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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 16 Mar 2017 04:37


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 16 Mar 2017 21:53

Ah many thanks Indranil, so an amphibious AEW is indeed a possibility. SAGAR with ANN based learning of control in different sea conditions, seems novel and rightly patented it.

Though, using Sponsons may not be entirely inefficient,

Image

those folding wing tips can be rigged with floats and may not have more drag than the wing tip mounted Jammers found on say the Su-30. The extension also increases the aspect ratio of the wing.

Ultimate goal is being able to operate in higher sea states with more endurance.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 16 Mar 2017 22:43

Of course an amphibious AEW is possible. Whether it is worth it is the question. I contend that operationally it is not. I will rest my case here.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1599
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 18 Mar 2017 22:39

IAF is conducting trials to land its fighters on highways and searching for more of these usable strips. An AEWC wanting to keep closer to the conflict area to improve its on station time wouldn't have that option. An amphibious version can use water bodies for such purpose and no amount of missile attacks can deter that.

And if refueling can be done using Autonomous Under Water vehicles maybe, just maybe you have reduced AEWC dependency on the refueler fleet.

Operating on foreign airspace/waters is a possibility without the whole security detail like Khan provides to its assets

The proposition to shift to an unmanned version is always there as the risk threshold goes higher and good to know that the Ground Exploitation Station - GES named Meghdoot already exists.

Exports to island nations which is what most of far east has for their surveillance needs.

Let HAL get the aircraft out first and not play catch up with China

Arun.prabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 28 Aug 2016 19:26

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Arun.prabhu » 19 Mar 2017 01:26

Cessna Skyhawk as base. Or even a smaller aircraft that has good loiter time and can carry maybe 500kgs max of ordinance. On top of which, add IRST, autonomous controls to land, takeoff and patrol a given sector, communications to share targeting data (a luxury and not necessary), IFF to query identity before engagement and one or two AAMs.

Advantages:
1. Whole package would probably be cheaper than 10 million dollars. Can be ordered in bulk. Wouldn't hurt if you lose a few.
2. Faster turnaround time. Propeller engine, after all.
3. Easy to replace loses. Far easier and faster to build one of these than a modern high performance jet. Hell, instead of metal and composites, we could even use cloth material or wood as was the case in yesteryears.
4. Greater freedom of action. With increased numbers, you can patrol more, you can meet attacks from multiple axis, your tactical options go way up.

I predict my fleet will take horrendous loses, which I can easily replace and will absolutely ****** up any fleet of modern fighters that dare challenge me. And even with all those horrendous loses, I'll come out ahead because at end of day, my loses would be a fraction of my enemy's in terms of dollars and he'd have no fleet while I can replace mine easily.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3159
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Mar 2017 02:29

What I would really like to see is a twin engined LCA based on Snecma-Kaveri/404 injun as a candidate for the IN's new requirement for twin engined bird. Since Mk1 and probably Mk2 are never going to fit their needs, this would be a fitting reply to both Navy and Airforce. Nothing too fancy for first iteration, just a bigger LCA Navy (with levcons), empty weight around 10.5-11 tons, 5 tons internal fuel, 11 hard points (7 tons payload).

As a more advanced variant - recessed weapon stations (for 6 AAMS), IRST, and 360 deg optical sensors, X and L band AESA, cheek arrays,

The point of the entire exercise should be to make it available for product super fast. Like in 9-10 years. A precursor to the AMCA.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Mar 2017 02:45

Indranil wrote:..How do you propose HAL develops an UAV to land on rolling seas?


Apart from the tractor beam which is next year's investment theme in SV VC circles, I would say that if we can contemplate driverless cars in urban areas, I think we can certainly visualize how a carrier/ac real time handshake might work for UCAVs landing on moving ships.

There are many examples: today, an automatic shifting car is faster (even on the super cars) off track in its shifts than the manual one operated by the most experienced driver. ABS systems make it possible to brake quickly and safely by pumping the brakes so quickly and as needed in ways a human could not and who would lock the them if he tried to do so.

If we can figure out 104 sequenced insertions of satellites in the exosphere, I would bet that if it came to being a huge priority, it can be done. The obstacles are not going to be as much technical as naval aviation types rejecting potential obsolescence. The USAF insisted on qualified pilots driving predators from a desk in Nevada when pimply teenagers playing warcraft in their parents' basements could have been as effective. :)

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 19 Mar 2017 04:12

They are not the same problem. I work in the field of pattern recognition. So can tell you with some authority. The stability of the auto driven car is never in question.

Landing a large UAV on a carrier deck last year was a landmark event. I am sure it will happen more regularly in 10 years time and may be more frequently than not in another 10. But right now it is a big challenge.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby brar_w » 19 Mar 2017 04:20

Indranil wrote:
Landing a large UAV on a carrier deck last year was a landmark event.


Time flies :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2k6G8LuqY

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Mar 2017 04:40

brar_w wrote:
Indranil wrote:
Landing a large UAV on a carrier deck last year was a landmark event.


Time flies :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2k6G8LuqY


Yeah! I know, we tried it back it in ought 8 and it did not work but these crazy kids they don't know what can't be done so they succeed.

We can get pretty rigid in our tropes but here's the "good news"

http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

OK maybe HAL can't do it. But to delineate an impenetrable barrier between what we do now and what can be done is to relegate ourselves into the dustbin of history and evolution.

We can fly, iron ships can float, we can have 'crystal radios' that broadcast, bandwidth that is way beyond the ISDN (It still does nothing at a lofty 128KBs) and so on.

FWIW , 10 years from now planes will land driverless on land runways

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby NRao » 16 Jul 2017 21:55

Additives and printing various parts, in this case the SuperDraco engines for the Dragon space capsule from SapeX:

Manufacturing SuperDraco. The Wiki has a number of cool links.

One thing that caught my attention was that the first print was in 2013. Expected to fly in 2018. That is a turn around of 5 years for a space application.

Good time for India, IMHO, to start work on various parts. With a savings on weight it would be a great blessing.

Hope they are able to print the LCA's landing gear.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3390
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby JayS » 16 Jul 2017 23:07

NRao wrote:Additives and printing various parts, in this case the SuperDraco engines for the Dragon space capsule from SapeX:

Manufacturing SuperDraco. The Wiki has a number of cool links.

One thing that caught my attention was that the first print was in 2013. Expected to fly in 2018. That is a turn around of 5 years for a space application.

Good time for India, IMHO, to start work on various parts. With a savings on weight it would be a great blessing.

Hope they are able to print the LCA's landing gear.


Do not expect 3D printing in critical parts such as LG. It will take atleast a decade or two for OEMs to be able to have enough confidence that they can convince the certification agencies for passing off of 3D printed prts on critical locations. Parts like LG will be in the last stage to get 3D printed. Composites have only recently found place in primary structures after decades of background work. And still the design methodology is primitive and overly conservation. 3D printing will have to get through the same cycle.

Currently the focus as far as 3D printing is concerned is the parts which are intricate in shapes and thus have high Buy-to-fly ratio with conventional manufacturing. And these are generally non-critical parts.

Agree on need for India to invest heavily on 3D manufacturing. It one of those enabler tech which can let us leapfrong many steps in multiple technology areas and take a short cut to the state of the art. We need to see machine tool manufacturing and hi fidelity simulation software capability at the industry level while focus on material characterisation and improvement on existing printing methods at academic level. But as usual we are no where on the scene.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35729
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby SaiK » 14 Feb 2018 10:25

Has anyone done triple engine fighter jet? say the main center one with high thrust low BPR and side two lower thrust, high BPR with TVC?
Image
I doubt SR71 has a central engine.. or does it?
Image

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9692
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Feb 2018 12:06

SR71 did not have a Central engine but had 2 Buick AG330 Wild cat V8 IC engines, 401 Cubic Inches, approx 6.5 Liter engines. These were in cart's which would push each engine up to 3200 RPM and then disengage and be moved away fromt he aircraft.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19380
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 12 May 2018 13:57

Gents, why have we all forgotten about the naval Jag that was being touted at one time by SEPECAT? With the upgrades, the aircraft has good strike capability, overwing AAMs , can carry 2 anti-ship Harpoon/ Harpoonski ASMs- maybe BMOS-NG in the future too. The design exists so it should not be too difficult to develop the same twin-engined bird in quick time.Why not give it a go? Help from either BAe or Dassault should not be difficult.

Just ckd. ,some wing strengthening- new wing and undercarriage was reqd. ,but the French never got round to modifying the sole prototype of the M variant.However, a report on UK experience says that IAF Jags "sank" a USN carrier in exercises..
Last edited by Philip on 12 May 2018 14:08, edited 1 time in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 12 May 2018 14:04

^^^ To what end?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19380
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Philip » 12 May 2018 14:09

A twin-engined bird , better survivability than the NLCA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6750
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Indranil » 12 May 2018 14:29

And is the survivability of LCA in question?

In contrast, how many Mig-29s have gone down in the Syria campaign (kind of on their own)? By the way, there are not too many MiG-29ks around. So, the survivability of MiG-29ks is very low in sustained combat. And that is not a surprise to me, given IN’s experience. I will not elaborate further.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 12 May 2018 14:44

Philip wrote:Gents, why have we all forgotten about the naval Jag that was being touted at one time by SEPECAT? With the upgrades, the aircraft has good strike capability, overwing AAMs , can carry 2 anti-ship Harpoon/ Harpoonski ASMs- maybe BMOS-NG in the future too. The design exists so it should not be too difficult to develop the same twin-engined bird in quick time.Why not give it a go? Help from either BAe or Dassault should not be difficult.

Just ckd. ,some wing strengthening- new wing and undercarriage was reqd. ,but the French never got round to modifying the sole prototype of the M variant.However, a report on UK experience says that IAF Jags "sank" a USN carrier in exercises..


Sir, it won't be that easy.
[list][*] India is the only operator right now.
[*] Production was stopped in 1981. Setting up supply chain and logistics will be difficult.
[*] The Adour engine was found insufficient and the IAF decided to upgrade enginewith the Honeywell/ITEC F124 (about 15 to 40% higher thrust, but significantly lighter by about 35%- TWR should increase by a factor of 70% odd). But even this project is delayed. As of Aug 17, the deal was still not signed, partly due to bottlenecks at MoD- https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/16/india-jaguar-fighters-face-upgrade-challenges/

So all in all this does not look like a plug and play thing. We have come a long way, let's work around the NLCA. Just my 2 cents.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 12 May 2018 15:06

Added later- If you go through the article on the Upgrade Challenges, you can see that even established vendors like Thales fall behind timelines. It's not the Russians alone, but almost everyone. The higher our homegrown component, the more will be our freedom of operation.

We will never manufacture or build everything we want, but the intent should be there. No short-cuts to self-reliance.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1366
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A News & Discussions: 09 February 2018

Postby Manish_P » 12 May 2018 18:46

Philip wrote:Gents, why have we all forgotten about the naval Jag that was being touted at one time by SEPECAT? ...but the French never got round to modifying the sole prototype of the M variant..


I have always liked the tough, stealthy cat.. wasn't even aware of the naval variant (proposed) till you mentioned it.

Found a video about it. Thanks


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5438
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jun 2018 21:03

Tejas is there :)

https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/991582135466315776 ---> Proportional aircraft comparisons

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ashok Sarraff, Google [Bot], Rakesh and 21 guests