of the hot engine exhaust. With RAM coating and composite structure this would provide the best stealth characteristic to the aircraft. The disk design would provide plenty of space for internal weapon storage.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 12 Nov 2011 02:54

shiv wrote:Das offers many suggestions using existing designs to make new aircraft. Amng his suggestions are 4 engine copy of the Su-34. But he settles on his pet idea of an RD-33 or F-414 engined Canberra. He says that a Canberra of this type will have excellent performance, can carry 3-4 Brahmos, have an unrefuelled range of 1800 km, and can double up as buddy tanker, engine test bed platform or AWACS.

Very interesting. And in my view, very doable.

Finally I must add that Das also suggests something that some BRFite suggested on this forum - (which I had argued against) - the armed AWACS.


Here you go; The B 58 Hustler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler

3 Brahmos, Long Range, plenty of avionics. Take out the 3rd man and you got room for fuel and more avionics. Also Canberra vintage :)

Oh! and did I mention you can stick 4x Kaveris versus the GE J79 which are much lower thrust?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrRatnadip and 37 guests